Sunday, May 6th 2007
“There will be riots”
Sarkozy has won the French presidency (via Drudge) in the race between he and equally-photogenic Segolene Royale. I was interested by this race, both because it happened at a time when lots of women seemed to be running (Merkel had just won, Hillary is on deck, and Segolene was up to bat) and because her first name looked a little like my last (honestly, I lose sleep over this name of mine).
Another reason I’m interested in this is because Royale said there would be riots if she lost. We’ve seen riots in France before, I wrote an article on it for the Patriot a while back. Are the riots a convenient excuse? “Vote for me or else” type thing? I wonder if the riots even have meaning for the majority of French people, since they happen almost constantly. But with over 75% turnout in the election (good job France!) some of those voters must be affected by riots in the urban areas. Perhaps a vote for the more conservative candidate was a statement against that sort of mentality of crime and vandalism if someone doesnt get their way. Imagine if college students ditched to riot in San Fran and LA when Gore didn’t win in 2000 [update: yeah i saw this error, thanks]. Even their responses on the Berkeley campus didn’t match burning cars. And imagine if Gore had threatened riots if he didn’t win. It bothers me when politicos say they speak for the people when the majority shows otherwise, and it seems like a shallow tactic to resort to.
But they deployed the police to the target areas anyway. We’ll see how it goes.
Update: Via LGF, this article states that “270 people were taken into questioning and 367 parked vehicles had been torched. On a typical night in France, 100 cars are burned”. One HUNDRED per night!
BOOOOORING!!
Comment by LOL — 5/7/2007 @ 10:57 am
What a weak post. Who cares if they are photogenic? One was an anti-family socialist, and one was a middle of the road conservative. And somehow, in France, a conservative won! How about a post on whether or not this is a good sign for Europe? Nahhhh, let’s talk about who is photogenic and talk about how women are running for shit. Sometimes I wonder why you waste time thinking about this shit, Megan.
Comment by Che — 5/8/2007 @ 9:24 am
Cool it dude. She talked about riots too.
Comment by Anonymous — 5/8/2007 @ 9:25 am
Gore ran in 2000, not 2004.
Comment by LOL — 5/8/2007 @ 11:34 am
i thought it was a good post. today on Drudge i saw an aricle comparing Royal to Clinton. clinton tried to distance herself from Royal, not wanting to be associated with a losing liberal presidential candidate!
a remark at the end of it suggested that even members of the same party (both Chirac and Sarkozy) can represent change. Sarkozy sounded a lot like Giuliani when he campaigned.
Comment by Marius — 5/8/2007 @ 12:57 pm
But Meg didn’t cover any of that, dude.
Comment by Che — 5/8/2007 @ 4:56 pm
funny i dont remember saying Meg said what i intended to be in addition to her post, dude.
Comment by Marius — 5/8/2007 @ 8:44 pm
“Sarkozy sounded a lot like Giuliani when he campaigned.”
You mean Jewliani. And yes, you’re right. Jewliani and Sarkozy both sound like they’re running for lapdog of Israel.
Comment by Onward Christian soldier!!! — 5/9/2007 @ 10:23 am
“Lapdog of Israel”?
Are you still reading that tired old 1960s Marxist crap, hon?
Please evolve.
“Jewliani”?
Oh why beat around the bush. You are a anti-semitic bigot. Go peddle your trash to the Muslim Students Union.
Comment by Scott — 5/9/2007 @ 12:50 pm
well actually it had nothing to do with Israel or Jews and more to do with appearing to be the candidate of change while being in the same party as the incumbent, talking about getting tough on crime, and talking about reviving the economy and job creation.
but now that you mention it, yeah, i think Giuliani would be great in terms of foreign policy. as for Sarkozy, i hadnt heard anything about his opinion on the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Comment by Marius — 5/9/2007 @ 1:02 pm
“Great in terms of foreign policy” seems to mean putting Israel ahead of all other nations, including our own, on this blog.
Scott, you are a serious mental midget. First of all, my comment had nothing to do with Marxism. Second, since you brought it up- Marxism isn’t anti-Israel. Marxism is a set of principles that revolve around economic forces on human societies. Communism in practice sure has been marked by anti-Semitism but, as I said, none of this really matters right now since my comment had nothing to do with Marxism or Communism.
Finally, I’m not anti-Semitic, but you are apparently anti-Muslim. I’m sure you’re proud of it too.
