PDA

View Full Version : Nicolas Sarkozy wins French election :(



Goodbye
7th May 2007, 11:02 AM
Right Wing candiate Nicolas Sarkozy won the French election last night.

They just voted in their version of John Howard.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6630797.stm

sunrisesister
7th May 2007, 11:06 AM
I was really hoping Royal would scrape thru.... we shall see what transpires now... *sigh*

fiark
7th May 2007, 11:12 AM
*deleted*

BlowMeDown
7th May 2007, 11:26 AM
Right Wing candiate Nicolas Sarkozy won the French election last night.

They just voted in their version of John Howard.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6630797.stm

What they could have voted for a Rudd clone? I guess that could have been worthwhile to the French, get small businesses trapped into employing people who think they should get paid just for turning up to work, can't sack them, business goes down the toilet, employer and employee loose jobs, dole queue gets longer and all those people who went to Uni to earn a Masters or Phd, worked hard for years and years to earn good moning pay 49cents in the dollar to support all those unwed mothers, dole bludgers and women who think they deserve more time off at the the same rate of pay as a full time man. :rolleyes:

stewiesno1
7th May 2007, 11:30 AM
What they could have voted for a Rudd clone? I guess that could have been worthwhile to the French, get small businesses trapped into employing people who think they should get paid just for turning up to work, can't sack them, business goes down the toilet, employer and employee loose jobs, dole queue gets longer and all those people who went to Uni to earn a Masters or Phd, worked hard for years and years to earn good moning pay 49cents in the dollar to support all those unwed mothers, dole bludgers and women who think they deserve more time off at the the same rate of pay as a full time man. :rolleyes:

Ha. Don't hold back BlowMeDown . Tell us what you really think !
Stewie :D

BlowMeDown
7th May 2007, 11:35 AM
Ha. Don't hold back BlowMeDown . Tell us what you really think !
Stewie :D

I would but I don't want to offend anyone, I'd prefer to remain politically correct as is oh so popular these days :D

Razer
7th May 2007, 11:35 AM
What they could have voted for a Rudd clone? I guess that could have been worthwhile to the French, get small businesses trapped into employing people who think they should get paid just for turning up to work, can't sack them, business goes down the toilet, employer and employee loose jobs, dole queue gets longer and all those people who went to Uni to earn a Masters or Phd, worked hard for years and years to earn good moning pay 49cents in the dollar to support all those unwed mothers, dole bludgers and women who think they deserve more time off at the the same rate of pay as a full time man. :rolleyes:

Or you could regurgitate Howard propaganda. Are you seriously whinging about 'unwed' mothers?


BTW Sarkozy is a centre right candidate, i'd hardly call him right wing. The majority of his policies were developed to piss off the least number of people. Kinda like both parties in Australia really.

Jazarus
7th May 2007, 11:43 AM
What they could have voted for a Rudd clone? I guess that could have been worthwhile to the French, get small businesses trapped into employing people who think they should get paid just for turning up to work, can't sack them, business goes down the toilet, employer and employee loose jobs, dole queue gets longer and all those people who went to Uni to earn a Masters or Phd, worked hard for years and years to earn good moning pay 49cents in the dollar to support all those unwed mothers, dole bludgers and women who think they deserve more time off at the the same rate of pay as a full time man. :rolleyes:


Segolene Royal is no Rudd clone, far far from it. She is a true left candidate rather than a faux left which labor represents. Even though Sarkozy won (an ultra-right wing conservative nazi imho) it says a lot about the french that a true left candidate such as Royal got up to 47% of the votes.

At the end of the day she had no chance against another US gov sycophant who is very vocal of his love and admiration for the US of A (sound familiar *cough* John arse kisser Howard *cough* ). It is the CIA/NSA who decide the results of global election nowadays and its in their interest to have a pro-american western regime in power to ease the proliferation of global streamed-line capitalism which seek to take away more of our civil liberties every single day.

entropy
7th May 2007, 11:48 AM
Sarkozy is not right wing, in the Australian sense of economically liberal and socially conservative. The closest think he would be is a mercantilist.
The best you can say is he may get growth back on track (heh, make the trains run on time!) and perhaps actually do something about unemployment in france. Since the Thatcher revolution in Britain, while France slept the UK has leapt past in GDP, from well behind, and now has an economy five percent larger than france, but with none of France's natural advantages.

