PDA

View Full Version : Elections Theodore Roosevelt


SNR
08-30-2008, 11:08 AM
Assistant Secretary to the Navy 1897-1898

Governor of New York 1899-1900

Vice-president for only 6 months, and then thrust into the presidency.

Both Roosevelt AND Palin like to shoot animals.

Coincidence? I'm sure everybody who was an aide to McKinley thought that the Roosevelt pick was alright as long as McKinley didn't get shot

Jenson71
08-30-2008, 11:17 AM
He was also a state congressmen in NY for a number of years. He was also a war hero and Commissioner of the New York Police.

banyon
08-30-2008, 11:18 AM
He was also a state congressmen in NY for a number of years. He was also a war hero and Commissioner of the New York Police.

Don't forget commander of the "rough riders". :D

unlurking
08-30-2008, 11:20 AM
Don't forget commander of the "rough riders". :D
Crap, reference to "putting it in her butt"?!

You should be ashamed! :)

BucEyedPea
08-30-2008, 11:21 AM
Coincidence? I'm sure everybody who was an aide to McKinley thought that the Roosevelt pick was alright as long as McKinley didn't get shot

Are you saying you believe in reincarnation?

bango
08-30-2008, 11:21 AM
Assistant Secretary to the Navy 1897-1898

Governor of New York 1899-1900

Vice-president for only 6 months, and then thrust into the presidency.

Both Roosevelt AND Palin like to shoot animals.

Coincidence? I'm sure everybody who was an aide to McKinley thought that the Roosevelt pick was alright as long as McKinley didn't get shot

That is why I did not understand Bush and the Republicans not choosing McCain to be VP. I read an article that stated that one of the reasons that Teddy was chosen was to try to restrain him. We all can see how that worked for them. The only reason that I can think of that they did not choose McCain was fear of him running and winning in 2008. Palin does not need to be restrained. I did hear that she does like to be handcuffed sometimes. She does remind me of a female Teddy though. I can see the comparison. I wonder if she is as well read as he was.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2008, 11:27 AM
That is why I did not understand Bush and the Republicans not choosing McCain to be VP.

As far as I know they hated each other. Bush operatives, Rove, are supposed to be behind the illegitimate black baby story derailing Mac's chances in the SC primary after winning NH. Per Cindy, in an interview in a woman's mag, she and John only trust each other in DC. They trust absolutely no one else.

bango
08-30-2008, 11:33 AM
As far as I know they hated each other. Bush operatives, Rove, are supposed to be behind the illegitimate black baby story derailing Mac's chances in the SC primary after winning NH. Per Cindy, in an interview in a woman's mag, she and John only trust each other in DC. They trust absolutely no one else.

Ronny and GHWB hated one another too. I doubt that JFK and LBJ could stand one another either. I will say that neither one of them were so cheap or dirty in 1980 as they were in 2000. It could boil down to respect. Some do not like their opponent, but can at least respect them. There may be too much to lose in this day and age to be able to play fair.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2008, 12:06 PM
Ronny and GHWB hated one another too. I doubt that JFK and LBJ could stand one another either. I will say that neither one of them were so cheap or dirty in 1980 as they were in 2000. It could boil down to respect. Some do not like their opponent, but can at least respect them. There may be too much to lose in this day and age to be able to play fair.

I think one could say it's going along to get along because or be out of the path to power.

bango
08-30-2008, 12:09 PM
I think one could say it's going along to get along because or be out of the path to power.

Pretty much.

DaneMcCloud
08-30-2008, 12:48 PM
Assistant Secretary to the Navy 1897-1898

Governor of New York 1899-1900

Vice-president for only 6 months, and then thrust into the presidency.

Both Roosevelt AND Palin like to shoot animals.

Coincidence? I'm sure everybody who was an aide to McKinley thought that the Roosevelt pick was alright as long as McKinley didn't get shot

I sincerely HOPE that you're joking.

If not, this is absolutely embarrassing.

Comparing one of the greatest citizens (let alone Top 10 Presidents) to an Alaskan soccer mom.

Now I've heard it all.

J.F.C.

Direckshun
08-30-2008, 01:16 PM
I sincerely HOPE that you're joking.

If not, this is absolutely embarrassing.

Comparing one of the greatest citizens (let alone Top 10 Presidents) to an Alaskan soccer mom.

Now I've heard it all.

J.F.C.
Did you see Eli Manning's numbers when he was a rookie?

Croyle could still come around!

unlurking
08-30-2008, 01:17 PM
Hockey mom.

Soccer is for rioting, pinko, hippies.

gblowfish
08-30-2008, 01:18 PM
Teddy Roosevelt did not trim his vagina like Palin does.

bango
08-30-2008, 01:22 PM
Teddy Roosevelt did not trim his vagina like Palin does.

Palin just scorches that earth. I hear that even her ass tastes good.

wazu
08-30-2008, 01:40 PM
Comparing one of the greatest citizens (let alone Top 10 Presidents) to an Alaskan soccer mom.

Now I've heard it all.

Misogynist.

SNR
08-30-2008, 01:42 PM
I sincerely HOPE that you're joking.

If not, this is absolutely embarrassing.

Comparing one of the greatest citizens (let alone Top 10 Presidents) to an Alaskan soccer mom.

Now I've heard it all.

J.F.C.Nope. If you have checked out some of my posts on here as well as my poop thread in the Lounge, you know I'm dead serious.

Jesus ****ing Christ, what do you think, asshole?

Direckshun
08-30-2008, 01:44 PM
Nope. If you have checked out some of my posts on here as well as my poop thread in the Lounge, you know I'm dead serious.

Jesus ****ing Christ, what do you think, asshole?
Were you one of the few harping on Obama for lack of experience?

Just curious.

SNR
08-30-2008, 01:47 PM
Were you one of the few harping on Obama for lack of experience?

Just curious.No, just his skin color is all.

Why do you ask?

Frazod
08-30-2008, 01:49 PM
Palin looks much more like Tina Fey than Roosevelt does.

Sully
08-30-2008, 01:50 PM
I bet he had more hair on his face than she has on her...


,... never mind.

Direckshun
08-30-2008, 01:59 PM
No, just his skin color is all.

Why do you ask?
Answer my question.

DaneMcCloud
08-30-2008, 03:15 PM
Nope. If you have checked out some of my posts on here as well as my poop thread in the Lounge, you know I'm dead serious.

Jesus ****ing Christ, what do you think, asshole?

Oh, so now I'm an asshole because I'm supposed to be infinity familiar with your threads?

Really?

J Diddy
08-30-2008, 03:28 PM
Palin just scorches that earth. I hear that even her ass tastes good.

If that chick ever happened across this site, she would drop out of politics, public life, being, etc

Taco John
08-30-2008, 03:46 PM
Roosevelt was an overrated clown.

