What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[Bfgrn]

Yes; conservatives in the 19th century were renowned for their embrace of Darwinism.

You're as informed as you are honest...

ROFL

The history of conservatism IS social Darwinism. Conservatives believe in a hierarchy, and always try to build some form of it. In the 19th century it was a plutocracy. And it has returned in the modern era of authoritarian conservatism as a plutocracy.

They do? That's why those Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian classical liberals (i.e. modern day conservatives) of the late 18th century gave us three co-equal but separate parts of government as checks and balances on each other to remove us once and for all from any concept of a 'monarch' and to help ensure that no dictatorship or totalitarian government could develop? That's why they gave us a Constitution that assigned necessary functions to government so that our rights would be secured but otherwide prohibited it from interfering with whatever society we wished to have as we govern ourselves?

It is those holding modern American conservative who have been trying to tear apart that concept for the last 100 years? Really? You really think you can make a case for that?

Good luck. Because if you can't, your comments sure sound like liberal partisanship (i.e. uninformed nonsense.)

Conservatives are conservatives, they are not liberals, classical or otherwise. Therein lies your problem.

The conservative Roberts court in one fell swoop (Citizens United) tore apart 100 years of case law and legislation, with the intent of creating a plutocracy.

You REALLY need to educate yourself.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes; conservatives in the 19th century were renowned for their embrace of Darwinism.

You're as informed as you are honest...

ROFL

The history of conservatism IS social Darwinism. Conservatives believe in a hierarchy, and always try to build some form of it. In the 19th century it was a plutocracy. And it has returned in the modern era of authoritarian conservatism as a plutocracy.

Which must be why it's recognized as a PROGRESSIVE ideology.

It is the antithesis of a progressive ideology.

Progressivism is the term applied to a variety of responses to the economic and social problems rapid industrialization introduced to America. Progressivism began as a social movement and grew into a political movement. The early progressives rejected Social Darwinism. In other words, they were people who believed that the problems society faced (poverty, violence, greed, racism, class warfare) could best be addressed by providing good education, a safe environment, and an efficient workplace.

Progressivism - Conservapedia

 

[koshergrl]

Let's try to use today's definitions, shall we?

Social darwinism is the pet of TODAY'S liberals and progressives.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating

'Cause we Libs OWN the FACTS??????

​

Contraceptive Use;
Teen Pregnancy Rate At 30-Year Low​

 

[Liability]

Mr. Shaman
This message is hidden because Mr. Shaman is on your ignore list.

I wonder if ANYBODY is left who doesn't put that wack-a-doodle on ignore?

 

[Bfgrn]

Let's try to use today's definitions, shall we?

Social darwinism is the pet of TODAY'S liberals and progressives.

If conservatives don't want to be called social Darwinists, stop talking like social Darwinists.

The Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century.

It was an era when the nation was mesmerized by the doctrine of free enterprise, but few Americans actually enjoyed much freedom. Robber barons like the financier Jay Gould, the railroad magnate Cornelius Vanderbilt, and the oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller, controlled much of American industry; the gap between rich and poor had turned into a chasm; urban slums festered; children worked long hours in factories; women couldn’t vote and black Americans were subject to Jim Crow; and the lackeys of rich literally deposited sacks of money on desks of pliant legislators.

Most tellingly, it was a time when the ideas of William Graham Sumner, a professor of political and social science at Yale, dominated American social thought. Sumner brought Charles Darwin to America and twisted him into a theory to fit the times.

Few Americans living today have read any of Sumner’s writings but they had an electrifying effect on America during the last three decades of the 19th century.

To Sumner and his followers, life was a competitive struggle in which only the fittest could survive – and through this struggle societies became stronger over time. A correlate of this principle was that government should do little or nothing to help those in need because that would interfere with natural selection.

Listen to today’s Republican debates and you hear a continuous regurgitation of Sumner. “Civilization has a simple choice,” Sumner wrote in the 1880s. It’s either “liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest,” or “not-liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest. The former carries society forward and favors all its best members; the latter carries society downwards and favors all its worst members.”

