QuoteFrench Don't Want Minister to Resign Over Sex Furore
By REUTERS
Filed at 4:24 a.m. ET
PARIS (Reuters) - Two-thirds of French people do not want Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand to resign for having written about paying young male prostitutes for sex in Thailand, an opinion poll showed Monday.
Mitterrand has rejected calls for his resignation, sparked by revelations in his 2005 autobiography, "The Bad Life," and said the male prostitutes were consenting adults.
The French government has also come out in support of Mitterrand, who has threatened legal action to protect his reputation.
The controversy surfaced after Mitterrand defended film-maker Roman Polanski, who faces extradition from Switzerland to the United States for having had sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977.
Both the far-right National Front party and main Socialist opposition party said he should step down.
However, 67 percent of French people do not want Mitterrand to resign, against 20 percent who think he should, according to the survey of 1,005 people carried out by pollster BVA on October 9-10.
Mitterrand has called his experiences in Thailand, described in the book that mixes autobiography and more dreamlike reflection, as "a mistake, certainly, a crime, no."
"I got into the habit of paying for boys," Mitterrand wrote.
"All these rituals of the market for youths, the slave market excited me enormously ... the abundance of very attractive and immediately available young boys put me in a state of desire."
Mitterrand, the nephew of former Socialist President Francois Mitterrand, shot to the top of popularity polls after he was drafted into Sarkozy's centre-right cabinet in June.
:D
I'm sorry, but that's actually sort of sad. He should be in prison, being treated the way all real child molesters should be.
Uhm we have already discussed that and I posted this story and a follow up. He says he used the term "boys" to mean young men, which is not that incredible, seeing how straight men refer to women they fuck (especially prostitutes) as "girls" too. :mellow:
Every time you manage to get me to like you, you come up with a shit like that that reminds me you are a retard. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 04:01:13 AM
Uhm we have already discussed that and I posted this story and a follow up. He says he used the term "boys" to mean young men, which is not that incredible, seeing how straight men refer to women they fuck (especially prostitutes) as "girls" too. :mellow:
Every time you manage to get me to like you, you come up with a shit like that that reminds me you are a retard. :rolleyes:
Do you like me? :)
Quote from: Jaron on October 12, 2009, 04:05:51 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 04:01:13 AM
Uhm we have already discussed that and I posted this story and a follow up. He says he used the term "boys" to mean young men, which is not that incredible, seeing how straight men refer to women they fuck (especially prostitutes) as "girls" too. :mellow:
Every time you manage to get me to like you, you come up with a shit like that that reminds me you are a retard. :rolleyes:
Do you like me? :)
yes. :P
Remember, he did some pre-emptive yankeebashing with the Polanski bit so he was well prepared for a scandal.
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 04:01:13 AM
Uhm we have already discussed that and I posted this story and a follow up. He says he used the term "boys" to mean young men, which is not that incredible, seeing how straight men refer to women they fuck (especially prostitutes) as "girls" too. :mellow:
Every time you manage to get me to like you, you come up with a shit like that that reminds me you are a retard. :rolleyes:
LOL you're the douchebag pillowbiter that made the exact same mistake when we "already discussed that and I posted this story and a follow up" as well. Faggot non-catching catcher dumbass.
QuoteMitterrand, the nephew of former Socialist President Francois Mitterrand, shot to the top of popularity polls after he was drafted into Sarkozy's centre-right cabinet in June.
Well naturally he looks good compared to his uncle, he merely paid for prostitutes overseas instead of being a member of the Vichy Government and excused shipping Jews to the Nazis.
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 04:01:13 AM
Uhm we have already discussed that and I posted this story and a follow up. He says he used the term "boys" to mean young men, which is not that incredible, seeing how straight men refer to women they fuck (especially prostitutes) as "girls" too. :mellow:
I prefer calling them 'ladies'...you know...ironically.
Hey when did we discuss this story? I missed it :(
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2009, 08:30:17 AM
Hey when did we discuss this story? I missed it :(
It was brought up in the big Roman Polacko thread.
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 04:01:13 AM
He says he used the term "boys" to mean young men, which is not that incredible
Not "that" incredible, but not really credible either.
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 04:01:13 AM
Uhm we have already discussed that and I posted this story and a follow up. He says he used the term "boys" to mean young men, which is not that incredible, seeing how straight men refer to women they fuck (especially prostitutes) as "girls" too. :mellow:
Every time you manage to get me to like you, you come up with a shit like that that reminds me you are a retard. :rolleyes:
[/quote
Oh, well if he says they were young men, then clearly they were all young men.
Too bad Polanski didn't think of that line first.
The guy "stood up to the evil rosbif Yankees" so he will remain popular in France regardless of his actions. :)
Quote from: Queequeg on October 12, 2009, 03:52:43 AM
I'm sorry, but that's actually sort of sad. He should be in prison, being treated the way all real child molesters should be.
Is there any proof of that happening? I understand sex and especially homo deviant sex is a touchy matter in the US (well, I don't, but you know what I mean), but aren't you guys fond of the innocent until proven guilty thing as well?
Quote from: Iormlund on October 12, 2009, 11:40:07 AM
I understand sex and especially homo deviant sex is a touchy matter in the US (well, I don't, but you know what I mean)
Well it is not that simple.
We are generally despised by the third world for being sluts and whores and the Euros for being puritanical prudes. It just gets laughable sometimes. Can't people perceive us in a way that is not hilarious hyperbole?
