It might have made a difference if he had offered an argument, rather than just an ad hominem. We do get some pretty good discussions going here, if you'll notice we don't all agree with one another, and there are a contingent of "antiwar" conservatives out there.
I'm convinced that all the good arguments are on our side of the aisle, mainly because the folks on the other side seem not to know how to argue. Its fun and its productive to argue with someone who brings something to the party, and is at least reasonably pleasant.
But if the discussion gets ugly its no fun for anyone. Its easy enough probably for him to come back with a new identity, and if he can actually contribute to the discussion, he probably won't get banned quite so quickly next time. I can think of a couple of guys here who are on the wrong side of every argument, but they are not banned, because they keep the adhominems under control.
I can only think of one time when my post got cut by the moderator, and I knew as soon as I hit "go" I had crossed a line. Its not that hard to say what you have to say without getting cut.
He posted the exact same post in at least one other thread. He was a hit-and-run disruptor and had no intention of discussion or debate.