This may be an oversimplification, but so be it.

In my view Sarkozy was the better choice, because Ségolène is Socialist, and Socialist economic policies don't work well when the majority of the world the Socialist nation is interacting with is Capitalist.

Socialism isn't communism, and Royale's party is more aligned with social democracy. Royale's politics are still very much grounded on a free (But regulated) market.

I have biggoted views on Socialism.

On the one hand I agree with you, on the other hand Israel has a very socialist economy and trades very well with America, and their companies and industries mesh very well. (i.e. Intel, one guy in my community gets all of the Israeli national holidays off of work because his payroll company is from Israel even though he is working in the U.S. amazing how that system works. He gets extra vacation days per year as well...) But then again, everyone I know tries to convince me not to move to Israel because of how bad the economy is


Lets not forget though, that a right wing "captialist" in france, is still a socialist by U.S standards.

No, not really unless the US has shifted so far to the right they've all dropped in the Atlantic ocean.

And Daganev, if expecting public officials to act according to facts and evidence as opposed to bizarre myths is "religious bigotry", then yes, I'm a bigot. I'm a bigot because I'm sick of religion making blatantly ridiculous assertions (Like saying the planet is six thousand years old and man was made out of mud) and still getting an intellectual free ride. Religious assertions are as subject to judgement and evidence as any other kind; I shouldn't have to respect the fact that people think the moon is made of cheese; why should I respect it when they say it's their religion? You can believe in all the empty theological, cosmological and metaphysical platitudes you wish, but once you start believing in crap that is so ridiculously out of touch with reality as actual creationism, then you've become no long acceptable as a member of any ruling class, anywhere.

Royal also happened to have an entirely superficial grasp of foreign affairs.

I would like to suggest that you just once, stand up, and walk to your local church and say what you just wrote to a real life person.

How would that change the fact that I'm right?

And how is it polite or reasonable to go around to churches saying those things? You must think I'm some sort of raving atheist evangelist who goes around screaming and shouting and handing over fliers to people. I'm not. The people screaming and shouting are the religious.

I don't want to scare you but... Spain has been governed by socialists (aligned more or less like Ségolène Royal politically) for the past 4 years (we had 12 years socialist, 8 years right-wings before) and we are still growing economically pretty a bit (at least as much as when the right liberals governed).

You would say it's a socialist-capitalism (this is applicable to most of occidental europe politics I think). A socialist government most of the time implies "left-wing" social politics (like public health insurance, public education availabily, workers rights being deffended or not removed so much...) but they aren't getting into regulating market at all most of the time (housing prices keep rising steadily due to "offer&demand" even when in our Constitution there's a right for a dign housing for everybody). For those of us that even wearing nice clothing and living pretty well still remember we're workers and thus not interested in losing all our rights so bussiness can go better (and bussiness owners can give more benefits to their owners and acordign to theory be nice and remember to send something to eat for the workers down there) it's pretty comfortable.

We work with them, Spain has a lot of comercial treaties with many of those countries. We actually have treaties to allow for immigration. Problem is they say a lot, do little. There's also the problem of a lot of immigration not being from the north of africa, but from way under that only goes to the north of africa to take that final boat that will take them to Europe (and being employed illegally as little more than slaves). So nobody wants to be in charge of them, less than anybody the north african allies that are poor enough to accept more immigrants (rich enough to keep their royal families lifestyles, though). Also the conflictiveness of the southern mediterranean area is way bigger than just Mexico (where at least they have a democracy with more than a single party).

Now, I think what he's suggesting is more alike to grabbing the people from the souther states of EEUU and telling them they can be part of the USA OR they can become a new United States of CentroAmerica with Mexico

How is it polite or reasonable to go around saying those things on the forums?

The reason I suggest you talk to a real life person, is so that you can get the proper response that such ideas deserve. i.e. an actual conversation with real life people.

I don't know what its like in spain, but my French sources tell me that in France they were passing laws that were forcing companies to keep employees even if they were not doing their work very well, and were not allowed to higher new employees the way they would like to. From what I hear, this is what the major cause of a lot of the poor communities problems are.

It depends on wich side you talk to. Acording to some of my spanish sources it's unfair that companies have to pay workers for the weekends and holidays, as they're not producing then, and totally protectionist that you cannot hire and kick people on a weekly basis depending on your company needs.

French employment laws are key to their problems.

It's very difficult to legally fire someone. Jobs are also hard to get. In order to try to stay lean and work within market pressures, French companies tend to hire lots of temporary workers to avoid this. This leads to chronic unemployment and/or unreliable employment.

So, while the protected middle class and the wealthy upper class do fine, the poor get stuck - the opposite of the law's intent. No one's really happy with it. At the same time, saying you want people to be able to lose their jobs is not terribly PC. They need to find a way out of it.

We are having a conversation. That's different from me coming knocking into your synagogue and proclaiming my opinions without being asked, or from me going to a forum which I'm not a member of and which has nothing to do with the subject at hand and making a thread about it in the wrong topic area.

I do say those things in real life - When they're brought up in conversation. I don't go around screaming them from corners because, well, I don't go around screaming the fact that I think the sky is blue or who I think people should vote for either.

Actually you do... We are talking about France here, take your religious bigotry somewhere relevant.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

No, I don't. It was relevant to the topic at hand. Sarkozy -> Approximation with US politically/ideologically -> Ideological climate in the US -> Religious whackjobs ruining the country, and the wishy-washy "tolerant" fools who fail to understand that religious beliefs need to hold up to scrutiny too.

Take your bigotry against logic and rationality somewhere else.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/01/europe/environ.php

Man, I've been waiting a LONG time for an article like this. (ok, so only two days)

So... When does the elections campaign start in USA? Sounds a bit like "we're losing in Irak badly, we need to do something semi-right and look like we're taking power to see if we grasp some votes".

A few weeks ago the somebody in the USA government was implying that global warming was a natural phenomenon and sure nothing we can do about it *produces yet another ultra potent and ultra-oil-waster car*

So, Bush decides to combat climate change, eh? Hmm. Nope. I don't buy it. If you want to combat climate change, you do not change your views on the subject at the last minute, but then insist that things are done in a different manner to the one set out. Those are delaying tactics, pure and simple. They are not designed to help the situation, just to appear as though they help the situation. Since we are relying on this article as our source, let me quote a bit: "Bush's vaguely worded proposal".

25% of the world's fuel resources lie underneath the polar ice. A cynic might wonder whether it is truly in Bush's best interests to combat climate change. What matter if the sea levels rise and the equator becomes uninhabitable, so long as the good ol'American gas guzzling ways can continue unchecked. Not that that's my view, of course...