Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

Neos Dionysos

Equites
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    502

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by Neos Dionysos

  2. Neos Dionysos

    Posted

    Yeah I thought I was denied and so just forgot about it, I found out the group responsible for the publication were lazy asses this past semester and so did not even publish anything. So I still have a good chance come this fall... though... I might get published in another way, for illustrations I've been doing on this survey.

     

    Phil

  5. Neos Dionysos

    Posted

    Grant and Eisenhower were both very good generals, but not such great presidents. How do you explain this?

    And what about Washington, Jackson, and Teddy Roosevelt?

    T. Roosevelt was a war-monger and had the economic acumen of a turnip.

     

     

    He was not a bad economist, he was simply a man of his school of thought. He was the first 'Progressive' President.

     

    The Progressive movement can best sumed up that large corporations were needed, (as in monopolies etc.), to penetrate foreign markets and therefore promote informal imperialism. The idea being, the US had to have the most effiecent economy in order to win world economic supremacy, which they did. T.R. wanted to use these new economics to the US advantage, but he also knew its evils and wanted a form of "Concentration and Control."

     

    T.R. would distinguish from good and bad businesses and so would protect the good ones and punish the bad ones. He sponsored conservation like he did big business, he was, contrary to belief, not a preservationist. The idea was... to protect our resources not for its beauty, but so we could always have a resources of our own, so instead of cutting down all the forests in one swoop and make a lump of cash.. then nothing for a long time... you do it in moderation and plant new trees etc, of course over time his preservations became completely protected. He did was he did to promote effienceny.

     

    An addition was the 1906 Meat Inspection Act, which people today say was because of the book 'The Jungle'. That's false. The Act was meant to protect the prosperity of farmers, the idea was you can sell bad meat in Chicago if it is made in Chicago, but not in Europe so the seal of approval would prevent foreign tariffs and allow the US to get a deeper hold into foriegn markets. Sinclair wanted labor reforms and was a socialist, he could careless about people's health from meat, it was mainly a tool to an end.

     

    My point is, T.R was not a great president, but he knew what he was doing in order to promote American foriegn imperialism and domination in markets and commerce, which is something we now enjoy and have been enjoying for almost 100 years if not more.

  6. Honorius

    Posted

    Let me say Condratulations on continuing your educational interests at a higher learning level and escaping the dogmatic teaching of Catholic schools... (I myself am a Catholic and went to a Catholic Grade School and HS so I know how it is).

     

    I wish you luck and hope you enjoy college because it really is an amazing experience in life, the best times of my life were my freshman year at college and just going knowing no one, thus being forced to establish friends and contacts which I did and several of whom I consider my closest friends and who I know I will be with and in contact with in my adult years.

     

     

    Oh and like I told you, Justinian is for the most part all done but thanks for telling me you are having PC issues, I'll send it to Tobias then.

  9. Neos Dionysos

    Posted

    If the Democrats had run him he'd probably be president.

     

     

    But do you think the left-wing of the modern Democractic Party is going to nominate a career military officer? No. Might as well ask Republicans to nominate an Atheist.

     

     

    Same goes for McCain, both candidates are too far from the main area that thier respective parties are. Clark is not liberal enough... and McCain not conservative enough.

×
×
  • Create New...