|
On May 04 2012 18:09 Kukaracha wrote:
Yes, so you show again that your knowledge is limited to a google search. In Le Figaro, for example, they give him credit for the urbanization of Paris, when all Napoleon did was appoint Hausmann. Period.
To be fair he couldn't do it himself. If he ordered it, it's normal for him to get credit for it.
It's like saying the pharaohs get no credit for the pyramids.
|
On May 04 2012 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 21:13 ulan-bat wrote:On May 04 2012 20:47 DOUDOU wrote:On May 04 2012 08:01 Geiko wrote:
Lybia and Bettancour funding, Sarkozy hasn't been condemned yet. He's protected by presidential immunity but that doesn't mean he is guilty. When you think about it, both PS and UMP's campaign were controlled and priced at 20M. do you seriously believe that UMPs campaign cost 50M€ ? The people controlling must of done a piss poor job to miss out on 30M ( plus whatever Bettancourt gave him ). I followed the 2007 campaign, I don't see on what UMP spent all that money. The PS had the exact same funding as far as I'm concerned. that's the whole point, faking campaing funds is how you divert money Or it could be 5 millions instead of 50, then what? Or it could have been a maximum but Sarkozy didn't need it all. Or Mediapart was fooled by some informer and nothing happened at all. Who knows really? The only thing I believe is that Sarkozy has a hard time defending his position with facts, for now at least. He's all about trust, "really, you would believe this libyan more than me?". We'll see what the justice says. The thing with these affairs is that they accumulate, and that Sarkozy and his surrounding is involved not in one, where the doubt is always possible, but in a zillion very different ones, including some of absolutely extreme gravity. The worst one being Karachi of course, which happened in correlation with Balladur campaign that Sarkozy was directing. Nothing is proved councerning Sarkozy, that's right. In many countries, however the fact of beinng mentionned in ANY of these affairs would have been the resignation from office the following day. You can't rule a country being suspected to be not only a crook but a criminal. Now, Mitterand has been quite bad councerning honesty, but never done anything as outrageous as putting his 23 years old son with no studies, no political experience except some nepotist shit in the Hauts de Seine at the head of such a gigantic institution like the epad. Mind you, all of this come from the president who justify inequalities growing because of the "merit and "hard work" (well, I should be president of the planet then), and the one who promised "une République irreprochable". I wonder how people who ever believed him are not beeding from the asshole. And people still vote for this clown. It's time to invest into the vaseline market.
First of all, no need to be so vulgar, you're not gaining any sympathy points on this forum 
Second of all, you're saying that being involved in numerous affairs should force Sarkozy to resign ? How anti-democratic is that thought ? So the enemies of Sarkozy need only carry out a few accusations for him to resign ?
The Clearstream affair has already shown to what lengths some people are willing to go to try and frame Sarkozy, why should we believe any of the other affairs ? On a personal level, I'd much rather trust the Justice system then a couple of left-wing tabloids, no offence.
Once again, I'd remind you that Jean Sarkozy has been elected and was in a rightful right to apply for this job. It wasn't very elegant to do so, and it wasn't very smart of the people in charge to consider voting for Jean for that job, but once again, where is your proof that Sarkozy asked them to vote for his son ?
|
On May 04 2012 21:49 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 04 2012 21:13 ulan-bat wrote:On May 04 2012 20:47 DOUDOU wrote:On May 04 2012 08:01 Geiko wrote:
Lybia and Bettancour funding, Sarkozy hasn't been condemned yet. He's protected by presidential immunity but that doesn't mean he is guilty. When you think about it, both PS and UMP's campaign were controlled and priced at 20M. do you seriously believe that UMPs campaign cost 50M€ ? The people controlling must of done a piss poor job to miss out on 30M ( plus whatever Bettancourt gave him ). I followed the 2007 campaign, I don't see on what UMP spent all that money. The PS had the exact same funding as far as I'm concerned. that's the whole point, faking campaing funds is how you divert money Or it could be 5 millions instead of 50, then what? Or it could have been a maximum but Sarkozy didn't need it all. Or Mediapart was fooled by some informer and nothing happened at all. Who knows really? The only thing I believe is that Sarkozy has a hard time defending his position with facts, for now at least. He's all about trust, "really, you would believe this libyan more than me?". We'll see what the justice says. The thing with these affairs is that they accumulate, and that Sarkozy and his surrounding is involved not in one, where the doubt is always possible, but in a zillion very different ones, including some of absolutely extreme gravity. The worst one being Karachi of course, which happened in correlation with Balladur campaign that Sarkozy was directing. Nothing is proved councerning Sarkozy, that's right. In many countries, however the fact of beinng mentionned in ANY of these affairs would have been the resignation from office the following day. You can't rule a country being suspected to be not only a crook but a criminal. Now, Mitterand has been quite bad councerning honesty, but never done anything as outrageous as putting his 23 years old son with no studies, no political experience except some nepotist shit in the Hauts de Seine at the head of such a gigantic institution like the epad. Mind you, all of this come from the president who justify inequalities growing because of the "merit and "hard work" (well, I should be president of the planet then), and the one who promised "une République irreprochable". I wonder how people who ever believed him are not beeding from the asshole. And people still vote for this clown. It's time to invest into the vaseline market. Once again, I'd remind you that Jean Sarkozy has been elected and was in a rightful right to apply for this job. It wasn't very elegant to do so, and it wasn't very smart of the people in charge to consider voting for Jean for that job, but once again, where is your proof that Sarkozy asked them to vote for his son ?
No, that was fucking scandalous. A 23 yo, with lame studies getting the presidency of the biggest trade center of Europe? That was just unacceptable. I don't care what where the reasons, if Sarkozy did someting about it but still wtf.
|
On May 04 2012 22:01 Heweree wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 21:49 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 04 2012 21:13 ulan-bat wrote:On May 04 2012 20:47 DOUDOU wrote:On May 04 2012 08:01 Geiko wrote:
Lybia and Bettancour funding, Sarkozy hasn't been condemned yet. He's protected by presidential immunity but that doesn't mean he is guilty. When you think about it, both PS and UMP's campaign were controlled and priced at 20M. do you seriously believe that UMPs campaign cost 50M€ ? The people controlling must of done a piss poor job to miss out on 30M ( plus whatever Bettancourt gave him ). I followed the 2007 campaign, I don't see on what UMP spent all that money. The PS had the exact same funding as far as I'm concerned. that's the whole point, faking campaing funds is how you divert money Or it could be 5 millions instead of 50, then what? Or it could have been a maximum but Sarkozy didn't need it all. Or Mediapart was fooled by some informer and nothing happened at all. Who knows really? The only thing I believe is that Sarkozy has a hard time defending his position with facts, for now at least. He's all about trust, "really, you would believe this libyan more than me?". We'll see what the justice says. The thing with these affairs is that they accumulate, and that Sarkozy and his surrounding is involved not in one, where the doubt is always possible, but in a zillion very different ones, including some of absolutely extreme gravity. The worst one being Karachi of course, which happened in correlation with Balladur campaign that Sarkozy was directing. Nothing is proved councerning Sarkozy, that's right. In many countries, however the fact of beinng mentionned in ANY of these affairs would have been the resignation from office the following day. You can't rule a country being suspected to be not only a crook but a criminal. Now, Mitterand has been quite bad councerning honesty, but never done anything as outrageous as putting his 23 years old son with no studies, no political experience except some nepotist shit in the Hauts de Seine at the head of such a gigantic institution like the epad. Mind you, all of this come from the president who justify inequalities growing because of the "merit and "hard work" (well, I should be president of the planet then), and the one who promised "une République irreprochable". I wonder how people who ever believed him are not beeding from the asshole. And people still vote for this clown. It's time to invest into the vaseline market. Once again, I'd remind you that Jean Sarkozy has been elected and was in a rightful right to apply for this job. It wasn't very elegant to do so, and it wasn't very smart of the people in charge to consider voting for Jean for that job, but once again, where is your proof that Sarkozy asked them to vote for his son ? No, that was fucking scandalous. A 23 yo, with lame studies getting the presidency of the biggest trade center of Europe? That was just unacceptable. I don't care what where the reasons, if Sarkozy did someting about it but still wtf.
I also think it was totally unappropriate. Poor judgment call by all those involved.
