|
On May 08 2012 01:10 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 01:04 Nitro68 wrote:
It was known the week before that he would take a private plane... And yes, eating at the Fouquet's is not a problem, the problem is with who you are eating and when...
Mitterand, Chirac, etc was another time. Too bad NS did not understand this fast enough. At the risk of repeating myself, Hollande also eats at fancy restaurants with rich entrepreneurs (bergé, pigasse, etc...). He also eats at these restaurants at key moments of the election (1st round of this election). Arguing that it's totally OK to do that the night of the first round, and not OK at all to do it on the night of the second round is pretty laughable. And is an example of + Show Spoiler + that happened during this election.
I was not saying it was ok to do that on the night of the first round and not ok to do it on the night of the second. I'm not saying it's not ok for either - in fact, I already told you I didn't care about the money of the candidates.
My point, which you just tried to straw man into an opinion, was that Hollande was not the president-elect on the night of the first round. He is the president-elect since yesterday. The media only paid attention to Sarkozy's dinner at the Fouquet's because it happened on the night he became president-elect. Since Hollande DID NOT go eat at the Fouquet's yesterday night, your "double standards" accusation does not stand.
On May 08 2012 01:11 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 01:10 kwizach wrote:On May 08 2012 01:06 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 01:00 Otolia wrote:On May 08 2012 00:45 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 00:35 Otolia wrote:On May 08 2012 00:19 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 00:09 Otolia wrote:On May 08 2012 00:02 Geiko wrote:On May 07 2012 23:29 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
It's a tradition for a candidate to wait for the result in his circonscription. Also, it's actually completly off topic since Hollande is not President (yet) and did not use any state money, but private money coming from the PS. Your criticism is irrelevant. Because the Fouquet's was paid with state money ? Talk about double standards ... There is a difference between talking a plane and doing a discourse at 00:42 in front of a vast meeting of people and secluding oneself with rich friends to celebrate. One shows care of his electors, the others was more diligent with his rich friends. So, as long as we live in a democratic republic, yes there will be double standards like that. What matters isn't the cost or who pays, what matters is what it shows of the man. When you say that you'll be a normal man and take the train instead of the airplane, you don't take a private jet (he had an airport open at night just for him) the night of your election. It's absurd and contradictory. What kind of friends do you think Mr Hollande has ? Poor friends that earn the Smic ? No, he has the same kind of friends as Mr Sarkozy, and eats at the same kind of Restaurants (he was eating Foie Gras at Laurent's the night of the first round of the elections). In fact François Mitterand had a table reserved at the Fouquet's 2 times a week, no one bothered him about that? Double standards. Ok now you bring Mitterand back. Should I bring back De Gaulle because he almost killed my mother during mai 68 ? Dead people are better left alone. Also it's very funny to see your talk about poor people, aren't you in a prépa ? Is that your definition of poor ? Be reminded that people who elected Hollande were mostly living in the cities, the rural world voted for Sarkosy and needless to say most of them are uneducated and xenophobic. In the suburds, Hollande has more than 60%, among workers even more. Don't try to pass yourself off as the defenders of the poor, you aren't and Sarkosy certainly wasn't too. You're the only one talking about me here. Let's leave it at that. You can bring back anyone you'd like, I hold everyone at the same standards. If you just want to talk about Hollande, he's the guy that regularly eats at "Le Laurent" with his good friends BHL, Mathieu Pigasse and Pierre Bergé. You know that "Le Laurent" has prices twice as high as "Le Fouquet's" ? You also know who Pigasse and Bergé are ? Double standards ? You are a true master of misrepresentation. I didn't for for Hollande because Sarkosy was a bling-bling gangsta, so I don't see the point in arguing with you. I expressed my point of view on the Fouquet's vs. Air Travel dichotomy, I explained why it isn't a matter of money or friends and you keep bringing money and friends up. That part of the topic should be closed by now. Hollande has done as many scandalous things as Sarkozy but somehow the media refuse to pick up on it. That's why I'm saying "double standards". I don't care whether politicians have money and rich friends or not... I just showed you your "double standards" accusation was fallacious. No you didn't. Media reacting for one and not for the other is a clear double standard.