Sound familiar?

Newt Gingrich not only echoes Sumner’s thoughts but mimics Sumner’s reputed arrogance. Gingrich says we must reward “entrepreneurs” (by which he means anyone who has made a pile of money) and warns us not to “coddle” people in need. He calls laws against child labor “truly stupid,” and says poor kids should serve as janitors in their schools. He opposes extending unemployment insurance because, he says, ”I’m opposed to giving people money for doing nothing.”

Sumner, likewise, warned against handouts to people he termed “negligent, shiftless, inefficient, silly, and imprudent.”

Mitt Romney doesn’t want the government to do much of anything about unemployment. And he’s dead set against raising taxes on millionaires, relying on the standard Republican rationale millionaires create jobs.

Other Republican hopefuls also fit Sumner’s mold. Ron Paul, who favors repeal of Obama’s healthcare plan, was asked at a Republican debate in September what medical response he’d recommend if a young man who had decided not to buy health insurance were to go into a coma. Paul’s response: “That’s what freedom is all about: taking your own risks.” The Republican crowd cheered.

In other words, if the young man died for lack of health insurance, he was responsible. Survival of the fittest.

 

[IndependntLogic]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

This is interesting to me because I have VERY strong opinions - some which coincide with Conservative values and some with Liberal Values. I find Liberals much better debaters, overall.
Why?
I recently disagreed with Liberals in a thread on Global Warming (one of the few issues in which my opinion is simply "I don't know but I'm not completely convinced". I'm not a scientist). They get furious on this issue! The provide links to 5,000 science mags, universities, wiki etc... Then when I still don't concede their point (which I don't) they say I'm an idiot.
When I disagree with a Conservative on an issue, they instantly label me a "Liberal" without knowing my overall political views or even caring. They don't care. Disagree with a ConservaRepubLitari (e.g. I believe we could completely get rid of 2 dozen Fed agencies - just not the same ones Conservatives want to start with) an on any single issue, and they have been trained to call yo a Liberal.
Also, they tend to post much more about the people they disagree with, than the issue.
Obviously, there are some highly intelligent and well-reasoned Conservatives here. But the majority seem to label, dodge the issue, use moral comparatives, label, insult, change the subject, label...

I wonder if a Conservative will prove my point in this thread?

And amazingly I have found exactly the opposite to be true. It is like pulling teeth for me at times to get a liberal to address my point.

Conservatives call me "Liberal" or "Obamabot" (Love that with all the posts I've made in which I've declared simply "Obama sucks") the moment I disagree with them. As if "liberal" means I couldn't possibly ever have a valid point. Laughable. Both Conservs and Libs have many valid views but the whackjobs won't ever acknowledge that.

For example, I just started a thread called "Why Obama will win in 2012". In it, I declare Obamas' biggest weaknesses (ObamaCare, The Catholic Thing, NDAA etc..) but then describe the very real challenges the GOP faces this year.
What is the response? Well of course the LibDems like my prediction but don't like my criticisms of Obama. BUT several Libs acknowledge these as vaild weaknesses.
Also Libs have OFTEN criticized Obama for not closing Git-Mo, Staying in Iraq & Afghanistan (well until lately) etc... That shows objectivity. Do Conservs ever acknowledge when Obama does something right? Or something THEY Complained about him not doing? Oh hell no. That shows a lack of objectivity.
Then along comes one of my favorite whackjobs into the Why Obama wil Win thread. The guy comes into the thread and as always, addresses zero issues. And of course since I have criticized Obama but not declared my blind following of all things ConservaRepubLitarian, he labels me an "Obama Lover" (Oh the horrors! ).
Four posts later? Ol' Dan still addresses nothing on issues. Just the puerile labels insults etc... (to be honest, it's okay with that guy because he's so bad, he's entertaining).

