aubfaninga 16 Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Oh the Obama bashers were foaming at the mouth... Serious question though to dig into the thoughts of the posters in this forum. Please try to provide the top 5 achievements that a POTUS "may" take claim for during their respective time in office. (even if they were not directly involved) Examples. Bin Laden was killed during Obama while all he basically did was spectate and maybe give approval. Clinton and the balanced budget. Reagan and tax reform. etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 No real reason to list the accomplishments of these guys: Washington Lincoln FDR Reagan Kennedy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,362 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Oh the Obama bashers were foaming at the mouth... Serious question though to dig into the thoughts of the posters in this forum. Please try to provide the top 5 achievements that a POTUS "may" take claim for during their respective time in office. (even if they were not directly involved) Examples. Bin Laden was killed during Obama while all he basically did was spectate and maybe give approval. Clinton and the balanced budget. Reagan and tax reform. etc... WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,598 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Oh the Obama bashers were foaming at the mouth... Serious question though to dig into the thoughts of the posters in this forum. Please try to provide the top 5 achievements that a POTUS "may" take claim for during their respective time in office. (even if they were not directly involved) Examples. Bin Laden was killed during Obama while all he basically did was spectate and maybe give approval. Clinton and the balanced budget. Reagan and tax reform. etc... WTF? :dunno:/> That's what he did. All presidents do to some degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,362 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Oh the Obama bashers were foaming at the mouth... Serious question though to dig into the thoughts of the posters in this forum. Please try to provide the top 5 achievements that a POTUS "may" take claim for during their respective time in office. (even if they were not directly involved) Examples. Bin Laden was killed during Obama while all he basically did was spectate and maybe give approval. Clinton and the balanced budget. Reagan and tax reform. etc... WTF? :dunno:/> That's what he did. All presidents do to some degree. Well duuuh! :-\ Someone's been watching too many movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mims44 1,867 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Lincoln. Suspension of Habeas Corpus. throwing 15,000+ in prison with no trial, no proof, and no timeline for release. Overriding the supreme court and threatening to throw them in prison if they went against his orders. Military action on foreign peaceful ships (see: HMS trent affair) greatly expanding the powers of the executive (to a near dictatorship level) solidifying the use of conscription. Could go on, there are few US Presidents who made more radical changes than Lincoln did during their tenure (or reign) lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,362 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Lincoln. Suspension of Habeas Corpus. throwing 15,000+ in prison with no trial, no proof, and no timeline for release. Overriding the supreme court and threatening to throw them in prison if they went against his orders. Military action on foreign peaceful ships (see: HMS trent affair) greatly expanding the powers of the executive (to a near dictatorship level) solidifying the use of conscription. Could go on, there are few US Presidents who made more radical changes than Lincoln did during their tenure (or reign) lol You left out preserving the Union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,598 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Lincoln. Suspension of Habeas Corpus. throwing 15,000+ in prison with no trial, no proof, and no timeline for release. Overriding the supreme court and threatening to throw them in prison if they went against his orders. Military action on foreign peaceful ships (see: HMS trent affair) greatly expanding the powers of the executive (to a near dictatorship level) solidifying the use of conscription. Could go on, there are few US Presidents who made more radical changes than Lincoln did during their tenure (or reign) lol You left out preserving the Union. ;)/> Ahhhhhhhh.....so there is a time when we must suspend the laws of the land to advance an agenda? That's where Obama learned it from....lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japantiger 4,051 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Lincoln. Suspension of Habeas Corpus. throwing 15,000+ in prison with no trial, no proof, and no timeline for release. Overriding the supreme court and threatening to throw them in prison if they went against his orders. Military action on foreign peaceful ships (see: HMS trent affair) greatly expanding the powers of the executive (to a near dictatorship level) solidifying the use of conscription. Could go on, there are few US Presidents who made more radical changes than Lincoln did during their tenure (or reign) lol You left out preserving the Union. ;)/> Ahhhhhhhh.....so there is a time when we must suspend the laws of the land to advance an agenda? That's where Obama learned it from....lol Yes, we have to destroy the Union to save it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Lincoln. Suspension of Habeas Corpus. throwing 15,000+ in prison with no trial, no proof, and no timeline for release. Overriding the supreme court and threatening to throw them in prison if they went against his orders. Military action on foreign peaceful ships (see: HMS trent affair) greatly expanding the powers of the executive (to a near dictatorship level) solidifying the use of conscription. Could go on, there are few US Presidents who made more radical changes than Lincoln did during their tenure (or reign) lol Very proud of that Republican President! