Posted on 03/24/2012 5:18:09 PM PDT by Impala64ssa
On his HBO show "Real Time," host Bill Maher spent six minutes discussing his strong opposition to "hate crime laws." "One more aspect of this (Treyvon Martin case) which is hate crimes, and I know that you've (pointing to Andrew Sullivan) written about this. Some people think that a hate crime is a thought crime and this shouldn't be some separate category, a crime is a crime. It's an action. Is that what you guys believe? That's what I believe," Maher said to his panel comprised of Andrew Sullivan, Wendy Schiller and Glenn Greenwald. "It's totally what I believe," Andrew Sullivan said. "I don't want, in any way, the government getting into my mind, into my thought process." The discussion moved on to a specific case involving Rutgers student Tyler Clementi and his former roommate Dharun Ravi that is being labeled a hate crime. Last year, Clementi committed suicide after being hazed by Ravi. Maher says trying this case as a hate crime "gives liberals a bad name. Maher says Ravi was "a mean kid" but that he shouldn't face the amount of jail time he is looking at, 10 years in prison, for being "mean." "If it's against the law to be stupid, we're all going to be in jail eventually," Maher said to guest Wendy Schiller, who accused Ravi of attacking Clemente because of his sexual orientation. "He was a mean kid." "I just think this is what gives liberals a bad name," Maher also said. "Just this? Nothing else, just this?" Schiller asked.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
What’s with Maher lately? Wrote an op ed the other day that even GLENN BECK and his radio crew agreed with, now this. I swear they’re handing out parkas in Hell.
I have to admit that I’m stunned.
>>I take this with a HUGE grain of salt, but Bill Maher, of all people, eloquently arguing against hate crime laws. Strange but true.<<
The only parts of the USC/BOR that liberals believe in are the “promote the general welfare” clause of the Preamble and the 1st Amendment (for them not for others).
The hollywood left fears anyone who would potentially muzzle thinking, because they fear THEIRS will be the one muzzled. Muzzling conservative thought is a whole different proposition.
It is a strange oxymoron.
Maher is moving right while Ann Coulter is moving left
He’s a d bag, but he’s somewhat more honest than most other liberals.
Maher also recently called the Occupy Wall Street crowd a bunch of “douchebags”. It just goes to show that even a broken clock is right twice a day.
You forgot the commerce clause.
It is designed to humanize this fungus-of-an-America-hating-human by fogging his name-calling past with a counterfeit rhetorical countermeasure.
He believes none of this, there is NO reason why any thinking person should believe that the American Military-slandering, al queda-admiring worm has turned, as much as a micron.
.
...and they both went to Cornell.
Mr. Maher - Liberals give themselves a bad name.
I don’t feel jubilant over Maher’s move to the center. I kind of think that 1M was given and he was told to tone it down for the sake of the campaign. He is a snake, but it is interesting to watch him walk back a bit. As for Coulter, don’t trust her either. She has turned out to be a huge disappointment. All of them are elitists.
Every now and then, a blind pig finds an acorn.
Maher is moving right while Ann Coulter is moving left
They will meet in the middle. They having a thing?
Maher might be arguing a right wing position, but one of the people on his panel is the “man” who flogged the story about Palin not being the real mother of her child.
Can you imagine a right winger writing dozens of articles suggesting that Obama isn’t the real father of his two girls and still being invited to appear on national television? (Unless, of course, the purpose was to ridicule and humiliate him....)
Maher is simply in industrial strength CYA mode.
The End.
He saw how easy Obama fooled Amerika now he is trying.
Even the most obnoxious leftist individuals will occasionally get something right. Maher is a liberal with some libertarian leanings, and will sometimes stumble into a good point or two. I am sure Karl Marx and Fidel Castro had their moments as well, but it doesn’t mean we should be impressed with either of them.
Such common sense! Any individual who purposefully injures or takes the life of another commits an act, or crime, which should be punished under a system of laws.
So-called "progressives" appeal to the classes, or groups, which they have created as voting blocks, by claiming to be able to read the minds of some criminals as being motivated by what they describe as "hate." Such dishonest manipulation of the law never was intended in the Founders' concept of "equality before the law."
Perhaps Maher fears that if conservatives gain power, they will somehow define his actions as "hate crimes," and, thus, he is seeing the disadvantages of allowing political groups to define actions motivated by "hate."
Thomas Jefferson stated:
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.