# How to write headlines by twisting peoples words:



## Big Don (Dec 23, 2007)

Smith:Hitler was a good person.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 23, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Snith:Hitler was a good person.


 

Ya know, there's a misquote that goes around and around-it's Edmund Burke-"the only thing necessary for evil triumph is for good men to do nothing," which, of course, he never said. What he said, basically, was that (and I'm omitting the actual thing he said here, and paraphrasing) was that _good men must, because evil will_/

What I like to say, is that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do evil, thinking they're doing good. I don't know that it applies to Hitler-I have my own theories about that gentleman-but I can see how one could reach the conclusion that the man didn't know the evil he was doing.....

Hey, in the end, it's no big deal-Will Smith is an _actor_, after all, a man who gets paid to play make believe, and dropped out of (or never went?) to college. Given that, it's not too much of a stretch to see how he might say something like that. Respect him for his work, not what he says about the way the world really is: in his world, you get richer than god before you're twenty, and get to say and do whatever you want....


----------



## Big Don (Dec 23, 2007)

Then he should take Laura Ingram's advice and "Shut up and Sing".


----------



## arnisador (Dec 23, 2007)

From the link:


> &#8220;Even Hitler didn&#8217;t wake up going, &#8216;Let me do the most evil thing I can do today.&#8217; I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was &#8216;good,&#8217;&#8221; Smith says. &#8220;Stuff like that just needs reprogramming.&#8221;



The first two sentences I understand; the last is difficult for me to grasp.


----------



## newGuy12 (Dec 23, 2007)

Just another actor running his mouth about stuff he doesn't know about.


----------



## Omar B (Dec 23, 2007)

Well after reading the article I'm not gonna fault the guy, I see what he was trying to say.  Hitler was evil, vile, all that, but in his head he was doing the right thing, just like any other villain.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 23, 2007)

arnisador said:


> From the link:
> 
> 
> The first two sentences I understand; the last is difficult for me to grasp.


The last sentence makes more sense when you take Smith's conversion to Scientology in to account.


----------



## newGuy12 (Dec 23, 2007)

I don't rely on actors to give good advice on anything.  Just because they are famous does not mean that they have studied history.  I rely on the History Professors who write books to get information about WWII.

Besides, Hitler tried to take over the freaking world, killing Poles and Jewish people and doing all manner of evil things.  Who cares what his intentions were?  The proof is in the eating of the pudding.  Its peoples' ACTIONS that matter, not their intentions, if you ask me.

I have no use for these actors.  I have no use for moving pictures, except for Jason Bourne movies and martial arts movies.  Life is too short to sit around watching movies all the time.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 23, 2007)

It all depends upon your beliefs. In a way Smith is right. When a person starts doing something that is evil, it usually doesn't happen all at once and they're not really aware that what they're doing IS evil... because they're so caught up in what they're doing and allowing other things to influence them to the point they become blind to what is the right and wrong of things. 
I believe that all of us are inherently born good. All of us have a light/spark within us that guides us to do good to others. Who here has truly ever seen an evil infant? 
It is only when the innocence is taken away (and it always is with everyone some time or another) that the capacity to do evil begins. But prior to that... no, it would be impossible because evil, unlike good, HAS to be taught. One way or another one learns evil and learns to do evil things and eventually becomes evil themselves. I also (personally) believe in the devil/Satan who can influence a person to do evil. But again it's a *choice* to follow the influence or ignore it... be it from God or The Devil. 
Is a person truly ever aware of this process? Perhaps, perhaps not. Where did Hitler learn his hatred of the Jews? Was he born with it? Did his father teach him (before his own death)? History shows that he spent jail time after the first world war. History/myth(???) tells us that one of his cell mates was Josef Stalin (another mass murderer of Jews). Perhaps during conversation it was Stalin who fed the hatred to Hitler? Does this let Hitler off the hook? Of course not. But it does help lend understanding to the why... if not completely. 
It's all conjecture and theory at this point. However; History does speak and the Holocaust haunts us because it *DID* happen. What had happened was evil. The act itself is evil. But are the men? Are ALL the men who participated? The answer would be yes because of the choices they made were evil. Remember this though... as bad as he, Adolf Hitler, was... he was not alone. 

I think Smith made a blurb that the press jumped on and ran with it. The press DOES have a history of taking things out of context to suit their stories. 
Watch the news and talk shows coming up, eventually Smith will make either retractions or clarifications on what he said... or he may not do it at all. He may have meant what he said and left it to us to try and understand what he meant by it. 
Just like here on MT... not everything everyone says here is always crystal clear and concise. Some of us click too soon :wink2: and others write quickly and post only later then realize what they've said. :wink1:


----------



## Tames D (Dec 24, 2007)

newGuy12 said:


> I don't rely on actors to give good advice on anything. Just because they are famous does not mean that they have studied history. I rely on the History Professors who write books to get information about WWII.
> 
> Besides, Hitler tried to take over the freaking world, killing Poles and Jewish people and doing all manner of evil things. Who cares what his intentions were? The proof is in the eating of the pudding. Its peoples' ACTIONS that matter, not their intentions, if you ask me.
> 
> *I have no use for these actors.* *I have no use for moving pictures, except for Jason Bourne movies and martial arts movies.* Life is too short to sit around watching movies all the time.


 
Let me see if I got this right... actors and movies are bad. Unless they are ones that you like.


----------



## newGuy12 (Dec 24, 2007)

QUI-GON said:


> Let me see if I got this right... actors and movies are bad. Unless they are ones that you like.



Read the bolded part again, slowly.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 24, 2007)

I don't read that as Smith saying Hitler was good, but that Hitler thought he was doing good.

There's a difference.  And, let's be blunt.  If the Nazi's had won, it would have been defined as "good".

Look at the Dark Ages and Crusades....Good, God Fearing Christians raped, robbed and murdered tens of thousands of Jews, Muslims and other "heathen"'s, because God's agent on earth, the Pope said it was ok. Numerous orders of Christian Knights went out and slaughtered (and many of them enjoyed it quite a bit) as "God" was on their side.

And they all thought it was "Good".

The Islamic Extremist that is chopping heads off people while video taping it, they think they are doing good too.

Osama thinks he is doing good, and did good orchestrating 9/11.

George Bush thinks he is doing good in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that attacking Iran would be a good thing too.

Whomever shot Lincoln and Kennedy, also thought they were doing good.

