Support NeoGAF

[fortified_concept]

It's already been tried. UK Building Societies work on 'One Member - One Vote' and my bank is a Co-Operative.

The people at the top will always find a way to siphon off a little (which tends to be A LOT) for themselves. That's how they get to the top and that's how they stay there.

We need a totally new system but we also need the people that maintain control over the current system to loosen their grip. I can't imagine that being easy.

Sounds great to tell you the truth, that's how the entire banking system should be, or at least it's a very good start. And of course people at the top siphon off, humanity fucking sucks, there will never be a perfect system. At least they can't rob us blind or keep fucking up and sacrificing stability to make short term profit like regular banks do.

 

[demosthenes]

Sounds great to tell you the truth, that's how the entire banking system should be, or at least it's a very good start. And of course people at the top siphon off, humanity fucking sucks, there will never be a perfect system. At least they can't rob us blind or keep fucking up and sacrificing stability to make short term profit like regular banks do.

Why can't they?

edit: Do you know about Enron, and how that happened?

 

[fortified_concept]

Why can't they?

Accountability. That's the nice thing about democracy.

 

[Mael]

You don't though. And of course capitalism isn't corporatism it just always evolves to that. I think I was clear about that.

That just means it never was capitalism to beginning with,
kinda like monopolies in a free market is fucking nonsense.

I don't care about angel investors and it has nothing to do with the discussion. You just don't understand. This isn't about me or which are my choices, this has to do with the banking system and how it affects society as a whole. You don't understand how banks make money out of nothing creating inflation which affects everyone and you don't understand how they redirect resources of society not based on what's best for society but what makes the biggest short-term profit.

Oh I get it, it's about the grand scheme of things and how the big banks are screwing the little guy?
Give your BS to someone else if I want some there's still tf1 here.
It's all to easy to point to investments and just dismiss what's real instead of fantasy land.

If it leads you nowhere you'll have the choice to get rid off the leadership like you're gonna do with the prick. On the other hand the banks caused a worldwide economic collapse and they still have the same leadership using the same disgusting tactics giving millions in bonuses from your money.

:lol:lol:lol
It's been close to 10 years that we've basically the same people leading the country and seeing how the political scape is, we're down on 5 more years.
Political investments means that something doesn't mesh well with how the people view some issues? it doesn't get funded.
And since budgets are never infinite some stuffs would never be funded ever, if you followed what your country was actually funding you'd see what I mean.
Yeah it's not sure we're getting rid of the prick, people reelected Bush after all.
And my money is not in one of theses banks thank you, I'm actually voting with my wallet here.
I keep a close watch on what my bank does, I'll leave town if they try something fishy or even, god forbid, do without one or even help fund one.
If BNP actually wants to give its traders millions after an exercice that put people in deep shit, that concerns BNP's customers not me.

 

[NovemberMike]

Yet things instead of getting better they're getting worse. That's capitalism for you, since the greedy system of the banks is slowly taking over even in Europe and capitalism evolves to corporatism like it always does.

I'd like to see a serious argument (with numbers) that shows this is true over the last 150 years (or whenever you want to say capitalism started).

 

[demosthenes]

Accountability. That's the nice thing about democracy.

Really? I'm pretty sure George Bush Jr. is going to be living the rest of his life easy despite killing thousands of humans and dragging us into a 10+ year conflict.

Newt Gingrich spear headed the charge against Bill Clinton and his impeachment while he was cheating on his wife at the same time. He's making a good living still despite not being in office.

Oh well they're not in office anymore and that's what counts.

 

[Mael]

Well this time it'll be over soon


In short they're making both chambers vote on the current state of the text, once and for all.
basically they're shelving the whole thing before it goes out of hand.
In short, you can put a fork in the strikes they're done.
If they keep it up they'll only prove the government that they can associate protesters with thugs out for loot.
In short it served nothing, they played their card wrong and they pay for it.

 

[fortified_concept]

Oh I get it, it's about the grand scheme of things and how the big banks are screwing the little guy?
Give your BS to someone else if I want some there's still tf1 here.
It's all to easy to point to investments and just dismiss what's real instead of fantasy land.

That's not an argument. You just yell at me without even addressing any of my points.

:lol:lol:lol
It's been close to 10 years that we've basically the same people leading the country and seeing how the political scape is, we're down on 5 more years.
Political investments means that something doesn't mesh well with how the people view some issues? it doesn't get funded.

