My two cents is that I don't like it when someone who has an opinion different from everyone else is called names because of it. First: it isn't civil, mature or constructive, second: how the heck do we ever convince anyone we're right, if we exclude everyone who's mind should be changed?
I agree that the ones who sign up and on the same day start ranting against Bush should probably get banned.
boxsmith13's opinion, earlier, was that Bush is gonna' get creamed this November. Lots of people didn't like it. That alone, however, doesn't make him a "troll." Something else might. But, not that alone.
As for me? I'm a long-time FReeper and I'll go so far as to say that if things get any worse, perspective-wise, in the presentation of the Bush campaign for reelection--for very much longer--we WILL be looking at a John Kerry win. The only guard against this would be Kerry's apparent ineptitude. But, we also shouldn't unestimate the guy. Historically, incumbants either lose or win big. Harry Truman and Gerald Ford would be the only examples against this theory in recent history, and they were "incumbants" only because of their circumstances. And, yes, I voted for Bush last time out... and, no, I'm not a "troll."
If someone has a different opinion and is civil about presenting it, why not let them stay and join the debate? We are witty enough here not to resort to name-calling... aren't we?