Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Ok, I'm aware that we have had alot of American political topics but I'm curious as to know from some of our European member (Tiddles, Del S, etc.) what kind of leaders are in power in different places of Europe and whether everyone over there hates them or loves them.

--------------------

Climhazzard is the timeless evil robot who runs some of the cool stuff at CoN (mostly logging chat, since there are no quizzes at the moment), all the while watching and waiting for his moment to take over the world. -Tiddles

As I'm sure you've heard, we're governed by a little chap named Tony Blair. This man is a complete idiot who idolises America and thinks that any successful (by his estimation) US policy is also the right thing here. He's Bush's lapdog. A viewer-voted Channel 4 Top 100 Worst Britons program placed him as the most hated Briton ever, for what it's worth.

Some personal favourite Blair moments:

• On his party being elected in 1997, the first thing he did was invite ultra-capitalist Margaret Thatcher to discuss how to run the country with him. This is supposed to be Britain's left wing party. Alarm bells.
• Announcing a policy to allow the police to take offenders to a cash machine on their arrest to get money out for a fine. The next morning, police leaders converged on 10 Downing Street to tell him why he had no idea.

But who the hell else are we going to vote for? We have the Idiot Principle-Abandoning Party (Labour, Blair's bunch, who were decent in the past), the Even Worse Racist Make-Up-Any-Policy-To-Beat-Labour Party (Conservatives, led by the permanently sneering, condescending Michael Howard) and The Unelectable Party (Liberal Democrats, who actually make some sense).

Democracy's a fine idea, but frankly I think it's a misuse of the term when the real choice of how the country ends up being run is basically zero. And they wonder why nobody turns up to vote any more. Hah!

Time to wake up and stop believing Thatcher's way was the only way, you ridiculous, moronic country of mine.

That's my opinion, anyway. Please avoid flaming if you can, because I'll feel compelled to reply and I don't want it to escalate. If you think I'm a lunatic, that's your call, just try not to lash out with the beats here, if you can.

This post has been edited by Tiddles on 23rd May 2004 07:30

Tiddles, I mean not to flame at all, so please do not think I am attacking you whatsoever.

Quote

On his party being elected in 1997, the first thing he did was invite ultra-capitalist Margaret Thatcher to discuss how to run the country with him.

Honestly, I still fail to find anything wrong within this situation. Great Britain is a country that earned its superiority over all other European Nations historically through its emphasis on capitalism. So how is it bad for your country to reemphasize these aspects / structure of society? Capitalism appeals to the innate desires of humanity, and very well at that.

Quote

Liberal Democrats, who actually make some sense

Ah, I should of suspected. Of course the conservatives are "condescending" and racist while the liberals are the source of "sense." This isn't a comment directed towards you personally, Tiddles, but people need to realize that liberals are just as a bad about sneakily demonstrating and providing evidence about their ideals as the conservatives. While I do not know as much about British politics, I do know that liberal friends of mine have pretty much absorbed the mindset that the conservatives provide only propaganda while the liberals only provide truthful insight--whereas, in reality, most liberals only provide their own recipe of propaganda in order to counter that of the conservative parties. For such reasons, I am careful to completely assess all aspects of plans / platforms that both sides provide. Like I said earlier, I am not as familiar with British politics as I am with U.S. politics, so if you could explain why exactly the liberal democrats "actually make some sense," that would be great.

Quote

Democracy's a fine idea, but frankly I think it's a misuse of the term when the real choice of how the country ends up being run is basically zero. And they wonder why nobody turns up to vote any more. Hah!

Time to wake up and stop believing Thatcher's way was the only way, you ridiculous, moronic country of mine.

You sort of contradict yourself. At first you say that the people don't have any say in how the government is run, then say that they must realize that Thatcher's way is not the only one. But, if there is no real choice in how the country is run then your country "waking up" would still yield no results. The whole "non responsive government" and "unenlightened populace" idea is a pretty standard liberal one–say that the government is being oppresive and that the people need to be educated about what is happening. What a "bleh" argument.

I do agree with you, though, about the moronic masses present within a democracy. It pains me to think that the majority of voters lack the education necessary to make sensible decisions... this is the case in ANY democratic country. Sure, we are giving everyone equal voting power.... but then again, we are giving complete idiots the same amount of voting power as educated individuals.

While I despise this aspect of democracy wholeheartedly, I still admit that it is one of the only working systems around at the moment.

Anyway, sorry if I sort of ranted there. I am a bit sensitive to the whole liberal vs. conservative split forming at the moment.... and a bit tipsy. I had no intention of offending or attacking your post, Tiddles, so I apoligize if I did so.