But seriously, coming from Houston I have a LOT of Conservative friends who are reasonable, intelligent and capable of having civil discussions - even with those of differing opinions. If Obama did something they liked, they would say "Hey I like that he did that. That's a good thing." I don't see that in the Conservs on the net.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And amazingly I have found exactly the opposite to be true. It is like pulling teeth for me at times to get a liberal to address my point.

Cult fanatics like Old Rocks will bury you in dogma, if you debate their faith with them. Anthropogenic Global Warming is their religion, and they are worse than and Jehovah's at proselytizing (with force, when they can.)

But that isn't "evidence," it's dogma. Prod a fanatical Christian about the rapture and you'll get the same.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Conservatives are conservatives, they are not liberals, classical or otherwise. Therein lies your problem.

The conservative Roberts court in one fell swoop (Citizens United) tore apart 100 years of case law and legislation, with the intent of creating a plutocracy.

You REALLY need to educate yourself.

ROFL

You're such a fucking moron - which is why you're a leftist.

Leftism is a manifestation of stupidity. Really - I can cite science papers. You didn't form leftist opinions, Bfgrn; it's just that you lack to cognitive functions requisite to escape the failings of leftism.

To demonstrate the depth of your stupidity;

The SCOTUS declared corporation to be legal entities, persons, in 1878, under Chief Justice Harlan.

The case was Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company.

You only spew what the hate sites program you to spew, you have no clue regarding reality.

Tell me sparky, do you think that it should be illegal to make a movie criticizing Mitt Romney?

Stupid fuck....

 

[koshergrl]

Let's try to use today's definitions, shall we?

Social darwinism is the pet of TODAY'S liberals and progressives.

If conservatives don't want to be called social Darwinists, stop talking like social Darwinists.

The Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century.

It was an era when the nation was mesmerized by the doctrine of free enterprise, but few Americans actually enjoyed much freedom. Robber barons like the financier Jay Gould, the railroad magnate Cornelius Vanderbilt, and the oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller, controlled much of American industry; the gap between rich and poor had turned into a chasm; urban slums festered; children worked long hours in factories; women couldn’t vote and black Americans were subject to Jim Crow; and the lackeys of rich literally deposited sacks of money on desks of pliant legislators.

Most tellingly, it was a time when the ideas of William Graham Sumner, a professor of political and social science at Yale, dominated American social thought. Sumner brought Charles Darwin to America and twisted him into a theory to fit the times.

Few Americans living today have read any of Sumner’s writings but they had an electrifying effect on America during the last three decades of the 19th century.

To Sumner and his followers, life was a competitive struggle in which only the fittest could survive – and through this struggle societies became stronger over time. A correlate of this principle was that government should do little or nothing to help those in need because that would interfere with natural selection.

Listen to today’s Republican debates and you hear a continuous regurgitation of Sumner. “Civilization has a simple choice,” Sumner wrote in the 1880s. It’s either “liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest,” or “not-liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest. The former carries society forward and favors all its best members; the latter carries society downwards and favors all its worst members.”

Sound familiar?

Newt Gingrich not only echoes Sumner’s thoughts but mimics Sumner’s reputed arrogance. Gingrich says we must reward “entrepreneurs” (by which he means anyone who has made a pile of money) and warns us not to “coddle” people in need. He calls laws against child labor “truly stupid,” and says poor kids should serve as janitors in their schools. He opposes extending unemployment insurance because, he says, ”I’m opposed to giving people money for doing nothing.”

Sumner, likewise, warned against handouts to people he termed “negligent, shiftless, inefficient, silly, and imprudent.”

Mitt Romney doesn’t want the government to do much of anything about unemployment. And he’s dead set against raising taxes on millionaires, relying on the standard Republican rationale millionaires create jobs.

Other Republican hopefuls also fit Sumner’s mold. Ron Paul, who favors repeal of Obama’s healthcare plan, was asked at a Republican debate in September what medical response he’d recommend if a young man who had decided not to buy health insurance were to go into a coma. Paul’s response: “That’s what freedom is all about: taking your own risks.” The Republican crowd cheered.