Comment by Onward Christian soldier!!! — 5/9/2007 @ 1:17 pm
finished reading the Protocols of the Elders of Zion yet?
Comment by Marius — 5/9/2007 @ 1:29 pm
EVERY “Marxist” regime that exists or has existed has been rabidly anti-semitic. “Marxism” has been utterly discredited as an economic system; it’s a religion and a social system. My point above is that most everyone who is openly anti-semitic these days is either a jihadi or a raving leftist.
Also, if you had written “Negro-lani” for “Jewliani”, do you think anyone would have thought badly of it?
It’s bigoted. It’s tired. As I said, please evolve.
Comment by Scott — 5/9/2007 @ 2:13 pm
“finished reading the Protocols of the Elders of Zion yet?” So apparently, if you don’t have an “Israel first” foreign policy you’re a subscriber to anti-Jewish views. Nice try. Marius, you and Scott make a nice pair of mental midgets.
Scott: Was the Khmer Rouge anti-Semitic? BTW, I’m not Marxist or Jihadist. Looks like you’ll have to stick with the actual topic of our conversation if you want to continue the argument.
Also, don’t try to compare referring to Jews as “Jews” to referring to black people as “negroes.” That is bigoted. You racist trash.
Comment by Onward Christian soldier!!! — 5/9/2007 @ 2:52 pm
why, oh brave Christian soldier, did you bring up Israel and Jews in the first place? surely there were other similarities between Sarkozy and Giuliani to be made, and frankly Israel was not one that I referenced, nor did the article on Drudge I mentioned.
who’s got Israel on the brain? Scott and I merely responded to something you brought up. and i have no intention of bandying anymore words on this matter with you or any other anonymous pest on this blog.
in fact it could be argued that to so valiantly bring up Israel in a post that had little to do with Israel shows how concerned, nay, fearful you are of pro-Israel politicians. why is that?
and no, being in support of Israel’s right to exist and giving them a fraction of US foreign aid, which is i believe 2% of the US budget, does not constitute “putting Israel first.”
Comment by Marius — 5/9/2007 @ 4:46 pm
Getting back to the topic at hand……
This election only delays France’s fate. In a debate of Le Pen v. Sarkozy (which I watched in its original French), Jean Marie Le Pen accused M. Sarkozy of being the reason for much of France’s immigration problems lately since he had been in Chirac’s gov. for the past many years.
Under this new government I doubt there will be any immigration policy change. Borders will be pushed ever further open; France will become more and more a province of Europe instead of a sovereign state; Muslim immigrants will continue to flood into the country, suck off the welfare state, not speak French, light cars on fire, build more super-Mosques where hateful jihad is being taught (so say the reports), erode the once-great civilization that was France; dhimmitude will become more rampant in secular-natured France while Islamic domination flourishes; and all of this will happen with no Charles “the hammer” Martel to save France and Europe. Au revoir, ma France!
Sarkozy bought some time, but I don’t think France can be saved. Jean Marie Le Pen might have been able to do something, but he said he won’t run next time. Although, Marine Le Pen is awesome.
As for Madame Royal…. oy vey! I don’t see where these anti-military idiots (like Kerry) get off thinking they can lead the nuclear-powered nations! In an interview that Mme. Royal gave (which I also watched in it’s original French), the interviewer asked her, “how many nuclear submarines do we have?” She tried to dodge the question a bit, but he continued to pressure her to answer. After about 15 seconds of dodge ball, she said, “Uhh, un… duex?” to which the interviewer said, “Non, nous en avons sept.” SEVEN! She thought one, maybe two, but they have SEVEN! How can you lead the nation when you don’t even know how many fuckin’ nuclear subs you have!!! “Go to school, or you’ll get stuck in Iraq!” I despise some of these people.
Le Pen Président! Le Pen Président!
PS- Sarko likes America, which is a good thing for the world. That’s one big point in my book.
Comment by Ross — 5/10/2007 @ 2:01 am
Here’s the link to the Royal comment, get someone who speaks French to translate for you if you don’t believe me:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x12535_segolene-la-gourde
(found it through le Pen’s site here: http://www.lesjeunesaveclepen.com/audioetvideos.htm )
Comment by Ross — 5/10/2007 @ 2:08 am
Good ol’ Ross and his Zionist mind-fuck agenda.
Did you write that whole thing drunk, you seem to be raving on about different topics with each sentence (which I read in its original English).
