TMF

  Okay, clearly I have it wrong.  How would you describe your reasons for denying/ignoring facts, and repeatedly trying to attribute this as being racially motivated by the President and leftist, revisionist history despite being proven otherwise?    Every argument you have brought up to prove your point has been debunked, yet you cling to it by simply ignoring the facts and changing the subject to being offended at anything anyone writes.  At this point it is clear that facts don't matter to you and this is about nothing but believing what you want to believe.  Being a veteran you should do some soul searching for why that is.

  I don't see anyone accusing you of being a racist, but I was pointing out that you have clear racial hangups that is creating your bias here to where you can't see this clearly for what it is.  You repeatedly attributed these awards to Obama and leftist, revisionist history.  None of that is true, and that is something that can be objectively proven and observed.  You may choose to think otherwise, just like you can think that 2 + 2= 5.    You've offered no evidence to support your theory other than an anecdotal story of an American hero who happens to be white and didn't get an MoH.  That isn't evidence of anything, especially when you consider the circumstances for how Lt Connor's MoH recommendation was submitted and how these 24 MoH recipients were submitted.  It's apples and oranges.  To further illustrate it, Obama has presented MoHs to plenty of white people since being in office, but that is moot anyway because Obama has as much to do with selecting and approving Medals of Honor as he does picking out the turkey to pardon at Thanksgiving.   You chose to skew your facts, ignore established fact and introduce anectodal evidence as proof of some sinister, racially motivated hijacking of the MoH.  I can only assume that is because you have allowed the racial aspect of these awardees to cloud your judgement, and your hatred for Obama has compounded that.  I don't use the word racist unless it is to describe an actual racist.  Those are people who truly believe that a person's worth is dependent upon their race.  If you could point out where I or anyone else call you a racist please quote it and put it underneath this post.    I came at you with facts.  You even attempted to dismiss my facts, and I came back with references.  You didn't acknowledge those references and admit you were wrong.  You tried to compare the heroism of these 24 MoH recipients to a mass awarding of the Medal to 311 people who did nothing to earn it other than reenlist for it.  Then you refused to believe actual recorded fact.  There is no other explanation for someone who ignores hard, objective facts in an attempt to hold on to their beliefs other than an incredibly unreasonable bias.   This isn't personal.  These are facts.  The personal part would be that it pisses me off that a fellow veteran would attempt to diminish the sacrifice of these people by using it as an opportunity to make politically motivated attacks.

[quote name="w0lfattack" post="1126457" timestamp="1395166459"] After some research it turns out our marines at some point in time were using birdshot as door breaching rounds. :rofl:[/quote] We used to use bird shot for breaching training on wood facades. Never used it in Iraq because 95% of the doors and door frames were made of sheet metal and angle iron. Bird shot would be purdy dangerous in regards to getting hit with ricochet from those tiny pellets going into metal. But we did use bird shot for dove hunting there. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quote name="Brutnus" post="1126852" timestamp="1395226468"] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_House"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_House[/url][/quote] Yes. There is a huge difference between that type of training and the nonsense I just watched. There are safeties involved and it is a much more canned environment. Not to mention there is actual training value to risk assessment matrix there that makes sense. The risk/training value in some of those nonsensical drills I just watched is something I would expect a bunch of cavemen in Somalia to come up with, not a professional organization I should take seriously. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quote name="Brutnus" post="1126849" timestamp="1395225976"]I wouldn't want to do what any of the worlds special forces have to do as far as training goes. I am sure our boys have to shoot between live targets and have similar situations because you can't train real life stress or pressure without real life danger.[/quote] And let me tell you, there is a reason why our Special Forces not only don't do crap like this but why they laugh at organizations that do. Introducing real life danger to no training benefit doesn't make you any more hard core, it just makes something stupid. Trust me. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quote name="Brutnus" post="1126844" timestamp="1395225654"]They didn't explain it, and for them victory is first and safety is 2nd.[/quote] Sounds great in theory, but if you spend two years training an operator just to lose him in an accident that could be easily avoided in a silly drill which could have been made safer and more effective is just stupid. It doesn't equal a better fighting force. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quote name="Brutnus" post="1126842" timestamp="1395225352"]Actually he does it twice and the idea of that drill is to "make them back away from you" Thus why he shot the ground, on purpose, twice.[/quote] Ha, wut? I musta missed that part where they explained that. That makes this exercise even more dumb and unsafe. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  Similar stuff is done in the US, but not stupid and unorganized like this Soviet nonsense.