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2009, 11:49:17 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on October 12, 2009, 11:40:07 AM
I understand sex and especially homo deviant sex is a touchy matter in the US (well, I don't, but you know what I mean)
Well it is not that simple.
We are generally despised by the third world for being sluts and whores and the Euros for being puritanical prudes. It just gets laughable sometimes. Can't people perceive us in a way that is not hilarious hyperbole?
Well, riddle me this, Batman: if a male politician had sex with legal age male prostitutes in Thailand, and then wrote a book about it, would he be able to hold a ministerial position in the US federal government?
If the answer to this question is "yes", then indeed you are not puritanical prudes.
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 11:57:32 AM
Well, riddle me this, Batman: if a male politician had sex with legal age male prostitutes in Thailand, and then wrote a book about it, would he be able to hold a ministerial position in the US federal government?
If the answer to this question is "yes", then indeed you are not puritanical prudes.
This is the sort of idiocy that leads to hyperbole. Yes there is absolutely nothing between embracing going abroad to hire prostitutes as being excellent behavior for prominent officials and being a puritanical prude.
I read this as "I got into Hobbits and paying for boys".
:P
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2009, 12:02:51 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 11:57:32 AM
Well, riddle me this, Batman: if a male politician had sex with legal age male prostitutes in Thailand, and then wrote a book about it, would he be able to hold a ministerial position in the US federal government?
If the answer to this question is "yes", then indeed you are not puritanical prudes.
This is the sort of idiocy that leads to hyperbole. Yes there is absolutely nothing between embracing going abroad to hire prostitutes as being excellent behavior for prominent officials and being a puritanical prude.
It's not about embracing. It's about disregarding private sex life of politicians as long as it is nothing illegal.
American are puritanical prudes not because they do not embrace and cherish gay prostitution tourism (I bet many Frenchmen don't either) but because stuff like this is important to them when it comes to electing their officials.
Quote from: Malthus on October 12, 2009, 12:04:48 PM
I read this as "I got into Hobbits and paying for boys".
:P
Those furry feet really did it for him.
Quote from: Malthus on October 12, 2009, 12:04:48 PM
I read this as "I got into Hobbits and paying for boys".
:P
What do you call a hobbit fancier? I must say I found Dominic Monaghan as Meriadoc quite hot. :blush:
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2009, 12:05:19 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 12, 2009, 12:04:48 PM
I read this as "I got into Hobbits and paying for boys".
:P
Those furry feet really did it for him.
There is gay foot fetish slash fiction featuring hobbits on the internet. So I've heard. :whistle:
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 12:05:08 PM
It's not about embracing. It's about disregarding private sex life of politicians as long as it is nothing illegal.
American are puritanical prudes not because they do not embrace and cherish gay prostitution tourism (I bet many Frenchmen don't either) but because stuff like this is important to them when it comes to electing their officials.
Well the context is important. We elect all sorts of officials who are well known to sleep with alot of people and so forth. What kills them is when they cheat on their spouses (that is just a recipe for disaster as everybody who has ever been cheated on will start breathing fire) or does something illegal like that Spitzer guy.
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2009, 12:09:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 12:05:08 PM
It's not about embracing. It's about disregarding private sex life of politicians as long as it is nothing illegal.
American are puritanical prudes not because they do not embrace and cherish gay prostitution tourism (I bet many Frenchmen don't either) but because stuff like this is important to them when it comes to electing their officials.
Well the context is important. We elect all sorts of officials who are well known to sleep with alot of people and so forth. What kills them is when they cheat on their spouses (that is just a recipe for disaster as everybody who has ever been cheated on will start breathing fire) or does something illegal like that Spitzer guy.
Here we go again. Well again look at the French. Their president cheated on his wife and then married his lover. Stop being such prudes.
They have "legal age" prostitutes in Thailand? :unsure: I thought that would have been the retirement age. At least according to the Tv News. They wouldn't lie to me would they?
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 12:11:43 PM
Here we go again. Well again look at the French. Their president cheated on his wife and then married his lover. Stop being such prudes.
Sorry I generally consider cheating on your spouse one of the mose pathetic and loathsome things you can do. At least get a divorce first, it is not like it is hard.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 12, 2009, 12:15:14 PM
They have "legal age" prostitutes in Thailand? :unsure: I thought that would have been the retirement age. At least according to the Tv News. They wouldn't lie to me would they?
About now is when Disturbed Pervert shows up and hits you with a rubber mallet. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 12:05:08 PM
American are puritanical prudes not because they do not embrace and cherish gay prostitution tourism (I bet many Frenchmen don't either) but because stuff like this is important to them when it comes to electing their officials.
Thai prostitutes of whatever age may well have been trafficked or otherwise subject to some form of compulsion, so yes, I think someone who regularly engages in such "tourism" suffers from a character defect which may legitimately be considered in evaluating that person's suitability for public office.
Don't you think that pounding public orifice prepares you for holding public office?
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 12:05:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2009, 12:02:51 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 11:57:32 AM
Well, riddle me this, Batman: if a male politician had sex with legal age male prostitutes in Thailand, and then wrote a book about it, would he be able to hold a ministerial position in the US federal government?
If the answer to this question is "yes", then indeed you are not puritanical prudes.
This is the sort of idiocy that leads to hyperbole. Yes there is absolutely nothing between embracing going abroad to hire prostitutes as being excellent behavior for prominent officials and being a puritanical prude.
