99 years ago recent times...OK.
The most recent. Yes. It's been a while since we had a great president.
Well he was for smaller fed gov, too bad that idea went to heck after he died.
You have to back just a little further in time for mine;
At the time he was labeled a progressive. Over time words change definition or are hijacked by others that blemish the definition forever. His policies today would be to the right, if not hard right. It is a pity that today's progressive would never promote hunting, firearms, build a canal, create a modern navy or establish the national park system. Bob
I'm a minarchist like our founders, so Teddy doesn't make my list of favorites at all.
I agree with your premise that the mInarchist philosophy may have it's place. However it is hard to argue with a presidents accomplishments that created jobs instead of welfare. Did the building of the canal benefit capitalism as well as miltary capabilities? Also his attempts to improve food safety was beneficial to all. When was the last time you worried about how much cocaine is in your Coca-Cola or getting trichinosis from under cooked pork? Times have changed a bit and governing a country has become a little more complicated since it's founding. I don't agree with 90% of current gov't programs but Teddy's programs had positive tangible results unlike the politicians of today that create gov't dependence to buy votes. Bob
I disagree in that I believe each of those government programs could be run more betterer in private industry.
I somewhat agree, that is why I said that I wasn't happy with 90% of the current gov't programs. As the country evolves more and more programs should be in the private sector. A modern example would be our space program. Back when it started, it required a countries resources to come to fruition. Now with the advancements of technology, we have private companies rivaling, if not surpassing, NASA. However, they were all built on the foundation that was created by the gov't thru NASA. That early space program stimulated developments in a lot of areas that were then capitalized on by the private sector. So I have no problem with the gov't stimulating progress, I do have a problem with them putting restraints and not getting out of the way once progress is made. To me that would be the more gooder way to run things. Bob
NASA is the perfect example of wasted taxpayer money. The NASA space program could have easily been done by demand in the private sector and honestly no government money should have been used. There are and were more than enough private dollars to have funded such a program, and looking at the speed with which SpaceX has surpassed NASA, it's clear private industry is better.
But there was no demand in the private sector at the time. NASA created the demand with their efforts. Kind of an egg chicken kinda thing. Bob
There was no demand for the iphone either, but that did not stop private industry.
Just maybe the stimulation/advancements in computing caused by the space program made those iPhones possible a little faster than otherwise. Of course since I think those phones have been a detriment to society, I'll chalk that in the negative column for NASA.
As far as the premise of we would be better with a strict monarchist society, we will have to agree to disagree. I want gov't limited but not shackled. I suppose we have discussed this to death and am surprised one of those mean ol' moderators 😁 hasn't chastised us (me) for it. Bob
Edit to add - I do appreciate the stimulating civil conversation.
Did you recognize the guy behind Coolidge ? he may have been more famous 😊
"Never do wrong to make a friend----or to keep one".....Robert E. Lee
I believe that is Gen. "Blackjack" Pershing.
My great grand father served under General Pershing at the border looking for Poncho Villa and in France.
"Independence Now, Independence Forever."
Gen. Pershing was smart enough to employ the Winchester 1897 against the Germans in WWI to break the Trench War Stalemate.
The Germans vociferously lobbied against it. (The 1897) The same people who 1st used Chemical Weapons and the Flamethrower. Yeah Okay. We'll stop using those nasty shotguns.
Ken, it's hard to tell from the angle of the picture but the receiver of the shotgun does look a lot like a Winchester 1897 Coolige is shooting so your comment looks to be correct.