--------------------

Je ne t'aime plus,
Mon amour...

Je ne t'aime plus,
Tous les jours...

Quote

Great Britain is a country that earned its superiority over all other European Nations historically through its emphasis on capitalism.

Great Britain possesses superiority over the rest Europe? That's news to me. For as far as I can see, it's the Big Happy Three who you could see as Europe's most influential countries, which are Germany, France and GB. I don't think that in this aspect, there's one more important then the other. And you shouldn't forget about the smaller countries either: Belgium has some important things (current home of the Europian Union), and it's in fact The Netherlands who secretly rules Europe

Oh well, at least GB has a sucky politician who can count on some exterior respect. The first two things that come to mind when talking about our prime minister are these:

1. He looks like Harry Potter
2. He is a sucky politician

In that order.

Quote

While I despise this aspect of democracy wholeheartedly, I still admit that it is one of the only working systems around at the moment.

I wirte on a blog. Sadly, it's been out of business for a while now due to more interesting things that have popped up, but I wrote an entire article about this. I think I did a good job comparing all hypothetical and actual political systems.

For everybody interested in this article, I've put the massive rant right here below. The conclusion comes down to an indirect democracy, shouldn't you have the willpower to wade trough the thing.

Quote

Yesterday I had a lucky random encounter with a friend of mine, the well-respected J. We both agreed on the fact we didn't have anything better to do then continue our day together, and so it was done. He asked me about the latest entry on my blog, and I thought back to my post of March 20, Stuck. I explained the content of it to him, and then I asked him about another one of my posts, Worth and Value (March 3): What did he think? He picked John Locke as somebody who had accomplished a lot, and indeed valued him over a bum. More importantly: he picked him over two bums. Why did I ask that question? Did I disagree with him?

'No,' I said: 'But it's a point of view from which fascism is easily defendable.' This got us into a discussion of politics. What would, hypothetically, be the ultimate way of ruling a country? After we split and I had gotten back home, I drew a table: A triangle with the top angle called 'Control', the bottom left called 'Difference' and the bottom right called 'Equality'. I put the more extreme political believes in them (considering that an 'ultimate' way of ruling would never be 'part this and part that'). I came up with the following things:

First of all, Control is obvious. The more control, the more equality between men. Since men are normally inclined to wield words 'like inferiority' and 'superiority', they need guidance from 'above' (let it be God or a government) to make them share and look out for those they don't know. On the other hand, Control limitates freedom: the more the government tells you to do, the more rules there are to follow.

Anarchy is just that when there's nobody to rule. There is no system, only chaos. Anarchy fits exactly over the bottom left angle: there is NO control and therefore nobody to guide the helpless/less strong. Thus creating 100 % Difference between people. Taoism is an example of a more accepted way of anarchy, saying that rules are boundaries which lock a man up. There have been cases in which a government is overthrown and nothing comes close to replacing it: in those cases, anarchy exists. No matter what the true Taoist says: it doesn't work very good. For instance, there's nobody to put a stop to criminals.

The opposition of anarchy is the synarchy, a country that is completely ruled. The government controls everything. You've noticed that in a triangle, the more control you get the lesser the difference becomes between Difference and Equality. That's because less freedom (e.a. more Control) means less freedom to switch classes, less freedom to 'work yourself up the ladder of society'. In a synarchy, it doesn't matter if the foundation of it is based on Equality or Difference. It's like in 1984: The Neo-Communism and Fascism are totally alike. The Synarchy can fit exactly over the top angle: There is complete Control and you can see it both as an ultimate way of Equality or Difference. A very nasty system indeed, you could also call it Distopia.

The thirth system I'd like to discuss has never existed and will never exist: a dream-scenario in which there is NO Control and NO Difference. Unguided Equality. I would call this system Utopia if an Utopia wasn't so much more complicated. I will call it Infantile Utopia: it's the system that secretly exists in those alternate realities where the government isn't visible or prominent. Books for Children, for example. This 'system' fits in the bottom right angle of the Triangle.

These three systems were never serious ideas represented by a lot of people. We cannot function in an Anarchy, we don't want a Synarchy/Distopia in which we have nothing to say and we can never have an Infantile Utopia. So let's take a look at some systems that ARE represented in history and put to the test of life:

Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. This was found in an on-line dictionary. It's clear to the naked eye that Fascism represents a huge amount of Control and also a good amount of Difference above Equality. The best example of fascism in history is of course Hitler's Nazism. This is however not a very good example, since any source on Nazism is coloured by its war-driven past. Nazim is Fascism with a few spoons of racism thrown in. Hypothetically, Fascism would never be the 'ultimate' ruling system: the power comes down to one man. I'll get to the dangers of this later.

