T Nation

US=GG and RedmanV

first of all, Redman, I was skimming through the old thread about Powell and I realized something. I realized that I had simply thrown you into a category simply because of what you had written. I realized I sounded just like US=GG. I apologize. I do not know your views and should give you the benefit of the doubt. Okay, enough bullshittin’.
Back to Teddy Roosevelt which is the freshest on my mind.
let’s begin with some of Roosevelt’s more illustrious beliefs. When the US did not annex Hawaii in 1893 after some Americans, namely the Dole family; Roosevelt called this hesitancy “a crime against white civilization.” And he told the Naval War College: “All the great materful races have been fighting races… No triumph of peace is quite so great as the supreme triumph of war.” Roosevelt was contemptuous of races and nations he considered inferior. As a matter of fact, when a mob lynched a number of Italian immigrants, Roosevelt thought the US should offer the Italian gov’t some renumeration, but he privately wrote his sister that he thought it was a good thing and he told her he had said as much at a dinner with “various dago diplomats…all wrought up with lynching.” William James, the philosopher, a contemporary of Roosevelt said about Teddy that he “gushes over war as the ideal condition of human society, for the manly strenuousness which it involves, and treats peace as a condition of blubberlike and swollen ignobility, fit only for huckstering weaklings, dwelling in gray twilight and heedless of higher life…” Roosevelt’s talk of expansionism was not just a matter of manliness and heroism; he was conscious of “our trade relations with China.” This was important in shaping our policy toward Hawaii, the Philippines, and all of Asia. Now let’s talk about some of his business ideas. Anyone ever hear of Mother Jones. She organized textile workers and miners, as well as their wives and children; which sometimes amounted to the same thing. Anyways, In the spring of 1903, she organized the marching of some 284,000 children through New Jersey and New York and down through Oyster Bay in order to see Pres Roosevelt. Guess what he did??? Turned them down flat! The pres also turned a blind eye to weekly lynchings in the south which were on the rise, even though this was the progressive period. Hell murderous roits even occured which were never once curbed by the gov’t. In some ways it was the Progressive period in that it was the start of the age of reform; but it was a reluctant reform aimed at quieting the popular risings, not making fundamental changes. It was actually the time of “political capitalism” where businessmen took firmer control of the political system because the private economy was not sufficient to forestall the protests from below. Roosevelt made a name for himself as a trust buster right (even though Taft, a conservative launched more suits than did Roosevelt.)? It must have been pretty damn hard for Roosevlet considering that in 1904, two of J.P. Morgan’s men were in fact advisors to the President. Elbert Gary, chairman of U.S. Steel, and George Perkins. They cooperated with Roosevelt and any investigation by the Bureau of Corporations in return for a guarantee of their companies’ legality. (sounds familiar doesn’t it, especially nowadays). But the list goes on… men like Hanna, Robert Bacon, George W. Perkins, Elihu Root, Senator Nelson W. Aldrich, and James Stillman all made up the presidents advisors. As a matter of fact, in a letter to his brother in law (a wall street exec. no less), Roosevelt wrote “I intend to be most conservative, but in the interests of the corporations themselvesand above all in the interests of the country.” Roosevelt supported the regulatory Hepburn Act because he feared something worse. He wrote to henry Cabot Lodge that the railroad lobbyists who opposed the bill were wrong: " I think they are very shortsighted not to understand that to beat it means to increase the movement for gov’t ownership of the railroads." His actions against the trusts was to induce them to accept gov’t regulation, in order to prevent destruction. He prosceuted the Morgan railroad monopoly in the Northern Securities case, considering it a victory; but it hardly changed anything, and although the Sherman Act provided for criminal penalties there was no prosecution of the men who planned the monopoly-Morgan, Harriman, and Hill. And this is just one example.

Oh, and Redman, I don’t know who I like as president, I really don’t think we have had a “good one” maybe each has offered something, but isn’t that the point? When I criticized each of these presidents (which I am not done yet) that was held up as practically infallible; and made mere humans of them I felt like I was about to be crucified. Fuck that. Just because some US hero maybe isn’t so heroic.

hey, anyone out there or what? Diesel or whoever can jump in on this one too…

post…too long…must…find…line break

sorry Jared, I got all excited like a little puppy in heat. Once I got started I just couldn’t stop pumping.

You were being crucified because of blatant factual innacuracies, and argued with because of some questionable mis-characterizations:

I don’t recall holding up TR as a paragon. But I believe that your original characterization of him as “not so tough” is absolutely, patently, and categorically incorrect, and despite all your typing you have not offered a thing to back up your original statement. Was TR our greatest President? No. Was he a tough sonofabitch? Irrefutably, and not as you said.