It's not about embracing. It's about disregarding private sex life of politicians as long as it is nothing illegal.
American are puritanical prudes not because they do not embrace and cherish gay prostitution tourism (I bet many Frenchmen don't either) but because stuff like this is important to them when it comes to electing their officials.
I don't know about France, but in this country having paid sex with underage prostitutes is illegal and can be prosecuted here, even if the acts took place in another country.
So it is about potentially illegal acts.
Oh, I missed this when it first came up. No wonder he was so quick to defend Polanski.
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 11:57:32 AM
Well, riddle me this, Batman: if a male politician had sex with legal age male prostitutes in Thailand, and then wrote a book about it, would he be able to hold a ministerial position in the US federal government?
If the answer to this question is "yes", then indeed you are not puritanical prudes.
WTF? Are you shitting me? Do you have any idea what life is like for people in the 3rd world who end up in the sex trade?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 12, 2009, 12:26:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 12:05:08 PM
American are puritanical prudes not because they do not embrace and cherish gay prostitution tourism (I bet many Frenchmen don't either) but because stuff like this is important to them when it comes to electing their officials.
Thai prostitutes of whatever age may well have been trafficked or otherwise subject to some form of compulsion, so yes, I think someone who regularly engages in such "tourism" suffers from a character defect which may legitimately be considered in evaluating that person's suitability for public office.
:yes:
What I find interesting is also the fact that some people defend the minister just because he's gay.
I'm not surprised in the least a homosexual would defend a fellow pervert.
Quote from: Barrister on October 12, 2009, 01:47:01 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 12:05:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2009, 12:02:51 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 11:57:32 AM
Well, riddle me this, Batman: if a male politician had sex with legal age male prostitutes in Thailand, and then wrote a book about it, would he be able to hold a ministerial position in the US federal government?
If the answer to this question is "yes", then indeed you are not puritanical prudes.
This is the sort of idiocy that leads to hyperbole. Yes there is absolutely nothing between embracing going abroad to hire prostitutes as being excellent behavior for prominent officials and being a puritanical prude.
It's not about embracing. It's about disregarding private sex life of politicians as long as it is nothing illegal.
American are puritanical prudes not because they do not embrace and cherish gay prostitution tourism (I bet many Frenchmen don't either) but because stuff like this is important to them when it comes to electing their officials.
I don't know about France, but in this country having paid sex with underage prostitutes is illegal and can be prosecuted here, even if the acts took place in another country.
So it is about potentially illegal acts.
I helpfully bolded the part that makes your response irrelevant. :)
Quote from: Faeelin on October 12, 2009, 02:33:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 11:57:32 AM
Well, riddle me this, Batman: if a male politician had sex with legal age male prostitutes in Thailand, and then wrote a book about it, would he be able to hold a ministerial position in the US federal government?
If the answer to this question is "yes", then indeed you are not puritanical prudes.
WTF? Are you shitting me? Do you have any idea what life is like for people in the 3rd world who end up in the sex trade?
Not really. Care to enlighten me? Whatever happened to libertarianism and free market?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 12, 2009, 12:26:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 12:05:08 PM
American are puritanical prudes not because they do not embrace and cherish gay prostitution tourism (I bet many Frenchmen don't either) but because stuff like this is important to them when it comes to electing their officials.
Thai prostitutes of whatever age may well have been trafficked or otherwise subject to some form of compulsion, so yes, I think someone who regularly engages in such "tourism" suffers from a character defect which may legitimately be considered in evaluating that person's suitability for public office.
I don't get this line of reasoning, really. Ministers are hired to perform their jobs, not to be moral beacons. :huh:
Besides, it's not like he is doing it now - he is talking about his youth (which he says he regrets). Assuming he was not engaging in illegal acts, that places him above the likes of Barrack Obama or Bill Clinton who actually performed illegal acts in their youths (i.e. smoked marijuana).
The vehement reaction to this guy, from Americans mainly, is exactly because you guys are prudes and because of your internalized homophobia.
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 03:55:21 PM
Not really. Care to enlighten me? Whatever happened to libertarianism and free market?
I'm not really sure why you're addressing me with comments about libertarianism and the free market, since I've never called them panaceas. But I am shocked, shocked, that the person who calls us prudes for condemning a trade forced upon young people with no options is clueless and had a hysterical knee jerk reaction. It's getting to be a bit of habit.
Quote from: Octavian on October 12, 2009, 02:37:21 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 12, 2009, 12:26:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 12:05:08 PM
American are puritanical prudes not because they do not embrace and cherish gay prostitution tourism (I bet many Frenchmen don't either) but because stuff like this is important to them when it comes to electing their officials.
Thai prostitutes of whatever age may well have been trafficked or otherwise subject to some form of compulsion, so yes, I think someone who regularly engages in such "tourism" suffers from a character defect which may legitimately be considered in evaluating that person's suitability for public office.
:yes:
What I find interesting is also the fact that some people defend the minister just because he's gay.
It's more the case of him being attacked so vehemently because he is gay. I would be surprised if the French public bated an eye at a minister (of culture, of all things) who slept with female hookers.
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 03:57:30 PM
The vehement reaction to this guy, from Americans mainly, is exactly because you guys are prudes and because of your internalized homophobia.
Vehement? We are just giving our opinions. And yes there is no reason to oppose international prostitution besides the genders involved :P.
QuoteI don't get this line of reasoning, really. Ministers are hired to perform their jobs, not to be moral beacons.