Good and Evil are temporary constructs, defined and redefined over time as the definers viewpoint in time and space changes.

Hitler -was- good.
He gave Germany back it's pride, brought them out of depression and made them a superpower in a few short years after suffering a crushing, humiliating and devastating defeat during WW 1.

Hitler -was- evil.
His wars of conquest, and ruthless racial policies left Europe in shambles, 6 million Jews and 6 million others dead in his death camps, and and almost 50 Million dead all in all. His bigotry survives today in a legacy of death and brutality and imaginary history of skeptics.

"How can you defend Hitler Bob? You're an ***".
Before someone fires that at me, no, I'm not defending him. I find him and all he stood for to be vile. However, I can understand where Good and Evil are defined.


Remember folks, in some English schools, the US founding fathers are seen as treasonous dogs, who betrayed their rightful King and who should have been hunted down and hung like hams for their acts, and not the brave leaders who stood up to a mad tyrant that us Americans know is "true and good".



Somewhere, even the French think a tank with 5 gears in reverse and only 1 in forward (never used) is good too.

So, I don't think Smith was defending AH, as much as saying he understood how he (AH) could think he was doing good.  Faulty programming...easily fixed with a couple hundred thousand bucks, or a crowbar upside his head.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 24, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Faulty programming...easily fixed with a couple hundred thousand bucks, or a crowbar upside his head.


What ever his intent, this will (pun intended) cost Will.
I vote for the crowbar!


----------



## tellner (Dec 24, 2007)

I've got slightly less affection for Dolf Schickelgruber than I do for gangrene and hookworm. Race-mixing queer-friendly union-loving Jew. 'Nuff said. And I've got even less patience for Nazi sympathizers.

But before you get yourself too hot and bothered, Don, take a look at what Mr. Smith said:



> "Even Hitler didnt wake up going, Let me do the most evil thing I can do today. I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was good, Smith says. Stuff like that just needs reprogramming.



He's right. Nobody is evil all the time. It would be too exhausting. And very few people think of themselves as evil. Even Dick Cheney (Yemach Shemo Uzichro)is a father whose love for his daughter transcends his vile politics. Southern slave owners believed they were good Masters who cared for their property. Hitler's values were terrible and distorted. But they had a logic by which he could look at himself in the mirror and say "I am a good man. I am doing what is right for Germany and the Volk." Lenin believed that what he did was vital to move Russia from a brutal, backwards, tyrannical kingdom ruled by malign neglect (which it was) to a beacon for Humanity.

It's just too easy to see the world as divided clearly into Good and Evil. Good is people who are exactly like you. And the more people are like you the more Good they are. Anything else is Evil. If someone honestly holds a different opinion or looks to different or otherwise doesn't conform to your ideal he must be Evil. And since you know that you are Good he must know that he is Evil. It is a remarkably convenient way of seeing the world. There is no ambiguity. There can not be inconvenient facts. Nothing can possibly interfere. But it is ultimately a fantasy. It denies reality on every single level from the physical to the psychological. 

To quote a good Protestant "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ. Consider it possible that you are mistaken."

Will Smith is right. Hitler was a human being and therefore believed that what he did was right or justified.

I'll leave you with one more quote by someone you probably admire



> Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate -- and quickly.
> Robert Anson Heinlein


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 24, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I don't read that as Smith saying Hitler was good, but that Hitler thought he was doing good.
> 
> There's a difference. And, let's be blunt. If the Nazi's had won, it would have been defined as "good".
> 
> ...


 
No they don't teach that...in fact they don't teach anything! Our children now have a lamentably poor grasp of history even our own. I doubt many know that America was ever a British colony and why it's not now. In schools they do projects, and jump from era to era so they could be making dinosaurs one week, bonfires for Guy Fawkes the next and with very little in between. They don't even know who Winston churchill is and I doubt whether many actually know who Adolf Hitler was. Which is where the danger lies,the level of ignorance is appalling. I don't suppose it matters if you don't know what order the kings and queens go in but you must know how our country was made, what defines it from it's past. History is so important, I know that history can be skewed but we need to know basically what has happened... to hopefully know how to prevent the bad things happening again.
Will Smith was quoted here last week as saying he wants to be president, don't know whether that cheers you up or not! 

Evil very rarely comes with devil horns on it's head to warn us. 

*All there is to know about Adolph Eichman*

_Eyes:       Medium_
_Hair:        Medium_
_Weight:    Medium_
_Height:    Medium_
_Distunguishing features: None_
_Number of toes: Ten_
_Number of fingers: Ten_
_Intelligence: medium_
_What did you expect?_
_Talons?_
_Oversize incisors?_
_Green saliva?_
_Madness?_

_ *Leonard Cohen*_


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Dec 24, 2007)

Almost anything can be turned into good or in the same sence turned into evil by deconstructing the past!  It truly is a danger and important that one rationally looks at the past and comes to *the conclusion of what was*!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Dec 24, 2007)

Oh and do not look to actors for history lessons!


----------



## Kacey (Dec 24, 2007)

I have to agree with Bob and tellner - Hitler did what he did out because he thought he was doing good; in fact, he thought he was saving the human race from itself.  He was wrong - horribly, vilely, incredibly wrong - that's why so many nations rose up together to defeat him.  And notice that his "Aryan ideal" was the exact opposite of his own appearance, which, to me at least, indicates a pretty deep self-loathing, which could easily have fed his twisted ideals... in some sense, he was saving the world from _himself_.  

History is written by the victors - only recently has the perspective of the loser in any dispute been of interest.  Luckily for the planet and the race, Hitler did not win - if he had, the world would be a different place, probably much darker, at least for a time.

Hitler was a vile, evil man - but few, if any, people think of themselves that way, even when others think that of them.  History (which, don't forget, starts the second after an incident occurs) applies the labels of evil and good.  History has, rightfully, IMHO, applied the label of "evil" to Hitler and others like him - Pol Pot, Mussolini, Castro, to name a few - but I doubt than any of them started out with the intent of gaining that label for themselves.  With the goal of domination of a significant portion of the world, certainly - but that goal can be met in a wide variety of ways, both good and evil.  We should be thankful that so few_ truly_ merit the label "evil", when compared to the number of people who produce those few.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 24, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> No they don't teach that...in fact they don't teach anything! Our children now have a lamentably poor grasp of history even our own. I doubt many know that America was ever a British colony and why it's not now. In schools they do projects, and jump from era to era so they could be making dinosaurs one week, bonfires for Guy Fawkes the next and with very little in between. They don't even know who Winston churchill is and I doubt whether many actually know who Adolf Hitler was. Which is where the danger lies,the level of ignorance is appalling. I don't suppose it matters if you don't know what order the kings and queens go in but you must know how our country was made, what defines it from it's past. History is so important, I know that history can be skewed but we need to know basically what has happened... to hopefully know how to prevent the bad things happening again.


