Choco-Blitizer and all

First of all France is run by a center-right party. The Far Left are the communists that have a party membership so small you could count it on your hands. Like (most?) European countries France leans towards Socialism than Capitalism (althought thats changing). That also doesn't make it far left. Look at Italy, its even more Socialist than France, and its run by the extreme right.

I have said this before, I am Dual-National I grew up on the East Coast for but moved to France for a job. I vote in every election via absentee ballot. So its not like I dont know what I'm talking about. I was a Republican but changed to Independent when W was elected.

As for W.

I admit I detest W. I dont like him, his policies, or the people he associates with. He's so wrapped up in a very narrow ideology that he stubbornly refuses to listen to another point of view (from the left, for example). This radical ideology has proven wrong time after time and worse, he is ruthlessly persecutes anybody that critizes him, (such as the French, which really enraged me). He's also decietful, (its almost obvious that lied about Iraq) and about a host of other issues. I cannot think of a single worse American President in out history and we have had some real stinkers...Whoever wins the 2008 election will be an improvement be he Republican or Democrat.

I know many moderates, most cannot stand W, (of my circle I admit) the few that dont find him an complete abhorrence have major issues (like spending) with him. Even in Congress some of his harshest critics comes from the center, although the right is beginning to chime in as well...

Be careful with the dual citizen thingy there MM, the US disallowed that a while back now. If they get wind of it you'll lose your American citizenship.

As for bad presidents I offer this bit of wisdom handed to me years back. The human psyche tends to "romanticise" its experiences. In simple terms the further in time one gets from something the less we remember of how bad the bad elements were at that time. Hence the phrase "the good OLD days". Funny thing you'll all see is in 20 years the President then will be the "worst ever" and people will be saying "remember when we had Clinton and Bush, those were some great leaders, why don't we have ones like that anymore?"

Case in point. George Washington is known by many in the US today as the "father of our country". This is used now as a term of respect and admiration but its roots are far more sullied. George was a known womanizer in his day. The innkeepers would proudly boast that "George slept here" and the locals would chime in "And he wasn't alone". Behind his back he was referred to as the "father of our country" owing to persistant rumours, many substantiated, of his many illegitimate children throughout the fledgling nation.

Now how many of you knew that? Very few I suspect. We tend to gloss over the bad and less acceptable traits of people the further they fade from our contemporary collective memory. Think about this the next time you hear someone speaking of how "bad things are today" and how "great they once were". Nostalgia is deceitful.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Look at Italy, its even more Socialist than France, and its run by the extreme right.

#1 Italy is in no way "even more socialist than France". You're not well-informed. Look at who owns the National Airways Company. In France, it's the State. Overhere, it's private.

#2 You are evidently not aware of the fact that you do not know ANYTHING about my country. Your French or (?) sources are unreliable, and this assessment of yours confirms how little you know about Italy.
Italy is run by a Center-Right coalition, made up of four parties:

Christian Democrats (Center, they often flirt with the left), around 4 % of the votes.

Forza Italia (liberal/liberist party of our Prime Minister. He's a multi-billionaire tycoon who dislikes all forms of socialism, while Chirac loves the Big State in charge of the Big France), 30 % of the votes. Its ranks and voters are paradoxically mostly made up of ex-socialists and ex-Christian Democrats.

AN (the right) it's also known as the "social right" because it endorses the causes of the poor and makes it a big deal when it comes it comes to raise the minimum retirement bills and things like that. They are very patriotic. Just to give you an example of how "extreme right" they are, their leader (current Foreign Minister) has proposed a bill to let the immigrants vote. So much for your extreme right.
AN rejected any link to Fascism in 1992-95 and is a party recognized by Israel. Its leader has been to Israel and is one of Italy's strongest advocates of Israel and Nato. Votes: 12%).

Northern League: a regional party where leaders talk a lot but when it comes to doing something they have never passed a restrictive law since they got elected, leading to some disappointment among their voters. Votes: 4%.

Smaller parties in the coalition: Socialists (1%).


What you call extreme right is actually a tiny party that stays out of the coalition: they are called DN and they have I think 0,8 % or less than that. They strongly oppose our government because they say we are too close to Israel and to Nato. Exactly the same thing that the left says.
By the way, compared to the right, the left coalition is extreme: They have 2 or 3 communist parties, for instance.
So please next time you can use another example for an extreme right government. Thank you.

...and in related news military forces have crossed the border from Italy and are approaching Paris as we speak...

Italian Guy

1. Sorry, thats my fault, I used the wrong vocabulary. I meant to say 'far right' not 'extreme right'. Extreme right means ultranationalists which I readily agree Italy is not. Chirac IS center right. French far right (not the extreme right) would be Jean-Marie LE PEN. The extreme right in France is Bruno Magret. But Barsconi is much more to the right than Chirac. We clear now?

2. I was referring to the Head of State not the political makeup in parliment. I'll grant that your a better authority than I on Italian politics. But Balusconi is an exception, previous ministers have been much more socialist same is true in France, although Chirac has been in power longer. French privatization started earlier, probably after the 5th Republic (1970's). I admit, progress is slow in France, they unions dont liek giving up their perks.

3. Chirac is NOT a socialist, on the contrary he's ANTI BIG GOVERNMENT. To say so means you know nothing of France. In this respect, he's like Balusconi he's the one who has been privatizing the country. Thats why French labor hates him so much. The labor strikes you read about in the newspaper are directed toward him.

