Bill Maher on "radical liberalism"

Run time: 07:54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7T2YEx2snM   Posted on YouTube: October 20, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: October 21, 2007 By DU Member: Archae Views on DU: 3286

 
Once again, Bill Maher makes a total ass of himself.

"Radical liberlaism?"

And what Maher doesn't mention was that the guy "shouted down" was the liar John Stossel.

When a female is too drunk to consent--that is rape. I can't understand someone who thinks it is ok to take advantage of a vulnerable person.

When do you want the government to determine a guy is a rapist. After the girl has 2 beer... 4 beers... 6 beers? Will this law work the other way. If a sober girl has a sex with a drunken guy, will the girl get charged with rape?

if a person is too drunk to consent--it is rape. The gender of the victim is not limited to female.

When do I want the government to determine if a guy is a rapist? Not the government: the people. Look, seriously, if the person is so drunk they are passing out or throwing up, or need to be carried cause they can't walk--don't pull your pants down. How hard is that?

I want vulnerable people protected.

I don't know the details of the issue at hand, but if it's defined too loosely, this can indeed be a very bad thing. If the circumstances that make an incident rape are made too broad and loose, we're going to have to have people signing contracts attesting to their consent eventually. And heck, maybe if they were a little tipsy while they signed, maybe they could still call it rape even.

Simply "drunk" can be a pretty far cry from passing out or otherwise substantially incapacitated, which of course would be rape, there's no debate there. Setting it to where it's rape if someone's judgment was impaired by alcohol can be quite dangerous. Are we to also say that people who make the decision to drive while drunk are also not responsible for their actions? What if both parties are drunk? What if one of the parties didn't know that the other had been drinking enough for this to be an issue?

Whether or not someone is too drunk to consent to sex is for the jury to decide based on the facts of the specific case.

Regarding whether or not we want to extend the law to allow someone to get away with a crime if they are drunk: it is already on the books. If someone is too drunk to form the intent to commit a crime, they will not be held accountable. That is also for a jury to decide.

I think that if someone is so evidently drunk, they are vulnerable. Why someone would even want to have sex with someone so vulnerable is beyond me there are plenty of people who would be willing to have sex--why go there?

As another poster here just pointed out, how do you prove this beyond a reasonable doubt in court? If someone's passed out, that's one thing, but if it's just a matter of their judgment being impaired, that's a pretty vague area. There's just too much room for abuse here by those who have regrets later.

the surrounding circumstances tell the story--from witnesses and evidence presented.

If someone is not throwing up, is not passed out, and can move about normally, could I always assume that they're able to consent to sex, or am I going to get bitten with charges if they decide later that the drinks that they have had messed with their judgment, and they didn't REALLY consent?

If the law is clear enough that someone can be certain if something will be rape or not ahead of time, it's fine, as long as it's not absurd. If it's just a batter of being "drunk" though, that's far too sketchy.

I certainly don't need anyone to spell anything out for me. If one is unable to consent to sex because of incapacitation--it is rape. Incapacitation includes many things. I suggest: get consent first.

This issue here is what incapacitated is. Unless some firm definitions are put on it, someone can give verbal consent, and then claim rape because they had alcohol in them at the time. People need to have some kind of certainty that if they get verbal consent to a sex act, that they're not going to get charged with rape for it. Right now, with some of these laws, you can get charged for rape even after establishing consent in this manner.

It's funny looking up laws on this too. If you're drunk and someone has sex with you, that can be considered rape. Also, if you're drunk, that doesn't excuse you from rape charges. So, if two drunk people have sex, and both end up regretting it, who raped who?

The law has a specified limit for when one is capable/incapable of operating a motor vehicle (a .08 BAC). The law does not state merely if the "driver is too drunk", because that is subject to a heck of a lot of interpretation.

The very same thing applies with consent, how is someone supposed to know, legally, if someone is incapable of giving consent. Should there be a BAC limit on consent, and if so how would any one know what her/his BAC was at the time. Perhaps you could do it by who bought the booze, or some other standard. The point is there *is* a standard... just like with age. Clearly some people are capable of giving informed consent before they are 18 and some are arguably too immature to do it afterwards. That has such a grey area that 18 is a generally established limit, to avoid this very type of confusion.

Is it a glass of wine? Two? Three?

What if my steady girlfriend is an alcoholic?

Prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court what "too drunk for consent" is without butchering the Bill Of Rights and putting all men and some women in jail...

These posts reflect a problem with our society. Why would you not want to protect someone vulnerable? What is wrong with people? There are plenty of people out there who want to have sex. Why manipulate someone who is too drunk to evey enjoy it?

"These posts reflect a problem with our society. Why would you not want to protect someone vulnerable? What is wrong with people? There are plenty of people out there who want to have sex. Why manipulate someone who is too drunk to even enjoy it?"

