French presidency competition 2007
category: residue [glöplog]
Quote:
isn't the election over yet?
Cruzer: Long ago. This thread has just become a mixed bag where french people talk shit about everthing, because that's what we do best :)
Quote:
mon dieu, pulsar est dépucelé :)
:)
Les non-initié qui possédaient des actions EADS doivent avoir l'impression d'avoir été plus que dépucelé^^
je crois qu'il voulait plutot dire "dépulsé"
nonon dépucelé :) on dirait qu'il vient de découvrir le business agressif :)
Ce n'est pas (malheureusement ?) une découverte, il s'agissait juste de témoigner de mon indignation dans ce thread ;)
si non, la PS3 va passer à 399 €
manque plus qu'un petit modchip... et je signe un chéque^^
manque plus qu'un petit modchip... et je signe un chéque^^
399 hiiiiiiiiiiiiiic
lets speak english again, nice idea. "arnaud largardere", the man who owns a lot of big european companies, amongst airbus, and half of the french press amongst other things, is now convinced of "offence of initiate" . He took interests (he sold his stocks), just before the 2004 airbus crash, and when a lot of layoff where announced at airbus.(yeah, german knows also)
Zest said in french, about the news (average translation by me& babelfish):
Quote:
at the time I had been nauseated by the former leaders of airbus, justice finally seems to awake, some prison would be welcome: sarko has an opportunity to show an independence from the big financials, will it seize it?
I answer: no, he will not touch anything for these reasons:
- arnaud largardere and nicolas sarkozy are close friend since the 80's, when sarkozy, young and almost unknown, reached the place of mayor of the part of paris where all rich industrials lives. They are used to eat together, etc... Actually, sarkozy went president only because he was choosen by lagardere, bouygues, dassault and bolore, who are all the "close friend" of sarkozy since the 80's, and own the totality of the french military industry, aerospace industry and the press. More than any other politician (maybe exept bush), sarkozy in not the man of a party, he is the manservant of the few more rich people.
-on the other hand, sarkozy technically controls the french state since 2002 (not 2007, he was an omnipotent minister before, chirac was isolated in his own party.), and one of the first things he did back then was to fire out all judges , and reform the whole justice so that it is no more independant from the political power. He changed many things in the organisation of the state so that he got all the power.
Last note from me: In 2004, it was largely announced in press that noel Forgeard, a "joint CEO of EADS" (airbus==part of EADS) has a controversial "golden parachutes" of 8.5 millions of euros when he was fired for the crash.. but the press didn't ever mention in 2004 that in the same time lagardere made about 500 millions of profits... of course, almost all media kept silent.
lets speak english again, nice idea. "arnaud largardere", the man who owns a lot of big european companies, amongst airbus, and half of the french press amongst other things, is now convinced of "offence of initiate" . He took interests (he sold his stocks), just before the 2004 airbus crash, and when a lot of layoff where announced at airbus.(yeah, german knows also)
Zest said in french, about the news (average translation by me& babelfish):
Quote:
at the time I had been nauseated by the former leaders of airbus, justice finally seems to awake, some prison would be welcome: sarko has an opportunity to show an independence from the big financials, will it seize it?
I answer: no, he will not touch anything for these reasons:
- arnaud largardere and nicolas sarkozy are close friend since the 80's, when sarkozy, young and almost unknown, reached the place of mayor of the part of paris where all rich industrials lives. They are used to eat together, etc... Actually, sarkozy went president only because he was choosen by lagardere, bouygues, dassault and bolore, who are all the "close friend" of sarkozy since the 80's, and own the totality of the french military industry, aerospace industry and the press. More than any other politician (maybe exept bush), sarkozy in not the man of a party, he is the manservant of the few more rich people.
-on the other hand, sarkozy technically controls the french state since 2002 (not 2007, he was an omnipotent minister before, chirac was isolated in his own party.), and one of the first things he did back then was to fire out all judges , and reform the whole justice so that it is no more independant from the political power. He changed many things in the organisation of the state so that he got all the power.
