I've not seen anything that Mia has said about Hillary that I find out of line. I won't discuss the anti-Christ point because it's not relevant. I don't want to see any lies told about any of the Republican candidates, because like Mia, I believe any of them would be infinitely better for this Nation than would Hillary.
As one poster here said, Mia was banned partly for suggesting that Fred might be running to drain off votes from Rudy and setting up his friend McCain to take the nomination. True or not, I saw the same thing on two other sites, and cannot understand why it would not be worthy of discussion and debate. Fred is not even in the race. But when obvious misstatements or outright lies are told of any of the candidates here, the poster should be called on it, regardless of the social values of the candidate. Conservatives do not have to lie to make a point.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, and even if some posters don’t get punished for wrong, it doesn’t mean it is wrong to punish other posters for doing wrong.
If it 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 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.