Your post is one of those "Have you stopped beating your wife"? questions. Something Sean Hannity would use to bait and obfuscate a good speaker in order to further his agenda.

He just happens to be rightist and you lean the other direction. You're accusing me of "not wanting to protect someone vulnerable" which I never stated nor intended.

Compare "not wanting to protect someone vulnerable" to "war protesters are not supporting our troops".

It's the same kind of loaded phrase. The end result is that it paints all men with a broad brush and allows for the eventual interment of any man for any reason simply because he is a man and for no other purpose at all.

Case in point:

I am a firearm owner. Not a gun nut just a reasonable person. A lot of Democrats hunt fish whatever.

Well a junkie neighbor broke in while I was gone. She removed my locked safe and stole my handgun. I discover the loss and have witness that this woman was the thief.

A slam dunk case of theft and felony firearm possession right?

Wrong! Said thief is a twisted manipulative person and accused moi of being an "abusive room mate" to my tenant. Tenant thinks I'm the nicest guy in the world.

Sheriffs Deputy buys her story and refuses to even press charges. Even after i point out the missing safe, bored out trigger lock and her record of probation and many DUI's.

I get a sermon from the Deputy after being frisked! He tells me that a third party may "infer domestic violence" and file charges at any time. Therefor ie, and to wit if I say to some woman "I can't believe you were so foolish to let both the dogs out" in a loud voice I can be charged with assault.

Now is that fair?

Now you want me to allow any woman who has ONE DRINK to arbitrarily accuse me of taking advantage of her?

Sorry my friend. The system is whacked out. I don't care if Gloria Steinem or Sean Hannity wear the jack boots.

You protect the Constitution of the United States of America for ALL citzens.

No one gets special favors just for being alive.

And no one gets those rights denied.

No one ever said "one drink." The law--on the books in many states--says that if a person (and I never said woman) is too drunk to consent, that is rape.

You suggested that it only applies to men. You suggested that one drink = rape. That is not the law. If you fear the law, let me give you some advice.

If she is throwing up in the toilet--don't take it out of your pants.
If she is passed out drunk--get off of her.
If she can't talk or walk because she is so drunk--keep it zipped.

You and I agree on something. Freedom is for everyone. Not just the biggest and strongest.

Five thousand other guys will be sued or indicted on frivolous matters. All plaintiffs will exclaim "He took advantage of my condition".

A man can be charged with assault just for yelling at any woman for any reason. The cops actively look for these cases.

A once heard a young woman coffee server at Border's Books remark that her problem was "I can't seem to find a perpetrator of sexual harassment so I can sue the company for all it is worth".

In other words she was LOOKING for a case of sexual harassment claim!

These things are REALLY happening.

Another example: Five years ago I got into an argument with this crazy woman who was slowing down the very long line at my pharmacy. She was filing a complaint of "poor service" to this the nicest and most efficient staff of pharmaceutical employees one could ever find.

So i say to the woman: "Mamm, if you'd just stop with your complaint ALL of us would have been out of here fifteen minutes ago"

"Well I wasn't talking to you sucker".

"You are now" I reply. Nothing more was said but the woman called security. Security took my name and phone number.

Result?

I have to answer for a fictitious "Assault & battery" charge from the SFPD...

It gets thrown out of course as i had tons of witnesses and the whole thing was on camera and tape. However this matter NEVER should have happened. In fact what was really disturbing is that I get a detective's phone interrogation just minutes before I had to play a very challenging trumpet solo in front of a live audience. Talk about unnerving...

So WHY did this happen to the near nicest guy you'll ever meet (and if you don't think I'm nice ask my Cal Berkeley daughter)?

Because D/A's, police and municipal authorities have found a new device to ensure job security. Indict any man on domestic violence or violence against women. Raises the arrest and conviction rate regardless of the truth of the matter. It's shooting fish in a barrel.

If you don't believe this happens rest assured that it does.

"Driving while being a large white male" is the new pull over.

These events really occurred. Personally I find these matters as reprehensible and unconstitutional as the War On Drugs.

And the worst part... Want to know the worst part about this?

The frivolous claims made by the occasional low life female who wants to pimp the system for her own benefit undermine the efforts of women who really are being abused and need protection.

People like me should be considered good friends of equal rights for women. I support the whole litany of Liberal causes from health care to the right to choose to equal pay for equal work etc.

Now with my forty year plus background in good liberal causes behind me, well just think of how these frivolous, manipulation of men by unscrupulous women plays in places like Kansas or other Red States.

Men should be warned: Any woman you meet can file an assault charge on you and make it stick simply because she is a woman and you are a man.

and there have been lots of convictions for it.

Don't drink and drive.

Don't drink heavily in public.