Dude has a negligent discharge into the ground during the second drill.  You see it when they slow the video down.  That would be his ejection from the comparable US unit.  I'm not impressed with the shooting either if this is supposed to be their tier 1 types.  Oh, and the drills were pretty stupid.  There are better ways to build confidence around gunfire while still mitigating risk down to an acceptable level.  Lame.

  And at the end of the song, what did the writer want to name his kid?  That's the thing folks need to think about.   Yeah, I think it's easy for us to look back on our childhood and attribute all the good and bad things that happened to what it made us who we are today.  I think that we forget just how awful some of that can be for a kid though.  Being bullied a little isn't that bad.  It is actually the natural order of things.  You can see it in just about any animal in nature.  The bigger and stronger pick on the weaker of a species so that the strong remain in power and the weak remain weak.  It sucks, but when you're small you deal with it, and hopefully don't perpetuate it when you get bigger.    But there is a big difference between having the class bully smack you around a bit or make fun and having the entire class make fun of you.  Maybe that isn't the case here, but I have a hard time believing that it isn't.  When I was that age a My Little Pony backpack would result in no one talking to that kid for the rest of the year, other than to remind him what a queer his is.  Seriously, 9 year old boys are aholes.  Yeah, they're all nice and sweet around momma and the grandparents, but when you get a pack of 9 year old boys together they are a den of jackals.  I can remember.  And even if some of those boys might feel sorry for the kid, they sure as hell ain't gonna subject themselves to the same torture by breaking from the pack.  So, I think about it in that context.  If I was the kid's teacher I would be heartbroken to watch a kid have to go through something like that.   But maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe we do live in a magical world where kids are actually not aholes to each other anymore.  Perhaps those kids who are killing themselves because they have no friends and are targeted by the majority of their peers are just blowing it out of proportion?    Yes, teachers need to address bullying and stop it when they see it.  Teachers don't see everything though.  Think back to when you were kids.  Think about how much you got away with when they weren't looking.  Think about the fights you got into and there were no teachers around.  Think about when you got your ass kicked and there were no adults around to break it up.  Now, consider that every moment outside the view of the teachers this kid is getting tormented, and he has no friends to turn to.  It might not be that bad, but, like I said, a My Little Pony backpack would have been the end of everything when I was that age.