I think democracy in banking would go much better because people's decision is based solely on economic matters and directly affects their wallets. But yeah, democracy requires from the voters political education almost every country in the world avoids to give to its citizens because that would threaten those on the top. Still beats authoritarianism by a wide margin though. Afterall it was the racist uneducated old farts voting that prick that doomed you, the new generation isn't that bad.

 

[demosthenes]

That's not an argument. You just yell at me without even addressing any of my points.


I think democracy in banking would go much better because people's decision is based solely on economic matters and directly affects their wallets. But yeah, democracy requires from the voters political education almost every country in the world avoids to give to its citizens because that would threaten those on the top. Still beats authoritarianism by a wide margin though. Afterall it was the racist uneducated old farts voting that prick that doomed you, the new generation isn't that bad.

Oh, so what you think is best. What profession are you may I ask?

At least in New York state it's required by law in public high school to take government and economics classes. I'm pretty sure the biggest cause of people not giving a shit about government is apathy not that they're not taught about it.

You also realize that the people that will run to control these democratic banks are the current CEO's and other senior bankers. Who will beat them? The guy from down the street?

You don't exactly address points made to you either. You said something about spending $200-400k on college and someone called you out on it, you ignored it. And for my own sake I got through under grad and grad school with just $18k, $18k well spent.

 

[fortified_concept]

Really? I'm pretty sure George Bush Jr. is going to be living the rest of his life easy despite killing thousands of humans and dragging us into a 10+ year conflict.

Newt Gingrich spear headed the charge against Bill Clinton and his impeachment while he was cheating on his wife at the same time. He's making a good living still despite not being in office.

Oh well they're not in office anymore and that's what counts.

Now imagine what would happen if George W Bush was a dictator instead of a democratically elected* president. Afterall, US politics is a bad example, USA barely has democracy anymore, corporations have taken control years ago.

*still questionable, but anyway

 

[demosthenes]

Now imagine what would happen if George W Bush was a dictator instead of a democratically elected* president. Afterall, US politics is a bad example, USA barely has democracy anymore, corporations have taken control years ago.

*still questionable, but anyway

Where is the accountability?

For all we know he could have beaten Obama, we'll never know (unlikely but we will never know). We limit presidents to 2 terms, where is his accountability. You posing me with a question doesn't answer my original question to you.

What corporations control the American government?

 

[Mael]

That's not an argument. You just yell at me without even addressing any of my points.

Look you're saying that banks handling investments is wrong and all that while totally ignoring how it really works and who the actors actually are and their motivations. You don't care about the actions on investments about any actors but the banks which increbibly myopic, so your argument is actually banks == bad and should be controlled by the people.
Well if you don't invest in the banks with your money that's not gonna happen anyway so keep protesting in the wind since it doesn't look like you're ready to put your money where your mouth is.

I think democracy in banking would go much better because people's decision is based solely on economic matters and directly affects their wallets. But yeah, democracy requires from the voters political education almost every country in the world avoids to give to its citizens because that would threaten those on the top. Still beats authoritarianism by a wide margin though. Afterall it was the racist uneducated old farts voting that prick that doomed you, the new generation isn't that bad.

stop speaking of something you know jackshit about it makes your whole argument go in pieces.
Democracy (or as close as can be) in banking ALREADY exists, put your money there and steer them so that they actually buy the 'bad' banks so that the 'bad' banks influence on the economy be lesser (if that's even your goal).
The reason the left can't even fucking win a national election is of their own doing, they brought it on themselves.
It's not a question of old VS young, it's a question of there's only 1 choice that doesn't suck and it happened to be that guy, the other in 2007 was actually way, way worse (like France in a recession a year before everybody BAD).
The reason why there's basically no good outlook on the matter is because the right is unpopular and have unpopular position (and will need restructuring very soon) and the left is lead by populists morons.
Whoever wins we all lose (well not our external competitors)

 

[UnluckyKate]

I ran out of water today.

No memo in the building. Got up with hangover: wtf no water ! Impossible to drink/shower/ wash my hands/evacuate the toilet.

I need to get out and buy...

Wait no...

I need to get out

I really hope it's just a thing in the building they're fixing and hopefully, it will be done in several hours. I start to feel really bad drinking soda for water.

 

[chase]

This is so unamerican!!!!!!!

 

[Kurtofan]

I ran out of water today.

No memo in the building. Got up with hangover: wtf no water ! Impossible to drink/shower/ wash my hands/evacuate the toilet.

I need to get out and buy...

Wait no...

I need to get out

I really hope it's just a thing in the building they're fixing and hopefully, it will be done in several hours. I start to feel really bad drinking soda for water.