Last note from me: In 2004, it was largely announced in press that noel Forgeard, a "joint CEO of EADS" (airbus==part of EADS) has a controversial "golden parachutes" of 8.5 millions of euros when he was fired for the crash.. but the press didn't ever mention in 2004 that in the same time lagardere made about 500 millions of profits... of course, almost all media kept silent.
oops
paul une calsberg apparement on change de langue, je suis la mode
c'est vrai ce n'est pas un sceneur
Quote:
sarkozy in not the man of a party
c'est vrai ce n'est pas un sceneur
Med :)))))
krabob can foretell the future in his crystal ball for you!
AS a matter of fact, I am an ecologist and a leftist, and I am for economic "Degrowth" (a brand new political movement which asks for a more simple life, being happier with less money and working less, having no car, etc... because else, there will be never enough planets.) . I criticize the "Classical liberals" thought (which want all for money and growth and it will be ok... exept that we 're dying of it and even poluted the third world with it.)... and I'm for more taxes for education and to redistribute money. and Each times a french "economic liberal" tell something too dumb-and-right-winged or is shocked by my point of view, I reply.
This time i was replying to zest:
Well, to begin, about liberalism, and the two centuries which have just passed: indeed, the "economic liberalism" such as it was defined in the 18th century was basically an "idea of the revolutions" and philosopher,
but it can only must be understood in this context: it was created in opposition to feudalism, * not against socialism *. the "free enterprise" never existed before. You could not arrive like that and say:"hey, I will open a shop or a business": it was prohibited. You make the same work as your parents, that's all, you were a subject, not a citizen. Creating an idea of the economy after that, the thinkers of liberalism could not guess what was going to arrive with, especially with a population of 95% farmers and 20 times less people. Thus the idea of the liberalism, and I repeat, which was defined long before socialism is more or less:
1. One should be able to freely make trade * without no law to bother them *
2. there should be no more states, like that no more taxes, and so more money and money (a bit anarchist!)
3. (later) they started to believe unrationnal urban legends to make plausible the reality of items 1 and 2, like"the invisible hand of the market".
And what happened exactly then ? because of this shit it became a shitbag (1850-1930): it was the industrial era and we started an economy of "growth"... and without socialism at all (without social laws) It was fucked up everywhere: the poor was exploited to work 14 hours per days, the kids worked, seven days a week at the factory and you died at 30 or 40 ( in Europe!!!). a minority were extremely rich, in short, the shit which Dickens describes, it is liberalism.
Then obviously after 1850, there is Communism and socialism which arrives * in reaction to liberalism *, at the beginning, it gave some bloody missed revolutions (the commune, that it is good! live the songs of the commune of bets! :) then, because of the trade-union organizations and their fights, and the creation of democratic and moderate socialist parties (in france in 1910 ), some social laws could be voted ( I speak of france, 1920-1939). laws which protect the workers and redistribute the moneys better.
All the social progress made during the 20th century like the minimum salary, paid hollidays, and even the right to have a decent armchair to sit in front of the computer, was not gained because of liberalism, it was gained BECAUSE of the syndicate actions and the left parties.
It is necessary to be aware that it was a real fighting. In the Thirties, the French industrial bosses, for example had a secret organization (la cagoule), which assassinated several Ministers for the left government of 1937, all that for liberalism.
Well, so we're riching the modern times: since 1970, after the first oil crisis on a world level, there is a come back of a pure hard liberalism, which aim is to dismantle * any concept of helpful state * by eradicating education, health, social services, under the name of "reforms", all that finally to lower the taxes of the ultra minority of super rich persons ... that gives reagan/bush, tatcher, berlusconi who let his country to the Maffia (which represents exctaly liberalism),...and thus sarkozy, which dismantle the french state as fast as he can since 2002.