J Diddy
08-30-2008, 03:47 PM
Roosevelt was an overrated clown.

:spock:

well you're that guy

banyon
08-30-2008, 03:47 PM
Roosevelt was an overrated clown.

If only they could all be as great as Rutherford B. Hayes or Harding or someone else who did nothing for 4 years.

whoman69
08-30-2008, 03:48 PM
Trying to padd Palin's stature by understating the resume of TR is totally misleading. She is no Teddy Roosevelt. I don't need Lloyd Bentsen to tell me that. While she seems to bright to compare to Dan Quayle, the resume seems closer to the mark there.

Taco John
08-30-2008, 03:50 PM
If only they could all be as great as Rutherford B. Hayes or Harding or someone else who did nothing for 4 years.



Amen to that. I'd rather have a peaceful president who just lets people live their lives than a war mongering busy body like Roosevelt, who put America on the rails towards never-ending war and debt.

Direckshun
08-30-2008, 03:51 PM
And the thread has taken a turn.

Taco John
08-30-2008, 03:52 PM
:spock:

well you're that guy



Yeah? What did Roosevelt do that you thought was so great? Aside from destroying the rail system in this country, and make the idea of policing the world a popular idea?

The guy was straight up clown shoes. Bush with a monocle and a fat mustache.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2008, 03:53 PM
I sincerely HOPE that you're joking.

If not, this is absolutely embarrassing.

Comparing one of the greatest citizens (let alone Top 10 Presidents) to an Alaskan soccer mom.

Now I've heard it all.

J.F.C.

Come on Dane. It's legit from where we sit now. No one who likes TR now, knew how he'd would turn out until he became president.

banyon
08-30-2008, 03:55 PM
Yeah? What did Roosevelt do that you thought was so great? Aside from destroying the rail system in this country, and make the idea of policing the world a popular idea?

Could you please link me to the part of the WorldNetDaily or PrisonPlanet.com site where this is alleged?

J Diddy
08-30-2008, 03:56 PM
Yeah? What did Roosevelt do that you thought was so great? Aside from destroying the rail system in this country, and make the idea of policing the world a popular idea?

The guy was straight up clown shoes. Bush with a monocle and a fat mustache.


In 1901, as Vice President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States), the 42-year-old Roosevelt succeeded President William McKinley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McKinley) after McKinley's assassination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McKinley_assassination) by anarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist) Leon Czolgosz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Czolgosz). He is the youngest person to become President.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-3>[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt#cite_note-3)</SUP> He was a Progressive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era) reformer who sought to move the dominant Republican Party into the Progressive camp. He distrusted wealthy businessmen and dissolved forty monopolistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly) corporations as a "trust buster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust-busting)". He was clear, however, to show he did not disagree with trusts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(law)) and capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) in principle but was only against corrupt, illegal practices. His "Square Deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Deal)" promised a fair shake for both the average citizen (through regulation of railroad rates and pure food and drugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act)) and the businessmen. He was the first U.S. president to call for universal health care (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care) and national health insurance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_health_insurance).<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-4>[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt#cite_note-4)</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-5>[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt#cite_note-5)</SUP> As an outdoorsman, he promoted the conservation movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_movement), emphasizing efficient use of natural resources. After 1906 he attacked big business and suggested the courts were biased against labor unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_union). In 1910, he broke with his friend and anointed successor William Howard Taft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Taft), but lost the Republican nomination to Taft and ran in the 1912 election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1912) on his own one-time Bull Moose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1912)) ticket. He beat Taft in the popular vote and pulled so many Progressives out of the Republican Party that Democrat Woodrow Wilson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson) won in 1912, and the conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_conservatism) faction took control of the Republican Party for the next two decades.
Roosevelt negotiated for the U.S. to take control of the Panama Canal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal) and its construction in 1904; he felt the Canal's completion was his most important and historically significant international achievement. He was the first American to be awarded the Nobel Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize), winning its Peace Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize) in 1906, for negotiating the peace in the Russo-Japanese War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War).
Historian Thomas Bailey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_A._Bailey), who disagreed with Roosevelt's policies, nevertheless concluded, "Roosevelt was a great personality, a great activist, a great preacher of the moralities, a great controversialist, a great showman. He dominated his era as he dominated conversations....the masses loved him; he proved to be a great popular idol and a great vote getter."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-6>[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt#cite_note-6)</SUP> His image stands alongside Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington), Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson) and Lincoln (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln) on Mount Rushmore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Rushmore). Surveys of scholars have consistently ranked him from third to seventh on the list of greatest American presidents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents).

banyon
08-30-2008, 03:58 PM
scholars, schmalawrs. Chester A. ARthur, now that was a GREAT president, hic. [/Taco]

Taco John
08-30-2008, 04:00 PM
Could you please link me to the part of the WorldNetDaily or PrisonPlanet.com site where this is alleged?


I am not familiar with either of these sites. I am, however, familiar with the cause and effects of legislation he enacted - which is much more than I can say for you. I find you to be the star struck politico who isn't great at debating the issues, but knows who he likes based on who is popular.

DaneMcCloud
08-30-2008, 04:00 PM
Come on Dane. It's legit from where we sit now. No one who likes TR now, knew how he'd would turn out until he became president.

I didn't know that she was Governor of NY. I didn't know she was a member of the Rough Riders (or the equivalent). I didn't know that she endured terrible heartache and tragedy by losing her husband and mother on the same day. I didn't realize she served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy or that she was a professional historian or that she reformed the New City Police department.

Oh, that's right. She's the former mayor of a town of 7,000 people and a the new elected governor of a state with less than 600,000 and one scandal pending.

That's a far comparison, right?

