Comment: Depends on the issue

(See in situ)

In post: .

Depends on the issue

Both are largely interchangeable to me, but yeah, there are a few differences.

(Neo)libs tend to blow up when you point how racist many of them are, with the way they treat non-Whites like perpetual infants (except "Asians", who don't make up a large enough voting block to exploit).

Neocons typically seem to not like discussing FP in general, but it's mostly the Israel-first crowd that gets riled up over it. Convincing these folks that Israel is anything but flawless is *very* difficult, because so many base it around a religious upbringing.

Neolibs also tend to be extremely patronizing and elitist, while Neocons tend to believe that everyone (except (R) politicians, of course) is out to get them.

The main issue with both, to me, is that both groups often substitute facts for emotional rhetoric, and it's very difficult to get someone like that to ever admit they were wrong. Too much pride, I guess.

edit: typo

A signature used to be here!