Marxism: the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society. In Marx his Utopia (I told you there was more to that word), there is no class. In other words: total Equality. This is ipso facto reached by a huge amount of Control. This was inherent to Marx' idea of an ultimate ruling system: the Government controls everything for the people, who all do their things in return for the same amount of money and goods. Although it's not a ridiculous idea (an erudite man like Marx would never have considered it in the first place if it were so), it can never work out. By installing this system, you take any drive a man can have to accomplish something. Whatever you do, you get the same results. This takes the 'fire' out of a country. People with simple jobs and people with incredibly complicated or demanding jobs get the same amount of money.

Monarchy: undivided rule or absolute sovereignty by a single person. That's very nasty. However, the example of this is mainly the monarchy of past times: the Dark Ages, so to speak.
Because there was nobody to govern anything near Equality, there was a lot of Difference. This allowed a big window for sloppy Control, and indeed: The Dark Ages are not known for their peace and quiet governing. I must say it's probably more the lack of tools to inflict Control then indifference at the time, as probably was the absence of Equality. Kings in the Dark Ages had more worries regarding keeping themselves alive then reducing the amount of poor people. Once again, in this system we have a single man/woman ruling the country. Not good.

Then finally the Democracy: : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. While this systems looks very promising and actually IS very pleasant (I should know, I'm in one of them), there are a couple of downsides to this system. First of all, no single person can make an important decision. That means the Democracy is always going to be a slow system, you always have to ask the opinion of others. In times of crises, the democratic ideals are immediatly shoved aside and it's just the government to say what's going to happen. Also, it can lead to extreme amounts of delay on things. Here in the Netherlands, some people have to wait YEARS for important things like housing, new organs, surgery, etc. All things that could be much more easily solved if the power would be in the hands of a single ruler.
Second, in a democracy little people are really happy. When you hold a meeting and reach an agreement, you could call it an agreement everybody agrees with. False statement. An agreement in this case is an agreement NOBODY is happy with. Everybody had to consider the other's position. The agreement makes sure both parties are a little content with the outcome. That builds into frustration, both parties believing that they have given the other party enough already.
Another big downside is the people itself. It's very nice that everybody can say what they want and vote what they want, but there is a slight problem: The Mass Is Stupid. I'm not pointing fingers at anybody but me here: I consider myself ill-informed. And I am absolutely certain that I am not alone in this. In a democracy, people who have no clue what's going on wield the power. At least, in a direct democracy: in an indirect democracy, people CHOSEN by people who have no clue what's going on wield the power. That's better then a bloodline, of course.

So finally, what's the ultimate system? It's easy. The ultimate system is the one-ruler scenario. One wise ruler who knows and sees all, understands all the consequences of all his decisions and knows what's best for the country. The problem, however, is that these people don't exist. Some kings/queens are said to be better then others, but all make mistakes. It's only human to make mistakes, but when a ruler of a country makes a bad one, the consequences are pretty heavy. If we could somebody create a perfectly logical mind, complex and sophisticated enough to deal with these things, I suggest we switch to this system.

But for now, my top score would go to the indirect democracy: it may be slow, and it may be boring. But the chance is nullified that a dangerous man will step forward and call out some crazy ideas on governing who takes over the power and makes a country a war-zone again.

Once we have noted that the ultimate system is the indirect democracy, we can re-direct our attention to other things. But wait a minute now: why don't all countries have an indirect democracy then? Am I still locked up in my own culture and heritige? I'd have to say YES, I am...but that's not the reason other people don't have an indirect democracy. There are, as far as I can say, two different scenario's in which the people willingly choose for something different then an indirect democracy. These are the following:

A: a theocracy
B: a dictatorship

In the case of a theocracy, it's simple. Let's assume there is a God. And then let's assume there are people who can understand God in a way we can't. I don't believe that both things are correct, but let's assume it. So we're assuming there are people who are more in touch with God then you and me. Since life is just one big test to see if you're good enough to fit into whatever version of Heaven there is, wouldn't you agree that this insignificant test is controlled by one who has a better vision on what comes next? I sure would. However, this system can lead to/resemble a:

Dictatorship. Inherent to a dictatorship is propaganda. Well, not directly, but any dictatorship without it would fall quicker then a man with a failing parachute. The leader and his gang need to convince the people that they are the strong leader that the hidden side of any human wants. They talk and they talk, have some pictures painted in which they are seen kissing smiling children, have some songs composed (our leader is a strong captain, together we can move a mountain, we can make our enemies run in fear, etc.), have some internal enemies of the state created (if not already there) such as Jews, the filthy communists, the lower species, etc. Pick any outcast you want to install instant hysteria and complete devotion to the leader in case of a successfull strike against there enemies (which, ofcourse, happen all the time whereas failures never occur, although the internal enemy is never quite destroyed). By brainwashing the people from one side and ill-informing them from another one, the leader can secure his position quite nicely.

