Schwarzenegger: Another Lying Republican

VIENNA, Austria (AP) – Austrian historians are challenging California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for telling the Republican National Convention that he saw Soviet tanks in his homeland as a child and that he left a “Socialist” country when he moved away in 1968.

Recalling that the Soviets once occupied part of Austria in the aftermath of World War II, Schwarzenegger told the convention on Tuesday: “I saw tanks in the streets. I saw communism with my own eyes.”

Historians, however, are questioning Schwarzenegger’s version of postwar history – if not his enduring popularity among Austrians who admire him for rising from a penniless immigrant to the highest official in America’s most populous state.

“It’s a fact – as a child he could not have seen a Soviet tank in Styria,” the southeastern province where Schwarzenegger was born and raised, historian Stefan Karner told the Vienna newspaper Kurier.

Schwarzenegger, now a naturalized U.S. citizen, was born on July 30, 1947, when Styria and the neighboring province of Carinthia belonged to the British zone. At the time, postwar Austria was occupied by the four wartime allies, which also included the United States, the Soviet Union and France.

The Soviets already had left Styria in July 1945, less than three months after the end of the war, Karner noted.

cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/ … index.html

How much more of this are people suppose to accept? Why do so many right-wingers have to make up stories so often? Are they incapable of simply telling the truth or do they suffer from a sickness? Bush, Cheney, Arnold,etc, etc.
Who raised these people? Why were they never taught that lying is not a good thing to do? And people say Michael Moore plays with the facts. Sad Arnold can’t even speak about his childhood without making up lies. Sad, sad, sad, sad.

gee, you don’t think maybe he saw soviet tanks in the soviet sector of austria, do you? please show me where he says he saw soviet tanks in the streets of styria. :unamused:

"When I was a boy, the Soviets occupied part of Austria. I saw their tanks in the streets. I saw communism with my own eyes. I remember the fear we had when we had to cross into the Soviet sector. "

If he turns out to have lied, does that mean the government is allowed to deport him?

Who cares what he says? He’s a damn good speaker. One of the best out there these days, considering English isn’t his native tongue.
And i know these things.

Well he is an actor. Maybe he got his childhood confused with one of the movies he made.

[quote=“Alien”]Who cares what he says? He’s a damn good speaker. One of the best out there these days, considering English isn’t his native tongue.
And I know these things.[/quote]

Are you serious? You mean the fact that he is not a native speaker excuses the fact that he lies? Native speaker or not, the man lied and he should be held accountable for what he says.

cableguy, you have not shown any lies. what were the lies that arnold told?

Flipper,

Please read the article which I listed to start this thread. It reveals where Arnold lied. The fact is that Arnold was trying to make a point but historians have pointed out how Arnold’s version can’t be true.
Thus, Arnold is a liar.

so you call arnold a liar, and yet you cannot even tell me how he lied? i’m not asking the author of the article, i’m asking YOU why you are calling arnold a liar. what lie did he tell?

i read the article. there is absolutely nothing in there to suggest arnold lied.

[quote=“Flipper”]so you call arnold a liar, and yet you cannot even tell me how he lied? I’m not asking the author of the article, I’m asking YOU why you are calling arnold a liar. what lie did he tell?

I read the article. there is absolutely nothing in there to suggest arnold lied.[/quote]

It’s clear Arnold lied. Here is an excerpt from the ariticle you claim to have read:

In his convention address, Schwarzenegger also said: “As a kid, I saw the Socialist country that Austria became after the Soviets left” in 1955 and Austria regained its independence.

But Martin Polaschek, a law history scholar and vice rector of Graz University, told Kurier that Austria was governed by coalition governments, including the conservative People’s Party and the Social Democratic Party. Between 1945 and 1970, all the nation’s chancellors were conservatives – not Socialists.

Ok, is not what Arnold said a lie? Historical facts can’t be called into dispute and the facts are that “Between 1945 and 1970, all the nation’s chancellors were conservatives – not Socialists.” Thus, when Arnold talks about what he saw in Austria in 1955 it doesn’t match what was reality at that time.

Here’s another excerpt from that same article:

What’s more, when Schwarzenegger left in 1968, Austria was run by a conservative government headed by People’s Party Chancellor Josef Klaus, a staunch Roman Catholic and a sharp critic of both the Socialists and the Communists ruling in countries across the Iron Curtain.

Schwarzenegger “confuses a free country with a Socialist one,” said Polaschek, referring to East European Communist officials’ routine descriptions of their countries as Socialist.