So zest continued:
You confuse democracy and liberalism... you see, indeed, if we have not the same vocabulary, it is hard to understand each others. I always shouted against liberalism, and for a decreasing and ecological socialism: It means that I am for taxes and the redistributing resources and money. extreme-left people also like to name themselves "libertarian" what is in opposition with "liberal". It is not so complicated!
In the vocabulary of the insults between camps, the term "reactionary" designates the liberals, because they always were opposed to the social progress (since the 30's).
zest:
Frankly? No, I am not happy with it. Why? Because the poors are more and more poors, sarkozy dismantle the state, because the tv continue to rotten the heads, and that the scientists say that we will all burst in the short run. You can be happy with that you? If one makes kids they will have less than us, because of us. It is terrible.
I impose noting, I post on forums. I estimate that in politic, if ideas are explained, most of the job is done. People seems to think that expressing "different" ideas should be taboo! it is not! proclaimng an idea, is already showing the others that it is possible to do so! For information, I stopped my job for one year and put me in question,read and inform myself on the world, and then I found a good job only 8 minutes from home in bicycle ;)
Zest:
The personal freedoms, it is super!!! But it is not necessary to reduce that to obeying to advertisements.
Me Sir, I thought a lot about "freedom", and I is deduced that when one works 10 hours per day to pay his car to go to work and pass 3 or 4 hours per day in front of tv to look at ads which tells you to go to buy a car, when you do that, you're not free! Let us prohibit advertissements!!
...
This time i was replying to zest:
Quote:
honestly, I would like that you expose us a pragmatic and constructive vision of your anti-liberalism ?
Well, to begin, about liberalism, and the two centuries which have just passed: indeed, the "economic liberalism" such as it was defined in the 18th century was basically an "idea of the revolutions" and philosopher,
but it can only must be understood in this context: it was created in opposition to feudalism, * not against socialism *. the "free enterprise" never existed before. You could not arrive like that and say:"hey, I will open a shop or a business": it was prohibited. You make the same work as your parents, that's all, you were a subject, not a citizen. Creating an idea of the economy after that, the thinkers of liberalism could not guess what was going to arrive with, especially with a population of 95% farmers and 20 times less people. Thus the idea of the liberalism, and I repeat, which was defined long before socialism is more or less:
1. One should be able to freely make trade * without no law to bother them *
2. there should be no more states, like that no more taxes, and so more money and money (a bit anarchist!)
3. (later) they started to believe unrationnal urban legends to make plausible the reality of items 1 and 2, like"the invisible hand of the market".
And what happened exactly then ? because of this shit it became a shitbag (1850-1930): it was the industrial era and we started an economy of "growth"... and without socialism at all (without social laws) It was fucked up everywhere: the poor was exploited to work 14 hours per days, the kids worked, seven days a week at the factory and you died at 30 or 40 ( in Europe!!!). a minority were extremely rich, in short, the shit which Dickens describes, it is liberalism.
Then obviously after 1850, there is Communism and socialism which arrives * in reaction to liberalism *, at the beginning, it gave some bloody missed revolutions (the commune, that it is good! live the songs of the commune of bets! :) then, because of the trade-union organizations and their fights, and the creation of democratic and moderate socialist parties (in france in 1910 ), some social laws could be voted ( I speak of france, 1920-1939). laws which protect the workers and redistribute the moneys better.
All the social progress made during the 20th century like the minimum salary, paid hollidays, and even the right to have a decent armchair to sit in front of the computer, was not gained because of liberalism, it was gained BECAUSE of the syndicate actions and the left parties.
It is necessary to be aware that it was a real fighting. In the Thirties, the French industrial bosses, for example had a secret organization (la cagoule), which assassinated several Ministers for the left government of 1937, all that for liberalism.
Well, so we're riching the modern times: since 1970, after the first oil crisis on a world level, there is a come back of a pure hard liberalism, which aim is to dismantle * any concept of helpful state * by eradicating education, health, social services, under the name of "reforms", all that finally to lower the taxes of the ultra minority of super rich persons ... that gives reagan/bush, tatcher, berlusconi who let his country to the Maffia (which represents exctaly liberalism),...and thus sarkozy, which dismantle the french state as fast as he can since 2002.