Taco John
08-30-2008, 04:01 PM
In 1901, as Vice President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States), the 42-year-old Roosevelt succeeded President William McKinley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McKinley) after McKinley's assassination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McKinley_assassination) by anarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist) Leon Czolgosz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Czolgosz). He is the youngest person to become President.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-3>[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt#cite_note-3)</SUP> He was a Progressive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era) reformer who sought to move the dominant Republican Party into the Progressive camp. He distrusted wealthy businessmen and dissolved forty monopolistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly) corporations as a "trust buster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust-busting)". He was clear, however, to show he did not disagree with trusts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(law)) and capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) in principle but was only against corrupt, illegal practices. His "Square Deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Deal)" promised a fair shake for both the average citizen (through regulation of railroad rates and pure food and drugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act)) and the businessmen. He was the first U.S. president to call for universal health care (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care) and national health insurance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_health_insurance).<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-4>[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt#cite_note-4)</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-5>[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt#cite_note-5)</SUP> As an outdoorsman, he promoted the conservation movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_movement), emphasizing efficient use of natural resources. After 1906 he attacked big business and suggested the courts were biased against labor unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_union). In 1910, he broke with his friend and anointed successor William Howard Taft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Taft), but lost the Republican nomination to Taft and ran in the 1912 election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1912) on his own one-time Bull Moose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1912)) ticket. He beat Taft in the popular vote and pulled so many Progressives out of the Republican Party that Democrat Woodrow Wilson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson) won in 1912, and the conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_conservatism) faction took control of the Republican Party for the next two decades.
Roosevelt negotiated for the U.S. to take control of the Panama Canal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal) and its construction in 1904; he felt the Canal's completion was his most important and historically significant international achievement. He was the first American to be awarded the Nobel Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize), winning its Peace Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize) in 1906, for negotiating the peace in the Russo-Japanese War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War).
Historian Thomas Bailey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_A._Bailey), who disagreed with Roosevelt's policies, nevertheless concluded, "Roosevelt was a great personality, a great activist, a great preacher of the moralities, a great controversialist, a great showman. He dominated his era as he dominated conversations....the masses loved him; he proved to be a great popular idol and a great vote getter."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-6>[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt#cite_note-6)</SUP> His image stands alongside Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington), Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson) and Lincoln (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln) on Mount Rushmore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Rushmore). Surveys of scholars have consistently ranked him from third to seventh on the list of greatest American presidents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents).



I don't remember asking you to cut and paste from Wikipedia for me. But thanks for doing it anyway. It's a sure tell that I had you pegged with regards to knowledge about Teddy.

banyon
08-30-2008, 04:02 PM
I am not familiar with either of these sites. I am, however, familiar with the cause and effects of legislation he enacted - which is much more than I can say for you. I find you to be the star struck politico who isn't great at debating the issues, but knows who he likes based on who is popular.

I've read several volumes of biographies on Roosevelt, so I'm fairly conversant.

Which legislation is it in particular that you allege "destroyed the rail system"?

banyon
08-30-2008, 04:03 PM
I didn't know that she was Governor of NY. I didn't know she was a member of the Rough Riders (or the equivalent). I didn't know that she endured terrible heartache and tragedy by losing her wife and mother on the same day. I didn't realize she served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy or that she was a professional historian or that she reformed the New City Police department.

Oh, that's right. She's the former mayor of a town of 7,000 people and a the new elected governor of a state with less than 600,000 and one scandal pending.

That's a far comparison, right?

Wait, Taco knows much more than we do about TR, he's going to share it with us any minute now.

Taco John
08-30-2008, 04:03 PM
He was a Progressive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era) reformer who sought to move the dominant Republican Party into the Progressive camp.

Here's all any conservative needs to know about this clown of a president.

Not to mention this:

He was the first U.S. president to call for universal health care (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care) and national health insurance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_health_insurance).


The guy was clownshoes.

Taco John
08-30-2008, 04:04 PM
I've read several volumes of biographies on Roosevelt, so I'm fairly conversant.

Which legislation is it in particular that you allege "destroyed the rail system"?

If you're so conversant, then you should be familiar with his hallmark piece of legislation.

J Diddy
08-30-2008, 04:05 PM
I don't remember asking you to cut and paste from Wikipedia for me. But thanks for doing it anyway. It's a sure tell that I had you pegged with regards to knowledge about Teddy.


no problem

anytime

thanks

banyon
08-30-2008, 04:06 PM
If you're so conversant, then you should be familiar with his hallmark piece of legislation.

No, you say you are more knowledgable, and I'm afraid I'm going to be too prone to making an error, so maybe you'd be kind enough to share us your deep insights into this matter.

Taco John
08-30-2008, 04:09 PM
Sorry to interrupt your hero worship Banyon. I have little doubts that liberals love Teddy Roosevelt. And I'm not suprised that you weren't able to come up with "Hepburn Act."

Didn't he have such a kewl mustache though!?

J Diddy
08-30-2008, 04:16 PM
Sorry to interrupt your hero worship Banyon. I have little doubts that liberals love Teddy Roosevelt. And I'm not suprised that you weren't able to come up with "Hepburn Act."

Didn't he have such a kewl mustache though!?

tacos give me gas

BucEyedPea
08-30-2008, 04:17 PM
I didn't know that she was Governor of NY. I didn't know she was a member of the Rough Riders (or the equivalent). I didn't know that she endured terrible heartache and tragedy by losing her husband and mother on the same day. I didn't realize she served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy or that she was a professional historian or that she reformed the New City Police department.

Oh, that's right. She's the former mayor of a town of 7,000 people and a the new elected governor of a state with less than 600,000 and one scandal pending.

That's a far comparison, right?

My point was they were governors for about the same amount of time. I don't disagree that her resume isn't thick or that NY is a bigger responsibility. ( same for Obama) But she has 16 years in politics. She has rooted out corruption too. And she hunts like TR.

I wouldn't be too proud of some of things TR, macho bad-ass did as Asst Sec of the Navy or his views on violence, war, his imperialism and racism. As assist sec of Navy under McKinley he pushed for the Spanish American war which was considered an imperialist war even in its day. He felt history was a struggle between Germanic people and savages or people of color.


"The settler and pioneer have at bottom had justice on their side; this great continent could not have been kept as nothing but a game preserve for squalid savages."

"The most ultimately righteous of all wars is a war with savages."

banyon
08-30-2008, 04:19 PM
Sorry to interrupt your hero worship Banyon. I have little doubts that liberals love Teddy Roosevelt. And I'm not suprised that you weren't able to come up with "Hepburn Act."

Didn't he have such a kewl mustache though!?

Er, no, I was pretty familiar with the Hepburn Act, but it's a pretty firmly minority interpretation to call that his "hallmark piece of legislation" when so many others come to mind first including the antiquities act, the creation of the Panama Canal, the creation of the FDA, etc.

Since you gave me no indication where you were going this this batshit crazy deviant historical interpretation, I didn't know which act you were going to blame for "destroying the railroad system".

But now that you've made it clear the area youre referring to, it's now your contention that an Act that required railroads to report and be inspected was just so big of a burden that the whole system, which is still used today, somehow collapsed directly as a result?

I guess let's start with the easiest question. When did this "collapse" take place?

DaneMcCloud
08-30-2008, 04:22 PM
My point was they were governors for about the same amount of time. I don't disagree that her resume isn't thick or that NY is a bigger responsibility. ( same for Obama) But she has 16 years in politics. She has rooted out corruption too. And she hunts like TR.

I wouldn't be too proud of some of things TR, macho bad-ass did as Asst Sec of the Navy or his views on violence, war, his imperialism and racism. As assist sec of Navy under McKinley he pushed for the Spanish American war which was considered an imperialist war even in its day. He felt history was a struggle between Germanic people and savages or people of color.


