by your own argument, if any one of us clicked the "report" button you will be banned. Since not only are you disagreeing with brad, you are accusing him of banning anyone who disagrees with him.

This is as funny as those guys who claim that the US government orchestrated 9-11 and yet they are somehow still alive to make such claims.

Seems you follow the JU belief that if you keep repeating something obviously false, sooner or later a few people might think it's true. Gets pretty pathetic when that's all you seem capable of doing to try and counter someones argument.

Crib notes from Mumble?

Awesome use for karma, but when your argument is "repetition" it smacks a bit of hypocrisy!

I haven't followed this discussion over the weekend. Did he go to the Hunffington Post site and post something that disagrees with and attacks Arianna?

How did it pan out?

I saw his comment and felt it warranted karma and simply repeated his words because they were so well crafted.

It's all pretty funny because for a minute I thought aeortar might be one of the few liberals on JU. However it turns out he's really just a moderate conservative that only looks liberal because of all the rabid right wingnuts that surround him.

As far as your topic of getting banned here I've probably seen about 5 people banned for run-ins with Brad over the course of 3 years although I suspect that number is really a bit lower as perhaps in some cases the ban was temporary.

I think in general Brad is very tolerant and you'd be right about finding it easier to be banned for contrary beliefs at sites like DU and HuffPo. That's not to say that you can't be banned here and that you don't run a risk of saying the wrong thing, but I do believe that you won't get banned for simply holding contrary beliefs although you can get banned for the manner in which you express them.

Everyone knows about LW of course, but one instant and permanent banning I saw was S1genocide who was a gamer from the GalCiv2 site. It was about 3 years ago and it was before there was so much cross-posting between sites and there was an effort made to move Off-topic political and religious discussion from the GalCiv2 site to JU.

S1genocide took up the offer and got involved in a political discussion with Brad and basically took one wrong step where he said that a comment that Brad made was racist and S1genocide was gone instantly. Also you run a risk if it appears that an attack is personal as opposed to an attack on a difference of opinion. Finally Brad is sensitive about taxes and I for one would not like to be the person that made the suggestion that he doesn't pay enough of them. Plus if you engage him directly you need to be able to take a bit more than you give. There was a thread where I basically pointed out how pretty much *every* political thread here on JU was a free for all against anything liberal. The response to the thread basically consisted of "yeah, so what" and Brad repeatedly replied that all liberals are pussies. I would have liked to have pointed out that conservatives were also a piece of anatomy not all that distantly located from the pussy but felt that it was not in my best interest to do so.

But otherwise if you can avoid these pitfalls you're rather safe. However folks do need to realize that there *is* a certain amount of fear and concern that someone with liberal beliefs needs to keep at the forefront of their mind when directly engaging Brad that more conservative folks don't need to worry about.

So I would agree that someone is not going to get banned here for their beliefs but I also believe that there is a double standard of behavior and that if someone liberal wants to hang out here they basically need to be a masochist in their tolerance for abuse, which is why my presence "here" is very limited (outside of cross-posted forums that is).

Brad is very liberal when it comes to some things and somewhat conservative when it comes to others.

I myself do not see a conservative bias when it comes to my favourite subjects and I find myself on the side of conservatives only when liberals actively oppose an actual liberal position or are trying to change the meanings of words.

Evolution

I am completely on the liberal side and as far as I know so is Brad. In my case, apart from understanding how science works, my interpretation of my religion also simply forbids me from believing that an all-powerful god would manually design such broken animals as most species are. Unintelligent design (and that's what it would be) is simply not something my god would be directly involved in.

Israel

I support the a secular state founded by socialists against right-wing Arab fascists and Muslim religious fundamentalists. Liberals tend to side with the fascists and religious fundamentalists and that is why I find myself on the side of American conservatives. The Christian religious fundamentalists liberals oppose in the US are far more open-minded, tolerant and rational than the Islamic religious fundamentalists liberals openly support.

Taxation

I support the rather left-wing politica of Henry George. I am against income tax and for land value and resource taxes. This puts me at odds with both conservatives and liberals but mostly with liberals because income tax is the more common topic in discussions and because conservatives these days are often happy to support land value tax if only it makes the tax system less bureaucratic.

Public Healthcare

I am for it and that puts me plainly in the liberal camp. But I am against a universal health insurance system and prefer a dualistic system of public hospitals for all and private insurance for the rich. The reason I support a public healthcare system is that I do not want to find myself unable to get medical care for financial reasons. This is pure egoism on my part. Since I admit this I have a problem with liberals who claim that such egoism constitutes altruism. Be honest: anyone who supports a public healthcare system in any way does so because of what it provides (egoistic reason), not because of how it can be paid for (altruistic reason). Universal healthcare is a way for a voter to receive services, not a way to distribute them. An altruist doesn't vote for universal health insurance. An altruist donates to a hospital.

Foreign Policy

I support an aggressive foreign policy that supports liberal values all over the world. Liberals tend to oppose liberalism in other countries and often support fascist dictators. My 100% liberal position here again puts me ad odds with liberals but not conservatives who are willing to support even a socialist democracy if only it replaces or avoids a nationalist or Islamist dictatorship. For example Iraq is now closer to what the left claim is socialism than it was before. And it was American conservatives who supported thatoption.

Gay Marriage

I support gay marriage. I do not support anti-democratic means to implement it or believe that it is a "civil rights issue". Legalisation of homosexuality is a civil rights issue; but institution of homosexual marriage is not. I do not support gay marriage from me religious point of view. I just don't care what makes other people happy and do not want to stand in the way if they don't do any harm to anyone. Plus I support almost anything that fascists and religious fundamentalists oppose.

