French...Culturally Superior!

[padisha emperor]

Whow...not good to be French here....

For the funny guy who said that in Paris all the streets had Napoleonic names......it's wrong my dears...in France, the Streets have the names of Battles - victory or with heroism - places - town, country... - things, and great persons - prime ministers, generals, artists, scientists, politics.....Do you know that not far from the Champs Elysés - Greek Mythology reference - there is the Metro station "F.D. Roosevelt"....there are lot of streets with names of US or UK people who helped France during th WWII...
And I prefer have streets who are called "Austerlitz, Eylau, Friedland, Iena, Wagram, Fontenoy, Lawfeld, Orleans, Castillon, Camerone, Cocherel, La Marne, Verdun, Bir Hakeim, Koufran Hanoi, Indochine, Joffre, Foch, CHaban Delmas".................than 1st avenue, 2nd avenue, 3rd avenue.....49th street...

Say that France lost all the battles is really stupid : take an histoy book, you'll see that France and UK are the 2 countries who woon the most of battles

You said that France was unable to keep the same regime more than 2 decades : yes, since 496, we've got 3 periods of Monarchy (496-1792 ; 1814-1815 ; 1815-1848 ), 2 empires (1804-1815 ; 1852-1870), Five republics : Ist : 1793, after ; terror (1793-1794), Directoire(1794-1799=), Consulat(1799-1804) and Ist Empire...), IInd : 1848-1851/52 ; IIIrd : 1875-1940, IVth : 1946-1958, and Vth : since 1958...
17 constitutions...... but when the contitution is unadapted to thetimes, we change of it....USA get the same Constitution since 1787, you add the news.....mybe it is too raide, not enough docile, supplex.


For the French cemetary on the US ground, what does it if there is no one ? France helped USA, without USA we would maybe be Germans now, but without France you'ld be maybe still British

And for lupuman, I think that he wanted to say that France has a way of life, different of the US one...it's true.


'd bye

 

[Comrade]

Whow...not good to be French here....

For the funny guy who said that in Paris all the streets had Napoleonic names......it's wrong my dears...in France, the Streets have the names of Battles - victory or with heroism - places - town, country... - things, and great persons - prime ministers, generals, artists, scientists, politics.....Do you know that not far from the Champs Elysés - Greek Mythology reference - there is the Metro station "F.D. Roosevelt"....there are lot of streets with names of US or UK people who helped France during th WWII...
And I prefer have streets who are called "Austerlitz, Eylau, Friedland, Iena, Wagram, Fontenoy, Lawfeld, Orleans, Castillon, Camerone, Cocherel, La Marne, Verdun, Bir Hakeim, Koufran Hanoi, Indochine, Joffre, Foch, CHaban Delmas".................than 1st avenue, 2nd avenue, 3rd avenue.....49th street...

But crossing numbered streets with named ones gives you the best of both worlds! History and Simplicity!

Say that France lost all the battles is really stupid : take an histoy book, you'll see that France and UK are the 2 countries who woon the most of battles

How is that? Some history book totaled that up for you?

You said that France was unable to keep the same regime more than 2 decades : yes, since 496, we've got 3 periods of Monarchy (496-1792 ; 1814-1815 ; 1815-1848 ), 2 empires (1804-1815 ; 1852-1870), Five republics : Ist : 1793, after ; terror (1793-1794), Directoire(1794-1799=), Consulat(1799-1804) and Ist Empire...), IInd : 1848-1851/52 ; IIIrd : 1875-1940, IVth : 1946-1958, and Vth : since 1958...

17 constitutions...... but when the contitution is unadapted to thetimes, we change of it....USA get the same Constitution since 1787, you add the news.....mybe it is too raide, not enough docile, supplex.

No, you have to understand we have changed our own Constitution several times over the course of centuries, we have adapted to the times. The difference is we have kept the core of the constitution intact with only incremental revisions. THAT is what makes our government the strongest Democracy in modern history.

