Your observation is a syllogistic sequence of a conclusion not following from its premisses, Jawjadawg. You refer to intellectual discussion---in Misfires, on a shooting board!---and remove yourself from the fray because "it's just a couple obsessed with a few others." Then you say you've given up "trying to be nice to them (liberals) after "demonstrating twice their open support for an open-book Marxist." Where's the intellectual of being uncivil to those who don't share your opinion?
You postulate with specific precision of how liberals of three groups too ignorant to understand what they are voting for are changing the "very" foundations of the United States. Where's the evidence half the country's citizens---okay, Romney's 47 per cent---are lazy dolts while the rest labour for a common good? Governments change all the time as conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans arrive at different views. Like the Tea Party, a loyal group.
Iconoclastic temperaments are the makings of a continent we share as neighbours from the North Pole to the Gulf of Mexico. But if I were to lie about my prime minister---who I don't particularly admire---I would be doing him a kindness. Prevarication takes opposition down. This is a Misfires ploy of "You are so," "I am not," and a hope that our distinction-making ability, including yours above, will turn murk into light.
Nonsense. It doesn't work in the real world; it can't here.
