[gcruse]

If an opponent is inherently evil ideologically imbedded, then one has no reason
to expect that rational discussion and debate would produce any useful result.

Disagreeing with someone doesn't necessarily make either one of us evil.
And many things besides evil are inherent and incapable of change.

[optimistically_conservative]

Disagreeing with someone doesn't necessarily make either one of us evil. And many things besides evil are inherent and incapable of change.

I agree with that, but that misses the point of using epithets in politics. Republicans are not called facists by Democrats because Democrats understand the tenet of facism, but because it puts Republicans on the defensive, makes them inherently evil as facists, and therefore Democrats no longer need to engage in rational discussion and debate on issues like national security, etc. It works just as well in reverse.

My point in posting this was to offer that perhaps, "liberal anger" is fueled not by excessive partisanship by conservatives, but by the underlying tenant of anger, hatred and frustration toward anyone that resists the greater good of utopian socialism buttressed by extreme environmentalism. In other words, the modern "liberal theology" is more akin to fascism than the minimalist government liberal represented by our founding fathers.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Disagreeing with someone doesn't necessarily make either one of us evil."

True, but leftists/socialist ARE evil. The historical record proves it (150,000,000+ dead, and still counting).