For a lot of the reasons Wynton addressed in his other thread, the "I hate conservatives but I REALLY hate liberals crowd" always confuses me.

Seems like their dislike tends to be more aimed as these extreme charactertures that exist with far less frequency that people imagine. The traits that people assign to "default conservative republican" seem like they're more likely to be accurate than if you play the same game with "default liberal democrat". (I guess another way of saying this is that the traits of liberals that tend to irritate people exist more on the fringes than with conservatives).

What traits would those be?

Super reactionary PC-ism and overly nanny state policies? That's my potentially unaware impression of what the South Park guys tend to speak against.

I seem to think it's the other way around. Ever heard of the Silent Majority?

You mean the fictional group of people that social conservatives use to tell themselves that hating gay people is OK? Yeah, I'm familiar.

Like the whiny annoying liberal yuppie/hippy stereotypes aren't really represented in the actual population. But the stereotypical conservative that liberals lol at is Rush Limbaugh.

I mean I've heard of Batman too, but I've seen little evidence he exists beyond cartoons and people playing dress up.

It's pretty obvious that a small minority of the loudest people on both sides get the most attention. It's been my experience that most people, both Republicans and Democrats, tend to be nowhere near that extreme and reasonable. Most simply hate the other side more than their side. But they are drowned out by the nutjobs and extreme positions more often than not.

Sure, I think that's obvious. I don't think that makes it untrue that when people get to painting the picture of "stock liberal" vs "stock conservative" the stock conservative tends to be more accurate/reflects the republican base. This mostly being because as Wynton pointed out- you're just seeing more variance in opinion from liberals at this point.

What makes you guys think these people don't exist?

Sure, they may LOL at him, but it's pretty weak. Limbaugh is not *that* bad. There's a world of difference between him and Hannity and Beck. Those guys are off-the-deep-end nuts. Or even Ann Coulter. She's a professional troll, so I'm not sure she counts. Limbaugh trolls some as well and tries to rile people up, so maybe that's what people get so offended by. But I haven't seen him get all religious nut-job (although he is quite obvious in not offending this key listener demographic).

Even Mormons are given a ton of sympathy on South Park, even though they are made fun of for being completely nuts. Hell, they even wrote a Broadway Musical and filmed a movie about a Mormon porn star. I think they look at the religious nuts more as "misguided good-hearted folks" more than anything. Then they take on the Catholic church and Bill Donahue and absolutely crush them. They generally pick their battles with who is really awful and evil, and not just those who are wacky and misguided.

What makes you think they do, and if they do why would they be on your side?

Dids lives in Seattle. I'm not sure they exist there. Fly thinks he's black, so they don't exist in the black community either.

Having interacted with them, etc. ...

I've also interacted with them, and they're on my side.

I never said they don't exist, they just don't reflect the average liberal. As Xorbs points out- I live in Seattle and work for a University- I see these people every day, but they're still on the fringe.