|
It is currently Fri Jul 25, 2025 9:50 am
|
Author |
Message |
Satis
Felix Rex
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 6:01 pm Posts: 16702 Location: On a slope
|
yea, we run into that shit too. New Orleans was an example. We've had it happen elsewhere too (Los Angeles and shit). But not in 300 cities, by any means. Then again, with an unemployment rate like that, I'm not too shocked there's some resentment going around. Just like the LA riots, the kids are just an excuse to go rape your neighborhood.
_________________ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
|
Mon Nov 07, 2005 5:04 pm |
|
 |
Myrddin L'argenton
King
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2003 6:17 am Posts: 1717 Location: The Plateaus of Insanity
|
And the Interior Minister isn't helping
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4416728.stm
Curfews are a complete joke. Actually I'm quite worried since one of my friends parents lives in the region. She seems alright tho.
_________________ I think drugs have done some really good things. If you don't believe me, go home tonight, take all your cassettes, CDs, etc and burn them. Because those artists that have made that music were real fucking high- Bill Hicks
|
Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:55 am |
|
 |
derf
Minor Diety
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 2:17 pm Posts: 7737 Location: Centre of the sun
|

Theres a clear difference between 'making fun' and 'tut-tutting'. The latter being the only constructive out of the two.
Ok, now that ive informed myself a little of the matter at hand i can form an opinion.
From what i gather, the riots in France are the result of socio-economic exclusion. We have seen this type of unrest in:
- Birmingham recently.
- UK during Conservative rule.
- New Orleans.
- And now France.
I do not believe that people as a collective are warmongering idiots who initiate rioting just for the excitement. If that were true, then i would be rioting too. The reason i am not, is because i am content. Why am i content? Because my life is prosperous. This therefore supports the idea that these riots are caused by socio-economic exclusion.
We learned this lesson in the UK. We realised that we could no longer take immigrants for granted. We realised that accepting waves of immigrants without provision ultimately results in depravation and culminates in rioting.
It would be fair to assume the same with New Orleans. The conservative government in place there simply did not solve the socio-economic problems, and unrest was the result.
It is simply not the agenda of a conservative government to solve these problems.
_________________ "Well a very, very hevate, ah, heavy duh burtation tonight. We had a very derrist derrison, bite, let's go ahead and terrist teysond those fullabit who have the pit." - Serene Branson
|
Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:17 am |
|
 |
ElevenBravo
King
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 2:18 pm Posts: 1976 Location: Sexy Town
|
No derf, I disagree partially. The social and economic problems where not the "cause" of the riots. The cause of the riots where that 2 dumbass mulism kids jumped on a power line because they "thought" they where being chased by police.
Again, I dont know about you but running from the police is called "resisting arrest" and is a crime.
In addition, why did they feel the need to run? If they werent doing anything wrong, then they probably didnt need to run.
So because of their criminal actions and their stupidity they have caused all these riots.
The social and economic problems are the fuel that is keeping the rioting going.
IMO all this does is, once again, make muslims look bad just like the la riots and NO made black people look bad.
|
Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:46 am |
|
 |
derf
Minor Diety
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 2:17 pm Posts: 7737 Location: Centre of the sun
|
Oh come on. You can not seriously justify that the whole cause of the riots is because of these 2 kids. You must go deeper into the 'why'. And this is how you do it:
If the same thing happened in my neighborhood would there be a similar uprising? No. Alas, we have a distinction to identify. Therefore i see 2 possible reasons:
1) Perhaps the particular people in France are barbaric by culture and will be enraged by anything that dishonors them. E.g. Klingons.
2) Perhaps the story of the 2 kids was what actually sparked off the consequence of another significant problem.
I think its 2 because:
a) To me, 1 sounds far too simplistic.
b) We have seen these 'sparks' before. New Orleans and its Hurricane, Birmingham and its Rumour, London and its Arrests.
c) If you try to similarly similar 'spark' my neighborhood, a riot will not happen because there is comaratively no socio-economic exclusion. Which is why it DOES happen in deprived areas.
