Author Topic: 18 Fascinating Things You Didn't Know About Teddy Roosevelt  (Read 3714 times)

Offline doublejm1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
18 Fascinating Things You Didn't Know About Teddy Roosevelt
« on: August 08, 2013, 05:37:44 PM »
Seeing as how my article on Thomas Jefferson was ripped to shreds (by a couple of posters), I'm hoping I'll have more luck with this one, which features some fun facts on Teddy Roosevelt  :cool::

--link removed by taxed -- we're not your research monkeys.

Let me know what you guys think. My aim was to do something that wouldn't be seen as partisan/controversial. Teddy is one of my favorite presidents, and I can't seem to learn enough about the guy.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2013, 05:49:16 PM by taxed »

Trip

  • Guest
Re: 18 Fascinating Things You Didn't Know About Teddy Roosevelt
« Reply #1 on: August 08, 2013, 06:53:34 PM »
Seeing as how my article on Thomas Jefferson was ripped to shreds (by a couple of posters), I'm hoping I'll have more luck with this one, which features some fun facts on Teddy Roosevelt  :cool::

--link removed by taxed -- we're not your research monkeys.

Let me know what you guys think. My aim was to do something that wouldn't be seen as partisan/controversial. Teddy is one of my favorite presidents, and I can't seem to learn enough about the guy.


doublejm...  I was previously hesitant to make this sort of question/comment, but I'm curious what you consider your political viewpoint ?   

You also might consider another perspective: that the Conservative view in this country is not actually "partisan", not because there is no Conservative party, but because Conservatisim actually only promotes the government as intended by the founders.

What you, in your obvious youth, accept as "partisan" politics, is actually nowhere legitimate under the Constitution.  It's beyond illegitimate policy, to  illegitimate, and even unlawful, government action.

doublejm you might start by presenting your political perspective, and from the comments in that discussion you may actually learn something that would help that "paper" of yours, which so far us unfit for High School, much less even a Community College.  I don't say that to abuse you; I say that to help you.


For taxed:
Research Monkeys



Offline doublejm1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: 18 Fascinating Things You Didn't Know About Teddy Roosevelt
« Reply #2 on: August 08, 2013, 07:03:03 PM »
Well, in case anyone wants to read it, here's the address:

Link removed by walks
« Last Edit: August 08, 2013, 07:15:40 PM by walkstall »

Trip

  • Guest
Re: 18 Fascinating Things You Didn't Know About Teddy Roosevelt
« Reply #3 on: August 08, 2013, 07:14:18 PM »
doublejm...

uh, I can guarantee you "the Management" is not going to appreciate you re-posting that link, after it was already removed.

And having looked at your article, it is nothing but empty-headed fluff. Is this paper intended for a real college?

Do you really imagine that Obama actually deserved a Nobel Peace Prize "for his commitment to strengthening international diplomacy"? 

Obama has done anything but strengthen international diplomacy and peace. His actions have led to the destabilization of the Middle East, not to mention this country teetering on collapse and revolution.

I have a commitment to writing a NYT best seller, but that commitment doesn't deserve praise, recognition and reward.   


Offline Shooterman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Gender: Male
  • Draft Jan Morgan for President
Re: 18 Fascinating Things You Didn't Know About Teddy Roosevelt
« Reply #4 on: August 08, 2013, 08:55:57 PM »
Seeing as how my article on Thomas Jefferson was ripped to shreds (by a couple of posters), I'm hoping I'll have more luck with this one, which features some fun facts on Teddy Roosevelt  :cool::

--link removed by taxed -- we're not your research monkeys.

Let me know what you guys think. My aim was to do something that wouldn't be seen as partisan/controversial. Teddy is one of my favorite presidents, and I can't seem to learn enough about the guy.

If you like Progressives, I can see why he would be a favorite.
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

Offline Mountainshield

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1934
  • Gender: Male
  • Norwegian Coffeeman
Re: 18 Fascinating Things You Didn't Know About Teddy Roosevelt
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2013, 02:31:34 AM »
If you like Progressives, I can see why he would be a favorite.

Good ol'Teddy was a pragmatic man, but one thing that could never be hold against him as that he was hardcore patriot who did everything he could to strenghten the US and the American way. And that makes him antithetical to progressives in my interpretation of definitions.

Progressives today like to paint Teddy as a progressive, but political definitons change over time. Same as liberal, liberal was someone who was pro property rights, pro christianity and pro free trade in the 19th century. Corporatism which is in effect socialism in practice/implementation of state policies was something Teddy was wholly against, his busting of the cartels can be more likened to pro capitalist policies than "progressive" policies.