 

[padisha emperor]

PS. We in Europe are superior because less of us believe in god/religion.



Believing you are better than God does not actual make you superior. In fact it proves your inferiority

in red : by 8236.
think that 8236 didn't mean that we think we are superior in God...If we didn't believe in a god, how can we be superior ? how can you be superior than a inexistant thing.


I think he means that like said Marx, Religion is opium's people.

No, you have to understand we have changed our own Constitution several times over the course of centuries, we have adapted to the times. The difference is we have kept the core of the constitution intact with only incremental revisions. THAT is what makes our government the strongest Democracy in modern history.

excuse me, I did an enormous mistake....I assimilated two differents things...forget what I've said.

I 've studied the constitutional right. I studied the french one, but also the US one, about the control of constitutionnality. It's not because I'm French, but I prefer the french - european - control of constitutionnality.
The problem with the US one, it is that the authority of the judged thing is relative, not absolute. SO some Suprem court in differents States can have a differents answer, and people must wait for the decision of the US suprem Court to hazve the definitive decision...



When you say that US are the strongest democracy in the world...if you say "strongest" because you've the 1st army, I agree...but otherwise.......

It's not because France changed of Constitutions several time that we are not a strong democracy...only 5 republicans constitutions, the others : for Monarchy of Empires periods.
and about these 5 : the firts had been erase, reason : Terror and war against Europe.
2nd : erase by Napoleon III. 3rd : erase by WWII.
4th : really unadapted
5th : the better one, be sure.

(you know the facts that you keep the same constituion, which evolve with times, is not a proud of democracy : France had his constitution before 1789, a very old, with lot of add-on, it evolve, but not really democratic, this time of monarchy....)

USA are democracy, but in France the person who become President is the one who has more voices than the other. .

 

[padisha emperor]

Your government is as corrupt as any so lose the superiority bit!!!

Yes, he is probably.
But the US government is probably also corrupt. The big oil firms, the industry of weapons.......


I never said that the French government is perfect, not at all, I disagree with Raffarin's nomination, he' s a toy for others. And I disagree with the politic of this government, sometimes. I admit that French government should have to change some of it members.

But instead of always throw your filth upon the french government, look also on yours. I'm sure thyat some things should change.

Friendly, pad'

 

[Comrade]

I 've studied the constitutional right. I studied the french one, but also the US one, about the control of constitutionnality. It's not because I'm French, but I prefer the french - european - control of constitutionnality.
The problem with the US one, it is that the authority of the judged thing is relative, not absolute. SO some Suprem court in differents States can have a differents answer, and people must wait for the decision of the US suprem Court to hazve the definitive decision...

I'm not sure how that's a problem, per se. It's by no means a bad thing to grant states a relative amount of autonomy compared to Federal law. That's part of the process which keeps local interests intact while holding them accountable to the USSC and ultimately the will of the nation as a whole as represented by the living document which is our 2004 constitution. Which is certainly an entierly new document than in 1776 or even 1960.

When you say that US are the strongest democracy in the world...if you say "strongest" because you've the 1st army, I agree...but otherwise.......

I also mean the strongest in all aspects... Economy, Innovation, Cultural Influence, and Political Stability. We may lack a 'good' reputation (like France?) because we dominate world affairs in such an overwhelming manner, and the imbalance of power us what makes us so unpopular.

It's not because France changed of Constitutions several time that we are not a strong democracy...only 5 republicans constitutions, the others : for Monarchy of Empires periods.
and about these 5 : the firts had been erase, reason : Terror and war against Europe.
2nd : erase by Napoleon III. 3rd : erase by WWII.
4th : really unadapted
5th : the better one, be sure.

(you know the facts that you keep the same constituion, which evolve with times, is not a proud of democracy : France had his constitution before 1789, a very old, with lot of add-on, it evolve, but not really democratic, this time of monarchy....)

