There is simply not a moments recognition that he lives in a society with other people, who may not in fact take the same views he does. Its immaturity on a level so profound that it qualifies as mental illness.

I don't agree with Hillary Clinton, Obama or McCain for that matter, but as an adult and a citizen, I recognize that politicians simply reflect the political market. They are simply exploiting their perceptions of the political will of the American people. It really isn't Hillary's fault that white, working class people took offense to bitterquiddick, or to Obama's 20 year association with a delusional black liberation pastor. In fact, I expect that significant numbers of the people who voted for her were actually voting against Obama.

Its called democracy you liberal morons.

Last night, I watched the rather entertaining Boston Legal, which is a show whose entire premise is structured around the opportunity of the show's lawyers to make pedantic political statements about current events. This show, I think it was originally broadcast last week, had one of the characters berating the supreme court for not changing the law to prevent Louisiana from executing a retarded mentally challenged man for raping a child. The contempt for the gun-loving, church-going, racist white trash of Lousiana for daring to approve capital punishment in the first place was palpable. The total arrogance apparent in the fantasy of lecturing the justices--not on constitutional grounds, but from the myopic, liberal moral delusions is just breath-taking.

I don't complain about the show at all, because every week it is there to demonstrate what liberals think of regular Americans. Watch it and learn.

Its not just Avarosis, its the entire class of liberals--narcissists so insulated from the reality of the cooperative and collaborative nature of society that they simply can't grasp the simple process of making an argument. They think they make an argument, which is to say they will tell you their reasons for their positions, but they don't acknowledge the existence, much less make any attempt to refute contradictory views--its all foot-stomping and Shut-up! Shut-up! Shut-up!

If you can stand another example--Matt Lauer interviewed an oil executive today, and of course asked questions about obscene profits. That's fine--its part of the narrative on high oil prices, but when asked what he was doing with the profits, and especially about exploration for new sources of oil, the man replied that they drill where they can, where they are permitted to...

A real journalist would have explored that important point, but Matt Lauer isn't a real journalist, he's a liberal mouthpiece for the Democrat party. He quickly skipped over that vital point--the one where his political masters don't come off so well, because he wasn't interested in informing the public that Democrats have been blocking oil exploration and exploitation for decades.

Which brings me to the question of what I might actually loathe.

I loathe unfairness--game rigging, self-dealing and while not a sin confined to liberals by any means, the set of game-riggers totally encompasses any and all liberals, in fact modern, mis-defined liberalism is all about fixing the game, whether we are talking unions or bureaucrats (corporate or otherwise...).

The entire Democrat primary has been an exercise in game-rigging--the exclusion of Michigan and Florida is unconscionable. If you agree with excluding their vote, you are going to hell (yes, this is my Boston Legal imitation...). The pressuring of Hillary Clinton to leave the race, particularly when it is clear that she represents the core constituency of the Democrat party, is a Stalinist instinct. If you are going to win, then win, or lose--I don't care, but do it according to democratic principles you A-holes!