I'm just not convinced Sarkozy (father) had anything to do with it.
|
On May 04 2012 22:07 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 22:01 Heweree wrote:On May 04 2012 21:49 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 04 2012 21:13 ulan-bat wrote:On May 04 2012 20:47 DOUDOU wrote:On May 04 2012 08:01 Geiko wrote:
Lybia and Bettancour funding, Sarkozy hasn't been condemned yet. He's protected by presidential immunity but that doesn't mean he is guilty. When you think about it, both PS and UMP's campaign were controlled and priced at 20M. do you seriously believe that UMPs campaign cost 50M€ ? The people controlling must of done a piss poor job to miss out on 30M ( plus whatever Bettancourt gave him ). I followed the 2007 campaign, I don't see on what UMP spent all that money. The PS had the exact same funding as far as I'm concerned. that's the whole point, faking campaing funds is how you divert money Or it could be 5 millions instead of 50, then what? Or it could have been a maximum but Sarkozy didn't need it all. Or Mediapart was fooled by some informer and nothing happened at all. Who knows really? The only thing I believe is that Sarkozy has a hard time defending his position with facts, for now at least. He's all about trust, "really, you would believe this libyan more than me?". We'll see what the justice says. The thing with these affairs is that they accumulate, and that Sarkozy and his surrounding is involved not in one, where the doubt is always possible, but in a zillion very different ones, including some of absolutely extreme gravity. The worst one being Karachi of course, which happened in correlation with Balladur campaign that Sarkozy was directing. Nothing is proved councerning Sarkozy, that's right. In many countries, however the fact of beinng mentionned in ANY of these affairs would have been the resignation from office the following day. You can't rule a country being suspected to be not only a crook but a criminal. Now, Mitterand has been quite bad councerning honesty, but never done anything as outrageous as putting his 23 years old son with no studies, no political experience except some nepotist shit in the Hauts de Seine at the head of such a gigantic institution like the epad. Mind you, all of this come from the president who justify inequalities growing because of the "merit and "hard work" (well, I should be president of the planet then), and the one who promised "une République irreprochable". I wonder how people who ever believed him are not beeding from the asshole. And people still vote for this clown. It's time to invest into the vaseline market. Once again, I'd remind you that Jean Sarkozy has been elected and was in a rightful right to apply for this job. It wasn't very elegant to do so, and it wasn't very smart of the people in charge to consider voting for Jean for that job, but once again, where is your proof that Sarkozy asked them to vote for his son ? No, that was fucking scandalous. A 23 yo, with lame studies getting the presidency of the biggest trade center of Europe? That was just unacceptable. I don't care what where the reasons, if Sarkozy did someting about it but still wtf. I also think it was totally unappropriate. Poor judgment call by all those involved. I'm just not convinced Sarkozy (father) had anything to do with it.
I don't think so either, or he is really stupid. He would have known it wouldn't go unnoticed.
|
On May 04 2012 22:07 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 22:01 Heweree wrote:On May 04 2012 21:49 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 04 2012 21:13 ulan-bat wrote:On May 04 2012 20:47 DOUDOU wrote:On May 04 2012 08:01 Geiko wrote:
Lybia and Bettancour funding, Sarkozy hasn't been condemned yet. He's protected by presidential immunity but that doesn't mean he is guilty. When you think about it, both PS and UMP's campaign were controlled and priced at 20M. do you seriously believe that UMPs campaign cost 50M€ ? The people controlling must of done a piss poor job to miss out on 30M ( plus whatever Bettancourt gave him ). I followed the 2007 campaign, I don't see on what UMP spent all that money. The PS had the exact same funding as far as I'm concerned. that's the whole point, faking campaing funds is how you divert money Or it could be 5 millions instead of 50, then what? Or it could have been a maximum but Sarkozy didn't need it all. Or Mediapart was fooled by some informer and nothing happened at all. Who knows really? The only thing I believe is that Sarkozy has a hard time defending his position with facts, for now at least. He's all about trust, "really, you would believe this libyan more than me?". We'll see what the justice says. The thing with these affairs is that they accumulate, and that Sarkozy and his surrounding is involved not in one, where the doubt is always possible, but in a zillion very different ones, including some of absolutely extreme gravity. The worst one being Karachi of course, which happened in correlation with Balladur campaign that Sarkozy was directing. Nothing is proved councerning Sarkozy, that's right. In many countries, however the fact of beinng mentionned in ANY of these affairs would have been the resignation from office the following day. You can't rule a country being suspected to be not only a crook but a criminal. Now, Mitterand has been quite bad councerning honesty, but never done anything as outrageous as putting his 23 years old son with no studies, no political experience except some nepotist shit in the Hauts de Seine at the head of such a gigantic institution like the epad. Mind you, all of this come from the president who justify inequalities growing because of the "merit and "hard work" (well, I should be president of the planet then), and the one who promised "une République irreprochable". I wonder how people who ever believed him are not beeding from the asshole. And people still vote for this clown. It's time to invest into the vaseline market. Once again, I'd remind you that Jean Sarkozy has been elected and was in a rightful right to apply for this job. It wasn't very elegant to do so, and it wasn't very smart of the people in charge to consider voting for Jean for that job, but once again, where is your proof that Sarkozy asked them to vote for his son ? No, that was fucking scandalous. A 23 yo, with lame studies getting the presidency of the biggest trade center of Europe? That was just unacceptable. I don't care what where the reasons, if Sarkozy did someting about it but still wtf. I also think it was totally unappropriate. Poor judgment call by all those involved. I'm just not convinced Sarkozy (father) had anything to do with it.
You must be kidding right? They had the idea themselves, probably. Like "Oh, Jean Sarkozy would be greeeeat for that job". And of course the fact Devedjan was asked by the government to fuck off has nothing to do with Sarkozy and the future "election" of his son either.
Look, it's useless to discuss with you. You would claim to your death than 2+2 = 5 if that could help defending your political leader. People like you are the reason France is a corrupt country: losing all critical spirit, all ability to look at facts and admit them, or just to face reality as soon as your convictions are challenged.
I don't know if you believe what you say. If you do, it's worrying.
As for resignation under suspicion for something twelve bazillion times less serious than any of the affairs Sarkozy is involved in:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/17/german-president-scandal-grows.html
In any functional democracy, Sarkozy would have left office a long time ago. And in any country where people can do this weird think that is called thinking, he would have 3% popularity, just because of how outrageous his lies about the Irreprochable République have been.
|
On May 04 2012 22:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 22:07 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 22:01 Heweree wrote:On May 04 2012 21:49 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 04 2012 21:13 ulan-bat wrote:On May 04 2012 20:47 DOUDOU wrote:On May 04 2012 08:01 Geiko wrote:
Lybia and Bettancour funding, Sarkozy hasn't been condemned yet. He's protected by presidential immunity but that doesn't mean he is guilty. When you think about it, both PS and UMP's campaign were controlled and priced at 20M. do you seriously believe that UMPs campaign cost 50M€ ? The people controlling must of done a piss poor job to miss out on 30M ( plus whatever Bettancourt gave him ). I followed the 2007 campaign, I don't see on what UMP spent all that money. The PS had the exact same funding as far as I'm concerned. that's the whole point, faking campaing funds is how you divert money Or it could be 5 millions instead of 50, then what? Or it could have been a maximum but Sarkozy didn't need it all. Or Mediapart was fooled by some informer and nothing happened at all. Who knows really? The only thing I believe is that Sarkozy has a hard time defending his position with facts, for now at least. He's all about trust, "really, you would believe this libyan more than me?". We'll see what the justice says. The thing with these affairs is that they accumulate, and that Sarkozy and his surrounding is involved not in one, where the doubt is always possible, but in a zillion very different ones, including some of absolutely extreme gravity. The worst one being Karachi of course, which happened in correlation with Balladur campaign that Sarkozy was directing. Nothing is proved councerning Sarkozy, that's right. In many countries, however the fact of beinng mentionned in ANY of these affairs would have been the resignation from office the following day. You can't rule a country being suspected to be not only a crook but a criminal. Now, Mitterand has been quite bad councerning honesty, but never done anything as outrageous as putting his 23 years old son with no studies, no political experience except some nepotist shit in the Hauts de Seine at the head of such a gigantic institution like the epad. Mind you, all of this come from the president who justify inequalities growing because of the "merit and "hard work" (well, I should be president of the planet then), and the one who promised "une République irreprochable". I wonder how people who ever believed him are not beeding from the asshole. And people still vote for this clown. It's time to invest into the vaseline market. Once again, I'd remind you that Jean Sarkozy has been elected and was in a rightful right to apply for this job. It wasn't very elegant to do so, and it wasn't very smart of the people in charge to consider voting for Jean for that job, but once again, where is your proof that Sarkozy asked them to vote for his son ? No, that was fucking scandalous. A 23 yo, with lame studies getting the presidency of the biggest trade center of Europe? That was just unacceptable. I don't care what where the reasons, if Sarkozy did someting about it but still wtf. I also think it was totally unappropriate. Poor judgment call by all those involved. I'm just not convinced Sarkozy (father) had anything to do with it. You must be kidding right? They had the idea themselves, probably. Like "Oh, Jean Sarkozy would be greeeeat for that job". And of course the fact Devedjan was asked by the government to fuck off has nothing to do with Sarkozy and the future "election" of his son either. Look, it's useless to discuss with you. You would claim to your death than 2+2 = 5 if that could help defending your political leader. People like you are the reason France is a corrupt country: losing all critical spirit, all ability to look at facts and admit them, or just to face reality as soon as your convictions are challenged. I don't know if you believe what you say. If you do, it's worrying. As for resignation under suspicion for something twelve bazillion times less serious than any of the affairs Sarkozy is involved in: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/17/german-president-scandal-grows.htmlIn any functional democracy, Sarkozy would have left office a long time ago. And in any country where people can do this weird think that is called thinking, he would have 3% popularity, just because of how outrageous his lies about the Irreprochable République have been.
