|
Posts:
1
Registered:
7/14/02
|
|
(1 of 123)
Jul 14, 2002 2:09 PM
|
Why does the History Channel keep calling the Medal of Honor the congressional Medal of Honor when congress has nothing to do with it?
|
|
|
Posts:
74
Registered:
1/2/02
|
|
(2 of 123)
Jul 16, 2002 8:43 AM
|
The Medal of Honor was established by a joint resolution of Congress on July 12, 1862.
Read your history books...
History Buff
|
|
|
Posts:
7,267
Registered:
10/3/99
|
|
(3 of 123)
Jul 16, 2002 10:08 AM
|
the congress votes on awarding it if I remember correctly. And since it is from congress, anhy holder of it is saluted no matter the rank.
You aren't really a Sgt. are you Sgtski? Has the services gone that much downhill under Reagan and both Bushs. They knew better under Clinton and Carter.
|
|
|
Posts:
74
Registered:
1/2/02
|
|
(4 of 123)
"They knew better under Clinton"...???
Jul 16, 2002 2:22 PM
|
The US Military loathed Bill "Draft-Dodger" Clinton with a passion. In fact, military brass had to issue orders that no US service-person could make jokes regarding the Clinton-Lewinksi affair, and to violate the order meant to face courts-martial!
George W. Bush's standing among the US military is currently one of the highest in history...
History Buff
|
|
|
Posts:
7,267
Registered:
10/3/99
|
|
(5 of 123)
Jul 16, 2002 4:08 PM
|
conservative myth. Hey, what about George 'where the flight school is' Bush.
Come on, He ran from combat. Draft papers came and like all conservatives he joined the Guard. Common knowledge among my generation. Especially from people like me who did serve in Vietnam.
By your logic, another high standing president is James Carter. He was in the navy, Annapolis 47 remember. Lot better than Bush II or Reagan.
|
|
|
Posts:
7,267
Registered:
10/3/99
|
|
(6 of 123)
Jul 16, 2002 4:16 PM
|
better under Clinton and Carter. Lets' see, Reagan and both Bush's casulaties in condition not under war (l;ike the Gulf war). Over 500. Carter and Clinton , 18, maybe.
I've done the counting before. So far no one has disprove me. And then we can talk of policies- who took away the retirees' benefits- Reagan. Who voted against pay raises for personnel- Cheney. Who ran against government workers(i.e. servicepeople)- Bush II.
|
|
|
Posts:
74
Registered:
1/2/02
|
|
(7 of 123)
Jul 17, 2002 6:01 AM
|
...have responded to 9/11? He even had a chance to destroy bin Laden on several occassions, but never followed through. And I believe it was Al Gore (also a Clintonite) who fought like hell to keep the military's votes from being cast in the 2000 Florida election.
Who do you think the military likes better..?
History Buff
|
|
|
Posts:
7,267
Registered:
10/3/99
|
|
(8 of 123)
Jul 17, 2002 12:03 PM
|
were counted, since Gore wnated them counted too. Lets' see here. What did the republicans do exactly for us in the military. Abolish the education given under the GI bill. Take away medical coverage of retiree's dependents in 1982, Get 600 plus killed in Lebanon, Grenada, Pnanma to correct their stupidity in supporting regimes that turned on us.
What would Clinton have done differently after 9/11? Well, Osama Bin Laden wouldn't be hiding in the White House basement today; and we may have more info since members of aapricular Saudi family connected to him would still be here vice back in Saudi Arabia. And we would still have miliatary planes flying on 9/11 that may have intercepted those 757s. We didn't on 9/11. Why did Bush change that?
|
|
|
Posts:
74
Registered:
1/2/02
|
|
(9 of 123)
Gore's Campaign Manager...
Jul 17, 2002 1:55 PM
|
...Bill Daley, fought tooth & nail to keep the military votes from being counted (which is not surprising, since his father --- Richard Daley of Chicago -- was one of the most corrupt politicians in US history). And as far as Clinton's actions while president were concerned, I think they speak for themselves, unless you want to get into Monica Lewinski, Bill Foster, Hillary, the Mina (Arkansas) murders, Whitewater, et al, ad nauseum...
History Buff
|
|
|
Posts:
7,267
Registered:
10/3/99
|
|
(10 of 123)
Jul 18, 2002 4:41 PM
|
you can't be a history buff if you try to use those episodes. Even Ken Starr had to admit that none of it was true (but Monica). $70 million and not one thing took. Even the one true sex fling turned out to be more hazordous for the accusers than slick.
