I asked jla to send me the information Mia was circulating about why she was banned, but he didn't, so I don't know her side through no fault of my own.
But I would be surprised if she was banned simply for saying that. areafiftyone says that a lot as well, and frankly it's a good thing to discuss. I suppose if you put it in the assertive tone (Fred IS running to help McCain) as opposed to the opinion tone (I think Fred could be running to help McCain), you might get dinged because you would be accusing Fred Thompson of acting in a devious, deceptive, and dishonest manner, with no evidence, thus attacking his character.
But I don't generally like the attacks on character against any candidates launched from that perspective. I don't mind attacking character as revealed in their own acts (like being divorced, who's fault the divorce is, whether they cheated on the spouse, whether they spoke kindly to the people of NARAL, etc.). But I tend not to like the assuming of motive and the easy way people throw out liar and cheat and the like about candidates on both sides of the aisle.
If it (punishing one differently than another) is done by those who profess that their religious and social values rule their lives, yes, it is completely wrong, and inconsistent with the values of conservatism.
I disagree. It is non-ideal, imperfect, but not wrong to punish wrongdoing, even if you do not punish ALL wrongdoing. What is wrong is not punishing the OTHER wrongdoing, not the punishing of the wrongdoing that IS punished. We don't let everybody get away with things because some get away with things.
Yes, I have seen how the character of the Republican candidates here is protected.
But I tend not to like the assuming of motive and the easy way people throw out liar and cheat and the like about candidates on both sides of the aisle.
We do agree on that. Facts don't bother me at all, but much of what passes for facts is often little more than creative innuendo.
I disagree. It is non-ideal, imperfect, but not wrong to punish wrongdoing, even if you do not punish ALL wrongdoing. What is wrong is not punishing the OTHER wrongdoing, not the punishing of the wrongdoing that IS punished. We don't let everybody get away with things because some get away with things.
Well, after the infamous "treasonous liberal" thread, I said that if the founder and the moderators did not step in and put civility back into this forum, it would get much worse. And to be sure, it is. Many on the extreme right are calling for the banning of anyone not meeting their definition of conservative. Several of us are regularly threatened with zotting by other posters and reminded of the fact that this is a conservative forum...and this from those who wouldn't know conservatism if it smacked them right in the face.
My rant is about over unless someone simply wants me to repeat myself, but suffice is to say that until those in charge bring back some degree of civility and reason to this forum, and recognize that conservatives come in many styles and sizes and that our true opponents are the Democrat Party and Hillary Clinton, it's only going to get worse...and smaller.
Your questions were reasonable. Take care.
So if you don't know then why air an erroneous conjecture?
The implication is that Mia had been fomenting insurrection here by 'circulating information' and badmouthing. This is not the case.
When people messaged her to ask why she was banned, her reply was that precipitating event appears to have been the last thread. There were no pleadings, no 'circulating info,' no badmouthing the opposition, no talks of 'unfairness,' etc.
In my opinion, if anyone wishes to know exactly why she was banned they should ask the one who did the deed.