It could actually be the electors who voted for Jean just to please Sarkozy without being ordered so.
And what do you consider a functional democracy? I don't know any country where Sarkozy would have been forced to resign. Nothing has been proven, and honestly he had the most transparency among all the presidents of the 5th république, Chirac and Mitterand probably did way worse.
Geiko may be overly defending Sarkozy, but you're on a mediapart campaign u_u
|
On May 04 2012 22:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 22:07 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 22:01 Heweree wrote:On May 04 2012 21:49 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 04 2012 21:13 ulan-bat wrote:On May 04 2012 20:47 DOUDOU wrote:On May 04 2012 08:01 Geiko wrote:
Lybia and Bettancour funding, Sarkozy hasn't been condemned yet. He's protected by presidential immunity but that doesn't mean he is guilty. When you think about it, both PS and UMP's campaign were controlled and priced at 20M. do you seriously believe that UMPs campaign cost 50M€ ? The people controlling must of done a piss poor job to miss out on 30M ( plus whatever Bettancourt gave him ). I followed the 2007 campaign, I don't see on what UMP spent all that money. The PS had the exact same funding as far as I'm concerned. that's the whole point, faking campaing funds is how you divert money Or it could be 5 millions instead of 50, then what? Or it could have been a maximum but Sarkozy didn't need it all. Or Mediapart was fooled by some informer and nothing happened at all. Who knows really? The only thing I believe is that Sarkozy has a hard time defending his position with facts, for now at least. He's all about trust, "really, you would believe this libyan more than me?". We'll see what the justice says. The thing with these affairs is that they accumulate, and that Sarkozy and his surrounding is involved not in one, where the doubt is always possible, but in a zillion very different ones, including some of absolutely extreme gravity. The worst one being Karachi of course, which happened in correlation with Balladur campaign that Sarkozy was directing. Nothing is proved councerning Sarkozy, that's right. In many countries, however the fact of beinng mentionned in ANY of these affairs would have been the resignation from office the following day. You can't rule a country being suspected to be not only a crook but a criminal. Now, Mitterand has been quite bad councerning honesty, but never done anything as outrageous as putting his 23 years old son with no studies, no political experience except some nepotist shit in the Hauts de Seine at the head of such a gigantic institution like the epad. Mind you, all of this come from the president who justify inequalities growing because of the "merit and "hard work" (well, I should be president of the planet then), and the one who promised "une République irreprochable". I wonder how people who ever believed him are not beeding from the asshole. And people still vote for this clown. It's time to invest into the vaseline market. Once again, I'd remind you that Jean Sarkozy has been elected and was in a rightful right to apply for this job. It wasn't very elegant to do so, and it wasn't very smart of the people in charge to consider voting for Jean for that job, but once again, where is your proof that Sarkozy asked them to vote for his son ? No, that was fucking scandalous. A 23 yo, with lame studies getting the presidency of the biggest trade center of Europe? That was just unacceptable. I don't care what where the reasons, if Sarkozy did someting about it but still wtf. I also think it was totally unappropriate. Poor judgment call by all those involved. I'm just not convinced Sarkozy (father) had anything to do with it. You must be kidding right? They had the idea themselves, probably. Like "Oh, Jean Sarkozy would be greeeeat for that job". And of course the fact Devedjan was asked by the government to fuck off has nothing to do with Sarkozy and the future "election" of his son either. Look, it's useless to discuss with you. You would claim to your death than 2+2 = 5 if that could help defending your political leader. People like you are the reason France is a corrupt country: losing all critical spirit, all ability to look at facts and admit them, or just to face reality as soon as your convictions are challenged. I don't know if you believe what you say. If you do, it's worrying. As for resignation under suspicion for something twelve bazillion times less serious than any of the affairs Sarkozy is involved in: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/17/german-president-scandal-grows.htmlIn any functional democracy, Sarkozy would have left office a long time ago. And in any country where people can do this weird think that is called thinking, he would have 3% popularity, just because of how outrageous his lies about the Irreprochable République have been.
No they didn't think Jean Sarkozy would be great for the job, they thought that having the president's son around would be a good thing and that maybe N. Sarkozy would be grateful.
It's exactly the same reason why Jean Sarkozy was elected in the Haut de Seine, not because Sarkozy put a gun to every single voter's head in that department, but because people just voted for the president's son.
I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm saying I don't see where N. Sarkozy was involved in this.
|
On May 04 2012 22:28 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 22:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 04 2012 22:07 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 22:01 Heweree wrote:On May 04 2012 21:49 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 04 2012 21:13 ulan-bat wrote:On May 04 2012 20:47 DOUDOU wrote:On May 04 2012 08:01 Geiko wrote:
Lybia and Bettancour funding, Sarkozy hasn't been condemned yet. He's protected by presidential immunity but that doesn't mean he is guilty. When you think about it, both PS and UMP's campaign were controlled and priced at 20M. do you seriously believe that UMPs campaign cost 50M€ ? The people controlling must of done a piss poor job to miss out on 30M ( plus whatever Bettancourt gave him ). I followed the 2007 campaign, I don't see on what UMP spent all that money. The PS had the exact same funding as far as I'm concerned. that's the whole point, faking campaing funds is how you divert money Or it could be 5 millions instead of 50, then what? Or it could have been a maximum but Sarkozy didn't need it all. Or Mediapart was fooled by some informer and nothing happened at all. Who knows really? The only thing I believe is that Sarkozy has a hard time defending his position with facts, for now at least. He's all about trust, "really, you would believe this libyan more than me?". We'll see what the justice says. The thing with these affairs is that they accumulate, and that Sarkozy and his surrounding is involved not in one, where the doubt is always possible, but in a zillion very different ones, including some of absolutely extreme gravity. The worst one being Karachi of course, which happened in correlation with Balladur campaign that Sarkozy was directing. Nothing is proved councerning Sarkozy, that's right. In many countries, however the fact of beinng mentionned in ANY of these affairs would have been the resignation from office the following day. You can't rule a country being suspected to be not only a crook but a criminal. Now, Mitterand has been quite bad councerning honesty, but never done anything as outrageous as putting his 23 years old son with no studies, no political experience except some nepotist shit in the Hauts de Seine at the head of such a gigantic institution like the epad. Mind you, all of this come from the president who justify inequalities growing because of the "merit and "hard work" (well, I should be president of the planet then), and the one who promised "une République irreprochable". I wonder how people who ever believed him are not beeding from the asshole. And people still vote for this clown. It's time to invest into the vaseline market. Once again, I'd remind you that Jean Sarkozy has been elected and was in a rightful right to apply for this job. It wasn't very elegant to do so, and it wasn't very smart of the people in charge to consider voting for Jean for that job, but once again, where is your proof that Sarkozy asked them to vote for his son ? No, that was fucking scandalous. A 23 yo, with lame studies getting the presidency of the biggest trade center of Europe? That was just unacceptable. I don't care what where the reasons, if Sarkozy did someting about it but still wtf. I also think it was totally unappropriate. Poor judgment call by all those involved. I'm just not convinced Sarkozy (father) had anything to do with it. You must be kidding right? They had the idea themselves, probably. Like "Oh, Jean Sarkozy would be greeeeat for that job". And of course the fact Devedjan was asked by the government to fuck off has nothing to do with Sarkozy and the future "election" of his son either. Look, it's useless to discuss with you. You would claim to your death than 2+2 = 5 if that could help defending your political leader. People like you are the reason France is a corrupt country: losing all critical spirit, all ability to look at facts and admit them, or just to face reality as soon as your convictions are challenged. I don't know if you believe what you say. If you do, it's worrying. As for resignation under suspicion for something twelve bazillion times less serious than any of the affairs Sarkozy is involved in: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/17/german-president-scandal-grows.htmlIn any functional democracy, Sarkozy would have left office a long time ago. And in any country where people can do this weird think that is called thinking, he would have 3% popularity, just because of how outrageous his lies about the Irreprochable République have been. No they didn't think Jean Sarkozy would be great for the job, they thought that having the president's son around would be a good thing and that maybe N. Sarkozy would be grateful. It's exactly the same reason why Jean Sarkozy was elected in the Haut de Seine, not because Sarkozy put a gun to every single voter's head in that department, but because people just voted for the president's son. I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm saying I don't see where N. Sarkozy was involved in this.
