Saturday, May 22, 2010

Bill Maher Repeats the LIE That Claims Rand Paul Said "Restaurants Should Be Able To Refuse Service To Black People"

Continually telling Rachel Maddow that he abhors racism and that [he's] "..not in favor of any discrimination of any form" is synonymous with the stance that he thinks "restaurants should be able to refuse black people?"

by Larry Simons
May 22, 2010

On Friday’s telecast of Real Time with Bill Maher, Maher repeats the lie that has spread like wildfire through the mainstream media, that Kentucky primary winner Rand Paul holds the view that he opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that he feels that restaurants in that day had the right to refuse to serve black people.

As I wrote yesterday about the lie that came from the mouth of liberal wingnut and colossal liar, Andy Ostroy, that supposedly Rand Paul, when asked by Rachel Maddow if he thought restaurants had the right to post signs saying they would not serve blacks, said “Yes” to that question. I clearly illustrated that Paul said no such thing and that not only did he not say “Yes” to that question, he repeatedly stated during the interview that he opposes racism and discrimination in any form.

On Friday night, Bill Maher had this to say:

“But how to describe Rand Paul, I mean, he’s a doctor. It’s as if Sarah Palin somehow made it through medical school”. “…he has a lot of interesting points of view. He says restaurants should be able to refuse service to black people.” Then said, “I tell ya, the shit doesn’t fall far from the bat, does it?” Implying that Rand’s father, Congressman Ron Paul, is a “nut” as well.

watch the clip

I find it interesting that Maher is attempting to distance himself from not only Rand Paul, but his father as well, since just 3 years ago on Real Time, Bill Maher called Ron Paul his hero while talking to Chris Dodd.

watch the clip

Here’s Ron Paul being praised again by Maher on Real Time in 2007

So, it’s perfectly clear. When Ron Paul embarrasses other Republicans, Maher stands behind Ron Paul 100% and has his full support. When people like Rand Paul, who associates with the Tea Party, which is largely against Obama [in the eyes of the media, but in reality attempting to restore Constitutional values, while being hijacked by neocons like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin], Maher calls not only Rand Paul "crazy", but likens him to his father and implies that Ron Paul is "crazy" too, despite the fact that Maher has continually praised him the last 3 years on his show [Ron Paul has been a guest on Real Time twice in 2007 and once in 2009].

It is the classic example of someone who holds political party in higher esteem than one's country. Maher cares not that he vilifies someone in whom he has continually praised the last 3 years when they were speaking truth to the very people Maher despises, but when those same people then threaten the party Maher associates with, then they suddenly become "crazy nutjobs", and the best way to smear them is to attach to their name the most hated political correct label there is: racist.

That's party over country, and Bill Maher is a colossal embarrassment to this country.


the_last_name_left said...

ah - but the question is "Does Randy Paul support the law which prohibits private business from discriminating?"

It seems not.

I agree with you that Randy wasn't saying "yes" to the question Maddow asked him.....but in his equivocation he appears to take that position.

He didn't say "NO" did he?

What did he say? He suggests that he believes government shouldn't be able to require businesses to be non-discriminatory --- and this seemingly perfectly fits with his wider worldview.

So......whilst he didn't say "yes".....he didn't say "no".

the_last_name_left said...

Stromfront like Rand Paul.

Socialists don't.


Here's what the racist nazis at SF said about Randy Paul:

a man who would be our friend on most issues.

That's because Randy Paul is an ideological foe of racist nazis......right?

the_last_name_left said...

here's what Randy said:

I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners—I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant—but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind....

I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part—and this is the hard part about believing in freedom—is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example—you have too, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things. . . . It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior.

Now --- from that it is clear he has "a problem" with any state-sanctioned requirements that private businesses not discriminate.

He ONLY states that he is FOR anti-discriminatory requirements for public institutions. He is against institutional racism (But he is against any and all public institutions?)

And - critically - he likens his position with that of freespeech - where people are entitled to say what they like - even hatespeech. He says it should be tolerated - and as he likens freespeech to other behaviour - such as discrimination by private businesses - we can only surmise he actually supports discrimination (because that's "freedom" according to Randy)

the_last_name_left said...

oh - and a question about Randy Paul:

what do you think of his pro-globalisation views? he is all for globalisation....and you're not, right, Larry?

how do you feel about it?

the_last_name_left said...

For example - do you support the "liberty" of large corporations outsourcing services and offshoring production?

Do you agree that American companies should be free to produce goods in China so they can resell to Americans at lower prices than if the goods had been made in America?

What's your position?