And don't ingest liquids given by strangers. Simple solutions requiring no butchery of the Constitution or special favors for one group and denial of rights for another.

Where has personal accountability gone? No time for us to act like republicans.

they should not be laying on the bathroom floor or passed out in their cars. What is wrong with our society attempting to define consent. Those drunks are asking for it--and you know they really want it. Even if they can't talk or walk. And those poor misunderstood men. All they wanted was a little action--and whose to blame them for going after someone who is much less likely to say anything. Talking is so overrated.

You have what a I call a "Chip on my shoulder feminism". Defined as "I'm going to prove that all men are creeps and get the power to lock them up with indiscriminate carelessness at my own will applying no respect or regard for the Constitution at all".

You may even utter these exact same words to your friends. I'd bet money on it...

Largely no difference in mechanics than Dick Cheney or Alberto Gonzales methods. The road taken is the same. You're just using a different vehicle.

in your case, it was true.

locked up at your own discretion?

I am admitting that when you assume you made an (oops, I edited it out as I don't want to be tombstoned).


But, I am certain you are familiar with the phrase.

You're almost always treading on shaky legal ground when prosecuting a anyone for having sex with a drunk.

Who is the reliable witness? Usually there won't be one. Unless various people come forward (each voluntarily willing to testify in court, losing time from work and being grilled by an aggressive prosecutor) there won't be a case unless the Constitution is shattered. Therefor allowing any woman to accuse rape and win the case based solely upon her statement alone.

We have that problem with the executive branch screaming "terrorist' and locking up "foreign combatants" forever and without habeas corpus.

I don't seem to have any trouble staying sober in public. Why should special rights exist for those lush types who can't walk straight anyway?

No man on this forum wants to see anyone sexually abused whether or not the are drunk, sober or come hell or hangover. However from a legalistic standpoint the odds of protecting women after they voluntarily imbibe too much become blurry.

I'd rather they stay sober and fight for health care, jobs and the environment.

If you're too drunk to drive, you're too drunk to give full consent. Why would the law not use the law already in place to define it?

From being the "over emotional" Ellen D. (on and on and on he spoke for like 5 minutes. Enough already.) To being against marriage. He makes sexist remarks all the time. He's a very funny man but I don't think he really likes women either. I also thought that I was the only one who's observed this.

Maher's sexism problem is an embarrassment to the progressive movement. I'm waiting for NOW to infiltrate his audience.

Bill Maher is a Misogynistic Anti-Breastfeeding Pig (Video)

http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2007/09/bill-maher-is-misogynistic-anti.html

One “Fake Older Boyfriend” Into the Trash-bin.

http://wonderlandornot.net/2007/03/10/one-fake-older-boyfriend-into-the-trash-bin/

Thanks

There was an incident Friday night at CBS Television City and it wasn’t pretty.
Someone in the Real Time With Bill Maher audience started yelling, specifically at Chris Matthews.
After a day-long effort trying to figure out exactly what this first person said ( there were a few-including one woman who’s butt Bill threatened to kick out of the studio.
Using a host of different kinds of professional sound equipment and an old-fashioned Roto-Scoper connected to 1986 issue Sony Walkman® earphones . I’m able to conclusively agree that it began as “Chris Matthews , you said I promise not to…” and then Bill jumps up and charges out to the audience.

:: Later in this part (3:24) of the segment, one can distinctly hear a man’s voice yell out: “Tell us what happened in building 7 Bill!!?”

I posted the whole show here
The whole segment is here
A short clip of just the incident is here

jt

Not his audience, not the panel, no one agreed with his assessment that protesters are getting out of control. The senator on the panel even said "Are you kidding?" Chris Mathews asked 'give me an example' and Bill brought up something from 3 years ago.
What is he talking about?
I can't believe he even said that about how protesters are "radical liberals".
This was a definite out of body out of mind experience for him.

I question responding to some of the charges made here as I think it really goes without saying, but I really must interject.

"If she is throwing up in the toilet--don't take it out of your pants.
If she is passed out drunk--get off of her.
If she can't talk or walk because she is so drunk--keep it zipped."