Well, you are the only one to be naive enough to think that stuff work like that.
La Pravda reporting what the foreign press thought about it:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2009/10/12/01002-20091012ARTFIG00445-l-affaire-jean-sarkozy-epinglee-a-l-etranger-.php
Nepotism and banana republic are the two things you hear the most.
http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2009/10/12/la-presse-etrangere-raille-sarko-junior-et-la-republique-bananiere-francaise_1252912_823448.html#ens_id=1052464
But yeah, you are rigth. I think Sarkozy didn't know. He was probably proud of the beautiful career his son was making. I would be too.
Do you even know that half the people who voted are nominated by the government?
Anyway. I give up. You should be a lawyer. You would have no problem defending lost cases to death.
|
On May 04 2012 22:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 22:28 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 22:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 04 2012 22:07 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 22:01 Heweree wrote:On May 04 2012 21:49 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 04 2012 21:13 ulan-bat wrote:On May 04 2012 20:47 DOUDOU wrote:On May 04 2012 08:01 Geiko wrote:
Lybia and Bettancour funding, Sarkozy hasn't been condemned yet. He's protected by presidential immunity but that doesn't mean he is guilty. When you think about it, both PS and UMP's campaign were controlled and priced at 20M. do you seriously believe that UMPs campaign cost 50M€ ? The people controlling must of done a piss poor job to miss out on 30M ( plus whatever Bettancourt gave him ). I followed the 2007 campaign, I don't see on what UMP spent all that money. The PS had the exact same funding as far as I'm concerned. that's the whole point, faking campaing funds is how you divert money Or it could be 5 millions instead of 50, then what? Or it could have been a maximum but Sarkozy didn't need it all. Or Mediapart was fooled by some informer and nothing happened at all. Who knows really? The only thing I believe is that Sarkozy has a hard time defending his position with facts, for now at least. He's all about trust, "really, you would believe this libyan more than me?". We'll see what the justice says. The thing with these affairs is that they accumulate, and that Sarkozy and his surrounding is involved not in one, where the doubt is always possible, but in a zillion very different ones, including some of absolutely extreme gravity. The worst one being Karachi of course, which happened in correlation with Balladur campaign that Sarkozy was directing. Nothing is proved councerning Sarkozy, that's right. In many countries, however the fact of beinng mentionned in ANY of these affairs would have been the resignation from office the following day. You can't rule a country being suspected to be not only a crook but a criminal. Now, Mitterand has been quite bad councerning honesty, but never done anything as outrageous as putting his 23 years old son with no studies, no political experience except some nepotist shit in the Hauts de Seine at the head of such a gigantic institution like the epad. Mind you, all of this come from the president who justify inequalities growing because of the "merit and "hard work" (well, I should be president of the planet then), and the one who promised "une République irreprochable". I wonder how people who ever believed him are not beeding from the asshole. And people still vote for this clown. It's time to invest into the vaseline market. Once again, I'd remind you that Jean Sarkozy has been elected and was in a rightful right to apply for this job. It wasn't very elegant to do so, and it wasn't very smart of the people in charge to consider voting for Jean for that job, but once again, where is your proof that Sarkozy asked them to vote for his son ? No, that was fucking scandalous. A 23 yo, with lame studies getting the presidency of the biggest trade center of Europe? That was just unacceptable. I don't care what where the reasons, if Sarkozy did someting about it but still wtf. I also think it was totally unappropriate. Poor judgment call by all those involved. I'm just not convinced Sarkozy (father) had anything to do with it. You must be kidding right? They had the idea themselves, probably. Like "Oh, Jean Sarkozy would be greeeeat for that job". And of course the fact Devedjan was asked by the government to fuck off has nothing to do with Sarkozy and the future "election" of his son either. Look, it's useless to discuss with you. You would claim to your death than 2+2 = 5 if that could help defending your political leader. People like you are the reason France is a corrupt country: losing all critical spirit, all ability to look at facts and admit them, or just to face reality as soon as your convictions are challenged. I don't know if you believe what you say. If you do, it's worrying. As for resignation under suspicion for something twelve bazillion times less serious than any of the affairs Sarkozy is involved in: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/17/german-president-scandal-grows.htmlIn any functional democracy, Sarkozy would have left office a long time ago. And in any country where people can do this weird think that is called thinking, he would have 3% popularity, just because of how outrageous his lies about the Irreprochable République have been. No they didn't think Jean Sarkozy would be great for the job, they thought that having the president's son around would be a good thing and that maybe N. Sarkozy would be grateful. It's exactly the same reason why Jean Sarkozy was elected in the Haut de Seine, not because Sarkozy put a gun to every single voter's head in that department, but because people just voted for the president's son. I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm saying I don't see where N. Sarkozy was involved in this. Well, you are the only one to be naive enough to think that stuff work like that. La Pravda reporting what the foreign press thought about it: http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2009/10/12/01002-20091012ARTFIG00445-l-affaire-jean-sarkozy-epinglee-a-l-etranger-.phpNepotism and banana republic are the two things you hear the most. http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2009/10/12/la-presse-etrangere-raille-sarko-junior-et-la-republique-bananiere-francaise_1252912_823448.html#ens_id=1052464But yeah, you are rigth. I think Sarkozy didn't know. He was probably proud of the beautiful career his son was making. I would be too. Do you even know that half the people who voted are nominated by the government?Anyway. I give up. You should be a lawyer. You would have no problem defending lost cases to death.
Yeah because foreign press knows what is happening in our country more than we do, is that what you are implying ?
I'm not arguing it was a good thing, I'm arguing that there is no element of any kind proving N. Sarkozy's involvement in this. You do realize that all the things you are accusing Sarkozy of are totally unproven ? He has hasn't been condemned a single time throughout his political career and yet you make him out to be one of the worse criminal there is. Do you have any respect for the Justice system in France ?
|
On May 04 2012 21:40 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 21:13 ulan-bat wrote:On May 04 2012 20:47 DOUDOU wrote:On May 04 2012 08:01 Geiko wrote:
Lybia and Bettancour funding, Sarkozy hasn't been condemned yet. He's protected by presidential immunity but that doesn't mean he is guilty. When you think about it, both PS and UMP's campaign were controlled and priced at 20M. do you seriously believe that UMPs campaign cost 50M€ ? The people controlling must of done a piss poor job to miss out on 30M ( plus whatever Bettancourt gave him ). I followed the 2007 campaign, I don't see on what UMP spent all that money. The PS had the exact same funding as far as I'm concerned. that's the whole point, faking campaing funds is how you divert money Or it could be 5 millions instead of 50, then what? Or it could have been a maximum but Sarkozy didn't need it all. Or Mediapart was fooled by some informer and nothing happened at all. Who knows really? The only thing I believe is that Sarkozy has a hard time defending his position with facts, for now at least. He's all about trust, "really, you would believe this libyan more than me?". We'll see what the justice says. It's not 5 Millions, the document says 50 Millions, which is why it's most likely a fake. And yes, who knows ? So why publish it 7 days before an election if you know that this case won't be solved before this. It's a political act, by a political media to damage Sarkozy's image. At best it is true, yeaaah we got a scoop. At worse, it's a fake, but people will know that after the elections so we don't care, the damage to Sarkozy's image would have already been done. Sarkozy defends his positions with facts: Fact: The person who supposedly wrote the letter said it was a fake Fact: The person who supposedly received the letter said it was fake Fact: The current president of the transition gouverment of Lybia said it was fake. What has the other side got ? Takkieddine (who said he would vote for Hollande) said it's possible that it's not a fake.
Fact : The CNT retracted themselves from any opinion 2h after that saying they couldn't have verified if it was true of false
Fact : The former prime minister of Lybia imprisoned in I believe Morocco says it's true, he was aware of it, and has been kept in jail by pressure of Sarkozy (he SAYS, I don't mean to say it's true lol)
Fact : The people who said it was fake are either in France, protected (until now) from an international arrest warrant by Sarkozy, or protected by Qatar, who invests quite a lot in France these days.
Everybody can lie.
About what Biff says : there is no smoke without fire, and the numerous serious accusations in progress, do not help our trust in Sarkozy, you gotta admit. If there's this amount of shit coming out, there's most probably some truth, somewhere in all this. I hope we know, soon.
