Actually, I am not sure what it means to be "too liberal" but yes, certain worldviews are wrong. The liberal argument is that there isn't any standard with which to decide what is wrong and what is right.

We either agree or disagree with the "liberal" point of view. Here, I would argue that they both have valid points of view which should have been used to fight the real power, rather than be divided as enemies based on their ideological grounds. It isn't liberalism. It isn't Muslim faith. It isn't Atheism. Behind all these various worldviews, there are clearly identifiable world powers, sometimes in collusion and sometimes in collision. I would think that we need to find a common ground based upon the goal of dissipation of the power from the very concentrated powers in the world. This is comparable to putting lions and and christians in the colosseum. If the lions and christians are smart, they would have joined the forces and fought the Romans.... But no. The history repeats itself because we are dumb.

Well Paul, It stands to reason that MSM will goad people into certain actions just to make themselves look edgy. Pitting a muslim against a staunch Atheist on a broadcast show is all about sparks and flare. Ratings. As far as fundamental differences go parties and social leanings tend to exaggerate their points of view when put in the lime light. Personally speaking I fully believe people should speak plain. They should say what is on their mind and get it out. Stop worring about social constructs. If people could do that, sure there would be some nasty stuff to come out. Kinda like popping a zit. But holding it in just allows it to fester. However, I believe that there would be more love in this world and kindness. Drop the social lables, and drop the affiliations and just be human beings.

You can’t say that liberals are too liberal especially when they’re behavior contradicts the definition of liberal.
Because as a liberal you are supposed to be accepting of all views and to use to evidence to refute any inaccuracies being presented by someone else, and not your own assumptions and bias.

I’m sorry but someone being offended is a bullshit response. It’s an emotionally and biased opinion and to use it as a means to justify censoring and eliminating any form of expression other than your own is as ignorant as any follower of a religion holding up a book as their justification.

I’m sorry but this whole you can’t say this, do that or even tolerate the views of others no matter how offensive you may personally find them isn’t what being liberal stands for.

As a DemSocialist..I have little trust in the "Liberal" wing, they represent nothing more than the Clinton Center Right, and their drive to consolidate absolute control of the party.

Ok, one more...

Bill Maher has been rather outspoken on this subject. Just one sample...

I don't like extremists on either end of the spectrum.

I seriously don't see how this is too liberal. For me, telling the truth without cowering in political innuendoes is the very embodiment of liberal values, which is exactly what Christopher did in this video.

As an ex-Muslim, I know only too well how "moderate" Muslims are the masters of playing dumb in front of Western media when it comes to presenting a sanitized version of Islam. The following sentence actually came out of that idiot's mouth:
"One of the primary goals of Sharia as studied in classical discourse is the protection of the products of the mind"

Can someone please tell me what in the fuck's name this guy is talking about?! The goal of Sharia is the protection of the products of the mind? What kind of jibber jabber bullshit is that?

And of course, it's the extremists that get the most attention! What does this guy expect? Do Catholics go out of their way to remind everyone that not every priest in the their church is a boy-fucker and that how marginalized they feel when people protest on streets?

If you wanna know how "moderate" these Muslims are just watch the following private video of Mehdi Hasan, the poster boy of moderate Muslims on Al Jazeera English, where he reveals his true face:

Right here...[yahoo.com]

I consider myself a liberal, but one policy area where I would differ with many people is reuniting bad parents with their children. Kids go into the foster care system because their parent(s) have screwed up somehow, and the goal is always to give the child(ren) back to the parent, who presumably has gotten his/her act together. I don't think society should tolerate parents who keep going back to drugs, gambling, unstable romantic partners, etc. I think parents should get ONE chance to reunite with their kids, and if they mess that up, boom!, it's over, parental rights are revoked and the kids go to a relative (if there is a stable relative), or are made available for adoption. It's okay to practice your tennis serve or the piano, but I don't think you should be allowed to practice how to be a parent, cos if you are screwing it up, you are screwing someone else up.

Liberal does not have to equate to milquetoast. Or more exactly, being welcoming, kind, inclusive and egalitarian does not necessarily equate to being a milquetoast.

On the other hand it's true that the Democratic party, which in the US is most of what we have to represent liberal ideals, can't get out of its own way, seems conflict-averse, and in fact, decision-averse.

I think at its most basic level this reflects that American conservatism is no longer a big-tent ideology, it became Tea Party-driven and then sold out to Trump -- and underlying all this is the fact that a major constituency of the GOP is evangelicals, who are more a political movement than a religious movement anymore, and they are of course inherently ideologically narrow. Whereas the Democratic party encompasses democratic socialist progressives, centrist Plutocrats, "red state" Democrats who are ideologically indistinguishable from Republicans, and everything in between. So it's a lot less cohesive.

Good question. We must differentiate between liberalism and regressive leftism, which is hijacking the liberal narrative. I consider myself to be a classical liberal, but do not identify with the policies of the U.S. Democrats, with the Canadian NDP or Liberal party, or the British Labour party.

I really miss Hitchens. Sometimes I wish that Sam Harris would debate with Hitchens' energy.