_________________ "Well a very, very hevate, ah, heavy duh burtation tonight. We had a very derrist derrison, bite, let's go ahead and terrist teysond those fullabit who have the pit." - Serene Branson
|
Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:41 am |
|
 |
Satis
Felix Rex
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 6:01 pm Posts: 16702 Location: On a slope
|

fyi....
The government in Louisiana was no conservative. They were democrats. In fact, democrats have owned NO/Louisiana for quite some time. They are the black party (the party all the black people vote for). They are liberals. They support lots of welfare and all the other liberal ideals.
So you can't blame a conservative government that fails to care for its people by giving them charity. It was a liberal government that did nothing but give charity. I think that, rather than a reaction against being ignored, what happened was that these people don't understand what it is to be responsible for yourself. They're used to their government taking care of them, coddling them, giving them food and money and housing. When all this was taken away, they freaked and decided to take the shit themselves.
On the other hand, we have Texas. A conservative state. Port Arthur got hit pretty hard (along with Beaumont)), and I can tell you from personal experience that there are alot of poor black people there, too. Rioting? Looting? Not really. What's the difference? It almost looks like a conservative government, who encourages people to work for themselves rather than putting them on a dole, is much better in times of crises.
So...France...liberal or conservative?
_________________ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
|
Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:51 am |
|
 |
Satis
Felix Rex
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 6:01 pm Posts: 16702 Location: On a slope
|

heh...I found this and found it pretty funny.
 |  |  |  | Quote: 2 States, 22 Observations
Things I have noticed while watching media coverage of the recent hurricanes.
1. Texas: Productive industrious state run by Republicans. Louisiana: Government dependent welfare state run by Democrats.
2. Texas: Residents take responsibility to protect and evacuate themselves. Louisiana: Residents wait for government to protect and evacuate them.
3. Texas: Local and state officials take responsibility for protecting their citizens and property. Louisiana: Local and state officials blame federal government for not protecting their citizens and property.
4. Texas: Command and control remains in place to preserve order. Louisiana: Command and control collapses allowing lawlessness.
5. Texas: Law enforcement officers remain on duty to protect city. Louisiana: Law enforcement officers desert their posts to protect themselves.
6. Texas: Local police watch for looting. Louisiana: Local police participate in looting.
7. Texas: Law and order remains in control, 8 looters tried it, 8 looters arrested. Louisiana: Anarchy and lawlessness breaks out, looters take over city, no arrests, criminals with guns have to be shot by federal troops.
8. Texas: Considerable damage caused by hurricane. Louisiana: Considerable damage caused by looters.
9. Texas: Flood barriers hold preventing cities from flooding. Louisiana: Flood barriers fail due to lack of maintenance allowing city to flood.
10. Texas: Orderly evacuation away from threatened areas, few remain. Louisiana: 25,000 fail to evacuate, are relocated to another flooded area.
11. Texas: Citizens evacuate with personal 3 day supply of food and water. Louisiana: Citizens fail to evacuate with 3 day supply of food and water, do without it for the next 4 days.
12. Texas: FEMA brings in tons of food and water for evacuees. State officials provide accessible distribution points. Louisiana: FEMA brings in tons of food and water for evacuees. State officials prevent citizens from reaching distribution points and vice versa.
13. Louisiana: Media focuses on poor blacks in need of assistance, blames Bush. Texas: Media can't find poor blacks in need of assistance, looking for something else to blame on Bush.
14. Texas: Coastal cities suffer some infrastructure damage, Mayors tell residents to stay away until ready for re-population, no interference from federal officials. Louisiana: New Orleans is destroyed, Mayor asks residents to return home as another hurricane approaches, has to be overruled by federal officials.
15. Louisiana: Over 400 killed by storm, flooding and crime. Texas: 24 killed in bus accident on highway during evacuation, no storm related deaths.
16. Texas: Jailed prisoners are relocated to other detention facilities outside the storm area. Louisiana: Jailed prisoners are set free to prey on city shops, residents, and homes.
17. Texas: Local and state officials work with FEMA and Red Cross in recovery operations. Louisiana: Local and state officials obstruct FEMA and Red Cross from aiding in recovery operations.
18. Texas: Local and state officials demonstrate leadership in managing disaster areas. Louisiana: Local and state officials fail to demonstrate leadership, require federal government to manage disaster areas.
