For what it's worth, there's no love lost for the moderators over there by the Freepers themselves, either. The moderators are completely anonymous (no one mod even knows who any of the others are) and answer to nobody but the site's owner, and practically every active participant there's had reponses and even entire threads yanked at least once. It doesn't help that the rules are loosely-written enough that no two moderators will interpret them the same way; you can complain about a post at noon and get no response at all, and make the same complaint at 5 pm and see it yanked within 30 seconds.
In any case, if anyone here believes that any post even slightly critical of Bush, go over there and read any thread about libertarian politics; Bush gets it worse there every day from hundreds of posters than he even does here. And if you think liberals are automatically ejected, well, go search for any posts by someone named "MurrayMom," who is such an incredibly virulent Bush-hater that a lot of people wonder if she has actual mental problems, but she's been there for years, posting away happily ... well, okay, angrily. There are dozens of other examples; she's merely the most amusing one.
FR says right on its front page that its purpose is to be "an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web." It is not, and never was, intended as a general left-vs-right political debate site. Some debate is allowed by those liberals that have earned it (by signing up, being active readers for a while and then posting in non-disruptive fashion), but that's it. If you barge through the door and start making left-wing-oriented posts in a long-dead thread five seconds later, it's pretty much de facto proof you're not there with the intention of being a productive member, but rather because someone somewhere out there pointed you to that specific thread and said "go get 'em!" (And I'll point out that Metafilter operates under similar principles: New members cannot make FPPs at all without having been a member for at least a week, reading threads and getting a feel for the place, and then posting some comments in a few threads. And many newbies that come here and start making even slightly controversial posts within minutes or hours after registering have had their memberships questioned here in MetaTalk.)
I was hoping to find out what, exactly, was their big problem, and what their opinion was other than shit, but I guess I was asking for too much.
This sentence is precisely why your post was nuked, even if that post was indeed unoffensive and rational: Because 98% of the people that do what you did (sign up, make a beeline for a specific thread within seconds and start posting from a left-wing perspective) end up doing what you just did here: making trolling "your opinions are shit/you people have no ability to do anything other than blah blah blah" posts within minutes of receiving their first responses. The moderators knew what was coming, and decided to nip it in the bud.
It's strange that they need anonymous mods. Do they run it that way to avoid accusations of personal moderator bias?
Yes, that's part of the reason. It's also so that they themselves will not get special treatment for their own posts by other moderators, and so that nobody would even think they were.
If you want to know more about the FR moderation system, check out this thread. The article at the beginning explains the whole thing, including the massive trolling problems they have to deal with.
(Isn't moderation done anonymously on /. too?)