No he's mostly right on everything except vaccinations.

When he hates on other liberals, its most often because they're weak-kneed and lethargic.

>>56504113
Liberals themselves admit they've got cancer in their midst. So called 'afraid to be called racist, if I speak against muslims' and, of course, radical feminism.
Thankfully, few 'sane' liberals remain. Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, and sadly Hitchens, who was right all along and no one listened about crazy whacko muslim plague.
I'll say this.
It's been shown/proved multiculutralism doesn't work.
There will be a war because of that. Not in the middle east, but right in the heart of the 'falling' west.

>>56504113

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm6961DCBRA&t=26m40s >>56486753

what the fuck does liberal even mean anymore

>>56504886

I was just about to begin his interview with Ali A. Rizvi

>>56504953

At some point liberal came to mean

Pro-Choice
Anti-War
Pro-Government
Anti-Gun
Pro-Gay
Pro-Immigration

and conservative came to mean

Pro-Life
Pro-War
Pro-Corporations
Pro-Gun
Anti-Gay
Anti-Immigration

>>56505104


i am pro choice, anti war, pro gun, anti gay, anti immigration and anti corporation.

what am i?

>>56505191
Australian

>>56504953
The term "liberal" has been hijacked by progressivists and social marxists. The reality is that liberalism is very sensible for the most part. Liberalism stands for equality and personal freedom. Lots of emphasis on freedom of speech and press (non-existent in faux-liberalism), free market, private property etc.

Most people who call themselves liberal don't even know the meaning of the word.

>>56505191

Sorry, there is no nuance here. Pick a side closest to your ideology and vote, or don't vote and effectively vote for the side farthest from your ideology.

>>56504959

I haven't listened to the entire interview I linked, saw it on another thread and thought it may be relevant from what I heard.
Do you know if he makes podcasts from his interviews? Because he should.

>>56505191
You are what you are. The use of labels in Politics is one of the reasons nothing everything is shit. Too much attachments to broad ideology and not enough to basing your judgements on the individual characteristics of each problem.

>>56505304
This.

It's pretty hard being a pro-gun, anti-SJW liberal.

>>56505304
>Liberalism stands for equality and personal freedom.
Except reality works out that these things are mutually exclusive
All these progressives & social marxists are the inevitable consequence of liberal ideologies.

Are all Canadian white women that insufferable?

>>56505385

Not that I know of. He's had some great videos with Sargon of Akkad, Karen Straughan, Mercedes Carrera, Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin, Sam Harris etc.

>>56505104
>Pro-War
No.
There are dove or isolationist conservatives and hawk liberals too. There is not a strict stance on war with these general political persuasions or party platforms. There are establishment conservatives and liberals who follow their leader if he supports a war.

>>56504113
Maher changed in the past 6 years ever since he discovered he was half Jewish.

His meeting with Netanyahu made him a born again Jew, and he does Israel's furtive bidding now.

Which is a shame, he was enjoyable and fun, poking shit at everybody... once.

Now he just tries to push his athetistic schtick onto Catholics, Muslims and no one else.

He is literally morphing into a Fox News anchor.

>>56504113
Bill Maher is a jew, so he's liberal most of the time but goes full /pol/ whenever mudslimes get mentioned.

>>56505414
Actual "liberals" would be ehst you call libertarians today

>>56505545
The ones that live in the city yeah.

>>56504179
hes said he considers himself a "left libertarian" when he talks to ron paul

>>56505701

You can apply that exception to every point on that list aside from government vs corporation which is more fundamental to the actual beliefs that should differentiate one party versus the other.

The point is that we only have 2 viable options with generalized stances.

>>56505304
In America, libertarianism is the closest thing to classic conservatism, but it's not quite the same thing. The socialists especially wanted to hijack the word liberal because it's very powerful word in American civil religion, but they used it to divide America's understanding of what our country was founded on.

>>56505458
Its actually equity, equality under the law. You murder, you get X, wathever race, religion or shit you are. Its not possible while jews still exist tough

>>56505458
To a degree you may be right. The call for equality seems to some to mean different things. Some consider it a call for people to share equal rights and opportunities which is more common on the right wing (and has far more relevance to texts by Locke and Hobbes). Some, particularly those who support multiculturalism, see it as a call for equal standard of living to all (which is utterly retarded and more removed from the original intentions of liberalism).

My own personal theory is that the initial group of progressives you see now are those who have basically become mad with cultural power following the success of the gay-marriage movement and the rise of third wave feminism. Since then they have been viewed more favourably than they have in past times. They have gone from being viewed as hippies with no education, to open-minded, highly educated frontrunners of cultural change. Pro-choice, pro-gay, feminist revolution are all viewed as good things, but since then they have gone on to shut down core liberal principles such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press. They have come a long way from their initial liberal roots and it's honestly redundant to call them by the same name.

>>56504113
"The Bible says 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth!'"

I think she's thinking of the code of Hammurabi. Doesn't the Bible say the exact opposite?

>>56504113
Goddamnit, that woman panelist.... she's a fucking multicultural fundamentalist. Nothing will change her mind. Black is white, up is down. She's a true believer.

>>56506074

"In the Gospel of Matthew, an alternative for "an eye for an eye" is given by Jesus: 38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Old Testament God would probably say to slaughter pagans and offer a goat as a sacrifice or something, lel.

>>56504113
As a liberal, I will always stand against the ideas of Islam and people who treat it like a race. Mexicans at least share some common culture that they achieved from the Spanish, but we can't ignore the huge anti-liberal and anti-freedom views of Islam. Again, we are criticizing an organization of IDEAS not race or nationality.

She said like that the bible says "an eye for an eye", but that's the old testament. Christians aren't supposed to follow the old testament, it completely contradicts the new one. The old testament is really only there for context. Christianity is the most moderate out of the three abrahamic religions.