I would never had known that Tom DeLay had committed perjury had not for Monica.
I'm from Chicago, and Daley did want the military votes counted, especially in the countys contested. That's how the daleys get elected, counting all the votes from military and cemetaries.
Your wrong on everything. Maybe you should quit before Bush II is impeached for his part in 9/11.
|
|
|
Posts:
74
Registered:
1/2/02
|
|
(11 of 123)
I Doubt Very Seriously...
Jul 19, 2002 5:39 AM
|
...if even you believe Bush would be "impeached" for 9/11.
Bill Clinton had no integrity, period. Any man who would cheat on his wife would cheat on his friends (not to mention the American public). The sad fact is that he rode into the White House on the heels of what was perceived as a "bad economy", when in fact it was actually getting better (and had been since Reagan). People vote their pocketbooks, and because a few prices were relatively high, Bush, Sr. was considered to be doing a bad job. I know several die-hard Democrats who have (privately, of course) expressed sincere regret and embarrassment at having voted for Bill Clinton, which I believe is the overall consensus of the rest of the country. The prevailing attitude is "let's just put him behind us and move on..."
I suppose you think "W" is also responsible for the stock market fiasco? That's the problem in this country -- too many people believe a single person can be able to cure all their ills, economic or otherwise...
History Buff
|
|
|
Posts:
7,267
Registered:
10/3/99
|
|
(12 of 123)
Jul 19, 2002 9:09 AM
|
if you lived like 90% of us instead of putting your head into the sand, you'd understand that is very true. Hoover failed, FDR succeeded. But it took WWII to fully end the depression. Of the 10 recessions since 1945, 3 under democrats. Truman had 2, 1 of which was in 45. Carter had a 6 month one just before the 80 election. Reagan followed that with the longest and most severe in 81-82. Then he let congress raise taxes; or should we say he let the dempos save him without crying about taxes raised.
It's not one person, it's who he brings with him. W has a hand in the current crises because everyone he brought with him think the same as Enron's Lay and Fastow. Bush II did the same thing. Now, everyone sees the problem in it. And they don't think Bush can answer the problem because he is the problem. HE DID THE SAME THING. Unless he starts making sure the Lays and other friends he has go to jail, he wouldn't be able to inspire any confidence. And the market will fall.
|
|
|
Posts:
74
Registered:
1/2/02
|
|
(13 of 123)
Jul 19, 2002 12:00 PM
|
...because everyone uses Wall Street the same way they use Vegas -- a "quick & dirty" way to get rich. Every WS analyst in the country says that the only way to make money in the stock market is over a long-term (i.e., years) investment. But try telling that to the idiot day-traders who are using the Internet like a slot machine. Sure the market is going to fall, as long as people think it's actually possible to get rich overnight.
The economic woes this country is facing is due entirely to GREED, which has no specific ties to any political party...
History Buff
|
|
|
Posts:
12,357
Registered:
9/13/99
|
|
(14 of 123)
Jul 19, 2002 1:36 PM
|
>>Reagan followed that with the longest and most severe in 81-82.<<
Reagan's tax cuts didn't go into effect until late '81. Thus 1981 was still a Carter fiscal year.
>>Then he let congress raise taxes; or should we say he let the dempos save him without crying about taxes raised. <<
It was to save the solvency of Social Security. The program has historically been funded by current employees upkeeping current retirees.
"An opinion can be argued with but a conviction is best shot." -T.E. Lawrence
|
|
|
Posts:
7,267
Registered:
10/3/99
|
|
(15 of 123)
Now we have an interesting point
Jul 19, 2002 1:46 PM
|
From 1929 to the 70's, many people would agree with you. Wall street or the market in that period never increased. All the Dow was is a place for the wealthy to bet their money like gambling in Vegas. And they stayed out. We had 8 bear markets between 1945 and 1970. Never had any effect on the normal people. But then they were told of that long term investing bit. And that the money they put in would grow. 5, 6, 8% return on your money. 401ks became popular. Something to add to your social security. Then replace SS with.
Funny how the tune changes once the reality becomes known. Now that you may want to retire, all that money is gone. Taken by the executives in defaulted loans and stock options they cased in while the market was high. Why wasn't that fact mentioned? And the ordinary folks who put in from the 70's on are left with nothing. As before, just a gamble on what may be, but never came. Social security is looking better all the time. At least it's money is in bonds.
|
|
|
|
|
