Archive photo
Archive photo from when presidents were FOR the people.
(Theodore Roosevelt)
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Que? | This operations manual Next »
» 75 comments
-
Recent Comments
Chandu The Neopolita… on Giggity Giggity The Amazing Rando on Mr. Yang Was Just Asked The Amazing Rando on Giggity Giggity The Amazing Rando on Giggity Giggity wickets ebil twin on Giggity Giggity Bix Nood on Mr. Yang Was Just Asked suicide_blonde on Mr. Yang Was Just Asked suicide_blonde on Giggity Giggity wickets ebil twin on Giggity Giggity The Amazing Rando on Giggity Giggity 
Cheezburger Network Blog
First
It would seem more appropriate for me to put up a picture of the other Roosevelt, but indeed, this man exemplified (among other, less savory things) the populist idea that is the basis of our nation’s legitimacy.
by making over 1000 executive orders. Being the granddaddy of imperializing presidencies. Killing his neighbor’s dog in rage. Yeah. *clappity clap clap*
And one of the champions of the National Park System.
Not being from the USA, I don’t get this one… may someone care to explain?
You can learn about
Theodore Roosevelt from
Any search engine
U.S. President
In early 1900s
Quite a character
Current occupant
May have his grand delusions
But he’s no T.R.!
TR – I was surprised to learn (just because I didn’t study up on it) that he was for a a minimum wage when it was an unpopular idea. He felt that anyone that was working full time should be able to be able to pay for decent living conditions for their family and keep them fed and clothed. Minimum wage can’t do that in today’s economy.
He’s also the founder of our national forests and considered by man the grandfather of conservatism in all of it’s GOOD sense (i.e. ecologically speaking).
Your haikus are a
Refreshing change from all the
Long-winded comments
Bravo! Bravo! yes, yes! *clap clap clap*
Theodore Roosevelt, the most badass U.S. president ever. Led the Rough Riders in their charge up San Juan Hill, basically forced the Panama Canal to be built, and survived an assasination attempt, and instead of immediately going to the hospital, kept giving a speech with an open bullet wound in his chest. He was also a gold gloves boxer, held the rank of black belt in jujitsu, kept a bear (hence the teddy bear) and a lion as pets at the White House. Shortly after his death, a fellow politician said “Death had to take him sleeping, for if Roosevelt had been awake, there would have been a fight” Truly, a man of the people
Yeah, I pretty much have a huge historical crush on Teddy, right after my historical crush on Ben Franklin.
I wonder what Theodore Roosevelt would have done if he had been President on September 11, 2001?
He wouldn’t have sat there for 7 bloody minutes, to begin with.
He would have just jumped into a B-2 and nuked Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan on the spot, amirite?
You reveal your stupidity with that comment. You have no idea what a President’s job is.
And you do, Mouthpiece? Oh, that’s right. It’s to destroy the environment, take over every oil rich country in the world, kill all the “brown people”, and lead the world into a nuclear holocaust.
My bad.
Wow, you’re crazy.
It seems someone needs a constructive outlet…and a hug.
I agree, I think this entire site needs more hugs. I would want a government created department of hug givers but they’d be insincere, I think we need to start an hug giving organization.
That may be a pretty textbook definition, actually.
He would have reassembled the Rough Riders, gotten onto his horse, sit on the horse while it was in the air, rode through the mountains, personally search each individual cave in Afghanistan, and bare-knuckle box Bin Laden to the death
No, he knew what the navy, marines, and army were for. He’d send them in and tell them to win.
Hate to pop your bubble.
He charged up Kettle Hill. He was the only one horseback as the horses were still on the boats, and he had to dismount to charge up the hill anyway. Thus the Rough Riders were really the Rough “Walkers.”
On a hunting trip, he refused to shot a bear that had be clubbed and tied to a tree, but instructed it to be killed to put it out of its misery. He never kept a lion at the White House.
He was involved in more foreign conflicts then Bush could ever hope to start. He was also a very tough talking President who had no problem with American imperialism and using our military might to bully other smaller countries. Also just like Bush, he expanded the role of the Federal government. He also acted like a contemporary liberal on economic matters, similar to Bush’s “Compassionate Conservatism.”
