In response to ampoule's comment:
Carnie, I don't understand this banning business.
Regardless of how someone personally feels, wouldn't banning someone with differences be somewhat extreme? I've read, I think, hundreds of his posts. Inflammatory? yes. Comdescending? yes.....etc.,etc. Yet, I don't believe I've ever read anything which would require 'banning'. What is done to deserve this? Is it written somewhere what can and cannot be said?
Back to politics, I honestly and sincerely believe that the request to ban someone comes from people who disagree with his beliefs. This, in itself, troubles me personally because I think it's unfair and lopsided since most disagree with him.
In essence, to me it seems that the answer to Softlaw , or whoever, from liberals is to 'ban' him. Yet, it's perfectly OK for someone with the totally opposite view be accepted with open arms.
Incidentally, Moon, I don't consider hanging the flag upside-down a misguided message. It's an honest sentiment how many feel. Yet, people can burn the flag, urinate on it, and desecrate it every way imaginable and it's acceptable and considered freedom of speech and expression?
I think softlaw usually gets banned for being inflammatory and calling people names. Calling people names especially, seems to be frowned upon here. I have personally never asked for anyone to be banned. I'm a believer in free speech, although you would probably call me an extreme left wing radical were we to talk politics. Nevertheless I think everyone should have the right to state what they believe, especially if they disagree with me. Like I used to tell people when I was in the military, I may not agree with your views, but I'll fight to the death for your right to express them. But back to softlaw, my feeling is that he just can't help himself about calling people juvenile names which is what seems to get him banned. He's actually been baned more times than pike I think, although pike probably deserves it more.