"The settler and pioneer have at bottom had justice on their side; this great continent could not have been kept as nothing but a game preserve for squalid savages."

"The most ultimately righteous of all wars is a war with savages."

All I'm pointing out is that he had far more experience in the military and in public life than does Palin.

All I know about her is what I've read on the internet: Journalism degree from Idaho, former TV reporter, National Guard, fisherman, mayor of an extremely small town and new governor of one the least populace states in the Union.

Considering her thin resume, I think that it's an incredibly risky and irresponsible move by McCain to have this lady one heartbeat away from assuming the role as leader of the free wold.

She may be a fine woman and may have a stellar future career but in no way, shape or form should she be the VPOTUS in 2008.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2008, 04:22 PM
tacos give me gas
Have nothing of substance to add?

TR was disliked by the conservative wing of the GOP even back then. That's why he split off and ran as a 3P allowing the conservative wing of the GOP to rule for 2 decades. He may have busted monopolies but it was corp interests that he went to war for including the Panama Canal.

Taco John
08-30-2008, 04:25 PM
But now that you've made it clear the area youre referring to, it's now your contention that an Act that required railroads to report and be inspected...



Of course... That's *ALL* it did. :rolleyes:

I know that Roosevelt is worshipped by liberals everywhere, and that Republicans today don't have any real political compass in them. I don't expect that many people are going to agree with my complaints about the guy. What I will say is that anyone who claims to be conservative can do even a cursory look at his record and find a guy who they would vote against today - they'd nail Roosevelt on the same cross they're trying to nail Obama to today.

So no, I don't expect that I'm going to have a meaningful conversation with a liberal on Roosevelt. It's going to be the same discussion with just a different shirt on: "We need energetic government," vs. "We need smaller government."

Roosevelt makes Obama look like Ron Paul.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2008, 04:26 PM
All I'm pointing out is that he had far more experience in the military and in public life than does Palin.
Yes he does have military experience...but Mac has that. And Obama doesn't.
I don't think lack of military experience is necessarily a disqualifier.


She may be a fine woman and may have a stellar future career but in no way, shape or form should she be the VPOTUS in 2008.

I understand but both her and Barack have thin resumes. In fact she has 4.5 more years experience than him. More executive experience than him. They're both not that far apart on this. And he's running for president while she's just a VP.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2008, 04:30 PM
Of course... That's *ALL* it did. :rolleyes:

I know that Roosevelt is worshipped by liberals everywhere, and that Republicans today don't have any real political compass in them. I don't expect that many people are going to agree with my complaints about the guy. What I will say is that anyone who claims to be conservative can do even a cursory look at his record and find a guy who they would vote against today - they'd nail Roosevelt on the same cross they're trying to nail Obama to today.

So no, I don't expect that I'm going to have a meaningful conversation with a liberal on Roosevelt. It's going to be the same discussion with just a different shirt on: "We need energetic government," vs. "We need smaller government."

Roosevelt makes Obama look like Ron Paul.
I see a bunch of conservatives on this board who idolize TR.
Geeeez! Even Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party raved about him. Yikes! That was one reason I decided against voting for the CP this election for a protest vote.

Christian Science Monitor did an in-depth report on the NeoCons and said TR could be considered the first one.

banyon
08-30-2008, 04:30 PM
Of course... That's *ALL* it did. :rolleyes:

I know that Roosevelt is worshipped by liberals everywhere, and that Republicans today don't have any real political compass in them. I don't expect that many people are going to agree with my complaints about the guy. What I will say is that anyone who claims to be conservative can do even a cursory look at his record and find a guy who they would vote against today - they'd nail Roosevelt on the same cross they're trying to nail Obama to today.

So no, I don't expect that I'm going to have a meaningful conversation with a liberal on Roosevelt. It's going to be the same discussion with just a different shirt on: "We need energetic government," vs. "We need smaller government."

Roosevelt makes Obama look like Ron Paul.

You're not going to have a meaningful conversation with anyone if you're going to go out on a tiny limb and then refuse to answer the simplest questions to explain your claim.

I guess let's start with the easiest question. When did this "collapse" take place?

But, let me try this another way, since I doubt you will ever actually back up this bizzare theory of railroad collapse that TR is responsible for.

Who is/are the greatest U.S. president(s), in your view? Is the the unmemorable people I've been mentioning in this thread?

DaneMcCloud
08-30-2008, 04:34 PM
I understand but both her and Barack have thin resumes. In fact she has 4.5 more years experience than him. More executive experience than him. They're both not that far apart on this. And he's running for president while she's just a VP.

First off, we're talking Palin versus Teddy Roosevelt. Not Palin versus Obama.

Furthermore, Obama spent 8 years as an Illinois State senator and 3+ years in the US senate, graduated from Harvard Law and taught constitutional law for 12 years.

I'd take that anyday of the week over being Mayor of bumble****, Alaska, 18 months as governor of Alaska and a goddamn journalism degree.

I hadn't made up my mind until McCain chose her on Friday. There's no way in the ****ing world that Palin should be a heartbeat away from the Presidency, especially when you consider that this potential President is nearly 72 years old and has had history of cancer.

IMO, anyone in this country that feels she was a "great choice" should have their head examined.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2008, 04:38 PM
greatest presidents for me:

#1 George Washington
#2 Thomas Jefferson
#3 James Madison
#4 Grover Cleveland- the last Jeffersonian president
#5 Ronald Reagan


Not the War entourage: Lincoln,McKinley/TR,Wilson,FDR,Truman

banyon
08-30-2008, 04:42 PM
greatest presidents for me:

#1 George Washington
#2 Thomas Jefferson
#3 James Madison
#4 Grover Cleveland- the last Jeffersonian president
#5 Ronald Reagan


Not the War entourage: Lincoln,McKinley/TR,Wilson,FDR,Truman

Wasn't this you earlier today? :

Using Hamiliton is a farce since from day one being a Whig at heart, mercantilist, loving the British parliamentary, aristocratic, imperial type of govt ( the moneyed interest) he went about circumventing the Constitution trying to increase powers of the federal govt immediately working on Washington much to Jefferson's dismay.

Hamilton would be a corporatist today. Why do you think he was so eager to get rid of the Articles of Confederation? Just because Hammy influenced Washington doesn't make it right. Jefferson railed against him for such actions. And all of Hamilton's ideas were rejected at the Constitutional Convention. You can check the notes from that on the Yale site with the Avalon Project.

How could Washington be the greatest if he sat around and let Hamilton do all of these terrible things? Is Bush going to be the greatest one day and get to say "All the bad stuff was Cheney"?

Oh, and there's real history to show that Jefferson and Madison with the Embargos precipitated the worst war in our history in which we had to send James Monroe to the British to beg mercy and leniency, but somehow they're great? But not these other "warmongers"?

