• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

The Official Mitt Romney Thread III

Status
Not open for further replies.
They were all too ugly.

That too. Although they wouldnt dare call Teddy's mustache anything but badass. That man breathed fire and shot lightning bolts from his ass.
 
First one in woo hoo! Immature i know. :embarrass:
 
One does have to wonder how they would even translate Teddy's badassary into modern times.

Plus the fact that he went around the world shooting stuff (including elephants and giant pandas) probably wouldn't go over too well.
 
One does have to wonder how they would even translate Teddy's badassary into modern times.

Plus the fact that he went around the world shooting stuff (including elephants and giant pandas) probably wouldn't go over too well.

He'd lose the conservationist and probably the environmentalist vote. But id say given current evidence the man would not do some things he did back then. As for his badassery, our times couldn't handle it. Could you imagine our current congress pulling the **** they've been pulling under Teddy? He would stomp a mudhole in someone's ass.
 
Wasn't Teddy Pro Union, Anti Big Business Corruption? Good luck making it far in the Republican party with that agenda(hell good luck with the Democrats as well). lol
 
You really can't pigeonhole historical figures into modern-day politics.

Hell most of them were extremely racist, sexist, among other things.

Also the nature of certain political issues has changed completely.
 
You really can't pigeonhole historical figures into modern-day politics.

Hell most of them were extremely racist, sexist, among other things.

Also the nature of certain political issues has changed completely.

^This. Its especially irritating when people try to judge historical figures such as Alexander the Great and Caesar by today's morals and laws. It was 2,000+ years ago. Judge them for their times.
 
Well, within reason. An ******* is an *******.

Anyone who condones slavery, kills random people without remorse, etc. History doesn't change the fact that they're *******s.

It's just not politically correct to point out in some cases.

For example, we hear a lot about what a great man Washington was, just don't ask the black people who worked from dawn till dusk living in a shack out back. And then there's Christopher Columbus. But I digress.
 
Well, within reason. An ******* is an *******.

Anyone who condones slavery, kills random people without remorse, etc. History doesn't change the fact that they're *******s.

It's just not politically correct to point out in some cases.

For example, we hear a lot about what a great man Washington was, just don't ask the black people who worked from dawn till dusk living in a shack out back. And then there's Christopher Columbus. But I digress.

Im not saying any of that is right, but if a culture for over one thousand years operates and justifies slavery and a superiority complex saying all other people are inferior and your entire economy funtions off that belief its hard to change it. Not to mention the propaganda coming out of the senate and temples reinforcing these concepts and beating into into the pleb's minds. The common people didn't have a chance of breaking from the mold. The upper class moreso and Caesar changed a lot for the better and he was still shanked for being a radical and unpredictable rogue element. Things operated on an entirely different level before europe was exposed to middle eastern philosophy and religion.
 
Last edited:
One does have to wonder how they would even translate Teddy's badassary into modern times.

Plus the fact that he went around the world shooting stuff (including elephants and giant pandas) probably wouldn't go over too well.

He'd lose the conservationist and probably the environmentalist vote.
Except for the fact that he was a hardcore conservationist:

Theodore Roosevelt first came to the badlands in September 1883. The prospect of big game hunting had initially brought him to the West, but, by the time he arrived, the last large herds of bison were gone, having been decimated by hide hunters and disease. As time passed and he was able to spend more time in the area, he became increasingly alarmed by the damage that was being done to the land and its wildlife. He witnessed the virtual destruction of some big game species. Overgrazing severely impacted the grasslands which also affected the habitats of small mammals and songbirds. Conservation increasingly became one of Roosevelt's main concerns. After he became President in 1901, Roosevelt used his authority to protect wildlife and public lands by creating the U.S. Forest Service and establishing 51 Federal Bird Reservations, 4 National Game Preserves, 150 National Forests, 5 National Parks, and enabling the 1906 American Antiquities Act which he used to proclaim 18 National Monuments. During his presidency,Theodore Roosevelt protected approximately 230,000,000 acres of public land.

http://www.nps.gov/thro/historyculture/theodore-roosevelt-and-conservation.htm

This man was practically THE ORIGINAL conservationist.
 
He was a conversationist because he wanted plenty of things to shoot.

That's a bit different than what modern tree-huggers want when they say "save the rainforest".
 
He was a conversationist because he wanted plenty of things to shoot.

That's a bit different than what modern tree-huggers want when they say "save the rainforest".
Modern "tree-huggers" don't represent the larger portion of the conservationist movement, though. Most rational conservationists understand that conservation is a matter of human interest rather than going around cooing, "Oh, those poor dolphins!" The perception of conservationists as "tree-hugging hippies" is the result of inaccurate media portrayal and right-wing smear campaigns.

A good proportion of hunters and fishermen have a strong invested interest in conservation efforts. There's nothing wrong with that. It's rational and admirable.
 
He studied biology at Harvard (I think it was Harvard), so he holds a special place in my heart. :yay:

Christ, is there anything he didnt do? That's it! Im writing in Teddy Roosevelt in November.
 
Modern "tree-huggers" don't represent the larger portion of the conservationist movement, though. Most rational conservationists understand that conservation is a matter of human interest rather than going around cooing, "Oh, those poor dolphins!" The perception of conservationists as "tree-hugging hippies" is the result of inaccurate media portrayal and right-wing smear campaigns.

A good proportion of hunters and fishermen have a strong invested interest in conservation efforts. There's nothing wrong with that. It's rational and admirable.

Exactly. Intelligent conservationists realize that if you dont hunt and keep the population of the animals in check you run the risk of a number of undesirable issues.
 
Exactly. Intelligent conservationists realize that if you dont hunt and keep the population of the animals in check you run the risk of a number of undesirable issues.
Not only that, but hunters and fishermen also realize that over-hunting and over-fishing directly threaten their livelihood. They need to make their living, but they also realize the importance of protecting their interests by way of preservation and conservation.

I myself have worked with fishermen directly and have seen firsthand their impressive cooperation with scientists and conservationists (as well as their fair share of disagreements).

I could go on about this for a while. It's a very rich and complex topic. But I fear I might be derailing the thread.
 
Interesting

Mitt Romney’s health care plan wouldn’t just insure fewer people than “Obamacare” — it would make the uninsured problem worse than it would have been if the law had never passed, according to a comparison of the two plans released Tuesday morning.

The analysis by the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based health care research foundation, found that under Romney’s health care plan, the uninsured population would soar to 72 million by 2022 — 12 million higher than if nothing had been done at all.

By contrast, if President Barack Obama’s health care law is fully implemented —including complete state participation in the now voluntary Medicaid expansion — the number of uninsured people would drop from 47.9 million in 2011 to about 27.1 million people in 2022, the report estimated.
 
Interesting

If that is true and it probably is i have to ask what the **** is going on with the republican party that would make them so hell bent on harming the people of this country and its progress?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,765
Messages
21,804,732
Members
45,623
Latest member
biilllllyyy
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"