Sounds like British schools have been cribbing from schools here in the USA...  Do they also ensure that every aspect of history is taught "neutrally", so that nobody feels bad to find out that their German great-grandparents really did participate in the Holocaust, which really did happen?



> Will Smith was quoted here last week as saying he wants to be president, don't know whether that cheers you up or not!
> 
> Evil very rarely comes with devil horns on it's head to warn us.


 
I hesitate to brand Will Smith as an idiot based solely on one quote, taken without much context.  If it was a single quote in a discussion on "what is evil?" or "why did Hitler do this?", it becomes a very different answer, doesn't it?

Something else to consider...  Hitler didn't do everything, and doesn't carry sole resoonsibility for what happened during the Nazi regime.  He certainly created the environment that allowed it, and knowingly permitted much of the atrocity... but he didn't do it all himself.  And many people, knowing the actions of the government were wrong, knowing that the conditions and treatment of people in the concentration camps were at best inhumane, stood by and let it happen.  I hope and pray that if anything like that every tries to come to pass here in the USA, I'll have the courage and morality to stand up and say NO.


----------



## Omar B (Dec 24, 2007)

The last person you should be looking to for lessons on ANYTHING is an actor.  Actor's can't even decide who the hell they are.  Through the lens of hhistory and on what side you stand your history will paint different ppeople as good or evil.  For me, I usually use the nnumber of people who die and the number of people's rights are violated as a measuring stick.
_
When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it's picked up by scoundrels&#8212;and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil. - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics&#8212;the standard by which one judges what is good or evil&#8212;is man's life, or: that which is required for man's survival qua man.  Since reason is man's basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.  Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness_


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 24, 2007)

> Something else to consider... Hitler didn't do everything, and doesn't carry sole resoonsibility for what happened during the Nazi regime. He certainly created the environment that allowed it, and knowingly permitted much of the atrocity... but he didn't do it all himself. And many people, knowing the actions of the government were wrong, knowing that the conditions and treatment of people in the concentration camps were at best inhumane, stood by and let it happen


 
If you read some of Hitler's bio's he was friends with Jews when he was an aspiring artist.  Did he really hate the Jews or was it a convienent stepping stool that could bind him to the common people?  Again, if you read history, Hitler's "first solution" was to contact Britian and have the jews taken out of germany and relocated to a British owned area down in Africa.  Britian wanted nothing to do with the Jews either.  We look back now and wonder how that could happen but AT THE TIME nobody cared about the jews/gypsies or what happened to them.  After that failure, Himmler instituted the "final solution" and rounded up the jews and many others into concentration camps.

Isn't this almost the same thing that we did to the American Indians?  We wanted what they had so we rounded them up and relocated them to where we thought they should be?  How many died due to starvation and illness because of that?

I think both events were horrible and evil.  I think it is easier for us to point the finger in the other direction than to really look at how ALL countries came to be in power and what they did to achieve that.  Again, to the victors go the spoils....and apparantly their own version of how it happened.

Hitler had 6 million Jews killed during the course he was in power.  Stalin killed 20 million Russians during his rule.  Which one do we always hear about though?  Why?  Because Stalin and them are "communists" and until recently they were still the enemy so we tended to not care.  Now that  communism has ended and they are our "friends" we start hearing more and  more about this and how bad Stalin was.  

Why the double standard in all of this?  If you believe killing of innocents is wrong (which I truely believe it is) than it should not matter where/who it is doing it.  In all of those cases though, the person(s) doing it thought that they were doing it for "the greater good" of their country.

I remember going to some training a long time ago (it was a course on verbal judo) and the instructor read a quick bio factsheet on someone and we were supposed to guess the person.  Some of them were things like wanted to grow up to be a catholic priest, helped bring his country out of economic despair, very charismatic.  We, as a class, all read it and said that it described JFK.  The instructor said that when he reads that description in Germany the class all picks "Hitler".  Interesting in how even an evil person has "good qualities", just the wrong method to go about the change they seek (although I do believe that there are truely evil people out there).

I remember also a while back that Arnold got some flack because he made some reference to Hitler as an orator/politician that was taken out of context.  I think ANYONE that picks a good quality from Hitler is going to be taken out of context and lynched in our media for it.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 24, 2007)

Was Will Smith saying he thought Hitler was a good person or that he felt that Hitler did not think of himself as a bad person?


----------



## kaizasosei (Dec 24, 2007)

actually, i have no motive to defend will smith and i do think that hitler was evil in a number of ways.   however, keeping in mind that any message that is  passed on over and over again will slowly change into something else. 
- so even if will smith actually said something stupid,(ultimately one would have had to be there to actually know more)- i don't see that point of crucifying will smith for thoughtlessly saying something dumb.  -  
  the whole issue does say something about will smith. that he is taking up a certain stance.  that may well be the case.  - still, why should i beat someone because of a yard when there are entire meadows that have been hidden from me or are offbounds.


 talk about not losing sight of the bigpicture.. but when one looks only at one part of the story for too long, one risks losing sight of what actually matters.  in this case, will smiths reputation and all the words we are wasting on this sort of news.

- i know it's bad of me forgeting, but somewhere on the forum someone wrote that it is not our intentions but lastly our actions that matter.  - 
  i think it is both- or one could see it either way, -however, whatever the situation and whoever it is, when someone makes mistakes or says something stupid(even me), not knowing any better, i always try to understand their intentions. i think, if you want to personally remand someone, do it face to face, when there is noone else around, if possible, without forcing it upon but if one really is right then it would be a big help to have the person come to understand their mistake on their own(without this type of unsanctioned, irresponsible force)-
otherwise, you are starting a risky willsmith talk of your own..

at this level, there is no reason to hide anything-yet, one can be certain that the world will always rather hear your mistakes more than anything else.  that's what becomes gossip.
so i suppose it would be wise to pay close attention to what one is saying and doing to others, lest one evoke spirits of contention and hatred.

i read that in ancient japan, some people would be oblilgated to kill themselves if they only said something a little wrong-like a freudian slip. those tabood words were know as imikotoba-hatewords.





j


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 24, 2007)

Also, remember this is the media. They are biased and most of them do little fact checking.