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,362 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Lincoln. Suspension of Habeas Corpus. throwing 15,000+ in prison with no trial, no proof, and no timeline for release. Overriding the supreme court and threatening to throw them in prison if they went against his orders. Military action on foreign peaceful ships (see: HMS trent affair) greatly expanding the powers of the executive (to a near dictatorship level) solidifying the use of conscription. Could go on, there are few US Presidents who made more radical changes than Lincoln did during their tenure (or reign) lol You left out preserving the Union. ;)/> Ahhhhhhhh.....so there is a time when we must suspend the laws of the land to advance an agenda? That's where Obama learned it from....lol "Advance an agenda"? Would that include preserving the "land" in question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted January 31, 2015 Author Share Posted January 31, 2015 Oh the Obama bashers were foaming at the mouth... Serious question though to dig into the thoughts of the posters in this forum. Please try to provide the top 5 achievements that a POTUS "may" take claim for during their respective time in office. (even if they were not directly involved) Examples. Bin Laden was killed during Obama while all he basically did was spectate and maybe give approval. Clinton and the balanced budget. Reagan and tax reform. etc... WTF? :dunno:/> That's what he did. All presidents do to some degree. Well duuuh! Someone's been watching too many movies. I agree that I need to lay off the videos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeBags7277 734 Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Lincoln. Suspension of Habeas Corpus. throwing 15,000+ in prison with no trial, no proof, and no timeline for release. Overriding the supreme court and threatening to throw them in prison if they went against his orders. Military action on foreign peaceful ships (see: HMS trent affair) greatly expanding the powers of the executive (to a near dictatorship level) solidifying the use of conscription. Could go on, there are few US Presidents who made more radical changes than Lincoln did during their tenure (or reign) lol You left out preserving the Union. ;)/> Ahhhhhhhh.....so there is a time when we must suspend the laws of the land to advance an agenda? That's where Obama learned it from....lol Yes, we have to destroy the Union to save it. Let's make the irony bipartisan- He had to abandon union principles to save the union. Fitting that presidents from both parties seem obligated to kiss his ring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeBags7277 734 Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Since there are only two in the previous 100 years I believe accomplished five noteworthy things during their terms,(Coolidge being the other) this should be relatively easy. Eisenhower- interstate highway system presided over a period of relative peace/kept promise to get us out of Korea. left a prescient and unfortunately unheeded warning about the dangers of the military-industrial complex DARPA and NASA While he is often criticized-right or wrong- for not taking a stronger stance, he did at least get the ball rolling on the Civil Rights Movement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted February 1, 2015 Author Share Posted February 1, 2015 Since there are only two in the previous 100 years I believe accomplished five noteworthy things during their terms,(Coolidge being the other) this should be relatively easy. Eisenhower- interstate highway system presided over a period of relative peace/kept promise to get us out of Korea. left a prescient and unfortunately unheeded warning about the dangers of the military-industrial complex DARPA and NASA While he is often criticized-right or wrong- for not taking a stronger stance, he did at least get the ball rolling on the Civil Rights Movement Nice! No debate out of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japantiger 4,051 Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Since there are only two in the previous 100 years I believe accomplished five noteworthy things during their terms,(Coolidge being the other) this should be relatively easy. Eisenhower- interstate highway system presided over a period of relative peace/kept promise to get us out of Korea. left a prescient and unfortunately unheeded warning about the dangers of the military-industrial complex DARPA and NASA While he is often criticized-right or wrong- for not taking a stronger stance, he did at least get the ball rolling on the Civil Rights Movement No debate on Ike...top notch leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,362 Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Oh the Obama bashers were foaming at the mouth... Serious question though to dig into the thoughts of the posters in this forum. Please try to provide the top 5 achievements that a POTUS "may" take claim for during their respective time in office. (even if they were not directly involved) Examples. Bin Laden was killed during Obama while all he basically did was spectate and maybe give