We are lucky we are not french voters: Vote either for the bugger that will result in a lot of (temporary) unrest from the far left and the far right; or vote for the woman who promises kittens for everyone!

Jazarus
7th May 2007, 12:02 PM
or vote for the woman who promises kittens for everyone!


I googled and found no reference of her promising such, I hope you're not being sexist entropy? I find it hard to believe someone in 2007 having such views.

benmcgruer
7th May 2007, 12:03 PM
What do you expect when most of the media in the world is owned by right wing propagandists. The people are hynotised into it.

If a right wing candidate/party wins any election it's always because the people were fooled into it. Or bribed. Or coerced. Or hypnotised (oblig. Futurama quote: "All glory to the hypnotoad.").

Why can't people accept that there are a large number (in this case a majority) that believe in the policies/ideals promoted by one party? As a I mentioned in another thread, there's nothing more amusing the the righteous indignation of the left after they lose. There's always an attitude of moral and intellectual supremacy, that somehow justice was subverted.

I must have missed the speeches where Sarkozy pulled out his pocket watch, swinging it slowly backward and forwards. . . You are getting very sleepy. . .

Personally I would have liked Royal to have won, since the only affect on me is having to see the winner on the news, and she is a lot hotter than Sarkozy.

benmcgruer
7th May 2007, 12:12 PM
It is the CIA/NSA who decide the results of global election nowadays and its in their interest to have a pro-american western regime in power to ease the proliferation of global streamed-line capitalism which seek to take away more of our civil liberties every single day.

How'd the CIA/NSA pull off this one? Mind-control ray guns? Was it orbiting death-stars with laser projected pencils that can alter people's votes after they have been cast? Maybe Elvis made a secret come-back from beyond the grave and along with the surviving Roswell aliens formed a super-band to record Sarkozy's theme song, which using highly advanced subliminal techniques forced people to vote right? Or did they use superliminal techniques ("Hey you! Vote Sarkozy!")?

What they hell is with all the conspiracy theories lately?

evmorg
7th May 2007, 12:15 PM
I googled and found no reference of her promising such, I hope you're not being sexist entropy? I find it hard to believe someone in 2007 having such views.

I suspect a large portion of the population continue to hold these views (this based on nothing but personal observation). However, in 2007, the espousal of such views is widely condemned, as you demonstrated. Not saying I agree with the aforementioned views, but there's a hell of a lot of closet red-necks out there.

snark
7th May 2007, 12:21 PM
Sarkozy or Royal? Pfffft, neither alters the reality that they are a nation of cheese-eating surrender monkeys. :p

Razer
7th May 2007, 12:29 PM
Why can't people accept that there are a large number (in this case a majority) that believe in the policies/ideals promoted by one party? .

Because these days that's hardly ever reality. Politics on all side is completely marketing and political spin. If you look at the last Australian election alot of people would of voted for Howard because Latham was a bit of a freak. That had nothing to do with people like Howard's policies. It has become about voting for the party/leader you dislike the least. It's a rather simplistic view to think elections are won policies/ideals promoted by the party. It should be about that but it isn't and never will be again.

benmcgruer
7th May 2007, 12:40 PM
That had nothing to do with people like Howard's policies. It has become about voting for the party/leader you dislike the least. It's a rather simplistic view to think elections are won policies/ideals promoted by the party. It should be about that but it isn't and never will be again.

I'd say it's condescending to voters to say that policies have nothing to do with it, of course perception and personalities will come into play. But at the end of the day it's people voting for the leader/party under which they think they will be be better off, or as you put it, the leader/party under which they will be least bad off (the same thing in my opinion). And determination of 'least bad off' is going to take into consideration (maybe only subconsciously for some people) all factors, including policies. But that's Democracy and it's far from ideal.

bazscott
7th May 2007, 12:41 PM
I agree with Razer actually, the lack of a credible opposition to Howard is the biggest problem.

On the french thing, it seems to me a good thing that Royal didn't get in, from an Aussie point of view, given that her brother blew up the Greenpeace ship in Auckland Harbour - who knows what she would have done next!!