Nah I don't really want a minister who says or does things that cross certain lines. If he came out calling for persecution of gays I would probably be against him also even though it is not illegal to do so. I apologize if I require politicians to do certain things for me to support them and not just blindly love them for not breaking any laws.
Well, opinions they hold can affect their policies. And some may mean they are insane, which I guess is bad for someone who is supposed to perform their job properly.
I couldn't care less if they are immoral, though.
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2009, 04:07:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 03:57:30 PM
The vehement reaction to this guy, from Americans mainly, is exactly because you guys are prudes and because of your internalized homophobia.
Vehement? We are just giving our opinions. And yes there is no reason to oppose international prostitution besides the genders involved :P .
QuoteI don't get this line of reasoning, really. Ministers are hired to perform their jobs, not to be moral beacons.
Nah I don't really want a minister who says or does things that cross certain lines. If he came out calling for persecution of gays I would probably be against him also even though it is not illegal to do so. I apologize if I require politicians to do certain things for me to support them and not just blindly love them for not breaking any laws being gay.
Fixed that for you.
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 04:09:50 PM
I couldn't care less if they are immoral, though.
You have absolutely no standards for that? There is no level of depravity a public official could stoop to that would cause you to question their ability to make rational decisions based on principle?
I couldn't care less if Bill cheated on Hillary either. I just don't find adultery or prostitution a big deal. I can't read people's minds. I can't fully appreciate the complexity of their sexual lifestyles. So it is their decision and as long as it does not affect their capability to perform their work properly, I don't give a rat's ass who they fuck and why.
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2009, 04:13:48 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 04:09:50 PM
I couldn't care less if they are immoral, though.
You have absolutely no standards for that? There is no level of depravity a public official could stoop to that would cause you to question their ability to make rational decisions based on principle?
He is so full of shit - if they guy had said he cannot stand gays, he would be the first in line demanding that he be forced to resign.
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2009, 04:13:48 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 04:09:50 PM
I couldn't care less if they are immoral, though.
You have absolutely no standards for that? There is no level of depravity a public official could stoop to that would cause you to question their ability to make rational decisions based on principle?
Well as long as it is legal, of course.
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 04:14:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2009, 04:13:48 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 04:09:50 PM
I couldn't care less if they are immoral, though.
You have absolutely no standards for that? There is no level of depravity a public official could stoop to that would cause you to question their ability to make rational decisions based on principle?
Well as long as it is legal, of course.
So you have no problem with public figures who say they hate fags?
Not illegal, right?
Quote from: Berkut on October 12, 2009, 04:14:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2009, 04:13:48 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 04:09:50 PM
I couldn't care less if they are immoral, though.
You have absolutely no standards for that? There is no level of depravity a public official could stoop to that would cause you to question their ability to make rational decisions based on principle?
He is so full of shit - if they guy had said he cannot stand gays, he would be the first in line demanding that he be forced to resign.
As I said, such views can affect his policies and thus are important. Loving young male cock up his ass or a female intern's lips around his own cock does not, and thus is irrelevant.
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 04:14:04 PM
I couldn't care less if Bill cheated on Hillary either.
Well...that did say something about the sort of President Bill was. In fact it perfectly reflected it. However it was nothing we didn't already know beforehand :P
It is not just a question of fucking of course. Cheating on your wife is a very selfish act of unbelievable disrespect to the person you supposedly love more than any other...unless it is agreed upon beforehand which is totally different. If he is willing to betray a person he loves, why wouldn't he betray the faceless masses like me? Of course Bill would absolutely do so if it was expedient but again we already knew that about him when we elected him.
Quote from: Berkut on October 12, 2009, 04:15:52 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 04:14:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2009, 04:13:48 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 04:09:50 PM
I couldn't care less if they are immoral, though.
You have absolutely no standards for that? There is no level of depravity a public official could stoop to that would cause you to question their ability to make rational decisions based on principle?
Well as long as it is legal, of course.
So you have no problem with public figures who say they hate fags?
Not illegal, right?
Please learn to read my posts. I already answered this before. I know you are just looking for a fight and not want to discuss things, but at least don't play dumber than you really are.
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 04:14:46 PM
Well as long as it is legal, of course.
So...right and wrong to you is entirely dependent on what the law is? You have no thoughts or opinions on your own at all?
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2009, 04:18:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 04:14:04 PM
I couldn't care less if Bill cheated on Hillary either.
Well...that did say something about the sort of President Bill was. In fact it perfectly reflected it. However it was nothing we didn't already know beforehand :P
It is not just a question of fucking of course. Cheating on your wife is a very selfish act of unbelievable disrespect to the person you supposedly love more than any other...unless it is agreed upon beforehand which is totally different. If he is willing to betray a person he loves, why wouldn't he betray the faceless masses like me? Of course Bill would absolutely do so if it was expedient but again we already knew that about him when we elected him.
I think we already had a discussion about cheating before and we held different views I remember. Essentially, to me there is much more going on than just "this being a selfish act". People - especially in politics, but not only - choose to stay in marriage for lots of reasons that are not healthy or purely love-based, and thus likewise can cheat on each other for many different reasons that are not condemnable. I just think it is very naive and simplistic to view it the way you do.
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 04:20:55 PM
I think we already had a discussion about cheating before and we held different views I remember. Essentially, to me there is much more going on than just "this being a selfish act". People - especially in politics, but not only - choose to stay in marriage for lots of reasons that are not healthy or purely love-based, and thus likewise can cheat on each other for many different reasons that are not condemnable. I just think it is very naive and simplistic to view it the way you do.
