I think it seems like there are more conservatives than there really are here because Draginol is rather prolific and rights many conservative articles.

I think liberals are more tightly-knit but conservatives are more politically disciplined.

But at the same time, I think the left is more apt to attack its own too.

I think it seems like there are more conservatives than there really are here because Draginol is rather prolific and rights many conservative articles.

Really? I guess that may be true, but it seems to me he writes more libertarian articles. But I guess if you consider the world in the dual light of liberal/conservative then his writing would seem conservative.

If you look at it that way, I think the average conservative here is a lot more moderate than the average liberal, as well.

If you look at "party lines", i think you'll find that most anti-bush folks here fall way left of the Democratic party, and yet most conservatives fall a bit to the left of the Republican mainstream. Don, imho, when he starts talking about the "outspoken conservatives", is counting a lot of moderates in there, and probably a few Democrats. They aren't "conservative", they are just more conservative than him, a state he seems to villify...

Brad has tried to make this point over and over, and no one seems to listen. The fact is that the most outspoken on the left are way, way left, and try to pretend that they are somehow demonstrative. They aren't, though, and they would consider most of their Democrat peers to be conservative.

Bakerstreet: Mikimouse isn't coming back.  I said David St. Hubbins who is restricted to his own blog.

Ah, sorry, didn' t mean to seem pushy. I have acquired a knee-jerk reaction to mikimouse. lol, i'll read better next time, thought you meant both for some reason.

Libertarian? The defintion I've stolen and found works well for libertarians is "A republican on pot." I don't think Brad comes across that way one smidgeon. He's very sound, with practical experience and history lessons behind his ideas rather than starstruck idealism.

Brad -- excellent job on the pic -- been hearing of it on the radio, but not seen the photo yet. I think Kerry is the pawn of too many people right now because actually allowing him to speak for himself, stating his beliefs on issues, would alienate more than half the country. I think he's rather tired of this. The sperm suit would be a blow to anyone's ego, especially after not being allowed to take a personal stance on issues or speak about them, including the controversial ones he so dearly loves.

It really does look like he's swimming up a uterus... some great graphic work could be done to this...

About the photo, it was not supposed to be released, and the pic of Kerry was portrayed in a similar light as the one of Dukakus when he was running against Bush Sr-- talking points to ridicule a candidate not on an action that he's taken, but on the most superficial way possible. I admit, certain pictures of Bush Jr. are laughable as well, and those that stoop to the level of trying to politically influence a person with a picture in a less than commander-in-chief light are on every part of the political spectrum. Of course, manipulating the media is nothing new (perhaps a future article ranting about Fox or Clear Channel? )

Also, about the conservative/ liberal remarks, I came here through a professor's site and at the time, the top articles seemed to all be written by those who have traditionally conservative viewpoints. I'm not saying that anyone is extreme, but from perusing different articles/blogs, I believed that I would be in the minority as someone left of center. For myself (as you can probably guess from the name that I chose), I have more traditionally liberal values and viewpoints. Given so many different issues not covered, I am certain that there is no black and white (tree-huggin' liberals/ trigger-happy conservatives) as far as views go, and that we can peacefully coexist as long as everyone is respectful and has a more mature argumentative style than using the system of "cheap shots" that plague prominent (conservative/liberal) commentators. That's why this community fascinates me.

I don't really have a lot of control over what the most popular articles are. Hoewver, the MOSt popular articles on JU tend to be techie articles, not politics.

No Don, your problem is that you came expecting to read a bunch of liberals agreeing with your own views.

Pretty ugly statement, Brad... The old "I know so much better than you that I even know your own mind." It also happens that you are wrong. I came here to hear conservative reaction. I had already heard a ton of liberal reaction from the people around me, and I wanted the other side. I sought out and found conservative answers elsewhere.

The amount of Bush trashing that occurs on JU is pretty major.

There is a difference between stupid mockery and serious criticism of the direction that a leader wants to take the country. I'll readily admit that liberals are trashing Bush when they incessently refer to slips of his tongue -- the end of Moore's movie comes to mind. Same with all references to Bush's intelligence, IQ, school record, etc. I am WAY less convinced that there is more of that, on this forum, than there is of trashing Kerry. Personally, I'm not a fan of it in either direction, especially when it seems to be calculated to be part of a political debate.... As in: "Gee, my opponent gave a speech last night and I haven't figured out yet where he was wrong, but maybe if I come up with mockery that will serve as well as an anwer to his speech."

I suspect that when you tote up the Bush bashing, though, you are including the likes of calling Bush a liar on his reasons for going to Iraq, in the same category as a conservative mocking Kerry's wife or trying to get mileage out of an unflattering pic of Kerry. If so, then you and I part company.

I also find that liberals, though when confronted, sometimes demand their opponents silenced. That the mere presence of conservatives is enough to drive them away.

A questionable statement if you take into account the state of conservative talk radio where the standard method of dealing with liberals is to shout them down and cut them off... But if you mean this site specifically, I don't know. Doesn't seem that way to me, but we are all sensitive to the obvious idiots on the other side and deaf to them when they are on our own side.

I don't, btw, consider it a "plus" to confiscate money from one group to pay for the health care for another.

Now this would make a real discussion, rather than a partisan rant of who can deliver the more poignant mockery.

I disagree because, as I see it:
* It is not in the best interests of our country to allow citizens' health to deteriorate needlessly, and this is especially true of the young.
* If this is confiscation of money, then it is also confiscating our money to use it to fight wars, pave roads, enforce the laws, run our national parks, bail out failing corporations, and buy from politically well connected corporations. It is a matter of prorities, not amatter of theft of money. Bottom line: the most successful country in world can afford to rank much higher vs. the rest of the world in terms of caring for people's health
* Even if you were to isolate this one reason for taxation, and weigh the rights involved, we have two very real rights in conflict: the right to what I have earned vs. someone else's right to live... "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" refers to both -- but it refers more explicity to the right to live.
* Further, we need to remember that many of those who find their families in the worst position healthcare-wise are those whose jobs are lost due to the economic upheavals of a free market. (The problem is severe enough that even conservative presidents cave in and do some protectionist things, because the impact on real people can be so bad.) As i see it, free trade has enormous benefits, but one of the costs to a society is that you do then need to look after the human needs of those who get caught in the crossfire. It's okay -- you still come out way ahead.
*Finally, I would never join those who mock President Bush for following his religious beliefs, and I don't think we can ever separate religion from politics -- we can only avoid creating a state religion. Religious belief will always be the underpinning of our belief systems. And my understanding of Jesus is that He would never have favored others' economic rights over the health needs of people... If you find this last to be an unfair argument, then ignore it, but it is my personal viewpoint.

Libertarian? The defintion I've stolen and found works well for libertarians is "A republican on pot."

Then perhaps that is why you would have trouble identifying libertarian ideals. The vast majority of libertarians that I know would never touch pot. Legalizing marijuana is just one cause of the Libertarian party, and not a very important one. And thinking it should be legal is very different than wanting to use it.

The most important ideals of the libertarians are individual freedom and individual responsibility. This coincides with the Republican stance of a thin government, but as Bush has shown they aren't very committed to that position. And Republicans tend to favor government-imposed order over the idea of individual responsibility. A very common theme in Brad's socially conscious articles is individual responsibility.

Personally, I think he looks better in that pic than he does in most. The wrap around his head makes you look at his face while covering his giant head, and his smile actually looks genuine.

Personally, I think he looks better in that pic than he does in most. The wrap around his head makes you look at his face while covering his giant head, and his smile actually looks genuine.

True. First thing I thought was, "That's the best picture I've seen of him."