EDIT: From the antipodean point of view, sorry, don't want to offend the Kiwis

Jazarus
7th May 2007, 12:41 PM
How'd the CIA/NSA pull off this one? Mind-control ray guns? Was it orbiting death-stars with laser projected pencils that can alter people's votes after they have been cast? Maybe Elvis made a secret come-back from beyond the grave and along with the surviving Roswell aliens formed a super-band to record Sarkozy's theme song, which using highly advanced subliminal techniques forced people to vote right? Or did they use superliminal techniques ("Hey you! Vote Sarkozy!")?

What they hell is with all the conspiracy theories lately?


Social engineering through strategically placed ads and proliferation of imagery in general which suggest a woman wouldn't make a good leader, stage violent protests using easily led and impressionable uni students to link the socialist party with radical left-wing extremists, fake call-in to radio shows to make it seem that there are lot more Sarkozy supporters than there really are and people feeling the need to follow a "perceived" majority.

And there are many other techniques that the CIA employs behind the scenes to influence the undecideds who have no fixed views, and there are a lot of those folks around. Good old fashioned leaflets with no trace of where they came from or who printed them is stock and trade of the CIA, any agent worth their salt would be adept at making them. These techniques will be used here as well especially nearing the Aus election.

snark
7th May 2007, 12:49 PM
...On the french thing, it seems to me a good thing that Royal didn't get in, from an Aussie point of view, given that her brother blew up the Greenpeace ship in Auckland Harbour - who knows what she would have done next!!

EDIT: From the antipodean point of view, sorry, don't want to offend the Kiwis
Good point. From our point of view, it is far to simplistic to view it as a contest between left and right. It would be more interesting to hear some analysis of what it means to the Pacific region. Maybe Royal would have overseen the implementation of barriers to Australian trade. Perhaps Sarkozy will re-introduce nuclear testing. Maybe neither actually knows that Australia exists.

speedway boy
7th May 2007, 12:50 PM
Social engineering through strategically placed ads and proliferation of imagery in general which suggest a woman wouldn't make a good leader, stage violent protests using easily led and impressionable uni students to link the socialist party with radical left-wing extremists, fake call-in to radio shows to make it seem that there are lot more Sarkozy supporters than there really are and people feeling the need to follow a "perceived" majority.

And there are many other techniques that the CIA employs behind the scenes to influence the undecideds who have no fixed views, and there are a lot of those folks around. Good old fashioned leaflets with no trace of where it came from or who printed them is stock and trade of the CIA, any agent worth their salt would be adept at making them. These techniques will be used here as well especially nearing the Aus election.


bwaaaaahahahahaha......
oh the tears.....hahahahahaha.....can't type..hehehehe..

My day is now infinitely better from reading that...
oh no..theres a knock at the door! The boogie mans here!

speedway boy
7th May 2007, 12:58 PM
If Royal had got in France would have become economically ruined.
The country is going backwards at a rate of knots and has watched Britain surge ahead. Royals left wing welfare state handholding would have broken france once and for all.

Now as for Sarkozy, well he certainly aint perfect. But france can't afford to spend its way out of a groaning welfare state.

France should look to Britain as see how a modern market economy can work in good balance with a welfare safety net for all.

Jazarus
7th May 2007, 12:59 PM
bwaaaaahahahahaha......
oh the tears.....hahahahahaha.....can't type..hehehehe..

My day is now infinitely better from reading that...
oh no..theres a knock at the door! The boogie mans here!

Glad to have provided you /w some entertainment
that is something at least :p

OziMac
7th May 2007, 01:20 PM
What I have a massive problem with is that 47 per cent of the population get stuck with a candidate that is diametrically opposed to what they want out of their government. In the US in 2000 it was over 50 per cent.

So much for democracy as an effective representative form of government. Absolutely power to a slim majority.

benmcgruer
7th May 2007, 01:26 PM
What I have a massive problem with is that 47 per cent of the population get stuck with a candidate that is diametrically opposed to what they want out of their government. In the US in 2000 it was over 50 per cent.

So much for democracy as an effective representative form of government. Absolutely power to a slim majority.

That's why the French have a National Assembly and a Senate, and the US have a Congress and a Senate in addition to a President. It's not perfect either but it does lessen the impact of one democratically elected Supreme Overload.

