I don't understand the big deal over Arnold. Must remind you all of something... A ****ING p*rn STAR IS RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR. You think these people aren't prepared to deal with their past? Do you honestly think the people of California are so concerned with morality? Obviously not. I'd almost rather have some random slut running this state than Gray Davis. Why do you people even care? The outcome of this election doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot to you Texans.
That's exactly my point. The award is based on impact-- positive or negative, I reckon. So Arnold is keeping company with Time Magazine not David Duke. Arnold only admired Hitler's accomplishment of pulling himself up from nowhere to the most powerful man in Europe-- albeit ugly. He never said he admired his politics or agree with his agenda. He admired his pluck and his speechmaking.
Agreed. But it was an extremely stupid thing to say. At best, Schwarzenneger is guilty of showing very little social awareness.
Of course, he was 28 years old at the time, and not that far removed from his upbringing in Austria. He hadn't expanded his horizons as of yet. Of course, Arnold says he doesn't remember ever saying the things in the book proposal and that he doesn't support such ideas (and the proposal is a second-hand account). And the guy who did the interview says there was more to it (as the interview went on, he noted that as he grew up, he changed his views on Hitler.)
I have few problems with his quotes (when in proper context) but being 28 years old isn't a defense for saying stupid things. He was an adult then and should take responsibility for his comments. Hiding behind "I don't remember" isn't good enough -- sack up, explain yourself, and move on. Like I said, I don't mind his comments as much as his current political ideas (which are the only things that matter).
I agree with the second part, but I wasn't saying it as an excuse. I was noting that a man's opinions at 28, when he hasn't seen much or lived much (and I believe he was raised in a family that had some level of connections to the Nazis), isn't necessarily what his opinions are now. But yeah, if he said those things, he should own up to it and note how his opinions changed and how and why they did... if they did.
Regarding my earlier post and the "for the sake of other states" comment, I meant I hope other states don't follow suit and elect celebrity governers.
Just in case anyone's still interested: In a boost for Mr Schwarzenegger, a report in an Austrian Jewish magazine said that, as a young bodybuilder, he had helped break up a neo-Nazi demonstration in the Austrian city of Graz. "There was a clash and Arnold along with some bodybuilders chased the Nazis down Herrengasse Street," Alfred Gerstl, the father of one of Mr Schwarzenegger's friends, recalled in the interview published last month. Mr Schwarzenegger has denied an ABC television report which quotes him as allegedly saying in a 1975 interview that he admired Hitler, a fellow Austrian, for coming "from being a little man with almost no formal education, up to power". Mr Schwarzenegger said he did not remember making such remarks. He insisted he "despised" the Nazi ideology and noted his long-standing support for the Jewish lobby group, the Simon Wiesenthal Center. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3162746.stm Why would Arnold, supposedly a Nazi-admirer or something in his youth, try to forcibly break up a neo-Nazi rally? Hmm...
I could care less about what Arnold said in his youth, but the mamby-pamby attitude expressed in this forum towards Hitler infuriates me. Yes, he built himself up... by attempting armed coups, killing political enemies, recruiting armed thugs to create political unrest and fear, playing to baser prejudices, manufacturing crises to create new laws that put the stamp of legitimacy on his actions, driving a world to war and killing millions of innocents (the particulars are excruciating to read about). Pluck indeed. Sure he was a good speaker and he also liked puppies, but he was an evil, twisted mofo and he was that way all his adult life. He didn't just become evil on the eve of WWII. To compare him even in some little way to the American idea of a self-made man is ridiculous and simultaneously elevates Hitler while diminishing humanity.
<b>rimrocker</b>: I'm waiting for you to excoriate Time Magazine. Granted, the holocaust had not yet occured (if 1938 is indeed the correct year), but he was guilty of just about everything else you cite. The award is about impact not about honor. Did you disagree with Bill Maher that the 19 hijackers were brave men?
This has less than nothing to do with anything. Time indicated that Hitler had had great impact. No one has ever disputed that. Arnold allegedly said he admired Hitler and, according to the article, he named him as a hero. What does one have to do with the other? Less than nothing. I'm not saying the article was definitely right and I'm not making a final judgment on Arnold in this instance, but the Time magazine thing is apples and lugnuts. And what does it have to do with the Maher thing? Maher never said he admired the hijackers and he didn't name them as heroes. He said it was stupid to call them cowardly. He was, of course, absolutely right and, due to the incredibly embarassing response to 9/11 in this country he got canned for it. One of the more obvious cases of the terrorists winning.
Giddy, You miss my point. I don't want to argue about the Time award or whether the hijackers were brave or not. The language and implications in some of these posts, from folks on both sides, is, in my view, too forgiving towards Hitler. "Hitler did some good things" is one of the worst examples of moral relativism, not only for what it says, but also for what it doesn't say.
GU--- The Time "Man of the Year/Person of the Year" is not an "Award". It's not like a Nobel prize award --- here is a link to Hitler's MOY---- http://www.time.com/time/poy2000/archive/1938.html
From The Smoking Gun: OCTOBER 6--It's unlikely that anyone will ever know for sure what Arnold Schwarzenegger had to say about Adolf Hitler since the actor bought the rights to "Pumping Iron" and all the outtakes from the 1977 film--and the July 1991 purchase agreement stipulated that Schwarzenegger can destroy the footage if he chooses. Below you'll find excerpts from the 57-page sale document. The $1.25 million agreement between Schwarzenegger and "Pumping Iron" director George Butler allowed the star to "destroy any and all portion thereof" of the film and 90 hours of additional footage as well as still photographs owned by Butler that Schwarzenegger considered "embarrassing" or which might "reflect negatively" on the actor's "professional or private life." The purchase agreement and accompanying deal memorandum were secret until partners of Butler's learned of the sale to Schwarzenegger and filed a lawsuit claiming that he did not have the right to sell the material. After years of litigation, Schwarzenegger settled the case with a $400,000 payment to Butler's former business associates. As with most defendants, Schwarzenegger was not pleased to be sued over the Butler deal. In fact, when a female employee of the plaintiffs's law firm served him with legal papers during a New York fundraiser, he responded, "You ****." The vulgarity was first reported by The New York Observer in a November 1993 story about the "Pumping Iron" litigation. In fact, the young woman even testified in detail about the incident during a subsequent court "traverse hearing" regarding a defense challenge to the sufficiency of the process service. (10 pages) Fortunately, Arnold didn't buy the rights to that 1977 Oui interview. Arnold ought to just show us the context of his comments and end this discussion once and for all. Unless, of course, he has already destroyed the evidence.
