Ahhhnold is a liar too?
 

This is interesting.

http://www.thewgalchannel.com/politi...74/detail.html

Re: Ahhhnold is a liar too?
 

If Ahhnuld runs for president, I ain't going to vote for him.

Stu

Three documented lies by the True Liar
 

Arnold's speech was very effective and invigorating, at the GOP convention. In any rousing speech, there's bound to be some hyperbole and a little fibbing. But Arnold's speech was, unfortunately, a true demagogue's. He lied, knowingly, on at least three key occasions:

1. Austria did not suffer any brutality under the Allied occupation. (Yes, Austria was NOT occupied solely by the Soviets, but by the big 4 Allied powers, US, Britain, France and USSR. Arnold omitted this bit, because it wouldn't sound too nice to say that he was scared from American tanks!) Although a kid at Arnold's age would indeed be scared from the sight of all that destruction around him and the reality of a military occupation, there is nothing linking the occupation of Austria with ...Soviet communism.

2. Austria did not have "socialism" at any time, in government or in policies, and especially not "Soviet-style" socialism, as Arnold claimed. A cursory glance at post-WWII Austrian history suffices for this. Of course, back home, Austrians are laughing about Arnold's lies.

3. Arnold lauded Bush as a man who "ignored the polls" and went against the popular sentiment by invading Itraq when the country was against that. Well, Arnold lies. The country rallied solidly (and foolishly) behind Bush when the President took the unilateral decision to invade.

The above are documented lies. There are other gross inaccuracies too, in Arnold's speech, but although blatant, they would be interpreted differently by conservatives:

-- Arnold says Hubert Humphrey was essentially a ..socialist! This at the time America was engaged in a war in Asia intended to stop socialism. And the administration of Hubert Humphrey was instrumental in escalating that war.

Etcetera.

But, all in all, as I said, a most effective speech! Who cares if something is true or a true lie, right?

Re: Three documented lies by the True Liar
 

The first two are lies. The third is merely a blatant factual error that in actuality probably addresses the fact that most of America thinks now that Bush was wrong to invade Iraq.

NT

Be carefull when calling someone a liar.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Arnold's speech was very effective and invigorating, at the GOP convention. In any rousing speech, there's bound to be some hyperbole and a little fibbing. But Arnold's speech was, unfortunately, a true demagogue's. He lied, knowingly, on at least three key occasions:

1. Austria did not suffer any brutality under the Allied occupation. (Yes, Austria was NOT occupied solely by the Soviets, but by the big 4 Allied powers, US, Britain, France and USSR. Arnold omitted this bit, because it wouldn't sound too nice to say that he was scared from American tanks!) Although a kid at Arnold's age would indeed be scared from the sight of all that destruction around him and the reality of a military occupation, there is nothing linking the occupation of Austria with ...Soviet communism.

2. Austria did not have "socialism" at any time, in government or in policies, and especially not "Soviet-style" socialism, as Arnold claimed. A cursory glance at post-WWII Austrian history suffices for this. Of course, back home, Austrians are laughing about Arnold's lies.

3. Arnold lauded Bush as a man who "ignored the polls" and went against the popular sentiment by invading Itraq when the country was against that. Well, Arnold lies. The country rallied solidly (and foolishly) behind Bush when the President took the unilateral decision to invade.

The above are documented lies. There are other gross inaccuracies too, in Arnold's speech, but although blatant, they would be interpreted differently by conservatives:

-- Arnold says Hubert Humphrey was essentially a ..socialist! This at the time America was engaged in a war in Asia intended to stop socialism. And the administration of Hubert Humphrey was instrumental in escalating that war.

Etcetera.

But, all in all, as I said, a most effective speech! Who cares if something is true or a true lie, right?

[/ QUOTE ]


To be precise, I haven't seen any proof that Arnold has lied, yet. For example the article you linked Arnold to quotes Arnold saying he saw tanks as a child, but tanks had pulled out of his own hometown 2 years before he was born. Arnold never said they were in his town, he only said he saw them. When he was visiting his uncle at the soviet checkpoints which apparently did exist in Austria, he would of more than likely seen a tank.

Statement 2:

30 seconds on Google gives

Timeline

In 1970 Bruno Kreisky became the 1st socialist chancellor of Austria, and in 1949 the Austria general elections brought losses to both the People’s Party and the Socialists. Many former Nazis rallied behind the new Union of Independents. The government was composed of a coalition of the People’s Party and the Socialists.

So Austria did have socialism, and Facism as well.