Case in point - Chris Benoit.
The media jumped all over that case, speculated and twisted all of the facts.  It was big news.
The last few years, the WWE has been doing an annual Christmas show in Iraq, for the troops. You never hear anything about that. This year, one of the choppers carrying several names was stranded in an active war zone there for 5 hours...where was Fox or CNN or the AP?

You'll hear about the sci-fi geeks in their silly outits at their cons, always on camera is some guy who's dressed like a Klingon roaring and bellowing.  The reporters long gone when they announced the $100,000 donation to Ronald McDonald House that those losers pulled together.

CNN aired an interview with John Cena (WWE wrestler).  They cut out parts of the interview so that it looked like he was evading questions and all but admitting to steriod use.  The WWE aired the uncut footage, which painted a different story. CNN had egg on it's face.

Etc.

You can't trust the media. Period.

They can't even get the weather report right.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 24, 2007)

I agree with the majority of you here....I don't think that Smith was saying anything bad or wrong, I think he was just hitting on a basic psychological principle.  He's right, no one wakes up and says "I'm going to be evil today."  Even the criminally insane think they are doing the right thing in some twisted way.  Most criminals have rationalized their behavior in their own mind.  Even if they know it is wrong, they feel that they MUST do it for some reason.  And as stated above, people get to that point of evil very gradually through the inaction of those around them.

You don't hear much about Hitler being good in any way....but I OFTEN hear of how great a leader he was.  Good or evil, right or wrong, he was a great man.  Great meaning good or great meaning terrible, he resuced Germany, took them from an economically and morally depressed country to being on the verge of world domination.  On top of that, you have to be an INCREDIBLE leader to get an entire country to follow you into doing the horrible things that we hear of now.

Just think of the quote "If God be on our side, then who can stand against us?"  But remember that the opposition thinks that God is on their side too....


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Dec 24, 2007)

Every villain is the hero of his own movie.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 24, 2007)

Big Don said:


> The last sentence makes more sense when you take Smith's conversion to Scientology in to account.



I thought of Scientology when I read "reprogrammed" but if I knew that he was now a Cruiser I had forgotten. What a Travoltin' development!



Bob Hubbard said:


> There's a difference.  And, let's be blunt.  If the Nazi's had won, it would have been defined as "good".



Sadly true. Indeed, not only did Adolf Hitler think he was doing good, so did millions of Germans. (And millions of Germans can't be...oh wait, nevermind.)  They thought he was good for them and their country.



tellner said:


> Nobody is evil all the time. It would be too exhausting.



This is tellingly true. Indeed, most "evil" people have been good parents, or loved their pets, or something.

Only in fiction do people regularly attempt to conquer the world out of pure evil. For the most part, those who do it in real life believe they are either bringing improvements to all, or at least to their own people, who deserve such good things.

So, I think Will Smith was right about Adolf Hitler's self-image. I don't know what to say about "reprogramming." I think that the method of reprogramming attributed to, correctly or not, to Erwin Rommel was the only viable means by that point. In his youth, who knows?

In any event, one wonders if someone else would merely have stepped into the role of Germany's savior in the 1930s anyways.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 24, 2007)

arnisador said:


> I thought of Scientology when I read "reprogrammed" but if I knew that he was now a Cruiser I had forgotten. What a Travoltin' development!








Oh you punster! Someone ought to


----------



## crushing (Dec 24, 2007)

The headline doesn't appear to be supported by the article.  I don't see anywhere in the article where Mr. Smith said "Hitler was a good person."  Also, what evidence is there of fans being shocked in the article?  Are there any respectable sources putting 1 and 1 together and coming up with three?   I don't think anyone is shocked by the shoddy sensational journalism.


----------



## Kacey (Dec 24, 2007)

The media exists to generate interest in what it reports - and look at all the interest this quote, taken out of context, has generated.

I respect the celebrities who manage to stay out of the limelight - I ignore the "news" reports about those who don't.


----------



## Bigshadow (Dec 24, 2007)

newGuy12 said:


> Besides, Hitler tried to take over the freaking world,



Pure.....:bs:

Sorry, but I cannot stand propaganda, no matter who's it is.

Will Smith has starred in a couple of movies that I like.


----------



## tellner (Dec 24, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Case in point - Chris Benoit.
> The media jumped all over that case, speculated and twisted all of the facts.  It was big news.
> The last few years, the WWE has been doing an annual Christmas show in Iraq, for the troops. You never hear anything about that. This year, one of the choppers carrying several names was stranded in an active war zone there for 5 hours...where was Fox or CNN or the AP?



All the charitable PR events of the WWE are completely irrelevant and have nothing to do with the harsh, cold facts of a harsh cold murderer.

Chris Benoit was a premeditated killer of the lowest sort. In all likelihood he had been punching his wife like a clock. The signs are classic. He crammed dangerous illegal drugs into his handicapped son. He slaughtered his child and the mother of his child then escaped human justice by murdering himself. Those are the simple facts. There's no "distortion" there. There's no denying his terrible crimes. My single speculation is an educated one based on research, experience and a depressing number of similar cases. 

I know you enjoyed his performances, Bob. He was certainly a good actor who played his role very well. He was smiling and charming outside the theater. Means nothing. In fact, that's practically a field mark of the breed. He had a "good guy" character tailor-made for him by McMahon. We call that "acting". Please don't use it to excuse the evil way he left the world. He _may well_ have been troubled. He _might_ have been affected by steroids which nobody forced into him at gunpoint. In the end he was guilty as sin, and his sins were mortal.



Andy Moynihan said:


> Every villain is the hero of his own movie.



It's hard for a comics geek not to quote Neil Gaiman's _The Doll's House_. The Lord of Dreams tracks down an errant nightmare who is keynote speaker at a convention of serial killers. 



> And YOU, you that call yourselves collectors.
> 
> Until now, you have all sustained fantasies in which you are the maltreated heroes of your own stories. Comforting daydreams in which, ultimately, you are shown to be in the right.
> 
> ...


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 24, 2007)

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/wenn/20071223/ten-smith-hitler-was-a-good-person-c60bd6d_1.html

They even put quotes around it...


----------



## crushing (Dec 24, 2007)

That's just disgusting.  People fall for it too.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 24, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> They even put quotes around it...



