L' Election Présidentielle 2007 / French Presidential Election [R]

[Pike]

Your position combines both an assumption of greed as a core aspect of human nature, in addition to other multiple aspects that you alluded to. Their mere concurrent existence is self-defeating given that like your argument about self-interest, you do not provide any explication of how these operate together and also within the larger argument of the broken socialist dream (i.e. Marx's historical materialism).

and around we go,... how many times must I state that greed is the aspect that undermines socialism.



Developing theory? Theories on international relations have existed for ages,

Well, good for them.


even long before the rise of IR as a academic field, and even the most simple commentary upon the international system will at least offer a nuanced analysis of a) the context in which movements in the international domain take place and b) the actors within this context and their behaviors. Integral to this is an actual definition of self-interest, the term being hugely fundamental, because reconciling both A and B, requires that the role self-interest be defined given the system's actors and how national interest is projected upon the rest of the world. Your "theory" accomplishes neither, and actually trips over itself when seeking to develop a coherent image of politics on the global stage.

How can I trip over myself when its too vague for your liking?



As for my definition of anarchy, our entire foreign policy was largely based exactly upon this assumption of an anarchic international system - i.e. the realists, who based their arguments upon their pessimistic (self-interested) view of human nature and the philosophies of Macchiavelli, Hobbes, and the like. The observation has considerable weight in both academic and governmental fields given that Hans Morgenthau and George Kennan had an enormously significant influence inside and on the United States as well as elsewhere. So no, these are not little games and certainly not some brilliant explanatory paradigm that I made up, although the logic is admittedly quite simple to understand. For some.

Goofiness once again,... you know the context in which I was using the term anarchy. I referred to anarchy as the absence of government; as a state that is not pernament, but only temporary, that is, until an entity (Government) assumes control. It is my belief that anarchy or a community based on libertarian socialistic principles will not exist for long. Eventually, an etity, seeking an accumulation of more wealth, will take control over a larger area.

Still waiting for YOUR point of view... though I am getting more and more pessimistic by the post.

[ilv2]

and around we go,... how many times must I state that greed is the aspect that undermines socialism.

How can I trip over myself when its too vague for your liking?


And once again, the argument that greed is simply the one specific of many aspects of human nature that undermines socialism, presents an inherent conflict between every other aspect of man, a conflict that you have never bothered to or been capable of resolving in your critique of Marx. If you cannot even resolve the "hard reality" of the innately self-serving man with his - according to you - pluralistic human nature, then you are simply spewing a nonsense. Give me a yes or no answer, can you make the small leap in logic required to understand this dilemma? If not, I will go back once again and clarify it for you because it is truly more pertinent in terms of the original discussion revolving around Marx.

As for you tripping over yourself... reread, reread, reread. It's explained in the post, reread and respond, do not ask silly questions.


Well, good for them.

Goofiness once again,... you know the context in which I was using the term anarchy. I referred to anarchy as the absence of government; as a state that is not pernament, but only temporary, that is, until an entity (Government) assumes control. It is my belief that anarchy or a community based on libertarian socialistic principles will not exist for long. Eventually, an etity, seeking an accumulation of more wealth, will take control over a larger area.

Good for them indeed.
The state inevitably seeking more wealth is uncontrolled! That is, at its very essence, an anarchic international system. As for the consitituents within a state being under the control of a government, sure, control exists at that level - a point that I left because I agree with it (331 and a billion other posts).
You are making a ludicrous jump in logic by applying the delightful conception of a reified self-regulating international order eliminating the manifestation of stateless society, to the value of uncontrolled, self-serving greed. This conclusion is supported by the examples you provided below I assume? The first persian gulf war was a coalition of UN nations to expel one state that had invaded another. World War I featured the US helping to resolve an conflict between warring state powers - i.e. the UK, France, Germany, etc. In the thirty years' war, fighting was done between representative religious and political powers against each other. The war in Iraq is the US invading the sovereign state of Iraq and actually managing to unravel the system of control within the country's borders. Now where, oh where, in any of your examples does the proletarian, anarchic, classless state even appear as an actor to lend some credibility that a classless state is impossible given the nature of global politics.
And to assume that this mishmash can actually constitute a critique of Marx is utterly hilarious. Again, analyze Marx on his own terms rather than attacking him with an underdeveloped and hugely unsound compilation of personal musings.


Still waiting for YOUR point of view... though I am getting more and more pessimistic by the post.

