That's very well done, Lyndi - probably the best artificial argument I've seen posted in this thread by anyone for as long as it's been going on.<quoted text>
The 3 traits mentioned were:
sense of entitlement
avoidance of responsibility
Let's try this then, using the last presidential election as an example.
Romney or Obama?
1) Which candidate promised the most freebies?*entitlements
2) Which candidate told gays, women and racial minorities a war was being waged on them by his opponent?*victimization
3) Which candidate promoted taxing the rich more so that the "little guy" could have more?*promoting personal irresponsibility
It's mathamatical, Willie. We know what platform Obama ran on and we know liberals voted for him. What do those two knowns equal?
I don't know how dark exactly that box is you're sitting in but if that simple demonstration doesn't display a liberal platform of entitlements, victimization and avoidance of personal responsibility maybe you should chuck the democrat recommended but soon to be federally enforced or face jail time lightbulb and buy a good old fashioned republican lightbulb. Maybe you'll see better.
Those 3 traits are indisputably the embodiment of liberalism and that's bad for many reasons. First, it gave us an absolute moron for a president and secondly, the dumbing down of America is in full swing proven by the fact that his supporters actually believe there is such a thing as a free lunch.
You may not believe it, but that's sincere.
I've already told you why I think it's an artificial argument, and you've done nothing to address that. You keep plugging away, banging on your drum, trying to force me to accept or overlook the flawed premise.
In the end you're still trying to make political points off of something that isn't political. No matter how creative you get, no matter how hard you work, no matter how much you ratchet up the invective, it's still not going to work.