FWIW, I have ridiculed Der Trihs more than I have ridiculed Bricker. And you have to admit, they are both tempting targets.
Nope. There were philosophical and factual differences between more than one person. It became a train wreck because the one poster was a rude, overbearing asshole.
Some issues transcend partisanship for liberals. 
Given human nature, I would think there would be other threads that could serve as example, but I’m not motivated enough to go looking.
I suggest getting a grip then. There is nothing about anyone’s politics that is going to make me angry.
So the volumes of partisan bullshit - outrageous, fatuous, incontrovertibly wrong partisan bullshit - that you have foisted upon us in your relatively short time here has been motivated by … what? Disinterested musings?
It seems to me that behaving like you have here without some affective motivation to do so would be more pathological than getting angry about someone else’s politics.
I didn’t say that. Only that having an opinion that doesn’t agree with mine, no matter how much it means to me, is not going to make me angry. That’s not an interest in an issue, that’s an obsession with it.
The problem with this – and I admit that no person is a great judge of his own reasonableness – but the problem with this is, in my view, that Der Trihs and I are not equidistant from a theoretical middle point.
Being angry about a political issue is not equivalent to being obsessed by a political issue.
Most people’s politics are a reflection of their personality, their feelings about things, their ethics and morality, their sense of justice, and so on. Typically, the pricking of a conscience means the raising of an affective response. That’s normal.
Have your politics emerged independently from your feelings on issues? Do you post here because you are paid to do so?
So, what exactly are you looking for here in the way of a counter-example? You want ire and vigor directed by a liberal poster (must be unwaveringly liberal, no accusations of reasonableness) to both liberal and conservative targets who are perfectly equidistant from a center point that no one seems able to define.
I think I might know why we’re having trouble finding that example for you.
It is not normal to become enraged by political debate. It’s just not. I feel strongly about a lot of issues, but that motivates me to explain and argue, not to get mad at those who disagree.
Who said “enraged?” If you keep having to change the term to make your argument work, your argument is faulty.
Nothing that you’ve ever contributed here could be remotely construed as explanatory of anything except your own personal limitations and problems.
Is enraged really that different a term than angry? It’s not normal to get angry during a political debate.
“Hello, hyoo-mahn. This tendency you have to use different terms for slightly different connotations of a similar concept is confusing. I fear that we will never be able to communicate properly.”
Of course enraged is a different term from angry. I suggest that these last 3-4 posts of yours are a perfect microcosm of your larger posting style here.
The idea that people don’t normally get angry while discussing politics is just fucking ridiculous. Have you never heard the suggestion that one should not discuss religion or politics at work? Didn’t you understand why that was suggested?
Was that summary really your best effort, good faith attempt to parse what I’m saying?
That right there is rich. 
Well, if the other guy is enough of a dolt, it could be normal to be angry that he’s allowed to be in political debates in the first place. Then go into the debate with that anger already in place.
Anyway, “angry” is a vague blanket term that can legitimately be used to cover many emotional states, from controlled annoyance to fierce, uncontrolled rage.
Here, let me loan you my Acme portable goal-post detector. It’s the only way you’ll be able to determine where it is at any given moment.
It’s Acme, it will locate the goal post by making it fall on you.
I agree. So it’s just FWIW. That said, my ridicule tends to gravitate towards pomposity more than anything else. I recall poking fun at John Mace a few years back. But again, Der has received more of it from me than JM and Bricker have, even combined.
More generally, I’d say that Der gets quite a bit of pushback in GD, as does lekatt. But methinks you 3 are far from equidistant from a theoretical black hole of insanity/inanity. Indeed, some posters here approach the event horizon.
It is an effort to call you out on a poor argument (moving the goalposts, as Euphonious Polemic implied), and/or invite you to clarify your position. sylmar and Measure for Measure both gave examples of liberal posters being criticized by other liberal posters, and you came up with excuses to dismiss both of them.
I feel like we’ve been over this ground about a billion times, but you seem to constantly want to judge the SDMB by a completely inappropriate set of standards. The SDMB is NOT some learned body which strives as part of its mission statement for objectivity. It’s just a group of people hanging around on the internet, and, for whatever reason, way more of those people are liberal than conservative. Therefore, based purely only completely understandable human nature, with nothing malicious or surprising or disturbing about it, conservative posts are responded to differently than liberal posts.
Which is not to say that I offer a blanket washing-our-collective-hands of any responsibility for ANYTHING that might go on. But you seem to be reacting in some kind of feigned horror that, gasp, the ignorance-fighting denizens of the SDMB who so pride themselves on objectivity are in fact not totally fair on all issues. Oh, dear me, the humanity. When in fact there so no “we”, and if there is such a “we”, we don’t pride ourselves on that at all.
Granted, there are probably cases where individual posters, when discussing the level of political slant on the SDMB, make individual posts which, either because they are in fact wrong or because they phrased those posts poorly, seem to contradict what I said above. But when we’ve discussed the issue in depth and really clarified what we’re talking about, I’ve never heard anyone seriously claim that a random post with a Republican-leaning slant and a random post with a Democratic-leaning slant will receive responses on the SDMB that are totally identical in all ways, both in quality and quantity. Such a claim is so far into the ludicrous that I find it hard to believe anyone would make it.
What DOES bother me, however, are near-absolute statements of the sort that you yourself have flirted with in this thread, such as “oh, liberals who are wrong don’t get called out on it” or “it’s perfectly OK on the SDMB to insult Christians”. Now, both of those statements are vaguely related to underlying truths… liberals who are wrong are LESS LIKELY to get called out on it, and when called out on it, probably less harshly. And it’s certainly more acceptable to be rude and insulting towards Christianity as a whole on the SDMB than it is in mainstream American life. But making those kind of overbroad statements (which some posters such as Shodan seem to just revel in) is both immediately provably wrong and, I’d argue, actively harmful. The more you overstate “the board leans left” as “the board leans so far left that every single argument is informed by NOTHING by that leaning”, the more that prediction tends to come true. If a brand fresh new conservative poster shows up and posts some and gets argued with a lot, fairly or unfairly, and then they see a bunch of exaggerated claims about the SDMB liberal hive mind, all that does is make it easier for them to just smugly assume that any arguments they’re receiving are based purely on ideology, not on merit. And similarly, I might want to actually type out lengthy and polite responses to claims from conservative, but if someone is already in that thread shaking their head about how frothy the liberal bias is on the board, and the accusations of hypocrisy are flying around, that’s just that much less incentive for me to actually attempt to meaningfully participate in the debate.
None of which is to say that it’s not a problem that the board leans left. It’s a huge problem. However, I have no idea what the heck to do about it… but pretending the problem is worse than it is is just going to be self-fulfilling.