So zest continued:
Quote:
The History manifestly showed that the anti-liberals states removed a number of personal freedoms to finish in more or less bloody dictatorships. In those you would not problablement have even more the right to philosophize and criticize as you do it here. Whereas the liberal world of today lets you dispute it at will...
You confuse democracy and liberalism... you see, indeed, if we have not the same vocabulary, it is hard to understand each others. I always shouted against liberalism, and for a decreasing and ecological socialism: It means that I am for taxes and the redistributing resources and money. extreme-left people also like to name themselves "libertarian" what is in opposition with "liberal". It is not so complicated!
In the vocabulary of the insults between camps, the term "reactionary" designates the liberals, because they always were opposed to the social progress (since the 30's).
zest:
Quote:
seriously, if you are not happy with the current majoritary way of life...
Frankly? No, I am not happy with it. Why? Because the poors are more and more poors, sarkozy dismantle the state, because the tv continue to rotten the heads, and that the scientists say that we will all burst in the short run. You can be happy with that you? If one makes kids they will have less than us, because of us. It is terrible.
Quote:
instead of wanting to impose on everyone another contrary mode, you have all the leisure * individually * to put it into question in a practical way
I impose noting, I post on forums. I estimate that in politic, if ideas are explained, most of the job is done. People seems to think that expressing "different" ideas should be taboo! it is not! proclaimng an idea, is already showing the others that it is possible to do so! For information, I stopped my job for one year and put me in question,read and inform myself on the world, and then I found a good job only 8 minutes from home in bicycle ;)
Zest:
Quote:
concretely, how you see your anti-liberal society without it not turning to the revolution and without overriding personal freedoms? .
The personal freedoms, it is super!!! But it is not necessary to reduce that to obeying to advertisements.
Me Sir, I thought a lot about "freedom", and I is deduced that when one works 10 hours per day to pay his car to go to work and pass 3 or 4 hours per day in front of tv to look at ads which tells you to go to buy a car, when you do that, you're not free! Let us prohibit advertissements!!
...
En français ou en anglais c'est toujours aussi chiant à lire, en tout cas :)
... and a real hardcore leftist would have also translated his manifesto into esperanto :p
Paul, one Tourtel !
Will: ouais c'est ma tournée, prends une pinte !
vivement le beaujolais nouveau frelaté!
J'admire Krabob car malgré toutes les saloperies que vous dites il garde son calme.
Et prôner des idées alternatives c'est pas si mal. La diversité c'est bien.
Et prôner des idées alternatives c'est pas si mal. La diversité c'est bien.
translating dahu:
I had to answer all that: First, please, stop to take what i say for "stalinism" or "communism", I only talk about ecology and degrowth. The communism was *ALSO* about "growth" and productivity at all price like liberalism (lookStakhanovism). The main good thing with a social economy (what we had in france 'til the 90's) is that the economy can grow... the bad thing is now, OK it has grown so much everything is poluted, the human race must face extinction because of it, and we are unable to get out of it it seems. Nothing on a planet where resource are finites, can grow infinitely.
About your "values about work":
1. not only we have enough money, but we produce really too much food, really so many food that the farmers had to close half of the fields, and are actually paid by subventions. (Genetically modified organism==not needed at all) The whole money of the food industry go in the pocket of a few rich bastards that own the distribution market.
2. That's the big lie of liberalism: you thing nothern countries like france actually are rich because we have hard workers ? certainly not. It is rich because we have a military power and we plunder africa and southern countries, with the help of the IMF (which does the contrary of what it is maint to do). As a computer scientist, I was astonished to discover how wide is the importance of the french army on most software firms, even little firms unrelated to army: they pay fucking anything just to make them live artificially. all private enterprises seem to depend on state decisions to make money. They just couldn't live without these helps ! So liberalism ? just lies.
the economy going better because less state ? a joke.