Ofcourse, there is another one. This version is a scenario in which the largest part of society has NO interest in politics at all. Poor farmers in the northern regions of Russia, for example, wouldn't give a damn if Putin is or isn't a dictator as long as they're not stolen from by the government. Most people (those who Orwell calls the 'proles') drink their booze, bet at the lottery even if they never win anything and accept their government without feeling the need to change it. This is THE worst attitude any civilian can have, and should be fought against with all powers available.

--------------------

The Collapse of Heaven and Earth

Quote (Stephen the Third)

Quote

On his party being elected in 1997, the first thing he did was invite ultra-capitalist Margaret Thatcher to discuss how to run the country with him.

Honestly, I still fail to find anything wrong within this situation. Great Britain is a country that earned its superiority over all other European Nations historically through its emphasis on capitalism. So how is it bad for your country to reemphasize these aspects / structure of society? Capitalism appeals to the innate desires of humanity, and very well at that.

I could argue all day about why I'm not a fan of capitalism, but that's really what I want to avoid, especially since none of us will convince each other of anything. The point here is that he's the leader of the party which opposed Thatcher throughout the eighties, and which continued to do so until he took over it. If the Conservatives or a party rooted in their ideology were to come to power, I wouldn't bat an eyelid at Thatcher meetings. My complaint is that the opposition party no longer poses any real opposition to anything, since the two main parties are taking a pretty similar stance nowadays.

Quote (Stephen the Third)

Quote

Liberal Democrats, who actually make some sense

Ah, I should of suspected. Of course the conservatives are "condescending" and racist while the liberals are the source of "sense." This isn't a comment directed towards you personally, Tiddles, but people need to realize that liberals are just as a bad about sneakily demonstrating and providing evidence about their ideals as the conservatives. While I do not know as much about British politics, I do know that liberal friends of mine have pretty much absorbed the mindset that the conservatives provide only propaganda while the liberals only provide truthful insight--whereas, in reality, most liberals only provide their own recipe of propaganda in order to counter that of the conservative parties. For such reasons, I am careful to completely assess all aspects of plans / platforms that both sides provide. Like I said earlier, I am not as familiar with British politics as I am with U.S. politics, so if you could explain why exactly the liberal democrats "actually make some sense," that would be great.

I've no intention of portraying all conservatives as the hideous, lying, scourge of humanity or of liberals as the great, enlightened saviours of our kind, or anything like that. (In fact, I hate the whole idea of splitting everyone into "liberal" and "conservative" in the first place -- there's obviously much more to anyone's opinions than that). The fact remains, though, that Howard really does sound condescending every time he opens his mouth, at least to me (and I'm hardly the first to bring it up). I don't think that of former Conservative PM John Major, and I don't think that of my local Conservative MP Kenneth Clarke. Heck, I don't even think Thatcher sounded as sneering as him. And the fact also remains that a number of Conservative MPs have been expelled for overt racism in recent(ish?) years. (Okay, the party in itself isn't a racist body, but it has problems with it.) And if you look at former Conservative leader William Hague's policies leading up to the 2001 election, he really did appear to jump on any bandwagon he thought would give a little leverage over a Labour government which continues to hold a ridiculous majority. Labour has plenty of problems of its own, and I hardly regard them any more highly.

The Liberal Democrats tend to suffer from less scandal, and I'm going to guess at two reasons for this: firstly, as a smaller party they probably attract fewer people who are only in politics to make a career and a name for themselves (who tend to be more dishonest, in my humble opinion); secondly, again because of their smaller size, their politicians tend to escape the public eye more easily. As I say, I've no intention of pretending they're particularly better or more honest people than the others. My preference for the Liberal Democrats in terms of being a source of "sense" is obviously my opinion and I don't mean to present it as some kind of fact. However, they are the only party with any significant number of seats that generally hold a different ideology from the main two, and that's not enough seats to hold much sway in the Commons, which is unfortunate. And they naturally appeal more to students, as they've always opposed University tuition fees -- indeed, in Scotland, at the time of tuition fees being introduced (I can't comment on whether things have changed because I haven't kept up with Scottish parliament), Labour were in a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats and tuition fees were not introduced in that country.

