Bill Maher - Liberals don #39;t stand up for Liberal Values with Muslims
This is exactly why Liberals are criticized by Conservatives as having no Principles, because it actually takes courage to defend your Principles when it matters, not when its simply convenient...
By: TheAsianRepublican
View original post here:
Bill Maher - Liberals don't stand up for Liberal Values with Muslims - Video
Philippe Assouline discusses Pro Israel Liberals with David Pakman
June 2, 2014, Philippe Assouline discusses growing misinformation and liberal hostility to Israel as result of Palestinian propaganda.
By: philippe assouline
Here is the original post:
Philippe Assouline discusses Pro Israel Liberals with David Pakman - Video
I have a slightly different take on California's recent decision to regulate college sex. Don't get me wrong, it's beyond idiotic, unworkable, even borderline Orwellian. We'll get to all that.
But I also think it's incredibly useful. You see, for years I've been railing and ranting about the ridiculous myth that liberalism is socially libertarian; that liberals are "live and let live" types simply defending themselves against judgmental conservatives, the real aggressors in the culture war.
That thinking runs counter to most everything liberals justifiably take pride in, as liberals. You can't be "agents for change," "forces for progress," or whatever the current phrase, and claim that you're not the aggressors in the culture war. Liberals have redefined a millenniums-old understanding of marriage while talking as if it were conservatives who wanted to "impose" their values on the nation.
Most libertarians are surely against racial discrimination, sexism, poor eating habits, homophobia and so on. But their proposed remedies don't look anything like a liberal's. Libertarians, for the most part, do not favor racial or gender quotas. They're against banning big sodas, campus speech codes or forcing elderly nuns to pay for birth control coverage, among other things.
Liberals, meanwhile, are quite open about their desire to use the state to impose their morality on others. Many conservatives want to do likewise, of course. The difference is that when conservatives try to do it, liberals are quick to charge "theocracy!" and decry the Orwellian horror.
Enter Gov. Jerry Brown, whose answer to the alleged "rape epidemic" on campuses was to sign the new "affirmative consent" law. It will require a verbal "yes" at every stage of amorous activity on college campuses.
The incredible overreach of the law has been discussed at great length. The Times editorial board expressed its own sensible misgivings in an editorial before Brown signed the bill into law. "It seems extremely difficult and extraordinarily intrusive to micromanage sex so closely as to tell young people what steps they must take in the privacy of their own dorm rooms."
This strikes me as extremely understated, but the sentiment is right. Some defenders of the law say it doesn't really matter because it will only have an effect when women accuse men of sexual assault. "The law has no bearing on the vast majority of sexual encounters," feminist writer Amanda Marcotte reassures us. "It only applies when a student files a sexual assault complaint."
Never mind that it will also likely change the standard of proof in such situations, making it much easier to charge and administratively convict students of rape based solely on an allegation. Don't worry about false accusations, says Think Progress' Tara Culp-Ressler, they amount to only "about 2% to 8% of cases." Tell that to people who fall into the 2% to 8%.
Other defenders insist that such concerns miss the point. Ann Friedman of New York magazine rhapsodizes about the law's positive cultural impact. It will help in "deprogramming the idea that nice girls don't admit they like sex, let alone talk about how they like it." She notes that the "law will force universities to talk to all students, female and male, about how enthusiastic consent is mandatory." And that is great because "Confirming consent leads to much hotter sex."
The rest is here:
Liberals storm California's bedrooms
Theres a difference between liberals and people in the Tea Party,Bill Maher said during an interview with Salon. For one, he says, liberals apparently are not crazy.
After he and Sam Harris got into an argument with actor Ben Affleck, where they fought over the essential nature of Islam on Real Time With Bill Maher Friday, the pundit did not want to elaborate about the contentious exchange during the interview. However, he did say he felt frustrated fighting with a fellow liberal because he felt he wasnt being heard.
Were liberals! Were liberals. Were not crazy teabaggers, yknow, and so its kind of hard to be making this case -- based on facts, based on polling, I think based on what everybody really knows, Maher told the news site Monday.
Ben Affleck stars in the much-anticipated film adaptation of Gillian Flynn's best-seller, "Gone Girl," which opens Friday, Oct. 3. Reuters
We are not bigoted people, he continued. On the contrary, were trying to stand up for the principles of liberalism! And so, yknow, I think were just saying we need to identify illiberalism wherever we find it in the world, and not forgive it because it comes from [a group that] people perceive as a minority.
Affleck appeared on the show to promote his new movie Gone Girl, but an argument erupted after Maher said Islam seemed to be the only religion that acts like the mafia and which would f---ing kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture or write the wrong book.
The actor called Mahers comments gross and racist and told him he was stereotyping. Affleck argued: How about more than a billion people who arent fanatical, who dont punish women, who just want to go to school, have some sandwiches, pray five times a day, and dont do any of the things youre saying of all Muslims.
Follow me on Twitter @mariamzzarella
The rest is here:
Bill Maher After Ben Affleck Islam Fight: 'Were Liberals, Not Crazy Teabaggers'
For the first time in his three-mandate tenure, Stephen Harper has failed to secure opposition support for sending Canada to war.
The Liberals among others claim the prime minister always meant to go it alone; that he wanted to be isolated in Parliament for electoral purposes.
The Conservatives among others argue that Harper is making the best of a less than ideal situation; that he is dealing with opposition parties no longer capable of rising above partisan calculations.
Those who argue that Harper never wanted opposition support for a combat mission point to Paul Calandras hapless responses to early NDP queries about Canadas role in the fight against the Islamic State group.
They see that as a provocation designed to undermine any chance of a parliamentary consensus and subsequently compounded by Harpers failure to keep his opposition counterparts in the loop as to his thinking on the issue.
They suggest that for the better part of the past year, the prime minister had been looking for an international wedge issue that would distinguish his foreign policy from that of the Liberals, and also resonate in the next election.
From their perspective, Harper saw a golden opportunity not only to divide the Liberals but also to bring home 2011s soft Conservative supporters who have been flirting with voting for Justin Trudeau next year.
Scratching the surface, one unearths quiet speculation that the prime ministers six-month deadline on Canadas combat role could be meant to give him a window if circumstances are favorable to call an early election, so as to seek a mandate to pursue or expand the current mission.
That thesis makes for an irresistible construct for anyone who believes the prime minister is blind to the missions political risks or, alternatively, who assumes that governments always have their ducks perfectly lined up.
As it happens, the opposite is more often true.
See more here:
Both parties playing politics with the call to arms: Hbert