Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Thread Manager, Oct 2, 2012.
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]392705[/split]
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]384223[/split]
That too. Although they wouldnt dare call Teddy's mustache anything but badass. That man breathed fire and shot lightning bolts from his ass.
Well, that's a bad visual.
First one in woo hoo! Immature i know. :embarrass:
His vanquished foes would agree if their faces hadn't melted from the sheer awesomeness.
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.
^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.
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.
Except for the fact that he was a hardcore conservationist:
This man was practically THE ORIGINAL conservationist.
Well, heck, another way Teddy was a badass.
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 studied biology at Harvard (I think it was Harvard), so he holds a special place in my heart.
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.
Christ, is there anything he didnt do? That's it! Im writing in Teddy Roosevelt in November.
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.
Well that was a joke.
But yes, that's true too.
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.
lol I'm just saying that "wanting something to shoot" isn't necessarily as absurd a motive for conservation as it seems. But fine.
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?