Statement 3, "ignoring polls".

Arnold never mentioned which polls he was referring to. If he said American polls, yes he would be lying. If he said European polls, he would be telling the truth. He didn't state which polls.

European

I don't see how Arnold lied at all. He may not of been as specific as he should of been, but he didn't lie.

Eyes wide shut
 

"The article you linked to, quotes Arnold saying he saw tanks as a child, but tanks had pulled out of his own hometown 2 years before he was born. Arnold never said they were in his town, he only said he saw them."

That's not THE big lie, that's just a stupid distortion of facts. No, the big lie is this, try to understand: Arnold says he saw Soviet tanks (let's say he did) which were fearsome and oppressive, and to him signified socialism! Which is an absurd lie. There were American, French, British and Soviet troops (and tanks) all round, for ten years. He simply could not have had the "first-hand" experience of ..Soviet socialism, as he claimed, because no such thing went down. He was just leaping all over logic.

"In 1970 Bruno Kreisky became the 1st socialist chancellor of Austria, and in 1949 the ... government was composed of a coalition of the People’s Party and the Socialists. So Austria did have socialism."

No, Austria never had socialism. The names of the parties mean little. The party that ruled Mexico for ninety years was called REVOLUTIONARY Institutional Party. (Go figure.) The Socialists in France were more anti-communist than the Right! The Socialists in Portugal helped put down the socialist rebellion of military officers in 1974. The Socialist-Democrats in Russia became the Bolsheviks! The Worker's Party in Germany became the Nazis. How many more examples do you need? (I got plenty.)

There have never been "socialists" in power in Austria. Of course, anything to the left of total, unbridled capitalism would be socialism for Arnold, or you. But that's your fault. The nomenclature records policies, not names of parties.

"Arnold never mentioned which polls he was referring to. If he said American polls, yes he would be lying. If he said European polls, he would be telling the truth. He didn't state which polls."

Are you serious? You can't be serious. You mean Arnold could ever have been implying any polls but the American ones? He could not have implied any other and this is a hundred percent certain. It's elementary.

Imagine! Congratulating the American president because he ignored the polls in ...Italy! You are blindly grasping for straws here.

Gee whiz how is it, W has a double digit lead?????
 

....maybe the pompous, elitist, pro-terror anti-semite crowd aren't what the American public wants afterall!! Gee whiz, maybe the American public rejects the "waffle-itis" of the demogogue party's candidate. And gee willickers, won't we be hearing fo the next 4 years how W 'stole' this election because of the Swift Boat group - I mean, let's face it, there always has to be a reason. No anti-semite windbag could bear to think that their "I know what's best for you" ramblings are exactly what Mr and Mrs Joe America DOES NOT WANT TO HEAR!!!!!!! Har-rumph!!!!

BTW, don't you find it interesting that the demogogue party machinations, supposedly pro 1st amendment rights, are sooooooo busy trying to keep Barnes & Nobles and Borders from sellng, and the publisher from printing, the book they don't agree with??? Guess what? Nobody's fooled. Double digits dicckk-head. Double digits. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.....4 mo' yo'

Great post
 

Had a smoke after that and everything?

[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: Eyes wide shut
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Arnold never mentioned which polls he was referring to. If he said American polls, yes he would be lying. If he said European polls, he would be telling the truth. He didn't state which polls."

Are you serious? You can't be serious. You mean Arnold could ever have been implying any polls but the American ones? He could not have implied any other and this is a hundred percent certain. It's elementary.

Imagine! Congratulating the American president because he ignored the polls in ...Italy! You are blindly grasping for straws here.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not going to fool me with your pompus, elitist, waffleyietese logic. Dickhead! Four mo' years! The Terminator Rocks, you Sore-Loserman!!

Re: Great post
 

I think Wogga is right on this one.

Most of the American public doesn't want liberal elitists telling them what they can do, what they can say, how to spend their money, why we ought to seek international approval before scratching our rumps, why the government can always make better use of your money than you can, or what books Barnes and Noble should be allowed to carry.

It's a grassroots movement, Cyrus, and the liberal elites are on their way OUT. And what's more, they aren't even liberal in the first place! (else they would be Classic Liberals instead of Quasi-Socialists looking for further ways to control the masses).

The Awakening has begun and more and more Americans are realizing the folly and phoniness of today's so-called liberalism. And they're getting sick of it: they've seen it doesn't work, and that's about all there is to it. Give it ten more years and the sentiment shift will be even more apparent. However Cyrus I strongly suspect you will be one of the last holdouts.