I don't think this is related to the strikes.

 

[Shanadeus]

Well this time it'll be over soon


In short they're making both chambers vote on the current state of the text, once and for all.
basically they're shelving the whole thing before it goes out of hand.
In short, you can put a fork in the strikes they're done.
If they keep it up they'll only prove the government that they can associate protesters with thugs out for loot.
In short it served nothing, they played their card wrong and they pay for it.

So these demonstrations and blockades worked?
Looks like they were right in acting like this after all.

 

[Magni]

About the quote from hortefeu, I can't find it on lemonde so I'll seek afterward but I can pretty much guarranty it's a misquote if it looks like he's equating all protesters with thugs.

Couldn't find it on LeMonde either but I found it on LeFigaro earlier:

Dans la matinée, le ministre de l'Intérieur s'en était pris aux "voyous qui se greffent" sur les manifestations lycéennes contre le projet de réforme des retraites. "Nous ne les laisserons pas impunis", a-t-il prévenu.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2...sseurs-a-lyon-hortefeux-se-rend-sur-place.php

 

[demosthenes]

So these demonstrations and blockades worked?
Looks like they were right in acting like this after all.

Not necessarily. What's going to happen if hard decisions REALLY do need to be made?

 

[fortified_concept]

You don't exactly address points made to you either. You said something about spending $200-400k on college and someone called you out on it, you ignored it. And for my own sake I got through under grad and grad school with just $18k, $18k well spent.

I'm the first poster by a wide margin with 72 fucking posts itt, I can't reply to everyone and to every single point even if I find it meaningless. I was comparing top institutions with top institutions which in USA are the colleges. And to tell you the truth I don't give a fuck, even if he pays 10 thousand he's still a sucker compared to those who pay nothing, that was my point.

You also realize that the people that will run to control these democratic banks are the current CEO's and other senior bankers. Who will beat them? The guy from down the street?

I don't know. All I know is that if he/she fucks up whoever it is and people lose some money he's fucked, that's why he won't do anything risky. That's called accountability unlike what we have now. Plus the fact that the banks would work for the people and not just a bunch of rich investors means that even if they were able to influence governments like they do know they'd do it for the majority.

 

[Mael]

So these demonstrations and blockades worked?
Looks like they were right in acting like this after all.

Nope, not at all.
Actually quite the contrary, they're actually making sure that the thing gets voted with even less debate going on.
This will be old news by the weekend.
In short the protestations were useless in preventing the reform.
Actually there's 2 ways to prevent a reform here :
one is protesting
the other is reuniting 10(or is it 20) deputes to mandate a referendum or something (or maybe it's to see the constitutional chamber and ask them if the law is constitutional).

anyway there's something the left could have done to prevent the reform from passing (and that's some right given to the parliament by Sarkozy's constitutional reform of 2007 to boot), quite unsurprisingly they didn't do such a thing.
Proving once again that they're fucking morons not worth a vote anyone could waste on them.

And for the record, the law WILL pass, UMP has absolute majority on both chambers.
There's NO chance that what happened last year with HADOPI will happen now.

 

[demosthenes]

I'm the first poster by a wide margin with 72 fucking posts itt, I can't reply to everyone and to every single point even if I find it meaningless. I was comparing top institutions with top institutions which in USA are the colleges. And to tell you the truth I don't give a fuck, even if he pays 10 thousand he's still a sucker compared to those who pay nothing, that was my point.

I don't know. All I know is that if he/she fucks up whoever it is and people lose some money he's fucked, that's why he won't do anything risky. That's called accountability unlike what we have now. Plus the fact that the banks would work for the people and not just a bunch of rich investors means that even if they were able to influence governments like they do know they'd do it for the majority.

If he pays $10,000 and receives a better education that the free and pays much lower taxes then who wins? You can't just make generalized statements about one being better without backing it up. Well you can, but people won't take you seriously.

So what will keep those elected to maximizing profits over other banks? Because higher profits will lead to happier voters which will let them have higher salaries. What is the incentive for those elected? Because if politics is anything to go by 90% go for personal gain...which would lead us exactly where we are now. All you're really doing is putting control of the banks in the hands of the people and look how well they do voting politicians into office. But hey! They can be voted out!

Just like board members can be voted out who don't remove corrupt or incompetent management. But you don't care about that b/c they're all corrupt in your eyes. So the question comes down to. What if anything will change by going to a democratic banking system.

 

[UnluckyKate]

I don't think this is related to the strikes.