I'll not argue there.

USA are democracy, but in France the person who become President is the one who has more voices than the other. .

To me that seems like a bad thing. Chirac sure has seemed to isolate France to little advantage, is this the will of the people or his own devices?

 

[padisha emperor]

To me that seems like a bad thing. Chirac sure has seemed to isolate France to little advantage, is this the will of the people or his own devices?

France is isolated ?

Of course, USA are not, and the world like them...
In France you know you are not very poular - we don't hate you - , in germany same thing, like in Italy, Spain, and also...UK
Because the government position, this is not the population position.

And i will sum up an article, in the New Stateman, of London, wrote by John Kampfner.
Blair see that Bush is really unpopular in UK, and try to take his distance with him now. Blair don't want to be the dog of Bush, what he was, and now see Bush like a unless weight, which will be bad for him.

So sad for W, he will lost his best ally. - not really, but it showed that Bush is embarassing for Blair. -

 

[Comrade]

France is isolated ?

Of course, USA are not, and the world like them...
In France you know you are not very poular - we don't hate you - , in germany same thing, like in Italy, Spain, and also...UK
Because the government position, this is not the population position.

The governments of Italy and UK are not stupid. Do they ally with the U.S. coalition in the hopes of getting voted out the next election? The population position in a Democracy is the government position, more or less.

And i will sum up an article, in the New Stateman, of London, wrote by John Kampfner.
Blair see that Bush is really unpopular in UK, and try to take his distance with him now. Blair don't want to be the dog of Bush, what he was, and now see Bush like a unless weight, which will be bad for him.

That poodle comment is just more Euro trash talk anyway. Everyone knows poodles are French!

So sad for W, he will lost his best ally. - not really, but it showed that Bush is embarassing for Blair. -

Don't be so sure:

Blair Reasserts Control After Rocky Summer

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040910_165.html


There are many in the U.K. who consider the U.S.A. a closer and more important ally than any in Europe.

 

[padisha emperor]

There are many in the U.K. who consider the U.S.A. a closer and more important ally than any in Europe.

I'm quite sure of it, UK was never really enjoying for the EU, but I sure alos that a lot of Uk's citizens really don't like Bush. Blair wants to go a little moer far from Bush. why ? because now he knows that Bush and his administration is very very unpopular. Really very.

The population position in a Democracy is the government position, more or less.

Sure, when the government has just been elected. But after severals years, the governement can change of mind, and the population could not follow it. - like in UK for the Iraqi war. -

 

[Comrade]

I'm quite sure of it, UK was never really enjoying for the EU, but I sure alos that a lot of Uk's citizens really don't like Bush. Blair wants to go a little moer far from Bush. why ? because now he knows that Bush and his administration is very very unpopular. Really very.

I don't believe so many people in the UK are hostile to Bush. Blair is running on an electable platform and his party already shows a promising lead against the alternatives.

Sure, when the government has just been elected. But after severals years, the governement can change of mind, and the population could not follow it. - like in UK for the Iraqi war. -

Now that just sounds like wishfull thinking to me. If Bush and Blair's government are both revalidated in the next election I wonder when the left will admit thier defeat.

 

[Annie]

I don't believe so many people in the UK are hostile to Bush. Blair is running on an electable platform and his party already shows a promising lead against the alternatives.


Now that just sounds like wishfull thinking to me. If Bush and Blair's government are both revalidated in the next election I wonder when the left will admit thier defeat.

I agree, the elections will tell. Which reminds me, how have the German and French parties in power been doing, when their reps have come up for election? :teeth:

 

[padisha emperor]

I'm not British, but be sure that Bush is unpopular in UK. Read the article of John Kampfner, in the New Statesman.
I quote a quotation of a Blair's collaborator (a high member of the government adiministration). : "No doubt that he - Blair - would prefer that Kerry would win. His - Blair - collaboration with the neoconservators, who have power at W. DC, was a real ball for him."
I translate it from French, but if I find this article on the Web, I'll put a link.
And remember : more than 1,000,000 people in the street against the war in 2003, in London.