In short, he was the original neo-con.
For other neo-con forebearers, see also: JFK, starter of the Viet Nam War and the Bay of Pigs invasion, among other military adventures.
Uh, actually, JFK /hated/ the bay of pigs invasion. He was pressured into it by CIA officials and other war advisors who then wanted him to follow up by invading cuba as it began to fail. Following this he never, EVER trusted the war advisors again-and damn good thing too. If he had, several cities on our southeast coast would be a nuclear wasteland right now. The war advisors were telling him to invade Cuba after the beginning of the Cuban missile crisis. What those advisors didn’t know was that there were Russian officials on the island with standing orders to launch several nukes at nearby US cities if Cuba came under attack from the US. He also planned to /end/ the Vietnam war by pulling out the troops-and unlike our modern presidents, he actually /meant/ pull out the troops.
As for Teddy Roosevelt, he was involved in foreign affairs, you’re right about that. Unlike GB however, he knew the “speak softly” part. He helped put a stop to the Ruso-Japanese war without ever getting involved in a single battle. The closest thing to American Imperialism or bullying smaller countries he got involved into was helping a revolution in Panama in order to gain the land required to build the Panama Canal. He strengthened our military-not to start a war, but to PREVENT one. He was indeed involved in economic matters quite a bit, but with the industrial revolution going on, that’s no big surprise. Something /had/ to be done back then. Back then, industrial America wasn’t so nice. Read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, that should give you a good idea of why he got involved in things (that book single-handedly turned Teddy Roosevelt into a vegetarian… and PETA still thinks they should be dumping buckets of red liquid over everyone with a fur coat.) Back then there was no compensation if you were injured (or killed) by the machinery. If you lost all your fingers the only thing you got was a boss telling you that you were useless to them. Children were no exception. There weren’t rules about safety or sanitary conditions. Rats would frequently end up mixed in with the meat, some of which had just recently eaten the poison scattered around to get rid of them. And that’s just the meat-packing industry.
You’ve just been fact-checked.
And just because I know that someone’s going to say “but he didn’t pull out the troops” keep in mind, he didn’t have the chance really. Somebody definitely made sure of that.
Yeah, yeah, I see the typo “double a”
Gotta admit – Teddy was one badass president
cool comment karen
Thank you! It goes to prove I CAN say something nice about a Republican.
“Minimum wage can’t do that in today’s economy.”
Someone needs to tell Ahnold.
While a President like Theodore Roosevelt would probably not be popular today, he was the right man for the time, and one of the greatest Presidents overall that the United States has ever had. I would consider him up there with Lincoln, FDR, and George Washington.
George Bush isn’t all that popular today, nor was Lincoln in his own day. Both were condemned as warmongers by their contemporaries.
Please, please tell me I misunderstand you and that you are not comparing these mighty oaks with a bush.
It’s more likely than you think.
History is a better judge than contemporary politics.
I luv ya EP. But, I have to call Godwins law on you, at least in principal as the antithesis applies.
Antigodwined!
Well, in all fairness I wouldn’t compare Bush to Lincoln or either Roosevelt in stature. But he’s a good president, far from being one of the worst. And history will give him better ratings than today’s polls.
Good? How? I am in all seriousness interested in a straight answer. No sarcasm. When I’ve asked others all that I usually get is some rabid, thoughtless verbiage.
Bush took the tough decisions that were necessary, and had been avoided by his predecessor. He ended the Iraq War (which had been going since 1991), and worked to install democracy in two countries that had been suffering under tyranny. He took the first steps in the battle against resurgent Islamic expansionism.
He ended the Iraq war? What is all the shooting about then? It does not mean a war is over because the head of a government is dead. The whole premise of invasion was shown to be invalid. May I point out that the particular predecessor that ended the first war was his dad. As for making the tough decisions any fool can stoop to war. If the only item that you can come up with to support your claim of his being a good president is this goalless war I am afraid that your future judges will find him wanting.
I was hoping for something new, an insight. Perhaps I should not criticize you for not showing me this. One can not show what is not there.
If anyone does have a thoughtful view please let me see it.