I already mentioned that part, naturally in some sort of open marriage it is different. Naturally each situation needs to be judged on a case by case basis. You are the one saying it is ok in every case whatsoever which is simplistic as well.
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2009, 04:19:19 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 04:14:46 PM
Well as long as it is legal, of course.
So...right and wrong to you is entirely dependent on what the law is? You have no thoughts or opinions on your own at all?
Wow, way to twist my words. I thought we were talking about politicians, not my personal morality.
My point is whether a politician carries himself morally or not has no bearing on his capability to perform his job (and thus me voting for him) unless what he does is either illegal or has a capacity of affecting his policies (e.g. he is a homophobe or a racist in a position where it matters).
To be honest (to preempt Berkut) I couldn't care less either if the chief of the federal reserve is a homophobe - but if a secretary of state or an attorney general is would be important to me.
Whether I would choose to be friends with them etc. is a totally different question which we are not answering here.
This thread is hilarious.
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2009, 04:23:26 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 04:20:55 PM
I think we already had a discussion about cheating before and we held different views I remember. Essentially, to me there is much more going on than just "this being a selfish act". People - especially in politics, but not only - choose to stay in marriage for lots of reasons that are not healthy or purely love-based, and thus likewise can cheat on each other for many different reasons that are not condemnable. I just think it is very naive and simplistic to view it the way you do.
I already mentioned that part, naturally in some sort of open marriage it is different. Naturally each situation needs to be judged on a case by case basis. You are the one saying it is ok in every case whatsoever which is simplistic as well.
No, I didn't mean open marriage.
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 04:25:02 PM
Wow, way to twist my words. I thought we were talking about politicians, not my personal morality.
My point is to me whether a politician carries himself morally or not has no bearing on his capability to perform his job (and thus me voting for him) unless what he does is either illegal or has a capacity of affecting his policies (e.g. he is a homophobe or a racist in a position where it matters).
To be honest (to preempt Berkut) I couldn't care less either if the chief of the federal reserve is a homophobe - but if a secretary of state or an attorney general is would be important to me.
Whether I would choose to be friends with them etc. is a totally different question which we are not answering here.
Right I meant on whether or not you decide to support a politician. I only meant in that particular case.
I just cannot believe there is not something a Pol could do that was legal that would effect your opinion on them.
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2009, 04:28:33 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 12, 2009, 04:25:32 PM
This thread is hilarious.
I aim to please!
I know now when the FBI busts a sex trade ring, I'll think of Mart.
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2009, 04:28:19 PM
I just cannot believe there is not something a Pol could do that was legal that would effect your opinion on them.
Well, not in terms of sex, substance abuse or gambling at least.
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 03:57:30 PM
I don't get this line of reasoning, really. Ministers are hired to perform their jobs, not to be moral beacons. :huh:
Ministers are hired to do the public business; their honesty and probity are relevant considerations. A minister who knowingly pays money to sex traffickers and violent pimps in order to satiate his immediate physical needs at best is showing poor judgment. That is not a person who -- ceteris paribas - I would rush to entrust with significant amounts of public funds.
QuoteThe vehement reaction to this guy, from Americans mainly, is exactly because you guys are prudes
America is a very permissive culture in the private sphere, but politicians tend to be held to more exacting standards. This is not just in relation to sex - other pols have had careers ruined due to things like alchoholism, or membership in discriminatory organizations, or failing to pay taxes on baby-sitters. Sometimes it gets out of hand and it does have the negative side effect of keeping many sensible people out of public life. But what it ultimately reflects is not prudity, but deep-rooted suspicion of those who would exercise governmental power. You continental Europeans still haven't fully shaken off the cultural shackles of autocracy and authoritarianism and hence have difficulty understanding this. Our downside is having to deal with silly stuff like Monicagate. Your downside is having one of the largest economies in the EU run by a fatuous felon for nearly a decade (italy).
Quoteand because of your internalized homophobia.
Actually I suspect that more women than men are trafficked.
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 03:57:30 PM
The vehement reaction to this guy, from Americans mainly, is exactly because you guys are prudes and because of your internalized homophobia.
By the way, this is adorable.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 12, 2009, 05:09:53 PM
Ministers are hired to do the public business; their honesty and probity are relevant considerations. A minister who knowingly pays money to sex traffickers and violent pimps in order to satiate his immediate physical needs at best is showing poor judgment. That is not a person who -- ceteris paribas - I would rush to entrust with significant amounts of public funds.
Well I guess we will have to disagree on that. I fail to see the link you are drawing here.
QuoteAmerica is a very permissive culture in the private sphere, but politicians tend to be held to more exacting standards. This is not just in relation to sex - other pols have had careers ruined due to things like alchoholism, or membership in discriminatory organizations, or failing to pay taxes on baby-sitters. Sometimes it gets out of hand and it does have the negative side effect of keeping many sensible people out of public life. But what it ultimately reflects is not prudity, but deep-rooted suspicion of those who would exercise governmental power. You continental Europeans still haven't fully shaken off the cultural shackles of autocracy and authoritarianism and hence have difficulty understanding this. Our downside is having to deal with silly stuff like Monicagate. Your downside is having one of the largest economies in the EU run by a fatuous felon for nearly a decade (italy).
