|
On May 04 2012 21:23 Geiko wrote:
I only pointed out the example of Corrèze in this thread to illustrate François Hollande's "double discours".
On the one hand he claims that Sarkozy is accountable for the situation of France today and shouldn't reject the fault on other people. On the other hand, he refuses to be accountable for the situation of Corrèze today. Double discours.
On one hand he says (this isn't a direct quote but almost), that when you inherit a country in debt, you need to show the example and reduce your salary. So he plans on reducing the president's (and ministers') salaray by 30%. On the other hand, as he took the head of the most indebted department of France, he maintained his salary (if you cumulate all his fonctions, it adds up to 30 500€/month).
I probably missed the point here. For 3 years Hollande has managed to reduce the deficit even though he inherited of one of the most massive debts, and after 10 years with responsibilities, including 5 years at the very top of the government, the deficit has reached records in France. So this is your exemple of "double discours" ?
Please tell me you're just trolling and let's settle this...
Edit for nouar : The deficit was something like 50M€ in 2005, 2006 and 2007 and in 2010 it was 12M€, so, he reduced the deficit, am I mistaken ?
|
On May 04 2012 22:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 22:44 Geiko wrote: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  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.
Can you post without using offensive language ?
According to my "claims", I'll wait to pass judgment on Berlusconi's case until the justice system has decided. That doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on this, everyone has opinions. That means I'll never use the argument "Berlusconi is a criminal" when trying to make a case for something.
It's simple presumption of innocence, principle which is at the heart of every respectable democracy.
|
On May 04 2012 22:54 Microchaton wrote:
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.
Please, develop, I am quite interested.
|
On May 04 2012 22:57 VyingsP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 21:23 Geiko wrote:
I only pointed out the example of Corrèze in this thread to illustrate François Hollande's "double discours".
On the one hand he claims that Sarkozy is accountable for the situation of France today and shouldn't reject the fault on other people. On the other hand, he refuses to be accountable for the situation of Corrèze today. Double discours.
On one hand he says (this isn't a direct quote but almost), that when you inherit a country in debt, you need to show the example and reduce your salary. So he plans on reducing the president's (and ministers') salaray by 30%. On the other hand, as he took the head of the most indebted department of France, he maintained his salary (if you cumulate all his fonctions, it adds up to 30 500€/month).
I probably missed the point here. For 3 years Hollande has managed to reduce the deficit even though he inherited of one of the most massive debts, and after 10 years with responsibilities, including 5 years at the very top of the government, the deficit has reached records in France. So this is your exemple of "double discours" ? Please tell me you're just trolling and let's settle this...
Note : he didn't reduce the deficit. He reduced the increase, that's not the same. Though still better than nothing :p
On May 04 2012 22:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 22:54 Microchaton wrote:
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. Please, develop, I am quite interested.
Exactly. The point is, the real world IS a bitch, nearly all politicians are, too, and making us believe that despite all the affairs, UMP and Sarko is all nice and clean and good-willing is kinda... amusing.
|
On May 04 2012 22:56 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 22:51 Geiko wrote: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:
[quote]
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)
I'm giving a personal opinion of DSK based on facts (he admitted to having inapropriate sexual relationships). I'm not blaming him for anything that hasn't been proven yet (but I do have an opinion on this which).
I'm defending Sarkozy's presumption of innocence, I'm not saying he didn't do all those things you are accusing him of. I'm saying you have no grounds to blame him for unproven things.
|
On May 04 2012 21:46 Heweree wrote:Show nested quote +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.
While the pharaohs had probably very little architectural knowledge, their command was direct : they wanted a funerary monument, which is a precise thing and took around 20 years to build.
In Napoleon's case, he gave no direct order : he thought he should follow the hygienists of his time, and appointed Hausmann who planned the budget, the necessary works, time span, and... everything, really. Napoleon didn't ask for Paris the way Hausmann made it, he simply thought "something" had to be done and let Hausmann take care of it. He didn't even keep track on the budget which tripled over the course of a decade.
Note that I'm not saying that Napoleon was an incompetent man who did nothing. But it is presomptuous to consider him one of the greatest leaders of France next to Louis XIV, Napoleon or Robert the Pious.