Quote (Stephen the Third)

Quote

Democracy's a fine idea, but frankly I think it's a misuse of the term when the real choice of how the country ends up being run is basically zero. And they wonder why nobody turns up to vote any more. Hah!

Time to wake up and stop believing Thatcher's way was the only way, you ridiculous, moronic country of mine.

You sort of contradict yourself. At first you say that the people don't have any say in how the government is run, then say that they must realize that Thatcher's way is not the only one. But, if there is no real choice in how the country is run then your country "waking up" would still yield no results. The whole "non responsive government" and "unenlightened populace" idea is a pretty standard liberal one–say that the government is being oppresive and that the people need to be educated about what is happening. What a "bleh" argument.

The two paragraphs aren't connected. The first is a reflection on voter apathy, which is a real problem here, and I believe the only way to resolve it is to have a wider range of ideas you can place a vote behind (and have it make any difference). The second is saying, kind of... well, even in this case, a lot of people are going to vote towards the right. Which is fair enough, but it'd be nice to have some ideological opposition there when it actually comes to making any decisions.

I don't think the Government's really oppressive. (I do think they're liars, by and large, but not in connection with them being socialist, capitalist, liberal, conservative or anything else -- I just think there are a lot of dishonest career politicians in the UK). I WOULD like to see people educated better in critical thinking and presented some ideas from various ideologies, with the emphasis on making up your own mind, perhaps late in compulsory schooling. It's a pretty big ask, since it's hard to teach any such thing without a personal bias, but I think this is the other aspect of apathy: even supposing we did have more of a choice in voting, I still think a lot of people don't care about the issues and don't realise they can actually make a difference to people's lives. I think democracy is taken for granted too much.

Quote (Stephen the Third)

Anyway, sorry if I sort of ranted there.  I am a bit sensitive to the whole liberal vs. conservative split forming at the moment.... and a bit tipsy.  I had no intention of offending or attacking your post, Tiddles, so I apoligize if I did so.

Yeah, I don't want to see that either. I hope this post clarifies some of my remarks. I've no intention of portraying "conservatives" or "capitalists" or whatever categorisation as bad people, but I do think there should be more of a choice to really call it a democracy.

Actually, while I'm here, I'll throw out something else I thought of about British politics, or what I've seen of it lately. Those from elsewhere may or may not realise that we don't directly vote for the Prime Minister at any point: we vote for a local MP, and the leader of the party which has most MPs returned to the commons by this vote becomes the PM. It's not meant to be a Presidential position in any respect, but my impression is that this is very much how things are operating now -- Blair makes a decision, often without the Cabinet, and the party is expected to step into line behind it. I think this is pretty dangerous, given that most of us didn't elect him, nor choose him to lead his party. If we're going to have this kind of centralised policy-making, I think we DO need to change the constitution such that this figurehead is someone we all elect. Otherwise we should take a few steps back to the Cabinet having a greater influence.

This post has been edited by Tiddles on 23rd May 2004 10:46

Quote (Djibriel @ 23rd May 2004 04:18)

Quote

Great Britain is a country that earned its superiority over all other European Nations historically through its emphasis on capitalism.

Great Britain possesses superiority over the rest Europe? That's news to me.

Yes at one point this was true...Great Bitain was the only country ever to own Hong Kongt...if you've ever read anything about Chinese wars you know what kind of an accomplishment something like that is, and yes at one time Britain was a very powerful nation, but that was all in history.That's why I'm asking what it's like now 'cause I haven't really been keeping up with it.

--------------------

Climhazzard is the timeless evil robot who runs some of the cool stuff at CoN (mostly logging chat, since there are no quizzes at the moment), all the while watching and waiting for his moment to take over the world. -Tiddles

Quote

Great Britain possesses superiority over the rest Europe? That's news to me.

I meant historically. Britain chose to expand their production and focused on industrialism while other countries were not. Britain's emphasis on commerce and mercantilism boosted immensely the wealth in their nation, and their choice to industrialize without a doubt made them the superior (in regards to wealth and power) nation at that time in Europe.

Look at Spain. While Britain was increasing production and expanding its commerce Spanish nobles were still making feudal-style castles and looking for gold and silver bullion. It was the "capitalist" drive of Britain, its desire to expand its increasingly entrepreneurial economy, which made it the historically influential country that it became.

This post has been edited by Stephen the Third on 23rd May 2004 16:49

--------------------

Je ne t'aime plus,
Mon amour...