And fyi, I linked the wikipedia article about Correze cause it was easier to read, but I actually went to INSEE and DGCL website to double check, correct, add taxes figures, and find 2011 figures (not yet released). Hardly a wikipedia-man. It's just the point of entry.
|
On May 04 2012 22:42 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 21:40 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 21:13 ulan-bat wrote:On May 04 2012 20:47 DOUDOU wrote:On May 04 2012 08:01 Geiko wrote:
Lybia and Bettancour funding, Sarkozy hasn't been condemned yet. He's protected by presidential immunity but that doesn't mean he is guilty. When you think about it, both PS and UMP's campaign were controlled and priced at 20M. do you seriously believe that UMPs campaign cost 50M€ ? The people controlling must of done a piss poor job to miss out on 30M ( plus whatever Bettancourt gave him ). I followed the 2007 campaign, I don't see on what UMP spent all that money. The PS had the exact same funding as far as I'm concerned. that's the whole point, faking campaing funds is how you divert money Or it could be 5 millions instead of 50, then what? Or it could have been a maximum but Sarkozy didn't need it all. Or Mediapart was fooled by some informer and nothing happened at all. Who knows really? The only thing I believe is that Sarkozy has a hard time defending his position with facts, for now at least. He's all about trust, "really, you would believe this libyan more than me?". We'll see what the justice says. It's not 5 Millions, the document says 50 Millions, which is why it's most likely a fake. And yes, who knows ? So why publish it 7 days before an election if you know that this case won't be solved before this. It's a political act, by a political media to damage Sarkozy's image. At best it is true, yeaaah we got a scoop. At worse, it's a fake, but people will know that after the elections so we don't care, the damage to Sarkozy's image would have already been done. Sarkozy defends his positions with facts: Fact: The person who supposedly wrote the letter said it was a fake Fact: The person who supposedly received the letter said it was fake Fact: The current president of the transition gouverment of Lybia said it was fake. What has the other side got ? Takkieddine (who said he would vote for Hollande) said it's possible that it's not a fake. Fact : The CNT retracted themselves from any opinion 2h after that saying they couldn't have verified if it was true of false Fact : The former prime minister of Lybia imprisoned in I believe Morocco says it's true, he was aware of it, and has been kept in jail by pressure of Sarkozy (he SAYS, I don't mean to say it's true lol) Fact : The people who said it was fake are either in France, protected (until now) from an international arrest warrant by Sarkozy, or protected by Qatar, who invests quite a lot in France these days. Everybody can lie.
Great, so we agree on the two things I was trying to prove:
-N. Sarkozy as well as his enemies are trying to use facts to defend their claims.
-There is absolutely no way to know who is lying here in a delay of 7 days.
Glad we could agree on something at least
On May 04 2012 22:42 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 21:40 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 21:13 ulan-bat wrote:On May 04 2012 20:47 DOUDOU wrote:On May 04 2012 08:01 Geiko wrote:
Lybia and Bettancour funding, Sarkozy hasn't been condemned yet. He's protected by presidential immunity but that doesn't mean he is guilty. When you think about it, both PS and UMP's campaign were controlled and priced at 20M. do you seriously believe that UMPs campaign cost 50M€ ? The people controlling must of done a piss poor job to miss out on 30M ( plus whatever Bettancourt gave him ). I followed the 2007 campaign, I don't see on what UMP spent all that money. The PS had the exact same funding as far as I'm concerned. that's the whole point, faking campaing funds is how you divert money Or it could be 5 millions instead of 50, then what? Or it could have been a maximum but Sarkozy didn't need it all. Or Mediapart was fooled by some informer and nothing happened at all. Who knows really? The only thing I believe is that Sarkozy has a hard time defending his position with facts, for now at least. He's all about trust, "really, you would believe this libyan more than me?". We'll see what the justice says. It's not 5 Millions, the document says 50 Millions, which is why it's most likely a fake. And yes, who knows ? So why publish it 7 days before an election if you know that this case won't be solved before this. It's a political act, by a political media to damage Sarkozy's image. At best it is true, yeaaah we got a scoop. At worse, it's a fake, but people will know that after the elections so we don't care, the damage to Sarkozy's image would have already been done. Sarkozy defends his positions with facts: Fact: The person who supposedly wrote the letter said it was a fake Fact: The person who supposedly received the letter said it was fake Fact: The current president of the transition gouverment of Lybia said it was fake. What has the other side got ? Takkieddine (who said he would vote for Hollande) said it's possible that it's not a fake. About what Biff says : there is no smoke without fire, and the numerous serious accusations in progress, do not help our trust in Sarkozy, you gotta admit. If there's this amount of shit coming out, there's most probably some truth, somewhere in all this. I hope we know, soon.
"No smoke without fire" has never been an argument for any justice system in any democracy in the world.
|
On May 04 2012 22:42 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 22:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 04 2012 22:28 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 22:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 04 2012 22:07 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 22:01 Heweree wrote:On May 04 2012 21:49 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 04 2012 21:13 ulan-bat wrote:On May 04 2012 20:47 DOUDOU wrote:
[quote]
that's the whole point, faking campaing funds is how you divert money Or it could be 5 millions instead of 50, then what? Or it could have been a maximum but Sarkozy didn't need it all. Or Mediapart was fooled by some informer and nothing happened at all. Who knows really? The only thing I believe is that Sarkozy has a hard time defending his position with facts, for now at least. He's all about trust, "really, you would believe this libyan more than me?". We'll see what the justice says. The thing with these affairs is that they accumulate, and that Sarkozy and his surrounding is involved not in one, where the doubt is always possible, but in a zillion very different ones, including some of absolutely extreme gravity. The worst one being Karachi of course, which happened in correlation with Balladur campaign that Sarkozy was directing. Nothing is proved councerning Sarkozy, that's right. In many countries, however the fact of beinng mentionned in ANY of these affairs would have been the resignation from office the following day. You can't rule a country being suspected to be not only a crook but a criminal. Now, Mitterand has been quite bad councerning honesty, but never done anything as outrageous as putting his 23 years old son with no studies, no political experience except some nepotist shit in the Hauts de Seine at the head of such a gigantic institution like the epad. Mind you, all of this come from the president who justify inequalities growing because of the "merit and "hard work" (well, I should be president of the planet then), and the one who promised "une République irreprochable". I wonder how people who ever believed him are not beeding from the asshole. And people still vote for this clown. It's time to invest into the vaseline market. Once again, I'd remind you that Jean Sarkozy has been elected and was in a rightful right to apply for this job. It wasn't very elegant to do so, and it wasn't very smart of the people in charge to consider voting for Jean for that job, but once again, where is your proof that Sarkozy asked them to vote for his son ? No, that was fucking scandalous. A 23 yo, with lame studies getting the presidency of the biggest trade center of Europe? That was just unacceptable. I don't care what where the reasons, if Sarkozy did someting about it but still wtf. I also think it was totally unappropriate. Poor judgment call by all those involved. I'm just not convinced Sarkozy (father) had anything to do with it. You must be kidding right? They had the idea themselves, probably. Like "Oh, Jean Sarkozy would be greeeeat for that job". And of course the fact Devedjan was asked by the government to fuck off has nothing to do with Sarkozy and the future "election" of his son either. Look, it's useless to discuss with you. You would claim to your death than 2+2 = 5 if that could help defending your political leader. People like you are the reason France is a corrupt country: losing all critical spirit, all ability to look at facts and admit them, or just to face reality as soon as your convictions are challenged. I don't know if you believe what you say. If you do, it's worrying. As for resignation under suspicion for something twelve bazillion times less serious than any of the affairs Sarkozy is involved in: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/17/german-president-scandal-grows.htmlIn any functional democracy, Sarkozy would have left office a long time ago. And in any country where people can do this weird think that is called thinking, he would have 3% popularity, just because of how outrageous his lies about the Irreprochable République have been. No they didn't think Jean Sarkozy would be great for the job, they thought that having the president's son around would be a good thing and that maybe N. Sarkozy would be grateful. It's exactly the same reason why Jean Sarkozy was elected in the Haut de Seine, not because Sarkozy put a gun to every single voter's head in that department, but because people just voted for the president's son. I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm saying I don't see where N. Sarkozy was involved in this. Well, you are the only one to be naive enough to think that stuff work like that. La Pravda reporting what the foreign press thought about it: http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2009/10/12/01002-20091012ARTFIG00445-l-affaire-jean-sarkozy-epinglee-a-l-etranger-.phpNepotism and banana republic are the two things you hear the most. http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2009/10/12/la-presse-etrangere-raille-sarko-junior-et-la-republique-bananiere-francaise_1252912_823448.html#ens_id=1052464But yeah, you are rigth. I think Sarkozy didn't know. He was probably proud of the beautiful career his son was making. I would be too. Do you even know that half the people who voted are nominated by the government?Anyway. I give up. You should be a lawyer. You would have no problem defending lost cases to death. Yeah because foreign press knows what is happening in our country more than we do, is that what you are implying ? I'm not arguing it was a good thing, I'm arguing that there is no element of any kind proving N. Sarkozy's involvement in this. You do realize that all the things you are accusing Sarkozy of are totally unproven ? He has hasn't been condemned a single time throughout his political career and yet you make him out to be one of the worse criminal there is. Do you have any respect for the Justice system in France ?