In other words, if the young man died for lack of health insurance, he was responsible. Survival of the fittest.

Yawn.

PS...Newt isn't conservative.

And euthanasia is the darling of the left.

 

[bripat9643]

Conservatives are conservatives, they are not liberals, classical or otherwise. Therein lies your problem.

And tautologies are tautologies. They don't prove a damn thing.

The conservative Roberts court in one fell swoop (Citizens United) tore apart 100 years of case law and legislation, with the intent of creating a plutocracy.

What case law? Can you cite the case that says corporations aren't entitled to free speech? If 100 years of "case law" are based on false assumptions, they it should be overturned. That doesn't make you liberal or conservative.

You REALLY need to educate yourself.

If you're "educated," then you should get a refund.

 

[Bfgrn]

Conservatives are conservatives, they are not liberals, classical or otherwise. Therein lies your problem.

The conservative Roberts court in one fell swoop (Citizens United) tore apart 100 years of case law and legislation, with the intent of creating a plutocracy.

You REALLY need to educate yourself.

ROFL

You're such a fucking moron - which is why you're a leftist.

Leftism is a manifestation of stupidity. Really - I can cite science papers. You didn't form leftist opinions, Bfgrn; it's just that you lack to cognitive functions requisite to escape the failings of leftism.

To demonstrate the depth of your stupidity;

The SCOTUS declared corporation to be legal entities, persons, in 1878, under Chief Justice Harlan.

The case was Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company.

You only spew what the hate sites program you to spew, you have no clue regarding reality.

Tell me sparky, do you think that it should be illegal to make a movie criticizing Mitt Romney?

Stupid fuck....

The SCOTUS did NOT declare corporations to be legal entities, persons, in 1878, under Chief Justice Harlan.

Here is your name for the day: Court reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis. Educate yourself.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Conservatives are conservatives, they are not liberals, classical or otherwise. Therein lies your problem.

The conservative Roberts court in one fell swoop (Citizens United) tore apart 100 years of case law and legislation, with the intent of creating a plutocracy.

You REALLY need to educate yourself.

ROFL

You're such a fucking moron - which is why you're a leftist.

Leftism is a manifestation of stupidity. Really - I can cite science papers. You didn't form leftist opinions, Bfgrn; it's just that you lack to cognitive functions requisite to escape the failings of leftism.

To demonstrate the depth of your stupidity;

The SCOTUS declared corporation to be legal entities, persons, in 1878, under Chief Justice Harlan.

The case was Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company.

You only spew what the hate sites program you to spew, you have no clue regarding reality.

Tell me sparky, do you think that it should be illegal to make a movie criticizing Mitt Romney?

Stupid fuck....

The SCOTUS did NOT declare corporations to be legal entities, persons, in 1878, under Chief Justice Harlan.

Here is your name for the day: Court reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis. Educate yourself.

U.S. Supreme Court - SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO., 118 U.S. 394 (1886)
1886 Supreme Court decision granting corporations the same rights as living persons under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Quoting from David Korten's The Post-Corporate World, Life After Capitalism (pp.185-6):
In 1886, . . . in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitutions affords to any person. Because the Constitution makes no mention of corporations, it is a fairly clear case of the Court's taking it upon itself to rewrite the Constitution.
Far more remarkable, however, is that the doctrine of corporate personhood, which subsequently became a cornerstone of corporate law, was introduced into this 1886 decision without argument. According to the official case record, Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced before the beginning of arguement in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company that

The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.
The court reporter duly entered into the summary record of the Court's findings that
The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Thus it was that a two-sentence assertion by a single judge elevated corporations to the status of persons under the law, prepared the way for the rise of global corporate rule, and thereby changed the course of history.
The doctrine of corporate personhood creates an interesting legal contradiction. The corporation is owned by its shareholders and is therefore their property. If it is also a legal person, then it is a person owned by others and thus exists in a condition of slavery -- a status explicitly forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. So is a corporation a person illegally held in servitude by its shareholders? Or is it a person who enjoys the rights of personhood that take precedence over the presumed ownership rights of its shareholders? So far as I have been able to determine, this contradiction has not been directly addressed by the courts.
Looks like you are incorrect..
U.S. Supreme Court - SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO., 118 U.S. 394 (1886)

 

[Bfgrn]

Political views 'hard-wired' into your brain

Scientists have found that people with conservative views have brains with larger amygdalas, almond shaped areas in the centre of the brain often associated with anxiety and emotions.