My point of view of man and state specifically came in #331 - top of the page - and oh dear, you have actually quoted it before. It begins as follows... "Personally, I see that man and state operate upon two different conscious levels..."

Let's take a step back, however, and reemphasize the idea of self-serving man, because that essentially is Marx's interest - to examine the social condition wherein man is his essential self, and the condition wherein he is a constructed being.

[guignol]

That drawing does not look like Sarkozy at all.my reaction exactly. my guess is that for all their drooling over him, o'reilly or coulter couldn't pick sarko out of a police lineup.

Does anyone know why the UMP's symbol is that tree?a good question. and what kind of tree is it? an oak would symbolise strength and longevity, and would have gallic-druidic overtones. a tilleul would harken back to the revolution and liberty trees (of which there are still a good number standing)

[Anti-footix]

little joke : "c'est un chêne vu le nombre de glands qu'il y a à l'UMP" :D

or maybe an apple tree :

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/417AGG968EL._SS500_.jpg

[Douai]

mardi, 15 mai 2007
Par AFP

PARIS, 15 mai 2007 (AFP) - Jacques Chirac a fait ses adieux aux Français mardi soir dans une dernière allocution télévisée chargée d'émotion, en affirmant qu'il transmettra le pouvoir à Nicolas Sarkozy "avec la fierté du devoir accompli" et avec "confiance dans l'avenir" de la France.

Après douze ans à l'Elysée, le chef de l'Etat passera la main mercredi à M. Sarkozy, lors d'une cérémonie au protocole minutieux en fin de matinée.

"Demain, je transmettrai les pouvoirs que j'ai exercés en votre nom à Nicolas Sarkozy, notre nouveau Président de la République. Je le ferai avec la fierté du devoir accompli et aussi avec une grande confiance dans l'avenir de notre pays", a dit M. Chirac.

Il n'a cité qu'une autre fois son successeur, avec lequel il a entretenu des relations souvent conflictuelles, assurant que le nouveau président "aura à coeur de conduire notre pays plus avant sur les chemins de l'avenir".

L'allocution était volontairement brève - moins de cinq minutes - et sobre, loin de la déclaration théâtrale de Valéry Giscard d'Estaing en 1981. Costume anthracite et cravate rayée, M. Chirac s'exprimait sur fond de jardins de l'Elysée et de drapeaux français et européen.

A la veille de mettre un point final à quarante ans d'une vie politique intense, il a tenu à "dire la force du lien, qui du plus profond de mon coeur m'unit à chacune et à chacun d'entre vous", ajoutant avoir de "l'affection" pour les Français.

S'exprimant solennellement pour la dernière fois en tant que chef de l'Etat, M. Chirac a demandé aux Français de rester "toujours unis et solidaires" en dépit "des différences de conception, des divergences de vue", dans la droite ligne de toutes ses interventions passées sur la cohésion nationale.

Dans une sorte de feuille de route pour le nouveau président, il a souhaité que la France s'affirme comme "la patrie de l'égalité des chances et de la solidarité", "une nation moteur de la construction européenne", "une nation généreuse", "aux avant-postes" pour la paix, le développement et l'écologie.

En quittant mercredi l'Elysée à bord de sa Citroën C6, M. Chirac devrait gagner son nouveau domicile sur les quais de Seine, quai Voltaire, dans un duplex prêté par la famille libanaise Hariri.

Après des vacances, sans doute au Maroc, il s'attellera à la mise sur pied de sa future fondation. Dans son allocution, il a indiqué qu'il poursuivrait ainsi son "engagement dans ces combats pour le dialogue des cultures et le développement durable", en y apportant son "expérience" et sa "volonté d'agir".

Après cette ultime déclaration, des collaborateurs du président étaient en pleurs, certains étant à ses côtés depuis ses premiers jours à la présidence.

Un peu plus tôt, l'effervescence régnait au "palais" où les employés s'affairaient à tout préparer avant la passation de pouvoirs mercredi, alors que les "pots" d'adieu se multipliaient.

Le praticable pour les photographes était déjà installé dans la cour d'honneur où les jardiniers ratissaient avec soin le gravier. C'est là que M. Chirac, président sortant, sera raccompagné sur le perron du palais par M. Sarkozy, avant de quitter définitivement l'Elysée par le porche d'honneur.