You're right. That's a total misrepresentation of what he said. I hope he sues.


----------



## newGuy12 (Dec 24, 2007)

Bigshadow said:


> Pure.....:bs:
> 
> Sorry, but I cannot stand propaganda, no matter who's it is.



How many countries, in your mind, would one have to invade before it was essentially "the whole world"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Second_world_war_europe_1941-1942_map_en.png


----------



## Bigshadow (Dec 24, 2007)

newGuy12 said:


> How many countries, in your mind, would one have to invade before it was essentially "the whole world"?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Second_world_war_europe_1941-1942_map_en.png



I notice you omitted the caption to the picture....  So I will provide it below.



> "German *and Axis allies'* conquests (in blue) in Europe during World War II"


Alliances and invasions are two different things.  Draw what you will from it.


I still stand by my post!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 24, 2007)

tellner said:


> All the charitable PR events of the WWE are completely irrelevant and have nothing to do with the harsh, cold facts of a harsh cold murderer.
> 
> Chris Benoit was a premeditated killer of the lowest sort. In all likelihood he had been punching his wife like a clock. The signs are classic. He crammed dangerous illegal drugs into his handicapped son. He slaughtered his child and the mother of his child then escaped human justice by murdering himself. Those are the simple facts. There's no "distortion" there. There's no denying his terrible crimes. The one speculation I have on the subject is an educated one based on research, experience and a depressing number of similar cases.
> 
> I know you enjoyed his performances, Bob. He was certainly a good actor who played his role very well. He was smiling and charming outside the theater. Means nothing. In fact, that's practically a field mark of the breed. He had a "good guy" character tailor-made for him by McMahon. We call that "acting". Please don't use it to excuse the evil way he left the world. He _may well_ have been troubled. He _might_ have been affected by steroids which nobody forced into him at gunpoint. In the end he was guilty as sin, and his sins were mortal.



That's a different argument, and misses my point completely.
Most of the "facts" reported by the "media" in that case were wrong, fabricated and other was manipulated.  Where were the media when Owen Hart plummeted to his death in Kansas City, in front of a live audience? Where was the media for all the humanitarian work that these performers did, do and will do, including events that Benoit himself was involved in?
Your -opinion- is that he was a cold hearted premeditated killer.  Your facts are however in error. 
"Chris Benoit was found to have Xanax, hydrocodone, and an elevated level of testosterone, caused by a synthetic form of testosterone, in his system. The chief medical examiner attributed the testosterone level to Benoit possibly being treated for a deficiency caused by previous steroid abuse. There was no indication that anything in Chris' body contributed to his violent behavior that led to the murder-suicide, concluding that there was no "roid-rage" involved."

"Tests were conducted on Benoit's brain by Julian Bailes, the head of neurosurgery at West Virginia University, and results showed that "Benoit's brain was so severely damaged it resembled the brain of an 85-year-old Alzheimer's patient." It was also shown to have an advanced form of dementia and was similar to the brains of four retired NFL players who have suffered multiple concussions, sank into depression and harmed themselves or others. Bailes and his colleagues concluded that repeated concussions can lead to dementia, which can contribute to severe behavioral problems"
*Benoit's Brain Showed Severe Damage From Multiple Concussions, Doctor and Dad Say. ABCNEWS. Retrieved on 2007-09-05.


*Stop listening to morons like Nancy Glass, and the spinsters at CNN.
They were quick to push quack ideas, but slow to non-existent to announce the findings of the case at the end.

It doesn't excuse anything. It helps explain it and put things into context.

Case in point is this thread.

Will Smith says something positive about one of the most loathed individuals in the last century, and gets condemned.....often by people who didn't even bother to read the actual article and see it in context. They read the headline only, took it as solid fact and ran with it.

They are morons.

Lets look at someone else who history looks at as a ruthless bastard.

Genghis  Khan.


> Negative perceptions of Genghis Khan
> 
> In Iraq and Iran, he is looked on as a destructive and genocidal warlord who caused enormous damage and destruction.[21] Similarly, in Afghanistan (along with other non-Turkic Muslim countries) he is viewed unfavorably. It is believed that the Hazara of Afghanistan are descendants of a large Mongol garrison stationed therein.[citations needed] The invasions of Baghdad and Samarkand caused mass murders, such as when portions of southern Khuzestan was completely destroyed. His descendant Hulagu Khan destroyed much of Iran's northern part. Among the Iranian peoples he is regarded as one of the most despised conquerors of Iran, along with Alexander and Tamerlane.[22][23] In much of Russia, Ukraine, Poland and Hungary, Genghis Khan and his regime are credited with considerable damage and destruction. Presently Genghis Khan, his descendants, his generals, and the Mongol people are remembered for their ferocious and destructive conquests by the region's history books.



Yet he is a national hero and -huge- positive in Mongolia, seen as a lesser hero in China and Turkey and several other smaller nations.

Genghis Khan is recognized in number of large and popular publications and by other authors, which include the following:

Genghis Khan is ranked #29 on Michael H. Hart's list of the most influential people in history.
An article that appeared in the Washington Post on December 31, 1995 selected Genghis Khan as "Man of the Millennium".
Genghis Khan was nominated for the "Top 10 Cultural Legends of the Millennium" in 1998 by Dr G. Ab Arwel, voted by the five Judges, Prof. D Owain, Mr. G. Parry, OBE, Dr. C Campbell of Oxford University, and Mr S Evans and Sir B. Parry of the International Museum of Culture, Luxembourg.
National Geographic's 50 Most Important Political Leaders of All Time.
This is some one that my history teacher ranked as one of the top evil men in history. (Kubla Khan, Attila the Hun, also were on that list.)

People today that we look on as "Great Leaders" were also at one time despised. Sitting Bull, Geronimo, Julius Cesar and more.

Adolph Hitler sent millions to their deaths in death camps. He's not the only leader to send people to their deaths.

Stalin sent over 20 million of his own people to their deaths in labor camps.

Ask a [FONT=georgia,verdana,arial]Cherokee  what they think of President Andrew Jackson, who along with the "good men" of the US Congress sent them on a thousand mile death march.  His name is still cursed by some today.

Ask the [/FONT]Cheyenne about George Custer, you'll get a negative opinion.

Ask the Sioux about "Wounded Knee" where the "good men" of the US Army massacred more than 146 men, women and children.

