More Statements That are Totally and Completely Unlike Anything a Typical Liberal Would Say

My dearly Befuddled is posting on the latest statement by Bill Maher, a religious bigot of the first order who once referred to a belief in God as a neurological disorder. His latest comparison is between Laura Bush and a dog.

"After the photo display, Maher was challenged by guest panelist Christopher Hitchens, who told him: "It must be to [George Bush's] credit he got Laura Bush to marry him. She's an absolutely extraordinary woman."

To that, Maher replied: "Oh, come on. That's like Hitler's dog loved him. That is the silliest reason ..."

So...the love Laura Bush has for her husband is akin to the obedience shown to Hitler by his dogs. Good one Bill. Almost as good as George Carlin referring to Barbara Bush as the "silver douche bag."

Exactly when does all of this atypical liberal nastiness occur enough that we can actually start classifying it as typical? Example after example is put forth day after day, whether it is Ward Churchill advocating the "fragging" of officers, t-shirts promoting the assassination of the president, the throwing of food, or signs calling for the castration of Dick Cheney. TRV could literally post examples of liberals going way beyond the bounds of good taste and reasonable debate from now until the rapture.

And, each and every time, a wayward liberal will stop by and say, "that is not a typical liberal. How dare you lump all of us together like that."

I ask again, when does enough evidence stack up that I can actually refer to the kind of idiocy and cruelty that I see every day from the likes of Bill Maher, George Gallagher, Paul Krugman, Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, et al., as typical?

Or am I to treat every liberal as a unique and special snowflake until they prove me wrong?