The regulations Teddy put in place served more the benefit the consumer than monopolistic corporations, the whole "corporations" are right wing is a left wing myth, and a very successful one. Corporations love government, because it gives them regulations that favor them, the regulations Teddy advocated did not favor corporatism aka socialism. I'm sure if Towardliberty was still here he could explain it alot better.

The left like "doublejm1" is waging a war against history. To them there is no "truth", only ideology, so it is not surprising that the media and leftists are trying to turn Teddy into soft socialist of a avatar for them to capitalize and rewrite history in their favor.

Thats how I see it.

Offline TowardLiberty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 827
  • Gender: Male
Re: 18 Fascinating Things You Didn't Know About Teddy Roosevelt
« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2013, 06:36:56 AM »
I have a different take on Teddy and the trust issue.

The first corporation to be busted was Standard Oil, owned by Rockefeller. Teddy was a Morgan man- Morgan helped get him the VP nod originally. As we know there has been a dynastic rivalry between the House of Morgan and the Rockefeller ambit, for generations.

So Teddy used the court system to punish Standard Oil for political reasons. Standard was no monopolist and they had been expanding output and lowering prices, helping out the consumer, through efficiency enhancing acts, such as "vertical integration."

There is also a line of argument pursued by Thomas Woods that Teddy ushered in the modern "imperial Presidency." Though a good argument can be made that Lincoln already laid that groundwork.

For more on Teddy, check the link: http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=96

To respond to Mountainshield's point...

Corporations do want the state to protect their profits. That is certainly true. And anti-trust lawsuits are no exception to that rule. What these suits were in reality, aside from their public perception, was a carefully orchestrated attempt by special interests to seek protection form more efficient rivals. Anti-trust was not about protecting competition, rather it was about protecting competitors.

For a detailed analysis of the arguments made during the early anti-trust suits, check out the following book.

http://library.mises.org/books/Dominick%20Armentano/Antitrust%20The%20Case%20for%20Repeal.pdf
Only the individual thinks. Only the individual reasons. Only the individual acts. Ludwig von Mises

Offline Mountainshield

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1934
  • Gender: Male
  • Norwegian Coffeeman
Re: 18 Fascinating Things You Didn't Know About Teddy Roosevelt
« Reply #7 on: September 17, 2013, 07:47:06 AM »
I have a different take on Teddy and the trust issue.

The first corporation to be busted was Standard Oil, owned by Rockefeller. Teddy was a Morgan man- Morgan helped get him the VP nod originally. As we know there has been a dynastic rivalry between the House of Morgan and the Rockefeller ambit, for generations.

So Teddy used the court system to punish Standard Oil for political reasons. Standard was no monopolist and they had been expanding output and lowering prices, helping out the consumer, through efficiency enhancing acts, such as "vertical integration."

There is also a line of argument pursued by Thomas Woods that Teddy ushered in the modern "imperial Presidency." Though a good argument can be made that Lincoln already laid that groundwork.

For more on Teddy, check the link: http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=96

To respond to Mountainshield's point...

Corporations do want the state to protect their profits. That is certainly true. And anti-trust lawsuits are no exception to that rule. What these suits were in reality, aside from their public perception, was a carefully orchestrated attempt by special interests to seek protection form more efficient rivals. Anti-trust was not about protecting competition, rather it was about protecting competitors.

For a detailed analysis of the arguments made during the early anti-trust suits, check out the following book.

http://library.mises.org/books/Dominick%20Armentano/Antitrust%20The%20Case%20for%20Repeal.pdf

Yeah I have been reading Daniel Yergin The Quest and I have to say that Standard Oil is a perfect example of how the free market is self regulating and to the benefit of the consumer.

Offline kopema

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 768
Re: 18 Fascinating Things You Didn't Know About Teddy Roosevelt
« Reply #8 on: September 17, 2013, 11:28:10 AM »
There is also a line of argument pursued by Thomas Woods that Teddy ushered in the modern "imperial Presidency." Though a good argument can be made that Lincoln already laid that groundwork.

It's incredibly difficult - and usually unfair - to judge historical figures for what happens hundreds of years after they did something. 

No sane person could deny that abolishing slavery - in and of itself - was a noble and glorious achievement.  Unfortunately that eventually became transmogrified into the utterly insane and idiotic theological tenet that can only be coherently expressed as follows:  "The only way to ensure individual freedom is to cede ever more power to a monolithic central authority."

