In fact liberals in general when speaking with we in the unwashed masses seem to be nice people most of the time--some exceptions of course.
To defeat liberals in elections we've got to get the voters to think about issues not just feel that liberals care about kittens while conservatives have kitten cookbooks.
To that end ask your friends what they thought of President Bush telling the Attorney General to not enforce civil rights laws back when Bush was President. You might also want to also ask your friends about what they thought of President Bush arbitrarily changed the tax laws to benefit the rich.
Now if your friends are conservatives they'll probably know that neither of those things ever happened. But if your friends are no-nothings...er low information voters they may think Bush did those things. If any of your friends are liberals they will undoubtedly believe that Bush did those things.
At this point engage in a conversation about how it's a bad thing when the President can unilaterally modify the laws passed by Congress. Most sane people will tend to agree that while the President should have a significant amount of influence on what laws are passed--he does have a veto after all--he shouldn't be able to arbitrarily rewrite laws to suit his whims when he can't get Congress to agree with him.
At this point spring the trap. Mention that oh dear you'd been confused. Bush hadn't done those things it was Obama.
Obama unilaterally decided to not enforce laws on marriage, immigration, drugs, and welfare when he failed to convince Congress to change those laws. Similarly Obama has unilaterally changed Obamacare. While much of Obamacare is Congress transferring power to bureaucrats--which is why the HHS mandate is not in conflict with the law in the sense that the Obamacare act gives the Health and Human Services bureaucrats the authority to define whatever they want as "required" medical care--the law is very specific about things like when business have to start participating. Yet Obama overruled the clear statement of the law and decided, on his own, to slip the starting date to after the next election.
Similarly the law Obama wanted passed specifically says that only people who enroll on state exchanges can get subsidies. Since the majority of states, 34, wanted nothing to do with Obamacare Obama simply declared that he would change the law on his own so that people who enroll via the Federal government site would get subsidies. Similarly when Obamacare caused 5,000,000 Americans to lose their health plans Obama simply told insurers to break the law and continue to provide those policies for one more year--just long enough to avoid keeping Democrats from getting reelected in 2014.
Now those who like Obama and Obamacare might say what's the big deal? The answer is simple at some point there will be a President that those people don't like and they probably don't want that President to be able to unilaterally change laws.
Suppose we get an Republican President. What's to stop him from lowering tax rates by simply telling the IRS not to enforce the tax code? Or even better what's to stop that Republican President from simply telling the government to stop supporting, funding, or enforcing Obamacare?
On what basis could those who say it's ok for Obama to rule by fiat complain about what that Republican President will do?
It's unlikely that most low information voters are in favor of a monarchy. Hence they will tend to see, since their problem is that they're ignorant due to the media not informing them not that they're stupid,that a President who views himself as above the law is not a good thing no matter what party he belongs to or what his ideology is.
One last point you might make is to ask them if like the fact that their votes for Senators and Congressmen are meaningless? After all if the President can make whatever laws he likes and not enforce the laws he doesn't like what authority does Congress have? And if Congress has no authority then who is in Congress--that is who you vote for--doesn't matter at all.
Then ask your friends if we shouldn't have a Congress that will keep someone like Obama in check rather than a Congress that will stand by while Obama makes up laws on the fly.
If they agree then talk to them about conservatives and how they want to end the monarchy and return to a Republic where the people are in charge.
Ted Cruz has a great article on this problem at http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304632204579338793559838308?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304632204579338793559838308.html