French Election

It's not that, but the fact that he's helping racism by using force to stop everything instead of trying to also help immigrants out in daily life. He's fueling the fire of racism.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070509/wl_ ... _strike_dc

What right do these people have to protest? This wasn't Nigeria. They don't have a shred of legitimacy. Lock em up.

 

Heh.. triangulated AGAIN!

Al-Qaeda group threatens attacks in France

So the ass-buddies of the Left are gonna light things up for daring to elect anyone who might hold back their Anti-Zionist agenda... Let's 'negotiate!'

Meanwhile, the 'Fascist' Sarkozy does the unexpected:

Shock as Sarkozy woos anti-US leftwinger

Of course this isnt going down too well with either the Bush Adminstration OR the Socialist "Champions of the Oppressed"

But the US would have to work with him anyway while, guess what...

Reactionary? Looks like it to me.... Or do you Lefties have ANOTHER name for it?

How about.. HYPOCRITES!

 

Want evidence?

It's in every lefty blog. It's in every comment on how Bush is 'staging things' like the arrest of those nimrods who were going to attack Fort Dix. It's invoked in the '9/11 conspiracy theories'. It's in Hamas approval of everything the Dems do and say... well say, anyway, they dont really DO anything except make political hay.
It's in a House Speaker 'opening channels of communication' with our enemy, and ignoring the fact that the next DAY, that enemy rounded up most of its public critics and put them in jail!

That, my friend, is called 'idiotarianism'.
A shorter. closer example of Idiotarianism is reacting to Sark's win thusly:
"Sarkozy is a FASCIST!"
Short, sweet, without consideration of the possibilities, and more importantly, the PROBABILITES... just ....BECAUSE!

But it isnt JUST confined to the left... for example: no one has commented here on the passing of one of the most famous 'idiotarians' of the Religious Right
- runner up, in my view to Pat Robertson, because Falwell realized he'd become one and went back to his life work. robertson continued on until he became a laughingstock of the right.

And it is defined and explained Here
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
Let's get back to the subject... suppose Chirac had been elected again. Do you think alQuaeda would have come out with that? Same Party!

Do you think they would have said that if Royal won?

Do you think the socialists would have threatened excommunication if Chirac appointed Socialists?

 

i dont think that at all.

THEY hate America... just because it IS!

Read what I write... it's YOU guys that seem to think that they can be reasoned with.

From the Socialist party...

There's only ONE way to counter them... and it AINT talking. now WHO thinks they can be negotiated with?
- - - - - - - -- -
Hate radio? Is Air America still around?
Not where I live..so, unless you're talking about Michael "Bush is building Six highways so Mexicans can invade and kill us with their dangerous trucks" Savage... I dont hear no hate radio anymore... the ones I listen to; Rush, Boortz and Beck are just full of derision.

But i'm sure the Dems have a plan for them... like bring back the 'Fairness doctrine'. Where, if your ideas cant compete, you just make the other guys' illegal.

You know... McCain*-Feingold for radio {and Fox news}.

*NEVER will be elected in a million years after that!

 

the premise "they hate our freedom" smacks of typical tony snow rhetoric or another espousing of bushisms. the terrorists, or enemy, do not hate our "freedom," instead they are: (1) on a religous crusade; (2) attacking the u.s for hypocritical foreign policy (iran, african nations, chile, vietnam, iraq) which doesn't square with u.s. "principles"; (3) fear of imperialism driven by u.s. thirst for oil; (4) u.s. support for israel...add your own #5 ad infinitum.

petty's comments appear to advocate perpetual war as that is the outcome of the present "war on terror" because the u.s. will never be able to kill enough islamic radicals as they are spread throughout the globe and iraq has proven to be a challenge. the economic and psychological toll is unsustainable with our present course of action. thus, a conventional war is inappropriate for this challenge: foreign intelligence, policing, covert operations, espionage, not sacraficing our constitutional rights, and yes pettyfog, diplomacy are the proper tools to fight this so called "war." it doesn't hurt to "negotiate," or otherwise referred to as talking, with the enemies of the u.s., so long as no capitualation takes place. i don't see any "reasoning" with terrorists in the above statement.

and let me conclude with a jab at the current administration, as the alternative to the current "war on terror" requires tact, broad-based thinking and intelligence, which are 3 qualities not collectively present in any cabinet member currently employed at 1600 pensylvania avenue.

on a personal note, i get the impression you'd yell quite a bit in a discussion over a beer because of your use of all-caps, and i'd still enjoy the opportunity to sit down with you (or HD) over a drink and simply b.s.

cheers.

 

I enjoy the fact that you lot can turn French politics into American politics seamlessly.

 

Scary Sarkozy!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/24/world ... ref=slogin

Facinating reading on Sarkozy today. Here's a sample

Not sure if I love or loathe that attiutde! Leaning towards love though. I'd go buy the book tomorrow except of course its in French, bummer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sort of random thought here. When I think Napolean I think of the picture below or a variation of, the arm clearly to the side, open body position and a look of impatiance and disgust out into the distance.



Now take a look at the picture of Sarkozy in the article, the second I saw this the image of Napolean imeadily poped in my mind.



Coincidence or conspiracy?

 

mm... no.

I see fifties style male metrosexual model magnate. {sic}

heh.