Yes I did, and I just did again.
|
On May 08 2012 00:57 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 00:55 Kukaracha wrote:On May 08 2012 00:02 Geiko wrote:
Because the Fouquet's was paid with state money ? Talk about double standards ... It's about the symbol. I'm sure you understand. Yeah taking a private jet when you said you'd be a "normal man" that takes the train is quite a symbol, I agree.
I believe this was completely justified in these circumstances.
On the other hand, "Air Sarko One" isn't.
Or maybe Hollande should've taken the train, he would've maybe been in Bastille in time for breakfast.
|
On May 08 2012 01:22 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 00:57 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 00:55 Kukaracha wrote:On May 08 2012 00:02 Geiko wrote:
Because the Fouquet's was paid with state money ? Talk about double standards ... It's about the symbol. I'm sure you understand. Yeah taking a private jet when you said you'd be a "normal man" that takes the train is quite a symbol, I agree. Or maybe Hollande should've taken the train, he would've maybe been in Bastille in time for breakfast.
Or maybe he shouldn't have made stupid promises he would never be able to keep.
Who knows ? It's one of these two at least.
|
On May 08 2012 01:27 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 01:22 Kukaracha wrote:On May 08 2012 00:57 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 00:55 Kukaracha wrote:On May 08 2012 00:02 Geiko wrote:
Because the Fouquet's was paid with state money ? Talk about double standards ... It's about the symbol. I'm sure you understand. Yeah taking a private jet when you said you'd be a "normal man" that takes the train is quite a symbol, I agree. Or maybe Hollande should've taken the train, he would've maybe been in Bastille in time for breakfast. Or maybe he shouldn't have made stupid promises he would never be able to keep. Who knows ? It's one of these two at least.
You do understand he can't possibly have broken any promises he made about his actions as president since he isn't president yet, right?
|
On May 08 2012 01:27 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 01:22 Kukaracha wrote:On May 08 2012 00:57 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 00:55 Kukaracha wrote:On May 08 2012 00:02 Geiko wrote:
Because the Fouquet's was paid with state money ? Talk about double standards ... It's about the symbol. I'm sure you understand. Yeah taking a private jet when you said you'd be a "normal man" that takes the train is quite a symbol, I agree. Or maybe Hollande should've taken the train, he would've maybe been in Bastille in time for breakfast. Or maybe he shouldn't have made stupid promises he would never be able to keep. Who knows ? It's one of these two at least.
He never promised to avoid all aircraft, no matter the situation. This would be bad in case of a war.
He simply said he wouldn't go to the supermarket in Airbus, like his predecessor.
|
On May 08 2012 01:40 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 01:27 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 01:22 Kukaracha wrote:On May 08 2012 00:57 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 00:55 Kukaracha wrote:On May 08 2012 00:02 Geiko wrote:
Because the Fouquet's was paid with state money ? Talk about double standards ... It's about the symbol. I'm sure you understand. Yeah taking a private jet when you said you'd be a "normal man" that takes the train is quite a symbol, I agree. Or maybe Hollande should've taken the train, he would've maybe been in Bastille in time for breakfast. Or maybe he shouldn't have made stupid promises he would never be able to keep. Who knows ? It's one of these two at least. He never promised to avoid all aircraft, no matter the situation. This would be bad in case of a war. He simply said he wouldn't go to the supermarket in Airbus, like his predecessor.