approval. Clinton and the balanced budget. Reagan and tax reform. etc... WTF? :dunno:/> That's what he did. All presidents do to some degree. Well duuuh! Someone's been watching too many movies. I agree that I need to lay off the videos You need a video to prove Obama wasn't an actual member of the SEAL team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,598 Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Since there are only two in the previous 100 years I believe accomplished five noteworthy things during their terms,(Coolidge being the other) this should be relatively easy. Eisenhower- interstate highway system presided over a period of relative peace/kept promise to get us out of Korea. left a prescient and unfortunately unheeded warning about the dangers of the military-industrial complex DARPA and NASA While he is often criticized-right or wrong- for not taking a stronger stance, he did at least get the ball rolling on the Civil Rights Movement My all time favorite. He was a great president and commander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU-HANDLEY-TIGER 205 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 MT Rushmore plus FDR top 5 no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mims44 1,867 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Lincoln. Suspension of Habeas Corpus. throwing 15,000+ in prison with no trial, no proof, and no timeline for release. Overriding the supreme court and threatening to throw them in prison if they went against his orders. Military action on foreign peaceful ships (see: HMS trent affair) greatly expanding the powers of the executive (to a near dictatorship level) solidifying the use of conscription. Could go on, there are few US Presidents who made more radical changes than Lincoln did during their tenure (or reign) lol You left out preserving the Union. ;)/> Ahhhhhhhh.....so there is a time when we must suspend the laws of the land to advance an agenda? That's where Obama learned it from....lol "Advance an agenda"? Would that include preserving the "land" in question? That's the big debate for most people. Contrary to popular opinion succession was not in the hearts of most southerners. It was pushed by the top few % of the southern population and then they used state pride and a new feeling of nationalism calling themselves the "true" Americans to rouse the lower and middle classes to fight. Even with the huge burst of confederate pride and will to fight to start the war, it quickly waned once people saw how long and bloody the war was going to be. Logical scholarly articles are presented all the time debating whether or not Lincoln needed to stretch or break laws to the extent he did. The North had more troops, more trade, more firepower. The only thing the South could call an advantage was playing the defense... and having the better generals (that point is usually conceded). Due to the ridiculed Anaconda plan the South was already being slowly choked to death and was going to lose either way, with or without Lincolns bold moves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,598 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Lincoln. Suspension of Habeas Corpus. throwing 15,000+ in prison with no trial, no proof, and no timeline for release. Overriding the supreme court and threatening to throw them in prison if they went against his orders. Military action on foreign peaceful ships (see: HMS trent affair) greatly expanding the powers of the executive (to a near dictatorship level) solidifying the use of conscription. Could go on, there are few US Presidents who made more radical changes than Lincoln did during their tenure (or reign) lol You left out preserving the Union. ;)/> Ahhhhhhhh.....so there is a time when we must suspend the laws of the land to advance an agenda? That's where Obama learned it from....lol "Advance an agenda"? Would that include preserving the "land" in question? That's the big debate for most people. Contrary to popular opinion succession was not in the hearts of most southerners. It was pushed by the top few % of the southern population and then they used state pride and a new feeling of nationalism calling themselves the "true" Americans to rouse the lower and middle classes to fight. Even with the huge burst of confederate pride and will to fight to start the war, it quickly waned once people saw how long and bloody the war was going to be. Logical scholarly articles are presented all the time debating whether or not Lincoln needed to stretch or break laws to the extent he did. The North had more troops, more trade, more firepower. The only thing the South could call an advantage was playing the defense... and having the better generals (that point is usually conceded). Due to the ridiculed Anaconda plan the South was already being slowly choked to death and was going to lose either way, with or without Lincolns bold moves. Well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,362 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Lincoln. Suspension of Habeas Corpus. throwing 15,000+ in prison with no trial, no proof, and no timeline for release. Overriding the supreme court and threatening to throw them in prison if they went against his orders. Military action on foreign peaceful ships (see: HMS trent affair) greatly expanding the powers of the executive (to a near dictatorship level) solidifying the use of conscription. Could go on, there are few US Presidents who made more radical changes than Lincoln did during their tenure (or reign) lol You left out preserving the Union. ;)/> Ahhhhhhhh.....so there is a time when we must suspend the laws of the land to