On the otherhand, they have a smaller anterior cingulate, an area at the front of the brain associated with courage and looking on the bright side of life.

The "exciting" correlation was found by scientists at University College London who scanned the brains of two members of parliament and a number of students.

----------------------------------------------

Are There Differences Between Liberal and Conservative Brains?

In October, a study published in the journal Nature Neuroscience found that these differences in thinking may be traceable to brain differences. New York University neuroscientist David Amodio and his colleagues showed that brain responses to quick, unexpected changes in strategy differed between liberals and conservatives.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The conservative Roberts court in one fell swoop (Citizens United) tore apart 100 years of case law and legislation, with the intent of creating a plutocracy.

how can it be a plutocracy when there are millions of corporations all competing with each other? Plutocracy means a few, not a few million!!

 

[Bfgrn]

ROFL

You're such a fucking moron - which is why you're a leftist.

Leftism is a manifestation of stupidity. Really - I can cite science papers. You didn't form leftist opinions, Bfgrn; it's just that you lack to cognitive functions requisite to escape the failings of leftism.

To demonstrate the depth of your stupidity;

The SCOTUS declared corporation to be legal entities, persons, in 1878, under Chief Justice Harlan.

The case was Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company.

You only spew what the hate sites program you to spew, you have no clue regarding reality.

Tell me sparky, do you think that it should be illegal to make a movie criticizing Mitt Romney?

Stupid fuck....

The SCOTUS did NOT declare corporations to be legal entities, persons, in 1878, under Chief Justice Harlan.

Here is your name for the day: Court reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis. Educate yourself.

U.S. Supreme Court - SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO., 118 U.S. 394 (1886)
1886 Supreme Court decision granting corporations the same rights as living persons under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Quoting from David Korten's The Post-Corporate World, Life After Capitalism (pp.185-6):
In 1886, . . . in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitutions affords to any person. Because the Constitution makes no mention of corporations, it is a fairly clear case of the Court's taking it upon itself to rewrite the Constitution.
Far more remarkable, however, is that the doctrine of corporate personhood, which subsequently became a cornerstone of corporate law, was introduced into this 1886 decision without argument. According to the official case record, Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced before the beginning of arguement in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company that

The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.
The court reporter duly entered into the summary record of the Court's findings that
The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Thus it was that a two-sentence assertion by a single judge elevated corporations to the status of persons under the law, prepared the way for the rise of global corporate rule, and thereby changed the course of history.
The doctrine of corporate personhood creates an interesting legal contradiction. The corporation is owned by its shareholders and is therefore their property. If it is also a legal person, then it is a person owned by others and thus exists in a condition of slavery -- a status explicitly forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. So is a corporation a person illegally held in servitude by its shareholders? Or is it a person who enjoys the rights of personhood that take precedence over the presumed ownership rights of its shareholders? So far as I have been able to determine, this contradiction has not been directly addressed by the courts.
Looks like you are incorrect..
U.S. Supreme Court - SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO., 118 U.S. 394 (1886)

"The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

By adding this comment to the headnotes of the printed case summary, court reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis established the legal personhood of corporations within the United States.

 

[Vast LWC]

GE....Tax FREE!!!! Why? Because GE brass supported Obama's green energy bullshit.

Ah yes, obviously the fact that GE got tax rebates for engaging in research and production in the field of clean, renewable energy proves that Democrats are the main source of corporate welfare.

'Cause Bush didn't give the banks 600 billion dollars.