Je ne t'aime plus,
Tous les jours...

We have heard enougth about Blair i suppose, so lets talk about Jack and his merry men and women...

The Scottish Parliament is headed by Jack McConell, the first Minster, a New Labour man. His deputy, Jim Wallace, is Liberal Democratic . Opossition up here is currently the SNP- Scottish National Party.

Other prominents are the Conservatives, and smaller parties have hopped in via the Regional Vote, including the Scottish Socialist Party and Green Party.

We've got better representation for Women in our Parley than Westminster, i think, and i don't know about Ethnic Minorties (which are small in Scotland anyway compared to the rest of the UK)
Heres the current issues of the scottish political scene deemed newsworthy: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/scotla...and/default.stm

Personally, i think our Parliament's goign to get good when its not just a puppet for Westmisnter (IE when the SNP win it) but i dont really like many SNP Ideas. I'd love independence but not the way they want. I belive in the idea of Nuclear Deterrent, but oddly, not in the Trident Missle system. I would like an Independent Scotland to have a small Tactical Nuclear deterrent because our Army will be Tiny, and we need an ace.
I think the Socialists, once they start doing the Sums right and if they have the right ideas with Nukes -i've e-mailed a Socialist MSP to ask her what thier stance is-, might just be able to make this nation good for all but the Rich. which i will like as i'm never gonna be rich.

This post has been edited by Del S on 23rd May 2004 20:53

--------------------

"Only the dead have seen the end of their quotes being misattributed to Plato."
-George Santayana

"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here..."
-Abraham Lincoln, prior to the discovery of Irony.

I like Europe, except France. Nobody likes France though, except Germans.

And I don't think much of England, until they liberate Scotland anyway.

--------------------

My second daughter, if we have girls, will be named Rikku. I'm not kidding.

Quote (BlazeMacLeod of the clan MacLeod @ 24th May 2004 01:20)

Nobody likes France though, except Germans.

1870...1914...1940...and now in 2004 France and Germany are best friends? Further proof there is no God.

We need a good old fashioned Fourth Franco-German War, and this time Germany shall retake Elssen-Lothringien!

Deustchland Erwacht!

--------------------

Blood & Fire

Quote (BlazeMacLeod of the clan MacLeod @ 24th May 2004 08:20)

I like Europe, except France. Nobody likes France though, except Germans.

Well, thanks for that. I'll be sure to remember that whenever I go to any country except Germany, I have to watch my back. It's lucky my sister decided to go study in Germany, she might have gone near your place instead. I have some other words in mind, but I'll refrene from telling them : I don't want you to think less of french people than you already do.



As for french politics, some forewords are needed, and it's mostly vocabulary. French political party are either depicted as "right" or "left" party, right being what you would call in USA republican, and left being democrats. There is extreme parties on both sides, extreme left being communists (very little representation) and right being some sort of a racist party called the "Front National" (actually, not some sort, a real racist party : they emphasize on a "strong nation, keeping our borders and our jobs safe, etc..."). And there are centrists, wich have little representation too, except on some regional and city-size elections (some of them are ecologists, for that matter).

Our actual president is Jacques Chirac, and he's a representative of the right. The "Assemblée Nationale", who votes laws in first reading, and was elected the same year, in 2002, is also right.
This situation, who helps a lot in getting things done, wether the government is right or left, occured mainly because in 2002, on the presidential elections, the second turn ended up with an unusual face off : it's almost always been a face off between a leader from the right and the left, but this time, with the multiplication of little parties and the abstention, the face off was between Jacques Chirac (right) and Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the "Front National" (extreme right). This caused a massive uprise, wich ended up with an impressively low abstention rate on the second turn, and the election of Chirac with 82% of the votes (the Front National usually gets 15% on almost any elections...and yes, we're ashamed of that. At least I am). Due to this situation, and arguing about getting the newly elected president the "means to make it so this situation would never happen again", the right obtained a vast majority on the legislative elections.

Since then, the government has been putting up various reforms, such as increasing the number of cops in the streets because of insecurity (wich makes me feel like I almost live now in a police state...nowhere near a real one, but leading closer to one), and other impopular reforms about retirement age and social security. Due to an impopular Prime Minister (nowhere near the power of the english Prime Minister, he's nominated by the President to conduct the general politics), this led to a massive vote for the left earlier this year for the regional elections (only 1 region left for the right). To prove that they heard the people, the government changed, wich basically means that the various ministers changed seats, and that we have the same Prime Minister...so nothing's really changed, but the government can pretend that they did.

