I have a lot of verbal/writing mannerisms (or bad habits), and no doubt one could come up with a fairly decent drinking game based on them:

When Brosz writes "It should be noted," take a drink!

If Brosz uses "I've got a bridge to sell you," take a drink!

If Brosz feels like he has to spend three paragraphs defining a "leftist" to avoid offending someone, finish the bottle!

Most conservatives have one major goal: to be left alone to live their own lives. This is probably true of a lot of people who vote Democrat as well, but haven't really thought through the real goals of the modern Democratic Party. They don't like their boats rocked, and they don't like telling other people what to do, or having other people tell them what to do. Naturally, you don't hear much from these people, compared to the noisy ones.

Disagreement is not always a simple even two-sided issue. A socialist/collectivist may certainly disagree with a libertarian. The difference is that the socialist's arguments and worldview require the looting of the libertarian. The libertarian's arguments and worldview would simply leave the socialist alone. It isn't as simple as disagreeing over what to put on a pizza, and some things can't really be easily compromised. What is a compromise between looting and not looting? Just taking half? When a wolf and a sheep have an argument over what one should eat, only one winning scenario has both of them still left standing.

And certainly there are right-wing collectivists as well, who believe that force is a legitimate way to make people live the way they want. I don't consider them true conservatives (certainly not libertarians), and neither do most other conservatives.

If you want to see the real conservative/libertarians separated from the "force you to be righteous" ones, watch and see what happens if someone floats a "marriage" amendment to the Constitution. Many conservatives have already come out against such an idea.