  You can interpret this as you want, but this was not a matter of exclusion.  You're attempting to attach and unrelated case of Lt Connor to the Medals issued to these men.  I get that you think Lt Connor's snub is bull####; I do too.  But it has nothing to do with race.  I've been reading up on it and am still confused by the judge's ruling as it relates to the law passed in the '60s on MoH criteria.  As far as I know his case could still be resubmitted to HRC/Sec of Army through Congress.  The article references a statute of limitations being reached in 2006, but gives no reference to where that statute is.  I can't find it.   But, to put that all into context as to what you're saying, you're actually very wrong about this having anything to do with Barack Obama or exclusionary racial bias in favor of non-whites.  You're saying it isn't fair that Connor was rejected on upgrading his DSC and these 24 weren't.  Okay, let's examine that for a second.  First, the statute of limitations was reached in 2006 and the wife of Connor submitted new evidence of eyewitness accounts in 2008.  It seems even then that it could have been waivered through, but the board found no new evidence versus the old stuff, so she was in the same position she would have been in 10 years before.  I'm not saying that's right, but I don't sit on that board.  It seems like the issue has nothing to do with laws and regulations, since it could still be given an exemption.  It appears, for whatever reason, the board just isn't going to reverse its past decisions.    Now, the 24 MoH recipients we're talking about here had their records investigated as a result of law passed in 2002, when Bush was in office and Obama was out community organizing.  Here is some text on that from the Post:   "Prompted by a law passed by Congress in 2002, the Pentagon conducted an extensive review to examine past discrimination in Medal of Honor decisions and concluded that 19 men did not receive the honor because of their racial or ethnic backgrounds. The group included 17 Latinos, one African American and one Jewish soldier, according to the military." http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/24-veterans-receive-the-medal-of-honor-from-president-obama/2014/03/18/f695f5ac-aeab-11e3-96dc-d6ea14c099f9_story.html   Here is the text from the "Valor 24" website that the Army manages:   "On Mar. 18, 2014, President Barack Obama presented 24 Army veterans with the Medal of Honor in one of the largest Medal of Honor ceremonies in history. Each of these Soldiers’ bravery was previously recognized by award of the Distinguished Service Cross, the nation’s second highest award; that award was upgraded to the Medal of Honor. Congressional review and the 2002 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) prompted a review of Jewish American and Hispanic American veteran war records from WWII, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. During the review, records of several Soldiers of neither Jewish nor Hispanic descent were found to display criteria worthy of the Medal of Honor. The 2002 NDAA was amended to allow these Soldiers to be honored with the upgrade - in addition to the Jewish and Hispanic American Soldiers. The White House ceremony on Mar. 18 will recognized these 24 men for their gallantry, intrepidity and heroism above and beyond the call of duty. The United States Army is proud of these Soldiers and glad to see their professionalism, service and sacrifice being recognized again - in full view of a new generation." http://www.army.mil/medalofhonor/valor24/   So it appears that while the majority of the recipients were originally downgraded from the MoH due to race, ethnicity or religious preference (19/24), the remaining 5 were individuals had theirs downgraded for reasons other than that, and were also awarded.  It appears that during the Congressional review they found at least 5 guys who were of no minority group who simply got screwed out of their original MoH, kinda like Connor.  You should be happy that they uncovered this, not trying to turn this into a reason to hate on Obama.  So at least 5 of the awardees were white, and only a few of them were black.  The majority were hispanic.    So, I'm having a hard time here understanding why you're making this about Obama, the left and "revisionist history".  Please, I'm curious.  These men were awarded yesterday after reviews into their cases were authorized in the 2002 NDAA.  They've been waiting on this to clear for over a decade, long before anyone outside Chicago knew the difference between Obama and Osama.   Let me also leave this here.  Here are the 4 other belated MoH recipients that Obama has presented the award to since he took office:   CPT Emil Kapaun (WHITE)   Born in Kansas to Czech immigrants in 1916.  As white as they come by modern day standards.  He served in WWII and Korea.  Obama presented this white person's NOK with the MoH on April 11, 2013.  He is also on the path to sainthood: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Kapaun   SPC-4 Leslie H. Sabo, Jr (WHITE)   Born in Austria and drafted into service during the Vietnam War.  Killed a crapload of enemy, wounded several times and finally died by crawling into an enemy position with his own grenade, killing himself and several enemy.  Obama presented this white person's MoH to his NOK on May 16, 2012. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_H._Sabo,_Jr.   PFC Henry Svehla (WHITE)   Born in New Jersey to immigrant parents.  Threw himself on a grenade to save his buddies.  He was only 20 years old. Obama presented this white person's MoH to his NOK on May 2, 2011.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Svehla   PFC Anthony T. KahoÊ»ohanohano (HAWAIAN ISLANDER... oh geez, this must be based solely on his race!)   Born in Hawaii before it was a state, and had 6 brothers.  Out of the 7 boys his parents had, all 7 of them served their country in wartime.  Not all of them made it back.  This guy served in Korea as a machine gun squad leader.  