AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Then answer my question about Democrat icon and hero, FDR, parados. Doing what he did, should he also have had the right to incarcerate every American citizen as he did some citizens?

Now, do you agree that no ones rights should be violated or not?

okie wrote:

Then answer my question about Democrat icon and hero, FDR, parados. Doing what he did, should he also have had the right to incarcerate every American citizen as he did some citizens?

Of course not because violating the rights of anyone is a violation of the Constitution.

Now, do you agree that no ones rights should be violated or not?

I believe exactly what the law says, that presidents have not only a right but a duty to do reasonable searches and seizures to protect the citizenry of this country in the interest of national security,

Your repeating of past history without including what happened during and subsequent to that period has no meaning.

What happened to AJAs during WWII was hysteria and the failure of our government. The likelihood of repeating these same mistakes will be difficult to impossible.

Your last paragraph concerning Clinton's search of a private home is meaningless; it only proves your bias as a staunch republican. Bush's wiretaps were illegal under existing laws.

It'll be nice if you can get your head out of your arse once-in-awhile to breath some fresh air.

And the Democrats hating Bush for monitoring a few telephone conversations by terrorists was really hysteria and playing politics, that's pretty much it.

presidents have not only a right but a duty to do reasonable searches and seizures to protect the citizenry of this country in the interest of national security, which would include listening to phone conversations to suspected or known terrorist cells, which might prevent much death and destruction. I believe that would be doing his job in a responsible way

FDR could get away with rounding up Japanese Americans because people like you thought they were slant-eyed yellow-skinned people not to be trusted.

William Randolf Hearst and Lammont Dupont

In the 1920's the Du Pont company developed and patented fuel additives such as tetraethyl lead, as well as the sulfate and sulfite processes for manufacture of pulp paper and numerous new synthetic products such as nylon, cellophane, and other plastics. At the same time other companies were developing synthetic products from renewable biomass resources--especially hemp. The hemp decorticator promised to eliminate much of the need for wood-pulp paper, thus threatening to drastically reduce the value of the vast timberlands still owned by Hearst. Ford and other companies were already promising to make every product from cannabis carbohydrates that was currently currently being made from petroleum hydrocarbons. In response, from 1935 to 1937, Du Pont lobbied the chief counsel of the Treasury Department, Herman Oliphant, for the prohibition of cannabis, assuring him that Du Pont's synthetic petrochemicals (such as urethane) could replace hemp seed oil in the marketplace.

William Randolf Hearst hated minorities, and he used his chain of newspapers to aggravate racial tensions at every opportunity. Hearst especially hated Mexicans. Hearst papers portrayed Mexicans as lazy, degenerate, and violent, and as marijuana smokers and job stealers. The real motive behind this prejudice may well have been that Hearst had lost 800,000 acres of prime timberland to the rebel Pancho Villa, suggesting that Hearst's racism was fueled by Mexican threat to his empire.

Source:

HALL OF CONSPIRACY THE MEN WHO CONSPIRED TO MAKE HEMP ILLEGAL
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~sg85nc8p/pubenem.html, 18-Jan-2002

Back to: William Randolf Hearst

Another anonymous commenter cited Hearst, as well as the man he called a “media co-conspirator” Henry Luce, owner of Time and Life magazine, as having traditionally promoting racism in the popular culture in “overt ways” and their companies now promoting racism and cultural division, “in more subtle ways.” In particular, the Time and Life features following Pearl Harbor, including the article called How to Tell Your Friends from the Japs which gave “a few rules of thumb” when racially profiling:

There is no infallible way of telling them apart, because the same racial strains are mixed in both. Even an anthropologist, with calipers and plenty of time to measure heads, noses, shoulders, hips, is sometimes stumped.