BucEyedPea
08-30-2008, 04:45 PM
First off, we're talking Palin versus Teddy Roosevelt. Not Palin versus Obama.
Yes I know.

Furthermore, Obama spent 8 years as an Illinois State senator and 3+ years in the US senate, graduated from Harvard Law and taught constitutional law for 12 years.
Teaching con law doesn't mean public service. My gf teaches con law in Boston and has 7 kids. And teaching con law at Harvard is Alan Dershowitz Laurence Tribe country. So that to conservatives is bad.

I'd take that anyday of the week over being Mayor of bumble****, Alaska, 18 months as governor of Alaska and a goddamn journalism degree.
She is supposed to have been active on other boards and commissions involved in public issues.

I hadn't made up my mind until McCain chose her on Friday. There's no way in the ****ing world that Palin should be a heartbeat away from the Presidency, especially when you consider that this potential President is nearly 72 years old and has had history of cancer.

IMO, anyone in this country that feels she was a "great choice" should have their head examined.
True and you're entitled to that opinion. But what is good, bad or great is a matter of opinion. I just don't see if she had to replace Mac that she is that much less inexperienced than Obama. So that's why I brought him up. Just comparing apples to apples should that happen. That's ultimately what needs to be looked at.

Maybe comparing her to TR isn't exactly equal in terms of states, but just in numbers of years they have the same governing experience in terms of time.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2008, 04:55 PM
Wasn't this you earlier today? :
Not the same issue. And not saying I voted as I did for the qualities you're assuming.

How could Washington be the greatest if he sat around and let Hamilton do all of these terrible things? Is Bush going to be the greatest one day and get to say "All the bad stuff was Cheney"?
Hammy was a snake. Washington loved both Jefferson and Hamilton and was torn between them many times. But Washington was mainly a military man and admired Hammy's intellect. So was taken in by him and trusted him. And not everything Hammy did was bad. Same with any president.

Oh, and there's real history to show that Jefferson and Madison with the Embargos precipitated the worst war in our history in which we had to send James Monroe to the British to beg mercy and leniency, but somehow they're great? But not these other "warmongers"?

Yeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaah sooooooo? I never said I was against all wars, just certain kinds. Two of our most legit wars were our own for Independence and our second war for Indepence: War of 1812. Sorry even the most anarchist of libertarians Murray Rothbard thinks these were our only 2 legit wars.

I picked those guys because the closer to the early days of the Republic we are, the closer we are to the spirit of the American Revolution and the Constitution. Was it perfect? Certainly not but it was much better.

Those are my faves. Deal with it.

DaneMcCloud
08-30-2008, 04:57 PM
I just don't see if she had to replace Mac that she is that much less inexperienced than Obama. So that's why I brought him up. Just comparing apples to apples should that happen. That's ultimately what needs to be looked at.

I'm speechless.

Absolutely speechless.

Other than to say that I absolutely, unequivocally and vehemently disagree.

banyon
08-30-2008, 05:00 PM
Not the same issue. And not saying I voted as I did for the qualities you're assuming.


Hammy was a snake. Washington loved both Jefferson and Hamilton and was torn between them many times. But Washington was mainly a military man and admired Hammy's intellect. So was taken in by him and trusted him. And not everything Hammy did was bad. Same with any president.



Yeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaah sooooooo? I never said I was against all wars, just certain kinds. Two of our most legit wars were our own for Independence and our second war for Indepence: War of 1812. Sorry even the most anarchist of libertarians Murray Rothbard thinks these were our only 2 legit wars.

I picked those guys because the closer to the early days of the Republic we are, the closer we are to the spirit of the American Revolution and the Constitution. Was it perfect? Certainly not but it was much better.

Those are my faves. Deal with it.

You're entitled to your opinion, I just thought it would be difficult to reconcile your vitriol for Hamilton with your adulation of Washington and was wondering how you worked that out.

Jenson71
08-30-2008, 05:02 PM
Yeah? What did Roosevelt do that you thought was so great? Aside from destroying the rail system in this country, and make the idea of policing the world a popular idea?

The guy was straight up clown shoes. Bush with a monocle and a fat mustache.

His signing of the Hepburn Bill didn't destroy the rail system, it just curbed competition of rail companies by controlling the rates and making them sure they were more "just and reasonable."

Roosevelt wasn't even gung-ho about this bill. In fact, in Edmund Morris' biography, he writes: "He [Roosevelt] said that he knew, better than anyone else, how 'inefficient and undependable' federal employees were. It would be 'a disaster' to have them in charge of free enterprises."

The public demanded that this bill be signed, and Roosevelt knew this, and STILL was very reluctant about it. The Bill had tremendous public support and bipartisan support in Congress. Only three Senators dissented. Your characterization of Roosevelt is very wrong.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2008, 05:02 PM
By the way banyon, Washington was the general for winning our Independence and cared for his men. When the Revolution was over, there were a lot of people that wanted revenge on the Tories who were still in the country...calling for their heads ( so to speak). It could have burst into a worse violence like that of the French Revolution. It was because of George Washington's character that was not allowed to happen. He wouldn't put up with that vindictive insanity and said it was over. I feel that put this country on the right track...due to him.
That is the main reason I admire him.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2008, 05:04 PM
You're entitled to your opinion, I just thought it would be difficult to reconcile your vitriol for Hamilton with your adulation of Washington and was wondering how you worked that out.

ROFL

Don't you have vitriol for Bush?

Anyway, see above.

banyon
08-30-2008, 05:04 PM
By the way banyon, Washington was the general for winning our Independence and cared for his men. When the Revolution was over, there were a lot of people that wanted revenge on the Tories who were still in the country...calling for their heads ( so to speak). It could have burst into a worse violence like that of the French Revolution. It was because of George Washington's character that was not allowed to happen. He wouldn't put up with that vindictive insanity and said it was over. I feel that put this country on the right track...due to him.
That is the main reason I admire him.

Those are reasons that I admire him also and he would be in my top 5. Hamilton and Adams were also fairly instrumental in curbing some of the anger toward the Tories.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2008, 05:05 PM
I'm speechless.

Absolutely speechless.

Other than to say that I absolutely, unequivocally and vehemently disagree.

Well then hold that tongue, paesano.
Agree to disagree.:)

Teddy the bad-azz prezident!

http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/wong/badassp/troosevelt2.jpg

banyon
08-30-2008, 05:06 PM
ROFL

Don't you have vitriol for Bush?

Anyway, see above.

Yes, but I don't like hardly anyone working for him either, so there's really not any kind of conflict I could have about that.

DaneMcCloud
08-30-2008, 05:07 PM
Well then hold that tongue, paesano.
Agree to disagree.

I've got no problem with doing that nor with your opinion.

We just don't see eye to eye on this one.