19. Texas: Fuel deliveries can't keep up with demand, some run out of gas on highway, need help from fuel tankers before storm arrives. Louisiana: Motorists wait till storm hits and electrical power fails. Cars run out of gas at gas stations that can't pump gas. Gas in underground tanks mixes with flood waters.
20. Texas: Mayors move citizens out of danger. Louisiana: Mayor moves himself and family to Dallas.
21. Texas: Mayors continue public service announcements and updates on television with Governor's backing and support. Louisiana: Mayor cusses, governor cries, senator threatens president with violence on television, none of them have a clue what went wrong or who's responsible.
22. Louisiana: Democratic Senator says FEMA was slow in responding to 911 calls from Louisiana citizens. Texas: Republican Senator says "when you call 911, the phone doesn't ring in Washington, it rings here at the local responders".
What if state and local elected officials were forced to depend on themselves and their own resources instead of calling for help from the federal government? Texas cities would be back up and running in a few days. Louisiana cities would still be under water next month.
|  |  |  |  |
_________________ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
|
Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:57 am |
|
 |
derf
Minor Diety
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 2:17 pm Posts: 7737 Location: Centre of the sun
|
When i talk about conservative government, i imply central government.
What you describe is evidence of failure that devolved regional government doesnt work with a central conservative. Yes New Orleans had a liberal and more social government than the Federal Government, and this is exactly why it is disregarded.
Scenario: A conservative government wins the general election. 49% of its states are under liberal governance, 51% under conservative. It will be the nature of central government not to get involved with the liberals because of the high risk of failure. So what happens is that the conservatives get better treatment and the liberals will continue to worsen.
To refuse equality to all states is to risk discontent among opposition. Devolving government under a central conservative power splits the nation.
Which IS what were seeing in the US at the moment. Huge polarisation.
Not to mention the fact that Bush is actually an illegitemate president.
_________________ "Well a very, very hevate, ah, heavy duh burtation tonight. We had a very derrist derrison, bite, let's go ahead and terrist teysond those fullabit who have the pit." - Serene Branson
|
Tue Nov 08, 2005 10:12 am |
|
 |
ElevenBravo
King
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 2:18 pm Posts: 1976 Location: Sexy Town
|
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/ ... president/
2004 Election Results?
Bush 62,040,606 votes 51% of America
Kerry 59,028,109 votes 48% of America
How exactly does that make him "illegitemate? Bush beat Kerry by 3,012,497 votes. Thats 3 million votes. If a gap of 3 million votes is considered "illegitemate" how many more millions of votes are needed to be considered legitemate? 5 million? 6? 10?
Anyway, back to what Satis said. Yea hes right. Texas took care of itself basiclly and since there werent any Black people to exploit Texas got looked over in the media eventhough I didnt have power in my house for 3 weeks after the storm. I wasnt even able to return home until 1 week after the storm and I couldnt even stay.
Then the news medai flips it lid in Florida 2 days after Wilma hit complaining that Floridians where still without power and the government should do something. WTF?
_________________ Contrary to popular belief, America is not a democracy, it is a Chucktatorship.
|
Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:41 am |
|
 |
derf
Minor Diety
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 2:17 pm Posts: 7737 Location: Centre of the sun
|
To consider Bush's legitemacy, is like considering that of Berlusconi. It is completely farcacle.
But anyway, thats too little to do with the main topic.
