RE: "Cars burnt, police hurt in French election violence"

RE: "Cars burnt, police hurt in French election violence" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

meatcleaver -> RE: "Cars burnt, police hurt in French election violence" (5/9/2007 10:48:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth This makes governmental violence and vandalism as criminally unacceptable as any public riot, lacking said mandate - or it makes rioting as acceptable as the actions of government in that regard. "Governmental violence and vandalism"; can you detail this action by the government? Is it vandalism and violence to defend property against rioters and arrest them or do you have an example of something else? http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher Political commentators harked back to the Heath Government's "U-turn" and speculated that Mrs Thatcher would follow suit, but she repudiated this approach at the 1980 Conservative Party conference, telling the party: "To those waiting with bated breath for that favourite media catch-phrase—the U-turn—I have only one thing to say: you turn if you want to; the Lady's not for turning."[9] That she meant what she said was confirmed in the 1981 budget, when, despite concerns expressed in an open letter from 364 leading economists,[10] taxes were increased in the middle of a recession. In January 1982, the inflation rate had dropped back to 8.6% from earlier highs of 18%, and interest rates were then allowed to fall. Unemployment continued to rise, reaching an official figure of 3.6 million — although the criteria for defining who was unemployed were amended allowing some to estimate that unemployment in fact hit 5 million. However, Norman Tebbit has suggested that, due to the high number of people claiming unemployment benefit whilst working, unemployment never reached three million. By 1983, manufacturing output had dropped 30% from 1978. One could go on and on and list the industries and communities she destroyed and which have never recovered to this day. She created the underclass that is still a problem in many British towns and cities. Sarkozy is advocating similar economic linberalism. Another politician that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

popeye1250 -> RE: "Cars burnt, police hurt in French election violence" (5/9/2007 10:52:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol popeye, darling... big sigh The 'right' has a political agenda. It isn't all to do with economics. You are confusing liberalism and right-wing. Now, go back to the history books. I highly recommend you start with Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarism. Then we can take it from here. kittinsol, I never said it was all to do with economics. Your comparison of the "KKK" to the "Right wing" weakens your argument. There are hate groups like the "KKK" but to compare a group that you disagree with to (them) just takes away any validity of your argument. If there is a political group I disagree with I'm not going to put them in comparison with the "KKK" just because I don't like their positions. That's just being falacious and shallow. There's a book you should read, it's called "The Informed Argument."

kittinSol -> RE: "Cars burnt, police hurt in French election violence" (5/9/2007 11:03:35 AM)
For crying out loud, popeye! I despair of you. OF COURSE the KKK is a right wing 'movement'. Of course! I can't believe you're even questioning this, it's funny, though terribly frustrating. I rest my case and send you on your way to the temple of knowledge: the public library. Or if you are reluctant to leave your computer, how about you type 'racism right wing' in Google? That should provide you with the information you so obviously yearn for. YAWN

Archer -> RE: "Cars burnt, police hurt in French election violence" (5/9/2007 11:06:32 AM)
LOL man you really do like to mix up what someone says don't you. Beyond any reason to debate it further since you persist in avoiding the central question of your own displayed double standard, and continue to sidestep the question with misdirection tactics, and attempts to put bias in words tht had none when they were typed.

Mercnbeth -> RE: "Cars burnt, police hurt in French election violence" (5/9/2007 11:18:04 AM)
quote: One could go on and on and list the industries and communities she destroyed and which have never recovered to this day. She created the underclass that is still a problem in many British towns and cities. Sarkozy is advocating similar economic linberalism. Another politician that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. None of what you reference comes under the definition any dictionary applies to "vandalism" and "violence". Everything you point to is policy not violence, not vandalism. Ms. Thatcher was elected to effect change in policy by a plurality of citizens. Was maintaining the status quo a better option? Perhaps, but anyone casting a vote for her would have felt lied to. Is the only way to make a rationalized comparison to expand the definition of the words violence and vandalism? What is the answer to these questions? A "mandate" in this case is being defined as a person/party winning a democratic election and, as a result, implementing the change that gained them the democratic plurality generating the victory. As a member of the society, obviously disagreeing with the implemented change, it is not only acceptable but justified to riot? Do the riots indicate an acceptance by the rioters that they are a fringe minority who can not ever expect to implement their political agenda in a democratic society? If not, what is their goal?

