Opinion of Jfern?

[MODU]

He's neither.  He can be a real pain in the butt for sure, but I haven't figured out if he's just that partisan or if he's pulling everyone's leg.  But he's on my ignore list, so I don't have to bother reading his messages any more.  HAHAHA

[MODU]

Anyone who doesn't buy into the groupthink of this forum, better be ready to be unfairly and viciously attacked.

It's impossible to have group think on this forum:

a)  you have some very strong democrats vs very strong republicans.  Rarely will the two ever see eye to eye

b)  you also have libertarians which tend to go contrary to when the two dominant parties actually agree on something

c)  you have people like me that take the middle road between the two main groups, except for when we have a key issue which we are extreme on

That's the nice thing about this forum.  I've been to too many places where if you were a liberal, you were nothing, and vice versa.  Here, at least, there is a nice balance of all sides.  Why you want to imply the opposite of that fact is beyond me.

[MODU]

I disagree, not surprisingly, nobody here can be described as 'non-partisan'. There are plenty of people here who attack people simply because they disagree with them.

I'm clearly non-partisan, since I hate the concept of parties in general. 

[MODU]

There is a big difference between being a Democrat and being a liberal. Many of the Democrats here would not call themselves liberal and, indeed, are anti-liberal. The lopsided polls on many issues fly in the face of your opinion that 'there is a nice balance'.

If thinking that makes you feel better about yourself, go right ahead.  However, your perception of reality is very skewed.  I think you should spend more time actually reading everyones comments, and you will begin to see the flaw in your analysis.

[MODU]

The fact that there are a lot of people who want to ban a number of people simply for having controversial views is evidence that there is, indeed, groupthink on this website.

Ummm . . . no.  The question of banning people is not due to controversial views, but rather for their personal attacks and trolling.  Big difference.

[MODU]

I would not be surprised if most, if not all, of those who whine about jfern attacking them, have done all they could to provoke him.

It's a two-way street.  It doesn't take long to identify those who are antagonists on either side of the issue.  JFern has done a lot to bring the distain he receives upon himself, and that usually isn't cause by the topic/partisan issue of the moment, but more of the way he addresses others.  To even cast JFern as a victim in this fashion is beyond ignorant.  Again, read the discussions with an open mind, and not a partisan or preconceived opinion.

[MODU]

The animosity between liberals and conservatives goes back a long way. In my opinion it goes back at least as far Clinton's impeachment.

That is an excuse and/or an attempt at spin.  It has nothing to do with this issue since there are many liberals and conservatives (and others like me) who get along with pretty much everyone regardless of political views.  It's more of an issue on the personal level with the way people address and communicate with others.

[MODU]

TC,

A perfect example of what we were discussing:

Basically you're pro poll tax.

No, basically, I'm pro interpreting the Constitution rather than amending it the guise of interpretation. I'm not in favor of a poll tax, but I am compelled to recognize that the Constitution does not stop a state from levying one (except in certain limited cases).

Whatever, you support a ing poll tax you elitist.

JFern brings any harsh criticism he receives upon himself.