I started a thread once a while back putting forth my theory that the differences between "liberal" and "conservative" are not the problem that leads to flame ways, but rather how one side makes assumptions about the way the other side thinks or argues and then operates on that mistaken assumption.
then, the other side spends as much or more time debunking the misconception and less time actually putting forth their actual views. Then the arguments get about redefining the misconception....it becomes rather circular at that point and counterproductive.

Though this can happen from either direction, a more recent example would be someone claiming that all liberals who were against the decision to invade iraq could not be supportive of the troops. The thread then got bogged down in rebutting and redefining that one misconception...mainly an assumption about how the other side is motivated or thinks.
The indelibility of these misconceptions, even in the face of repeated rebuttal and correction is the basis of what seems like 90% of the friction between right and left.

If each side would just say their piece, read the other side with adequate comprehension, we might actually be having discussions instead of flamewars.

but I dream.