Of course not but I thought it could be strikes for like, half a nanosecond

 

[Mael]

Just like board members can be voted out who don't remove corrupt or incompetent management. But you don't care about that b/c they're all corrupt in your eyes. So the question comes down to. What if anything will change by going to a democratic banking system.

Well there's pretty list with a number of such institutions on wiki (scroll down)

Now you just have to delve into their history to see how it goes.

And for anyone complaining that board members are not real people, there's a type of company that works on a similar model.
If you have any interest in economy you know that already anyway.

 

[demosthenes]

Well there's pretty list with a number of such institutions on wiki (scroll down)

Now you just have to delve into their history to see how it goes.

And for anyone complaining that board members are not real people, there's a type of company that works on a similar model.
If you have any interest in economy you know that already anyway.

The point I was trying to make is that they stand out b/c there are so few of them.

But if we made EVERY bank like that then they would be just as big, and money hungry as they are right now.

 

[Mael]

The point I was trying to make is that they stand out b/c there are so few of them.

But if we made EVERY bank like that then they would be just as big, and money hungry as they are right now.

But they don't really,
I mean there's not exactly a swath of big capitalist banks either (and the list only provide the biggest ones too).
the reason they're bigger is BECAUSE they're money grubbing greedy, I mean that's the point really. By searching the maximum profit they need a large base of customers that they make their earnest to get.
The others actually want a better service for their customers, that doesn't mean they need a big customer base either.
In short, they're after different things and there's a reason they're not the biggest people in town.
and every bank CANNOT be that way, there's basically nothing that could prevent a normal bank from rising (which is why they did in the end) and we would be where we started.

And don't come pointing to WTO or something, there's ZERO chance the US would agree on that.

 

[demosthenes]

But they don't really,
I mean there's not exactly a swath of big capitalist banks either (and the list only provide the biggest ones too).
the reason they're bigger is BECAUSE they're money grubbing greedy, I mean that's the point really. By searching the maximum profit they need a large base of customers that they make their earnest to get.
The others actually want a better service for their customers, that doesn't mean they need a big customer base either.
In short, they're after different things and there's a reason they're not the biggest people in town.
and every bank CANNOT be that way, there's basically nothing that could prevent a normal bank from rising (which is why they did in the end) and we would be where we started.

And don't come pointing to WTO or something, there's ZERO chance the US would agree on that.

This.

 

[fortified_concept]

Look you're saying that banks handling investments is wrong and all that while totally ignoring how it really works and who the actors actually are and their motivations. You don't care about the actions on investments about any actors but the banks which increbibly myopic, so your argument is actually banks == bad and should be controlled by the people.
Well if you don't invest in the banks with your money that's not gonna happen anyway so keep protesting in the wind since it doesn't look like you're ready to put your money where your mouth is.

How is it myopic when it's the banking system that causes the recessions, the mini-recessions and the bubble bursts each and every time? How is it myopic when it's the banks that make money out of nothing causing inflation that affect the middle and lower classes? Their decisions affect us no matter what we do.

stop speaking of something you know jackshit about it makes your whole argument go in pieces.
Democracy (or as close as can be) in banking ALREADY exists, put your money there and steer them so that they actually buy the 'bad' banks so that the 'bad' banks influence on the economy be lesser (if that's even your goal).
The reason the left can't even fucking win a national election is of their own doing, they brought it on themselves.
It's not a question of old VS young, it's a question of there's only 1 choice that doesn't suck and it happened to be that guy, the other in 2007 was actually way, way worse (like France in a recession a year before everybody BAD).
The reason why there's basically no good outlook on the matter is because the right is unpopular and have unpopular position (and will need restructuring very soon) and the left is lead by populists morons.
Whoever wins we all lose (well not our external competitors)

First of all the voting with your wallet myth is as valid as reaganomics. As long as greedy fucks run the banking system and noone can threaten their position as long as they make money for their fat cat investors your opinion doesn't matter. As you've noticed almost everyone was in on the latest big scam. Second you have a point about the two party system, but sorry I'm right about the racist old idiots too. Sarkozy certainly is much worse than the alternative and he definitely based his campaign on xenophobia. But I will share your pessimism, we're screwed as a species.

 

[Shanadeus]

Nope, not at all.
Actually quite the contrary, they're actually making sure that the thing gets voted with even less debate going on.
This will be old news by the weekend.
In short the protestations were useless in preventing the reform.
Actually there's 2 ways to prevent a reform here :
one is protesting
the other is reuniting 10(or is it 20) deputes to mandate a referendum or something (or maybe it's to see the constitutional chamber and ask them if the law is constitutional).

anyway there's something the left could have done to prevent the reform from passing (and that's some right given to the parliament by Sarkozy's constitutional reform of 2007 to boot), quite unsurprisingly they didn't do such a thing.
Proving once again that they're fucking morons not worth a vote anyone could waste on them.