Ask some "good ol boys" in the South what they think of US General's Grant and Sherman. Even today they are hated individuals, and men like Nathan Forest (founder of the KKK) are seen as heros.

This is why "Rapist on the Loose" is a headline and "Cub Scouts raise $40,000 for homeless" is buried in the fine print of the local interest section, if it's reported at all.

Everyone knows that Britney's got drug issues and doesn't wear panties.
How many folks knew that Bill Gates has a charity foundation, spends significant time in places like India helping the poor, and has given away millions through his foundation to hospitals, libraries and more?


Will Smith made a comment about Hitler, which was taken out of context by a media looking more for sensationalist headlines than accurate reporting.
The people who need to be condemned here are the media, for their irresponsible and biased reporting.


----------



## tellner (Dec 24, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> No they don't teach that...in fact they don't teach anything! Our children now have a lamentably poor grasp of history even our own. I doubt many know that America was ever a British colony and why it's not now. In schools they do projects, and jump from era to era so they could be making dinosaurs one week, bonfires for Guy Fawkes the next and with very little in between. They don't even know who Winston churchill is and I doubt whether many actually know who Adolf Hitler was.


What do you mean British children don't know anything about history? They all know they're supposed to get on their feet at football games when someone sings "If you won the War, stand up!" And they know the German supporters are supposed to stay in their seats 

You may hit me now. Just don't damage any parts my wife wants to use. 

I heard about them taking Churchill out of the curriculum. "Appalling" would be a kind word for the drones at the Ministry of Education.



> Which is where the danger lies,the level of ignorance is appalling. I don't suppose it matters if you don't know what order the kings and queens go in but you must know how our country was made, what defines it from it's past. History is so important, I know that history can be skewed but we need to know basically what has happened... to hopefully know how to prevent the bad things happening again.


History is a tricky thing to teach. No matter how you do it there will be people violently opposed to your interpretation. In the States under "no child left a dime" it's been reduced to reflexive regurgitation of unconnected facts onto a multiple choice answer sheet. 

To some degree this is because the Bush Administration mandates that the only form of instruction is that which can be measured with a Scantron form and a #2 pencil. A big part of that starts in the 1970s with Mel and Norma Gabler and their imitators who terrified textbook publishers. Inquiry, critical thinking and analysis were anathema, and they caused large markets like Texas to reject material which encouraged them. To be removed from a huge source of revenue like that effectively killed a book. The only things they permitted were information devoid of context and a single Politically Reliable Party Line. 

They were terribly abusive to science, especially biology, geology, astronomy and psychology. They were almost as bad to history and civics. Others have carried on their work.

Someone else here decried "neutral" teaching of history. He or she was right. It is impossible to teach history without attaching values to it. The fundamental question is "Do you want children to be able to put information together and come up with their own interpretations?" The current political climate in the US and as far as I can tell in the UK is "No". The alternatives are to stuff text into the kiddies without letting them develop the tools to interpret and organize them or to provide a single official interpretation and permit not deviation from it. 




> Will Smith was quoted here last week as saying he wants to be president, don't know whether that cheers you up or not!


He couldn't be worse than most of the clowns who are chasing the greased pig in the field game of American politics. We've had a washed up senile Republican actor as President. Why not a younger, good looking Black one who's at the top of his professional game? It would give the ladies and the gay gentlemen some eye candy. We haven't had a martial artist in the White House since Teddy Roosevelt. And Will Smith is interested in Silat. He'd have the solid Indonesian Martial Arts vote. All two or three hundred of us 



> Evil very rarely comes with devil horns on it's head to warn us.
> 
> *All there is to know about Adolph Eichman*
> 
> ...



Oh, you said a mouthful there.


----------



## tellner (Dec 24, 2007)

So Bob, you're saying he should be excused because he was a *drug-abusing* murderer. He was still a vicious killer who died committing a monstrous crime. As he gave death to his future let the future return only silence to him.


----------



## tellner (Dec 24, 2007)

punisher73 said:


> Isn't this almost the same thing that we did to the American Indians?  We wanted what they had so we rounded them up and relocated them to where we thought they should be?  How many died due to starvation and illness because of that?



It might have been Howard Zinn who said "We didn't write the book on Ethnic Cleansing. But we contributed a few of the more colorful chapters." What Europeans did to Native peoples in the Americas is a series of crimes whose monstrosity can not be overstated. There was a conscious half millennium campaign of displacement, theft, cultural extinction, genocide, rape and enslavement. All you can say for the Nazis is that they didn't have quite the time or resources to do as thorough a job. But they worked at it with Teutonic efficiency.

The same can be said for the Japanese and their treatment of the Koreans and extermination of the Ainu, the rise of the Zulu Empire, the elimination of the Neanderthals, Australia's "Abo Hunts", the genocides against the Kurds, the way China has always treated its minorities, and on and on. The victors write the history books. But if we want to rise above the level of howling murderers the books have to do something besides self congratulation. 

Back to Herr Schicklgruber and the Nordic ideal.

A joke at the time ran "The perfect Aryan is as slim as Göring, as tall as Goebbels and as blond as Hitler." In fact, the closest thing the Party had to that was the biggest bull-Nazi of them all the tall, good looking, athletic fanatic Reinhard Heydrich. And he was a self-hating Jew who gave up a promising career Navy career to become a throat-slitter and join the Party. I guess my Tribe's National Socialism can beat up your Tribe's National Socialism


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 24, 2007)

tellner said:


> So Bob, you're saying he should be excused because he was a *drug-abusing* murderer. He was still a vicious killer who died committing a monstrous crime. As he gave death to his future let the future return only silence to him.


You're twisting my words. I don't believe at any point I said he should be "excused".

"*Drug-Abusing*" 
At the time of his death "Chris Benoit was found to have Xanax, hydrocodone, and an elevated level of testosterone, caused by a synthetic form of testosterone, in his system. The chief medical examiner attributed the testosterone level to Benoit possibly being treated for a deficiency caused by previous steroid abuse. There was no indication that anything in Chris' body contributed to his violent behavior that led to the murder-suicide, concluding that there was no "roid-rage" involved."
Like many wrestlers, football players, and other athletes, he had taken steriods in the past.

"*Murderer*"
No arguement there. "Authorities have confirmed that Benoit killed his wife and son,[5] and subsequently hanged himself.[6]"

"Vicious Killer"
Depends on how you define it.  There are worse ways to die. 