There. You can clearly see that I don't agree with most of the governmental decisions since 2002. In can't wait for 2007, for the next elections (presidential and legislative), and I hope that at the very least the "Assemblée Nationale" will turn left.

This post has been edited by Mr Thou on 24th May 2004 17:13

i'm not european, so i'm not sure if i'm qualified to post without it being considered off-topic (i'd be ever-so-unsurprised), but there's actually a very specifically european particular that came up in discussion the last week of uni before it let out for the summer: the french (let's call it this:) anti-religious icon law.

i think it's absolutely absurd, juvenile, and completely deviod of any semblance of respect. the fact that any country could bar the display of important, religion-integral icons under some pretense of upholding "seperation of church and state" (give me a break, like wearing a veil or a crucifix is really going to interfere with your government) completely appalls me. since when has the wearing of headscarves been a form of proselytising that detracts from the ability of france's public school functions to proceed normally (lol, necessary for the preserveation of france as a secular state my left foot...no other countries are having trouble with it)? and now all "ostentatious" religious icons will be banned? crucifixes? yarmulkes? what about all of the religious icons that cross over into mainstream, secular culture? france wants to get rid of culture?

you sicken me, france. your crusade to destroy religious proselytising has gone too far when it interferes with a right granted by your very own constitution. the freedom of religion and expression thereof is a right that nearly *all* civilised countries hold sacred to man. how dare you take it away?

Quote (BlazeMacLeod of the clan MacLeod @ 24th May 2004 07:20)

I like Europe, except France. Nobody likes France though, except Germans.

And I don't think much of England, until they liberate Scotland anyway.

I like France , the people. I like France, the Country (nice hills and stuff). I hate France, the Government. Any time i say i dislike a nation generally i refer to its Government, as its people are generally okay.

And so, i feel inspired to defenc the auld alliance after i found a few things out...

Quote (The Raging Newbie)

1870...1914...1940...and now in 2004 France and Germany are best friends? Further proof there is no God.

We need a good old fashioned Fourth Franco-German War, and this time Germany shall retake Elssen-Lothringien!

Deustchland Erwacht!

Dont see how thats proof theres no god. Theres a lot more, but certainly France and germany beign buddy-buddy could be viewed in fact as evidence of a god.

Personally, there's one French Government organisation i respect: The DGSE. the French Secret Service rule... they blew up hippies

Oh, and in the event of a franco-german war to happen tomorrow, France would win these days. They DO have a nuclear arsenal, the third largest on the earth apparently . Most of them Submarine Launched Ballist Missiles i belive.

(Info gained here)

well, i dunno about you but i respect the french a little more now i know that...

This post has been edited by Del S on 24th May 2004 13:08

--------------------

"Only the dead have seen the end of their quotes being misattributed to Plato."
-George Santayana

"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here..."
-Abraham Lincoln, prior to the discovery of Irony.

Quote (Mr Thou @ 24th May 2004 04:27)

Quote (BlazeMacLeod of the clan MacLeod @ 24th May 2004 08:20)

I like Europe, except France. Nobody likes France though, except Germans.

Well, thanks for that. I'll be sure to remember that whenever I go to any country except Germany, I have to watch my back. It's lucky my sister decided to go study in Germany, she might have gone near your place instead. I have some other words in mind, but I'll refrene from telling them : I don't want you to think less of french people than you already do.



As for french politics, some forewords are needed, and it's mostly vocabulary. French political party are either depicted as "right" or "left" party, right being what you would call in USA republican, and left being democrats. There is extreme parties on both sides, extreme left being communists (very little representation) and right being some sort of a racist party called the "Front National" (actually, not some sort, a real racist party : they emphasize on a "strong nation, keeping our borders and our jobs safe, etc..."). And there are centrists, wich have little representation too, except on some regional and city-size elections (some of them are ecologists, for that matter).

Our actual resident is Jacques Chirac, and he's a representative of the right. The "Assemblée Nationale", who votes laws in first reading, and was elected the same year, in 2002, is also right.
This situation, who helps a lot in getting things done, wether the government is right or left, occured mainly because in 2002, on the presidential elections, the second turn ended up with an unusual face off : it's almost always been a face off between a leader from the right and the left, but this time, with the multiplication of little parties and the abstention, the face off was between Jacques Chirac (right) and Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the "Front National" (extreme right). This caused a massive uprise, wich ended up with an impressively low abstention rate on the second turn, and the election of Chirac with 82% of the votes (the Front National usually gets 15% on almost any elections...and yes, we're ashamed of that. At least I am). Due to this situation, and arguing about getting the newly elected president the "means to make it so this situation would never happen again", the right obtained a vast majority on the legislative elections.