And for the record, the law WILL pass, UMP has absolute majority on both chambers.
There's NO chance that what happened last year with HADOPI will happen now.

Well if that's the case then I wonder how the public will react to being so blatantly ignored.
More protests maybe.

 

[Mael]

How is it myopic when it's the banking system that causes the recessions, the mini-recessions and the bubble bursts each and every time? How is it myopic when it's the banks that make money out of nothing causing inflation that affect the middle and lower classes? Their decisions affect us no matter what we do.

Arf, so I WAS right your whole argument IS :
BAD Banks out to get us little guys

First of all the voting with your wallet myth is as valid as reaganomics. As long as greedy fucks run the banking system and noone can threaten their position as long as they make money for their fat cat investors your opinion doesn't matter.

it's not a fucking myth I bloody vote on what the bank do with my money! I get to decide how much goes to the shareholders and the likes. The only fat cat investors my bank follows is ME and the other people owning shares of the bank. If you don't know what you're talking about stop speaking about it.

As you've noticed almost everyone was in on the latest big scam. Second you have a point about the two party system, but sorry I'm right about the racist old idiots too.

Except we're not in a 2 party system, there's only 2 candidates on the second turn that's all and last time it was a choice between Segolen Royale and Sarkozy.
And Sarkozy was the sanner choice, how complicated is that to understand?
In short, that lady was batshit insane, she even went on to say that she didn't believe any of the shit she defended during the election.....2 months after she's lost!

Sarkozy certainly is much worse than the alternative and he definitely based his campaign on xenophobia.

So what you're saying is that you didn't follow 2007's France election AT ALL?

You're confusing this guy with this guy

But I will share your pessimism, we're screwed as a species.

I'm absolutely not pessimist, I don't actually care about that, in the end it will not change much.

Well if that's the case then I wonder how the public will react to being so blatantly ignored.
More protests maybe.

They're used to it.

 

[fortified_concept]

Arf, so I WAS right your whole argument IS :
BAD Banks out to get us little guys

No that's not my argument that's the conclusion I reach. The arguments are being ignored by you as per usual.

it's not a fucking myth I bloody vote on what the bank do with my money! I get to decide how much goes to the shareholders and the likes. The only fat cat investors my bank follows is ME and the other people owning shares of the bank. If you don't know what you're talking about stop speaking about it.

Again, for the millionth time I do not care about specific cases, I care about how the banking system affects society and in the banking system cooperatives are a minority. And I've already said that these banks are a good start.

Except we're not in a 2 party system, there's only 2 candidates on the second turn that's all and last time it was a choice between Segolen Royale and Sarkozy.
And Sarkozy was the sanner choice, how complicated is that to understand?
In short, that lady was batshit insane, she even went on to say that she didn't believe any of the shit she defended during the election.....2 months after she's lost!

So what you're saying is that you didn't follow 2007's France election AT ALL?
You're confusing this guy with this guy

No I did follow the french elections, that's why I hated the prick from the beginning. And he did use xenophobia in his advantage like many conservatives do. He's no Le Pen, that's not what I'm saying, but he did that disgusting indirect crap talking regularly about immigration and the 2005 riots. That's why the old farts love him. And let me make this clear this isn't criticism against the french I'm always annoyed by how old people vote because most of them don't vote for the good of the new generation but to keep the society close to their old -and usually racist and stupid- standards.


And btw you were wrong, the unions will continue with the strikes. Good for them.

 

[Mael]

No that's not my argument that's the conclusion I reach. The arguments are being ignored by you as per usual.



Again, for the millionth time I do not care about specific cases, I care about how the banking system affects society and in the banking system cooperatives are a minority. And I've already said that these banks are a good start.

help make them a mojority, actually act on what's happening instead of talking about it.

No I did follow the french elections, that's why I hated the prick from the beginning. And he did use xenophobia in his advantage like many conservatives do. He's no Le Pen, that's not what I'm saying, but he did that disgusting indirect crap talking regularly about immigration and the 2005 riots. That's why the old farts love him. And let me make this clear this isn't criticism against the french I'm always annoyed by how old people vote because most of them don't vote for the good of the new generation but to keep the society close to their old -and usually racist and stupid- standards.