I don't know how any discussion can easily be divided into JU-supported conservatives and JU-abused liberals. Perhaps "liberals" just tend to attract abuse when they argue in stupid ways for arrogant positions that have nothing to do with their claimed agenda?

I am also for more women in politics. And guess what? It's conservatives who usually make that happen.

That's cool. I was interjecting a little humor, as everyone is free to use whatever words they want (like right-wing nut jobs, we all get our little barbs in ). We might not agree on everything, but you are a stand up guy.

...and I believe that was all that was being implied here, before this topic devolved into the subject of banning. Like most things in life, there are limits.

IMO this horse is officially glue.

He might beg to differ!

No, this was one of the rare cases (on JU) of someone taking what I said, and repeating it accurately rather than saying something completely different. By most people's standards I'm a conservative. I think it rather telling of where JU lies that I'm considered a staunch liberal/socialist here.

To use Leauki's 'policy summary':

Evolution

I'm sceptical of the evolution theory and believe intelligent design is a possibility, but don't have very strong beliefs either way

Israel

I support Israel to the point where they defend themselves while trying their hardest to minimise civilian casualties, although overall I see them as having some blame (but nowhere near as much as soem parts of the Palestinian side)

Taxation

I support a small level of taxation coupled with a small government, but can recognise that there are arguments in support of a higher level of taxation. I believe both progressive tax systems and flat rate (with annual exemption) tax systems can work. I believe that a tax system should have a redistributive element.

Public Healthcare

Neither system seems perfect to me, but I believe that the government should ensure everyone is able to receive basic healthcare regardless of their ability to pay, and if providing UHC should also allow private healthcare.

Foreign Policy

While not a strong anti-war believer I think the Iraq invasion was ill advised, and military action should be restricted to self-defence.

Gay Marriage

I have no problems with a legal equivalent being created, but don't see why gay marriages themselves should be allowed.

Now most of those views I'd put as being conservative rather than liberal. If you take taxation for example though, while I believe in a low level of taxation (typically a conservative view) I believe that taxes should have a redistribution effect. Here though, redistributive taxes are akin to slavery, meaning I'm a socialist for daring to suggest such a think could be good .

Edit:

I don't recall saying that Arianna (who I've never even heard of prior to this thread) doesn't ban people who disagree or attack her/him.

Fair enough.

Nothing wrong with those positions.

I herewith rate you a "moderate" if it makes you any happier.

I can imagine voting for a politician with your positions.

Here's where we disagree, if I didn't mention it, I share a similar stance.

IMO redistribution kills motivation. Government should always be seeking ways to reduce waste, not raise taxes. Growth of the economy will create more revenue. Pull people up by giving them a job not a handout. Personal greed or ignorance is just as rife as corporate greed, the difference is companies don't vote so no one is willing to place blame or hold accountable those that are irresponsible. If you're a good squirrel and save some nuts for winter, should you have to give half to the bad squirrel that ate his nuts like no tomorrow and didn't save any? Depending how you look at it, it's an unfortunate fact that people learn quickest through pain (touch fire once, lesson learned). If there isn't the smallest amount of a chance for failure, people will never learn. JMO.

IMO one must first ask why a person doesn't have heath care? Can't afford it? Prove it. Didn't want it? That's your choice (remember the good squirrel), but don't expect me to pay for it for you.

Now I believe health care reform is needed, but don't shove a monster down my throat. Open insurance across state lines. Tort reform. Make insurance portable and cradle to grave. Make the inexpensive fixes first, then assess what else can be done. You don't need a Masserati to get to the local store.

Some folks are going to fall on hard times, it happens. If they have been paying their whole life I believe the insurance company should waive their premiums (not forever) until they are back on their feet.

I'm not a big supporter of pre-existing conditions. Imagine if you wrecked your car then bought insurance to have it fixed before dropping it again. If you have cradle to grave insurance, which is transferable and portable, you would be covered the moment the doc smacked your bottom. heck they do it now with social security numbers. Provisions would need to be make for those already born, but it would most likely not come near the trillion dollar price tag being floated in front of us now. 

Reasonable position, but IMO not very realistic. If we stopped being the world police, that means that all the countries that depend on us to provide a large portion of their security would have to cut all their social programs, like UNC, and raise their all ready high taxes even higher. Most likely they would just skimp on their defense.

How does this affect the US? Well we see how much a small war costs. There are plenty of examples (Korea, Vietnam, right up to Afghanistan). So how much would a World War cost today? We can't afford it. As wasteful as military spending might seem for some, the alternative is unthinkable.

Besides US military spending benefits the whole world from a technological standpoint. From the Internet you use everyday to the GPS in your phone or car. Does anyone honestly believe the Russian or Chinese would have share these things with the world?

Many more reasons (deterrence) but not enough time.

IMO this should not even be a political discussion and has no place in politics. I do however believe that a person should be able to legally appoint someone the powers normally associated to a married couple. The reason for my opinion probably differs from yours. It would be to allow adult children to take care of an elderly parent, or someone without blood kin to make important decisions on their behalf, or cover with insurance. Both parties would need to consent. If this helps gays as a by product, so be it, equal law for everyone. I just wouldn't call it marriage, which I believe has no place in govt.

Before I married I had a the same girlfriend for six years before we broke up. We lived together and many people thought we were married. Had our relationship lasted another year, the state would have given her half my property and entitled her to alimony, even though she didn't bring anything of value herself to the table. IMO gays should be careful what they ask for, they might get it.

Nobody suggested you did know of her policies. It is a comparison on tolerance. It's just that on the Huffington Post any criticism of the owner, Arianna Huffington, is not tolerated it comparison to JU and its owner.