"died committing a monstrous crime"
No, he commited suicide (which I do not recognize as a sin since sin is a man made invention, not found in all religions) after killing his family, something that I will agree is wrong, it's hardly monstrous. 9/11, the holocaust, mass graves, that's monstrous.

As to premeditation, there's no proof that the actions were premeditated, in fact the evidence says otherwise. 
But, you can always ask Andre Waters and Terry Long why they commited suicide.

In any event, we're going way off topic here...shall we end the tangent or move it over to one of the Benoit threads and split off these bits?


----------



## tellner (Dec 24, 2007)

There's another thread about this elsewhere on the forum.


----------



## kaizasosei (Dec 24, 2007)

i believe most of the time with premeditated murder, there are a great deal of steps to take before carrying it out.  that is why i also condemn such action with the greatest disdain for that which carried it out.   also, killing or even violence are not the only way.. even if the action seems sudden, i believe, that it is first only latently present- possibly measurable- waiting for its chance 

  still, like in the case of chris benoit how can one possibly even attempt to completely understand such a tragic mess of a family. ultimately, it really is a kind of tragedy. 
just like i previously didnt accept the state of someones brain, with even a shred of reason left, as controlling the very nature of their behaviour.  i cannot even accept that getting hit on the head causes you to kill.  i understand the connection but it is nothing more than trivia in the face of what an individual carries out with able body.  
of course, getting hit with a little dementia sounds some better than insane. but  if word insane is used in this way(which it often is), i would have trouble believing it.  i mean, excuses are lame, people should take responsibility for their actions.

  of course someone can be tricked into killing, be full of rage and passion...i'm trust that god or whatever power does judge us(?), will be able to judge justly and fairly,- but from where we're at, killing is killing.  even by accident it's a terrible thing. even killing by accident or madness, entire wars could be initiated.  - furthermore, killing is so harsh on the killer himself, that many commit suicide or lose it if not completely change through the experience.



today i had an interesting talk with an interesting person...she had that classic thinking of karma, that what you do in some way comes back to you.  -the idea is not new to me, but today i got this feeling again that it might well be more true than one could imagine..-  
so most important i think would be to keep oneself and ones family safe and happy- 


still my heart goes out to all victims of such tragic crimes such as above.  i even consider the ones guilty to also be victims of hatred and their own mistakes. 
 just as i stated above, i do not condone killing.  however, in some instances, the socalled victims, contribute greatly to the event.  not saying this is the case in this family situation.  but one should be careful or respectful of everyone, as one would be of a king- or a lion or an innocent child. - then one would have less chance of getting caught offguard.



switching back to the topic of will smith- one could say, this story says more about our society than it does about will smith.  definately the society is greater than the individual anyhow..  i mean if one had said that tamerlan was a good man or temujin was a good man- the people of tonsof cultures wouldnt even know who they are or even care.  - 



j


----------



## Omar B (Dec 24, 2007)

What he said.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Dec 24, 2007)

I think Mr. Smith has a point in what he is saying. At a fundamnetal level, people do _what they think_ is right. hitler's definition (name left lower case on purpose) was wrong, atleast to us. So, in that sense, I agree with what Mr. Smith said. 
Points I argue with: 1. Why "reprogramming"? that has such a negitive bais to it. Why not just, "we'll let God decide, after we use a 50 cal. rifle to do what we think is right"? (sorry, moment of cruel humor).
2. The obvious misquoting.
3. Where did this come from? When would some one ask such a question? Would you go up to one of your freinds and go "so, what do you think of hitler?"


----------



## grydth (Dec 24, 2007)

At this point in time, it should only be considered "news" if a celebrity manages to make some sense during an interview.

Memo to Will Smith: If you can't discuss a subject in a clear enough fashion to avoid giving the impression that all a deranged anti-semitic butcher needs is Scientology, then it is not best to talk of it at all. Instead, tell us how lucky you are that Jada stays with you.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 25, 2007)

newGuy12 said:


> Just another actor running his mouth about stuff he doesn't know about.



Yup. And why the hell do we give any weight to what actors have to say anyway? If anything, we should be more likely to ignore them when they aren't reading a line...


----------



## tellner (Dec 25, 2007)

Uh Bob, strangling your wife and child is pretty damned monstrous. The suicide was icing on the cake at the end of the affair. He died as part of a multiple murder and suicide. 

"There are worse ways to die"? He only killed his immediate family and not a dozen other people? Good Lord, do you hear the words that are coming out of your mouth? _He murdered his ****ing family_. He betrayed his loved ones in the worst possible way. He forced his son to take illegal drugs. He charmed or coerced his wife back after she left him under the classic battered woman's circumstances and not, it seems, for the first time. He repaid her trust with death.

But he didn't actually strangle them with barbed wire, so we're supposed to have sympathy for him.

He could have refrained from murdering them. He could have failed to leave an out of town engagement either to murder them or to return to the scene of his depravity and kill himself depending on which version of the official reports is correct. If he wanted them out of his life he could have left. Men do that all the time. If he wanted to hurt someone he could have gotten in a fight with someone who could defend himself instead of women and children. If life was just too hard to bear he could have taken the Big Jump _by himself_. He could even have turned himself in and accepted the just punishment for his crime. That would have shown a little bit of courage and some sort of moral sense.

But no. He murdered helpless people whom he was supposed to love and protect and took Judas' way out. A fit of blind rage could explain one. It doesn't wash if he went to another room to snuff the other, arranged the corpses and decorated the crime scenes with bibles. 

Drug abusing? By your own admission the answer is "yes". From what you say he was using a whole pharmacy of drugs without prescriptions. That makes him a _criminal_ drug abuser. That doesn't exactly make things better.

I've got a lot of sympathy for his victims and their devastated families. For the criminal who betrayed and slaughtered them? Not so much. Let him stand before the Last Judge and excuse his crimes. I will say nothing more on the subject.


