Posted on 04/11/2003 11:36:58 PM PDT by flutters
Read post 72 and pay attention. I didn't bring up the incident, I simply provided information for another poster who asked a question. Do your own research on the threads on the EP-3 incident and you'll see my comments. I don't carry gear for drum banging lard butts. Comprende?
You are still writing in riddles. What is the "PC drum about Walker and Lynch" you keep babbling about?
Don't use riddles or codewords. Just spell it out.
Here, I will help you get started. "I, Smedley, believe it is PC for you, Polybius, to lobby by (....fill in the blank here....describe what I am doing to "lobby".....) for (........fill in the blank here.......describe what you believe I am lobbying for.....).
While you are mulling that over and searching for words, let me summarize my position about Mary Walker for the reast of the Forum.
I DO NOT believe that Mary Walker's service in the Civil War qualifies for a modern-day Medal of Honor. That's is my position and it is perfectly clear and well supported in myPost #56.
The vast difference in the criteria between the Civil War era medal and the post-1917 reform Medal of Honor is clearly evident by the Vietnam era citation I cited.
The only way you can get "PC" out of that is if you never read the post or if your definition of "PC" is the opposition to blatant Affirmative Action by a gross dilution of standards.
Is that your problem, Smedley? Is your problem that you never read the post and are now writing knee-jerk responses to what you think I said?
If you did read the post, are you trying to tell us that Mary Walker's service would qualify for a Medal of Honor using post-1917 criteria?
Is so, would you care to defend your position as to why you think Mary Walker's action would even remotely qualify for a Medal of Honor as defined by the post-1917 reform criteria?
If you did read the post, are you trying to tell us that someone is "Politically Correct" because they believe that, as I stated in my post, Mary Walker's award was the 1866 equivalent of a modern-day Meritorious Service Medal and would in no way qualify her for a modern-day Medal of Honor?
That's it?
A school yard taunt is the extent of your debate? You can do better than that.
Listen, Smedley, here is my position:
1. I do not believe that Pfc. Lynch has met the criteria for a modern-day Medal of Honor. I explained that in Post 29
2. I do not believe that Mary Walker met the post-1917 reform criteria for a modern-day Medal of Honor. I explained that in Post 56
To support my position, I have outlined the history of Medal of Honor from it's establishment in July 1862 when it had extremely loose criteria through the 1917 reform when strict criteria were established and prior medal recipients, including Mary Walker, who did not meet the new criteria had their medals revoked. I gave awarding criteria examples from both the pre-reform Civil War era and the post-1917 reform era.
If your position differs from mine, Smedley, then state what your position is on this matter and defend your position in debate.
If you don't have a position or if you misread my posts, then say so as there would then be nothing to debate.
Taunts such as "You aren't too bright" do not pass for debate once you are past the age of 12.
In other words, Smedley, when it is beyond your ability to defend your position in a debate, you resort to the name calling debate tactics of a 12 year old child.
So long.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.