The reason he won what because of how he put forth his difference between him and the government he was part of.
His main point was actually 'work more to earn more' and other stuffs that had NOTHING to do about whether he was racist or not.
The working class actually voted for him for that, simplifying the situation, like you always do, is only showing how little you know about the situation and why he was elected in the first place.
Heck his nickname is roughly translated as 'purchasing power president', that has got jackshit to do with immigration.
Same with Bush being reelected because of internal program, Sarkozy was elected for his socio economic program.
Immigration only concern a fringe of the electorate.

Heck if you actually followed the whole ordeal, you'd know that they actually kinda lost the following election (doing worse than before) weeks after because Borloo actually made a mistake saying there would be more taxes.

But yeah no, you're right he was never elected for his program or anything, people voted because they were racists fucks who hate filthy immigrants! :lol

And btw you were wrong, the unions will continue with the strikes. Good for them.

That's not the point! The point is it will lead to nothing, they have nothing to gain from continuing the strike.
I never gave a shit whether they'll keep the strike or not, they even put a law to make sure the country could not be blocked during a massive strike (yes there's actually a law for a minimum service).
How complicated is it to understand that there's a way to stop the reform and it's simply NOT being used?
As it is they're only making the road to the next election that much easier for the current ruling party.

 

[Kurtofan]

The government forced an oil factory to reopen and workers on strike have to work or they'll face penal suits(prison).

 

[fortified_concept]

The reason he won what because of how he put forth his difference between him and the government he was part of.
His main point was actually 'work more to earn more' and other stuffs that had NOTHING to do about whether he was racist or not.
The working class actually voted for him for that, simplifying the situation, like you always do, is only showing how little you know about the situation and why he was elected in the first place.
Heck his nickname is roughly translated as 'purchasing power president', that has got jackshit to do with immigration.
Same with Bush being reelected because of internal program, Sarkozy was elected for his socio economic program.
Immigration only concern a fringe of the electorate.

Heck if you actually followed the whole ordeal, you'd know that they actually kinda lost the following election (doing worse than before) weeks after because Borloo actually made a mistake saying there would be more taxes.

But yeah no, you're right he was never elected for his program or anything, people voted because they were racists fucks who hate filthy immigrants! :lol

You couldn't have picked a better comparison. In 2004 Bush based his election campaign on homophobia. And while he wasn't saying he hated gays it was obvious what kind of crowd he was trying to reach, exactly like Sarkozy did.

That's not the point! The point is it will lead to nothing, they have nothing to gain from continuing the strike.
I never gave a shit whether they'll keep the strike or not, they even put a law to make sure the country could not be blocked during a massive strike (yes there's actually a law for a minimum service).
How complicated is it to understand that there's a way to stop the reform and it's simply NOT being used?
As it is they're only making the road to the next election that much easier for the current ruling party.

Can you expand on that?

Also I still think that if they insist on the strikes they might manage to destroy the prick. Probably wishful thinking but a man can hope...

 

[fortified_concept]

The government forced an oil factory to reopen and workers on strike have to work or they'll face penal suits(prison).

What a disgusting fucking fascist. Our government pulled the same crap with a strike a few weeks ago but I'd expect that kind of shit from Greece because it's a shithole. But in France... Wow.

I've said if many times but unfortunately it's relevant in every topic: Europe like the rest of humanity is going backwards.

 

[Kurtofan]

What a disgusting fucking fascist. Our government pulled the same crap with a strike a few weeks ago but I'd expect that kind of shit from Greece because it's a shithole. But in France... Wow.

Seriously.
It will only stir more shit up than before.

 

[Mael]

The government forced an oil factory to reopen and workers on strike have to work or they'll face penal suits(prison).

Exactly

edit : so very late to the party to complain, it's in the law since 2007.
If you wanted something different, august 2007 was the time.

You couldn't have picked a better comparison. In 2004 Bush based his election campaign on homophobia. And while he wasn't saying he hated gays it was obvious what kind of crowd he was trying to reach, exactly like Sarkozy did.

SQDFDASEZAEAEAZFSDFSFQFDSFFDFQDQSFS
Damn it stop comparing stuffs that has nothing in common!
People didn't vote for Sarkozy because they hated immigrants!
They voted because they thought his program was better for them than the other candidate.
Seriously Royale was nowhere near as good as he ended up to be, the only reason anyone would even have wanted her in office is because her administration would have been with more competent people.
Yet the guy who lead her campain is actually the guy doing the immigration stuffs, I mean she doesn't even know how to choose people to work with!