kittinSol -> RE: "Cars burnt, police hurt in French election violence" (5/9/2007 11:19:04 AM)
Hmmmm... it seems that popeye isn't alone in being confused, Archer, doesn't it...

selfbnd411 -> RE: "Cars burnt, police hurt in French election violence" (5/9/2007 11:28:08 AM)
Kitten, I would just leave it alone. It's the same argument the Bush administration has been using for years now: You are all evil. We are all good. You are all wrong. We are all right. Everything you believe is mistaken. Everything I believe is enlightened. You can't argue with such a parochial, small minded point of view.

kittinSol -> RE: "Cars burnt, police hurt in French election violence" (5/9/2007 11:33:56 AM)
You are right, of course, selfbnd... It's just the justice in me that screams at such blatant ignoramus. It was always a deep-rooted conviction of mine that ignorance is the source of all evil. And when ignorance is deliberate... well it's difficult for me not to adress it. But you're right, I'm talking to a brick wall. And not the smartest brick wall at that. Thank god you were here to bring me to my senses :-) *whaaaaaaaaaaaps her own wrist for good measure (well, this IS a D/s site, too, you know [:)] ).

popeye1250 -> RE: "Cars burnt, police hurt in French election violence" (5/9/2007 11:39:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: selfbnd411 Kitten, I would just leave it alone. It's the same argument the Bush administration has been using for years now: You are all evil. We are all good. You are all wrong. We are all right. Everything you believe is mistaken. Everything I believe is enlightened. You can't argue with such a parochial, small minded point of view. selfbnd, that's true. I belong to probably one of the "most" Right-Wing groups in the country, -The American Legion. On the cover of the monthly magazine it says; "For God and Country." I'd like to see anyone walk into an American Legion Post and tell them that the "KKK" is just like them! They wouldn't be walking out.

LadyEllen -> RE: "Cars burnt, police hurt in French election violence" (5/9/2007 11:42:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: in that election and in none since have I seen any party manifesto whereby a mandate was obtained for the wrecking of British society in the thorough way which has obtained. In an effort gain clarity, not accuse, I have a question regarding this statement. A "mandate" in this case is being defined as a person/party winning a democratic election and, as a result, implementing the change that gained them the democratic plurality generating the victory. As a member of the society, obviously disagreeing with the implemented change, it is not only acceptable but justified to riot? As a side note - this is 2007 not 1979. This is France not England. This is Mr. Sarkozy not Ms. Thatcher. Is the comparison, prior to any change in policy, necessary to rationalize the position to "understand" the riots? Do the riots indicate an acceptance by the rioters that they are a fringe minority who can not ever expect to implement their political agenda in a democratic society? If not, what is their goal? quote: This makes governmental violence and vandalism as criminally unacceptable as any public riot, lacking said mandate - or it makes rioting as acceptable as the actions of government in that regard. "Governmental violence and vandalism"; can you detail this action by the government? Is it vandalism and violence to defend property against rioters and arrest them or do you have an example of something else? Hi Sorry not responded earlier - busy cooking and eating! If a party wins an election on the basis of a certain manifesto, and then carries out the policies comprising that manifesto, then there is no justification for rioting. However, when a party wins an election on the basis of a certain manifesto, and then specifically and deliberately embarks on the implementation of policies not contained in that manifesto but which comprise the intended means for the destruction of all opposition, then there is more than enough justification for rioting. This is what happened in the Thatcher years. I certainly take the point about the change of times and place. For France however it still is 1979 in UK terms, and the proposal was that Sarkozy wants to introduce Thatcherite policies. This brings us to the question of whether one should challenge a terrorist before he commits his atrocity, or after. Given what is at stake in both instances, I consider it best to challenge beforehand. What the goal of the rioters is I am not sure any consensus could be obtained upon. Basically and generally, I think it would be about social and economic exclusion, which is only going to get worse under Thatcherite policies. The rioters represent a fringe minority perhaps, but therein lies their problem - that the policies they need to solve their life issues will never be implemented because they are a minority. What else then to do but to vent frustration at the powerlessness of one's situation? E

selfbnd411 -> RE: "Cars burnt, police hurt in French election violence" (5/9/2007 11:43:11 AM)
Oh, believe me--as an educated person it makes my blood boil to see such ignorance. It's really a basic denial of the values of the Enlightenment--reason should always reign supreme. An intelligent person does not close his eyes and his ears and hunker down, ignoring any opinion or data that contradicts his point of view. That didn't serve Dr. Pangloss very well, now did it? It hasn't served the administration either. It's a darn shame that Voltaire is not required reading anymore.