Avec peut-être la sombre perspective d'être entendu par les juges après le 16 juin. Au moment où il prononçait son allocution, son ancien Premier ministre Alain Juppé était d'ailleurs entendu comme simple témoin par des policiers dans l'affaire des chargés de mission de la ville de Paris.


http://www.france24.com/france24Public/fr/nouvelles/monde/20070514-chirac-allocution-depart-elysee.html

[Pike]

And once again, the argument that greed is simply the one specific of many aspects of human nature that undermines socialism, presents an inherent conflict between every other aspect of man, a conflict that you have never bothered to or been capable of resolving in your critique of Marx. If you cannot even resolve the "hard reality" of the innately self-serving man with his - according to you - pluralistic human nature, then you are simply spewing a nonsense.

I don't need to explain the inherent conflict of the nature of man. I am ok with it. Humanity can both be greedy & charitable. Its why John D. Rockerfeller can spend his life trying to accumulate as much wealth as possible, while becoming one of the biggest philothropist in history.


... do not ask silly questions.

Oh no,... as a teacher, I must insist there are no such thing as silly questions,... unless they asked to use the restroom. :rolleyes:



Good for them indeed.
The state inevitably seeking more wealth is uncontrolled! That is, at its very essence, an anarchic international system.



You are making a ludicrous jump in logic by applying the delightful conception of a reified self-regulating international order eliminating the manifestation of stateless society, to the value of uncontrolled, self-serving greed.

Well thanks for the tease, I look forward to your explanation!


This conclusion is supported by the examples you provided below I assume? The first persian gulf war was a coalition of UN nations to expel one state that had invaded another. World War I featured the US helping to resolve an conflict between warring state powers - i.e. the UK, France, Germany, etc.

Economics!
WWI: (US Entrance was over, Economics!
(The war itself was over the escalation of nations over controll of the World's resources, economics)



In the thirty years' war, fighting was done between representative religious and political powers against each other.

In every war, there is an underlining economic cause.
Before you respond, do some research first.


Now where, oh where, in any of your examples does the proletarian, anarchic, classless state even appear as an actor to lend some credibility that a classless state is impossible given the nature of global politics.
And to assume that this mishmash can actually constitute a critique of Marx is utterly hilarious.

I agree, it was more or less a tangent


Again, analyze Marx on his own terms rather than attacking him with an underdeveloped and hugely unsound compilation of personal musings.

I already told you, if you don't like my opinion, I am ok with it. I think man's desire to accumulate wealth or reward for his hard work would be stifled under socialism. You don;t agree,... and I am ok with that. I a not here to convert you,.. I only express my opinion.

[ilv2]

I don't need to explain the inherent conflict of the nature of man. I am ok with it. Humanity can both be greedy & charitable. Its why John D. Rockerfeller can spend his life trying to accumulate as much wealth as possible, while becoming one of the biggest philothropist in history.

Ah ok, so you are resigned to delivering an essentially flawed critique against Marx's ideal. Why yes, of course, humanity can be both greedy and charitable. So according to this, one can conclude that the commonality of greed as an aspect of human nature does in fact conflict with the other aspects of human nature, perhaps even to the point where one questions the very concept of human nature itself and furthermore, where it arises from, whether as intrinsic or constructed values.


Oh no,... as a teacher, I must insist there are no such thing as silly questions,... unless they asked to use the restroom.

ah gotcha ;)


Well thanks for the tease, I look forward to your explanation!

Economics!
WWI: (US Entrance was over, Economics!
(The war itself was over the escalation of nations over controll of the World's resources, economics)

In every war, there is an underlining economic cause.
Before you respond, do some research first.

I agree, it was more or less a tangent

Sigh, read first before responding. Economic motivations are not a problem, just as greed is not a problem for this tangent - indeed I've actually continued this discussion on the basis that states are fundamentally interested in their national interest no? The discussion here concerns the argument that history demonstrates the trend that "classless and or stateless society [in the Marxist tradition presumably]" cannot possibly exist given that external government entities inevitably swallow them up for self-interested reasons. However, not only are the examples that you provide completely irrelevant because none even remotely represent the context that you are examining (because clearly, europe during WWI was a completely ungoverned, apolitical region :rolleyes:), but the entire concept of a self-controlled international system is inherently flawed. As you stated, it is based on the freedom of action of state entity itself to pursue its ambition for wealth, territory etc - or, as we've established, the sovereign state. The apparently "controlled" system that you establish is regulated by nothing other than anarchy itself, or sovereign will to power. So much for anarchy being temporary. In fact, the only situation wherein this amazing conclusion will conceivably work is at the point in which a singular power establishes itself to dominate over every single living individual, thereby eliminating the nation-state system as we currently know it. This has never been historically done, so your assertion that "anarchy is temporary" has never existed.


