Anyway, I didn't recall seeing anything particularly nasty (at least by the standards of the general tone on this thread). From what I can remember, he took you to task for pointing out that Iraq hadn't attacked us, saying that the Constitution did not make that a requirement for going to war. He accused you of holding fast to the letter of the Constitution when it suited you, and then creatively reading new requirements when that suited your purpose. And he generally accused you of not responding to various specific points he raised, saying it was "typical" of people of our persuasion. Also, he responded to your question "Are you a liberal?" with one word: "Typical..."
I wish I could get more specific, but I really only glanced over his replies. I had pretty much given up on him after he started going around in circles with his "Congress acted according to the Constitution because they did" rigamarole.
I'd be curious to know what got him in hot water with the mods.
I would be too. I was working him into a corner and cutting of each of his exits, then the AM pulls the comments. Frustrating. This is the not the first time they've done that to me. I'd work someone who is unclear on How Things Work into a situation where he has to either acknowledge commonsense or make a inaccuracy obvious even to him.
Then in steps the AM and wipes out the chess game. 