Can you expand on that?

either using article 11 so that a referendum takes place
Or going to Conseil constitutionel to invalidate the law if it's doesn't mesh with the constituion (and we need a grand total of 10 deputes here, 10! If they wanted to stop the immigration laws, they could have, any time they wanted)

Also I still think that if they insist on the strikes they might manage to destroy the prick. Probably wishful thinking but a man can hope...

As much as protesting put Bush out of office.

 

[G.O.O.]

People didn't vote for Sarkozy because they hated immigrants!

Christian Vanneste (UMP deputy) said yesterday that an alliance with the extreme right should be considered.

If people didn't vote for him because of hatred last time, UMP is making sure they will in 2012. :/

 

[Mael]

Christian Vanneste (UMP deputy) said yesterday that an alliance with the extreme right should be studied.

If people didn't vote for him because of hatred last time, UMP is making sure they will in 2012. :/

Well yeah, then again if they do that they'll lose the vote of the center right that compose most of their voter base.
It's actually worse than if the left did something similar (and there's some crazy shitty people on the far left)

 

[fortified_concept]

SQDFDASEZAEAEAZFSDFSFQFDSFFDFQDQSFS
Damn it stop comparing stuffs that has nothing in common!
People didn't vote for Sarkozy because they hated immigrants!
They voted because they thought his program was better for them than the other candidate.
Seriously Royale was nowhere near as good as he ended up to be, the only reason anyone would even have wanted her in office is because her administration would have been with more competent people.
Yet the guy who lead her campain is actually the guy doing the immigration stuffs, I mean she doesn't even know how to choose people to work with!

His constant references to immigration and the 2005 riots gave me a different impression. Let's agree to disagree.

either using article 11 so that a referendum takes place
Or going to Conseil constitutionel to invalidate the law if it's doesn't mesh with the constituion (and we need a grand total of 10 deputes here, 10! If they wanted to stop the immigration laws, they could have, any time they wanted)

What would it take for the article 11 to be in effect? What's the position of the Socialists on this? And btw you're kind of confusing politicians with protesters. The solutions you've provided can only be expedited on a political level and unfortunately the workers have no say in it.

 

[Mael]

His constant references to immigration and the 2005 riots gave me a different impression. Let's agree to disagree.

I followed that shitty election and that was not his program at all, if the media you follow only put this through you need better means of information.
Heck it wasn't even the problematic part of his propaganda for his election.

What would it take for the article 11 to be in effect? What's the position of the Socialists on this? And btw I don't think it's right confusing politicians with protesters. The solutions you've provided can only be expedited on a political level and unfortunately the workers have no say in it.

For article 11, they need a 1/5th of the parliament, they have that 1/5th then it can still be blocked by the parliament but in this climate that'd still be better than what they're doing now : ie nothing at all.

The left specifically said they'll repeal the law if they're elected.
That actually means that they don't want the law to pass,
they've got tools to make sure it doesn't happen and they don't use it :
In short they're misleading scumbags.

 

[G.O.O.]

Well yeah, then again if they do that they'll lose the vote of the center right that compose most of their voter base.

I thought that was already done. Even Fillon is questioning Sarkozy.

 

[Mael]

I thought that was already done. Even Fillon is questioning Sarkozy.

Then we can all rest easy then they've already lost.
Such a thing might even break UMP if they botch it.
Then again he managed to pass on the hillarious notion that he was different from the government he was part of.

 

[fortified_concept]

For article 11, they need a 1/5th of the parliament, they have that 1/5th then it can still be blocked by the parliament but in this climate that'd still be better than what they're doing now : ie nothing at all.

The left specifically said they'll repeal the law if they're elected.
That actually means that they don't want the law to pass,
they've got tools to make sure it doesn't happen and they don't use it :
In short they're misleading scumbags.

Thanks for the info. Doesn't seem that solution is very realistic though maybe that's why they didn't use it. Or maybe they just want the protests to continue to further ruin the prick's image, I don't know.

 

[Mael]

Thanks for the info. Doesn't seem that solution is very realistic though maybe that's why they didn't use it. Or maybe they just want the protests to continue to further ruin the prick's image, I don't know.

You don't understand,
they could have done for every single law that proved to be a problem!
Law changing how the status of someone undeer custody, about the school, you name it they could have stopped or hindered it.
They did N O T H I N G.

Which lead to 2 possibilities :
- either they don't care and we shouldn't ever consider them at the head of the state
- or they condone what is done and are too 'shy' to do anything about and they should be at the head of the state even less.