The pathologically stupid and monstrously evil people who proselytize that psychotic religion may yet succeed in their zealous quest to plunge the entire world into a dark age of universal subjugation.   But that is most definitely NOT Abraham Lincoln's fault... any more than it's James Madison's fault that "Progressive" liberals have spent the past century systematically transforming the most succinct marvel of concision ever penned into a Bizarro World inverse of itself.


Quote
Corporations do want the state to protect their profits. That is certainly true. And anti-trust lawsuits are no exception to that rule

I hate to seem overly-technical, but what corporations want is to protect is profits -- period.

The term for people who want the GOVERNMENT to protect the profits of select corporations is "Fascist."  And that applies equally whether those liberals are in boardrooms, in government office, or squatting in front of fire hydrants on Wall Street.
‘‘It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.’’

- Justice Robert H. Jackson

Offline TowardLiberty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 827
  • Gender: Male
Re: 18 Fascinating Things You Didn't Know About Teddy Roosevelt
« Reply #9 on: September 17, 2013, 12:37:33 PM »
Yeah I have been reading Daniel Yergin The Quest and I have to say that Standard Oil is a perfect example of how the free market is self regulating and to the benefit of the consumer.
Yep.

Those who criticize Standard (pre- anti trust breakup) as being a monopolist have to deal with the fact that monopolists achieve monopoly prices by restraining output, not increasing it.

Standard increased output and lowered prices, year after year.

And if you were to read that Armentano book I linked to earlier, you would see that each of the firms named in subsequent anti-trust suits were similarly lowering prices and expanding output, all in the name of serving the consumer as best as possible.
Only the individual thinks. Only the individual reasons. Only the individual acts. Ludwig von Mises

Offline TowardLiberty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 827
  • Gender: Male
Re: 18 Fascinating Things You Didn't Know About Teddy Roosevelt
« Reply #10 on: September 17, 2013, 12:56:45 PM »
It's incredibly difficult - and usually unfair - to judge historical figures for what happens hundreds of years after they did something. 

No sane person could deny that abolishing slavery - in and of itself - was a noble and glorious achievement.  Unfortunately that eventually became transmogrified into the utterly insane and idiotic theological tenet that can only be coherently expressed as follows:  "The only way to ensure individual freedom is to cede ever more power to a monolithic central authority."

The pathologically stupid and monstrously evil people who proselytize that psychotic religion may yet succeed in their zealous quest to plunge the entire world into a dark age of universal subjugation.   But that is most definitely NOT Abraham Lincoln's fault... any more than it's James Madison's fault that "Progressive" liberals have spent the past century systematically transforming the most succinct marvel of concision ever penned into a Bizarro World inverse of itself.


I hate to seem overly-technical, but what corporations want is to protect is profits -- period.

The term for people who want the GOVERNMENT to protect the profits of select corporations is "Fascist."  And that applies equally whether those liberals are in boardrooms, in government office, or squatting in front of fire hydrants on Wall Street.

No need to judge historical figures for outcomes hundreds of years down the road. We can judge them on actions they undertook while in office.

Lincoln's actions were that of a tyrant. No man has the right to compel others to maintain any association. That Lincoln was willing to go to any lengths, no matter how brutal and barbaric, to subjugate other humans, implies that he cannot believe in inalienable human freedom or self ownership. Indeed his actions imply that he felt himself within his rights to control the actions of many people, at the point of a gun, in ways too brutal for even the most sadistic slave master to consider. For slaves were capital goods bought for the purposes of earning a profit, and a dead slave does no work.

Further his actions as President ushered in a new precedent that subsequent Presidents would be empowered by. There is an inertia in political power. It expands but does not tend to contract. Robert Higgs has dubbed this the "ratchet effect."

Corporations do want to do whatever they can do capture profits, true enough. And I agree that using the state to do so is fascism.

Though in the context of this discussion I am not sure what is overly technical about such an idea. Indeed it is foundational to understanding the history of anti-trust. 
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 01:14:21 PM by TowardLiberty »
Only the individual thinks. Only the individual reasons. Only the individual acts. Ludwig von Mises

Offline kopema

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 768
Re: 18 Fascinating Things You Didn't Know About Teddy Roosevelt
« Reply #11 on: September 17, 2013, 02:21:37 PM »
No need to judge historical figures for outcomes hundreds of years down the road. We can judge them on actions they undertook while in office.  Lincoln's actions were that of a tyrant. No man has the right to compel others to maintain any association. That Lincoln was willing to go to any lengths, no matter how brutal and barbaric, to subjugate other humans, implies that he cannot believe in inalienable human freedom or self ownership. Indeed his actions imply that he felt himself within his rights to control the actions of many people, at the point of a gun, in ways too brutal for even the most sadistic slave master to consider. For slaves were capital goods bought for the purposes of earning a profit, and a dead slave does no work.