After being blown out of their position, he set up a new defensive with his men, then went back to the old position to retrieve more ammo.  He single handedly held back the enemy from that position before running out of ammo, then using an entreching tool to kill the dozen Chinese commie soldiers they found near his body.  But since he isn't white, I'm assuming the MoH is all bullcrap race related nonsense.  His NOK was presented the MoH in an obviously race related ceremony that Obama put on at the White House on May 2, 2011.  Oh wait, that was the same day as a white guy got one, so maybe this wasn't TOTALLY race related. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_T._Kaho%CA%BBohanohano     So let me leave you with this.  You're outrage is all your own racial hangups.  Yeah, I get it, the left love to make race an issue, but this ain't got nothing to do with that.  This is a case that has been going on for over a decade.  Obama has nothing to do with it.  The left have nothing to do with it.  Revisionist history have nothing to do with it.    You're upset about Lt Connor getting the snub.  Well here's the deal, after reading up on these it appears that every single last one of these MoH recipients were submitted for the MoH back during action.  They were all downgraded to DSC.  Lt Connor was not recommended for the MoH.  In 1997 his wife lobbied to make a case for it.  Does he deserve the MoH?  I dunno.  If you asked me I'd say "hell yes he does", but he is not in the same category as the rest of these heroes in regard to the regulations.  They were all submitted for MoHs during their respective conflicts.  They all had them denied at upper echelons due to discrimination of some kind, whether that be racial prejudice or just a crappy CoC.  Either way, upon later review the Army decided that the someone along the way got it wrong.  So no, this wasn't exclusionary based on race, it was exclusionary based on regulations.  I assume we'll see many more veterans over the next few decades who have their files reviewed.  There's a lot of folks out there recommended for MoHs who had them dismissed or downgraded.  I'm sure that Congress will have them looked at too.  Hell, look at CPT Swenson, and read the back story on his MoH track.  He got the Medal for the same engagement as a Marine who received his 3 years earlier.  Both cracker white as they come.  Guess what, there's a back story there and it has nothing to do with race.   But you can carry on and spread nonsense that this is a racially motivated event.  It isn't.  The only racial motivation here was when their awards were initially downgraded generations ago because the first GO in their command didn't think dark skinned people should be wearing an MoH.  I think it's great that we can finally correct that issue.  So what that Obama gets to parade on TV and get the credit for it?  I don't care.  This isn't for Obama, and other than simply sitting in the White House when these awards were FINALLY processed he had dick to do with it.  As a fellow veteran, I'm pretty upset that you look at this case like that.  The facts don't support anything you're saying.  I've laid them out here quite clearly.  You can choose to be ignorant about it, but I don't see how you could read this post and still feel good about your position.

  There is no time limit for Congress to make the recommendation.  As to these awardees, I'm curious as to the process for their MoH.  Surely some of them were recommended by their Chain of Command during whatever the time limits were in WWII and Korea, only to be downgraded or dismissed due to race.  So I'm under the assumption that some, if not all, met that criteria.   Here's my deal though.  I know the awards system is screwed up, and it is personality driven.  Everyone who has been in the military and especially those who have fought in war know this.  I recall a buddy who left cover to pull a fellow soldier who was critically wounded behind cover and provide him treatment.  He was shot while pulling his buddy to cover, but was still able to not only render him livesaving aid to a severe wound, but he himself returned fire on the enemy and assisted in killing every attacker from a superior sized force.... all with a gunshot wound.   His Bronze Star V was downgraded to an ARCOM V.  WTF?  Yeah, it's upsetting.  Even more upsetting when you see POGs who sit on a FOB get Bronze Stars like candy.  So when I see that there are heroes from past conflicts that have displayed such valor to rise to the level of MoH status only to learn they were denied such valor because of skin pigment I become enraged.  So very effing enraged.  I don't care about the media or Obama.  Obama can try to take credit for righting the wrongs of the past, but I know better.  He had no more to do with this than if any other President was sitting in the White House.  He only got the honor of presenting the award and being in the same room as these last three survivors.    When I saw this thread before I wasn't going to comment on it, but it is upsetting.  You're saying that you agree they deserve the award, but in the same post you claim they only got it because of race.  Like I said before, the same could be said about every single white recipient of the Medal, if you're suggesting that the recent awards are exclusionary to potential white awardees (such as Lt Connor) and therefore the award is based on race.  Well I could say the same about white recipients during the WWII and Korean era if the award was exclusionary to potential black awardees.  That means the MoH back then was based on race.   I don't see it that way, however.  The way I see it, to draw that conclusion is taking away the focus of the sacrifice those brave folks made for our country.  I don't think there is a single MoH recipient who wouldn't want to see everyone who deserved a MoH get awarded, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or gender.  To make this a race issue takes something away from those awardees, and it is no different than the media making this a race issue.  You took the bait from CNN it seems. 