Taco John
08-30-2008, 06:44 PM
His signing of the Hepburn Bill didn't destroy the rail system, it just curbed competition of rail companies by controlling the rates and making them sure they were more "just and reasonable."

Roosevelt wasn't even gung-ho about this bill. In fact, in Edmund Morris' biography, he writes: "He [Roosevelt] said that he knew, better than anyone else, how 'inefficient and undependable' federal employees were. It would be 'a disaster' to have them in charge of free enterprises."

The public demanded that this bill be signed, and Roosevelt knew this, and STILL was very reluctant about it. The Bill had tremendous public support and bipartisan support in Congress. Only three Senators dissented. Your characterization of Roosevelt is very wrong.


He wasn't gung-ho about it? It was the very first thing he did when he took office. He wanted to expand federal powers to regulate commerce and especially the rail system. He flat wanted to nationalize the railway system, and he looked at the Hepburn Act as a personal triumph. The man was a meddler. He was Al Davis in spirit. He came on the scene and started to tout the idea of being the policeman for the world. He swung open the doors for liberalism in this country, giving government more and more power in the name of protecting the people -- but with the result of harming them further and cleaving government and big business together to form the amorphous blob that we're still facing today.

Which is the point: MUCH of the problems that we face as a nation today are thanks to what a terrible president this guy was. We're still trying to undo the mess this guy put us in when he started his sweeping reforms. The only thing is, people are blind to it. They're against the system, but the walls are so high around them that they can't get the view of the landscape to understand what and why we are in the situation we are in now.

The world would be a better place if Roosevelt was never president.

banyon
08-30-2008, 06:49 PM
He wasn't gung-ho about it? It was the very first thing he did when he took office. He wanted to expand federal powers to regulate commerce and especially the rail system.

Let's see, the Hepburn Act, 59th Congress, Sess. 1, ch. 3591, 34 Stat. 584, enacted June 29, 1906. :hmmm:

banyon
08-30-2008, 06:49 PM
Why don't you just fess up Taco? What fringe publication did you read this theory about TR "destroying the rail system in"?

Taco John
08-30-2008, 06:59 PM
Why don't you just fess up Taco? What fringe publication did you read this theory about TR "destroying the rail system in"?


All you have to do is look at the course of the rail system since he first started his nationaliza- er "regulation" of the rail system. In other countries, they have thriving rail systems. Ours has floundered since the socialization of it.

Taco John
08-30-2008, 07:00 PM
Let's see, the Hepburn Act, 59th Congress, Sess. 1, ch. 3591, 34 Stat. 584, enacted June 29, 1906. :hmmm:

*sigh*

What does that have anything to do with it? The date an act passes has no relation to the date that the initiative was originally started, smart guy...

banyon
08-30-2008, 07:02 PM
All you have to do is look at the course of the rail system since he first started his nationaliza- er "regulation" of the rail system. In other countries, they have thriving rail systems. Ours has floundered since the socialization of it.

It couldn't have anything to do with a massive investment in automobiles and a national highway system could it?

Taco John
08-30-2008, 07:03 PM
June 29, 1906

TR's Hepburn Act is passed
Overwhelmingly elected to the presidency in 1904, Theodore Roosevelt immediately asked Congress for substantial powers to regulate interstate railroad rates. Public demand for effective national regulation of interstate railroad rates had been growing since the Supreme Court had emasculated the Interstate Commerce Commission's (ICC) rate-making authority in the 1890s. Determined to bring the railroads--the country's single greatest private economic interest--under effective national control, Roosevelt waged an unrelenting battle with an uncooperative Congress in 1905 and 1906. The outcome--the Hepburn Act of 1906--was his own personal triumph, giving teeth to the previously flaccid ICC, despite Congress dragging its heels and tacking on several self-serving "amendments" before agreeing to pass the bill. The Hepburn Act greatly enlarged the ICC's jurisdiction and forbade railroads to increase rates without its approval. By giving the ICC the authority to set maximum rates, Roosevelt effectively created the first of the government's regulatory commissions and thus cleared a milestone on the long road to the modern social-service state. By using the same tactics of aggressive leadership, Roosevelt in 1906 also obtained passage of a Meat Inspection Act and a Pure Food and Drug Act. Passage of the former was aided by the publication of Upton Sinclair's famous novel, The Jungle (1906), which revealed in ghastly detail the unsanitary conditions of the Chicago stockyards and meat-packing plants.


http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=5911


(/always get caught having to chase down Banyon's ticky tacky rat traps. Having discussions with a lawyer is like pulling teeth.)

bango
08-30-2008, 07:04 PM
It couldn't have anything to do with a massive investment in automobiles and a national highway system could it?

That was a socialist program under Ike. Try to keep up.

Taco John
08-30-2008, 07:10 PM
It couldn't have anything to do with a massive investment in automobiles and a national highway system could it?

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/c/5/7/c574a4b6c473230d0beb65777b7ba6f3.jpg

banyon
08-30-2008, 07:11 PM
*sigh*

What does that have anything to do with it? The date an act passes has no relation to the date that the initiative was originally started, smart guy...

Edmund Morris says Roosevelt became interested in regulating railroad rates after reading an article by Ray Stanard Baker in McClure's magazine in fall of 1905 on the subject. Morris, Edmund M. (2001)Theodore Rex New York: Random House, pp. 417-18.

Perhaps you have something to the contrary?

If you're so familiar with Roosevelt, you should know that if he saw something as a problem, he wouldn't f*ck around for five years and not act on it.

banyon
08-30-2008, 07:13 PM
That was a socialist program under Ike. Try to keep up.

Er, that's the interstate system. There were toll roads, turnpikes, and US highways that predated that.

Taco John
08-30-2008, 07:14 PM
If you're so familiar with Roosevelt, you should know that if he saw something as a problem, he wouldn't f*ck around for five years and not act on it.


Yeah, I'm aware that Roosevelt was quick to act and slow to think. Like I said, he and George W. are two peas in a pod.

banyon
08-30-2008, 07:15 PM
http://content.ytmnd.com/content/c/5/7/c574a4b6c473230d0beb65777b7ba6f3.jpg

Yes, how crazy of me to suggest that as an explanation, it must've been Roosevelt's maniacal scheme to make Railroads get inspected and report on cargo and passengers.

Taco John
08-30-2008, 07:16 PM
Edmund Morris says Roosevelt became interested in regulating railroad rates after reading an article by Ray Stanard Baker in McClure's magazine in fall of 1905 on the subject. Morris, Edmund M. (2001)Theodore Rex New York: Random House, pp. 417-18.




Just out of curiosity... What is it you think you win if you get the date right? I'm trying to discuss the philisophical grounding of his terrible legislation, and you're trying to hammer down the date. Do you win something if you're right and I'm wrong about the order that he asked congress for more government power over the railway system?

