Teddy Roosevelt. A Leader for The People!

I believe I made a post stating Franklin Roosevelt was my hero. That's what my attorney employer wanted me to say. It's Teddy Roosevelt who is the real hero of a democratic society. . ."of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Here is a writing from Buffalo, New York – January 26, 1883, by Theodore or "Teddy" Roosevelt. I like to call him Teddy because he reminds me of a loving "teddy bear".

Please watch and share:

http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/im...hes/trdoac.pdf

Theodore Roosevelt hated being called "Teddy". I'm not going to read your link because you failed to describe it's contents again. However, I will admit that Roosevelt was a progressive but not like today's progressives. You see, "Teddy" believed in the greatness of the United States. He thought of us the greatest nation on the planet and that Europe was old and tired. He was not about dumbing everyone down to raise the few. He was about elevating the many to whatever they aspired to. He is nothing like today's progressives who, if the truth be known, are very close to the international socialists of Roosevelt's day.

I believe I made a post stating Franklin Roosevelt was my hero. That's what my attorney employer wanted me to say. It's Teddy Roosevelt who is the real hero of a democratic society. . ."of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Here is a writing from Buffalo, New York – January 26, 1883, by Theodore or "Teddy" Roosevelt. I like to call him Teddy because he reminds me of a loving "teddy bear".

Please watch and share:

http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/im...hes/trdoac.pdf Originally Posted by SeekingTruth

There are irreconcilable differences between your earlier posts and your adoration for "Teddy". It's obvious you've never heard of "gunboat diplomacy" and you must be ignorant of "Teddy's" support for the "Great White Fleet" and how he, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, ordered Commodore Perry to station and prepare for war against Spain in the Philippines.

BTW, here's your *non-interventionist* meat puppet's -- Odumbo's -- version of "gunboat diplomacy":

U.S. warship heads to Yemeni waters to intercept Iranian weapons
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...ry.html#page=1

It's always amusing to watch lib-retards like Odumbo squirm with their delusions when they are forced to deal with reality.

U.S. troops are in Ukraine for training and the Kremlin isn’t happy about it
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/u-s-t...in-isnt-happy/

Theodore Roosevelt hated being called "Teddy". I'm not going to read your link because you failed to describe it's contents again. However, I will admit that Roosevelt was a progressive but not like today's progressives. You see, "Teddy" believed in the greatness of the United States. He thought of us the greatest nation on the planet and that Europe was old and tired. He was not about dumbing everyone down to raise the few. He was about elevating the many to whatever they aspired to. He is nothing like today's progressives who, if the truth be known, are very close to the international socialists of Roosevelt's day. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

What is it, exactly, that makes us so great? Is it ranking near the middle to bottom in all the categories that matter or ranking near the top in all the bad ones? Europe is old and tired? They seem to be making in work just fine. They rank higher in most of the categories you'd want to rank higher in.

There are irreconcilable differences between your earlier posts and your adoration for "Teddy". It's obvious you've never heard of "gunboat diplomacy" and you must be ignorant of "Teddy's" support for the "Great White Fleet" and how he, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, ordered Commodore Perry to station and prepare for war against Spain in the Philippines.

BTW, here's your *non-interventionist* meat puppet's -- Odumbo's -- version of "gunboat diplomacy":







It's always amusing to watch lib-retards like Odumbo squirm with their delusions when they are forced to deal with reality. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

How is he squirming? He sent the ships, didn't he?

And who gives a flying fuck about teddy roosevelt?

What is it, exactly, that makes us so great? Is it ranking near the middle to bottom in all the categories that matter or ranking near the top in all the bad ones? Europe is old and tired? They seem to be making in work just fine. They rank higher in most of the categories you'd want to rank higher in. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Dumb shit! T R was saying this in 1901. Have you even been trying to keep up?

First, sending the TR the way he did is a strategic blunder. Carriers do not do interdiction duties. Carriers stand off and use their aircraft to put a protective umbrella over the destroyers doing the interdiction. They also provide offensive fire power if things get out of hand.