Yeah going to meet your fans in Tulle is of the utmost importance 
On May 08 2012 01:31 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 01:27 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 01:22 Kukaracha wrote:On May 08 2012 00:57 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 00:55 Kukaracha wrote:On May 08 2012 00:02 Geiko wrote:
Because the Fouquet's was paid with state money ? Talk about double standards ... It's about the symbol. I'm sure you understand. Yeah taking a private jet when you said you'd be a "normal man" that takes the train is quite a symbol, I agree. Or maybe Hollande should've taken the train, he would've maybe been in Bastille in time for breakfast. Or maybe he shouldn't have made stupid promises he would never be able to keep. Who knows ? It's one of these two at least. You do understand he can't possibly have broken any promises he made about his actions as president since he isn't president yet, right?
Congratulations, you've just won the "best argument in the thread" award
|
On May 08 2012 01:46 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 01:40 Kukaracha wrote:On May 08 2012 01:27 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 01:22 Kukaracha wrote:On May 08 2012 00:57 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 00:55 Kukaracha wrote:On May 08 2012 00:02 Geiko wrote:
Because the Fouquet's was paid with state money ? Talk about double standards ... It's about the symbol. I'm sure you understand. Yeah taking a private jet when you said you'd be a "normal man" that takes the train is quite a symbol, I agree. Or maybe Hollande should've taken the train, he would've maybe been in Bastille in time for breakfast. Or maybe he shouldn't have made stupid promises he would never be able to keep. Who knows ? It's one of these two at least. He never promised to avoid all aircraft, no matter the situation. This would be bad in case of a war. He simply said he wouldn't go to the supermarket in Airbus, like his predecessor. Yeah going to meet your fans in Tulle is of the utmost importance Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 01:31 kwizach wrote:On May 08 2012 01:27 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 01:22 Kukaracha wrote:On May 08 2012 00:57 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 00:55 Kukaracha wrote:On May 08 2012 00:02 Geiko wrote:
Because the Fouquet's was paid with state money ? Talk about double standards ... It's about the symbol. I'm sure you understand. Yeah taking a private jet when you said you'd be a "normal man" that takes the train is quite a symbol, I agree. Or maybe Hollande should've taken the train, he would've maybe been in Bastille in time for breakfast. Or maybe he shouldn't have made stupid promises he would never be able to keep. Who knows ? It's one of these two at least. You do understand he can't possibly have broken any promises he made about his actions as president since he isn't president yet, right? Congratulations, you've just won the "best argument in the thread" award
As said earlier, it's a tradition. And a strong symbol of his attachement to the people of France and his "homeland" of Corrèze.
|
On May 08 2012 01:46 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 01:31 kwizach wrote:On May 08 2012 01:27 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 01:22 Kukaracha wrote:On May 08 2012 00:57 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 00:55 Kukaracha wrote:On May 08 2012 00:02 Geiko wrote:
Because the Fouquet's was paid with state money ? Talk about double standards ... It's about the symbol. I'm sure you understand. Yeah taking a private jet when you said you'd be a "normal man" that takes the train is quite a symbol, I agree. Or maybe Hollande should've taken the train, he would've maybe been in Bastille in time for breakfast. Or maybe he shouldn't have made stupid promises he would never be able to keep. Who knows ? It's one of these two at least. You do understand he can't possibly have broken any promises he made about his actions as president since he isn't president yet, right? Congratulations, you've just won the "best argument in the thread" award
Hm, I see trying to back up your ridiculous statements is getting tiring, good job resorting to sarcasm instead! This way surely nobody will notice your double standards argument has been completely debunked! :-)
|
On May 08 2012 01:58 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 01:46 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 01:31 kwizach wrote:On May 08 2012 01:27 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 01:22 Kukaracha wrote:On May 08 2012 00:57 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 00:55 Kukaracha wrote:On May 08 2012 00:02 Geiko wrote:
Because the Fouquet's was paid with state money ? Talk about double standards ... It's about the symbol. I'm sure you understand. Yeah taking a private jet when you said you'd be a "normal man" that takes the train is quite a symbol, I agree. Or maybe Hollande should've taken the train, he would've maybe been in Bastille in time for breakfast. Or maybe he shouldn't have made stupid promises he would never be able to keep. Who knows ? It's one of these two at least. You do understand he can't possibly have broken any promises he made about his actions as president since he isn't president yet, right? Congratulations, you've just won the "best argument in the thread" award Hm, I see trying to back up your ridiculous statements is getting tiring, good job resorting to sarcasm instead! This way surely nobody will notice your double standards argument has been completely debunked! :-)
Sarkozy wasn't president at the time of the Fouquet's either. There, settled ?