advance an agenda? That's where Obama learned it from....lol "Advance an agenda"? Would that include preserving the "land" in question? That's the big debate for most people. Contrary to popular opinion succession was not in the hearts of most southerners. It was pushed by the top few % of the southern population and then they used state pride and a new feeling of nationalism calling themselves the "true" Americans to rouse the lower and middle classes to fight. Even with the huge burst of confederate pride and will to fight to start the war, it quickly waned once people saw how long and bloody the war was going to be. Logical scholarly articles are presented all the time debating whether or not Lincoln needed to stretch or break laws to the extent he did. The North had more troops, more trade, more firepower. The only thing the South could call an advantage was playing the defense... and having the better generals (that point is usually conceded). Due to the ridiculed Anaconda plan the South was already being slowly choked to death and was going to lose either way, with or without Lincolns bold moves. Absolutely correct. The decision to secede was made by the wealthy land (slave) owners and was not put to a public referendum in any Southern state. In fact there were large areas of Alabama, Georgia and the Carolinas - primarily in the upland mountainous regions that wouldn't support huge plantations - that remained opposed to secession throughout the war. Many of these Southerners fought for the Union. But I don't necessarily agree that the outcome was a foregone conclusion. It is certainly true the North had an overwhelming superiority but the North was also suffering from the unimaginably high casualties. There was strong resistance to continuing the war by the Democrats. Had Sherman not captured Atlanta just before the 1864 election, Lincoln may very well have lost. A negotiated peace in that case was a real proposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mims44 1,867 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Lincoln. Suspension of Habeas Corpus. throwing 15,000+ in prison with no trial, no proof, and no timeline for release. Overriding the supreme court and threatening to throw them in prison if they went against his orders. Military action on foreign peaceful ships (see: HMS trent affair) greatly expanding the powers of the executive (to a near dictatorship level) solidifying the use of conscription. Could go on, there are few US Presidents who made more radical changes than Lincoln did during their tenure (or reign) lol You left out preserving the Union. ;)/> Ahhhhhhhh.....so there is a time when we must suspend the laws of the land to advance an agenda? That's where Obama learned it from....lol "Advance an agenda"? Would that include preserving the "land" in question? That's the big debate for most people. Contrary to popular opinion succession was not in the hearts of most southerners. It was pushed by the top few % of the southern population and then they used state pride and a new feeling of nationalism calling themselves the "true" Americans to rouse the lower and middle classes to fight. Even with the huge burst of confederate pride and will to fight to start the war, it quickly waned once people saw how long and bloody the war was going to be. Logical scholarly articles are presented all the time debating whether or not Lincoln needed to stretch or break laws to the extent he did. The North had more troops, more trade, more firepower. The only thing the South could call an advantage was playing the defense... and having the better generals (that point is usually conceded). Due to the ridiculed Anaconda plan the South was already being slowly choked to death and was going to lose either way, with or without Lincolns bold moves. Absolutely correct. The decision to secede was made by the wealthy land (slave) owners and was not put to a public referendum in any Southern state. In fact there were large areas of Alabama, Georgia and the Carolinas - primarily in the upland mountainous regions that wouldn't support huge plantations - that remained opposed to secession throughout the war. Many of these Southerners fought for the Union. But I don't necessarily agree that the outcome was a foregone conclusion. It is certainly true the North had an overwhelming superiority but the North was also suffering from the unimaginably high casualties. There was strong resistance to continuing the war by the Democrats. Had Sherman not captured Atlanta just before the 1864 election, Lincoln may very well have lost. A negotiated peace in that case was a real proposition. The Republicans were running things in the Union though, the union democrats had been at best luke-warm to the idea from the get go, and Sherman would have captured Atlanta without Lincoln taking the steps he did, Atlanta had been abandoned by the troops before Shermans arrival (some claims are made the confederates burned Atlanta themselves). The scorched earth policy Lincoln was cool with also didn't affect the outcome to the extent people think. As the war didn't push on long enough, the crops lost from Sherman weren't felt by the populace till the war was ended. I'll concede that taking the yielded crops the years prior made a large impact. But taking crops for consumption, and burning and salting the ground are two very different acts. The only real chance the confederates had was hope that they could wait out the Union, holding out till the Union got tired of trying.... Which, might have happened had Lincoln not been re-elected Using imagination the only chance the confederacy had would have been to take the advice