Because I sure as hell know that I don't lose anything.

Taco John
08-30-2008, 07:18 PM
Yes, how crazy of me to suggest that as an explanation, it must've been Roosevelt's maniacal scheme to make Railroads get inspected and report on cargo and passengers.


I find it amusing that you can't even be honest to describe the real impact of the Hepburn Act. It's just like you to ignore the real economic issue at hand (sort of like trying to nail down dates, rather than debate the principles), and go for the mundane. Care to mention anything about the price regulations that came along with the act, Mr. Progressive?

LMAO

banyon
08-30-2008, 07:19 PM
June 29, 1906

TR's Hepburn Act is passed
Overwhelmingly elected to the presidency in 1904, Theodore Roosevelt immediately asked Congress for substantial powers to regulate interstate railroad rates. Public demand for effective national regulation of interstate railroad rates had been growing since the Supreme Court had emasculated the Interstate Commerce Commission's (ICC) rate-making authority in the 1890s. Determined to bring the railroads--the country's single greatest private economic interest--under effective national control, Roosevelt waged an unrelenting battle with an uncooperative Congress in 1905 and 1906. The outcome--the Hepburn Act of 1906--was his own personal triumph, giving teeth to the previously flaccid ICC, despite Congress dragging its heels and tacking on several self-serving "amendments" before agreeing to pass the bill. The Hepburn Act greatly enlarged the ICC's jurisdiction and forbade railroads to increase rates without its approval. By giving the ICC the authority to set maximum rates, Roosevelt effectively created the first of the government's regulatory commissions and thus cleared a milestone on the long road to the modern social-service state. By using the same tactics of aggressive leadership, Roosevelt in 1906 also obtained passage of a Meat Inspection Act and a Pure Food and Drug Act. Passage of the former was aided by the publication of Upton Sinclair's famous novel, The Jungle (1906), which revealed in ghastly detail the unsanitary conditions of the Chicago stockyards and meat-packing plants.


http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=5911


(/always get caught having to chase down Banyon's ticky tacky rat traps. Having discussions with a lawyer is like pulling teeth.)


Let's see, you said:

He wasn't gung-ho about it? It was the very first thing he did when he took office.

Are you aware that despite your link, TR was actually in office prior to 1904?

You have really proven your depth of knowledge about TR is wide and deep.

And I'll take Morris's date of 1905, with the specific recollection of how the event started as opposed to your 'This day in history link" that was probably written by a History.com intern.

banyon
08-30-2008, 07:24 PM
Just out of curiosity... What is it you think you win if you get the date right? I'm trying to discuss the philisophical grounding of his terrible legislation, and you're trying to hammer down the date. Do you win something if you're right and I'm wrong about the order that he asked congress for more government power over the railway system?

Because I sure as hell know that I don't lose anything.

Well, let's summarize. First you claimed that you knew more than anyone else about TR. Then you said that it was his "hallmark piece of legislation". That's wrong. Then you said it was the first thing he did when he took office, that's clearly wrong too. Is it possible that this collapse of the train system that you ascribe to Roosevelt could be wrong too?

Taco John
08-30-2008, 07:27 PM
You win the argument Banyon! All you had to do was ignore the philisophical underpinning of my entire argument, and instead focus on minutea that doesn't actually matter! Just like they taught you in law school!

The Judge just ruled in your favor! You win on a technicality!

REJOICE!

/got any questions on why I stopped having discussions with you. You offer no substance. It's all technical mumbo jumbo and even mischaracterizations that doesn't actually amount to anything. I never said I knew more about TR than anybody. But I know more about him than most. I could utterly pants a so-called conservative who tries to tout the guy as some sort of beacon of conservativism. I'm well aware that liberals love the guy.

Now take your technicalities and go away. I don't care to discuss philosophy with a lawyer who is hell bent on scoring small points with whoever he imagines is "the judge" hoping he can get the case thrown out. It doesn't work that way in the real world. I'm here to discuss the philisophical and economic impact of his presidency. I don't honestly care about whether I get the dates right.

banyon
08-30-2008, 07:31 PM
I find it amusing that you can't even be honest to describe the real impact of the Hepburn Act. It's just like you to ignore the real economic issue at hand (sort of like trying to nail down dates, rather than debate the principles), and go for the mundane. Care to mention anything about the price regulations that came along with the act, Mr. Progressive?

LMAO

Uh, it's your claim. I don't believe that the "collapse" occurred, therefore it would be incument on you to show that it did.

That's all I realy asked for in the very beginning.

Taco John
08-30-2008, 07:33 PM
...and yes, it was hallmark legislation for him. Roosevelt put a lot of time and effort into those reforms, and they took a long time. He considered it a personal triumph when it finally passed.

go bowe
08-30-2008, 07:34 PM
Nope. If you have checked out some of my posts on here as well as my poop thread in the Lounge, you know I'm dead serious.

Jesus ****ing Christ, what do you think, asshole?is it time for popcorn yet?

Taco John
08-30-2008, 07:35 PM
Uh, it's your claim. I don't believe that the "collapse" occurred, therefore it would be incument on you to show that it did.

That's all I realy asked for in the very beginning.



Look up Albro Martin somtime... (http://www.amazon.com/Enterprise-Denied-American-Railroads-1897-1917/dp/B000PGJ3PC/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220146493&sr=8-5) Or don't... I don't really care.

go bowe
08-30-2008, 07:36 PM
Oh, so now I'm an asshole because I'm supposed to be infinity familiar with your threads?

Really?infinity familiar?

sounds kinky...

banyon
08-30-2008, 07:41 PM
You win the argument Banyon! All you had to do was ignore the philisophical underpinning of my entire argument, and instead focus on minutea that doesn't actually matter! Just like they taught you in law school!

The Judge just ruled in your favor! You win on a technicality!

REJOICE!

/got any questions on why I stopped having discussions with you. You offer no substance. It's all technical mumbo jumbo and even mischaracterizations that doesn't actually amount to anything. I never said I knew more about TR than anybody. But I know more about him than most. I could utterly pants a so-called conservative who tries to tout the guy as some sort of beacon of conservativism. I'm well aware that liberals love the guy.

Now take your technicalities and go away. I don't care to discuss philosophy with a lawyer who is hell bent on scoring small points with whoever he imagines is "the judge" hoping he can get the case thrown out. It doesn't work that way in the real world. I'm here to discuss the philisophical and economic impact of his presidency. I don't honestly care about whether I get the dates right.


This sanctimonious whining is pretty ridiculous considering it was you who started the ticky-tack questions about details when you challenged Jenson's version of what happened. At that point I had just asked you to explain how and when the rail industry collapsed, which at that point you refused to do and have still failed to offer. If you wanted to talk about substance, you've had plenty of chances. Just say how and when this rail system collapsed and how that related to TR's bill. That was your whole point wasn't it? But no, you wanted to nitpick Jenson's version of events and then when someone calls you on your own factual details, you throw up your hands and say you can't be bothered with details and it's some kind of cheap lawyer's trick that I did that to you.