Let's see, how much did GE get in tax rebates?

I bet it's nowhere near 600 Billion dollars.

 

[Bfgrn]

The conservative Roberts court in one fell swoop (Citizens United) tore apart 100 years of case law and legislation, with the intent of creating a plutocracy.

how can it be a plutocracy when there are millions of corporations all competing with each other? Plutocracy means a few, not a few million!!

A few can be percentage.

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

 

[Dr Grump]

The conservative Roberts court in one fell swoop (Citizens United) tore apart 100 years of case law and legislation, with the intent of creating a plutocracy.

how can it be a plutocracy when there are millions of corporations all competing with each other? Plutocracy means a few, not a few million!!

And are there millions? I would be surprised if there were 100,000 corporations (note, I say coporations, not businesses). And are theyreally competing with each other? How many telephone carriers are there? 10?20? Ditto television station owners?

 

[Bern80]

This is interesting to me because I have VERY strong opinions - some which coincide with Conservative values and some with Liberal Values. I find Liberals much better debaters, overall.
Why?
I recently disagreed with Liberals in a thread on Global Warming (one of the few issues in which my opinion is simply "I don't know but I'm not completely convinced". I'm not a scientist). They get furious on this issue! The provide links to 5,000 science mags, universities, wiki etc... Then when I still don't concede their point (which I don't) they say I'm an idiot.
When I disagree with a Conservative on an issue, they instantly label me a "Liberal" without knowing my overall political views or even caring. They don't care. Disagree with a ConservaRepubLitari (e.g. I believe we could completely get rid of 2 dozen Fed agencies - just not the same ones Conservatives want to start with) an on any single issue, and they have been trained to call yo a Liberal.
Also, they tend to post much more about the people they disagree with, than the issue.
Obviously, there are some highly intelligent and well-reasoned Conservatives here. But the majority seem to label, dodge the issue, use moral comparatives, label, insult, change the subject, label...

I wonder if a Conservative will prove my point in this thread?

And amazingly I have found exactly the opposite to be true. It is like pulling teeth for me at times to get a liberal to address my point.

Conservatives call me "Liberal" or "Obamabot" (Love that with all the posts I've made in which I've declared simply "Obama sucks") the moment I disagree with them. As if "liberal" means I couldn't possibly ever have a valid point. Laughable. Both Conservs and Libs have many valid views but the whackjobs won't ever acknowledge that.

For example, I just started a thread called "Why Obama will win in 2012". In it, I declare Obamas' biggest weaknesses (ObamaCare, The Catholic Thing, NDAA etc..) but then describe the very real challenges the GOP faces this year.
What is the response? Well of course the LibDems like my prediction but don't like my criticisms of Obama. BUT several Libs acknowledge these as vaild weaknesses.
Also Libs have OFTEN criticized Obama for not closing Git-Mo, Staying in Iraq & Afghanistan (well until lately) etc... That shows objectivity. Do Conservs ever acknowledge when Obama does something right? Or something THEY Complained about him not doing? Oh hell no. That shows a lack of objectivity.
Then along comes one of my favorite whackjobs into the Why Obama wil Win thread. The guy comes into the thread and as always, addresses zero issues. And of course since I have criticized Obama but not declared my blind following of all things ConservaRepubLitarian, he labels me an "Obama Lover" (Oh the horrors! ).
Four posts later? Ol' Dan still addresses nothing on issues. Just the puerile labels insults etc... (to be honest, it's okay with that guy because he's so bad, he's entertaining).

But seriously, coming from Houston I have a LOT of Conservative friends who are reasonable, intelligent and capable of having civil discussions - even with those of differing opinions. If Obama did something they liked, they would say "Hey I like that he did that. That's a good thing." I don't see that in the Conservs on the net.

I would say most of that is true. But for every conservative on this board that does that I promise I can name you a lib that does the same. What you are describing is not a personality trait confined to one side or the other. Making personal attacks and not addressing points is slightly different than the ideology of policy and whether or not it actually helps society.