Again, I fail to see how being more tolerant to our politicians' personal foibles - and thus opening politics for more people, who are not afraid of entering politics because of their political opponents dragging out personal details of their lives - is a symptom of "cultural shackles of autocracy and authoritarianism". This comes especially humorous considering you are talking about France.
QuoteActually I suspect that more women than men are trafficked.
Precisely. Yet a guy using female prostitutes wouldn't probably meet with such a vehement reaction.
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 05:17:40 PM
Again, I fail to see how being more tolerant to our politicians' personal foibles - and thus opening politics for more people, who are not afraid of entering politics because of their political opponents dragging out personal details of their lives - is a symptom of "cultural shackles of autocracy and authoritarianism". This comes especially humorous considering you are talking about France.
France is highly deferential to political authority - hence a political system based on an elected dictator.
The French penchant for violent insurrection is the exception that proves the rule. Because political authority is presumptively legitimate, serious resistance to such authority has a tendency to be channelled toward illegal acts, as opposed to resistance within the system.
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 04:55:05 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2009, 04:28:19 PM
I just cannot believe there is not something a Pol could do that was legal that would effect your opinion on them.
Well, not in terms of sex, substance abuse or gambling at least.
If he had said he made a habit of going to Mass you'd be up in arms.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 12, 2009, 05:23:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 05:17:40 PM
Again, I fail to see how being more tolerant to our politicians' personal foibles - and thus opening politics for more people, who are not afraid of entering politics because of their political opponents dragging out personal details of their lives - is a symptom of "cultural shackles of autocracy and authoritarianism". This comes especially humorous considering you are talking about France.
France is highly deferential to political authority - hence a political system based on an elected dictator.
The French penchant for violent insurrection is the exception that proves the rule. Because political authority is presumptively legitimate, serious resistance to such authority has a tendency to be channelled toward illegal acts, as opposed to resistance within the system.
This is perhaps true, but I think this would be relevant to the discussion at hand only if the French actually showed less tolerance for "immoral" behavior of their fellow average Frenchmen than they show for their rulers.
I do not know France well enough to answer this with authority but anecdotal evidence suggests this is not the case.
I think you are also overstating the American permissivism (as per your previous post). Take a walk on a beach of the French Riviera and I reckon you will see many more topless women and men wearing speedos than you would see on a Florida beach.
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 04:18:23 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 12, 2009, 04:15:52 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 04:14:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2009, 04:13:48 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 04:09:50 PM
I couldn't care less if they are immoral, though.
You have absolutely no standards for that? There is no level of depravity a public official could stoop to that would cause you to question their ability to make rational decisions based on principle?
Well as long as it is legal, of course.
So you have no problem with public figures who say they hate fags?
Not illegal, right?
Please learn to read my posts. I already answered this before. I know you are just looking for a fight and not want to discuss things, but at least don't play dumber than you really are.
A fight? With you? Nobody is looking for that, nor could you ever provide it.
We just like pointing out how ridiculous you are. It isn't much of a struggle, as this latest inanity shows. As long as it is legal, it is ok! Except for stuff about fags, then it isn't!
LOL good work gents highly entertaining thread. JR/Minsky is the most well spoken on the actual issue.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 12, 2009, 09:19:46 PM
JR/Minsky is the most well spoken on the actual issue.
Sorry, but I win that award, what with calling Martinus a "Faggot non-catching catcher dumbass" and all.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 13, 2009, 06:00:10 AM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 12, 2009, 09:19:46 PM
JR/Minsky is the most well spoken on the actual issue.
Sorry, but I win that award, what with calling Martinus a "Faggot non-catching catcher dumbass" and all.
I thought it was clever. :hug:
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 12, 2009, 09:19:46 PM
LOL good work gents highly entertaining thread. JR/Minsky is the most well spoken on the actual issue.
Well that is hardly fair I cannot compete with him :(
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 05:17:40 PM
Precisely. Yet a guy using female prostitutes wouldn't probably meet with such a vehement reaction.
Again what vehement reaction? Whose vehement reaction? Yours I suspect.
Quote from: Caliga on October 12, 2009, 10:56:03 AM
The guy "stood up to the evil rosbif Yankees" so he will remain popular in France regardless of his actions. :)
Rosbif is for Brits :contract:
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 13, 2009, 09:34:04 AM
Rosbif is for Brits :contract:
I know but I couldn't think of a condescending nickname for Americans. On a related note, for lunch today: I'm thinkin' Arby's.
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 09:44:19 AM
On a related note, for lunch today: I'm thinkin' Arby's.
Did that fucking hat appear over your head?
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 09:44:19 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 13, 2009, 09:34:04 AM
Rosbif is for Brits :contract:
I know but I couldn't think of a condescending nickname for Americans. On a related note, for lunch today: I'm thinkin' Arby's.
There's
ricain,
amerloque or
états-unien in some circles ;)
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 13, 2009, 09:45:48 AM
Did that fucking hat appear over your head?
At least it's not a red wig with 2 braids.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 13, 2009, 09:47:23 AM
There's ricain, amerloque or états-unien in some circles ;)
Thanks for the info! :hug:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 12, 2009, 05:23:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 05:17:40 PM
Again, I fail to see how being more tolerant to our politicians' personal foibles - and thus opening politics for more people, who are not afraid of entering politics because of their political opponents dragging out personal details of their lives - is a symptom of "cultural shackles of autocracy and authoritarianism". This comes especially humorous considering you are talking about France.
France is highly deferential to political authority - hence a political system based on an elected dictator.
