Arnold Schwarzenneger is a fucking idiot

[Starving_Artist]

@t-keela

So, here ya go S/A

Thank you much. I appreciate it.

I’m trying to find more detailed information that includes everyone Castro is responsible for killing, not just political victims, but I’m getting bogged down in inexact recitations of his attempts at fomenting revolution throughout the region and it’s hard coming up with total numbers.

Thanks again.

[Who_me_1]

@Starving Artist

So what do you want from me? A trial verdict? Any cite I find is gonna be someone saying he did it. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: Right back at ya, big guy! When finding a cite for a position, a good rule of thumb is not to cite someone with an axe to grind (example: Don’t cite Michael Moore when trying to convince someone that George W. is an idiot).

[Starving_Artist]

@Aro

Firstly, I apologise if I mistakenly read your comments above - I read it as you wouldn’t be interested at all in providing a cite, seeing as you used “can’t” instead of “can” - it may be a cultural usage thing, but it read a subtle scarasm - as in find your own damn cite. So I apologise for the misunderstanding. Plus, there was a simul-post incident at the same time, which confused things.

Indeed. I can see how the mix-up occurred. Thank you for the explanation and the apology.

---

@Aro

That said, you seem to be saying that you personally would hold the president of a country directly responsible for ALL the deaths of people that occur under his rule, however they die? You have chosen to declare Castro directly as a ‘murderer’ of those people, with no qualification or remorse? Is that how it works?

Do I really have to explain this? I would hold him responsible for the deaths that occur under his regime in the same way I would Saddam Hussein, for example. Deaths ordered or sanctioned or permitted to occur for the sake of political and/or societal repression and/or to more firmly entrench his dictatorship would be a good description, I suppose.

@Aro

You then, obviously, equally hold Bush responsible for the deaths of poverty-stricken people in the US, or the prisoners in Abu Gharib or the innocent victims callously called the ‘casualties of war’? For all murder victims and traffic accident deaths? Or those who die in under-funded hospitals due to lack of medical care? Or the proposed % of innocent people who were killed unjustly under a state sanctioned ruling? You do call Bush a murderer too for these deaths, don’t you? Or is this just yet another example of hypocrisy in action?

Oh, please. Yeah, when Bush starts having Kerry and his supporters drug before firing squads, and when people who have spoken against him start being drug from their beds at night never to be seen again, that’s when I’ll feel the same way about Bush.

@Aro

Qualification:
This post is in no way meant to be seen as support or acceptance of Castro * and his methods, or to condone his behaviour and policies in any way. But the blatant hyperbole and abject hatred shown here is in no way helpful in the quest for truth about the current situation in Cuba. Castro also has one of the ‘best’ (or ‘least worse’ if you prefer) human rights records of all Central /South America ‘leaders’ yet he is always the one singled out for the majority of the US hatred. Why is that? Because he nationalised some assets?

I think you vastly overrate the concern of the average citizen here over nationalised assets. A great many people in this country weren’t even born yet when Castro took over, and I’d guess most of the people who live here never even think about nationalism when they think of Castro. People here feel the way they do about him because of what we read and see on television concerning the way he has conducted his government. And secondarily, because during the communist era, he was the greatest threat to the U.S. and was actively engaged in trying to foment revolutions and communist regimes throughout Latin America.

@Aro

• Yes, following the revolution, about 500 people were tried, convicted, and executed for various activities undertaken during the Batista regime which were seen as crimes against the people. There have also been many deaths by people drowning in attempting to take that short boat ride to Florida; but neither of these makes Fidel directly a murderer – and certainly not of the “hundreds of thousands of people” you initially claimed.

Yes, and this information would be especially relevent if it comprised all the killings Castro is responsible for, and in this regard it falls far short.

[Starving_Artist]

@Who_me?

:rolleyes: Right back at ya, big guy! When finding a cite for a position, a good rule of thumb is not to cite someone with an axe to grind (example: Don’t cite Michael Moore when trying to convince someone that George W. is an idiot).

Hey, he was pressuring me for a cite. As I explained, I was participating in and/or reading multiple threads and hadn’t really even begun to look. I posted the first thing I found so as to give him some sort of answer. And my point still stands, anything I find is still going to be just someone saying so. If I cited U.S. government statistics, someone could claim they were inflated because the U.S. hates Castro. I have no doubt I’ll be unable to find a cite no one could challenge if they were of a mind to do so.

[t-keela]

S/A

de nada amigo… I’m about done here for awhile I think. Some folks need to learn to do a little research on their own. It’s not too much to ask I think. If I have to provide a link with every single quote, then this thread shouldn’t be in the PIT.
Sorry D/C I didn’t mean to fuck it up for ya buddy. Apparently when a person has it in their head that they like someone, it doesn’t make a shit what they see, read, hear or witness. If they can disregard just one atrocity then the rest are easy. I’m wasting time and space from here on out I believe.
So, I’ll leave it to ya for now. Keep up the struggle, ignorance fights back.