Oh no, I am just underlining you are the only person in the world to be "naive" or blinded enough to doubt that people nominated by the government chose Jean Sarkozy for an absolutely ridiculous position without his father, the person who nominated them having anything to do with it. It's jaw dropping.
Lots of things are unproven. Like it's unproven Dominique Strauss Kahn has done anything against the law. That where this misterious organ that is called brain starts to be useful.
But yeah, you are right, I'm sure. Screw all foreign and three quarter of French medias.
|
Ohhh, we are agreeing on a lot of things Geiko, believe me. But I just want to make you understand why people can't stand him anymore, and why a *decent* crisis management is not enough to make people blindly reelect him.
And why Hollande is not *obviously* gonna kill France in 6 months, as UMP and you want to make us think.
It's so much more complicated than that.
|
On May 04 2012 22:44 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 22:42 Nouar wrote:On May 04 2012 21:40 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 21:13 ulan-bat wrote:On May 04 2012 20:47 DOUDOU wrote:On May 04 2012 08:01 Geiko wrote:
Lybia and Bettancour funding, Sarkozy hasn't been condemned yet. He's protected by presidential immunity but that doesn't mean he is guilty. When you think about it, both PS and UMP's campaign were controlled and priced at 20M. do you seriously believe that UMPs campaign cost 50M€ ? The people controlling must of done a piss poor job to miss out on 30M ( plus whatever Bettancourt gave him ). I followed the 2007 campaign, I don't see on what UMP spent all that money. The PS had the exact same funding as far as I'm concerned. that's the whole point, faking campaing funds is how you divert money Or it could be 5 millions instead of 50, then what? Or it could have been a maximum but Sarkozy didn't need it all. Or Mediapart was fooled by some informer and nothing happened at all. Who knows really? The only thing I believe is that Sarkozy has a hard time defending his position with facts, for now at least. He's all about trust, "really, you would believe this libyan more than me?". We'll see what the justice says. It's not 5 Millions, the document says 50 Millions, which is why it's most likely a fake. And yes, who knows ? So why publish it 7 days before an election if you know that this case won't be solved before this. It's a political act, by a political media to damage Sarkozy's image. At best it is true, yeaaah we got a scoop. At worse, it's a fake, but people will know that after the elections so we don't care, the damage to Sarkozy's image would have already been done. Sarkozy defends his positions with facts: Fact: The person who supposedly wrote the letter said it was a fake Fact: The person who supposedly received the letter said it was fake Fact: The current president of the transition gouverment of Lybia said it was fake. What has the other side got ? Takkieddine (who said he would vote for Hollande) said it's possible that it's not a fake. Fact : The CNT retracted themselves from any opinion 2h after that saying they couldn't have verified if it was true of false Fact : The former prime minister of Lybia imprisoned in I believe Morocco says it's true, he was aware of it, and has been kept in jail by pressure of Sarkozy (he SAYS, I don't mean to say it's true lol) Fact : The people who said it was fake are either in France, protected (until now) from an international arrest warrant by Sarkozy, or protected by Qatar, who invests quite a lot in France these days. Everybody can lie. Great, so we agree on the two things I was trying to prove: -N. Sarkozy as well as his enemies are trying to use facts to defend their claims. -There is absolutely no way to know who is lying here in a delay of 7 days. Glad we could agree on something at least Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 22:42 Nouar wrote:On May 04 2012 21:40 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 21:13 ulan-bat wrote:On May 04 2012 20:47 DOUDOU wrote:On May 04 2012 08:01 Geiko wrote:
Lybia and Bettancour funding, Sarkozy hasn't been condemned yet. He's protected by presidential immunity but that doesn't mean he is guilty. When you think about it, both PS and UMP's campaign were controlled and priced at 20M. do you seriously believe that UMPs campaign cost 50M€ ? The people controlling must of done a piss poor job to miss out on 30M ( plus whatever Bettancourt gave him ). I followed the 2007 campaign, I don't see on what UMP spent all that money. The PS had the exact same funding as far as I'm concerned. that's the whole point, faking campaing funds is how you divert money Or it could be 5 millions instead of 50, then what? Or it could have been a maximum but Sarkozy didn't need it all. Or Mediapart was fooled by some informer and nothing happened at all. Who knows really? The only thing I believe is that Sarkozy has a hard time defending his position with facts, for now at least. He's all about trust, "really, you would believe this libyan more than me?". We'll see what the justice says. It's not 5 Millions, the document says 50 Millions, which is why it's most likely a fake. And yes, who knows ? So why publish it 7 days before an election if you know that this case won't be solved before this. It's a political act, by a political media to damage Sarkozy's image. At best it is true, yeaaah we got a scoop. At worse, it's a fake, but people will know that after the elections so we don't care, the damage to Sarkozy's image would have already been done. Sarkozy defends his positions with facts: Fact: The person who supposedly wrote the letter said it was a fake Fact: The person who supposedly received the letter said it was fake Fact: The current president of the transition gouverment of Lybia said it was fake. What has the other side got ? Takkieddine (who said he would vote for Hollande) said it's possible that it's not a fake. About what Biff says : there is no smoke without fire, and the numerous serious accusations in progress, do not help our trust in Sarkozy, you gotta admit. If there's this amount of shit coming out, there's most probably some truth, somewhere in all this. I hope we know, soon. "No smoke without fire" has never been an argument for any justice system in any democracy in the world.
Yeah, but it has been for voters and public opinion.
According to your bullshit, Berlusconi, who has never been sentenced is white as snow. Well, it's the same.
|
On May 04 2012 22:28 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 22:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 04 2012 22:07 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 22:01 Heweree wrote:On May 04 2012 21:49 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 04 2012 21:13 ulan-bat wrote:On May 04 2012 20:47 DOUDOU wrote:On May 04 2012 08:01 Geiko wrote:
Lybia and Bettancour funding, Sarkozy hasn't been condemned yet. He's protected by presidential immunity but that doesn't mean he is guilty. When you think about it, both PS and UMP's campaign were controlled and priced at 20M. do you seriously believe that UMPs campaign cost 50M€ ? The people controlling must of done a piss poor job to miss out on 30M ( plus whatever Bettancourt gave him ). I followed the 2007 campaign, I don't see on what UMP spent all that money. The PS had the exact same funding as far as I'm concerned. that's the whole point, faking campaing funds is how you divert money Or it could be 5 millions instead of 50, then what? Or it could have been a maximum but Sarkozy didn't need it all. Or Mediapart was fooled by some informer and nothing happened at all. Who knows really? The only thing I believe is that Sarkozy has a hard time defending his position with facts, for now at least. He's all about trust, "really, you would believe this libyan more than me?". We'll see what the justice says. The thing with these affairs is that they accumulate, and that Sarkozy and his surrounding is involved not in one, where the doubt is always possible, but in a zillion very different ones, including some of absolutely extreme gravity. The worst one being Karachi of course, which happened in correlation with Balladur campaign that Sarkozy was directing. Nothing is proved councerning Sarkozy, that's right. In many countries, however the fact of beinng mentionned in ANY of these affairs would have been the resignation from office the following day. You can't rule a country being suspected to be not only a crook but a criminal. Now, Mitterand has been quite bad councerning honesty, but never done anything as outrageous as putting his 23 years old son with no studies, no political experience except some nepotist shit in the Hauts de Seine at the head of such a gigantic institution like the epad. Mind you, all of this come from the president who justify inequalities growing because of the "merit and "hard work" (well, I should be president of the planet then), and the one who promised "une République irreprochable". I wonder how people who ever believed him are not beeding from the asshole. And people still vote for this clown. It's time to invest into the vaseline market. Once again, I'd remind you that Jean Sarkozy has been elected and was in a rightful right to apply for this job. It wasn't very elegant to do so, and it wasn't very smart of the people in charge to consider voting for Jean for that job, but once again, where is your proof that Sarkozy asked them to vote for his son ? No, that was fucking scandalous. A 23 yo, with lame studies getting the presidency of the biggest trade center of Europe? That was just unacceptable. I don't care what where the reasons, if Sarkozy did someting about it but still wtf. I also think it was totally unappropriate. Poor judgment call by all those involved. I'm just not convinced Sarkozy (father) had anything to do with it. You must be kidding right? They had the idea themselves, probably. Like "Oh, Jean Sarkozy would be greeeeat for that job". And of course the fact Devedjan was asked by the government to fuck off has nothing to do with Sarkozy and the future "election" of his son either. Look, it's useless to discuss with you. You would claim to your death than 2+2 = 5 if that could help defending your political leader. People like you are the reason France is a corrupt country: losing all critical spirit, all ability to look at facts and admit them, or just to face reality as soon as your convictions are challenged. I don't know if you believe what you say. If you do, it's worrying. As for resignation under suspicion for something twelve bazillion times less serious than any of the affairs Sarkozy is involved in: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/17/german-president-scandal-grows.htmlIn any functional democracy, Sarkozy would have left office a long time ago. And in any country where people can do this weird think that is called thinking, he would have 3% popularity, just because of how outrageous his lies about the Irreprochable République have been. No they didn't think Jean Sarkozy would be great for the job, they thought that having the president's son around would be a good thing and that maybe N. Sarkozy would be grateful. It's exactly the same reason why Jean Sarkozy was elected in the Haut de Seine, not because Sarkozy put a gun to every single voter's head in that department, but because people just voted for the president's son. I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm saying I don't see where N. Sarkozy was involved in this.