|
On May 08 2012 02:10 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 01:58 kwizach wrote:On May 08 2012 01:46 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 01:31 kwizach wrote:On May 08 2012 01:27 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 01:22 Kukaracha wrote:On May 08 2012 00:57 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 00:55 Kukaracha wrote:On May 08 2012 00:02 Geiko wrote:
Because the Fouquet's was paid with state money ? Talk about double standards ... It's about the symbol. I'm sure you understand. Yeah taking a private jet when you said you'd be a "normal man" that takes the train is quite a symbol, I agree. Or maybe Hollande should've taken the train, he would've maybe been in Bastille in time for breakfast. Or maybe he shouldn't have made stupid promises he would never be able to keep. Who knows ? It's one of these two at least. You do understand he can't possibly have broken any promises he made about his actions as president since he isn't president yet, right? Congratulations, you've just won the "best argument in the thread" award Hm, I see trying to back up your ridiculous statements is getting tiring, good job resorting to sarcasm instead! This way surely nobody will notice your double standards argument has been completely debunked! :-) Sarkozy wasn't president at the time of the Fouquet's either. There, settled ?
I never said he was. He was president-elect, like I said and like Hollande was NOT on the night of the first round.
|
On May 08 2012 02:13 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 02:10 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 01:58 kwizach wrote:On May 08 2012 01:46 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 01:31 kwizach wrote:On May 08 2012 01:27 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 01:22 Kukaracha wrote:On May 08 2012 00:57 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 00:55 Kukaracha wrote:On May 08 2012 00:02 Geiko wrote:
Because the Fouquet's was paid with state money ? Talk about double standards ... It's about the symbol. I'm sure you understand. Yeah taking a private jet when you said you'd be a "normal man" that takes the train is quite a symbol, I agree. Or maybe Hollande should've taken the train, he would've maybe been in Bastille in time for breakfast. Or maybe he shouldn't have made stupid promises he would never be able to keep. Who knows ? It's one of these two at least. You do understand he can't possibly have broken any promises he made about his actions as president since he isn't president yet, right? Congratulations, you've just won the "best argument in the thread" award Hm, I see trying to back up your ridiculous statements is getting tiring, good job resorting to sarcasm instead! This way surely nobody will notice your double standards argument has been completely debunked! :-) Sarkozy wasn't president at the time of the Fouquet's either. There, settled ? I never said he was. He was president-elect, like I said and like Hollande was NOT on the night of the first round.
He promised he wouldn't private jets and use the train instead. The night of his election, he used a private jet as he was president elect. He broke his promise.
Do I really need to spell everything out for you?
|
Just leave it, Geiko. Sarkosy lost and the reasons are numerous. Maybe Hollande will be worse than him but I doubt it. Nevertheless you are nitpicking on details (president, not-president), misinterpreting points and overall you try to pass yourself like a total virgin who is pure and fresh.
I'm not going to say what I think of you again but I suggest you try to focus on yourself and realize your point of view isn't always the best.
PS : The talk about the prépa is just a jest from me. I left this despicable environment some years ago, and you are the archetype of what I find disgusting in prépa.