Take Reagan and the "Line of Death" in the Gulf of Sitra. He sent planes and destroyers to cross the line, not aircraft carriers. Obama is putting that ship in harm's way unnecessarily and a couple of Iranian missiles (purchased from Russian and China) can put it out of commission of they strike home. I can't wait for the stupid, uninformed comments now. Just think, Obama feels the same way you do. He just doesn't understand this shit.

First, sending the TR the way he did is a strategic blunder. Carriers do not do interdiction duties. Carriers stand off and use their aircraft to put a protective umbrella over the destroyers doing the interdiction. They also provide offensive fire power if things get out of hand.

Take Reagan and the "Line of Death" in the Gulf of Sitra. He sent planes and destroyers to cross the line, not aircraft carriers. Obama is putting that ship in harm's way unnecessarily and a couple of Iranian missiles (purchased from Russian and China) can put it out of commission of they strike home. I can't wait for the stupid, uninformed comments now. Just think, Obama feels the same way you do. He just doesn't understand this shit. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

God this Idiot! you think Iran would be stupid enough to launch a "couple missiles" at a US carrier?
Pray tell, when was the last time anything like this happened. And I mean an official government "sanctioned" attack on a US navy ship?
And please, also tell us the response of the esteemed U.S president in that situation.

K thanks bye.

How is he squirming? He sent the ships, didn't he?

And who gives a flying fuck about teddy roosevelt? Originally Posted by WombRaider

You'd be a foolish Hopeium addict if you think anyone in this forum actually believes your contention that the "Change" Odumbo campaigned for in 2008 including imitating Bush43's policy of inverventionism and forward stationing of U.S. forces, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

Change He Doesn’t Believe In

The deliberative President Odumbo has launched a powerful "do something" foreign policy.

A policy based on avoiding his predecessor’s sins of commission was racking up a series of omissions that left both the president and the United States badly exposed....

While he disavowed the philosophy of “leading from behind” ascribed to one of his top aides, the denial was made less convincing by his reluctance to lead from up front....

While the strategy pleased war-wary liberals, playing it safe turned out to be more dangerous than Odumbo had bargained for. Calculating that the United States had turned inward, Russia’s Vladimir Putin seized Crimea and turned eastern Ukraine into contested territory, striking fear across the rest of Russia’s near abroad. Militias seized control of Libya, and the Taliban continued to widen its zone of control in Afghanistan. Against calls for the U.S. president to do something, Odumbo insisted that the perils of action most often outweighed those of inaction. In an April 2014 press appearance in the Philippines, Odumbo called out those who “haven’t really learned the lesson of the last decade,” that “where there are disasters and difficulties and challenges all around the world … not all of those are going to be immediately solvable by us.” He spoke of his foreign policy as avoiding “errors” and hitting singles, doubles — not swinging for the fences. In his May 2014 West Point commencement speech, Odumbo again rejected the view of “interventionists” that “America’s failure to act in the face of Syrian brutality or Russian provocations not only violates our conscience, but invites escalating aggression in the future.”

The shock of the Islamic State’s seizure of Mosul planted the seeds of a rethink. Events had overridden Odumbo’s foreign-policy narrative of having extracted the United States from two long, draining wars and keeping it free from any new such entanglements....

Since then, we’ve witnessed a gradual transformation led from the Oval Office, a president trying his hand at writing a new story....

The fourth-quarter foreign-policy correction is not new to the American presidency. Deep into his first and only term, after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, the dovish Jimmy Carter turned into a hawk, recalling the American ambassador from Moscow, calling for the postponement of Senate action on the SALT II Treaty, and boycotting the 1980 Olympics. Carter also ordered the risky and ill-fated April 1980 Iran hostage rescue mission, finally giving up on six months of fruitless diplomatic appeals....

Odumbo said that “there is no military solution” to the problem of the Islamic State.

....given the contradictions implicit in Odumbo’s shift to now do something rather than nothing, the ultimate task of fixing what’s wrong with Odumbo’s foreign policy will likely fall to his successor.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/12/10/...oreign-policy/

First, sending the TR the way he did is a strategic blunder. Carriers do not do interdiction duties. Carriers stand off and use their aircraft to put a protective umbrella over the destroyers doing the interdiction. They also provide offensive fire power if things get out of hand.