I already told you, if you don't like my opinion, I am ok with it. I think man's desire to accumulate wealth or reward for his hard work would be stifled under socialism. You don;t agree,... and I am ok with that. I a not here to convert you,.. I only express my opinion.

Sure absolutely, and as I said, you are free to believe in whatever ideas you find to be convincing. And moreover, I appreciate your honesty in admitting that your critique of Marx conflicts with itself. I'm not sure if you intend to continue this discussion beyond this point - if not, see you around especially if you decide to support Strasbourg and provided that they make their way back up to L1 (almost there). :)

[Pike]

Ah ok, so you are resigned to delivering an essentially flawed critique against Marx's ideal. Why yes, of course, humanity can be both greedy and charitable. So according to this, one can conclude that the commonality of greed as an aspect of human nature does in fact conflict with the other aspects of human nature, perhaps even to the point where one questions the very concept of human nature itself and furthermore, where it arises from, whether as intrinsic or constructed values.

I'll say leave it for the philosophers to bull$hit it!



Economic motivations are not a problem, just as greed is not a problem for this tangent - indeed I've actually continued this discussion on the basis that states are fundamentally interested in their national interest no?

Ok, I must have misread sothing along the way, I thought you were debating that states do NOT act within its own self- interest. Now that's out of the way,...


The discussion here concerns the argument that history demonstrates the trend that "classless and or stateless society [in the Marxist tradition presumably]" cannot possibly exist given that external government entities inevitably swallow them up for self-interested reasons. However, not only are the examples that you provide completely irrelevant because none even remotely represent the context that you are examining (because clearly, europe during WWI was a completely ungoverned, apolitical region :rolleyes:), ...

The examples were intended to illustrate the self- interest actions of nations. History of early civilization, and indeed most of istory, would illustrate how a stateless society will inevitably be eaten up by an entity with an appetite for wealth. In fact, you illustrated this point in your anarchic behavior of state entities model(IR), no? I guess we could supposed a what if; What if the people throughout the world will destroy their government, then we would all live in a stateless society. Unfortunately, in my opinion, there will always be someone not satisfy and seek greater wealth.


...the entire concept of a self-controlled international system is inherently flawed. As you stated, it is based on the freedom of action of state entity itself to pursue its ambition for wealth, territory etc - or, as we've established, the sovereign state. The apparently "controlled" system that you establish is regulated by nothing other than anarchy itself, or sovereign will to power. So much for anarchy being temporary. In fact, the only situation wherein this amazing conclusion will conceivably work is at the point in which a singular power establishes itself to dominate over every single living individual, thereby eliminating the nation-state system as we currently know it. This has never been historically done, so your assertion that "anarchy is temporary" has never existed.

We are talking about two separate things. Anarchy is the absence of government. There are people who believe that business or the economy acts best with no governmental interference and that people should be left to do whatever they like provided they do not harm another. I simply stated that an absense of a entity (or government) is impossible. Some entity will always step into the vacuum of power.

Now if you wish to discuss the interrelationship of states and its archaic nature,... we certanly can. I think in theory there are no constraits to a states actions. I would agree there isn't a invisible self- regulator, per se. The restriction of action is entirely through the collective actions of other states. I hope this clarifies better.



Sure absolutely, and as I said, you are free to believe in whatever ideas you find to be convincing. And moreover, I appreciate your honesty in admitting that your critique of Marx conflicts with itself.

Well, I would't take any of my statements that way. Marx wrote a beautiful vision for a future, which I do not think can ever be achieved. Everyone dreams of a future in which everyone is politically, socially, and economically equal, and it will forever be debated.


I'm not sure if you intend to continue this discussion beyond this point - if not, see you around especially if you decide to support Strasbourg and provided that they make their way back up to L1 (almost there).

Well, not really,... I se no point, though the horse is not quite dead yet:D

I'll support Strasbourg if you promise not to discuss politics during the match,... at least wait until after a win and a good buzz;)

[Anthony]

Ultimately, the problem with Marx was that he based just about his entire system on the labor theory of value, that the value of something is based pretty much solely on the labor a worker put into it. And that theory is wrong. The value of something is really the subjective value that a person places on an item, and depends on many factors, such as labor in (to be sure) but also utility, neccessity and subjective wants.