Excellent points all, except that none of that means anything whatsoever unless you can explain how YOU would have abolished slavery in Lincoln's stead.

Slavery was absolutely vital to the existence of every civilization in human hisotry.  But in America - the indisputable beacon of world freedom - it had finally outlived its necessity decades earlier.  Unfortunately, the southern states dug in their heels and were absolutely adamant about the issue.

I don't mean this at all facetiously.  I would dearly love to know how that transition might have been accomplished in a way that would have avoided violence and - there is no way to over-emphasize this - the contemporaneously HYPOTHETICAL loss of future liberties.

Quote
Further his actions as President ushered in a new precedent that subsequent President's would be empowered by. There is an inertia in political power. It expands but does not tend to contract. Robert Higgs has dubbed this the "ratchet effect."

I had to look that up.  Thanks for wasting my time, btw.   I PERSONALLY had been using that phrase to describe the same effect for at least a couple of decades before this dufus "coined" it. 

You can take comfort in the fact that I'm only a very tiny bit annoyed by that.  But it's safe to say that Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, were they alive to post here, would have a right to be infinitely more so.

Quote
Though in the context of this discussion I am not sure what is overly technical about such an idea. Indeed it is foundational to understanding the history of anti-trust.

What's "foundational" to the American anti-trust movement at the turn of the twentieth century is also foundational to a then-potentially viable economic theory that only LATER became a patently psychotic cult.

At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, it is at least theoretically possible that a not-completely-braindead individual might have imagined Communism to be a potentially viable economic theory.  As (literal) cottage industries were usurped by larger and larger assembly lines, it was fantasized that they would eventually reach an infinite economy of scale.  Ergo (assuming the economist also lacked the capacity to imagine that the public's desire for an increased standard of living would also fail to expand with increased supply) this would in turn lead to a Worker's Paradise of infinite pleasure and leisure.

Hindsight is twenty-twenty.  If I had been a doctor in 1840, I would very much like to believe that my genetically superior brain would have seen phrenology (the study of bumps on the scalp) for what it was:  a  crazy, stupid fad.  But I can't re-write all my memories sufficiently to be POSITIVE that I'd have recognized that fact, at that precise moment in history.

And, by the same token, there is no way anyone alive today can know for certain he'd have seen Communism for all that it was at the turn at the twentieth century; back when conservative American politicians were warning the electorate:  "Don't be swayed by the material benefits of Communism!"

Don't get me wrong; I am by no means trying to imply that Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt were Gods.  Or that they were smarter than the average person of their day.  Or even that they were smarter than the average politician of their day....

All I'm saying is:  stop equating those those well-meaning but understandably-ignorant noble primitives with the braindead neohippies who STILL worship the crazy-ass death cult that Communism eventually unequivocally demonstrated itself to be.

If today's liberals had fixated upon and transformed Franz Joseph Gall's theory (congratulations; now you get to look that one up  :smile:) into a totalitarian nightmare, it would not be HIS fault.

So let dead Communists lie.  Try to limit your wrath to precisely where it is most unquestionably deserved:  The younger a liberal is, the more obviously stupid he is... and the oldest ones still alive today are pretty Goddamned moronic.  I don't claim to be absolutely positive about anything that happened more than a hundred years ago, but I very strongly suspect that James Madison, Abraham Lincoln. Teddy Roosevelt - and maybe even fucking FRANKLIN Roosevelt - would wholeheartedly agree with all of us about that. 
‘‘It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.’’

- Justice Robert H. Jackson

Offline TowardLiberty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 827
  • Gender: Male
Re: 18 Fascinating Things You Didn't Know About Teddy Roosevelt
« Reply #12 on: September 18, 2013, 06:58:10 AM »
Excellent points all, except that none of that means anything whatsoever unless you can explain how YOU would have abolished slavery in Lincoln's stead.


Ah but that was not the point I was addressing, so it is a moot issue.

My answer to this new question would be, as President, to stop recognizing slavery as legitimate. So I would stop enforcing slave contracts, property rights in slaves, the fugitive slave law, etc.

