Sarkozy / Royal 2007 compared to Bush / Kerry 2004 and Bush / Gore 2000 How difficult was it to fulfill the agenda for these three key elections? Comparing how Sarkozy was elected President of France in the french presidential elections 2007 with each of the Bush victories, gives the answer... Same as Bush vs. Kerry 2004 - acceptance of voting machines The introduction of voting machines in the French Presidential elections 2007, served one of two main purposes of its introduction in the US elections 2004: - have the candidate who was supposed to lose, acknowledge that the elections were fair, i.e.pave the way to have next time votes counted exclusively by machines. Difference to Bush 2004 - president not decided by the software But in France 2007, even if in the first round the machines served to count less votes for the anti-EU platform, unlike in the US 2004 elections, the machines were not necessary to elect the candidate who had to win. That's why its introduction was limited to count only 5 pct of the votes in France. (1) Same as Bush 2000 - packaged as "nationalist", no need to fraud The illuminati didn't need voting machines to elect the right candidate because they knew they could use in France 2007 the same trick used with Bush in the 2000 elections: selling the only "alternative" to face the most important problem, the loss of national identity with the "natives" facing the prospect of becoming the minority of the active population in the near future, due to the "open borders" policies. A couple of sentences was all the packaging the illuminati needed to sell Sarkozy as the man who would solve the problem of the french "banlieue", or in other words, the fact that in 2011 the muslims will be the majority of the population under 30 years age. An example of a sheep's reaction to this illuminati theater: Nicolas Sarkozy in quotes "'I want an integrated Europe, in other words, a Europe that has borders ... Turkey is in Asia Minor." Turkey will never join the EU.... Like Bush 2004, Sarkozy was the candidate who had to win Bush was the candidate who had to win in 2004, since Kerry was not the right actor for the role required by the tasks ahead: continuing the war in Iraq, completing the transition to the terror state and continue to reduce the population to "working poor". If the muslim population in France would be already large enough to prevent Sarkozy from winning, then the software would do the job for him, like it did for Bush in 2004. In fact for Sarkozy's first task, Segolene Royal would fit more the profile: completing the destruction of what is left from national independence in France (not much...). But since this task is nearly done, it's not decisive for the profile of the right candidate. His profile fits much better than Royal the second task, the KEY task he has ahead, the reason why Sarkozy was the candidate who had to win 2007 like Bush was 2004: to complete the destruction of the social benefits and of the salaries of the french, by brutally increasing the pace. A subject for which he was not even forced to play completely theater, like in the "open borders" issue... Notes (1)France 2007 elections: Voting machines decide French President first time ever http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=65686
I don't agree with all of Sarkozy's platforms, but I do agree with his economic platforms. Europe is weighed down by socialism. A little bit is fine (e.g. Canada), but too much, and the economy will grind to a halt.
Canada? hrrr? Have you ever been treated in a Canadian hospital or by a Canadian dentist? Ever wonder why ALL their top doctors move to the USA? Pay isn't the only reason, they only make about 25% more in the USA-- and when you're talking hundreds of thousands, that's not a lot. ~String
That's enough. And every person gets medical care. That's a light-year leap over the American system, where - what? 1/3 of your population is uncovered? Great.
Yes, I'm Canadian and I live in Toronto. Medically, there are some problems with our system (as with any), but it's tolerable. Our medicine is cheap and I can go to a hospital or doctor anytime I want. And no, not all our top doctors move to the US. Many do, I agree, but not all. Besides, our doctors moving to the US isn't the problem, because we also get a small influx of American doctors to Canada and a huge influx of doctors from European countries. There are other problems that don't deal with socialism (problem being the Canadian Medical Association and it's aging law of not recognizing Medical Degrees of many medical schools overseas). Besides, Canada blends a bit of socialism with free market economics. I like our system. Canada has run a budget surplus for over a decade now and we're slowly paying off our federal debt. Look I'm not here to argue about which system of government is better. I'm just saying France could use a bit of free market capitalism and complete shift in it's economic policies to reinvigorate the French economy and labour situation. In fact, most EU countries need it. It's what's holding them back.
Yeah right 25 years of freemarket policies the economic vandalism has left America broke . Europe tops US in stock market value The dollar’s decline tracks US fall from grace Dollar tumbles to record low vs. euro Im sorry to inform you but the EU is the new global powerhouse .
Eventhough the Illuminated ones has their hands in a plethora of events. It's evident that after the Muslim riots there was no way in HELL that France would elect a Liberal. The citizens wanted immigration reform. However, I do believe that they were siphoning off votes with the Machines aswell.
The dollar and the stock market rises and falls. The falling dollar will help US exports. As exports pick up and imports fall, the US dollar will strengthen again, and exports will decrease and imports increase, and the US dollar will fall again. And why only compare the dollar vs euro and the stock market indices? Why not compare the unemployment rates in the EU compared to the US? Tell me whether or not the US has a higher unemployment rate than the EU. Brian Foley, I agree with you on your Iraq stance, but not the French economic stance. I'm not advocating that France become a fully-fledged free market economy. I don't even think the French can adjust to such a big change, even in the long run. I think a nice blend of the two would be good.
Who's this Sarkozky guy? And why is he anti-immigrant when he's name is not even exactly french sounding?
No way the freemarket economics is actually the antithesis of capitalism , the freemarket is a financial system based soley on debt , whereas capitalism is wealth produced by productivity , as what Adam Smith laid out in "The wealth of nations " .