Why are diamonds so expensive? Not solely because of the labor put into extracting them. And while industrial diamonds have utility, gem diamonds do not -- they are frippary. Yet, lots of wives continue to nag their husbands to buy more diamonds for them.

If tomorrow I found a rock that allowed me to extract gem quality diamonds with no labor, would that mean the diamond would be worthless? No, I could sell them at a discount to be sure, but I would simply earn a larger profit.

[Nanbawan]

If tomorrow I found a rock that allowed me to extract gem quality diamonds with no labor, would that mean the diamond would be worthless? No, I could sell them at a discount to be sure, but I would simply earn a larger profit.

Diamonds are still expensive because they're hard to find hence the hard labor for this particular example. If it were easy, that would be cheap for everybody ! :p

[Douai]

Did anyone see the presidential ceremony for Sarkozy today?Sarkozy seemed off emotionally in the ceremony.He seemed nervous.BTW those Garde républicaine look pretty cool:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/French_Republican_Guard_cavalry_DSC03152.JPG/677px-French_Republican_Guard_cavalry_DSC03152.JPG

[Douai]

Les députés centristes ralliés à Sarkozy menacés d'action en justice s'ils se réclament de l'UDF

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-823448,36-911055@51-910508,0.html

EDIT:I forgot to say this:

Les Français prêts à donner à M. Sarkozy une majorité aux législatives, selon Ipsos
LEMONDE.FR | 16.05.07 | 17h28 • Mis à jour le 16.05.07 | 17h28
A un peu moins de quatre semaines du premier tour des élections législatives, les Français semblent décidés à donner au nouveau président de la République, Nicolas Sarkozy, une majorité.

Selon un sondage Ipsos, réalisé pour Le Point, 42 % déclarent avoir l'intention de voter pour un candidat de l'UMP, de l'UDF soutenu par l'UMP, ou du Mouvement pour la France (MPF), contre 35,5 % pour un candidat du PS, du PRG, du MRC, des Verts ou du PCF.



Le nouveau Mouvement démocrate (Modem) de François Bayrou récolte 10 % des intentions de vote, et le Front national 8 %.

Pour le second tour, dans le cas d'oppositon entre un candidat de l'UMP ou de la majorité présidentielle (UDF soutenu par l'UMP, MPF), et un candidat de gauche (PS, PC, Verts), les Français seraient 56 % à opter pour le premier, contre 44 % pour le second.

Confrontés au cas d'une triangulaire au second tour, avec présence d'un candidat du Modem, 11 % des Français indiquent qu'ils voteraient pour celui-ci. Le candidat de l'UMP serait toujours le favori avec 51 % des intentions de vote, contre 38 % pour le candidat de gauche (PS, PC, Verts).

LES SYMPATHISANTS SOCIALISTES RÉCLAMENT MME ROYAL

Interrogés sur leur "personnalité préférée pour conduire la campagne du Parti socialiste pour les élections législatives", les Français répondent d'abord Dominique Strauss-Kahn (33 %), avant de citer Ségolène Royal (32 %).

Inversement, les sympathisants socialistes placent – de très loin – la candidate à l'élection présidentielle au premier rang (53 %) devant M. Strauss-Kahn (27%). François Hollande n'est cité que par 5 % des Français et 7 % des sympathisants du PS.

Ce sondage a été réalisé par téléphone les 11 et 12 mai 2007 auprès d'un échantillon de 948 personnes, représentatif de la population française âgée de 18 ans et plus et inscrite sur les listes électorales, selon la méthode des quotas.
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-823448,36-911041@51-841384,0.html

[ilv2]

We are talking about two separate things. Anarchy is the absence of government. There are people who believe that business or the economy acts best with no governmental interference and that people should be left to do whatever they like provided they do not harm another. I simply stated that an absense of a entity (or government) is impossible. Some entity will always step into the vacuum of power.

Now if you wish to discuss the interrelationship of states and its archaic nature,... we certanly can. I think in theory there are no constraits to a states actions. I would agree there isn't a invisible self- regulator, per se. The restriction of action is entirely through the collective actions of other states. I hope this clarifies better.