|
On May 08 2012 00:35 Otolia wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 00:19 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 00:09 Otolia wrote:On May 08 2012 00:02 Geiko wrote:On May 07 2012 23:29 WhiteDog wrote:On May 07 2012 22:35 Geiko wrote:On May 07 2012 22:30 WhiteDog wrote:On May 07 2012 22:16 Boblion wrote:On May 07 2012 22:12 WhiteDog wrote:On May 07 2012 21:57 Boblion wrote:[quote] Resentment can only be directed toward higher beings duh. And again more dirty accusations from the lefties who always forgot that Mitterrand was a friend of Bousquet and got a very nice Francisque from Petain himself. Should i mention that many people from the socialist party collaborated ? You seem also to forget that it was the socialist (Mollet) who send the contingent in Algeria and that it is Mitterrand himself (Garde des Sceaux) who signed many death sentences during the war. Oh and Mitterrand was the dirtiest president we ever got. Your ignorance and naivety is amazing. + Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://www.livresdeguerre.net/telechar/contribs/17945co.jpg) Sup lefties ! edit: Also read your sources lol. Holeindre is listed as "résistant" uh. But the CNPF collaborated, and most communist and syndicate were part of the resistance, like communist were one of the first movement to act against colonisation - during the Rif war. And how it is related to what we are discussing ? What about Mitterrand till 43 ? It's not related, just saying taking historical fact out of context to judge on the tendencies of the "lefties" is wrong. Mitterand had never been a "lefties" anyway, he just had gone with the flow. On May 07 2012 22:26 Macpo wrote:On May 07 2012 22:17 Geiko wrote:
So anyway,
"Si je suis élu, je prendrai le train" "Se déplacer en train fait partie, non pas des devoirs de candidat, mais d’un déplacement qui doit être normal y compris pour un président de la République" Quoted from Hollande (http://surlaroute2012.blogs.liberation.fr/campagne/2012/04/fran%C3%A7ois-hollande-et-la-normalit%C3%A9-du-train-.html)
Evening of the election, Mr Hollande takes a private Jet to go to Paris (http://www.menly.fr/buzz/presidentielle-2012-buzz/lantiseche-2nd-tour/618422-sarkozy-vote-catholiques-pratiquants-harris/)
This is the "république irréprochable".
I wouldn't have cared if the PS hadn't made such a fuss about the Fouquet's the evening of the 2007 election (50€ per meal on average), but tell me how many meals at the Fouquet's can one buy for the cost of a private jet trip (falcon900) ? Yes, I completely agree with that. I think we cannot have too many illusions on the way the Hollande government will turn out. Especially, I am afraid very little can be expected for lower classes, in regard of the reduction of inequalities. The parti socialiste is an elitist party (all his higher staff, for instance, comes from a variety of famous Schools); and they have given up a lot in their political program (supposedly socialist). Yet, it cannot be worse than Sarkozy. Plus, they are not, overall, racists; despite some ambiguous positions here and there. and we can hope for some progress for homosexuals for instance. Is it serious ? Do you know why he took the jet ? He had to go from Tulle to La Bastille the fastest possible because thousands of people where waiting for him. Get serious man. How about staying in Paris the night of the election where he knows he will get elected ? It's a tradition for a candidate to wait for the result in his circonscription. Also, it's actually completly off topic since Hollande is not President (yet) and did not use any state money, but private money coming from the PS. Your criticism is irrelevant. Because the Fouquet's was paid with state money ? Talk about double standards ... There is a difference between talking a plane and doing a discourse at 00:42 in front of a vast meeting of people and secluding oneself with rich friends to celebrate. One shows care of his electors, the others was more diligent with his rich friends. So, as long as we live in a democratic republic, yes there will be double standards like that. What matters isn't the cost or who pays, what matters is what it shows of the man. When you say that you'll be a normal man and take the train instead of the airplane, you don't take a private jet (he had an airport open at night just for him) the night of your election. It's absurd and contradictory. What kind of friends do you think Mr Hollande has ? Poor friends that earn the Smic ? No, he has the same kind of friends as Mr Sarkozy, and eats at the same kind of Restaurants (he was eating Foie Gras at Laurent's the night of the first round of the elections). In fact François Mitterand had a table reserved at the Fouquet's 2 times a week, no one bothered him about that? Double standards. Ok now you bring Mitterand back. Should I bring back De Gaulle because he almost killed my mother during mai 68 ? Dead people are better left alone. Also it's very funny to see your talk about poor people, aren't you in a prépa ? Is that your definition of poor ? Be reminded that people who elected Hollande were mostly living in the cities, the rural world voted for Sarkosy and needless to say most of them are uneducated and xenophobic. In the suburds, Hollande has more than 60%, among workers even more. Don't try to pass yourself off as the defenders of the poor, you aren't and Sarkosy certainly wasn't too.