Ron and Randy Paul are seemingly full-on neo-liberals.....they are certainly extreme laissez-faire capitalists. They support globalisation, international trade, businesses relocating to exploit cheap labour, etc etc etc.

What's your position, larry?

the_last_name_left said...

How does border control and restrictions on free movement of people fit into your libertarian view?

Larry said...

"but in his equivocation he appears to take that position"

By continually saying he abhors racism?

I think it's clear that what Rand is saying is that while he is opposed to racism, he is a protector of liberty and not wanting government to interfere and regulate behavior. Racism is a behavior and ideology. It would be like the government regulating adultery or being mean to someone. Would you want your government to make a law that said, "You cant be mean to people"? I'd like an answer to that question.

The racism issue is hard concerning government intervention. Im torn between the government interfering with it and why a black person would even WANT to go inside of a restaurant that didnt want him there. At the same time, I am for laws being passed that say everyone is equal and should be allowed to go where they please because that's what true liberty is and our founding documents even say all men are created equal. So, the question is, whose liberty is more protected? The private business owner that says "you cant come in here" or the black person who is equal according to our founding documents? It's not an easy debate.

Lincoln was the biggest racist in the history of our country and NOWHERE in text books in our schools do we read about that---why is that? Did you know he even created a department in his administration whose sole purpose was getting all the blacks out of the country? Is that in school text books? NOPE! Why??

the_last_name_left said...

why? I imagine because a lot of people are racially prejudiced. and there's likely not a lot of people who genuinely care about real equality. America is still a racially prejudiced place? Britain is....much more so than one might imagine from the image presented. Speak to people and if they trust you and sense you're "one of them", it usually doesn't take long before they reveal their racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism whatever. It's everywhere, though in somewhat muted form.

It's funny - acquaintances of mine prove to me that they're racists, homophobes, whatever. (And nearly everyone is overtly sexist) They must think I am these things too. If I was a black homosexual woman I would likely never hear these words from my "friends" that I hear as a heterosexual white, male. Women don't hear much exclusively male conversation etc.

People are supposed to care - and they're not supposed to be prejudiced - peole know this but they don't really care - and so they keep schtum and instead work silently (and unconsciously?) against genuine equality. A lot of people are strongly racially prejudiced, and most people are to some considerable degree, imo. Hence, imo, racial prejudice is whitewashed away - as in Lincoln's case, perhaps. (It isn't a surprise to find history being whitewashed? For example, Howard Zinn's History of USA is quite different to mainstream version. As Parenti says, History is written by "gentlemen" - privileged white men, usually.)

Prejudice seems to be a backbeat to life which we're really not supposed to talk about, imo. Part of the dark underbelly of everyday life which people accept, but keep quiet about, usually. I think it's disgusting, and I take a very dim view of public personalities who equivocate over this stuff. I take a very dim view of anyone holding such views.

I don't think government can do a lot about it - to change peoples' prejudice I mean. Education can do something and it certainly has had a major influence, I think. I imagine the Civil Rights Act has helped considerably on that score too, but I don't know, and these are processes which take set a climate and they take time to have effect.

I think nation-state's can certainly legitimately legislate so that prejudice has no legal protection. Fine - people can hold onto their racial prejudice - but I don't see why their business activity should be allowed to express it. I don't think it is good enough at all to just say "the market will decide". What if the market encourages racial discrimination? A business might increase its custom from racial discrimination, especially when discriminating against minorities.

It seems to me that as private property and business has its "freedom" to discriminate protected, there's a simultaneous reduction in the freedom of those whom are discriminated against - to go where they want, free of discrimination.

Racism is a behavior and ideology.

More accurately, you're speaking about racial prejudice. Racism is structural - systematic, ensconced in laws, etc. Slavery was rac-ism, whereas dislike of chinese is merely racial prejudice. Racial prejudice can exist in a society which isn't rac-ist.

I don't think legislation can do so much about prejudice, but it surely determines a rac-ist state. Rac-ism can be abolished, even as prejudice persists.

the_last_name_left said...

It would be like the government regulating adultery or being mean to someone. Would you want your government to make a law that said, "You cant be mean to people"? I'd like an answer to that question.

But it isn't like that because it is entirely based on a particular, un-chosen characteristic - "race". can't be mean to people, if by being "mean" you include defamation, threats, whatever.

Of course, ideally, there would be no need for any legislation on this matter - or any other. But....we don't live in an ideal world.

I'm astonished women are still paid less than men. I can't see any reason to justify it. Similar argument on race - and in fact, Ron Paul stands opposed to equal pay legislation. He seems to think it impinges on the liberty of the employer. Well, I can't agree, at all. I find it quite bizarre - a sort of mental contortion. Does Ron have a daughter - and what would she think about it?