I'll support Strasbourg if you promise not to discuss politics during the match,... at least wait until after a win and a good buzz;)

Last thought on the subject of anarchy - the anarchy or lack of control on the individual entailed by Marx is very different from those conceptions that come before it. Civilization itself entails a basic form of control given the community structure etc., so in that sense I still do not see a historical ground to the argument. Marx's assertion that his communist society, which has surmounted the problematic through the embrace of industrial production (no verts/ecologists for dear old Karl!), that the indvidual is free to pursue whatever he wishes - the basic economic reality and the possiblities of such a society have no precedent. It's all speculation, but the communist vision truly is something that is inconceivable, even frighteningly so. Its exemplary character IMO renders it a very tenuous stretch indeed to compare the dictatorship of the proletariat to anything we've seen before :)

In any case, yes, politics and football are never a good mix (especially given PSG's infamous support and the fact that alsace-lorraine is a bastion for the FN! :D). Strasbourg are a good club with a lot of history (although Pierre-Henri will know a lot more about them than I), and hopefully they'll put on a good showing next season just like Lorient and Le Mans - two points away no?

BTW those Garde républicaine look pretty cool

Yea, they're cool but it's the 21st century! As far as I know, only the english, swiss, and french go around parading in old "glory days" military gear. Break out the CRS stormtrooper uniforms or the FAMAS rifles

[Pierre-Henri]

Yea, they're cool but it's the 21st century! As far as I know, only the english, swiss, and french go around parading in old "glory days" military gear. Break out the CRS stormtrooper uniforms or the FAMAS rifles

Sarkozy escorted by CRS in their stormtrooper outfits ? I can imagine the reaction of the anti-sarkozy people !

Anyway, the CRS are coppers, while the Garde Républicaine is military, part of the Gendarmerie Nationale. You can't replace one by another that easily.

Now that Sarkozy is officialy supreme commander, he can cuckold the fuzz with the army. He can give direct orders to the real badass :
http://www.recrutement.gendarmerie.defense.gouv.fr/var/intranet_site/storage/images/contenu/decouvrir/intervention_protection/gendarme_du_gign/7863-2-fre-FR/gendarme_du_gign_large.jpg

Why would Sarkozy deal with coppers anymore ? Poor, poor, poor CRS. They are now like betrayed fiancées... Sarkozy left them for better ones, ignoring their fragile hearts :( .

[Anthony]

Do disaffected French voters threaten to move?

In the US, Democrats are always threatening to move to Canada or France if a Republican gets elected. Republicans sometimes threaten to move to Australia if a Democrat gets elected. None ever do of course, but they threaten to leave.

Where are the anti-Sarkozy voters threatening to move to?

[YankBastard]

Do disaffected French voters threaten to move?

In the US, Democrats are always threatening to move to Canada or France if a Republican gets elected. Republicans sometimes threaten to move to Australia if a Democrat gets elected. None ever do of course, but they threaten to leave.

Where are the anti-Sarkozy voters threatening to move to?

California

[Nanbawan]

Do disaffected French voters threaten to move?

If I easily could, I would. It's clear that for at least the next 5 years, it might put some weight in the balance whenever I have an opportunity...For the time being, let's wait and see.

Whatever happens, I'll remain French (in exile) I think. ;)

Where are the anti-Sarkozy voters threatening to move to?

Yannick Noah said he would stay in the US (NY ?) ; not really such a heartbreak since a major part of his life is already there. Not to mention his son Joachim who should be drafted in the NBA.

Unfortunately, Johnny threatens to fulfill his promise to come back. Can someone explain him that even with the 50% fiscal shield made by Sarko, he would still pay far less in Switzerland. Have a little common sense Jojo ! It was your forte not so long ago...

4sozhKrkPb4

[Nanbawan]

The way Les guignols viewers learnt about who was the new prez on election night.

gJc4x0aAy_I

The bastards, for one second they got me with that arrival ! The entirety of both rounds evenings is on YouTube. Maybe I'll post them in the guignol thread if I'm courageous enough...Or someone else can do it after all ! :p

[Pierre-Henri]

Yannick Noah said he would stay in the US (NY ?) ; not really such a heartbreak since a major part of his life is already there. Not to mention his son Joachim who should be drafted in the NBA.



Yeah. Moving to the USA in order to avoid capitalism.... that's really clever, indeed. Not mytho-de-gauche at all :p .

And you, Nanbawan ? How many countries on earth are more leftist today than France ?

1) North Korea.
2) Cuba.
3) Venezuela.

Your choice ?

[Anthony]

Yeah. Moving to the USA in order to avoid capitalism.... that's really clever, indeed. Not mytho-de-gauche at all :p .

And you, Nanbawan ? How many countries on earth are more leftist today than France ?

1) North Korea.
2) Cuba.
3) Venezuela.

Your choice ?


There is also Bolivia and the People's Republic of Massachusetts.