Either way they're not doing what they've been elected to do,
well at least for anything not Hadopi (and that had some UMP deputes on that one too).
If you look at the law discussed here, the Senate actually did a better job.
And I'm not even sure it's the left part that did its job!
In that contest you're left with :
1 party of hypocrite incompetent bastard
1 made of bastards that actually know what they're doing
the others that don't want the power anyway.

rejoice for democracy!

so................... did they run out of gas yet?

That will never happen actually... short of everyone actually running out of gas I mean.

 

[mcrae]

so................... did they run out of gas yet?

 

[fortified_concept]

You don't understand,
they could have done for every single law that proved to be a problem!
Law changing how the status of someone undeer custody, about the school, you name it they could have stopped or hindered it.
They did N O T H I N G.

Which lead to 2 possibilities :
- either they don't care and we shouldn't ever consider them at the head of the state
- or they condone what is done and are too 'shy' to do anything about and they should be at the head of the state even less.

Either way they're not doing what they've been elected to do,
well at least for anything not Hadopi (and that had some UMP deputes on that one too).
If you look at the law discussed here, the Senate actually did a better job.
And I'm not even sure it's the left part that did its job!
In that contest you're left with :
1 party of hypocrite incompetent bastard
1 made of bastards that actually know what they're doing
the others that don't want the power anyway.

rejoice for democracy!

Depressing... That's how things are almost everywhere nowadays. That means though that protests and civil disobedience is more necessary than ever. Otherwise we're fucked.

 

[G.O.O.]

Then we can all rest easy then they've already lost.
Such a thing might even break UMP if they botch it.
Then again he managed to pass on the hillarious notion that he was different from the government he was part of.

Everyone is different from each other ;p

He just believes he has a job to do, but he knows he'll be kicked out really soon.

I believe the UMP won't stay in a good shape if the government keeps working on the hard line. Maybe that'll change if Borloo becomes prime minister (or people will believe it, which will be enough)

 

[Mael]

Depressing... That's how things are almost everywhere nowadays. That means though that protests and civil disobedience is more necessary than ever. Otherwise we're fucked.

No, that means other people in politics.
You can't lead a country through protests and the likes.
If the common good is really the goal one seeks, there's no other choice than entering in politics.
The problem is not a single law that is voted or something, the problem here is that the laws are made and must be uphold and if you want to inlfuence how they're made and their content one must take the place of one incompetent from the political class.
If you only go through protests and the likes you've already lost, the laws will pass and you'll change nothing.
This law and the one before about the retirement are only the very same law that Juppe tried to pass in 95->97.
In the end protesting will only stall the problems and not solve them.

heck I was in the street at that time, I know how it ended back then and I know where we'll be going on this one.
The worst mistake one could make in the society we live in is to consider that politic is only to be left at the hands of a certain class of people that handle 'theses things' while we real people are really the ones that represent the country.

Everyone is different from each other ;p

He just believes he has a job to do, but he knows he'll be kicked out really soon.

I believe the UMP won't stay in a good shape if the government keeps working on the hard line. Maybe that'll change if Borloo becomes prime minister (or people will believe it, which will be enough)

We'll see how they handle it, I'm pretty sure he wants to be reelected. still if he thinks that goes through an alliance with the FN they're delusional.

 

[Mael]

Weird stuffs happens now,
there's a video showing someone breaking a window and all
That's kinda weird, look like a setup but it gotta be the stupidest thing ever if it's a setup....
so...

 

[fortified_concept]

No, that means other people in politics.
You can't lead a country through protests and the likes.
If the common good is really the goal one seeks, there's no other choice than entering in politics.
The problem is not a single law that is voted or something, the problem here is that the laws are made and must be uphold and if you want to inlfuence how they're made and their content one must take the place of one incompetent from the political class.
If you only go through protests and the likes you've already lost, the laws will pass and you'll change nothing.
This law and the one before about the retirement are only the very same law that Juppe tried to pass in 95->97.
In the end it'll only stall the problems and not solve them.

You openly admit that politicians even the "socialists" aren't doing shit and that there isn't a political solution on sight yet you keep insisting that protests aren't a valid option. Maybe they aren't a good option but they're the only one. These kind of protests keep the leadership relatively scared and even when they fail at their primary goal they force the ruling class to compromise and severely hurts the image of the government. Plus there's a small possibility that if government feels like they're losing control they might even back down. It's no coincidence that in countries that rarely protest and react they get screwed a lot worse than France.

You can keep hoping for conformism to work but until it does the only reasonable solution is to keep fighting because corporatism is at every european country's door and will soon completely take over like it happened in USA.