So, the question is, whose liberty is more protected? The private business owner that says "you cant come in here" or the black person who is equal according to our founding documents? It's not an easy debate.

I think it's pretty clear - by far the greater liberty lies in equality and opening access rather than protection for property/business owners to discriminate. Level the playing field - everyone follows the same deal - and the market can operate as it will. It seems quite bizarre and perverse to me to have such a commitment to "freedom" that people must be allowed to run racist businesses.

I think it's simple if you ask "Who would even want such a 'liberty' and why?"

Anonymous said...

The guy who figured out the structure of DNA, James Watson, is apparently on record as saying -
"I am inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa because all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really."

the_last_name_left said...

oh look, a racist?

and so what, anon? your point is what?

For the record :

Dr Watson issued an apology.

"Science is no stranger to controversy and I am not one to shy away from tackling issues, however difficult they might prove to be," he said.

"I have had my share of controversy, as many of you know. But I am mortified about what has happened.

"More importantly, I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said. I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways they have.

"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly.

"That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."

British academics said links between race and intelligence was not supported by the evidence. But they defended his right to air "unpalatable" views in public.

Dr Watson is no stranger to controversy. In the past he has suggested that black people have more powerful sex drives, that thin people are more ambitious and that women should "hypothetically" have the right to abort foetuses that may be homosexual.

Read more:

There's clearly no such thing as a single "intelligence" just as there's no such thing as a single "beauty". Culture and environment can't be separated from genetics in such a way, especially as gene expression is regulated and influenced by environment.

Watson wasn't saying "it is true" - rather he was wondering out loud. And as he said: "there is no scientific basis for such a belief."

Incidentally, this is the sort of thing Rand Paul encourages with his equivocation. Flies 'round shit.

the_last_name_left said...

The American Anthropological Association released a “Statement on Race and Intelligence” 13 years ago, stating in part:

WHEREAS all human beings are members of one species, Homo sapiens, and

WHEREAS, differentiating species into biologically defined “races” has proven meaningless and unscientific as a way of explaining variation (whether in intelligence or other traits),

THEREFORE, the American Anthropological Association urges the academy, our political leaders and our communities to affirm, without distraction by mistaken claims of racially determined intelligence, the common stake in assuring equal opportunity, in respecting diversity and in securing a harmonious quality of life for all people.

The American Association of Physical Anthropologists, of which I am a member, has their own “Statement on Biological Aspects of Race,” which says:

Physical, cultural and social environments influence the behavioral differences among individuals in society. Although heredity influences the behavioral variability of individuals within a given population, it does not affect the ability of any such population to function in a given social setting. The genetic capacity for intellectual development is one of the biological traits of our species essential for its survival. This genetic capacity is known to differ among individuals. The peoples of the world today appear to possess equal biological potential for assimilating any human culture. Racist political doctrines find no foundation in scientific knowledge concerning modern or past human populations.

And Watson’s own institution, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, hosts the Eugenics Archive, a chronicle of the American eugenics movement. Their virtual exhibits include information on the flaws of eugenics research, including reification:

Reification is the tendency to treat complex traits – especially behaviors – as if they were a single entity, stemming from a single cause. For example, eugenicists treated intelligence as if it were an innate quality of the brain that could be represented by a single factor. Morgan commented: “It is commonly assumed that there is one, and only one, criterion of intelligence – that we are speaking always of the same thing when we use the word… In reality, our ideas are very vague on the subject.” Later experts recognized that there may be many “intelligences” – including mechanical, quantitative, visual/spatial, verbal, and abstract.

If Watson’s remarks are accurate, he is guilty of this, as well.

London’s Science Museum has canceled Watson’s lecture. And the Mayor of London released a statement, responding:

Professor James Watson’s comments about the genetic inferiority of Africans, and of black people being less intelligent than white people, represent racist propaganda masquerading as scientific fact.

Such discredited racist theories seek to establish a genetically based racial hierarchy of the human race and have been condemned by leading scientists throughout the world.

That is, perhaps, what is most disturbing about this entire episode. That such an eminent scientist could fall victim to pseudo-scientific thinking.

Read more:

Larry said...

Anon you sound like Abe Lincoln when he said "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality."
So you're an aashole racist like Lincoln was.

Anonymous said...

hey larry, has this last fraud name left ever answered the wooden stove question?

Anonymous said...

larry your right again, my buddy is a moron. socrates

Anonymous said...

This 'I'm a nice guy' act of yours is getting old, TLNL.