More lefty lies and defamation from the NY Times>>

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
Saturday, Oct. 4, 2003 10:39 a.m. EDT
N.Y. Times Retracts Arnold Hitler Bombshell

The New York Times issued a de facto retraction on Saturday after misreporting two days earlier that Arnold Schwarzenegger once said he admired Adolf Hitler for what he did with his power.

In early Friday editions, the so-called paper of record quoted the California gubernatorial front-runner as saying, "I admire [Hitler] for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it." Schwarzenegger's critics used the toxic quote to suggest he approved of the Holocaust.

But an actual transcript of outtakes from Schwarzenegger's 1975 bodybuilding classic, "Pumping Iron," shows that what the actor actually said was exactly the opposite: "I didn't admire [Hitler] for what he did with it."

The incendiary Schwarzenegger quote was corrected by the film's producer, George Butler, during an interview Friday where he admitted he misquoted the GOP front-runner in a 1997 book proposal.

Butler told the Times that the error stemmed from the fact that the book proposal quote, which was widely circulated after the Times and ABC News published the bogus story, had "dropped a few words."

The full and corrected Schwarzenegger quote, which was printed by the Times on Saturday, went like this:

"In many ways I admired people — It depends for what. I admired Hitler for instance because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education, up to power. And I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for his way of getting to the people and so on.

"But I didn't admire him for what he did with it. It is very hard to say who I admired and who are my heroes. And I admired basically people who are powerful people, like Kennedy. Who people listen to and just wait until he comes out with telling them what to do. People like that I admire a lot."

Butler couldn't explain how he made the mistake, telling the Times, "I am amazed that something like that escaped me."

But what's perhaps more amazing is that the Times, ABC News and the rest of the mainstream press ran wih a bogus story they knew could severly damage Schwarzenegger's reputation without verifying the poisonous quote.


Read more on this subject
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,724
Tokens
Are all newspapers slanted left in your opinion?

I mean seriously why can't you just put up a post to be analized without the insinuations or sarcasm, I think you're the slanted one here.

Like the conservs never lie, hello, can you say Iran/Contra affair?, can you say gulf war 1?, can you say gulf war 2?
icon_rolleyes.gif
.

Both sides lie, get over it.

[This message was edited by kaya man on October 07, 2003 at 02:19 PM.]
 

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
75,154
Tokens
What web-site are you cut and pasting these articles from, if you don't mind saying?

wil.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
newsmax.com....who DON'T advertise as being objective like the Ny and La times...NY Times motto "the news thats fit to print".....Puhleeeze...How did you like they way they checked out their sources?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
Jackoff, you call me retarded,when you can't argue with facts?...Why thats mighty liberal of you...The "objective journalist' at the Times have covered up for plagerist reporters because they were black they are 90% registerd democrat and your telling me they don't have liberal bias?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,724
Tokens
Pat,

Why does it surprise you that journalists tend to be libs? Journalists are know for being champions of free speech.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,724
Tokens
You're missing the point Pat.

Let's try again....

I'm not desputing that journalists are liberal. I'm asking you why you find that fact surprising.
Once again journalists are know for being champions of free speech.
That's a liberal trait not at all a conservative one.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,765
Tokens
kaya man:

Liberals in America today, those being on the left, those belonging to the Democratic party, etc. stand for more government interference which means less individual freedoms. Examples of more governmental interference by the liberals are things such as welfare and social programs. It's the government telling us how we should live.

Conservatives in America stand for less governmental interference. This would lend conservatives to be more toward individual rights such as free speech.

More governmental interference = less personal freedom.

Less governmental interference = more personal freedom.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
649
Tokens
Conservatives are for more personal freedom? How do you explain the Patriot Act? The explosion of spending under both Ronnie and Bush? No, Libertarians are for more personal freedom. Conservative Republicans are whores for greedy Corporations among other things.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,765
Tokens
Degenerate, I agree with you. When I was referring to conservatives I wasn't thinking of the Republican party although they are more conservative than the Dems. I was thinking of Libertarians who are conservative as well.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,724
Tokens
"Liberals in America today, those being on the left, those belonging to the Democratic party, etc. stand for more government interference which means less individual freedoms. Examples of more governmental interference by the liberals are things such as welfare and social programs. It's the government telling us how we should live.

