oh good, a  sweeping generalisation, i have met only a couple of people in my life to whom either of your statements could apply, most people i know do value hard work and i can only think of 1 person i know who has anything approaching an "entitlement complex"

Based on SamuelIRSSmith's post, I have traditional values 0.o

Probably not a bad thing though... might come in handy 20 years from now whn I'm a sucessful 38 year old.

Speaking like this, it's probably the fact that many conservatists have grown in a world like that and are unable to accept some changes. Not to say all changes are good, either... But in general, people should be pretty open-minded (but not too open-minded).

Traditional values is an ambiguous term that has no meaning without reference to a specific time. Not to mention what we remember as "traditional values" is often a lot different than what those values were during that time.

Its a pretty meaningless term, but nonetheless an effective term. Its kind of like claiming that you are for "family values," which I guess implies that your opponent wants to do away with the family or worship Satan or something.

First off, you're pretty dense if you don't understand what an example is ...

Now, I have no evidence to support that people have a greater entitlement complex today then they ever have but I have seen more people who I would say have entitlement issues than those that don't; when you have an economy that is built on people living above their means you'd have difficulty demonstrating that people do not have entitlement issues.

Traditional values means 3 things:

1. Women can't get a divorce.
2. Men can get a divorce very easily.
3. Men can legally rape their wife, because a married woman can't legally say no.

Once you have these 3 things, everything else falls into place.

Congratulations, you've won the misrepresentation of the year award!

Your interpretation is about as accurate as saying Gay Rights are about allowing homosexuals to rape children without consequences.

^ The internet is serious business. I'm pretty sure that was a joke. I found it funny.

Of the whole year?  Already in February?  It wasn't that bad.

An increasing divorce rate is a threat to family values, which are the cornerstone of America.  If we don't have married couples raising children (our future) in nuclear families, we can't have strong communities, churches, cities, or states.  The increase in the divorce rate is attributed to the fact that today women can get divorces just as easily as men, and it turns out that there were a lot of shitty marriages out there that women have wanted out of for a long time.  It used to be the case that men could opt out of marriage and women couldn't.  That was unfair, but many people ignore that and think that the increasing divorce rate isn't a sign of women gaining freedom, but a sign of some other vague societal evil that makes people not love each other the way they used to.  This way you can take a good thing (women gaining one single equal right) and turn it into an attack on atheists, homosexuals, feminists, liberals, or whomever else, and call it supporting marriage, or traditional values, or traditional family values, or whatever.  The enemy in this argument can be replaced constantly, and you're always the good guy, because you care about families.

Does that make more sense?  I don't mind if you disagree, but I just wanted to state my case more clearly and seriously.  I just think that the concept is pretty lulzy and required a lulzy response.  But there's my serious take on it.