Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

PARIS BURNS: Riot police fire tear gas as 30,000 protestors furious at Macron

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    I have never been against reasonable regulations.... not sure it would be feasible to make all US drivers have vests, but I've worked enough "person killed while changing tire" accidents that this doesn't sound very intrusive.
    I agree. To me it is no different than looking at the data about accidents and deaths and the strain they put on resources, and requiring simple "fixes" that reduce the problem. Seat belts - air bags - etc.

    Now if people would only take the same approach to other obvious dangers...
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      A little more info from Thomson Reuters Foundation

      PARIS, Nov 24 (Reuters) - Police fired tear gas and used water cannon to disperse protesters in Paris who are angry over rising fuel costs and President Emmanuel Macron's economic policies, the second weekend of "yellow vest" protests that have caused disruption across France.

      Several hundred protesters had converged on the Champs Elysees where they faced police sent to prevent them from reaching the nearby presidential Elysee Palace.

      Some protesters sang the national anthem while others carried signs with slogans saying "Macron, resignation" and "Macron, thief".

      For more than a week, protesters clad in the fluorescent yellow jackets that all motorists in France must have in their cars have blocked highways across the country with burning barricades and convoys of slow-moving trucks, obstructing access to fuel depots, shopping centres and some factories.

      They are opposed to taxes Macron introduced last year on diesel and petrol which are designed to encourage people to shift to more environmentally friendly transport. Alongside the tax, the government has offered incentives to buy green or electric vehicles.

      Security forces are concerned that far-left and far-right extremists may infiltrate the demonstrations, escalating the crowd-control challenges. Around 30,000 people are expected to protest in Paris alone, Denis Jacob, secretary general of police union Alternative Police, told Reuters.

      "We know there are ultra-right and ultra-left infiltrators. You can also expect gangs from the suburbs and 'black-blocks'," he said, referring to a militant protest force.

      Some 3,000 police officers have been drafted in to work in Paris on Saturday, city hall said, with security forces having to handle a demonstration against sexual violence, a soccer match and a rugby game in the capital on the same day.

      Last Saturday, when nearly 300,000 people took part in the first yellow vest demonstrations countrywide, retailers' daily revenue fell 35 percent, according to consumer groups.

      PROTESTS SPREAD

      The unrest is a dilemma for Macron who casts himself as a champion against climate change but has been derided as out of touch with common folk and is fighting a slump in popularity.

      Despite calls for calm from the government, the yellow vest protests have spread to French territories abroad, including the Indian Ocean island of Reunion, where cars were set on fire.

      The unrest has left two dead and 606 injured in mainland France, the Interior Ministry said on Thursday.

      While the movement, which has no leader, began as a backlash against higher fuel prices, it has tapped into broader frustration at the sense of a squeeze on household spending power under Macron's 18-month-old government.

      Since coming to power, Macron has seen off trade union and street demonstrations against his changes to the labour rules, and overhauled the heavily indebted state rail operator. Foreign investors have largely cheered his pro-business administration.

      But political foes have dismissed him as the "president of the rich" for ending a wealth tax, and voters appear to be growing restless, with the 40-year-old president's popularity slumped at barely 20 percent. (Editing by Keith Weir)
      These new fuel taxes "designed to encourage people to shift to more environmentally friendly transport" must be part of the "economically extremely right-wing" policies of Macron's that starlight is talking about.

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        Now if people would only take the same approach to other obvious dangers...
        GuNs ArEn'T DaNgEoUs!!!! PeoPle aRe DaNgeRouS!!!
        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          GuNs ArEn'T DaNgEoUs!!!! PeoPle aRe DaNgeRouS!!!
          Dangeous?
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            I agree. To me it is no different than looking at the data about accidents and deaths and the strain they put on resources, and requiring simple "fixes" that reduce the problem. Seat belts - air bags - etc.

            Now if people would only take the same approach to other obvious dangers...
            Being for reasonable regulations in traffic safety, for example, isn't, in my opinion, "the Nanny State". That would be more like telling me I'm not allowed to buy a Big Gulp at 7/11.

            Speed limits, for example -- unless the purpose is 'revenue', not safety.... and "free market" doesn't, to me, mean absolutely no controls or regulations.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              Being for reasonable regulations in traffic safety, for example, isn't, in my opinion, "the Nanny State". That would be more like telling me I'm not allowed to buy a Big Gulp at 7/11.

              Speed limits, for example -- unless the purpose is 'revenue', not safety.... and "free market" doesn't, to me, mean absolutely no controls or regulations.
              So we all agree: regulations have a purpose. We don't disagree on the need for regulations - we disagree on which ones are necessary.

              So take your Big Gulp example. Big Sugar has taken advantage of the fact that sugar is something we are all(?) genetically predisposed to like. It lights up our pleasure center. Indeed, it has an impact similar to opiates on some parts of the human brain, raising the question of whether or not it can be addicting (I tend to think no). Now we have sugar in almost anything we buy - even meat. The body can only process so much sugar, and the rest is stored as fat. Sugar is one of the (if not the) leading causes of obesity. Obesity (in turn) spawns all sorts of medical conditions, putting a strain on our healthcare system. That, in turn, puts a strain on everyone's pocketbook.

              So your Big Gulp has an indirect impact on me. I personally think that people who cause the problems should pay for the problems. I don't think we should say "no Big Gulps." This is, after all, a "free" country. But I do think there should be a heavy tax put on sugar, which will then pass through to all of the products containing sugar, and the money set aside to support healthcare. So there should be a heavy tax put on cigarettes, and the money set aside to support healthcare. There should be a heavy tax on any CO2-emitting fuel, and the money set aside to help with flood control and relief from extreme weather events. It's not about "being your nanny" (IMO). It's about making sure that the people making choices that will down the road damage everyone pay for that up front. I see it as no different than requiring the person who tosses their trash on their river bank to pay for the cleanup so that those of us downstream can have clean water.

