I almost NEVER talk to a liberal about politics.

First of all, it is a good way to end a friendship.
Secondly, they will immediately ignore any points you have and start to scream at you that you are a racist, closed-minded, intolerant, bigot, and then they will make up agreements that use as foul language as possible. (Not that my wife hasn't chided me for my frequent Al Swearengen-like [HBO's Deadwood] language, but my goal with the language isn't to be intentionally offensive.) This goes to Democrat rule of debate to "don't play the ball, play the player." If you demonize your opponent you can win regardless of the facts. Also, the Leftsit may also silence their opponent (which often works in my case; I just write you off as worthless).

As such, many conservatives simply avoid liberals. Their friendship or company isn't worth the pain.
Often the goal of liberals is not to win hearts and minds but to come away with a badge of courage and a story to tell their liberal friends. One guy I knew always went to "protests" to incite a riot and get a minor injury. Nothing thrilled him more than being about to show us a red mark on his back from were a police bean bag had hit him. Nothing was actually accomplished by his asinine behaviour, but he "stood up to The Man" and that was what counted. It really annoyed me that Mr. PETA supporter was proud that he threw a newspaper vending machine at a police horse.

Neo-neocon's personal behaviour aside, your typical liberal would have ranted and screamed if they found themselves in room with a large number of conservatives. Any polite response from the conservatives would have only egged on the liberal. With no negative consequences, they would have had to ramp up their behaviour. If they had provoked a violent response or been politely expelled this would have only added to their story and confirmed their martyrdom for "speaking truth to power". And, that brings up something in the liberal mind; they want to claim to be a martyr (like Dr. King, etc.) but they don't actually want to suffer real consequences for that martyr status. Doing something that causes them to be expelled from the conference room, causes no real pain, but allows them to claim to be a martyr because their free speech was restricted (ignore that it wasn't a government action), or that they were manhandled (ignore the lack of bruises), etc. My protester-hobbyist acquaintance was thrilled if he got arrested and spent 3 hours in jail/processing without charges. That would be just the best result possible. After all, he had expected to by at the "protest" all day; no time wasted for him. But even more proof that he took it to The Man.

Since the 60s we live in a culture where rudeness is rewarded. The more of an A-hole you are to someone in authority the better morally you are. Since protests in the 60s were rude and right, being rude must therefore be right. And if it is rudeness to someone in authoity or someone conservative it is defiantly unquestionably morally right. They never seem to realize that in the 60s righteousness and rudeness were not a cause and effect relationship. Granted, they often went hand-in-hand, but one didn't cause the other. Nor was rudeness necessary. Dr. King was not rude and he accomplished a great deal.

No one cares if their rudeness actually accomplishes anything. What matters is that they have a story to tell. The Left really doesn't care about the causes they champion. What they really care about is themselves. For example, read this story at http://bojack.xorg/mt-arc/001321.html . Here you have a law professor, who accomplished nothing (Reagan still became Gov, then POTUS), but feels that because he did something inappropriate (ignoring his boss, and "violating someone's free speech rights" [what they would say if it happened to them]) he is morally superior and he gets to revel in that glory some 30 years later. He admits he did something wrong, but he feels he is right because of it. His behaviour, both in cutting short Reagan's speech and retelling the tale, are pure self-centeredness and narcissism.

The average liberal would have gone on a tear, when placed in a room with known outspoken conservatives. Because to them, in their Me culture, (1) rudeness is rewarded, and (2) right and wrong are not based upon WHAT you do, but instead upon WHO you are.

Here

If you put them in jail for life, the Left will complain that life in prison is too hard.

It really never ends with them. They don't feel any need for justice. The criminal didn't hurt them, they are still comfy in their little cocoon.

It is all about being Holier-than-thou. It is all about looking down your nose at other people and saying "I am better than you, because I am [more moral | have higher SAT scores | live in a higher tax bracket | use my Saturdays to go where I don't live, scream, block traffic, and make the real resident's lives miserable]."

Do you think these people really care about the criminal? No. They care about bitching and complaining about society.

1000 years ago they would be walking around in hair-shirts while whipping themselves, still screaming "Look at me! Look at me! I am better than you."
Except 1000 years ago they wouldn't have had TV cameras to turn them into heroes. 1000 years ago they would not have been able to pretend that their narcissistic antics had any relevance to something important like Dr. King. In modern times, they don't have to justify their actions, they can just step on the back of the black man, Dr. King, and use his labour to gain themselves some respect.

However, you cheapen the victims suffering, it will never be too little. I remember, 2 years ago, the guy over in Europe who got convicted of blowing up an airliner. He only served 2 days per life taken. How cheap are the victims lives?

Only if you are of a proper racial or social class are the crimes not enough. White? Male? Christian? No baying at the moon for you to have justice. Instead we have extra time for you based on the colour of your skin, or gender, or beliefs. We have Hate Crime for you.

Why? Because to the Left you are Der Juden, and our hate is politically correct hate.

To think that this involves Justice to the Left really misses their motivations and beliefs.
Elitism first and foremost.
Obsession with caste (be it race, gender, or sexuality) second.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled Friday that the Federal Communications Commission did not have the authority to prohibit the manufacture of computer and video hardware that doesn't have copy protection technology known as the "broadcast flag." The regulations, which the FCC created in November 2003, had been intended to limit unauthorized Internet redistribution of TV broadcasts. Some in-depth comments on the rulling can be found by Ernest Miller (with PDF), Donna Wentworth, Boing Boing and in the more MSM CNet

Google News has now added the neo-Nazi white supremacist web site National Vanguard to their index of "legitimate news sources." Evidently explicitly racist websites are news, but blogs are not - unless they're Blogspot blogs, owned by Google.
Why has Google not made their list of "news" sources transparent? And, if Google can create separate categories for each country, does Google refuse to add a separate "Blog" category?