You need to step back and see the big picture. It’s not about Iraq or bin Laden — it’s about a clash of civilizations.
A clash of civilisations?? Whát?? Explain yourself, how the hell is the invasion of Iraq a part of the “clash of civilisations”?? What do civilisations have to do with this? What Islamic expansionism? Where did you get all this from?
And please, get real: the Iraq war isn’t over, that’s complete and utter bullcrap. A guerilla war ala Vietnam is still being fought out there, that’s why there are almost 200.000 troops over there.
Most historians are starting to view WWI and WWII as separate conflicts of the war, despite Armistice Day on 11 11, 1918. The bungled conclusion ofthe first conflict directly lead to creating the conditions for the second.
Sound familiar?
One the of the other things history will remember Bush for is moving away from traditional partners in the world to new ones, such as strengthening ties with Brazil and India. Not to mention he has done more to bring an end to the AIDS crisis than any other human so far.
many factors benifited hitlers rise and the crimes followed. but it was certainly not only the 1. world war. it was a combination of the weak economy, reparations, high unemployment rate, hunger, the german citizens were “dishonored”, the “backstab-legend”, recession, the weak government of the weimarer republik etc.
the 2. world war was started because of totally differend scauses. the nazis wanted to dominate the world – the first war was started by austria/hungary and germany joined the war because of an alliance pact and a weak leader. the political climates before the two wars were totally differend and so were the causes.
what did pres. bush do against aids? the really effektive research programms are founded by international money and by the way … the american national helathcare program is not really something to be proud of. strong ties to india and brazil are importent – no question. but it is not very smart to give up old partners.
If by international money, you mean mostly American Dollars, then you are correct. No other country has given anywhere near as much as the US under the leadership of President Bush.
Rubbish. Those morons whose battle cry of “I’ll let history be my judge” are legion. To study history is to look at what you hope are facts through the filter of your own beliefs and desires.
My judgment is not based on who I wish to be in power, but the amount of pointless suffering, loss of international respect, arrogance of power and indifference to the cost to a nations future generations.
We live in the now, not some hoped for future of vindication.
And so your judgement is based on making fun of someone’s name?
In case you missed it the first time around: My judgment is not based on who I wish to be in power, but the amount of pointless suffering, loss of international respect, arrogance of power and indifference to the cost to a nations future generations.
My use of humor is an old and mild way of making a point.
Have you considered learning about humor? Try Googling it to start with. Later you might go on to see what others have done with humor; like Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt.
In case you were wondering the previous paragraph was humor too.
So your judgement is based on your political opinions, which seem to be formed based on left-wing propaganda.
Believe what you like; history will be the final judge, even though you deny it.
History doesn’t help us now.
And yes, let’s not make fun of names … B Hussein Obama wouldn’t approve of our changing names to serve our own agendas.
Once more, history is not a “final judge”. It is what someone at a future time interprets a few of the facts (and doesn’t he wish that they are facts), and comes to a tentative conclusion. As any historian will tell you views of historical periods and events are in a constant state of flux. Will there be somebody in a future generation who thinks like you? Sure. All things are possible.
As for “… your judgement is based on your political opinions, which seem to be formed based on left-wing propaganda” I have come to the conclusion that to you all dissenting views are based in a quagmire of propaganda while yours are on a solid foundation of cool reasoning and fact. If you can get your eyes clear of the fog of hate and extremist hysteria I would ask you to look around. See if you can answer these questions: 1) How is the economy doing? 2) How are the rights of the individual doing? 3) Are we now looked upon by the rest of the world as an oasis of freedom anymore? 4) Is there still a war going on?
History usually has a more accurate judgement than contemporary accounts, because the consequences of actions can be assessed.
(1) The economy grew by 1.8% last quarter. It’s been booming for 8 years now.
(2) The rights of the individual are as good as they’ve ever been. 1st Amendment working well enough, 2nd Amendment reconfirmed by the Supremes, etc.
(3) Lots of people are jealous of America, or hate it because of the propaganda they’ve been fed. But the true measure of the situation is — more people seek to immigrate than to emigrate.