Now that just sounds like wishfull thinking to me. If Bush and Blair's government are both revalidated in the next election I wonder when the left will admit thier defeat.

Yes, but I don't think that the population will not vote for a government only because he did the Iraqi War. There are other things who decide people to vote for or against persons.
So, the people can disagree with the war and the government position, but vote for him for other reasons.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

I'm not British, but be sure that Bush is unpopular in UK. Read the article of John Kampfner, in the New Statesman.
I quote a quotation of a Blair's collaborator (a high member of the government adiministration). : "No doubt that he - Blair - would prefer that Kerry would win. His - Blair - collaboration with the neoconservators, who have power at W. DC, was a real ball for him."
I translate it from French, but if I find this article on the Web, I'll put a link.
And remember : more than 1,000,000 people in the street against the war in 2003, in London.




Yes, but I don't think that the population will not vote for a government only because he did the Iraqi War. There are other things who decide people to vote for or against persons.
So, the people can disagree with the war and the government position, but vote for him for other reasons.

you are probably only seeing the media talk about the people who protest, and all the bad stuff againts the US, etc. Just like here. You would think that the war in Iraq was not going well, as well as you would think that Kerry is a clear cut shot for the Prez.

But then I see MORE people in my state with Bush/Cheney signs/stickers than Kerry/Edwards.

Your media (like ours) only reports stuff they WANT you to see/hear, which is all the bad stuff that makes Bush look bad. I have given up all news stations, and only watch the local news, Fox9.

 

[padisha emperor]

Your media (like ours) only reports stuff they WANT you to see/hear, which is all the bad stuff that makes Bush look bad. I have given up all news stations, and only watch the local news, Fox9.

it's also why I read this magazine, Le Courrier International, with extracts of foreign newspappers.

But then I see MORE people in my state with Bush/Cheney signs/stickers than Kerry/Edwards.

You live in Minneapolis, is it correct ? (again an old french colony - only a joke, french arrogance )

I've got a map on which the previous election results are classified, state by state.
the Minnesota is with the Kerry's state but in the category of the state where Kerry has only a small small advance. (less of 5 %). Your state will be disputed !

On the map, Bush has more "sure states voices" (with an advance superior than 10 %), it will bring to Bush 142 Great Electors....The semi-sure (between 5 and 9 % of advance) will bring to him 15 voices.

For Kerry : Sure states will bring to him 102 great electors. the semi-sure 31.

So, 157 for Bush, 133 for Kerry.

But California is in the unsuer category state, with less than 5 % of advance. And Kerry is in the first position here.

NY state is for Kerry, sure (31 GE), Texas for Bush (34). So California will do the difference, I think that the man who win in CA will win in the presidential race.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

You live in Minneapolis, is it correct ? (again an old french colony - only a joke, french arrogance )

if you would read the WHOLE thing, I live 22 miles NORTHWEST of Liberalville.

and whatever polls that you read, they must be skipping over several towns here in MN. I certainly have not been asked to participate in any poll. Neither have any of my neighbors, who are all Bush voters.

I don't look at polls anyway, because I don't think they are accurate in any way, because there are SO many ways to get the numbers you WANT. Poll the City of Anoka, which is where I live, and poll Minneapolis, specifically the Lyndale Ave. area. Your polls would be dramatically different in terms of who would be ahead in votes. Anoka is a blue-collar town, and Minneapolis, is well, hippie, halloween-every-day town.

Yep...I'm a deer-killin', beer-swillin', ice-fishin', hot-dishin', bonafide Minnesota redneck! :tng:

 

[padisha emperor]

In fact, I only put this pronostics to ask you what do you think about this election and CA vote.It showed also that this election look like close, the man who will be winner will have a short victory.