Jazarus
7th May 2007, 01:31 PM
That's why the French have a National Assembly and a Senate, and the US have a Congress and a Senate in addition to a President. It's not perfect either but it does lessen the impact of one democratically elected Supreme Overload.

Not really when the president can veto the resolutions made by the senate as much as he likes until he gets one to his agreement or is impeached :cool:

benmcgruer
7th May 2007, 01:35 PM
Not really when the president can veto the resolutions made by the senate as much as he likes until he gets one to his agreement or is impeached :cool:

I presume you're talking about Bush, since the French president cannot really veto anything (he can only request a re-reading of the law, and only once per law), and even G.W.'s only made one veto in 7 years, hardly an abuse of authority.

EDIT: And even the US President's veto can be overruled by a 2/3 majority of Congress and the Senate.

SRG
7th May 2007, 01:38 PM
Not really when the president can veto the resolutions made by the senate as much as he likes until he gets one to his agreement or is impeached :cool:

Simply not true a Presidential Veto can be overturned on a vote in by Congress(two thirds majority in each house as outlined here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto). Simply on the last issue the Dems did not have the numbers (I suspect they didn't want to anyway as the bill was about point scoring as much as anything else).

Also you say the CIA won't allow a woman leader...must have missed the last German election then!

Edit fixed the requirements for Veto and added link

OziMac
7th May 2007, 01:54 PM
That's why the French have a National Assembly and a Senate, and the US have a Congress and a Senate in addition to a President. It's not perfect either but it does lessen the impact of one democratically elected Supreme Overload.

I don't think those kind of checks and balances can really ever be effective - they're still predicated on majority rule, and so by design you either get houses that fall directly in line behind the supreme 'overload' (;)) in which case they're totally useless, or ones who resist but can never really drive a legislative agenda or practually overturn the decisions of the supreme overload and are reduced to being the spoilt children who kick and scream to no avail.

It applies on both sides of politics - democracy simply isn't 'representative' in anything but name.

I like the title supreme overload though. ;)

sunrisesister
7th May 2007, 02:04 PM
If Royal had got in France would have become economically ruined.

I agree. Those french bitches do nothing but buy expensive haute couture, sip pricey wine at every meal, and eat fancy cheese! The whole country would allez aux chiens!

kidding!!!!!!!!

Jazarus
7th May 2007, 02:13 PM
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/3539/c54s61ti8.gif

Disko
7th May 2007, 02:23 PM
At least they're not an apathetic lot like our fellow Australians.

Riot over Sarkozy win (http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21683425-601,00.html)

fiark
7th May 2007, 03:01 PM
*deleted*

Jazarus
7th May 2007, 03:19 PM
Are you trying to tell me that all of the right wing media propaganda (of which 98% of global media is - rupert murdoch the largest player and he is trying now to buy wall st journal) does not have an effect on the consciousness of the people?? News, Radio, Magazines, Movies and soon to be internet?

You are more hypnotised than you realise if you think people are making up their own minds in the world. Some quote says something like - none is more hopelessly enslaved than those who truly believe they are free - or some such.

The only way you can be free from the propaganda is to divest yourself of nearly every form of media in the world. At the moment the Internet is a place where you can find all sorts of views away from their control techniques - but don't worry they are working on changing that. Anyone for Internet 2?


fiark I agree with your sentiments about the neo-con media propaganda machine entirely, and I'd like to know who said that quote it rings so true.

(just googled it was Goethe who said the quote)

As for the internet, their strategy is to flood the internet with so much information on a particular subject even to the point of making conspiracy sites of the truth themselves, just to muddy the waters enough so nothing solid and concrete comes through for the average non-discerning web-surfer. :cool:

fiark
7th May 2007, 03:25 PM
*deleted*

natakim
7th May 2007, 03:29 PM
Are you trying to tell me that all of the right wing media propaganda (of which 98% of global media is - rupert murdoch the largest player and he is trying now to buy wall st journal) does not have an effect on the consciousness of the people?? News, Radio, Magazines, Movies and soon to be internet?

christ you people are paranoid. rupert just wants you to have a nice life, and if you could spare a penny, then maybe you could buy one of his informative publications. as we are all rational beings, capable of reason, then certainly our psyches are free. i mean it's not like they could construct a world view or anything, not like they could influence who i think i am and how i navigate the world. no no, i'm safe in my knowledge that the world presents itself to me as it really is, and i have all the facts i need to understand what happens around me.

