by your own argument, if any one of us clicked the "report" button you will be banned. Since not only are you disagreeing with brad, you are accusing him of banning anyone who disagrees with him.

This is as funny as those guys who claim that the US government orchestrated 9-11 and yet they are somehow still alive to make such claims.

Crib notes from Mumble?

Awesome use for karma, but when your argument is "repetition" it smacks a bit of hypocrisy!

I saw his comment and felt it warranted karma and simply repeated his words because they were so well crafted.

It's all pretty funny because for a minute I thought aeortar might be one of the few liberals on JU. However it turns out he's really just a moderate conservative that only looks liberal because of all the rabid right wingnuts that surround him.

As far as your topic of getting banned here I've probably seen about 5 people banned for run-ins with Brad over the course of 3 years although I suspect that number is really a bit lower as perhaps in some cases the ban was temporary.

I think in general Brad is very tolerant and you'd be right about finding it easier to be banned for contrary beliefs at sites like DU and HuffPo. That's not to say that you can't be banned here and that you don't run a risk of saying the wrong thing, but I do believe that you won't get banned for simply holding contrary beliefs although you can get banned for the manner in which you express them.

Everyone knows about LW of course, but one instant and permanent banning I saw was S1genocide who was a gamer from the GalCiv2 site. It was about 3 years ago and it was before there was so much cross-posting between sites and there was an effort made to move Off-topic political and religious discussion from the GalCiv2 site to JU.

S1genocide took up the offer and got involved in a political discussion with Brad and basically took one wrong step where he said that a comment that Brad made was racist and S1genocide was gone instantly. Also you run a risk if it appears that an attack is personal as opposed to an attack on a difference of opinion. Finally Brad is sensitive about taxes and I for one would not like to be the person that made the suggestion that he doesn't pay enough of them. Plus if you engage him directly you need to be able to take a bit more than you give. There was a thread where I basically pointed out how pretty much *every* political thread here on JU was a free for all against anything liberal. The response to the thread basically consisted of "yeah, so what" and Brad repeatedly replied that all liberals are pussies. I would have liked to have pointed out that conservatives were also a piece of anatomy not all that distantly located from the pussy but felt that it was not in my best interest to do so.

But otherwise if you can avoid these pitfalls you're rather safe. However folks do need to realize that there *is* a certain amount of fear and concern that someone with liberal beliefs needs to keep at the forefront of their mind when directly engaging Brad that more conservative folks don't need to worry about.

So I would agree that someone is not going to get banned here for their beliefs but I also believe that there is a double standard of behavior and that if someone liberal wants to hang out here they basically need to be a masochist in their tolerance for abuse, which is why my presence "here" is very limited (outside of cross-posted forums that is).

I am also for more women in politics. And guess what? It's conservatives who usually make that happen.

No, this was one of the rare cases (on JU) of someone taking what I said, and repeating it accurately rather than saying something completely different. By most people's standards I'm a conservative. I think it rather telling of where JU lies that I'm considered a staunch liberal/socialist here.

To use Leauki's 'policy summary':

Evolution

I'm sceptical of the evolution theory and believe intelligent design is a possibility, but don't have very strong beliefs either way

Israel

I support Israel to the point where they defend themselves while trying their hardest to minimise civilian casualties, although overall I see them as having some blame (but nowhere near as much as soem parts of the Palestinian side)

Taxation

I support a small level of taxation coupled with a small government, but can recognise that there are arguments in support of a higher level of taxation. I believe both progressive tax systems and flat rate (with annual exemption) tax systems can work. I believe that a tax system should have a redistributive element.

Public Healthcare

Neither system seems perfect to me, but I believe that the government should ensure everyone is able to receive basic healthcare regardless of their ability to pay, and if providing UHC should also allow private healthcare.

Foreign Policy

While not a strong anti-war believer I think the Iraq invasion was ill advised, and military action should be restricted to self-defence.

Gay Marriage

I have no problems with a legal equivalent being created, but don't see why gay marriages themselves should be allowed.

Now most of those views I'd put as being conservative rather than liberal. If you take taxation for example though, while I believe in a low level of taxation (typically a conservative view) I believe that taxes should have a redistribution effect. Here though, redistributive taxes are akin to slavery, meaning I'm a socialist for daring to suggest such a think could be good .

Edit:

I don't recall saying that Arianna (who I've never even heard of prior to this thread) doesn't ban people who disagree or attack her/him.

Here's where we disagree, if I didn't mention it, I share a similar stance.

IMO redistribution kills motivation. Government should always be seeking ways to reduce waste, not raise taxes. Growth of the economy will create more revenue. Pull people up by giving them a job not a handout. Personal greed or ignorance is just as rife as corporate greed, the difference is companies don't vote so no one is willing to place blame or hold accountable those that are irresponsible. If you're a good squirrel and save some nuts for winter, should you have to give half to the bad squirrel that ate his nuts like no tomorrow and didn't save any? Depending how you look at it, it's an unfortunate fact that people learn quickest through pain (touch fire once, lesson learned). If there isn't the smallest amount of a chance for failure, people will never learn. JMO.

IMO one must first ask why a person doesn't have heath care? Can't afford it? Prove it. Didn't want it? That's your choice (remember the good squirrel), but don't expect me to pay for it for you.

Now I believe health care reform is needed, but don't shove a monster down my throat. Open insurance across state lines. Tort reform. Make insurance portable and cradle to grave. Make the inexpensive fixes first, then assess what else can be done. You don't need a Masserati to get to the local store.

Some folks are going to fall on hard times, it happens. If they have been paying their whole life I believe the insurance company should waive their premiums (not forever) until they are back on their feet.

I'm not a big supporter of pre-existing conditions. Imagine if you wrecked your car then bought insurance to have it fixed before dropping it again. If you have cradle to grave insurance, which is transferable and portable, you would be covered the moment the doc smacked your bottom. heck they do it now with social security numbers. Provisions would need to be make for those already born, but it would most likely not come near the trillion dollar price tag being floated in front of us now. 

Reasonable position, but IMO not very realistic. If we stopped being the world police, that means that all the countries that depend on us to provide a large portion of their security would have to cut all their social programs, like UNC, and raise their all ready high taxes even higher. Most likely they would just skimp on their defense.

How does this affect the US? Well we see how much a small war costs. There are plenty of examples (Korea, Vietnam, right up to Afghanistan). So how much would a World War cost today? We can't afford it. As wasteful as military spending might seem for some, the alternative is unthinkable.

Besides US military spending benefits the whole world from a technological standpoint. From the Internet you use everyday to the GPS in your phone or car. Does anyone honestly believe the Russian or Chinese would have share these things with the world?

Many more reasons (deterrence) but not enough time.

IMO this should not even be a political discussion and has no place in politics. I do however believe that a person should be able to legally appoint someone the powers normally associated to a married couple. The reason for my opinion probably differs from yours. It would be to allow adult children to take care of an elderly parent, or someone without blood kin to make important decisions on their behalf, or cover with insurance. Both parties would need to consent. If this helps gays as a by product, so be it, equal law for everyone. I just wouldn't call it marriage, which I believe has no place in govt.

Before I married I had a the same girlfriend for six years before we broke up. We lived together and many people thought we were married. Had our relationship lasted another year, the state would have given her half my property and entitled her to alimony, even though she didn't bring anything of value herself to the table. IMO gays should be careful what they ask for, they might get it.

Nobody suggested you did know of her policies. It is a comparison on tolerance. It's just that on the Huffington Post any criticism of the owner, Arianna Huffington, is not tolerated it comparison to JU and its owner.