Take Reagan and the "Line of Death" in the Gulf of Sitra. He sent planes and destroyers to cross the line, not aircraft carriers. Obama is putting that ship in harm's way unnecessarily and a couple of Iranian missiles (purchased from Russian and China) can put it out of commission of they strike home. I can't wait for the stupid, uninformed comments now. Just think, Obama feels the same way you do. He just doesn't understand this shit. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I will continue to prove how big of a dumbass you are with every opportunity you give me. You make it so goddamn easy because you deal in absolutes, which if incorrect, are easily proven wrong.

Firstly, there are NINE ships off the coast of Yemen. The TR is right where it should be, providing air support as well as guns if needed. Do you honestly think that Iran is dumb enough to fire on a US aircraft carrier? Wait, maybe it was Iran that hijacked that Malaysian Air 777. Maybe they could use it to do something to us? After they remove the shrubs of course.

"The other U.S. warships in the region include two destroyers, two mine-sweepers and three amphibious ships carrying 2,200 U.S. Marines.

Well, looky here, there ARE destroyers there. But you said there weren't. Hmm...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0NB28Q20150420

You'd be a foolish Hopeium addict if you think anyone in this forum actually believes your contention that the "Change" Odumbo campaigned for in 2008 including imitating Bush43's policy of inverventionism and forward stationing of U.S. forces, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Times change, dumbass. It's only an idiot that doesn't change course in response to new evidence.

Dumb shit! T R was saying this in 1901. Have you even been trying to keep up? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

In 2015, what makes us so great?

Times change, dumbass. It's only an idiot that doesn't change course in response to new evidence. Originally Posted by WombRaider

There is nothing "new" about it, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

Only "#Grubered" jackasses like you lib-retards would believe and vote for a candidate who lyingly promised he could ignore and disengage the U.S. from real world geopolitics, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

I will continue to prove how big of a dumbass you are with every opportunity you give me. You make it so goddamn easy because you deal in absolutes, which if incorrect, are easily proven wrong.

Firstly, there are NINE ships off the coast of Yemen. The TR is right where it should be, providing air support as well as guns if needed. Do you honestly think that Iran is dumb enough to fire on a US aircraft carrier? Wait, maybe it was Iran that hijacked that Malaysian Air 777. Maybe they could use it to do something to us? After they remove the shrubs of course.

"The other U.S. warships in the region include two destroyers, two mine-sweepers and three amphibious ships carrying 2,200 U.S. Marines.

Well, looky here, there ARE destroyers there. But you said there weren't. Hmm...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0NB28Q20150420 Originally Posted by WombRaider

Were you raised as a Spanish speaker? You know, a langauge where they reverse the noun and verb (by our standards)? No Where, except in your fevered brow, did I say that there were NO destroyers there.




This are the ships that I served on. I went to the Persian Gulf....twice, did drug interdiction off the coast of Florida, and confronted Soviet ships in the Arctic Ocean. There is nothing that you can tell me about the navy or naval tactics. Now if you want to take exception to what the media writes (48 hours ago it was one ship, 24 hours ago it was two or more ships, and yesterday it became 9 or 10 ships) then you can do that. But to put an aircraft carrier in harms way for a publicity shot is sheer stupidity. If the TR was not moving to an new homeport (San Diego) then where would a carrier have been found to do this?

Were you raised as a Spanish speaker?

This are the ships that I served on. I went to the Persian Gulf....twice, did drug interdiction off the coast of Florida, and confronted Soviet ships in the Arctic Ocean. There is nothing that you can tell me about the navy or naval tactics. Now if you want to take exception to what the media writes (48 hours ago it was one ship, 24 hours ago it was two or more ships, and yesterday it became 9 or 10 ships) then you can do that. But to put an aircraft carrier in harms way for a publicity shot is sheer stupidity. If the TR was not moving to an new homeport (San Diego) then where would a carrier have been found to do this? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I think you should be the last person to reprimand others on their English. With all due respect, Professor.