  Tanker, you could not be more wrong with this post.  First, after the two limit has been reached a person can be submitted by a member of Congress and that can be submitted directly to HRC or the Sec of the Army.  Perhaps you should look at that flow chart.   As for the President presenting the award, it is no different than him pardoning the turkey on Thanksgiving.  He does not go out and select the farm and turkey to be pardoned.  He just issues the pardon.    President Kennedy signed whole new regs into law things have stayed the same in regards to criteria since 1962.  Before that, to include WWII era, there have been plenty of people who were awarded the Medal for non-combat related actions.   Also, in the past 30 years there have been 50 belated MoH recipients, not including these ones here.  Some were awarded by Obama and some of those were white.  So I'm not sure what you're getting at with this thread.  You're wrong about the requirements.  You're wrong about Obama only awarding blacks.  You're wrong about past awards for non-combat related reasons, and you tried to compare that to these brave men.

[quote name="6.8 AR" post="1126770" timestamp="1395200040"]Also, I remember one recipient who was presented three times for the Medal of Honor. Twice it got overlooked before it was finally awarded. After all the bravery that short Jew, who survived WWII, came to the US, with difficulty finally enlisting in the Marines, went to Korea, singlehandedly held a hill, ended up in a POW camp saving his fellow soldiers by keeping them fed and just alive, someone finally made sure he was awarded the medal. I remember him because he was not looking for anything. He just loved the US and wanted to repay his new country by fighting for it. His medal could have been easily forgotten. He was nominated three times and twice it got lost in the shuffle, if I remember correctly.[/quote] I think I remember seeing an interview with that guy, where his Sergeant pretty much left him to die but the guy held off the enemy single handedly. When they needed someone to sit in the foxhole and cover the withdrawal the Sergeant said, "get that funny talking Jew up here." He was a post WWII immigrant. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quote name="TankerHC" post="1126765" timestamp="1395199725"]OK, allow me to explain since no one seems to get it. First off, in my OP I stated, if a grateful nation feels they earned the Medals, then they deserve it. Secondly, to clarify, the Medal Of Honor, is NOT the COngressional Medal of Honor, and the President is NOT just a figurehead. The Medal Of Honor, is THE MEDAL OF HONOR Awarded by THE President in the name of Congress. The Medal serves one purpose. To honor an individual, by a grateful Nation, who has gone above and beyond the call of duty with total disregard for life and limb. Several years ago, the issue was brought up when the first minority recipients from WWI were honored. In complete violation of every rule and protocol, time limitation and with a lack of witnesses, living and dead. At that point the the Medal became something of a Political point rather than for it's original intent. Not for everyone of course, but when it was Politically expedient. Since then, certain living individuals who have been nominated, have gone through the process, passed every obstacle and had been denied, while, for racially motivated and political purposes we have had mass awards. Bill Clinton began this, he awarded half a dozen, since Bill Clinton awarded half a dozen or so, how is Obama correcting a racial injustice. Clinton already did that. This is Political, racially based, and dilutes the meaning of America's highest Honor. It is History, in this case, revisionist History. If this is acceptable, not that they received the awards, that isnt even in dispute that they earned them, but that people like Clinton and Obama can conduct mass awards of the MoH, with no remaining living witnesses, nothing to show that they were recommended for anything higher than a DSC, in exclusion of the time limits, by being given exceptions, then there is a lot of other things certain people claim, incorrectly, that they believe in. They do this for Politics, something, prior to Clinton was never done, plenty of Medals have been given out posthumously and much later, but they haven't had liberal Democrats proclaiming justice, they had men, being awarded for their Heroism. IF, this would have been an award of the Medals simply for their Heroism, that would have been one thing, unfortunately for Obama and the rest of the Left, no matter how hard they try, they cannot change History, history is linear, period. . [/quote] Here is a link to the MoH process flow chart. I see that the president is nowhere in there until the end. http://www.army.mil/medalofhonor/steps.html Also, could you explain how the awarding of these Medals violates the law governing the authorization and awarding of the Medal? There have been plenty of other military decorations that took decades to be authorized, and plenty we white folks. Also, to say that they were awarded Medals based on race is to say that all the white MoH recipients in their era were awarded based on the color of their skin if there were peers who met the same criteria but had their awards denied because they were black. It goes both ways. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quote name="TankerHC" post="1126765" timestamp="1395199725"] Before going off the deep end, some people need to learn the basics first, like what the Medal is and what it is for. And it has not only been awarded to soldiers, sailors, airman and Marines. [/quote] Apparently the meaning is subjective over time, since there are recipients of the Medal who never were on a battlefield and did not receive the Medal for actions in combat. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

^^^ Wrong, eh? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quote name="TankerHC" post="1126757" timestamp="1395198545"]Wrong on that one. Need to look more deeply into Civil War History. In fact,Obama re-awarded one of those Medals that were rescinded, and justifiably. [/quote] During the Civil War, Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton promised a Medal of Honor to every man in the 27th Maine Volunteer Infantry Regiment who extended his enlistment beyond the agreed-upon date. The Battle of Gettysburg was imminent, and 311 men of the regiment volunteered to serve until the battle was resolved. The remaining men returned to Maine, but with the Union victory at Gettysburg the 311 volunteers soon followed. The volunteers arrived back in Maine in time to be discharged with the men who had earlier returned. Since there seemed to be no official list of the 311 volunteers, the War Department exacerbated the situation by forwarding 864 medals to the commanding officer of the regiment. The commanding officer only issued the medals to the volunteers who stayed behind and retained the others on the grounds that, if he returned the remainder to the War Department, the War Department would try to reissue the medals.[145] In 1916, a board of five Army generals on the retired list convened under act of law to review every Army Medal of Honor awarded. The board was to report on any Medals of Honor awarded or issued for any cause other than distinguished service. The commission, led by Nelson A. Miles, identified 911 awards for causes other than distinguished service. This included the 864 medals awarded to members of the 27th Maine regiment, 29 who served as Abraham Lincoln's funeral guard, six civilians, including Dr. Mary Edwards Walker and Buffalo Bill Cody, and 12 others.[146][147] Dr. Walker's medal was restored by President Jimmy Carter in 1977.[125] Cody and four other civilian scouts who rendered distinguished service in action, and who were therefore considered by the board to have fully earned their medals, had theirs restored in 1989.[148] The report was endorsed by the Judge Advocate General, who also advised that the War Department should not seek the return of the revoked medals from the recipients identified by the board. In the case of recipients who continued to wear the medal, the War Department was advised to take no action to enforce the statute.[149] Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quote name="TankerHC" post="1126757" timestamp="1395198545"]Wrong on that one. Need to look more deeply into Civil War History. In fact,Obama re-awarded one of those Medals that were rescinded, and justifiably. [/quote] No, sure as hell ain't wrong on that. 311 Medals were awarded simultaneously to Maine Volunteers as reenlistment incentive. They were later, justifiably, rescinded. That is fact. Sorry. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quote name="TankerHC" post="1126743" timestamp="1395196587"]I write everyone when it concerns veterans and is required. Should say call. What amazes me the most is how the original post is ignored and everyone defends the President's action's. He made it racial. When a President proclaims that he is going to " correct a racial injustice" by awarding the MoH then he just brought a racial and political element into the award. I've done plenty over the last 15 year's and continue to do so. How about you? Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2[/quote] You keep saying this has to do with the President. Explain exactly what this has to do with the President. He is nothing more than a ceremonial figurehead as far as these Medals are concerned. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There are two distinct protocols for awarding the Medal of Honor. The first and most common is nomination and approval through the chain of command of the service member. The second method is nomination by a member of the U.S. Congress, generally at the request of a constituent, and the subsequent approval via a special Act of Congress. In both cases, the Medal of Honor is presented by the President on behalf of, and in the name of, the Congress.[58] Since 1941, more than half of the Medals of Honor have been awarded posthumously.[59] Medal of Honor recipients are usually personally decorated by the President.[60] If the Medal of Honor is awarded posthumously it is presented to the recipient's family.[61] Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quote name="TankerHC" post="1126736" timestamp="1395196122"]It isn't The Congressional Medal of Honor, it's the Medal of Honor presented by the President in the name of Congress. Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2[/quote] Okay, so the president is the sole person who recommends and authorizes the Medal? Got it. Guess I've been reading the award requirements wrong all those years. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quote name="TankerHC" post="1126657" timestamp="1395187716"] They did quite a few of these mass MoH ceremonies after the Civil War. Most were rescinded later when reviewed they showed no merit. That medal should not be used in any way as a political statement. That is exactly what the President has done. Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2[/quote] That wasnt the same. They gave out Medals of Honor to hundreds of National Guardsman as reenlistment bonuses, because there was no standard back then and they needed people to stay in the unit. Comparing that to this is like comparing dog crap to filet mignon. The 24 that received the MoH all deserved it as far as I could tell, but considering there were actual investigations on each one to ensure they met the criteria is more legitimate than what has been done in the past. There are several MoH recipients who did not participate in combat or meet the modern day criteria for the award. There was a general who got it as a service award. Lindbergh even got one. So no, this isn't about Obama. Obama didnt recommend these troops for the MoH. He didnt conduct the investigation into these cases and he didnt authorize the Medal. He simply presented them at a ceremony. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It is a Congressional Medal of Honor, not presidential Medal of Honor. The hell does all this Obama talk have to do with anything? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quote name="TrickyNicky" post="1126463" timestamp="1395167446"]@TMF, I get where you are coming from 100% but I still disagree to a point. I liked weird things at that age that caught me a line of crap daily at school. Kids are cruel and they said and did things that made me feel bad, sometimes I cried. Sometimes I got in fights. Tears and bloody knuckles are a part of childhood. If I never learned to tell a schoolyard bully to pound sand, how would I be coping now as an adult?[/quote] I think all kids get picked on at some point. It's what kids do. When I was that age if I wasn't getting picked on it meant I was probably picking on someone else. It's the pecking order of young boys, and it does teach us stuff about what we'll put up with and what we will fight over. Thing is, when you have a kid who is a complete social outcast, it rises to another category. That is the kind of stuff that is damaging to a kid, I think. And while we want our kids to grow up unafraid to defy social norms, ya gotta keep that within reason. Just because it fits with you doesn't mean it fits in society. I wouldn't mind dressing up in flip flops and shorts to work, smoke pot on the weekends and get a Mike Tyson tattoo on my face, but I won't be able to keep my job or find a new one. Sure, I'd be keeping true to who I am, but society is gonna kick me in the jimmy. Kids need to understand that lesson just as much as they need to understand how to handle bullies. In my opinion, this isn't about being bullied at little bit the way we were; this is about standing out and being a total social outcast. Sorry, but I don't want that kind of childhood for my kid. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk