@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
okie, I call you an ignorant SOB, because you prove yourself every day on these boards. I explained the reasons why to back up my adjectives for people like you.
You explained nothing except your own opinion. In regard to Hearst, perhaps you are the ignorant one? Hearst was a Democrat, ci, so if the guy has anything to do with anyone here, it is you. Do your homework.
Quote:Your brain is forever damaged, and that's beyond politics and our country.
Why can't you think of something intelligent to say, ci, instead of nonsensical silliness?
Quote:By your friends, we shall know you.
How come you don't apply the same yardstick to Obama? Besides, I have no friends that have done anything unAmerican that I know of.
Quote:Quote: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
As a matter of fact, I found the TIMES magazine article, here:
http://blog.timesunion.com/teaparty/times-union-uses-racist-film-to-promote-its-own-charity/661/
Quoted from the article:
Quote: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.
As I have already pointed out, Hearst was a Democrat, ci. Do your homework. You might wish to read the following.
http://www.notablebiographies.com/Gi-He/Hearst-William-Randolph.html
"In 1902 and 1904 Hearst won election to the House of Representatives as a New York Democrat. Except, his journalistic activities and his $2 million presidential campaign left him little time to speak, vote, or answer roll calls in Congress. His nonattendance angered his colleagues and the voters who had elected him. Nevertheless, he found time to run as an independent candidate for mayor of New York City in 1905, and as a Democratic candidate for governor in 1906. His loss in both elections ended Hearst's political career."
@okie,
Your belief that just because Hearst was a democrat implies something that you don't explain. Hearst was an outright racist, and whether he was a democrat or republican makes no difference. Racists comes in all hues and color, and trying to tie racism to democrats is one of the dumbest ideas you have posted on a2k.
Like I said, you're an ignorant SOB.
@cicerone imposter,
ci, you tied me to Hearst to try to paint me as a racist, did you not? Seriously, are you okay? I realize you are getting older, but your posts are increasingly bizarre, nonsensical, and not based upon sound reasoning or logic. I have no ill will toward you, and I think I have given you sort of a second chance to redeem yourself from the silly name calling, but you persist in continuing the nonsensical name calling, which is not only illogical and totally off the mark in regard to who and what I am, ci, but it is frankly insulting because you have no basis to say your garbage.
What is almost humorous is your silly reference to Randolph Hearst as some kind of evidence that I was bigoted against Japanese Americans. This you did as a diversion from the real question of what FDR did during the war, which I brought up to prove the hypocrisy of Democrats. Now, the funny part of this is that Hearst was in fact a Democrat too, which is further proof of your own silly arguments, ci. This would be funny if it were not so sad. Can't you do better and use more logic, ci, or do you have any?
@okie,
No, your friends on a2k proves my point. That you didn't work for Time or were not friends with Hearst goes nowhere. They don't prove anything.
Perhaps Leftist Liberals do not like answering questions, because they do not know why they believe what they say they believe. Perhaps, Leftist Liberals do not like answering questions, because they do not actually believe what they say they believe!
====================================================
None of you Leftist Liberals has yet answered my question! With which of the following claims do you agree and with which do you disagree? Why?
POWERS THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS OR DELEGATES:
The Constitution of the USA specifies both the powers it grants or delegates to the federal government, and some of the powers it specifies are not delegated to the federal government. Any power exercised by the federal government that the Constitution has not delegated to the federal government, or has specified not delegated to the federal government, is a power that is unlawful for the federal government to exercise.
The Constitution does not delegate to the federal government the power to take private property from those persons and from those organizations who have lawfully earned their property, and give their property to those persons and organizations who have not lawfully earned that property.
The Constitution does not delegate to the federal government the power to transfer wealth from those who earned it to those who did not earn it.
The Constitution can only be lawfully changed by amending it according to the Constitution’s Article V. The Constitution cannot be lawfully changed by judicial, executive, or congressional decisions.
The fact that previous presidents have transferred wealth and the Supreme Court has not declared transfers of wealth unlawful, is not justification for the federal government continuing to transfer wealth.
I base these conclusions on the 5th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution and on the fact that nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government delegated the power to transfer wealth from those who earned it to those who did not earn it.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
@parados,
Taking money from
a group that earned it and giving it to
a different group that did not earn it is a power not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution of the USA.
The restrictions of the meaning of the phrase"general welfare" as used in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, are these:
(1) Definition of the word "general":
Quote:
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=general&x=24&y=11
Main Entry: 1
gen·er·al Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: jen()rl
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin generalis, from gener-, genus birth, race, class, kind + -alis -al -- more at KIN
1 : involving or
belonging to the whole of a body, group, class, or type : applicable or relevant to the whole rather than to a limited part, group, or section <appearance of general decay> <a general change in temperature>
2 : involving or
belonging to every member of a class, kind, or group : applicable to every one in the unit referred to : not exclusive or excluding <ladies, a general welcome from his grace salutes ye all -- Shakespeare> <those first assemblies were general, with all freemen bound to attend -- American Guide Series: Maryland>
3 a : applicable or
pertinent to the majority of individuals involved : characteristic of the majority : PREVALENT, USUAL, WIDESPREAD <the general opinion> <a custom general in these areas> <the conflict became general> <we, the people of the United States, in order to ... promote the general welfare -- U.S. Constitution> b : concerned or dealing with universal rather than particular aspects <general history>
4 : marked by
broad overall character without being limited, modified, or checked by narrow precise considerations : concerned with main elements, major matters rather than limited details, or universals rather than particulars : approximate rather than strictly accurate <a general outline> <bearing a general resemblance to the original> <the rock formations of the state have a general northeast-southwest trend -- American Guide Series: New Hampshire>
5 :
not confined by specialization or careful limitation : not limited to a particular class, type, or field : inclusive and manifesting or characterized by scope, diversity, or variety : BROAD, CATHOLIC, COMPREHENSIVE <a general drugstore> <a general surgeon>
6 :
belonging to the common nature (as of a group of like individuals) : GENERIC <the general characteristics of a species> <long shaggy hair is general among bears>
...
(2)
Quote:
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
(3)
Quote:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
(4)
Quote:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
(5)
Quote:
Article VI
...
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution
...
(6)
Quote:
Article II.
...
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors
(7)
Quote:
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; ...
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
No, your friends on a2k proves my point. That you didn't work for Time or were not friends with Hearst goes nowhere. They don't prove anything.
Proves what point, ci, what was your point?
Again more nonsense. I don't even know anyone on this forum, I have never met anyone here in person, so I don't know how anyone can say anybody is a friend here. To further straighten you out on your nonsensical post, I do not, nor have I ever agreed with anyone on every one of their posts. I agree with some of ican's posts, and I agree with parts of other of his posts. I think we are philosophically much closer to agreement than you and I are, thats for sure, but any implication that we agree on everything is highly presumptuous, and in fact we have never discussed every issue in detail, so I have no idea what ican believes in regard to some issues.
And admit it, I nailed you on the Hearst and Time subjects. They were nothing but nonsense when you referred to them, and I proved it. Some of your posts here are frankly silly, ci. For example, what you thought Randolph Hearst had to do with any of this is a total mystery and it really demonstrates your lack of reasoning power here.
@okie,
Your mentioning the fact that you didn't work for Time or are/were not friends with Hearst is not worth the space you used to post it. There are other circumstantial evidence on a2k of what you believe and state on these boards that shows your mental capacity hewn with ignorance.
@okie,
Quote:Why do you think the president is the Commander in Chief, parados? Surely you are aware that most constitutional scholars believe this gives the president pretty strong authority in cases of national security.
The commander in chief is in charge of the military okie. That doesn't give him power to do anything in the US since the posse comitatus act prevents the military acting inside the US.
@ican711nm,
LOL..
That's funny ican. So.. if something doesn't benefit everyone than it isn't general welfare?
So that would mean SS is a violation of the Constitution, doesn't it ican?
So, how does it work for you to be collecting SS and Medicare when you know they are unconstitutional? Do you really hate America that much ican that you would be party to something that is unconstitutional?
@cicerone imposter,
WWII exposed the extent of racism in America by bringing many people together - - women from families who believed girls should not be educated who joined the service as a way out; homosexuals who believed they were unique and secret; Blacks and other minorities - - in situations where they could talk to each other about their lives and the difficulties they faced. At the same time, the idea of a service pension gave many of these same people hope for a brighter future.
These elements, the recognition of common problems and the hope for a new life in peacetime, helped fuel the Civil Rights and Women's Movements.
The same people who hated Blacks, hated Jews, hated Asians. We were a country of ethnic insults and ethnic barriers.
@cicerone imposter,
Why is it that people refuse to understand that neither the Democratic nor the Republican Parties were, prior to WWII, what they are today. Why can't okie and ican understand that they want to speak of conservatives and liberals and not Dems and Repubs? For the most part, the Democratic Party is centrist and the current configuration of the Republican Party is the right of center with almost no moderates.
@ican711nm,
Quote:Taking money from a group that earned it and giving it to a different group that did not earn it is a power not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution of the USA.
If you are talking about the top 1% or the management of Wal-MArt, then you agree with the liberals because they are among the handful of people robbing the working class.
@cicerone imposter,
The question I have to weigh in with here is not about okie/ican et al being affiliated with the likes of Hearst (who was certainly not a beacon of humanity) but if they had been born in the US of their grandfather's generation, would they have been members of the Klan? Are they now or have they ever been members of the John Birch Society?
@plainoldme,
pom, when are you going to stop your insults that have no basis in truth? Do you go around your neighborhood calling your neighbors names and accusing them of something without one shred of evidence?
And as I told, ci, Hearst was a Democrat anyway, he was your kind of politician.
By the way, since you are into asking questions, are you a member of the Communist Party, pom? The answer to your questions to me, is "of course not" and I am insulted by you asking. Can you answer my question now?
@okie,
Thankfully, pom's and my neighbors are not stupid like you who make statements without any basis of fact, evidence, or common sense.
If you told your neighbors the same thing you've been posting on a2k, it just makes me wonder why kind of neighborhood you live in.
@cicerone imposter,
I don't believe that he has face-to-face conversations with anyone. Most people would run from his statements. When you consider how rude he is to everyone who is nice to him, from georgeob to ehbeth, I can just imagine him telling people, "You're wrong," "You're misrepresenting what I said," "You're a Communist."
Perhaps, we should send him a copy of Dale Carnegie's book.
@plainoldme,
I would bet okie never shook the hand of a black person.
@plainoldme,
You were rude enough to ask me if I belonged to the KKK or John Birch Society for a couple of examples. I answered your stupid questions. Now, can you answer one of mine for you: Are you a member of the Communist Party? By the way, that is not the same as calling you a communist, it is a simple question.
@okie,
Sounds like fair questions to me: you continually claim Obama's relationship to Rev Wright, and the influence Rev Wright has on Obama today. YOu have not provided one iota of evidence to back your charge.
At least pom has the courtesy to ask you if you're a member; you gave no such courtesy to Obama.