Well, it seems pretty clear that Arnold was not telling the truth, wouldn’t you agree?
However, perhaps he didn’t lie. Margita Thompson,a spokeswoman for Schwarzenegger claims "the governor was “talking about a socialistic-style of government and governing that he experienced when living in Austria.” :unamused:
It’s too bad Arnold didn’t make it more clear what he actually was saying because then his spokespeople would not be forced to do so much backpeddling. However, as things now stand, it is clear, at least to me, that Arnold is a liar.

Allied occupation of Austria ended in 1955, so it’s entirely possible he recalls seeing soviet tanks when he crossed into the Soviet zone. He didn’t say he grew up in the Soviet zone.

Whoops got you there Cable guy:

Also, regardless of who was in power, the Austrian government like much of Europe was far more socialist than the US. That was Arnold’s point. He came to America and rose to prominence in a way that he does not think would have been possible in Austria. I agree. Europe is far more stultified and such success stories are usually only seen in Britain which also rewards personal initiative. In fact, I recall reading that most of the fortunes in England today are self made. Ditto for America.

you think he lied because he called austria socialist? i call sweden socialist. is that a lie, too? what is the truth, then? can austria only be refered to as capitalist?

how is conservative and socialist mutually exclusive? :s

But Flipper:

According to the LIberal way of thinking, it is selfish and greedy to be capitalist. Much better to be “well intentioned” even though this leads to less wealth and fewer opportunities for everyone. You see it is the Right Thing to Do. If you oppose those policies which have proven to be failures again and again then you are not Right Thinking and you must go for Re-education.

Being confused is not the same as being a liar (unless you live in Rascal’s world and the person confused is President Bush).

[quote=“fred smith”]But Flipper:

According to the LIberal way of thinking, it is selfish and greedy to be capitalist. [/quote]

Not to this liberal. :s

[quote=“jeff”][quote=“fred smith”]But Flipper:

According to the LIberal way of thinking, it is selfish and greedy to be capitalist. [/quote]

Not to this liberal. :s[/quote]

Personally, I usually associate the terms “selfish and greedy” with Republicans. Just look at all the CEOs who have been arrested or jailed over the years due to their having it all (money wise) and still they want more. I would bet most have supported only Republican candidates for office because the Republican party has always encouraged their folks that making money is good but sharing it with others is bad. (Has there ever been a social program that a Republican has embraced? For social programs, one has to look at the Dems to find real compassion for others).

So why is it that Kerry only dates and marries wealthy women?

I disagree with your opinion. And in answer to your question, the Civil Rights Act would not have been passed in the form that it was were it not for Republican support (the Dems wanted a watered down version of the Act).

The Magnificent Tigerman[quote]So why is it that Kerry only dates and marries wealthy women?[/quote]

How do you know that this is true? However, even if it is, how does this have anything to do with Republicans being selfish and greedy people? Kerry’s wife got her money from her late Husband and he got the money from his family.

The Magnificent Tigerman[quote]I disagree with your opinion. And in answer to your question, the Civil Rights Act would not have been passed in the form that it was were it not for Republican support (the Dems wanted a watered down version of the Act)[/quote][/quote].

Republican support came only because they had no other choice. Johnson did everything he could to ensure the bill passed, which meant that changes had to be made in order to placate Republicans who would have otherwise fought against it (which they had/have a habit of doing).
Thus, the Republicans agreed to the Act only because they realized that doing otherwise was an unsound move, especially given the fact that they saw the black vote as important. And the Dems agreed to the changes the Republicans could accept. Again, another example of Republicans only willing to accept something for the good of society when they are forced to do so for political gain.

OH dear Cableguy:

Not to familiar with history. The Southern Whites that wanted to hold back Civil Rights were all Democrats. Whoops. Didn’t realize that did you.

And why is it better for Democrats to implement policies that result in higher poverty rates just because they think it looks better? Welfare reform was pushed by the Republicans and eventually forced down the Democrats’ throats all while they were screaming disaster. What happened? As usual, the Republicans were right and the Democrats were once again exposed for the posturing “well intentioned” fuckwits that they are.

Why is East Asia growing so quickly with unfetted capitalism? Why did the socialist economies of Europe eventually find that they had to reform and do away with government control? If it is all about greedy and selfish, why have the end results of the Republican capitalist model been so much more successful than the failed Democratic socialist policies?