[Brutus]

@t-keela

Brutus

examples please

Sigh…

I have to do your homework? Well, one day you will learn the awesome power of the Internet, rather than typing up your accusations from your ‘notes’ or whatever.

What the heck, I’m feeling generous today, so here is a hint as to your first misquote/mistake:

quote ABC news 10/03/77 Arnold…“I admire Hitler, he came from being a little man with almost no formal education up to power. I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it.”

Let’s see how good your homework skills are.
RL]

[Starving_Artist]

Yeah, DtC, my apologies to you also for the hijack. I forgot all about Arnie. You should have come in here and smacked me. (I must admit your original post was one of your best in a long time. )

I, too, must retire. I’ve been on this computer all night and most of the preceeding evening and afternoon.

Regards to you all.

[t-keela]

S/A
don’t sweat it buddy…IT IS common knowledge that Castro’s regime is responsible for the murder of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Cubans, both political and civilian over the years. Somebody’s yanking your chain or else they need to read a book.

BTW… did you get anything from our discussion? To each his own I know this. Live and let live. Well?

[Harborwolf]

Diogenes, you summed up everything I was yelling at the television also. I also knew he was going to use the phrase “girly men” somewhere in the speech. I half expected him to say “And ve are going to Jingle all the vay…TO THE VITE HOUSE!!!”
As for the governators electability, let’s all remember that he won a recall election with a very short campaign in a state where the entire population was looking for anyone but the current governor. It was really just him or Gary Coleman.

There were a few things about the speech that stuck in my head.

1. Couldn’t he have fudged a bit and say that Reagan inspired him to become a republican. Did he have to bring up Nixon? I know. It’s minor. It just didn’t seem particularly bright.

2. He brought up a lot of past american achievements and then threw in Bush’s name at the end. Didn’t care for that too much either. Bush didn’t end communism. He didn’t build our democracy or our economy. He did get us into Iraq though. Way to light the lamp of freedom there.

3. The speech seemed entirely aimed at party faithfull with no nods at all to the independent or undecided voters. Arnold would’ve been a great person to pick up some swing voters, but instead played party cheerleader. Kind of a waste.

As for the rest, I only watched part of the Bush twins little stand up routine. I think the right needs better joke writers.

[t-keela]

okay Brutus one last post for now. Without even looking or checking your link I’m gonna guess that you’ve just provided a cite to the original 1975 interview in which Arnold made these remarks. It doesn’t change the fact that he said them. He has claimed they were mistranslated…bullshit. He has claimed that about practically everthing he ever said or done. I was misquoted or that’s not what I meant etc. etc.
BTW this is the Pit. If you want a real debate take to GD. I’ll get with ya there. BUT not at this very second. Another day another dollar.
I appreciate the challenge though. Take care… t/k

BTW sorry about any personal comments I really didn’t intend it that way. I’ve just been in a couple of other threads lately dealing with some chowder heads and I let it carry over into this one.

[Starving_Artist]

@t-keela

S/A
don’t sweat it buddy…IT IS common knowledge that Castro’s regime is responsible for the murder of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Cubans, both political and civilian over the years. Somebody’s yanking your chain or else they need to read a book.

Thanks.

@t-keela

BTW… did you get anything from our discussion? To each his own I know this. Live and let live. Well?

Yeah, you’ve turned out to be a pretty good guy. Who’da thunk it, huh? :eek:

Just kidding. I was logged out but saw this last post of yours and wanted to acknowledge it. It is people such as you (when I can find them, that is) that make the SDMB such a rewarding experience.

[Aro]

Some folks need to learn to do a little research on their own. It’s not too much to ask I think.

IT IS common knowledge that Castro’s regime is responsible for the murder of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Cubans, both political and civilian over the years. Somebody’s yanking your chain or else they need to read a book.

I had hoped to see something more of value in your replies that be told I am young, naïve and stupid. But look where hope got me…

I have done plenty of research and read many books over the years on Cuba and Castro and have never seen anyone produce credible evidence for the claim that “Castro himself has murdered hundreds of thousands of Cubans” . All these claim regarding this seem to stem from the same repeated hearsay and conjecture and have little of valid substance to it. This “common knowledge” you all claim to be in procession of seems mighty like the same anti-Cuban propaganda you Americans seem so eager to swallow.

Now, if you wished to claim the decisions of the Castro regime has indirectly caused suffering and death to citizens of Cuba that is certainly true. But kerb the hyperbole, it adds nothing but shrillness to your position.

I’m certainly willing to be convinced of the death-toll if you can provide credible cites, even list a specific book you see as including this “common knowledge”. I trust you noted your initial cite has the line…

Lago’s study relies heavily on records of the US State Department and the Organization of American States. The US government is hostile to Cuba and the OAS has barred Cuba from participating in the organization since 1960’s

And even if thee figures quoted were considered to be based completely on correct and unbiased information, it does nothing to show the “hundreds of thousands” of murders originally claimed.

So save your self-congratulating high-5’s for when you actually earn them.

