1 wasn't "Polly" the name of that parrot ?

2 Its his website. I don't let communists into my home, and I certianly wouldn't let them use a forum I own to pontificate on their positions. Even if I disagree with him, I'm surprised he lets people disagree with him post on his website at all.

3 That is what I love about The Jawa Report, being able to post comments and engage in debate over an issue in an intelligent manner. Or at the very least, read other's debates. Only the very worst trolls are ever banned and even they are usually tolerated for quite a while before that happens. They generally have to be very offensive to have their posts removed or to be banned entirely and I would dare say they deserve it. To totally ban any individual comment much less to ban a person from being able to make comments strictly because of them being against the blog's owner's views, results in that blog then becoming nothing more than a propaganda site. So long as the disagreement is civil and engaging there should be no reason to ban that view from being posted. Yes I realize the blogosphere is NOT a democracy, but I feel that open dialogue and debate allows for better information sharing, and better understanding of the world in which we live.

4 So now Moderate conservatives are commies. Sheesh. Yes it's his blog and he has every right to be an asshole.

5 I read Lorie's post and then I read the "editor's" post. I was struck by this comment he made: "Suppose three out of four columnists at the Old York Times were pro-Republican. You can bet publisher “Pinch” Sulzberger would do something about that right quick. Suppose a Bush administration official came out openly against amnesty. The Bushies would show him the door."<.i> Frankly, that's what separates the blogosphere from regular media outlets, and particularly blogs with more than one blogger; differing opinions in one open and balanced venue. Of course he has the right to invite, uninvite, ban and change who he wants on his blog. So I'm not criticizing him for the simple act of "uninviting" Byrd, just his motivations considering the fact that his blog is not traditional media which we've all grown so tired of. Nor is it an administration where consensus is really necessary. As readers we want balance in opinions, not necessarily consensus, but balance. As long as their differences there were submitted respectfully there shouldn't have been a problem.

6 Yeah, really, that's not very blogospheric. Rusty and Howie give me a hard time over my pro drug war stance but I was told I could post here about anything. And I have done so. Still do, once in a while. I'd hate to think there was anything besides converting to Jihad that would get me kicked off the Jawa. And having a different view of border control isn't converting to Jihad. Polipundit's going to take a huge hit in ad revenue over that break.

7 Read it and weep Howie. You have plenty of back-pedaling to do! Repeat after me: " I will not tamper with or edit Last gasp Larry's posts " There, now don't you feel better?

8 LOL, GFYS

9 Even my Alice's Restaurant spoof didn't get me booted.

10 He's going to pay the price for this stupid move as Lorie, Jayson, Alex etc helped make Polipundit what it is. I'm keeping him blogrolled but don't have high hopes for his future.

11 A question to you all who consider it okay to have "civil debate" over such important issues: Are your values really held all that highly, if you're willing to talk peaceably with someone who, by rights, you should be condemning as horribly wrong at best, utterly evil at worst? That is the attitude that almost lost the Cold War, despite the Soviets' best attempts to destroy themselves for us.

12 Ummm, Lorie Byrd is neither horribly wrong nor utterly evil. And yes, I'm willing to speak peacebly with people I consider horribly wrong. Do so every damn day.