What got me banned at a conservative forum...

[The Night Owl]

Conservative Moderator: I see you learned nothing from your previous banning, which was for calling a group of veterans liars and offering nothing to prove your claim. It was purely partisan and meant only to justify support for John Kerry.

However: if either of you offer proof to back up your claims, you will get debated in return. See, that's the way it works around here. You have to bring it. We don't just roll over and accept your opinions as Gospel simply because you say it's true. That's something you simply couldn't understand last time.

Everything I have ever posted about the SBVT is backed up by at least two mainstream news sources. If you know of an unsupported claim I've made, feel free to cite it.

Anyway, here is my position on the SBVT...

Before I talk about the SBVT, let me make clear that I would never argue that anyone should accept my beliefs or views as Gospel. When I come here, I come to give my opinion and judgement based on the information out there. Nothing more, nothing less. I may come on a little strong sometimes, and maybe I go overboard, but please understand that when I post here, it is basically me, and maybe one or two other liberals, against a horde of very passionate conservatives. In any case, in the future, if I have one here, I will try to restrict my responses to being about the subject at hand.

Anyway, on to the subject... I have always acknowledged that my opinion of the Swiftees may be dead wrong. Regardless, the best information out there-- the official Naval record, statements made by men who served on Kerry's boat, and contradictory statements by the Swiftees-- leads me to believe that the Swiftees were, at best, dead wrong, at worst, not truthful about Kerry's service in Vietnam.

Of course appearances aren't everything, so even if the case brought by the Swiftees looks shaky to me, I acknowledge the possibility that it is correct. And, keep in mind that my opinion on the SBVT is based solely on what it claims about Kerry's service in Vietnam, not on what it claims Kerry did when he got back from Vietnam.

Before anything else, let us first consider the fact that not all the Swiftees agree with everything their organization has put out about Kerry. For instance, even though the SBVT has argued that Kerry did not serve honorably in Vietnam, one of their members suggested the opposite...

"He earned his medals, he did what he was supposed to do in Vietnam," said retired Coast Guard Captain Adrian Lonsdale, who was in the chain of command above Kerry and oversaw various operations dealing with Navy swift boats of the type Kerry commanded. "But I was very disappointed in his statements after he got out of the Navy. He is fit to be a great senator. But by his unfounded accusations about the atrocities, I was just very disappointed," Lonsdale said. "It is the difference between being a senator and president of the United States."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/05/04/25m_ad_campaign_showcaes_kerrys_career/

Other contradictory statements by a few members of the SBVT can be found in the following articles...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry/

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/9455159.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html

Also, even though SBVT founder John O'Neill criticised Kerry for claiming to have been in Cambodia, John O'Neill is on tape claiming that he too was once in Cambodia...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/08/25/politics1857EDT0754.DTL

So, now that we have considered some of the contradictory statements by members of the SBVT, let us consider the official Naval record and what other veterans have said of Kerry...

The following is the Navy's official position on Kerry's medals...

Our examination found that existing documentation regarding the Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals indicates the awards approval process was properly followed. In particular, the senior officers who awarded the medals were properly delegated authority to do so. In addition, we found that they correctly followed the procedures in place at the time for approving these awards.
Conducting any additional review regarding events that took place over 30 years ago would not be productive. The passage of time would make reconstruction of the facts and circumstances unreliable, and would not allow the information gathered to be considered in the context of the time in which the events took place.
Our review also considered the fact that Senator Kerry's post-active duty activities were public and that military and civilian officials were aware of his actions at the time. For these reasons, I have determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved and will take no further action in this matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry_military_service_controversy

And, here is an article by one veteran who witnessed the events that led to Kerry being awarded the Silver Star...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-0408220342aug22,1,2523679.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

Rood's account of the incident that earned Kerry a Silver Star is supported by Kerry's crewmates, who also feel that the SBVT revision of Kerry's service record is wrong.

We should also consider President Bush's stated opinion of Kerry's service record...

"Senator Kerry is justifiably proud of his record in Vietnam and should be. It's noble service.” - George W. Bush

Of course, the president's opinion is proof of nothing, but I think it does show that it is not unreasonable to doubt the Swiftees. If Bush, Kerry's opponent, didn't believe what the Swiftees said about Kerry's service, then why should I?

Some have argued that President Bush was insincere when praised Kerry's service, but those people would have to be mind readers to know that because so far all we have to go on is the President's clear and unequivocal praise of Kerry's service.
________________________
{EOM}

So, was I uncivil? Was I unreasonable?

[everythingsxen]

1. You were both uncivil and unreasonable

Don't you see? You are letting the terrorists win. If you don't blindly support the Fuhrer at all times, you are a godless, evil, traitor to America. That's just how we roll now.

LOL

Serious anwer: No you weren't unreasonable or uncivil, however conservatives have a very tough defense mechanism where they stick their fingers in their ears, shut their eyes and say "La la la la la" really loud.

[BikeWriter]

2. YOU DID THE UNSPEAKABLE! You told the truth and included proof!

[youthere]

3. Shame on you for using facts like that.

Facts have no place in the freeper world and you know it.

[DS1]

4. Don't even bother

I tried a few weeks ago, their idea of "debate" is asking questions based on loose versions of something you said, then demanding answers while you're trying to respond to the barely reasonable arguments in return.

[Rabrrrrrr]

5. Typical liberal tactic - hiding behind the truth, and bringing up facts.

Postively criminal.

[mvd]

6. You were not only reasonable and full of facts, but..

you were more conciliatory than I could have been.

[MercutioATC]

7. This is what got ME banned:

...after a year of middle of the road thoughtful posts (so as not to provoke too much suspicion while injecting a more moderate tone into certain threads)...

In response to another post, I suggested that perhaps not everybody viewed homosexuals as degenerates.

...yep, that's it.



I am a BAAAAADDD Freeper....

[The Night Owl]

9. The place I got banned from claims to allow liberals as members.

Remember the furiously blinking George W. Bush in the first presidential debate between Bush and Kerry? That is the average right winger... Insecure and angry... Insecure about his/her ability to debate. Angry that anyone would dare debate the right wing point of view.

But it never ceases to amuse me.

[MercutioATC]

10. I've seen some pretty freaky post deletions here...

...but bannings (with few exceptions) seem to be much more seriously thought out here.

[The Night Owl]

12. The difference is that DU does not claim to allow conservative members.

DU could not be more clear about the fact that DU is for progressives. The fact that DU is for progressives is clearly stated in the rules, and yet conservatives whine endlessly about not being allowed here. For Christ's sake, the DU FAQ even has a link to Free Republic just for those people who want to argue with conservatives!

I swear, DU could rename itself The Forum for Progressives and Only Progressives and the right wingers would still be baffled as to why they get banned here.

:nopity:

[Dave Reynolds]

11. I actually (regrettably) signed up at one of those "debate"

sites, but after seeing the way the assholes there "debated", I decided to give it a pass.

A couple of folks from here were there and were savaged, I think we are more polite to trolling freeps here before they are tombstoned.

[elshiva]

8. Very reasonable! Thank YOU!