An Ode to Chirac

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
His credit for the Irak affair does not offset, by far, the total failure of his tenure.

Aiding thier nuclear program? Is that a sucess or a failiure? I suppose he could blame the Israelis if that is counted as a failiure.

[Colon™]

To be fair, Chirac's poulain, Villepin, did try to pass the CPE which would have loosened labour rules for employees under 26, only to face revolt. Same thing happened to Alain Juppé when he wanted to reform pensions. In the end reform can only take place when the population is willing to go along with it. Not that Chirac really tried to make a case for liberalisation anyway.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Aiding thier nuclear program? Is that a sucess or a failiure? I suppose he could blame the Israelis if that is counted as a failiure.

The decision was made in the beginning of september 1975. Chirac had been Prime Minister for two months. It seems that this project was initiated by the Pompidou's Administration (including Giscard d'Estaing who named Chirac).
Anyway, it was not a great achievement.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
you are an idiot who thinks I only know about Sarkozy from Op-eds because it fits your own personal viewpoint.

I've been following Sarkozy's actions in the French congress for nearly five years now, way back when Raffarin was PM...

even if he has said bigoted statements

...during all that time, he hasn't...

So basically, even if he has said bigoted statements, he really doesn't mean it? He just likes pandering to racists and religion-ists and won't really do anything when in charge?

Wow... what a great advert for the man.

And what an idiot you are, sheepishly repeating the same talking point (only now flavored with knee-jerk insults) without bothering to think or google what I could've meant by mentioning Reagan! Shall we change petty insults all day, or are you in a mood to receive new information? Remember 1980? No, of course not, it was pretty impossible for most of us to be deeply interested about US politics back then. Have you tried to read or research the original issues from campaign of 1980? No, of course not, it's better to judge from spin-filled, feel-good summaries of today than try to analyze raw events of yesterday.

Way back in 1980, your idol, Ronald Reagan, held a speech in deep south defending states' rights -- meaning de-federalization, as it is obvious today. The thing is, back then "states rights'" was a code-word and thus approval of racism among intellectuals seeking hidden racist meanings so they could find a meaning for their lives, just like "scum" and "rioting youth" is a code-word for them now and thus approval of racism. And just like they did now, these professional intellectuals created hordes of op-eds and spin-filled hit pieces in order to smear candidate's image in the minds of the undecided voters. Ergo, suckers like you. Who remembers this speech anymore? Not many, mostly the same race-baiters who created op-eds about it back then.

Could it be that when someone is talking about thugs (or murdereres, or rapists, or rioters), they're meaning just that -- without any hidden racial messages the usual race-baiters are trying to create out from thin air? Take your imagined "only guys of this race should be treated like this" -part of it out of it, and look what the politician actually said. Does it look controversial at all? No more controversial than what Reagan said about de-federalization.

[Fake Boris]

Oerdin, you tell me why criminality existed in the Middle Ages, where even a thief could be sentenced to a slow and painful death by torture on the public place ?

You know, you sound like a Mystique to me. A monastery and Revelation theology sounds just about like your right place.

[Dinner]

There is absolutely no need. There is only you attempting to excusing criminals who tried to light policemen on fire, burn cars belonging to other people, and who destroyed the shops of decent people. You, as is usual, are completely nuts. The people who commit such crimes are indeed scum and criminals.

Also as usual you ignore the basic fact that lack of jobs are the main cause of social unrest. This will only be solved via market liberalizations.

[Fake Boris]

Why you don't answer my post about labor laws in France then ? What should be done to improve them ?

What's the difference between at-will dismissal and at-will dismissal that includes a tribunal to correct wrongs ?

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Oerdin
There is absolutely no need. There is only you attempting to excusing criminals who tried to light policemen on fire, burn cars belonging to other people, and who destroyed the shops of decent people. You, as is usual, are completely nuts. The people who commit such crimes are indeed scum and criminals.

Also as usual you ignore the basic fact that lack of jobs are the main cause of social unrest. This will only be solved via market liberalizations.

Since you know the basic facts, you can answer the basic question : Is the criminality in the US much lower than in France because you have 3 millions in jail, that is ten times more than us in proportion of the population? Do you count as crime the killing of people, specialty in which the US have a world record? Are the US planning to extend the market liberalization to improve this situation (either in reducing criminality or in increasing the number of jails - I dont know your idea of improvement)?.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Why you don't answer my post about labor laws in France then ? What should be done to improve them ?

What's the difference between at-will dismissal and at-will dismissal that includes a tribunal to correct wrongs ?

There is't at-will dismissal in France. Otherwise there wouldn't be any need for the tribunal to redress wrongful dismissals.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Some people try to find race baiting in the wierdest of places. Unlike other folks who used the term "states rights" to mean segregationist policies, by 1980 that wasn't exactly a big issue anymore. Sure there was forced busing and all that, but the Reagan campaign actually WAS for greater federalism (see support for the Rehnquist Court). They weren't using the term "states rights" in a race context but actually did believe in giving the states greater power.

I'm not exactly sure how that is akin to "If you let 100 million Turkish Muslims come in, what will come of it?". I don't exactly see even a hidden message (which may at some level express shame for what he's saying), but an out in open discriminatory message.

But if you want come up with moronic arguments out of thin air, go right ahead.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Colon™


There is't at-will dismissal in France. Otherwise there wouldn't be any need for the tribunal to redress wrongful dismissals.

Way to miss the point.

The idea is to show that both are nearly the same, i.e. the difference is too insignificant to adequately support Oerdin's drivel.

[Fake Boris]

Imran, did you know VJ tried to argue that France would be majoritarily Muslim in 30 years ?

You're talking to a wall of lamentations, i.e. Drake.

[RGBVideo]

They weren't using the term "states rights" in a race context but actually did believe in giving the states greater power.

...which was my point. Only race-baiting spinmeißters and their tools see racism where it doesn't exist, in both cases. Since you don't probably have an axe to grind in French elections, you're being the latter.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
generic denial, insults, backtracking and reframing the issue so it would fit the historical context, more insults

You know, since I don't see an apology but yet more personal attacks, I really wonder why I'm bothering to even answer to your arrogant idiocies.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Way to miss the point.

The idea is to show that both are nearly the same, i.e. the difference is too insignificant to adequately support Oerdin's drivel.

So you're saying that dismissing employees is an easy affair, provided employers break the law, which is why the law oughtn't be changed? Or am I missing the point again?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Colon™


So you're saying that dismissing employees is an easy affair, provided employers break the law, which is why the law oughtn't be changed? Or am I missing the point again?

Nope.

What I'm saying is that an employer in France can easily dismiss an employee, provided he states his motives in a registered letter.

The employee can contest the motives to a tribunal. But the procedures a) costs money that you won't see again if you lose your case and b) is very long.

Few workers appeal to the Prud'Hommes in any case, because there are mechanisms to prevent frivolous cases.

So the difference between at-will and the French system ?
1- an employer needs to document incompetence. I.E. punchcards showing he's always late, angry letter from a mistreated customer, testimony of co-workers.
2- needs to send warning of dismissal by registered mail (€ 4).

I'll be the first to concede that this can be annoyance to a boss. But that's supposed to explain France's economic 'paralysis' (which is a myth BTW, France does just fine, even though it could be better) ? Give me a break.