----------



## kaizasosei (Dec 25, 2007)

everyone is entitiled to their opinion.  freedom does include the right to be wrong not to do wrong. no point in getting so fussy over definitions  or even getting offended by somebody other than oneself.

but what i think matters even more, is that when things really get ugly, i often notice there is no room left to truely be against anything.  one can only be for something.  being something positive like life, love,mercy,strength -brotherhood, whatever  one  personally feels are  good  qualities.  there is no need to be against anything actually,-  and if one did actually come across someone that is truely evil-surprise, most of us can be sometimes-then one must have solutions other than pulling out ones hair bluntly telling the others they are wrong . that may not make things any better. if anything i imagine it could make the actual state of things worse.  - ok, that's overexaggerating, but at least i wonder why so much trouble over some dumb words that somebody said.  - 
conviction and emotion can be handy tools i'll admit- but more often than not, they cause much confusion and are the source of many problems.  


  everyone is just speaking from their own experience.  being too harsh or correct will stop people from sharing their thoughts...like a place that is too sterile that begins encroach on even the positive bacteria which in this case i compare to the true feelings of someone.  no matter how we wish someone to see things how we do, it takes lots of interaction to even come to a decent understanding of what the other is thinking let alone feeling, -then influencing that is a whole different matter
.  even when a large group form a collective, often each individual is  still persuing his own  agenda that may not or may not tie in one to one with that of the group. 
blablaba...i know im rambling again



j


----------



## BrandiJo (Dec 25, 2007)

http://www.dailysnack.com/celebrity_news_article_pa.html?sku=1198564380528148-E0
Here Will goes back and explains what he ment, and how he agrees that hitler was a vile killer.


----------



## tellner (Dec 25, 2007)

Followup:



> 25/12/07 							 							 								Hollywood star Will Smith has expressed anger over celebrity gossip website articles that he said misinterpreted a remark he made in a Scottish newspaper about Adolf Hitler.In a story published in Daily Record, Smith was quoted as saying: "Even Hitler didn't wake up going, 'let me do the most evil thing I can do today'. I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was 'good'."
> The quote was preceded by the writer's observation: "Remarkably, Will believes everyone is basically good."
> Over the weekend, dozens of celebrity gossip websites posted articles about the comment, many saying that Smith believed that Hitler was a "good" person.
> "It is an awful and disgusting lie," Smith said in a statement. "It speaks to the dangerous power of an ignorant person with a pen. I am incensed and infuriated to have to respond to such ludicrous misinterpretation."
> "Adolf Hitler was a vile, heinous vicious killer responsible for one of the greatest acts of evil committed on this planet."


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 25, 2007)

tellner said:


> Uh Bob, strangling your wife and child is pretty damned monstrous. The suicide was icing on the cake at the end of the affair. He died as part of a multiple murder and suicide.
> 
> "There are worse ways to die"? He only killed his immediate family and not a dozen other people? Good Lord, do you hear the words that are coming out of your mouth? _He murdered his ****ing family_. He betrayed his loved ones in the worst possible way. He forced his son to take illegal drugs. He charmed or coerced his wife back after she left him under the classic battered woman's circumstances and not, it seems, for the first time. He repaid her trust with death.
> 
> ...


I know exactly what I'm saying, but I guess you're right. We should ignore the evidence that the man was brain damaged and might nothave been in his right mind, after a life time of injuries. We should also condemn the Vietnam vet who had the flashback and took our a playground full of kids, or the dementia victim who drove his car through a McD.

I don't see him as a monster.  To me, the monsters are the parents who smother their kids, or leave them in a car with rolled up windows in 120' heatwhile they wait in line in the nice AC cooled bank, or provide a home filled with feces and roaches to live in. 

We don't know what happened in that house. You're condemning him because he took drugs -which have been used and are still used regularly- in every sport out there. Yes they were illegal, but the autopsy said -they weren't a factor-. Now, unless you have more information than has been let out, I think I'll trust the official findings.

3 drugs = whole pharmacy?  Small town eh?
- Xanax : is a short-acting drug in the benzodiazepine class used to treat anxiety disorders and as an adjunctive treatment for depression.
- Hydrocodone : an effective antitussive (anti-cough) agent, and as an opiate it is also an effective analgesic for mild to moderate pain control. 
- Testosterone - artificial booster due to low counts

So, an anti-anxiety drug (legal with perscription), an anti-cough agent/pain killer (legal) and something to make his wee wee work again.

*"The chief medical examiner attributed the testosterone level to Benoit possibly being treated for a deficiency caused by previous steroid abuse. There was no indication that anything in Chris' body contributed to his violent behavior that led to the murder-suicide, concluding that there was no "roid-rage" involved."*

Benoit wasn't a monster. Unless you're saying (again, inside unreleaased information?) that he planned this out for a while, weeks, months, years maybe? He was a guy with severe brain damage, who snapped, and unlike several other documented cases, focused his dementia on his family before ending his own life. 

But, believe what you want to believe. I'll stick with the facts in that case.
What he did was wrong, but I don't put it in the same league as those who purposefully set out to kill others.

Then again, who can blame you for not having all the facts?  There are 2 court cases going on right now, over his estate, with the families fighting, to determine who died first....even though the medical examiner already said.  

Good thing no one's said if he had a copy of Mein Kamf in his library. They's confuse him with Will Smith. /sarcasm.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 25, 2007)

tellner said:


> Followup:


So....was the headline "Will Smith Now Realizes Hitler Bad"?


----------



## crushing (Dec 25, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> So....was the headline "Will Smith Now Realizes Hitler Bad"?


 
But only because of public pressure. . .right?  What a load of crap that he had to clarify a simple statement.

It's like Britney Spears being blamed for some dumbass paparazzi putting his foot under her car's wheel for his ten seconds of fame.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 25, 2007)

Well, if she would just wear some underwear, he wouldn't have had to get run over now would he?
/sarcasm


----------



## thardey (Feb 22, 2008)

Smith won damages in court today:

http://news.yahoo.com/


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 22, 2008)

thardey said:


> Smith won damages in court today:
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/


beat me to it... 
Nice thing is that the damages awarded to Smith, he'll donate to charity. 
Not that he needed the money anyway.


----------



## thardey (Feb 22, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> beat me to it...
> Nice thing is that the damages awarded to Smith, he'll donate to charity.
> Not that he needed the money anyway.



It's nice to see the media held accountable, though. They don't exactly need the money either, compared to charity.


----------



## arnisador (Feb 22, 2008)

thardey said:


> Smith won damages in court today:



I read that in the paper. Good for him!


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 22, 2008)

Speaking of headlines, I wonder who changed the main page thread title?  The original title is still visible in OP's first post.  Feeling a bit abashed Big D?


----------



## arnisador (Feb 22, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Speaking of headlines, I wonder who changed the main page thread title?  The original title is still visible in OP's first post.  Feeling a bit abashed Big D?



I think two threads on the same topic were merged. See post #33.


----------