Trying to rate the effectiveness of any leader is naturally a balance of rights and wrongs, of achievements and failures. Reading over the initial thread again, I have to wonder what you are talking about. Where are people holding up these men as infallible? Being a “great leader” or a “great person” doesn’t mean that you did everything right – no one, NO ONE ever has. Dismissing the monumental, world-changing POSITIVE accomplishments of men like Abraham Lincoln because he held a few positions which you find disagreeable seem to me to be the soul of pettiness.

It reminds me of a spectacle I witnessed the other day. A huge powerlifting farm-boy came into the gym, and having done his flat bench, proceeded to get a nice set of six with 405, maybe to an inch above his chest, on the incline bench. There was a general murmur of appreciation. At which point the character next to me said “Yeah but I wonder how many he could get if he went down that LAST INCH!” and continued his 135 pound bench press. Either this guy’s standards were ones that I didn’t quite get, or he was just feeling inadequate and wanted to be petty and small tear the big guy down. Either way, it put your commentary in mind.

Are you the first case – what are your standards for a great leader? If you don’t have any, as you say, WHY JOIN A DISCUSSION ABOUT LEADERSHIP QUALITY? Are you saying that we should realize that even our greatest citizens, like Lincoln, had flaws? I don’t think I or US=GG would argue. (I have to say that I wish we had more leaders as “flawed” as Abraham Lincoln.)

Or are you the second case – do you have a point beyond sour grapes? Do you think you need to tear down leaders whom others think are, ON BALANCE, great or effective or just or good just because?

(There is a third alternative, of course: that you buy all the post-modernist shit that they spoon feed you in university that no-one is good or better/worse or more effective than anyone else. Which I always loved because the prof still gave me a grade, and even the prof had very occasional job reviews.)

Off the subject – It was painfully hard to read your last post. Come on, for courtesy’s sake take a minute and tidy up a bit.

hyooge,
I did not like your post. It did not address any of your previous errors. Your previous posts were not only wrong factually, but your interpretations were incorrect. Before we begin, however, please acknowledge that your characterization of Theodore Roosevelt as “not so tough” was incorrect. Please refer to RedmanV’s or my earlier posts. If you fail to show that you are man enough to admit that you were wrong about Teddy’s “toughness”, then I will not waste any time discussing the new issues you have brought forward. I want to see something along the lines of, “I was incorrect, he was personally and politically tough.” Real men can admit when they are wrong.

Sorry hyoooge, just having some fun. :slight_smile:

hey whoa! when I spoke about Teddy not being tough, I think it’s you guys that need to reread those posts.

I stated that maybe he wasn’t so tough especially when looking at his policies since they were pretty much all talk. I don’t give a shit what he did outside of the oval office, that was my point.

take for example his shit about being a trustbuster, that is what I meant.

Dismissing the monumental, world-changing POSITIVE accomplishments of men like Abraham Lincoln because he held a few positions which you find disagreeable seem to me to be the soul of pettiness.-Redman

well what kinda shit is that? So because he was a political mastermind and could use rhetoric to his advantage means that it makes his decisions righteous? Hell no, to hide behind being PC to me seems to me to be the soul of pettiness bro.

It wasn’t about being a philanthropist or altruistic by any stretch.

Oh and my apologies for my original post, I just started and could not stop.

hyooge,
Thanks for the underwhelming response. Sorry you weren’t man enough to admit you were wrong. Read my response to you. I showed that personally, politically, and diplomatically Teddy was an absolute stallion.
Therefore, you are not worthy of any more of my extremely valuable time. Hey good luck with the 2004 elections. I can’t wait to hear your excuses about why you lost. By the way, my philosophy of Republicanism and adherence to the basic principles of logic, will always trump your emotional-laden, democratic garbage. In short, I hope you are forced to try to pass a 6 centimeter stone through your tiny urethra.

Yawn. How disappointing. That’s the end of this discussion I suppose. Or in hyooge’s terms: “Whoah dude like fuck yorself you dont know anything. I wonder how far Linkin might have gone if he went that LAST INCH.”

Back to lurking.

Sorry you weren’t man enough to admit you were wrong. Read my response to you. I showed that personally, politically, and diplomatically Teddy was an absolute stallion.

US=GG, I figured as much coming from your end. I guess there is no point arguing with you since I offered counterpoints to each of your arguments; yet when I do it, it just makes no sense. I’m sorry I don’t go skimming through random internet pages and use that as the basis for my arguments. I prefer to use college level materials.

Redman= hey I’m sorry I speak the way I do, but I’m a product of southern cali. Does it make the points of my argument any less valid? no, of course not.

Instead you simply offer an ad hominen argument with nothing to say about my post which I thought was the point of this all. And yes you are correct in that there is a revisionist movement going on throughout the halls of academia at the moment, but why does that mean that it is wrong? In my words I’m like totally sorry about your shit bro, and the fact that we’re just not vibing right now.