And you *did* say you knew more about this than me, right here:

I am not familiar with either of these sites. I am, however, familiar with the cause and effects of legislation he enacted - which is much more than I can say for you. I find you to be the star struck politico who isn't great at debating the issues, but knows who he likes based on who is popular.

Why don't you throw another spiteful neg rep at me, since it's patently clear you're not interested in dicussing the merits of this claim?

banyon
08-30-2008, 07:43 PM
...and yes, it was hallmark legislation for him. Roosevelt put a lot of time and effort into those reforms, and they took a long time. He considered it a personal triumph when it finally passed.

Do you know what he did to get the Panama Canal passed?

banyon
08-30-2008, 07:47 PM
Look up Albro Martin somtime... (http://www.amazon.com/Enterprise-Denied-American-Railroads-1897-1917/dp/B000PGJ3PC/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220146493&sr=8-5) Or don't... I don't really care.

Hah, like you've read some book about the decline of railroads published in 1971. Ok. That's hilarious.

Reminds me of when BEP can't prove her point, she always resorts to "read a book, but I can't explain it."

(*edit* also, the very title "Origins of the Decline..1871-1917" belies the point you are trying to make and seems to imply that the "collapse" started in the administration of Grant).

SNR
08-30-2008, 08:21 PM
Answer my question.No. I originally thought of it as ARROGANT of him to run for president before completing even one rather eventless term as a US Senator. Sort of like a n00b joining Chiefsplanet, making a few short football posts, and by the 2nd month expects everybody to respect him and know everything about himself (Dane apparently thinks I'm that way for calling him an asshole, but whatever).

From the standpoint of "BUT HE AIN'T SPERIENCED ENOUGH" though, no, I never had any problems. I'm also of the impression, though, that no matter who we elect, my life is going to go on as normal (barring an economic collapse of course, which doesn't always fall SQUARELY on the shoulders of the president).

I think people around here on both sides think this election is about life or death. That if Obama is elected, he's going to make all the wrong decisions and the US is going to get nuked, or if he ISN'T elected, poor Granny Apple Smith can't afford health insurance and when the bubonic plague comes to her door, she'll be easy pickens and not even Wilford Brimley and Liberty Medical can save her with beetis testing supplies. If she hasn't had health insurance for years and is still alive, then will she stop living if she doesn't get health insurance in the next four years?

And to that last question, bleeding heart liberals who are far smarter and moral than I am will say "yes", but I usually call them an asshole and walk away. It doesn't solve anything, but it makes me feel pretty good.

Oh, and I was serious about hating black people.

(Let's see if Dane puts that one in his sig, too)

J Diddy
08-30-2008, 08:26 PM
No. I originally thought of it as ARROGANT of him to run for president before completing even one rather eventless term as a US Senator. Sort of like a n00b joining Chiefsplanet, making a few short football posts, and by the 2nd month expects everybody to respect him and know everything about himself (Dane apparently thinks I'm that way for calling him an asshole, but whatever).

From the standpoint of "BUT HE AIN'T SPERIENCED ENOUGH" though, no, I never had any problems. I'm also of the impression, though, that no matter who we elect, my life is going to go on as normal (barring an economic collapse of course, which doesn't always fall SQUARELY on the shoulders of the president).

I think people around here on both sides think this election is about life or death. That if Obama is elected, he's going to make all the wrong decisions and the US is going to get nuked, or if he ISN'T elected, poor Granny Apple Smith can't afford health insurance and when the bubonic plague comes to her door, she'll be easy pickens and not even Wilford Brimley and Liberty Medical can save her with beetis testing supplies. If she hasn't had health insurance for years and is still alive, then will she stop living if she doesn't get health insurance in the next four years?

And to that last question, bleeding heart liberals who are far smarter and moral than I am will say "yes", but I usually call them an asshole and walk away. It doesn't solve anything, but it makes me feel pretty good.

Oh, and I was serious about hating black people.

(Let's see if Dane puts that one in his sig, too)

asshole

SNR
08-30-2008, 08:39 PM
assholeTold ya it works :D

Jenson71
08-31-2008, 01:47 PM
Taco, I like you and your political perspective around here. But this post and your opinion on Roosevelt is mostly a lot of general rhetoric without really addressing any factual information.

He was president in the fall of 1901 and the Hepburn Bill didn't come about until his second term. And there's no way he wanted to nationalize the railway system. Doesn't the rest of my post have any significance to you?

Roosevelt definitely didn't mind "meddling" in the affairs of businesses curbing capitalism by creating monopolies in industry, which is what the Hepburn Bill aimed to prevent. And despite that Progressive spirit, the records show this was publicly demanded, demanded by Congress, and not some personal crusade by Roosevelt.

He wasn't gung-ho about it? It was the very first thing he did when he took office. He wanted to expand federal powers to regulate commerce and especially the rail system. He flat wanted to nationalize the railway system, and he looked at the Hepburn Act as a personal triumph. The man was a meddler. He was Al Davis in spirit. He came on the scene and started to tout the idea of being the policeman for the world. He swung open the doors for liberalism in this country, giving government more and more power in the name of protecting the people -- but with the result of harming them further and cleaving government and big business together to form the amorphous blob that we're still facing today.

Which is the point: MUCH of the problems that we face as a nation today are thanks to what a terrible president this guy was. We're still trying to undo the mess this guy put us in when he started his sweeping reforms. The only thing is, people are blind to it. They're against the system, but the walls are so high around them that they can't get the view of the landscape to understand what and why we are in the situation we are in now.

The world would be a better place if Roosevelt was never president.

DaneMcCloud
08-31-2008, 01:55 PM
No. I originally thought of it as ARROGANT of him to run for president before completing even one rather eventless term as a US Senator. Sort of like a n00b joining Chiefsplanet, making a few short football posts, and by the 2nd month expects everybody to respect him and know everything about himself

This is ridiculous. Arrogant for running because he hadn't completed his first term as U.S. senator but had completed eight years in the Illinois state senate?

Are you implying that everyone "pay dues", regardless of their qualifications? And apparently, the Democratic Party disagrees with your position because they've nominated him to be their candidate.

Jack Kennedy was only in the Senate for 6 years before running. Was he "arrogant" as well?

Robert Kennedy had only been a Senator for 2 years before running for POTUS? More "arrogance", I suppose?

BucEyedPea
08-31-2008, 02:03 PM
Jack Kennedy was only in the Senate for 6 years before running. Was he "arrogant" as well?

No but he sure was absent a lot from partying.