But don't worry Geiko, I still like you.
|
On May 04 2012 22:57 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 22:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 04 2012 22:44 Geiko wrote: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 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. Can you post without using offensive language ? According to my "claims", I'll wait to pass judgment on Berlusconi's case until the justice system has decided. That doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on this, everyone has opinions. That means I'll never use the argument "Berlusconi is a criminal" when trying to make a case for something. It's simple presumption of innocence, principle which is at the heart of every respectable democracy.
Yeah well then, never say ANYTHING against Mitterand and his perfect honesty, and please apologize for what you said about certain section of the socilaist party, they have never been sentenced.
Doesn't make any sense. The problem is not a judicial problem, the problem is you, as a voter, knowing someone is a dishonest crook or that someone obviously tried to advance his son.
Not that complex.
Because see, Putin has never been convinced of anything, nor Adolf Hitler actually, but I know the first one is completely corrupt and the second one was a criminal. I don't wait a tribunal to make my mind about it. Luckily people don't think like you because those people are clever enough not to less enough evidence behind them to be sentenced.
Anyway, look, it's a complete loss of time.
|
On May 04 2012 23:02 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 21:46 Heweree wrote: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. But don't worry Geiko, I still like you.
Thank you, probably the nicest thing anyone has said to me in this thread yet
|
On May 04 2012 23:01 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 22:56 Nouar wrote:On May 04 2012 22:51 Geiko wrote: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:
[quote]
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) I'm giving a personal opinion of DSK based on facts (he admitted to having inapropriate sexual relationships). I'm not blaming him for anything that hasn't been proven yet (but I do have an opinion on this which). I'm defending Sarkozy's presumption of innocence, I'm not saying he didn't do all those things you are accusing him of. I'm saying you have no grounds to blame him for unproven things.
The fact that for the last 5 years, he was a president, and he might well be for another 5, thus untouched by any inquiry in all those affairs, helps his presumption of innocence since he can't be accused. Maybe people just want the truth, whatever it be, and not in another 5 years. It's easy to be innocent when you're untouchable.
edit : nononono Biff, we didn't need the Godwin point nor comparisons close or not with Hitler, please !
|
On May 04 2012 23:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 22:57 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 22:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 04 2012 22:44 Geiko wrote: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 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. Can you post without using offensive language ? According to my "claims", I'll wait to pass judgment on Berlusconi's case until the justice system has decided. That doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on this, everyone has opinions. That means I'll never use the argument "Berlusconi is a criminal" when trying to make a case for something. It's simple presumption of innocence, principle which is at the heart of every respectable democracy. Yeah well then, never say ANYTHING against Mitterand and his perfect honesty, and please apologize for what you said about certain section of the socilaist party, they have never been sentenced. Doesn't make any sense. The problem is not a judicial problem, the problem is you, as a voter, knowing someone is a dishonest crook or that someone obviously tried to advance his son. Not that complex. Because see, Putin has never been convinced of anything, nor Adolf Hitler actually, but I know the first one is completely corrupt and the second one was a criminal. I don't wait a tribunal to make my mind about it. Luckily people don't think like you because those people are clever enough not to less enough evidence behind them to be sentenced. Anyway, look, it's a complete loss of time.
Mitterrand and Hitler died before they could be trialed. That doesn't mean there aren't any facts against them.
Petain and Laval were both found guilty of war crimes and sentenced to death (De Gaulle converted that to life-time sentence for Petain)
Regarding the "Fédération of the Bouches du Rhônes", I never said anything against them other then the fact that they were in a trial right now. If I did, I'd like you to point it out to me and I will gladly apologize.
|
On May 04 2012 23:08 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 23:01 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 22:56 Nouar wrote:On May 04 2012 22:51 Geiko wrote: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:
[quote]
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) I'm giving a personal opinion of DSK based on facts (he admitted to having inapropriate sexual relationships). I'm not blaming him for anything that hasn't been proven yet (but I do have an opinion on this which). I'm defending Sarkozy's presumption of innocence, I'm not saying he didn't do all those things you are accusing him of. I'm saying you have no grounds to blame him for unproven things. The fact that for the last 5 years, he was a president, and he might well be for another 5, thus untouched by any inquiry in all those affairs, helps his presumption of innocence since he can't be accused. Maybe people just want the truth, whatever it be, and not in another 5 years. It's easy to be innocent when you're untouchable. edit : nononono Biff, we didn't need the Godwin point nor comparisons close or not with Hitler, please !
Presidential immunity is part of the constitution. If you're not happy, go vote for someone who will change that.