[Who_me_1]

@Brutus

Sigh…

What the heck, I’m feeling generous today, so here is a hint as to your first misquote/mistake:
Let’s see how good your homework skills are.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98982,00.html
According to Fox news, that was the exact quote that ABC news had…

And of course ABC agrees…

Arnie denies it though…
According to this site, the entire quote was:

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."

Sorry, the whole quote is as bad as Marge Shotz’ quote saying that Hitler was good at the beginning…
So, what were you trying to say Brutus?

[Brutus]

CNN:

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," the quote read, according to Butler.

Rather changes the meaning, no? If true, of course. It’s all 2nd-hand accounts, at best.

Same link, from the interviewer: (Peter Davis)

“I felt his mention of Hitler was self-critical candor at the time,” Davis said. “I didn’t think he was in any way advocating anything that Adolf Hitler advocated.”

Also from Arnold:

“I hated the regime – hate the regime, the Third Reich, the whole Nazi philosophy – have always fought against it,” Schwarzenegger said at a hastily called news conference late Thursday.

“I despise everything that the Nazis stood for, or Hitler stood for.”

If friend t-keela wants to obsess over Schwarzenegger (with all those longhand notes and books), that’s fine! Heck, this is a message board, not The Wall Street Journal; Quoting out of context, misquoting, and leaving out the shady conditions around some of the alleged ‘quotes’ isn’t going to get him fired. But it is incredibly disingenous behavior. t-keela should try to check his facts, and maybe not be so fast and loose with the “quotes”. (Which isn’t too tough, with the internet and cites a bit more reliable than notes at your disposal.)

[gobear]

I haven’t posted here since July precisely because of this sort of ignnorant, partisan bullshit. Everyone of you, without exception, is talking out of his or her ass by using out of context quotes, suppressing some facts and inflating others in order to make your opponents look foolish.

And FYI, this hysteria about Arnold S. gunning for the White House is a prime instance of the ignorance sloshing around this joint–Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constutition says:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Barring a Constitutional amendment, Arnold is ineligible to run for president, so you can stop worrying.

Now stop it, all of you. Whether Kerry or Bush wins in November, half of us are going to have to learn to compromise with the victors. Can we please try to remember that our opponents are not the monstrous Other, but our fellow citizens who disagree with us?

Frankly, Al Qaeda can just sit back and twiddle their thumbs because we in our blind partisanship are doing their job for them.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I saw it as simply cliched and insubstantial, but even if you’re correct that he outlined some broad Republican ideals, how is that likely to persuade undecided voters to vote for Bush? That’s what I thought was lacking. He made no compelling case at all to vote for his candidate.

Any speech that paints in broad strokes can be derided as “cliched and insubstantial,” and this speech was less about being specifically pro-Bush and more about being pro-Republican, which is another goal of the convention.

I’m thinking both the criticisms you’re making could be equally leveled at another speech given by an actor at a Republican convention. And that one seems to have endured pretty well. I don’t think Arnie’s speech will go down in the annals of great rhetoric, but I do think it warrants a favorable review.

[PunditLisa]

Criticizing convention speeches is like critizing Barney (the Purple Dinosaur) for its insipid songs.

Barney hops around singing disingenous, crappy songs like “I love you, You love me” to a bunch of phony kids who couldn’t act their way out of a paper bag. The orators at national conventions give disingenous, crappy speeches to a bunch of phony delegates who couldn’t act their way out of a paper bag.

Of course, one could argue that Barney is more entertaining because he has more charisma than either Bush or Kerry. The sad thing is that if Barney were to somehow get the nomination, the conventioneers would wave their flags just as enthusiastically and defend his war record just as voraciously.

[ElvisL1ves]

@gobear

Whether Kerry or Bush wins in November, half of us are going to have to learn to compromise with the victors. Can we please try to remember that our opponents are not the monstrous Other, but our fellow citizens who disagree with us?

When in the last 3.5 years has Bush or DeLay or Lott or Frist ever recognized that they “had to learn to compromise” with anyone? When have the Democrats ever had the opportunity to compromise instead of being simply shut out?

I’ll join your condemnation of extreme partisanship, but not your contention that it’s only electioneering and that we’ll get back to “normal” any time soon.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

@ElvisL1ves

When in the last 3.5 years has Bush or DeLay or Lott or Frist ever recognized that they “had to learn to compromise” with anyone? When have the Democrats ever had the opportunity to compromise instead of being simply shut out?

Is that a serious question?

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Shall I continue?

[Homebrew]

@Dewey Cheatem Undhow

Shall I continue?

Continue? Hell, you haven’t even started. Exhibit B is clearly a Pork Barrell sop to win votes. Even the damned lobbyist admits in in your own cite

With control of Congress at stake this fall, and Bush eager to maintain his support in the Farm Belt, politics loomed large over the bill.

“You’ve got a lot of fairly close races in rural America where this farm bill is the most important thing that comes along every five, six, seven years,” Mary Kay Thatcher, a lobbyist for the American Farm Bureau Federation, said after the Senate passed the bill and sent it to the White House last week.

Exhibit A is completely off topic. Please explain how it is an example of compromise in any way instead of a misguided bipartisan effort at reform. You do realize the McCain in the title is a Republican, right?