← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Recluse
Thread ID: 10240 | Posts: 14 | Started: 2003-10-04
2003-10-04 18:19 | User Profile
Allegedly because it was taken out of context, but that's never bothered them before. Could it be that the accusation wasn't having the desired effect and they're terrified of setting a precedent here of voters ignoring the anti-Semite slur?
[url]http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/10/4/105622.shtml[/url]
NY Times Retracts Arnold Hitler Bombshell
The New York Times issued a defacto 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 frontrunner 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 ââ¬â 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.
2003-10-04 19:33 | User Profile
"Butler couldn't explain how he made the mistake, telling the Times, "I am amazed that something like that escaped me."
If you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you.
It's amazing how these "mistakes" always work to show the subject in an unfavourable light.
Bull***, he knew exactly what he was doing. He needed to smear Arnold to have a better chance of selling his book.
[QUOTE=Recluse]Allegedly because it was taken out of context, but that's never bothered them before. Could it be that the accusation wasn't having the desired effect and they're terrified of setting a precedent here of voters ignoring the anti-Semite slur?
[url]http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/10/4/105622.shtml[/url]
NY Times Retracts Arnold Hitler Bombshell
The New York Times issued a defacto 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 frontrunner 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 ââ¬â 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.[/QUOTE]
2003-10-04 20:51 | User Profile
The New York Times printed a lie. What a surprise. Still, putting "admire" and "Hitler" in the same sentence should be like putting a match to gunpowder. Look at the hell Buchanan caught for his remarks. And he's just one example.
Bustamente must really frighten them.
2003-10-04 22:27 | User Profile
friedrich braun: why castigate the NY Times? It simply printed what the author of the book said...what else should it have done? All the print media and networks were running with the story. Only later was the 'explanation' forthcoming and then the NY Times made the correction. I'll wager that most other newspapers did not.
2003-10-04 23:00 | User Profile
I didn't mention the Jew York Times in my post; I was speaking about the fundamental dishonesty of the "author".
[QUOTE=arjurg]friedrich braun: why castigate the NY Times? It simply printed what the author of the book said...what else should it have done? All the print media and networks were running with the story. Only later was the 'explanation' forthcoming and then the NY Times made the correction. I'll wager that most other newspapers did not.[/QUOTE]
2003-10-05 11:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]I didn't mention the Jew York Times in my post; I was speaking about the fundamental dishonesty of the "author".[/QUOTE]
That's right, you didn't. I did. When the New York Times, home of Frank Rich, A. M. Rosenthal, William Safire, and many other scummy jew smear artists retracts an anti-Semitism accusation I get suspicious. I'm sure if I searched long enough I could find many examples where they distorted statements by Le Pen, Haider, Mel Gibson, Pat Buchanan, and others and never offered a retraction, but everyone who belongs on this forum already knows that so I'm not going to waste my time.
[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?p=57089#post57089[/url]
2003-10-05 12:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Allegedly because it was taken out of context, but that's never bothered them before. Could it be that the accusation wasn't having the desired effect and they're terrified of setting a precedent here of voters ignoring the anti-Semite slur?[/QUOTE]
Interesting question.
I'm somewhat suprised they didn't wait until after the election to retract.
Odd.
Walter
2003-10-06 10:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Could it be that the accusation wasn't having the desired effect and they're terrified of setting a precedent here of voters ignoring the anti-Semite slur?[/QUOTE]
I remember a few years back that Pat Buchanan stated that terms like 'Hitler', 'nazi', and 'fascist' were getting real old and [I]beginning[/I] to lose their power. I think he may be correct. This would fit in with this incident perhaps.
Those words are from the WW2 generation mostly, and they are beginning to pass on now. So will some of the words from that WW2 time period, I guess.
But the term 'racist' is a still a potent ad hominem attack, though
2003-10-06 22:44 | User Profile
Friedrich Braun: yes, you spoke about the author but of course, your problem is with, as you put it, the JEW York Times.
No one is destroying Arnold Schwarzenegger...he is responsible for his behavior. It's apparent that the man was chosen for his celebrity...he's certainly no pol. If he were he wouldn't have answered the charges...you know, like GW Bush who refused to discuss his absence from the Air National Guard and his well-known drinking and drug peccadilos. And Nancy Reagan who just kept quiet when snide remarks were made.
We're talking politics and there are no holds barred in this game.
It has nothing to do with Jews 'though you pretend it has. Nonsense.
2003-10-06 22:52 | User Profile
:thumbd:
Where is the official OD troll spotter?
2003-10-07 00:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE]It has nothing to do with Jews 'though you pretend it has. Nonsense. [/QUOTE] The New York Times is a Jewish-owned newspaper. Everything the Times does has [I]something[/I] to do with Jews.
2003-10-07 19:25 | User Profile
What is a troll spotter exactly?
I THINK that is someone who keeps a look-out for people who fail to stay within certain parameters on this forum???
If the Moderator chooses, he certainly can ban me. His choice.
2003-10-07 19:39 | User Profile
I think Arnold would be a great politician, but sorry Ahnold, you're no Hitler. I do admire Arnie's choice for role model however. Worthy choice itz. Thank God he didn't choose Roosevelt or Churchill.....I'd never watch another one of his movies again. Arnold didn't like what Adolf "did with it", but we'll argue about the details later, so just win, baby, win.
2003-10-07 19:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=arjurg]No one is destroying Arnold Schwarzenegger...he is responsible for his behavior. It's apparent that the man was chosen for his celebrity...he's certainly no pol. If he were he wouldn't have answered the charges...you know, like GW Bush who refused to discuss his absence from the Air National Guard and his well-known drinking and drug peccadilos.[/QUOTE]
I am no fan of Dubya, but this nonsense about his being AWOL is ridiculus.
His father, H.W. Bush was director of the CIA, most likely Dubya was working for [I]Air America[/I] in Laos as part of a black op. during this time period.
The reason Dubya does not speak about all this AWOL business is because [B]he is still under CIA orders not to.[/B]