Since then, the government has been putting up various reforms, such as increasing the number of cops in the streets because of insecurity (wich makes me feel like I almost live now in a police state...nowhere near a real one, but leading closer to one), and other impopular reforms about retirement age and social security. Due to an impopular Prime Minister (nowhere near the power of the english Prime Minister, he's nominated by the President to conduct the general politics), this led to a massive vote for the left earlier this year for the regional elections (only 1 region left for the right). To prove that they heard the people, the government changed, wich basically means that the various ministers changed seats, and that we have the same Prime Minister...so nothing's really changed, but the government can pretend that they did.

There. You can clearly see that I don't agree with most of the governmental decisions since 2002. In can't wait for 2007, for the next elections (presidential and legislative), and I hope that at the very least the "Assemblée Nationale" will turn left.

Whoa, wait there a sec. I said nobody liked France, not that I hated French people. Hell, Alizee's one of my favorite singers. What I don't like is that there's been an Anti-USA sentiment over there for a long time. Our Anti-French idiologies didn't really start up until the recent Iraq War and war on Terror, and the French take it pesonally.

"I like France , the people. I like France, the Country (nice hills and stuff). I hate France, the Government. Any time i say i dislike a nation generally i refer to its Government, as its people are generally okay."

That's what I'm trying to say. I don't hate French people, if I saw a Frenchman walking down the street, I wouldn't be rude, I wouldn't kick his or her ass. I would probably be curious about their culture and country, as I would anyone I saw who was from another country.

And the french jokes, Hell, I joke about everything. I make racial jokes to my black friends, gay jokes to my gay friends. I even make Asian jokes, and I like Asians more than anyone. I talk about Kentucky's lack of indoor plumbing to one of my best online friends, who's from Kentucky. I keep telling Tron his state of Texas is Northern Mexico. And I've ripped on Baltimore and Canada hard. A friend of mine from Singapore has yet to go through a conversation without hearing the word "Caning". I rip on myself more than anyone. I just like making jokes any chance I get, so don't get mad and take it personal. I don't mean nothing by it. As I post here more, you'll start to get it.

--------------------

My second daughter, if we have girls, will be named Rikku. I'm not kidding.

Yeah just a comment to add for everyone to think about or discuss... in America awhile back there was a big boycott going on with French products...now really only the hardcore conservatives bought into this but that was a guy that ownd an Alcohol store in Texas when this started and he put all of his Frech wine in the front of the store with a sign that said "Get this Frenchy sh** out of my store," (no offense intended...those were his words not mine) along with certain stores and people here refusing to sell French Cologne. Why did this take place you ask? Simply because France condemned Bush for going to Iraq...the funny thing was that later on when we started uncovering things over there the Germans and the French sent us an apology about the whole thing...but yes the majority of people over here still hate France...it is true...I am not included in that seeing as how I have 3 bottles of French Cologne in my room. I guess I' didn't do so good of a job staying away from French products...heh, actually I didn't really see a point. Anyway, yes alot of people over here in the States are looking down pretty hard on France and Germany.

This post has been edited by Sephiroth on 25th May 2004 17:12

--------------------

Climhazzard is the timeless evil robot who runs some of the cool stuff at CoN (mostly logging chat, since there are no quizzes at the moment), all the while watching and waiting for his moment to take over the world. -Tiddles

They've boycotted French products because their politicians don't agree with U.S. politicians? That is the definition of childish. Seriously, this information takes me by surprise, and not a very pleasant one.

--------------------

The Collapse of Heaven and Earth

Nobody really boycotted french products except for extreme right-wingers. They did try to get people to start calling french fries, "freedom fries". It was good for a laugh.

Quote

yes the majority of people over here still hate France...it is true...

Idiots exist in every country. I wouldn't say that the majority of America is idiots. At least I hope not. Anyway, I disagree with that statement, I think a lot of people think it's fun to make jokes about France, but I don't think most of us hate the country or it's people. I for one don't make jokes or hate the country.

This post has been edited by The Ancient on 25th May 2004 16:02

--------------------

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

We really should get back on topic now...I'm sorry I took it so far off with my last post, I just wanted to make a statement about France...not really about how stupid the US is being...we have other topics for that and if we start posting it here R51 will close this topic.

This post has been edited by Sephiroth on 25th May 2004 17:17

--------------------

Climhazzard is the timeless evil robot who runs some of the cool stuff at CoN (mostly logging chat, since there are no quizzes at the moment), all the while watching and waiting for his moment to take over the world. -Tiddles