meatcleaver -> RE: "Cars burnt, police hurt in French election violence" (5/9/2007 11:44:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: One could go on and on and list the industries and communities she destroyed and which have never recovered to this day. She created the underclass that is still a problem in many British towns and cities. Sarkozy is advocating similar economic linberalism. Another politician that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. None of what you reference comes under the definition any dictionary applies to "vandalism" and "violence". Everything you point to is policy not violence, not vandalism. Ms. Thatcher was elected to effect change in policy by a plurality of citizens. Was maintaining the status quo a better option? Perhaps, but anyone casting a vote for her would have felt lied to. Is the only way to make a rationalized comparison to expand the definition of the words violence and vandalism? What is the answer to these questions? A "mandate" in this case is being defined as a person/party winning a democratic election and, as a result, implementing the change that gained them the democratic plurality generating the victory. As a member of the society, obviously disagreeing with the implemented change, it is not only acceptable but justified to riot? Do the riots indicate an acceptance by the rioters that they are a fringe minority who can not ever expect to implement their political agenda in a democratic society? If not, what is their goal? Actually under Thatcher the police started a riot which was defended by Thatcher as necessary and in which 250 miners were arrested and beaten and in court the judge said the police lied, the miners hadn't started it, the police had. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. That was the nature of Thatcher and that is what made me realise one is justified to use violence against the state because the state itself is happy to use violence. Thatcher never commanded a majority of votes in Britain, we have a similar screwed up democracy like the States where governments become more or less a dictatorship for a term on a minority of votes. The fact that politicians won't change the system because it is not in their interests is not the fault of those that feel they have no voice and take extra Parliamentry action. Every reform worth having was won on the streets and until the professional politicians can say otherwise, they can't complain.

Mercnbeth -> RE: "Cars burnt, police hurt in French election violence" (5/9/2007 12:06:45 PM)
quote: Sorry not responded earlier - busy cooking and eating! Lady E - Hope I didn't rush your dinner prep or enjoyment; my apologies if I did. Thanks for this; "*If a party wins an election on the basis of a certain manifesto, and then carries out the policies comprising that manifesto, then there is no justification for rioting." Basically this is my point. I don't see it as any concession of opinion or philosophy but instead a common bottom line judgment regardless of the political position of the protagonists involved. What else then to do but to vent frustration at the powerlessness of one's situation?* This is a bigger and more important issue isn't it? It isn't the losing side in an election that come to this level of frustration it is the disenfranchised. It is easy to see how they can feel excluded. To me it comes down to the leadership. Leaders who encourage these actions have the goal of anarchy because they know their fringe positions and desired results can not be achieved any other way. If the new administration under Mr. Sarkozy is to succeed, he must include a policy/program to lessen the feeling of disenfranchisement felt by this group. It will be a difficult battle if the leaders continue to call for violence. As a great writer said; "As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities." - Voltaire

kittinSol -> RE: "Cars burnt, police hurt in French election violence" (5/9/2007 12:16:07 PM)
Why wouldn't they be walking out? Would they get lynched? rofl

Archer -> RE: "Cars burnt, police hurt in French election violence" (5/9/2007 12:19:46 PM)
Thing is willfull ignorance is exactly what you are displaying. My argument didn't hinge on the ethnicity of the rioters in OCT 2006, nor on the political bent of the post election rioters. But you willfully took it off down that tangental road. That was your tactic to draw attention away from your displayed double standard. Had the majority of the rioters been Christian or Hindu or Right wing fringe groups, the ACTION of setting up other groups to be able to rationalize their own resorting to destruction of bystander's property is what I was addressing My point was and remains riots by any group set the bar for social acceptability of future rioting. This is borne out by historic record. Periods of riots of unaffiliated groups subsequent to yet not directly related in a society are well documented. My only confussion is in why you want to cast dispersions on me for bias when group identity of the rioters was tangental to my argument at best. I can only surmise that it is a tactical ploy or a character flaw.