Aren’t you people glad you can hide behind “anti-semitism”, instead of trying to justify Israeli crimes and violations of UN resolutions. Let’s see I’ve already seen the conspiracy straw-man and Marxism, for some reason. What’s next on the list? Holocaust?
Comment by LOL — 5/10/2007 @ 6:33 am
“in fact it could be argued that to so valiantly bring up Israel in a post that had little to do with Israel shows how concerned, nay, fearful you are of pro-Israel politicians. why is that?”
Pro-Israel is putting it mildly. I’m fearful of politicians who lust after Israel so much that they effectively make America its sugar daddy.
Look at McCain. In the republican debate he quite explicitly stated he’d take us to war with Iran if they ever threatened Israel. Then after a pause he threw in “or the United States.” Some politicians have Israel on the mind a little more than I do. I’d personally prefer to not spend our tax dollars and send our soldiers to die to defend Israel. How anti-Semitic of me, right?
By the way, you seem to think giving Israel 2% of our GDP is not very much. In recent history we’ve spent approximately 3-4% of our GDP on military defense for the USA. If you think 2% is a negligable amount, you have one serious hard-on for Israel. Get over your Israel fetish.
Comment by Onward Christian soldier!!! — 5/10/2007 @ 9:44 am
Also, notice how Scott never responded. Maybe he’s still searching Google for anti-Semitism in Cambodia. LOL!
Comment by Onward Christian soldier!!! — 5/10/2007 @ 9:45 am
first jewliani, now mccain.
what was this post about? why did israel come up? never did answer Marius’ questions.
Comment by anonymous2008 — 5/10/2007 @ 10:04 am
“I’m fearful of politicians who lust after Israel so much that they effectively make America its sugar daddy.”
Yeah I did “anonymous.” Everyone knows who you are. You know you just came back with a new name to avoid having to address the statements I made.
Comment by Onward Christian soldier!!! — 5/10/2007 @ 10:19 am
Oh for god’s sake! Onward Christian soldier, Cambodia was NOT a “marxist” regime. It was a Maoist, peasant dictatorship rooted firmly in the Cultural Revolution in China in the middle 1960s. It was no more “marxist” than Tony Blair. Get a grip.
As to Israel: SOME of us know who are friends are in the world, and we don’t waste time trying to be “friends” with barbarian regimes or seventh century theocracies. I have no interest WHATSOEVER in being “friends” with any of the Arab “nations”. I don’ give a crap whether they like us or not, as long as they’re afraid of us. They are, and for good reason.
With the flick of a couple of switches, we can bankrupt these “nations”. With a couple of computer guys, we can shut down all phone, fax, TV, radio, and other communication, allowing them to live in the backward darkness they seem to prefer. We’re being nice now, because we don’t want to go thru the hassle of taking “their” oil (which the Westerners found, take from the ground, refine, ship, and pay for).
Israel is our friend. She is a democracy. One day, if Israel has the guts, she will expel the Arabs to “Palestine”, on the other side of the Jordan, where they belong.
We now return to your previously scheduled program.
Comment by Scott — 5/10/2007 @ 1:07 pm
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzNPZf-5aO4
Some friends we have!
They, of course, are more than glad to goad us into another war. Israel has been implicated on numerous occasions in spying on the US. Some friends really.
2) “I have no interest WHATSOEVER in being “friends” with any of the Arab “nations”.”
Your bigotry and blind arrogance aside, why did were we friends with Saddam back in the 1980’s? Why are we still propping up the regime in Saudi Arabia? Why did we bother going into Kuwait back in 1991?
3)If Cambodia was not a Marxist regime then what was? Or as you put already, “Marxist”.
4) I don’t even know where to begin. Are you actually saying that the land Israel occupies right now has not been stolen from people who lived there for generations?
Comment by LOL — 5/10/2007 @ 1:39 pm
LOL beat me to it, but yes, Scott, name one regime that fits the description of “Marxist” in your opinion? Your argument against Cambodia being considered Marxist actually applies to all attempted versions of Communism. But let’s see you try to save yourself. Name one truly Marxist nation.
Comment by Onward Christian soldier!!! — 5/10/2007 @ 1:47 pm
http://break.com/index/jewish-girl-prank-calls-her-parents.html
“You stick with your own, we stick with our own.”
Comment by LOL — 5/11/2007 @ 12:42 am