_________________ "Well a very, very hevate, ah, heavy duh burtation tonight. We had a very derrist derrison, bite, let's go ahead and terrist teysond those fullabit who have the pit." - Serene Branson
|
Tue Nov 08, 2005 2:45 pm |
|
 |
Satis
Felix Rex
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 6:01 pm Posts: 16702 Location: On a slope
|

dude...wtf are you smoking. 1. John Kerry: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/ He lost. He lost Ohio, lost the electoral votes, and lost the election. And, get this, he conceded victory. IE, he gave up, he surrendered...with only 1 person running for president (not including Nader), Bush won by default. There's no ifs about it. Kerry conceded. Maybe if he'd bitterly fought it, there might be some question. But he didn't. He surrendered his right to the presidency. 2. "When i talk about conservative government, i imply central government. " When I talk about conservative government, I talk about the conservative political movement, which wants less legislation. unlike liberal A strong central government has nothing to with liberalism or conservatism. That's federalism. 3. Do you understand how the US system works? The fact that a state is liberal and the central government is conservative doesn't mean anything. A conservative central government isn't going to screw over a liberal state. The reason is that no single person rules anything...it's all about congress. And congress is crewed with a bunch of people (many from the liberal states). They vote along political boundaries, part boundaries, whatever, but most of all they play the political game. You scratch my back, I scratch yours. If a state is in dire need of federal aid, everyone votes yes. Why? Because they expect a favor in return. It's how politics works. Only when the needs aren't dire will people hedge and haw. Next...you just automatically assume that the federal government ignored NO. Yet, FEMA was right htere, as were the national guard when that was required, the US Army Corp of Engineers (to fix the levees) and every other normal federal response to a disaster. The same stuff that showed up in Texas when we got hit with Rita. To say the NO was ignored is just plain wrong. The problem with NO was that the local government was staffed with retards that couldn't handle what happened. 4.
wrong! Show me where this happens. Would you consider california a polarized/unsuccessful state? Hell no..it's under some debt, but it's doing damned good. It's a liberal state.
How about New York? Polarized? Hell no. It's doing damned good too. That's a conservative state.
How about Florida? Nope? Normal? There is total equality between the states, thanks to the structure of congress. There aren't any states that get screwed federally. Everyone gets screwed equally.
...
So, in conclusion, I disagree with absolutely everything you said. And I'm neither a liberal nor a conservative. I'm a libertarian.
_________________ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
|
Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:10 pm |
|
 |
Arathorn
Minor Diety
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 10:23 am Posts: 3956 Location: Amsterdam
|
We're getting off topic here. The riots in France go deeper back then a few elections anyway, so that comparison with government is useless.
_________________ Melchett: As private parts to the gods are we: they play with us for their sport!
|
Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:08 pm |
|
 |
Myrddin L'argenton
King
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2003 6:17 am Posts: 1717 Location: The Plateaus of Insanity
|
Speaking as an outside and I'm unable to ask my French friend, the idea that a very right winged candidate (Le Pen) nearly managed to become president in the last election plus the descreation of jewish and other minority burials by racist youths seems to indicate there may be an element on society in France that is right-winged. Considering Sarkozy view on the rioters, calling them Thugs and worse, there might be an element of truth in the accusations of Racism. Also reading in the paper yesterday, one person suggested that the anti-pathy towards minorities (French ideals means that everyone is equal and that there should be an anti-pathy towards the colour of the skin which in theory is a great idea)means that widespread racism can flourish unchecked in France.
_________________ I think drugs have done some really good things. If you don't believe me, go home tonight, take all your cassettes, CDs, etc and burn them. Because those artists that have made that music were real fucking high- Bill Hicks
|
Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:00 am |
|
 |
derf
Minor Diety
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 2:17 pm Posts: 7737 Location: Centre of the sun
|
Hard to keep track of what you said in that post of yours Satis.
- Bush's Legitemacy. Did you not see Fahrenheit 9/11?
- NO Ignored. NO was 'ignored' to an extent due to the late arrival of aid.
- Polarisation. So you can ensure me that an opinion poll on the aprooval of Bush would show a clear majority in favour?
- If the federal government has no control over deterriorating socio-economic situations like those in NO, then it proves the failure of decentralisation.
But anyway, as i said this is pretty much off topic.
@ Myrddin
I thought the reason La Pen almost got elected was due to a huge problem in Voter Apathy?
_________________ "Well a very, very hevate, ah, heavy duh burtation tonight. We had a very derrist derrison, bite, let's go ahead and terrist teysond those fullabit who have the pit." - Serene Branson
|
Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:41 am |
|
 |
Myrddin L'argenton
King
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2003 6:17 am Posts: 1717 Location: The Plateaus of Insanity
|
Yes you've got a point but the fact he had a strong backing is scary.
_________________ I think drugs have done some really good things. If you don't believe me, go home tonight, take all your cassettes, CDs, etc and burn them. Because those artists that have made that music were real fucking high- Bill Hicks
|
Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:57 am |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|