LadyEllen -> RE: "Cars burnt, police hurt in French election violence" (5/9/2007 12:36:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth To me it comes down to the leadership. Leaders who encourage these actions have the goal of anarchy because they know their fringe positions and desired results can not be achieved any other way. If the new administration under Mr. Sarkozy is to succeed, he must include a policy/program to lessen the feeling of disenfranchisement felt by this group. It will be a difficult battle if the leaders continue to call for violence. It does indeed come down to leadership - but ultimately its only the leaders who have the power to make things happen who can affect things. Whether the rioters have a leader I'd question, but if they do have then in fairness they only have one move and thats to call for rioting. But I think this is the problem of our politics - parties by their nature do not represent the interests of the whole population, and in the absence of a consensus on such notions as national identity, common morality and social contract in the background, there is always some portion of the population whose interests are not served - often in the modern world, the same portion regardless of which party is in power. There is a poster here who often calls for statesmen/women rather than politicians. Thats exactly whats needed I believe to make sure, regardless of party, that society in inclusive and we dont have a significant portion of society with nothing to gain by playing to the rules of a game in which they are not included. E

kittinSol -> RE: "Cars burnt, police hurt in French election violence" (5/9/2007 1:09:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer My only confussion is in why you want to cast dispersions on me for bias when group identity of the rioters was tangental to my argument at best. I can only surmise that it is a tactical ploy or a character flaw. Dear Archy, you are wrong: I had actually forgotten all about your posts.

popeye1250 -> RE: "Cars burnt, police hurt in French election violence" (5/9/2007 1:45:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Why wouldn't they be walking out? Would they get lynched? rofl The "KKK" could walk into a Moveon meeting and feel very welcomed I'm sure.

meatcleaver -> RE: "Cars burnt, police hurt in French election violence" (5/9/2007 3:07:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth If the new administration under Mr. Sarkozy is to succeed, he must include a policy/program to lessen the feeling of disenfranchisement felt by this group. It will be a difficult battle if the leaders continue to call for violence. As a great writer said; "As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities." - Voltaire Sarkozy has made his position clear and unequivical. Like Thatcher, he wants to put the primacy of the market above the primacy of the people. Everyone in France knows what that means and they have to make the decision of whether they can live with it or not and damn the consequences.

Vendaval -> RE: "Cars burnt, police hurt in French election violence" (5/9/2007 4:47:23 PM)
General reply - In the interest of defining the terms, take a look at this Wikipedia article on the Left-Right dichotomy and its origins in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791 and the evolution of their meanings over the past 200+ years. There is also a very user friendly chart in the middle of the page as you scroll down to aid in understanding the differences. "The terms Left and Right have been used to refer to political affiliation since the early part of the French Revolutionary era. They originally referred to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France, specifically in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791, when the moderate royalist Feuillants sat on the right side of the chamber, while the radical Montagnards sat on the left.[8] This traditional seating arrangement continues to be observed by the Senate and National Assembly of the French Fifth Republic. Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was attitudes towards the ancien régime ("old order"). "The Right" thus implied support for aristocratic, royal, or clerical interests, while "The Left" implied opposition to the same. At that time, support for laissez-faire capitalism and free markets were regarded as being on the left whereas today in most Western countries these views would be characterized as being on the Right. But even during the French Revolution an extreme left wing called for government intervention in the economy on behalf of the poor. In Great Britain at that time, Edmund Burke (now generally described as a conservative)[9] held similar economic views to this first French Left. Nonetheless, he strongly criticized their anti-clericalism and their willingness to turn to mob violence for support and to overturn institutions of long standing. Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France criticized the Left as excessively rationalistic and disrespecting of the wisdom of tradition.[10]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_dichotomy (Edited for formating because I hit the "Enter" key by mistake)

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875