of people like Gen. Cleburne and and Gen. Lee and end slavery, as both France and England has shown interest in siding with the confederacy but neither would have a nation still allowing slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,362 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Lincoln. Suspension of Habeas Corpus. throwing 15,000+ in prison with no trial, no proof, and no timeline for release. Overriding the supreme court and threatening to throw them in prison if they went against his orders. Military action on foreign peaceful ships (see: HMS trent affair) greatly expanding the powers of the executive (to a near dictatorship level) solidifying the use of conscription. Could go on, there are few US Presidents who made more radical changes than Lincoln did during their tenure (or reign) lol You left out preserving the Union. ;)/> Ahhhhhhhh.....so there is a time when we must suspend the laws of the land to advance an agenda? That's where Obama learned it from....lol "Advance an agenda"? Would that include preserving the "land" in question? That's the big debate for most people. Contrary to popular opinion succession was not in the hearts of most southerners. It was pushed by the top few % of the southern population and then they used state pride and a new feeling of nationalism calling themselves the "true" Americans to rouse the lower and middle classes to fight. Even with the huge burst of confederate pride and will to fight to start the war, it quickly waned once people saw how long and bloody the war was going to be. Logical scholarly articles are presented all the time debating whether or not Lincoln needed to stretch or break laws to the extent he did. The North had more troops, more trade, more firepower. The only thing the South could call an advantage was playing the defense... and having the better generals (that point is usually conceded). Due to the ridiculed Anaconda plan the South was already being slowly choked to death and was going to lose either way, with or without Lincolns bold moves. Absolutely correct. The decision to secede was made by the wealthy land (slave) owners and was not put to a public referendum in any Southern state. In fact there were large areas of Alabama, Georgia and the Carolinas - primarily in the upland mountainous regions that wouldn't support huge plantations - that remained opposed to secession throughout the war. Many of these Southerners fought for the Union. But I don't necessarily agree that the outcome was a foregone conclusion. It is certainly true the North had an overwhelming superiority but the North was also suffering from the unimaginably high casualties. There was strong resistance to continuing the war by the Democrats. Had Sherman not captured Atlanta just before the 1864 election, Lincoln may very well have lost. A negotiated peace in that case was a real proposition. The Republicans were running things in the Union though, the union democrats had been at best luke-warm to the idea from the get go, and Sherman would have captured Atlanta without Lincoln taking the steps he did, Atlanta had been abandoned by the troops before Shermans arrival (some claims are made the confederates burned Atlanta themselves). The scorched earth policy Lincoln was cool with also didn't affect the outcome to the extent people think. As the war didn't push on long enough, the crops lost from Sherman weren't felt by the populace till the war was ended. I'll concede that taking the yielded crops the years prior made a large impact. But taking crops for consumption, and burning and salting the ground are two very different acts. The only real chance the confederates had was hope that they could wait out the Union, holding out till the Union got tired of trying.... Which, might have happened had Lincoln not been re-elected Using imagination the only chance the confederacy had would have been to take the advice of people like Gen. Cleburne and and Gen. Lee and end slavery, as both France and England has shown interest in siding with the confederacy but neither would have a nation still allowing slavery. Well, if we are judging the necessity of Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus (for example), he was dealing with a rebellion. Washington was essentially located in rebel territory within a sea of confederate sympathizers and supporters. It is hard to judge circumstances that allowed for Lincoln's actions in retrospective. Certainly, the outcome of the war could not be predicted with certainty. Considering the military situation, it was quite reasonable for Lincoln to think they were necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mims44 1,867 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Oh and when I spoke about the thousands he imprisoned. That was not people from the confederacy. The Confederacy had their own government, standing armies, sense of nationalism... I count them as a separate nation during the Civil War, and as such VIPs and POWs are to be taken. The thousands I mentioned were all citizens of the Union, in Union territory. Most famously the politicians in Maryland, who were thrown in prison on Lincolns order based on his thought that they "might" secede. Unless Lincoln had access to that pre-crime center from Minority Report he jumped the gun on it. Incidentally, that was also what led to the supreme court (Taney) telling Lincoln his actions were unconstitutional and exceeded the power of his station. Which of course led to Lincolns real/perceived threat of imprisoning the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court in retaliation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.