Conservatives in America stand for less governmental interference. This would lend conservatives to be more toward individual rights such as free speech.

More governmental interference = less personal freedom.

Less governmental interference = more personal freedom."

No offense but this literally made me laugh out loud. I mean come on conservatism equates to more personal freedoms??? Freedom to own 52 guns maybe, freedom to make as much money as possible without giving anything back to the society that allowed you to make that money (i.e. tax breaks for the rich).

Conservs are pro-life.
Conservs are the ones that get books banned from public school libraries and music labeled and censored.
Conservs are for penalizing flag burning.
Conservs are for prayer in school.
Conservs are much more obsessed with the war on drugs.
Also the first time I remember talk of a national i.d. card and curfews for minors was under Reagan.

Those are just a few of the ways conserv theory is limiting in personal freedoms.

Then of course the Patriot Act, which you tried to brush of as the "Reb party". As I understand it Liberitarians are for decriminalizing recreational drugs, if that is so I don't see how you can deem them more conver than repubs.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
Yeah, Kay those nasty conservatives being pro life,what hateful thing to do.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
Kay...the word conservative means (politicaly)constitutional conservation.Which means small goverment and sticking to the letter of the law....Both parties have gotten away from that.
I am a conservative in libertaraian sense ie: leagalization of drugs, I am all for it,but don't ask me to pay for it with rehab and needles through taxes.
Prayers in school is also a freedom of religion issue...A kid ought to be able to pray if he/she wants.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,724
Tokens
That's kaya.
Well the pro-life, pro-choice thing is a difficult debate. Is it a life?, is it murder?, is it a woman's right?
What matters is the bottom line, when it's illegal it still goes on but more people get hurt.
From the stand point of personal freedoms being pro-life is limiting because it takes away the woman's decision to carry out the prenancy or not.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
The problem I have with abortion is woman that use it as a form of birth control..the baby has right to live,you did say you are for freedom and rights didn't you?
What I get a kick out of is how libs are for abortion..but hold candle light vigils for serial killers on death row.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
Libs call it pro choice but what it is, is abortion.Kind of like Hitler calling murder of jews the "final solution".
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,724
Tokens
Pat,

You're wrong on a couple of things there. First of all libs aren't "for abortion" I don't know that anybody is. Libs are pro-choice, if not for anything else than because common sense and experience show that when abortion is illegal the problem is greater, again that's the bottom line.

As far as the baby's right to live, we can't go into that, well unless I'm unaware of the fact that you're a doctor or scientist because even they debate at what point it is actually a life. In all honesty I'm not even totally sure of my own opinion as to at what exact point a developing embrio or fetus is a life. An arguement against pro-life that I've here and has some validity is that if you remove it from the womb it could not survive indepently and therefore is not yet a formed being, others say life starts a conception.

Now, saying that women use abortion for birth control is as absurd as saying people on welfare have more children to recieve more benefits. Most women abort as a matter of practicality, because they are not in a situation be it economically, psychologically, etc to endure pregnancy, birth, motherhood, etc. It is normally highly traumatic for the woman and they often requiere counseling.

Lasty this...
"Libs call it pro choice but what it is, is abortion.Kind of like Hitler calling murder of jews the "final solution"."

Even you must realize that trying to compare pro-choicers to Hitler is just silly and that it would be much easier to compare bush2 to adolf, little man complex, ruler of the world complex, etc.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,765
Tokens
kayaman:

I was referring to "conservative" as a principle that was described by patriot rather well. To say that some Republicans who restrict our rights (as in the examples you gave) are conservative would be going against the definition of that word.

It is possible for a person or a party to be conservative about some things (for example: fiscal conservative) but not conservative in others.

I'm glad I was able to provide some humor for you but you read in more than I intended. I never said everyone who was labeled conservative was for more individual freedoms.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,163
Messages
13,564,754
Members
100,753
Latest member
aw8vietnam
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com