This post is so fucking dumb lmao.
Geiko, you need to get over it. Lefties can't understand the hypocrisy of the PS. That's why people like Dray, Guérini and DSK are so awesome because they are FEEDING on them and they put the double standards, the lies and all the bs IN THEIR FACE.
|
|
|
On May 08 2012 02:16 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 02:13 kwizach wrote:On May 08 2012 02:10 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 01:58 kwizach wrote:On May 08 2012 01:46 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 01:31 kwizach wrote:On May 08 2012 01:27 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 01:22 Kukaracha wrote:On May 08 2012 00:57 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 00:55 Kukaracha wrote:
[quote]
It's about the symbol. I'm sure you understand. Yeah taking a private jet when you said you'd be a "normal man" that takes the train is quite a symbol, I agree. Or maybe Hollande should've taken the train, he would've maybe been in Bastille in time for breakfast. Or maybe he shouldn't have made stupid promises he would never be able to keep. Who knows ? It's one of these two at least. You do understand he can't possibly have broken any promises he made about his actions as president since he isn't president yet, right? Congratulations, you've just won the "best argument in the thread" award Hm, I see trying to back up your ridiculous statements is getting tiring, good job resorting to sarcasm instead! This way surely nobody will notice your double standards argument has been completely debunked! :-) Sarkozy wasn't president at the time of the Fouquet's either. There, settled ? I never said he was. He was president-elect, like I said and like Hollande was NOT on the night of the first round. He promised he wouldn't private jets and use the train instead. The night of his election, he used a private jet as he was president elect. He broke his promise. Do I really need to spell everything out for you?
Yes, I'm actually going to need you to provide me with the quote from when he said he would not use private jets AS PRESIDENT-ELECT. Be my guest.
Here's me spelling the argument out the other argument for you, since you are desperately trying to tie the two:
The night of the second round, as they have just been elected president:
- Sarkozy goes to eat at Fouquet's
- Hollande does not go to eat at Fouquet's (or any other expensive restaurant)
Am I saying that I think it was right to criticize Sarkozy for eating at Fouquet's? No, like I told you I think such criticisms are ridiculous. The double-standard that you denounce, however, would have required Hollande to go eat at Fouquet's (or any other expensive restaurant) and the press not to talk about it. Since he did NOT eat in any expensive restaurant after becoming president-elect, your argument of double-standard has no basis in reality.
|
On May 08 2012 02:31 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 02:16 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 02:13 kwizach wrote:On May 08 2012 02:10 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 01:58 kwizach wrote:On May 08 2012 01:46 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 01:31 kwizach wrote:On May 08 2012 01:27 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 01:22 Kukaracha wrote:On May 08 2012 00:57 Geiko wrote:
[quote]
Yeah taking a private jet when you said you'd be a "normal man" that takes the train is quite a symbol, I agree.