              ETA: It has also been shown that such taxes will actually reduce consumption/use of these products, so it's a win/win.
              Last edited by carpedm9587; 11-26-2018, 07:19 AM.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                So we all agree:
                Wait.... who's "we all"?
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Wait.... who's "we all"?
                  Well - I was mostly talking about you and me. But now that you point out my expansive language, I have to admit that I find a lot of the anti-regulation language to be imprecise. When pushed, everyone I have ever spoken to about this subject has pointed to this or that regulation that they see as necessary. So we all tend to agree that regulations are necessary. We just tend to disagree on which ones are necessary (hence my expansive language). Some people (i.e., Mr. Trump) make it a simple numbers game, which I think is ridiculous and intellectually bankrupt.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    So we all agree: regulations have a purpose. We don't disagree on the need for regulations - we disagree on which ones are necessary.

                    So take your Big Gulp example. Big Sugar has taken advantage of the fact that sugar is something we are all(?) genetically predisposed to like. It lights up our pleasure center. Indeed, it has an impact similar to opiates on some parts of the human brain, raising the question of whether or not it can be addicting (I tend to think no). Now we have sugar in almost anything we buy - even meat. The body can only process so much sugar, and the rest is stored as fat. Sugar is one of the (if not the) leading causes of obesity. Obesity (in turn) spawns all sorts of medical conditions, putting a strain on our healthcare system. That, in turn, puts a strain on everyone's pocketbook.

                    So your Big Gulp has an indirect impact on me. I personally think that people who cause the problems should pay for the problems. I don't think we should say "no Big Gulps." This is, after all, a "free" country. But I do think there should be a heavy tax put on sugar, which will then pass through to all of the products containing sugar, and the money set aside to support healthcare. So there should be a heavy tax put on cigarettes, and the money set aside to support healthcare. There should be a heavy tax on any CO2-emitting fuel, and the money set aside to help with flood control and relief from extreme weather events. It's not about "being your nanny" (IMO). It's about making sure that the people making choices that will down the road damage everyone pay for that up front. I see it as no different than requiring the person who tosses their trash on their river bank to pay for the cleanup so that those of us downstream can have clean water.

                    ETA: It has also been shown that such taxes will actually reduce consumption/use of these products, so it's a win/win.
                    Carpe, I chose the Big Gulp example ("Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule", or "Portion Cap Rule", or "Soda Container Rule") because it's an excellent example of goofy idiot overreach by the Nanny State. It wasn't a tax on sugar (I think you know that) but a control on portion size of sugary drinks. I wouldn't have been allowed (the law was struck down) to buy a 64 oz drink, or even a 24 oz drink (the cap was 16 oz), but I could buy four 16 oz drinks. And it wasn't applied evenly across vendors. As a matter of fact, it actually didn't apply to 7/11, which is regulated by the state, not NYC.



                    (incidentally, the "rule" was struck down because it was enacted by the Board of Health which exceeded its authority, violating the separation of powers doctrine as decided by the New York Court of Appeals in Boreali v. Axelrod - it should have been legislation brought on by the city council, which was bypassed.)
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      Well - I was mostly talking about you and me.
                      Well, that makes sense -- we are all that matters!

                      But now that you point out my expansive language, I have to admit that I find a lot of the anti-regulation language to be imprecise.
                      No doubt. The "anti-regulation" proponent would certainly be unhappy if you took away any regulation of other people encroaching on his property, or stealing his goods or services, or cheating him out of....

                      When pushed, everyone I have ever spoken to about this subject has pointed to this or that regulation that they see as necessary. So we all tend to agree that regulations are necessary. We just tend to disagree on which ones are necessary (hence my expansive language).
                      Same with taxes - going all the way back to the founding of our Republic --- "tax not me and tax not thee - tax that man behind that tree".

                      Some people (i.e., Mr. Trump) make it a simple numbers game, which I think is ridiculous and intellectually bankrupt.
                      I'll leave the commentary on Trump to you.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I fell in love with the beauty of the city. I stood right where the fire was started no more than 5 months ago. On the left, just outside of one of the most expensive shops on the Champs.

                        And as far as the yellow vests go, Parisians are AWFUL drivers, so any safety measure to keep people from getting hit is a plus.
                        That's what
                        - She

                        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                        - Stephen R. Donaldson

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Starlight View Post

                          Macron is economically extremely right-wing and is loathed in France. About his only redeeming features are he's a moderate on social issues and isn't nasty to immigrants.
                          So if he is extremely right-wing on your scale that puts him about halfway to extreme liberal on the actual scale, right? Because Obama endorsed Macron.

                          I don't support rioting in the streets and damaging property but Macron is anything but rightwing and his fuel tax is all about supporting socialist programs and trying to get people to drive less to lessen climate warming, forcing them off fossil fuel and all that other liberal socialist nonsense you support.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            %@#$*# Trump [ATTACH=CONFIG]33267[/ATTACH]
                            Trump wasn't mentioned in the article at all.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                              Trump wasn't mentioned in the article at all.
                              I think it's safe to assume that he was mocking those who blame Trump for everything bad.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                                Trump wasn't mentioned in the article at all.
                                I read an article from HuffPo the other day that blamed the price of diesel in France on Trump's tariffs on Iran.
                                That's what
                                - She

                                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                                - Stephen R. Donaldson

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                155 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                373 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X