If they think that, that's because people got used to him giving away positions and rewards on a whim to his friends maybe ? It all comes from somewhere. So clanic.
|
On May 04 2012 22:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 22:42 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 22:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 04 2012 22:28 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 22:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 04 2012 22:07 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 22:01 Heweree wrote:On May 04 2012 21:49 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 04 2012 21:13 ulan-bat wrote:
[quote]
Or it could be 5 millions instead of 50, then what?
Or it could have been a maximum but Sarkozy didn't need it all.
Or Mediapart was fooled by some informer and nothing happened at all.
Who knows really?
The only thing I believe is that Sarkozy has a hard time defending his position with facts, for now at least. He's all about trust, "really, you would believe this libyan more than me?". We'll see what the justice says. The thing with these affairs is that they accumulate, and that Sarkozy and his surrounding is involved not in one, where the doubt is always possible, but in a zillion very different ones, including some of absolutely extreme gravity. The worst one being Karachi of course, which happened in correlation with Balladur campaign that Sarkozy was directing. Nothing is proved councerning Sarkozy, that's right. In many countries, however the fact of beinng mentionned in ANY of these affairs would have been the resignation from office the following day. You can't rule a country being suspected to be not only a crook but a criminal. Now, Mitterand has been quite bad councerning honesty, but never done anything as outrageous as putting his 23 years old son with no studies, no political experience except some nepotist shit in the Hauts de Seine at the head of such a gigantic institution like the epad. Mind you, all of this come from the president who justify inequalities growing because of the "merit and "hard work" (well, I should be president of the planet then), and the one who promised "une République irreprochable". I wonder how people who ever believed him are not beeding from the asshole. And people still vote for this clown. It's time to invest into the vaseline market. Once again, I'd remind you that Jean Sarkozy has been elected and was in a rightful right to apply for this job. It wasn't very elegant to do so, and it wasn't very smart of the people in charge to consider voting for Jean for that job, but once again, where is your proof that Sarkozy asked them to vote for his son ? No, that was fucking scandalous. A 23 yo, with lame studies getting the presidency of the biggest trade center of Europe? That was just unacceptable. I don't care what where the reasons, if Sarkozy did someting about it but still wtf. I also think it was totally unappropriate. Poor judgment call by all those involved. I'm just not convinced Sarkozy (father) had anything to do with it. You must be kidding right? They had the idea themselves, probably. Like "Oh, Jean Sarkozy would be greeeeat for that job". And of course the fact Devedjan was asked by the government to fuck off has nothing to do with Sarkozy and the future "election" of his son either. Look, it's useless to discuss with you. You would claim to your death than 2+2 = 5 if that could help defending your political leader. People like you are the reason France is a corrupt country: losing all critical spirit, all ability to look at facts and admit them, or just to face reality as soon as your convictions are challenged. I don't know if you believe what you say. If you do, it's worrying. As for resignation under suspicion for something twelve bazillion times less serious than any of the affairs Sarkozy is involved in: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/17/german-president-scandal-grows.htmlIn any functional democracy, Sarkozy would have left office a long time ago. And in any country where people can do this weird think that is called thinking, he would have 3% popularity, just because of how outrageous his lies about the Irreprochable République have been. No they didn't think Jean Sarkozy would be great for the job, they thought that having the president's son around would be a good thing and that maybe N. Sarkozy would be grateful. It's exactly the same reason why Jean Sarkozy was elected in the Haut de Seine, not because Sarkozy put a gun to every single voter's head in that department, but because people just voted for the president's son. I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm saying I don't see where N. Sarkozy was involved in this. Well, you are the only one to be naive enough to think that stuff work like that. La Pravda reporting what the foreign press thought about it: http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2009/10/12/01002-20091012ARTFIG00445-l-affaire-jean-sarkozy-epinglee-a-l-etranger-.phpNepotism and banana republic are the two things you hear the most. http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2009/10/12/la-presse-etrangere-raille-sarko-junior-et-la-republique-bananiere-francaise_1252912_823448.html#ens_id=1052464But yeah, you are rigth. I think Sarkozy didn't know. He was probably proud of the beautiful career his son was making. I would be too. Do you even know that half the people who voted are nominated by the government?Anyway. I give up. You should be a lawyer. You would have no problem defending lost cases to death. Yeah because foreign press knows what is happening in our country more than we do, is that what you are implying ? I'm not arguing it was a good thing, I'm arguing that there is no element of any kind proving N. Sarkozy's involvement in this. You do realize that all the things you are accusing Sarkozy of are totally unproven ? He has hasn't been condemned a single time throughout his political career and yet you make him out to be one of the worse criminal there is. Do you have any respect for the Justice system in France ? Oh no, I am just underlining you are the only person in the world to be "naive" or blinded enough to doubt that people nominated by the government chose the son of Sarkozy for an absolutely ridiculous function without Sarkozy, the person who nominated them having anything to do with it. It's jaw dropping. Lots of things are unproven. Like it's unproven Dominique Strauss Kahn has done anything against the law. That where this misterious organ that is called brain starts to be useful. But yeah, you are right, I'm sure. Screw all foreign and three quarter of French medias.
I'm not blaming DSK for illegal activities, nothing has been proven yet. I'm blaming him for inappropriate behaviour, I don't think that someone with such sex habits should be in the political scene in France. This is based on facts (he admitted to having inappropriate sexual relationships with several women) and my personal opinion on those facts. For the rest I'll let justice decide, and I'll reserve judgment until then. If you want to blame someone for something you're not even sure he did, but just he's "likely" to have done, that's your choice, but don't expect everyone to agree with you.
French media and foreign media all have the same information as we do. They can choose to interpret it as they want, and so can I. I don't have to believe them or not, they're not claiming anything (unless you can link me to a article where the journalsit specifically says N. Sarkozy was involved), I can just agree or disagree with their opinion, as I'm disagreeing with yours.