Everywhere, I see so-called private enterprises claiming they have products which have utilities, but this is completely useless stuff most of the times, and they have huge money help from the state. (EADS *has* really huge help from the state, which disapeared in the pocket of lagardere of course). All these stupid big industries are manipulating a lot more money than what is actually used by the whole population to simply have a home, eat, etc...
Look around you: most jobs people have seriously are fake useless jobs, what they really do is polution for nothing, resource wasting, and that's all.I repeat: liberalism is there to increase the dfference between a few rich and the rest of the population, and we're all on the wrong side.
fuck work ! You really think it creates richness ? It creates polution that's all, It forbids the people to think by stoling their time with work and TV and ads !!!
by working less, we could have the time for our families,to really be educated, for creativity, that's richness !
Quote:
that makes me laugh what krabob says. Yes money is there for sure, we can share it as we want. But what will arrive if there was a lot of money for everyone? People who make effort to have some (and which creates richness), their efforts would cease. There would be no more need to work hard. Thus you fall in the extreme opposite, a lazy society, which would not move to work (= to create richnesses), and which would be impoverished. You will note that already in the case of the Communism, which puts everyone at equality incomes in theory, the countries were not models of economic development, and if the USSR had its blows of glares, that was done only with patriotic blow of stultifying on a large scale. nowadays the Berlin Wall has fallen, and we could see the east as it was: monotomne, poor in the capacity of life, poor with compared with the west. In a liberal company, the money is the ransom of a provided effort, and it is well like that. Those which make efforts are rewarded. And these efforts start as of the youth, at the school. Any effort is rewarded one day when the other.
I had to answer all that: First, please, stop to take what i say for "stalinism" or "communism", I only talk about ecology and degrowth. The communism was *ALSO* about "growth" and productivity at all price like liberalism (lookStakhanovism). The main good thing with a social economy (what we had in france 'til the 90's) is that the economy can grow... the bad thing is now, OK it has grown so much everything is poluted, the human race must face extinction because of it, and we are unable to get out of it it seems. Nothing on a planet where resource are finites, can grow infinitely.
About your "values about work":
1. not only we have enough money, but we produce really too much food, really so many food that the farmers had to close half of the fields, and are actually paid by subventions. (Genetically modified organism==not needed at all) The whole money of the food industry go in the pocket of a few rich bastards that own the distribution market.
2. That's the big lie of liberalism: you thing nothern countries like france actually are rich because we have hard workers ? certainly not. It is rich because we have a military power and we plunder africa and southern countries, with the help of the IMF (which does the contrary of what it is maint to do). As a computer scientist, I was astonished to discover how wide is the importance of the french army on most software firms, even little firms unrelated to army: they pay fucking anything just to make them live artificially. all private enterprises seem to depend on state decisions to make money. They just couldn't live without these helps ! So liberalism ? just lies.
the economy going better because less state ? a joke.
Everywhere, I see so-called private enterprises claiming they have products which have utilities, but this is completely useless stuff most of the times, and they have huge money help from the state. (EADS *has* really huge help from the state, which disapeared in the pocket of lagardere of course). All these stupid big industries are manipulating a lot more money than what is actually used by the whole population to simply have a home, eat, etc...
Look around you: most jobs people have seriously are fake useless jobs, what they really do is polution for nothing, resource wasting, and that's all.I repeat: liberalism is there to increase the dfference between a few rich and the rest of the population, and we're all on the wrong side.
Quote:
Thus you fall in the extreme opposite, a lazy society, which would not move to work (= to create richnesses),
fuck work ! You really think it creates richness ? It creates polution that's all, It forbids the people to think by stoling their time with work and TV and ads !!!
by working less, we could have the time for our families,to really be educated, for creativity, that's richness !
rofl ce thread :)
Willbe: tu reprends un verre ?