Once again, I'm not preventing you to have an opinion, you can have all the opinions you want. I'm telling you that using arguments such as "Sarkozy is involved in many affairs" will have little to zero impact on me, or anyone who believes in "présomption d'inocence".
|
By the way, I am quite interested in Hollande's salary. The only details I can find is that he's a deputy, and president of Correze's general council, and those are capped to around 10k€ (without taxes). So where do those 30k everybody talks about from ? I'd like to know, I must have missed something.
|
Either I was ignorant in the past or things changed but is everyone imitating the US elections now? I am just waiting for the "Yes we can" (in French obviously) when they show their campaigns. Looks silly in my opinion.
|
On May 02 2012 22:47 Kapouais wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 22:34 mahO wrote:On May 02 2012 21:48 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 21:44 -_-Quails wrote:On May 02 2012 21:26 darkshad30000 wrote:On May 02 2012 21:20 -_-Quails wrote:On May 02 2012 20:51 darkshad30000 wrote:On May 02 2012 20:38 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 20:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 02 2012 20:26 Geiko wrote:
[quote]
Don't you think "on va leur faire les poches" is a rather aggressive statement that can only generate hatred and violence ?
Btw you didn't address the second part of my post. Well, that's not the problem. Between -"On va leur faire les poches", meaning we need to tax lot more ultra rich people (just that you know, the average difference between top and lowest salaries in society of the CAC 40 has been multplied by 20 in thirty years) in a meeting, and -"Melenchon says that when you see a rich you have to "lui faire les poches"", meaning physically attack the rich and rob them, there is a big difference. So either you didn't listen to JLM and you repeated what Sarkozy says, and you just get manipulated like an idiot. Either you know that you are completely transforming a militant statement and you are being blatantly dishonest. Don't change the subject, I am talking about this precise sentence that you said. It's a problem when you guys are telling me that left vs right is a battle of love vs hate (sic). Please don't resort to insults such as "idiot", I'm not trying to be aggressive, lets keep this civil "on va leur faire les poches" literally means in French: "we are going to rob them". The use of that sentence is not innocent by JLM and he knows very well this will exacerbate the Anti-Rich sentiment that he is basing his campaign on. Because believe or not, in France, making money is something you should be ashamed of. And btw, you still didn't address the second part of my previous post. I agree with you so much Geiko. In france, it's a shame to be rich. In france when you support Sarkozy you are a selfish, and when you support Hollande, you are generous! I ask Melenchon's fan, why there isn't some Steve Jobs or Bill Gates in France? They are earning millions of dollars but how many jobs did they create? You think it's a shame they earn so much money? Fortunetaly that there are rich people in France! I don't understand how people can be so agressive against rich! Most of the time they deserve their money For every Steve Jobs there are half a dozen Paris Hiltons and a Madoff. Do they deserve their money? Paris hilton is an heiress. This father (or grand father) create several thousand jobs! And madoff is a shame, but not all boss of CAC 40 are like him! You don't get punished for the crimes of your forefathers, why should you profit from their success? You've worked hard to win money, why should someone prevent you from using the way you see fit (giving it to children) ? Committing crimes is a personal issue, as well as doing good deeds (you don't inherite a legion of honor for example) Money is something you've earned and now posses and you are free to give it to anyone you want. Why are you comparing different things ? Frankly, by very essence, you are a selfish, ignorant human being, trying to defend Sarkozy on all fronts here just because it fits your background, it fits what you want the world to be, even if it's light years from reality, your "ideal" world, which would make me vomit all day long. It's true, rich people always, worked hard to get those millions, always, those garbage men, those cleaning ladies, those working men in construction, school teachers, people who serve your food, they are all so lazy, so lazy then even die younger, they must have slept too much during their lives man, that must be it, or maybe just natural selection. I dont see a reason to argue with such a person, keep your money, it's true, your education, electricity, internet to your house (I guess its a nice one), the guy cleaning the street, the cop answering your call, and who knows, if someday you're in financial trouble, the people that will be willing to advise, and help you get back on your feet, all this, came from the sky, what a beautiful idea. In the end, you guys are dreamers. Keep your money, because we're not from the same world So according to you, this guy who went to school until 16 years, then clean the streets / deliver your pizza / press 1 button all day long in the subway, 35 hours per week, he DESERVEs as much as the guy who studied really hard during his whole youth, to become a doctor, an engineer, a pharmacist, or who created an enterprise (and therefore created jobs), and who is working 40-45 maybe 50 hours per week ? This is just disgusting to spit like that on the effort value, and tell "lazy" people to keep not doing anything, because people will, with socialism, work for them. Of course I agree that there are some disguting cases (like footballers or CEO who earn waaay to much, because noone could spend that much money), but fixing this won't make poor people any more rich. But bashing like that middle classes is really the worst and most disgusting thing to do, because they are the reason why the France is such a great country.