|
On May 04 2012 22:50 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 22:28 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 22:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 04 2012 22:07 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 22:01 Heweree wrote:On May 04 2012 21:49 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 04 2012 21:13 ulan-bat wrote:On May 04 2012 20:47 DOUDOU wrote:On May 04 2012 08:01 Geiko wrote:
Lybia and Bettancour funding, Sarkozy hasn't been condemned yet. He's protected by presidential immunity but that doesn't mean he is guilty. When you think about it, both PS and UMP's campaign were controlled and priced at 20M. do you seriously believe that UMPs campaign cost 50M€ ? The people controlling must of done a piss poor job to miss out on 30M ( plus whatever Bettancourt gave him ). I followed the 2007 campaign, I don't see on what UMP spent all that money. The PS had the exact same funding as far as I'm concerned. that's the whole point, faking campaing funds is how you divert money Or it could be 5 millions instead of 50, then what? Or it could have been a maximum but Sarkozy didn't need it all. Or Mediapart was fooled by some informer and nothing happened at all. Who knows really? The only thing I believe is that Sarkozy has a hard time defending his position with facts, for now at least. He's all about trust, "really, you would believe this libyan more than me?". We'll see what the justice says. The thing with these affairs is that they accumulate, and that Sarkozy and his surrounding is involved not in one, where the doubt is always possible, but in a zillion very different ones, including some of absolutely extreme gravity. The worst one being Karachi of course, which happened in correlation with Balladur campaign that Sarkozy was directing. Nothing is proved councerning Sarkozy, that's right. In many countries, however the fact of beinng mentionned in ANY of these affairs would have been the resignation from office the following day. You can't rule a country being suspected to be not only a crook but a criminal. Now, Mitterand has been quite bad councerning honesty, but never done anything as outrageous as putting his 23 years old son with no studies, no political experience except some nepotist shit in the Hauts de Seine at the head of such a gigantic institution like the epad. Mind you, all of this come from the president who justify inequalities growing because of the "merit and "hard work" (well, I should be president of the planet then), and the one who promised "une République irreprochable". I wonder how people who ever believed him are not beeding from the asshole. And people still vote for this clown. It's time to invest into the vaseline market. Once again, I'd remind you that Jean Sarkozy has been elected and was in a rightful right to apply for this job. It wasn't very elegant to do so, and it wasn't very smart of the people in charge to consider voting for Jean for that job, but once again, where is your proof that Sarkozy asked them to vote for his son ? No, that was fucking scandalous. A 23 yo, with lame studies getting the presidency of the biggest trade center of Europe? That was just unacceptable. I don't care what where the reasons, if Sarkozy did someting about it but still wtf. I also think it was totally unappropriate. Poor judgment call by all those involved. I'm just not convinced Sarkozy (father) had anything to do with it. You must be kidding right? They had the idea themselves, probably. Like "Oh, Jean Sarkozy would be greeeeat for that job". And of course the fact Devedjan was asked by the government to fuck off has nothing to do with Sarkozy and the future "election" of his son either. Look, it's useless to discuss with you. You would claim to your death than 2+2 = 5 if that could help defending your political leader. People like you are the reason France is a corrupt country: losing all critical spirit, all ability to look at facts and admit them, or just to face reality as soon as your convictions are challenged. I don't know if you believe what you say. If you do, it's worrying. As for resignation under suspicion for something twelve bazillion times less serious than any of the affairs Sarkozy is involved in: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/17/german-president-scandal-grows.htmlIn any functional democracy, Sarkozy would have left office a long time ago. And in any country where people can do this weird think that is called thinking, he would have 3% popularity, just because of how outrageous his lies about the Irreprochable République have been. No they didn't think Jean Sarkozy would be great for the job, they thought that having the president's son around would be a good thing and that maybe N. Sarkozy would be grateful. It's exactly the same reason why Jean Sarkozy was elected in the Haut de Seine, not because Sarkozy put a gun to every single voter's head in that department, but because people just voted for the president's son. I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm saying I don't see where N. Sarkozy was involved in this. If they think that, that's because people got used to him giving away positions and rewards on a whim to his friends maybe ? It all comes from somewhere. So clanic.
So why did voters from the Haut de Seine vote for Jean Sarkozy ? Because N. Sarkozy gave positions and rewards to all of them ? No, they just voted for Jean because they liked his father... Not the smartest thing to do, I'll give you that, but there was no malicious intent behind it is the point I'm trying to make.
|
Biff the understudy (oddly appropriate name) saying what he says and daring to call people naive and devoid of objectivity/critical spirit, as well as his compadres, are hilarious in their complete obliviousness to how things work in the real world.
|
On May 04 2012 22:51 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 22:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 04 2012 22:42 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 22:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 04 2012 22:28 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 22:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 04 2012 22:07 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 22:01 Heweree wrote:On May 04 2012 21:49 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
The thing with these affairs is that they accumulate, and that Sarkozy and his surrounding is involved not in one, where the doubt is always possible, but in a zillion very different ones, including some of absolutely extreme gravity. The worst one being Karachi of course, which happened in correlation with Balladur campaign that Sarkozy was directing.
Nothing is proved councerning Sarkozy, that's right. In many countries, however the fact of beinng mentionned in ANY of these affairs would have been the resignation from office the following day. You can't rule a country being suspected to be not only a crook but a criminal.
Now, Mitterand has been quite bad councerning honesty, but never done anything as outrageous as putting his 23 years old son with no studies, no political experience except some nepotist shit in the Hauts de Seine at the head of such a gigantic institution like the epad. Mind you, all of this come from the president who justify inequalities growing because of the "merit and "hard work" (well, I should be president of the planet then), and the one who promised "une République irreprochable".
I wonder how people who ever believed him are not beeding from the asshole. And people still vote for this clown. It's time to invest into the vaseline market. Once again, I'd remind you that Jean Sarkozy has been elected and was in a rightful right to apply for this job. It wasn't very elegant to do so, and it wasn't very smart of the people in charge to consider voting for Jean for that job, but once again, where is your proof that Sarkozy asked them to vote for his son ? No, that was fucking scandalous. A 23 yo, with lame studies getting the presidency of the biggest trade center of Europe? That was just unacceptable. I don't care what where the reasons, if Sarkozy did someting about it but still wtf. I also think it was totally unappropriate. Poor judgment call by all those involved. I'm just not convinced Sarkozy (father) had anything to do with it. You must be kidding right? They had the idea themselves, probably. Like "Oh, Jean Sarkozy would be greeeeat for that job". And of course the fact Devedjan was asked by the government to fuck off has nothing to do with Sarkozy and the future "election" of his son either. Look, it's useless to discuss with you. You would claim to your death than 2+2 = 5 if that could help defending your political leader. People like you are the reason France is a corrupt country: losing all critical spirit, all ability to look at facts and admit them, or just to face reality as soon as your convictions are challenged. I don't know if you believe what you say. If you do, it's worrying. As for resignation under suspicion for something twelve bazillion times less serious than any of the affairs Sarkozy is involved in: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/17/german-president-scandal-grows.htmlIn any functional democracy, Sarkozy would have left office a long time ago. And in any country where people can do this weird think that is called thinking, he would have 3% popularity, just because of how outrageous his lies about the Irreprochable République have been. No they didn't think Jean Sarkozy would be great for the job, they thought that having the president's son around would be a good thing and that maybe N. Sarkozy would be grateful. It's exactly the same reason why Jean Sarkozy was elected in the Haut de Seine, not because Sarkozy put a gun to every single voter's head in that department, but because people just voted for the president's son. I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm saying I don't see where N. Sarkozy was involved in this. Well, you are the only one to be naive enough to think that stuff work like that. La Pravda reporting what the foreign press thought about it: http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2009/10/12/01002-20091012ARTFIG00445-l-affaire-jean-sarkozy-epinglee-a-l-etranger-.phpNepotism and banana republic are the two things you hear the most. http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2009/10/12/la-presse-etrangere-raille-sarko-junior-et-la-republique-bananiere-francaise_1252912_823448.html#ens_id=1052464But yeah, you are rigth. I think Sarkozy didn't know. He was probably proud of the beautiful career his son was making. I would be too. Do you even know that half the people who voted are nominated by the government?Anyway. I give up. You should be a lawyer. You would have no problem defending lost cases to death. Yeah because foreign press knows what is happening in our country more than we do, is that what you are implying ? I'm not arguing it was a good thing, I'm arguing that there is no element of any kind proving N. Sarkozy's involvement in this. You do realize that all the things you are accusing Sarkozy of are totally unproven ? He has hasn't been condemned a single time throughout his political career and yet you make him out to be one of the worse criminal there is. Do you have any respect for the Justice system in France ? Oh no, I am just underlining you are the only person in the world to be "naive" or blinded enough to doubt that people nominated by the government chose the son of Sarkozy for an absolutely ridiculous function without Sarkozy, the person who nominated them having anything to do with it. It's jaw dropping. Lots of things are unproven. Like it's unproven Dominique Strauss Kahn has done anything against the law. That where this misterious organ that is called brain starts to be useful. But yeah, you are right, I'm sure. Screw all foreign and three quarter of French medias. I'm not blaming DSK for illegal activities, nothing has been proven yet. I'm blaming him for inappropriate behaviour, I don't think that someone with such sex habits should be in the political scene in France. This is based on facts (he admitted to having inappropriate sexual relationships with several women) and my personal opinion on those facts. For the rest I'll let justice decide, and I'll reserve judgment until then. If you want to blame someone for something you're not even sure he did, but just he's "likely" to have done, that's your choice, but don't expect everyone to agree with you. French media and foreign media all have the same information as we do. They can choose to interpret it as they want, and so can I. I don't have to believe them or not, they're not claiming anything (unless you can link me to a article where the journalsit specifically says N. Sarkozy was involved), I can just agree or disagree with their opinion, as I'm disagreeing with yours.
So you are blaming DSK for things he did in his PRIVATE time, unproven, while obviously inappropriate, but blindly defend Sarkozy's side on all POLITICAL and PROFESSIONNAL affairs, which are, too, unproven, but for most of them, related to corruption ?
Nice double standards... I'm getting tired of this.
No side is white, left-wing is everything but perfectly clean, but your infinite attempts at making us believe that there is a conspiracy from journalists, in order to bring public opinion against Sarkozy is sooooooo tiring.
Apply to your side what you apply to the other side, please, and try to understand that those kinds of shady, dark greys are enough for most likely more than half the voters, and thus, as Sarkozy said himself, people are always right when they vote (that was after the european constitution LOL)
Then maybe you will try to make me believe that the companies benefiting from the taxes cut related to social TVA will IN FACT reduce the price of their products because they are all nice and good instead of making additional profits and not hiring more people ???? Just try it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