Disko
7th May 2007, 03:31 PM
Damn right natakim! We don't need an objective and accurate reporting base in our major media organisations! If people want to know what's going on, they should look into it themselves!!

</sarcasm>

natakim
7th May 2007, 04:00 PM
what i can't quite figure out... all those who keep mocking the 'paranoid' and 'conspiracy theorists', do they do this because they believe the statements/conclusions are obviously false, or is it because they see themselves within some sort of cartesian paradigm? are they (the mockers) beyond the problem of the evil demon, they are certain in what they know, and unable to be mislead?

so if one can day, well that is obviously crap. well upon what is that judgment made. one's own internal sense of reason, or is it the accumulated effects of rupert's information network?

fiark
7th May 2007, 04:30 PM
*deleted*

benmcgruer
7th May 2007, 04:34 PM
what i can't quite figure out... all those who keep mocking the 'paranoid' and 'conspiracy theorists', do they do this because they believe the statements/conclusions are obviously false, or is it because they see themselves within some sort of cartesian paradigm? are they (the mockers) beyond the problem of the evil demon, they are certain in what they know, and unable to be mislead?

It's not a delusion of certainty, but an attempt at assessing the likelihood. Of course there can be no certainties in life. The picture in my avatar may well be a face on Mars, constructed by an advanced alien civilisation. Or it may simply be an artefact of my imagination, triggered by suitable lighting conditions.

Baseless conjecture, with no evidence, adds nothing to any discussion. When someone comes in and says the French election has just been rigged by the CIA and NSA - I wouldn't rule it out completely, just like I wouldn't rule out the possibility that there is no actually country called France and it's a conspiracy by Mr Murdoch to distract me from the fact that John Howard is about to give Tasmania back to the Dutch in exchange for magic beans. It's just very unlikely and there's no evidence supporting it.

At least with my face on Mars, people have constructed computer models and simulations to demonstrate evidence that could be construed as supporting the idea that the face is artificial. In this case all we have is idle speculation, no leaked US documents, no correlations with CIA operatives travelling to France. Nothing.

There is simply not enough time in life to consider every possible cause of any event, we need to apply Occam's Razor and move on. One needs to act in faith sometimes, otherwise I'd still be in bed wondering whether a black hole has appeared in the floor and I'm about to be crushed into a singularity.

speedway boy
7th May 2007, 04:41 PM
Ok I'll bite.

I mock because they are loony crackpot 'the world is out to get me' ideas. The world is actually a little more boring than that.
Do I have to back that statement up. No. I'm happy with my bullshit detector.

fiark
7th May 2007, 04:43 PM
*deleted*

speedway boy
7th May 2007, 04:44 PM
It's not a delusion of certainty, but an attempt at assessing the likelihood. Of course there can be no certainties in life. The picture in my avatar may well be a face on Mars, constructed by an advanced alien civilisation. Or it may simply be an artefact of my imagination, triggered by suitable lighting conditions.

Baseless conjecture, with no evidence, adds nothing to any discussion. When someone comes in and says the French election has just been rigged by the CIA and NSA - I wouldn't rule it out completely, just like I wouldn't rule out the possibility that there is no actually country called France and it's a conspiracy by Mr Murdoch to distract me from the fact that John Howard is about to give Tasmania back to the Dutch in exchange for magic beans. It's just very unlikely and there's no evidence supporting it.

At least with my face on Mars, people have constructed computer models and simulations to demonstrate evidence that could be construed as supporting the idea that the face is artificial. In this case all we have is idle speculation, no leaked US documents, no correlations with CIA operatives travelling to France. Nothing.

There is simply not enough time in life to consider every possible cause of any event, we need to apply Occam's Razor and move on. One needs to act in faith sometimes, otherwise I'd still be in bed wondering whether a black hole has appeared in the floor and I'm about to be crushed into a singularity.


hahaha
What he said...

fiark
7th May 2007, 04:45 PM
*deleted*

fiark
7th May 2007, 04:55 PM
*deleted*

feeze
7th May 2007, 04:59 PM
I love how people go on about right wing propaganda, especially considering the left wing is no better. They too are guilty or brainwashing etc etc.