(4) Of course there’s still a war going on. The war between radical Islam and Western civilisation has been going for over 1000 years and has just flared up again. To his credit, Bush has taken action instead of cowering like Carter.
1) The economy is so good the real estate went into the toilet.
2) The government spies on its own people to a shocking degree and has seen fit to torture those it has labeled terrorists and hold without trial.
3) Back to my truth or it’s propaganda. As for immigration I have no idea of the numbers or their direction. At least here you will probably eat more often.
4) Funny I would have sworn someone recently wrote, “He ended the Iraq War (which had been going since 1991)…” Strange what tricks ones memory can do to one. Were you once an acrobat in a circus? So much leaping around questions and flipping around on statements made me wonder.
By the way you still have not listed anything that would answer my original question: Why will history say that Bush was a good president?
What the hell did Iraq have to do with extremist Islam??
While there’s no doubt in my mind that T.R. was one of the greatest American Presidents, you have to realize that there are a lot of similarities between him and Bush.
His motto was “Walk Softly and Carry a Big Stick”. That was his style of diplomacy, and he was not afraid to use military strength.
His stance on minimum wage and social security was very controversial, and expanded the role of the government DRAMATICALLY compared to what it was before then.
He was the first president to really open up free trade among the world, and he did it by “walking softly and carrying a big stick”. AKA pulling up the entire US Navy to a countries port and saying “We need to talk”
Different from Bush, however, is that he had a likeable character, and enjoyed public support throughout much of his presidency. Also, as has been said, he was a strong environmentalist. I wouldnt have said conservationalist, because he wasn’t really about conserving resources as much as he was about conserving wildlife.
In any case, he was what America needed at the time. If the Iraq War had been handled properly and ended in 2004/2005, if Osama Bin Laden had been captured, Im sure people would be saying that George Bush was who we needed in this time.
Luck o’ the draw fellas
But TR wasn’t CoC at 9/11, W was. Luck o’ the draw, indeed.
It’s “Talk softly and carry a big stick.”
As for “If the Iraq War had been handled properly and ended in 2004/2005, if Osama Bin Laden had been captured, Im sure people would be saying that George Bush was who we needed in this time.
Luck o’ the draw fellas” yes, if he had done something properly we would have said he was wonderful. He didn’t though, did he. He screwed up.
It’s hard, if indeed not impossible, to get a big stick from a bush.
Puns based on names are the best way to judge someone’s place in history.
Somewhere, there’s a very loney bridge, pining for your return, EP.
Beautiful!
EP, I commend you for at least stating your stace with such grace amidst so much anger; realize it isn’t really directed at you. Those of us who would dearly like 10 minutes of The President’s time to voice our outrage only get to vent our spleens at those like yourself who, unfortunately, have more spine than our Commander In Chief.
Grace amongst the anger? You need to reed a few more pages of EP’s diatribes.
I *think* it was a backhanded complement, but it may be so backhanded that I’m not sure who is being complemented and who is being dissed.
Well said EP.
“Someone: the 1. gulf war ended on march 5th 1991.”
Just FYI, the first Gulf War ended 20 August 1988 after Iraq invaded Iran in 1980. You are referring to the 2nd Gulf War.
If one wants to start enumerating all of the wars in that region then the starting place is in pre-biblical times. Peace has never been a hallmark of that region.
Except that the conflict between 1980 and 1988 is referred to as the “Iran-Iraq War”. It was never termed the Gulf War.
Isn’t peace in the middle east one of the signs of the apocolypse? Forgive me if I’m wrong.
If that’s true, I believe that we are safe from a second coming for a considerable while.
You got to be kidding… TR was one of the worst presidents ever elected. If you think Bush was a warmonger, TR glorified war like no other. He was an american nationalist who is ranks up there with FDR and Wilson as the only presidents who could have legitimately been called Fascists.
So people who lead their country through two of the largest wars in history and manage to come out on top are Fascists then? By that logic (and the whole Fascist thing), FDR and Wilson are like Hitler in your eyes?
he also had the voice of a 13-year old girl: http://cylinders.library.ucsb.edu/mp3s/6000/6052/cusb-cyl6052d.mp3
he is my favorite. he had asthma. I has asthma. we are cool.
so very true!