If that didn't work I would just use the state to buy all the slaves at market prices and free them.

Quote

Slavery was absolutely vital to the existence of every civilization in human hisotry.  But in America - the indisputable beacon of world freedom - it had finally outlived its necessity decades earlier.  Unfortunately, the southern states dug in their heels and were absolutely adamant about the issue.

I don't mean this at all facetiously.  I would dearly love to know how that transition might have been accomplished in a way that would have avoided violence and - there is no way to over-emphasize this - the contemporaneously HYPOTHETICAL loss of future liberties.


I don't know how vital it was for any civilization. Perhaps it was vital to the ruling class who got out of work...

Quote

I had to look that up.  Thanks for wasting my time, btw.   I PERSONALLY had been using that phrase to describe the same effect for at least a couple of decades before this dufus "coined" it. 


Well good for you.

By the way, Higgs, is a badass.

Quote

You can take comfort in the fact that I'm only a very tiny bit annoyed by that.  But it's safe to say that Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, were they alive to post here, would have a right to be infinitely more so.

Lincoln has lost the right to be annoyed at all. And I could care less what Mr trust buster thinks.

Quote
What's "foundational" to the American anti-trust movement at the turn of the twentieth century is also foundational to a then-potentially viable economic theory that only LATER became a patently psychotic cult.


You lost me. Say what?!

Quote

At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, it is at least theoretically possible that a not-completely-braindead individual might have imagined Communism to be a potentially viable economic theory.

Only if they have neglected to read Turgot, Condillac, Say, Cantillion, Smith, Hume, Bastiat, etc

Quote

 As (literal) cottage industries were usurped by larger and larger assembly lines, it was fantasized that they would eventually reach an infinite economy of scale.  Ergo (assuming the economist also lacked the capacity to imagine that the public's desire for an increased standard of living would also fail to expand with increased supply) this would in turn lead to a Worker's Paradise of infinite pleasure and leisure.

Hindsight is twenty-twenty.  If I had been a doctor in 1840, I would very much like to believe that my genetically superior brain would have seen phrenology (the study of bumps on the scalp) for what it was:  a  crazy, stupid fad.  But I can't re-write all my memories sufficiently to be POSITIVE that I'd have recognized that fact, at that precise moment in history.

And, by the same token, there is no way anyone alive today can know for certain he'd have seen Communism for all that it was at the turn at the twentieth century; back when conservative American politicians were warning the electorate:  "Don't be swayed by the material benefits of Communism!"

Don't get me wrong; I am by no means trying to imply that Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt were Gods.  Or that they were smarter than the average person of their day.  Or even that they were smarter than the average politician of their day....

All I'm saying is:  stop equating those those well-meaning but understandably-ignorant noble primitives with the braindead neohippies who STILL worship the crazy-ass death cult that Communism eventually unequivocally demonstrated itself to be.


No problem. I dont see them as communists. Just statists. One a murdering statist.

Quote

If today's liberals had fixated upon and transformed Franz Joseph Gall's theory (congratulations; now you get to look that one up  :smile:) into a totalitarian nightmare, it would not be HIS fault.

So let dead Communists lie.  Try to limit your wrath to precisely where it is most unquestionably deserved:  The younger a liberal is, the more obviously stupid he is... and the oldest ones still alive today are pretty Goddamned moronic.  I don't claim to be absolutely positive about anything that happened more than a hundred years ago, but I very strongly suspect that James Madison, Abraham Lincoln. Teddy Roosevelt - and maybe even fucking FRANKLIN Roosevelt - would wholeheartedly agree with all of us about that.

No, I won't let them lie. I don't harp on it but if the conversation brings up their name, I will make a point about their horrible actions while in power.

And to fail to do so is to tacitly support this barbarism.
Only the individual thinks. Only the individual reasons. Only the individual acts. Ludwig von Mises

Offline Bismarck Revivalist

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: 18 Fascinating Things You Didn't Know About Teddy Roosevelt
« Reply #13 on: February 12, 2014, 07:38:43 PM »
Wait, you like that bastard here? He was a goddamned socialist and a racist too (take that, liberals!)!

''Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind....Some day we will realize that the prime duty, the inescapable duty of the good citizens of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type.''

"The death-knell of the Republic had rung as soon as the active power became lodged in the hands of those who sought, not to do justice to all citizens, rich and poor alike, but to stand for one special class and for its interests as opposed to the interests of others." Sounds a lot like what's coming out of Obama's mouth nowadays, huh?

 

Powered by EzPortal