I haven't read a single comment suggesting otherwise, I would say anyone who WOULD advocate such a gross violation not only doesn't belong on this thread, but doesn't belong in civilized society. There seems to be an almost willful blindness to everything everyone on the other side of the debate has said. If someone is unable to understand where they are, who they are, can't walk, thats' open and shut, nevermind eerily close to necrophilia. That only covers a very narrow set of circumstances.I've had a bit of a problem with alcohol in my life and i know from experience that one's judgement can still be impaired even if one can still walk, and talk normally. There is a huge gulf between two beers and unconscious, this law apparrently makes no provisions for this, THAT is the point of contention. If a girl is "buzzed", say three or four drinks, no vomit, lucid, little giddy, but otherwise outwardly normal,...can she consent? What if a woman gets a little more intoxicated, still...not falling down vomit-fest, but as a result is uncharacteristically sexually adventurous, and has a one night stand she regrets the following morning. She participates, laughs, is fully ware, but not in 100% perfect condition. Is that rape? More importantly HOW is this charge to be proven, I mean, just, from a practical standpoint, a woman who is so defenseless and incapacitated as you suggest would probably be unable to go down to the police station until the next day for a rape kit, and, I would presume, some test that would prove she had a lot of alcohol in her system that would support her charges. Such a test could only prove that she HAD been extremely intoxicated, forensic science is not my speciality, but this should mean that a woman could use this defense even if she had consensual sex, and then got drunk, perhaps even hours later. It's insufficient, it doesn't invalidate the claim, but it isn't concrete. Rape is the most repulsive and vile behavior perpetrated by man, personally, I think it's WORSE THAN MURDER, which, for any who disagree, i will justify, my thinking is there are few, but there ARE circumstances where it is necessary, or justified to take human life, war, self-defense, death penalty for someone like Ted Bundy, etc., there is NEVER, EVER a justifiable reason to violate someones' person in such a manner. I state this to defuse some rediculous charge that i am another predatory male, or a tool or the patriarchy, or some other such nonsense. NOBODY is disputing sexual assault is horrible and offenders should be punished, frankly I think the guilty ones get off light. HOWEVER, without some clarification on the legal perameters of this, on all the availible information, it's got too many grey areas. And calling Bill Maher mysogynistic is so rediculous, and because he opposes PUBLIC BREAST FEEDING?!! Give me a break. I don't like it either, I don't hate women, I certainly don't hate breasts, and I don't hate babies, but,...can't this POSSIBLY be done in the ladies room??? Is that an insane request??? it's like one time I saw a diabetic administer a blood test in a cafeteria, right next to me at the table, it's the same thing. I understand it's a need, but you don't "NEED" to make a spectacle of yourself doing it. Jesus christ.

Why don't straight men just not have sex with women who have been drinking? Is that so hard?

Or, barring that, if you have any question AT ALL that the girl might be too intoxicated to consent, how about you just not have sex with her, eh?

Rape like this is rampant on college campuses, and there are too many guys out there who will get women drunk specifically to lower their decision making abilities so that they will have sex with them. That is absolutely disgusting. Should women, especially young women, be more careful when they go out and have drinks? YES. Does it make what these guys do at all RIGHT or ACCEPTABLE. NO! And they should damned well be locked up for doing it.

And the idea that feminists somehow want to put all men in jail is just the straight male ego going haywire. This idea that you are somehow being 'victimized' or that there is a systemic bias AGAINST MEN in this country (because the fact that we get higher salaries than women, get hired more often than women, aren't expected to be homemakers like women, aren't expected to take care of children like women, aren't socially forced into anorexia or other eating disorders like women, aren't consistently told that we are physically inadequate because we don't look like Barbie dolls like women, and are allowed to express our opinions in a firm and confident manner without being called 'bitches' UNLIKE women pales in comparison to the fact that you just want to have sex with a woman without having to thoughtfully consider whether or not she actually wants to do it and that is SO unfair!) is absolutely laughable.

Let's have the maximum speed limit anywhere be 20 MPH, it would save so many lives!

Sex after drinking is a pretty commonly accepted social norm, and trying to ban it would pose all sorts of issues. Can I not have sex with my established boyfriend after we had some wine with dinner? The only difference is that I know he won't complain because we've done it so many times before. It has been well established that someone can rape their spouse though.

If there's a problem with this in colleges, that specific situation should be dealt with. There comes a point in lawmaking though where you have to sit back and say that if you criminalize this, that you're hampering the freedom of the people too much. People want to go to bars and hook up, both men and women. Take that away, and both men and women will be unhappy about it.

There are some biases against men out there, and this is a big one. When a man is accused of rape, he is assumed guilty by society today, and that makes laws like these particularly dangerous.

Also, why make this so specific to straights? Is it not as bad if I have sex with a man who has been drinking?

It's just as bad when the gays do this, but you don't really see the gay men crying about how this inability to consent law (although it would be silly to assume that rape is any less of a problem in our community than it is elsewhere).

When you say 'when a man is accused of rape, he is assumed guilty by society today', are you KIDDING? Do you know how many rape cases actually result in conviction? Do you know how many women who are actually raped never come forward out of fear of how their families and their society will view them? For chrissake, http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html?gclid=CK7Pn7u1pI8CFRVlYQodKhv6Jg">go read some statistics.

It is a huge problem. It's a problem in high schools, colleges, everywhere. If a woman's legally drunk, she's too impaired to give fully informed consent. If she keeps drinking past that point or is slipped something else, there is definitely no consent of any kind.