Slashdot Mirror
Conservative Sarkozy Wins Presidency of France
Reader reporter tips us to a story just up at the NYTimes reporting that the tough-talking conservative candidate Nicolas Sarkozy has won election as the president of France. His opponent, Socialist Party candidate Ségolène Royal, the first woman to get as far as the runoff in a presidential contest in France, has conceded defeat. The vote went 53% to Sarkozy and the turnout was a remarkable (by American standards) 85% of registered voters. Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure for his demand that immigrants learn Western values (and the French language).
"France will always come to the aid of the U.S. when it seeks it from us." Why he's called America's New Poodle.
Something to think about though. You have a country with a female Minister of Defense and an active Communist Party and they won't elect a female? So Hillary's chances rank somewhere below slim and none?
When Sarkozy is done with France do you think he could come over here for a few years? I like his ideas on immigrants, it would be nice if our "President" had the balls!
I guess the USA isn't the only country with a broken voting system.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
As an Asian, I'm absolutely glad that Sarkozy won. May I point out that he himself is a son of immigrants, and not the anti-immigrant caricature that the story blurb would have us believe.
Vive la France! By voting against the socialist and fundamentalist-sponsored hoodlums and other opponents of assimilation, the French people have chosen a path for future progress and prosperity.
How is this "News for nerds. Stuff that matters". OK, I can see the second part, but not the first.
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
You have to leave Iraq because it's wrong, to plunder other peoples' wealth. Not because of terrorism or preventive warfare.
"Tant mieux pour la France!"... If you're not disabled, if you're not gay, if you're not homeless, if you're not jobless, if you're not from a poor neighborhood, if you're not poor, if you're not black, if you're not Arab, if you're not thinking different, if you're not against software patent, if you don't need help...
actually, terrorists did celebrate the democratic victory in 06 and they are also supportive of the democrats withdrawl from iraq and afganistan since that would be a defacto win for them. So yes, that is actually true in this case.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Let me get this straight. It's your assertion that the hard work and long hours of American/Immigrant parents cause the mental degeneration of their children? And BTW, what the hell is a "neoconservative" in the context that you're using the term?
And your dreck was moderated "informative"...jeez
The link you provided starts with "Al-Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri said a US congressional bill calling for a troop withdrawal from Iraq was proof of Washington's defeat, according to a web video posted on Saturday." that is hardly support for bush's policies. I doubt al-qeda would oppose their own victory. I also do not think al-qeda is an iraqi nationalist group since they consist mostly of foreign whabbist fighters and that has been a source of tension with actual nationalists. al-zawarhi that is in the article you linked to is Egyptian. Al-qeda is a sunni arab group. iraq is a majority shia arab and sunni kurd country.
..."d emocrat-victory-a-victory-for-iran
1 601r.htm
p osts
- 0410iraq.php
I oppose islamic radicals and i see there is a disturbing link between democrats and them.
First islamic congressman was elected a democrat in 06. This guy is a former nation of islam member (they think non-blacks and non-muslims are "potential humans" that is a malcom X quote google it )
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6127234.stm
Islamic theocratic rulers celebrated in iran "this defeat is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation."
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/khameni-calls-
Al-qeda welcomes democratic victory
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20061121-083639-
everyone else
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1738183/
Shite radicals chant death to america while supporting the democratic bill
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/10/africa/web
If this were WWII and the nazis and japanese were praising one parties policies over anothers like this, people would have reacted differently. These days it seems people cant see the obvious.
Can you show me anything where terrorists groups oppose democratic policy on the war? in the link you provided they are basically saying you have admitted defeat and now we want to kill more of you. Im sure if they cant kill more infidels in iraq they will move to another country and resume there.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Just like the Jews? How on earth are Muslims anything like Jews?
Maybe I'm not up on all my history, but IIRC, the Jews were hated in places like Germany because they were so successful. They owned lots of businesses, and had a lot of money. Maybe they didn't fit into the culture too well, but you can't say they caused any social problems doing these things other than jealousy.
Even now, Jews are still known for being highly successful wherever they go. Here in the USA, they seem to own lots of businesses and be in a lot of high positions in the business world. In Israel, they've managed to take a crappy strip of desert and turn it into an economic powerhouse, while their neighbors are still living in the stone age comparatively.
By contrast, Muslims not only don't fit in, but they start riots, assassinate people, rape women, kill people, etc. It seems to me that maybe they just don't belong in a civilized society.
How is it "racism" to call something for what it is? It seems like most people these days using the race card are doing it to just push their own agenda, or ignore other people's opinions, rather than to engage in any constructive dialog.
I think a better term is "culturalism" (although this sounds pretty hokey). Cultures are different, and some cultures are clearly superior to others, unless you subscribe to the idiocy that is moral relativism. Cultures which advocate stoning women to death when they accidentally show some skin on their arm are clearly backwards, barbaric, primitive cultures which have no place in the modern world. Cultures which advocate freedom, individual civil liberties, etc. are obviously superior to the former. So I don't see how criticizing or even condemning members of a barbaric culture, who continue to push said culture and attempt to destroy more modern cultures, is a bad thing.
Calling it "racism" is just BS. There's lots of people from areas of the world with such backwards cultures, who have moved to countries with superior cultures and successfully assimilated.