All political parties are the same and they all consist of power hungry, brainwashed fools whose only real interest is pushing their own agenda.

There are only 2 things that matter in the world, money and power.

You are just one of billions and billions of humans who have lived over hundreds and thousands of years. Every single one of us, throughout history, has only one goal in life. To be the king insect on our little pile of shit. That is the way we are programmed, without it the homo-sapian would of died out thousands of years ago.

There is no grand conspiracy.

All it is is people trying to make their little pile of shit bigger.

Rupert Murdoch only prints right wing publications because that's what sells the most papers. It makes him wealthier and thus makes his pile of shit bigger. If the western world all of a sudden had a massive swing towards left wind thinking, then no doubt, all of a sudden Murdoch's papers would push left wing propaganda.

Same thing goes for that Alzheimers thread. All that is is a company has seen a need and way to capitalise on it. In other words it has found a way to make money. It is not some evil scheme to control the populace. Just some person trying to make his shit hill bigger.

Life is all about accumulating shit, taking other peoples shit and manipulating others to give you their shit. Then you die and some one starts accumulating their own shit pile and the cycle repeats. Life goes on and you just become a forgotten memory, one of the billions and billions of people throughout the history of humanity.

fiark
7th May 2007, 05:06 PM
*deleted*

natakim
7th May 2007, 05:29 PM
There are only 2 things that matter in the world, money and power.

Every single one of us, throughout history, has only one goal in life. To be the king insect on our little pile of shit. That is the way we are programmed, without it the homo-sapian would of died out thousands of years ago.

There is no grand conspiracy.

seems to me you may have just created your own grand conspiracy.

every single one of us indeed.:D

SRG
7th May 2007, 05:39 PM
Rupert Murdoch only prints right wing publications because that's what sells the most papers. It makes him wealthier and thus makes his pile of shit bigger. If the western world all of a sudden had a massive swing towards left wind thinking, then no doubt, all of a sudden Murdoch's papers would push left wing propaganda.


Correct hence he hosted a Dinner for Hillary Clinton. He feels a change in the wind and will if needed jump ship. Also many forget he backed Blair into power in England.

feeze
7th May 2007, 05:44 PM
seems to me you may have just created your own grand conspiracy.

every single one of us indeed.:D

Quite true.

People say they think for themselves and draw their own conclusions. But the questions has to be asked, how exactly do they draw their conclusions? do they listen to what other people say and draw their conclusions of that? If so then you are being manipulated. Or do they ponder the world around them and draw conclusions from their own creative insight. If so then what, do you go out and tell the world of your theory. Try and manipulate others into believing it. Or do you keep it to yourself and take satisfaction in your new found enlightenment? (Which of course no one will ever know about)

As you said, I myself am guilty of this. If only one person reads what I say and believes it, then my shit hill got a little bigger. If everyone else reads it and thinks I'm full of shit, well at least I'm getting attention from a complete bunch of strangers :P

Everybody has an opinion. Everybody thinks their opinion is correct. Everybody will try to convince everyone else to believe in their opinion.

EDIt: Also to answer the topic. Good for the winner. The French people voted and he won, it is after all their choice.. Personally I couldn't really care who is the President of a nation I am not a citizen of and has very little influence over my own country. As long as they do not commit terrible crimes against eh people that is.

natakim
7th May 2007, 07:13 PM
It's not a delusion of certainty, but an attempt at assessing the likelihood. Of course there can be no certainties in life. The picture in my avatar may well be a face on Mars, constructed by an advanced alien civilisation. Or it may simply be an artefact of my imagination, triggered by suitable lighting conditions.

There is simply not enough time in life to consider every possible cause of any event, we need to apply Occam's Razor and move on. One needs to act in faith sometimes, otherwise I'd still be in bed wondering whether a black hole has appeared in the floor and I'm about to be crushed into a singularity.

if we eliminate certainty, there is still the question of the ground upon which the assessing takes places. according to what criteria are these assessments made. there would still appear to be within your claim a sense that transcendental truth is possible, or at least that the desire for it is what shapes the processes. ie, we can't have certainty but we approach the world in a way that looks for objective truths in the world. surely the structures of knowledge that make knowing possible, are in fact resultant from particular forms of discursive practices, certain types of representations of the world, and as such all our evaluations are formed within some form of framing reference.

entropy
7th May 2007, 08:30 PM
I googled and found no reference of her promising such, I hope you're not being sexist entropy? I find it hard to believe someone in 2007 having such views.