The French penchant for violent insurrection is the exception that proves the rule. Because political authority is presumptively legitimate, serious resistance to such authority has a tendency to be channelled toward illegal acts, as opposed to resistance within the system.
Elected Dictator is Mitterrand-like :lmfao: :frog:
The French President has less powers than the US President in fact. Only Sarkozy to some extents tries to emulate the US way of governing.
And no, France is not highly deferential of political authority You must be mixing up Frankreich mit Frankfurt:D
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 13, 2009, 09:47:23 AM
There's ricain, amerloque or états-unien in some circles ;)
Amerloque is a good one!
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 13, 2009, 09:58:59 AM
The French President has less powers than the US President in fact.
A simple comparison of constitutional powers illustrates that is not so. Every power the US president has the French president also has. However, the French president can also dissolve the legislature and appoint the PM; in extremis, he can suspend the Constitution and rule by decree.
Looking beyond the plain constitutional text, the US is characterized by strong separation powers, with a very powerful legislative branch and a federal judiciary armed with the power of judicial review. The equivalent French branches are not as powerful. The US President also controls only federal institutions, and the powers of the federal government are limited both by law and tradition. The French system lacks a similar check on centralized authority.
QuoteAnd no, France is not highly deferential of political authority You must be mixing up Frankreich mit Frankfurt:D
Au contraire. The Germans are still naturally deferential but their postwar political institutions disperse power, primarily through federalism. France of course remains one of the most centralized polities in Europe.
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 04:01:13 AM
Uhm we have already discussed that and I posted this story and a follow up. He says he used the term "boys" to mean young men, which is not that incredible, seeing how straight men refer to women they fuck (especially prostitutes) as "girls" too. :mellow:
Every time you manage to get me to like you, you come up with a shit like that that reminds me you are a retard. :rolleyes:
He was asked the question more directly, if he paid for minors, and he never answered, he remained evasive, probably on purpose, to sell more books. Who care if all your ennemies buy your book? They're still paying for it.
However, I do believe he should resign from his position.
Still, Marti's right. As Spitzer shows, American politicians are fine so long as they only sleep with female prostitutes.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 13, 2009, 10:59:14 AM
Still, Marti's right. As Spitzer shows, American politicians are fine so long as they only sleep with female prostitutes.
Ehm, Spitzer was forced to resign :huh:
Quote from: derspiess on October 13, 2009, 11:09:50 AM
Ehm, Spitzer was forced to resign :huh:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F12.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_kq0a8liA4t1qzhy30o1_500.jpg&hash=955ef946d1e4ee0971e70b8fb79510099d6b283c)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 13, 2009, 10:42:00 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 13, 2009, 09:58:59 AM
The French President has less powers than the US President in fact.
Quote
A simple comparison of constitutional powers illustrates that is not so. Every power the US president has the French president also has. However, the French president can also dissolve the legislature and appoint the PM; in extremis, he can suspend the Constitution and rule by decree.
There's no PM in the US since the President combines both powers. As for suspending the Constitution, it's true but it has only been once and I just don't see Sarkozy using it anytime soon unless REAL REAL trouble begins. Some constitutional reforms were made recently giving more power to the Parlement.
Dissolving the legislature is a real power? Well, ask Chirac and Villepin: double-edged sword...
Quote
Looking beyond the plain constitutional text, the US is characterized by strong separation powers, with a very powerful legislative branch and a federal judiciary armed with the power of judicial review. The equivalent French branches are not as powerful. The US President also controls only federal institutions, and the powers of the federal government are limited both by law and tradition. The French system lacks a similar check on centralized authority.
Centralised Authority emanates from the ENA bureaucracy too, not only from the President which change every 5 or 10 years ;) Far more powerful than Haute Cour, Cour Constitutionnelle and Cour des Comptes unfortunately :(
QuoteAnd no, France is not highly deferential of political authority You must be mixing up Frankreich mit Frankfurt:D
Quote
Au contraire. The Germans are still naturally deferential but their postwar political institutions disperse power, primarily through federalism. France of course remains one of the most centralized polities in Europe.
Décentralisation is slowly making progress but then it was originally designed by de Gaulle for a referendum where people said no to De Gaulle instead of giving their opinion about the plan...
Wish it was the same in Portugal where regionalisação is dead:(
Of course, France isn't going to be federal the way the US is for obvious reasons.
Both US and French regimes are presidentialist, major differences rely on the federal aspect of the US above all.
QuoteThere's no PM in the US since the President combines both powers.
Not so. All legislative powers reside in Congress. The closest thing to a PM would be the Speaker of the House. read Article II of the US constitution- you may be surprised by the limited nature of presidential powers under the US system.
In France, except for the various interludes of cohabitation, the PM is often just a disposible political tool of the President. Or a favored protege who is protected so long as he is scrupulously loyal.
QuoteAs for suspending the Constitution, it's true but it has only been once and I just don't see Sarkozy using it anytime soon unless REAL REAL trouble begins . . .
Dissolving the legislature is a real power?
A power need not be exercised directly in order to have impact.
Quote from: derspiess on October 13, 2009, 11:09:50 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 13, 2009, 10:59:14 AM
Still, Marti's right. As Spitzer shows, American politicians are fine so long as they only sleep with female prostitutes.
Ehm, Spitzer was forced to resign :huh:
I was being sarcastic. :Embarrass:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 13, 2009, 11:25:24 AM
The closest thing to a PM would be the Speaker of the House.