Or maybe Hollande should've taken the train, he would've maybe been in Bastille in time for breakfast. Or maybe he shouldn't have made stupid promises he would never be able to keep. Who knows ? It's one of these two at least. You do understand he can't possibly have broken any promises he made about his actions as president since he isn't president yet, right? Congratulations, you've just won the "best argument in the thread" award Hm, I see trying to back up your ridiculous statements is getting tiring, good job resorting to sarcasm instead! This way surely nobody will notice your double standards argument has been completely debunked! :-) Sarkozy wasn't president at the time of the Fouquet's either. There, settled ? I never said he was. He was president-elect, like I said and like Hollande was NOT on the night of the first round. He promised he wouldn't private jets and use the train instead. The night of his election, he used a private jet as he was president elect. He broke his promise. Do I really need to spell everything out for you? Yes, I'm actually going to need you to provide me with the quote from when he said he would not use private jets AS PRESIDENT-ELECT. Be my guest. Here's me spelling the argument out the other argument for you, since you are desperately trying to tie the two: The night of the second round, as they have just been elected president: - Sarkozy goes to eat at Fouquet's - Hollande does not go to eat at Fouquet's (or any other expensive restaurant) Am I saying that I think it was right to criticize Sarkozy for eating at Fouquet's? No, like I told you I think such criticisms are ridiculous. The double-standard that you denounce, however, would have required Hollande to go eat at Fouquet's (or any other expensive restaurant) and the press not to talk about it. Since he did NOT eat in any expensive restaurant after becoming president-elect, your argument of double-standard has no basis in reality.
I definitely give up on you 
Good day sir
|
On May 08 2012 02:35 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 02:31 kwizach wrote:On May 08 2012 02:16 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 02:13 kwizach wrote:On May 08 2012 02:10 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 01:58 kwizach wrote:On May 08 2012 01:46 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 01:31 kwizach wrote:On May 08 2012 01:27 Geiko wrote:On May 08 2012 01:22 Kukaracha wrote:
[quote]
Or maybe Hollande should've taken the train, he would've maybe been in Bastille in time for breakfast. Or maybe he shouldn't have made stupid promises he would never be able to keep. Who knows ? It's one of these two at least. You do understand he can't possibly have broken any promises he made about his actions as president since he isn't president yet, right? Congratulations, you've just won the "best argument in the thread" award Hm, I see trying to back up your ridiculous statements is getting tiring, good job resorting to sarcasm instead! This way surely nobody will notice your double standards argument has been completely debunked! :-) Sarkozy wasn't president at the time of the Fouquet's either. There, settled ? I never said he was. He was president-elect, like I said and like Hollande was NOT on the night of the first round. He promised he wouldn't private jets and use the train instead. The night of his election, he used a private jet as he was president elect. He broke his promise. Do I really need to spell everything out for you? Yes, I'm actually going to need you to provide me with the quote from when he said he would not use private jets AS PRESIDENT-ELECT. Be my guest. Here's me spelling the argument out the other argument for you, since you are desperately trying to tie the two: The night of the second round, as they have just been elected president: - Sarkozy goes to eat at Fouquet's - Hollande does not go to eat at Fouquet's (or any other expensive restaurant) Am I saying that I think it was right to criticize Sarkozy for eating at Fouquet's? No, like I told you I think such criticisms are ridiculous. The double-standard that you denounce, however, would have required Hollande to go eat at Fouquet's (or any other expensive restaurant) and the press not to talk about it. Since he did NOT eat in any expensive restaurant after becoming president-elect, your argument of double-standard has no basis in reality. I definitely give up on you Good day sir
Don't forget the sarcasm, it's supposed to prevent us from noticing you have no valid arguments before you leave.
|
As a non-French person it is funny to see how butthurt Geiko and Boblion are.
|
On May 08 2012 02:26 Boblion wrote:
This post is so fucking dumb lmao.
Geiko, you need to get over it. Lefties can't understand the hypocrisy of the PS. That's why people like Dray, Guérini and DSK are so awesome because they are FEEDING on them and they put the double standards, the lies and all the bs IN THEIR FACE.
Oh I understand very well what PS politicians are. But Is Jean Tibéri any better though ? Is Brice Hortefeux any better ? Isn't the UMP lying too ?
I don't bring up every dirty secrets of the UMP each time I argument because that's pointless. The past is done and we have to move one with someone who hasn't messed up big time yet (i.e. not Sarkosy).
You want to stay in denial and attack the party for things of the past that doesn't matter right now (like Mitterand) fine, go ahead. You are making a fool of yourself, not me.
|
Why would anyone want Sarkozy to win, he seems so evil, I just look at his face and get goosebumps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