My point is, those people, dont have even have a slight chance in comparison, of becoming doctors, engineer, pharmacists, when they grow up in Paris suburbs... You've been there? Can you imagine the state of a "collège" class there? And the fact that every job interview they will look down on the name of the city you grew up in and think "ghetto kid, no job for him". If you come from a good family, you'll have all the tools to get your diplomas without having to worry about anything : money, support, if you suck at school, supplementary classes and teachers. The rich stay rich, the poor stay poor, no matter how dumb the rich is, he'll still end up getting his diploma because he's been pushed, it's not talent, it's not "hard working", it's a lack of fairness in the chances people get, and that, shouldnt be the case. The way Sarkozy and UMP treated "ghettos" and other "difficult areas", made, and will make those things worse, way worse, people dont even realize how dramatic it is when Hortefeux made an obvious racist joke, immigrants and sons of immigrants (yeah, you like to deny that they're french, but most of them are as french as you and me) in "cités", already didnt feel like a part of France, now they sure as fuck cant, for them saying that they're french and part of our society, with such bastards taking decisions, is like turning the other cheek, and I dont blame them, Le Pen in 2002, 5 years of Sarkozy, Hortefeux, Guéant, no way, I'd rather burn our flag down than bow to these scum bags
|
On May 04 2012 23:06 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 23:02 Kukaracha wrote:On May 04 2012 21:46 Heweree wrote: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. But don't worry Geiko, I still like you. Thank you, probably the nicest thing anyone has said to me in this thread yet
When Hollande gets elected, we will forget about this and be friends again.
|
On May 04 2012 23:25 zdfgucker wrote:
Either I was ignorant in the past or things changed but is everyone imitating the US elections now? I am just waiting for the "Yes we can" (in French obviously) when they show their campaigns. Looks silly in my opinion.
What are you talking about ?
|
On May 05 2012 00:13 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 23:06 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 23:02 Kukaracha wrote:On May 04 2012 21:46 Heweree wrote: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. But don't worry Geiko, I still like you. Thank you, probably the nicest thing anyone has said to me in this thread yet When Hollande gets elected, we will forget about this and be friends again.
Hmmm for what's it's worth, for me we are still friends even right now, just discussing, it's not as if I have to make enemies of people who don't think the same I do 
|
On May 05 2012 00:17 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 00:13 Kukaracha wrote:On May 04 2012 23:06 Geiko wrote:On May 04 2012 23:02 Kukaracha wrote:On May 04 2012 21:46 Heweree wrote: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. But don't worry Geiko, I still like you. Thank you, probably the nicest thing anyone has said to me in this thread yet When Hollande gets elected, we will forget about this and be friends again. Hmmm for what's it's worth, for me we are still friends even right now, just discussing, it's not as if I have to make enemies of people who don't think the same I do
Glad to hear that This is why sometimes the personal attacks upset me a little because this is a just a bar counter type political discussion. Peace and Love to everyone in this thread ^^.
(don't think I'll ever be friend with the guy who called me a scum and said that I had no morales though  )
Regarding Hollande's Salary, I found this in an old mail I wrote to a friend, I had the sources at the time but now can't seem to find them anymore. But these figures have never been contested as far as I know, since they can all be verified individually anyways :
- indemnité parlementaire : 5.257,58 € mensuels
- indemnité de résidence : 157,73 € mensuels
- indemnité de fonction défiscalisée : 1.353,88 € mensuels
- indemnité de frais de mandat : 6.112 € mensuels
- indemnité pour collaborateurs : 8.553 € mensuels
- indemnité de téléphone et courrier : 6.610 € mensuels
- indemnité de maire de ville moyenne : 2343,24 € mensuels
|
France is entering a new period. The problem with Hollande is that the party has little to show recently for the programs that it promises. On the other hand, its sole strength lies in the fact that it offers a clear and strong platform that contrasts it from the populist approach being espoused by the rest of Europe in the European crisis. Either way, France will not come out unscathed after the elections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