Umm, that was a joke. As in - her policies are sweet little nothings for people that want to feel good. This would be true if she were a male. Next time I will /sarcasm. Sheesh.

benmcgruer
7th May 2007, 08:32 PM
if we eliminate certainty, there is still the question of the ground upon which the assessing takes places. according to what criteria are these assessments made. there would still appear to be within your claim a sense that transcendental truth is possible, or at least that the desire for it is what shapes the processes. ie, we can't have certainty but we approach the world in a way that looks for objective truths in the world. surely the structures of knowledge that make knowing possible, are in fact resultant from particular forms of discursive practices, certain types of representations of the world, and as such all our evaluations are formed within some form of framing reference.

I'm sorry, I've only had one beer, but I really have no idea what you're trying to convey here. But I'm sure it has lots of big words, and quite possibly I agree with you.

entropy
7th May 2007, 08:35 PM
Rupert Murdoch only prints right wing publications because that's what sells the most papers. It makes him wealthier and thus makes his pile of shit bigger. If the western world all of a sudden had a massive swing towards left wind thinking, then no doubt, all of a sudden Murdoch's papers would push left wing propaganda.


Correct hence he hosted a Dinner for Hillary Clinton. He feels a change in the wind and will if needed jump ship. Also many forget he backed Blair into power in England.

I have heard that HILLARY!* is the preferred democrat to become President amongst Republican circles.


* it is important that Hillary is pronounced HILLARY! (you know it just sounds like it should).
ps. Ohh, Jazurus - that was a joke.

bolle
7th May 2007, 08:44 PM
i wonder if Royal would have given everyone cake this time?

natakim
7th May 2007, 08:56 PM
I'm sorry, I've only had one beer, but I really have no idea what you're trying to convey here. But I'm sure it has lots of big words, and quite possibly I agree with you.

we can give up certainty, but what does that then mean? how to we then understand the world, as a series of cause and effects, of which we have representational knowledge?

i doubt we can just strip away excess ideas and reduce things and events to a minimal form, so nominalism is out the door. how about, everything we experience is an interpretation, but not of some fixed whole that stands external to us, rather an interpretation formed through bodies of knowledge that give intelligibility to the world.

spargo
7th May 2007, 11:33 PM
I'm sorry, I've only had one beer, but I really have no idea what you're trying to convey here. But I'm sure it has lots of big words, and quite possibly I agree with you.
I've had two beers and that last one is no clearer than the one you tried to make sense of.

Danamania
8th May 2007, 01:49 AM
http://www.danamania.com/temp/dh.gif

BlowMeDown
8th May 2007, 09:02 AM
i wonder if Royal would have given everyone cake this time?

There is no historical evidence that Marie Antoinette said "Let them eat cake".

The quotation was first written by French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in Confessions. Actually, Rousseau wrote "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche," which essentially means "let them eat a type of egg-based bread" (not quite cake, but still a bit extravagant). Rousseau claimed that "a great princess" told the peasants to eat cake/brioche when she heard they had no bread.

But Rousseau wrote this in early 1766, when Marie Antoinette was only 10 years old, still living in her native Austria and not yet married to King Louis XVI. So it's highly unlikely that Marie uttered the pompous phrase. Perhaps Rousseau invented them to illustrate the divide between royalty and the poor -- which is certainly how the phrase has been used ever since.

However, "Let them eat brioche" isn't quite as cold a sentiment as you might imagine. At the time, French law required bakers to sell fancy breads at the same low price as the plain breads if they ran out of the latter. The goal was to prevent bakers from making very little cheap bread and then profiting off the fancy, expensive bread. Whoever really said "Let them eat brioche" may have meant that the bakery laws should be enforced so the poor could eat the fancy bread if there wasn't enough plain bread to go around.

A recent biographer claims that "Let them eat cake" was actually spoken by Marie-Therese, wife of France's Louis XIV, 100 years before Marie Antoinette, but there is no historical evidence to corroborate this. Ultimately, we will probably never know who uttered this infamous phrase.