4. Wrong. Air France was deregulated in 1999 (see above). The government controls a minority share but the stock is readily traded on the stock markets. the only thing thats still not privatized is gas and electric energy. Everything else Telecoms, Transportations, Banking, (Italian banks are in the process of deregulation) are private. You also neglected to mention the social programs such as pensions which is huge compared to France. Balusconi owns most of the media in Italy which means he controls what they say and print. You cannot honestly say thats a private industry (untill he leaves office). With the exception of 1 TV and 1 radio station everything is private or partialially privatized.

bulldogg

I appriciate your concern but its perfectly legal.

My French mother just because a American citizen 6 months ago after living in the US for 35 years. It all depends on the countries involved. Some countries ban it completely but most allow it. In the US the general rule is countries that have good relations is OK. In other words, countries like Iran, Syria, Sudan, Somelia, North Korea, etc are forbidden. Obviously both countries have to agree. The only rule is I cannot join the French Army, not that I was going to. I have a cousin who has 3 passports
US, French, Swiss.

You have a point, generally the rule of thumb is 50 years after the president has left office before history makes it final call. this is trictly an opinion but I think it would take a miracle. Here is a survey run by the top history/poli-science professors in the USA as they compare him to other bad presidents. I have been around since the 1970's. I would gladly pick any president from Nixon to Clinton, bar none as a replacement to Bush Jr, and its not like thats a cream of the crop bunch of choices.

http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Italian Guy

1. Sorry, thats my fault, I used the wrong vocabulary. I meant to say 'far right' not 'extreme right'. Extreme right means ultranationalists which I readily agree Italy is not. Chirac IS center right. French far right (not the extreme right) would be Jean-Marie LE PEN. The extreme right in France is Bruno Magret. But Barsconi is much more to the right than Chirac. We clear now?

Yes we are, but Berlusconi is not much more to the right than Chirac. (Barsconi=Berlusconi?). Italy doesnt have a Le Pen, so you can see France is on average more to the extreme right than Italy is. We dont have neonazi movements or racist politicians who go and bitch the jews or the muslims.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

2. I was referring to the Head of State not the political makeup in parliment. I'll grant that your a better authority than I on Italian politics. But Balusconi is an exception, previous ministers have been much more socialist same is true in France, although Chirac has been in power longer. French privatization started earlier, probably after the 5th Republic (1970's). I admit, progress is slow in France, they unions dont liek giving up their perks

.

Ok, I see your point, yes you're right here. (Balusconi=Berlusconi?)

Originally Posted by mmarsh

3. Chirac is NOT a socialist, on the contrary he's ANTI BIG GOVERNMENT. To say so means you know nothing of France. In this respect, he's like Balusconi he's the one who has been privatizing the country. Thats why French labor hates him so much. The labor strikes you read about in the newspaper are directed toward him

.

I never said Chirac is socialist! Where did I?

Originally Posted by mmarsh

4. Balusconi owns most of the media in Italy which means he controls what they say and print. You cannot honestly say thats a private industry (untill he leaves office).

As an Italian I beg to strongly disagree with your last assessments. I can honestly say his tv are private. In Italy, only the Communist Refounded Party and a few more hardliners say italian tv is ruled by Berlusconi. In fact, the majority of his own journalists are leftist. Most of the media in my country are leftist. I know that might sound hard to understand if you listen to French sources. He does not control anything of what they say and print. He does not. (Balusconi=Berlusconi?)

Warning:
Maybe it's me but this thread seems to have wandered off topic from Bush to France vs. Italy to Washington slept with other women. I'm afraid it's getting close to being locked. Please return to the topic immediately, thank you.

I'm sorry you're right. On topic now.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Here is a survey run by the top history/poli-science professors in the USA as they compare him to other bad presidents. I have been around since the 1970's. I would gladly pick any president from Nixon to Clinton, bar none as a replacement to Bush Jr, and its not like thats a cream of the crop bunch of choices.

http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html

Is this your top history and political scientists?

Although his approval ratings have slipped somewhat in recent weeks, President George W. Bush still enjoys the overall support of nearly half of the American people. He does not, however, fare nearly so well among professional historians.

"Professional historians" here are quoted as being "George Mason University's History News Network." What's that? Sounds like a gathering of a think tank that validates it's own research and conclusions.

A recent informal, unscientific survey of historians conducted at my suggestion by George Mason University’s History News Network found that "eight in ten historians" responding rate the current presidency an overall failure.

There's that elusive conclave of historians again, my, my!

Of 415 historians who expressed a view of President Bush’s administration to this point as a success or failure, 338 classified it as a failure and 77 as a success. (Moreover, it seems likely that at least eight of those who said it is a success were being sarcastic,

Now that sounds very professional and unbiased.

since seven said Bush’s presidency is only the best since Clinton’s and one named Millard Fillmore.) Twelve percent of all the historians who responded rate the current presidency the worst in all of American history, not too far behind the 19 percent who see it at this point as an overall success.

Why not save time and tear out a page of a North Korean, Al Queda, or French newspaper instead of bothering such an esteemed group of historians with this pathetic attempt to place President Bush in history even before his term is up. I mean, isn't now the present? Unless these people are omniscient, this can't possibly be happening in the future.