Now you are just being facetious. That's so blatantly untrue I have to conclude you are either joking or someone has hacked your account.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 13, 2009, 10:59:14 AM
Still, Marti's right. As Spitzer shows, American politicians are fine so long as they only sleep with female prostitutes.
That was really just the coup de grace on a terrible governor. Barney Frank and David Vitter may be better examples.
I doubt either would have survived a similar scandal involving Thai "boys" or "girls".
Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2009, 11:36:58 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 13, 2009, 11:25:24 AM
The closest thing to a PM would be the Speaker of the House.
Now you are just being facetious. That's so blatantly untrue I have to conclude you are either joking or someone has hacked your account.
dude you are so wrong... the US system doesn't include a President for the same reason no other system should have both. It's a holdover from aristocracy. redundant position with no power (excepting in Current Russia)... The USA is all about the perception/illusion of individual strength. The President is supposed to be the standard bearer. But in fact his powers are fairly limited... Veto is not everything.
I'd say Veep is closer to the Euro PM position (in govs with both) Cheney was able to exercise more power than either Biden or Gore have bothered with. But he's the exception to the rule.
Neither the President nor the VP can initiate legislation. The VP at least actually does preside over one of the legislative houses, and in that limited sense is closer to a euro-style PM. The Speaker in the House is closest in function, role, authority, and in some cases method of appointment (he/she is elected by the majority party in the legislature), though admittedly there is no analogue in the US system that is comparable.
Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2009, 11:36:58 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 13, 2009, 11:25:24 AM
The closest thing to a PM would be the Speaker of the House.
Now you are just being facetious. That's so blatantly untrue I have to conclude you are either joking or someone has hacked your account.
The Speaker of the House is elected by the majority party in the House to lead that branch of the legislature. How is that 'blatantly' unlike a PM?
No one wants to admit their PM is like Nancy Pelosi.
Quote from: Valmy on October 13, 2009, 01:17:47 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2009, 11:36:58 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 13, 2009, 11:25:24 AM
The closest thing to a PM would be the Speaker of the House.
Now you are just being facetious. That's so blatantly untrue I have to conclude you are either joking or someone has hacked your account.
The Speaker of the House is elected by the majority party in the House to lead that branch of the legislature. How is that 'blatantly' unlike a PM?
The PM leads the executive. :huh:
In some countries, the Parliament elects the chief judge of the supreme court or even the President. That does not make these offices "like the Speaker of the House" either unless I am missing some point MM was making. :huh:
Quote from: Faeelin on October 13, 2009, 10:59:14 AM
Still, Marti's right. As Spitzer shows, American politicians are fine so long as they only sleep with female prostitutes.
There was never any questions about the age of the prostitute.
Mitterand was deliberately ambiguous and he did talk about ephebes, wich usually means younger teenage boys. And he defended a know sexual agressor by calling americans "prude". While true that the US has some ridiculous moral standards sometimes, I don't think the crime of Polanski is stricly one of morality.
Had Mitterand said in previous interviews that the "boys" were not minors, there would have been no scandal today.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 13, 2009, 11:25:24 AM
QuoteThere's no PM in the US since the President combines both powers.
Not so. All legislative powers reside in Congress. The closest thing to a PM would be the Speaker of the House. read Article II of the US constitution- you may be surprised by the limited nature of presidential powers under the US system.
In France, except for the various interludes of cohabitation, the PM is often just a disposible political tool of the President. Or a favored protege who is protected so long as he is scrupulously loyal.
Sorry for messing the quotes on the previous post...
Well, the
Assemblée Nationale has the real legislative power. Are you are mentioning d
décrets and
circulaires administratives ? They're often needed to enforce it and that's where the bureaucracy strikes...
Cohabitation has really had an impact on the status of the President. Perhaps de Gaulle had more power(s) than its US counterpart. Since Mitterrand and Chirac at the very least, I am not convinced.
Regarding armed forces, the US president has the Marine Corps, no such thing in France.
I would agree about the description of PM but sometimes the PM has its importance and not only for political betrayals ;)
QuoteAs for suspending the Constitution, it's true but it has only been once and I just don't see Sarkozy using it anytime soon unless REAL REAL trouble begins . . .
Dissolving the legislature is a real power?
Quote
A power need not be exercised directly in order to have impact.
It needs above all to be exercised properly cf. Chirac 1997 :D
Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2009, 02:39:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 13, 2009, 01:17:47 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2009, 11:36:58 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 13, 2009, 11:25:24 AM
The closest thing to a PM would be the Speaker of the House.
Now you are just being facetious. That's so blatantly untrue I have to conclude you are either joking or someone has hacked your account.
The Speaker of the House is elected by the majority party in the House to lead that branch of the legislature. How is that 'blatantly' unlike a PM?
The PM leads the executive. :huh:
In some countries, the Parliament elects the chief judge of the supreme court or even the President. That does not make these offices "like the Speaker of the House" either unless I am missing some point MM was making. :huh:
His point is that the U.S. system has no office like that of the PM, who leads the executive yet is a member of the legislature. The President is NOT the U.S. equivalent of the PM; we don't HAVE an equivalent, and the Speaker of the House is in many ways actually closer to a European-style PM than the President is.
You are of course correct that the Speaker's position, duties, and powers are not particularly similar to those of a PM in a parliamentary system. But that's as if MM had said that Philadelphia is closer to Madrid than Pittsburg is, and you had replied that Philly isn't at all close to Madrid. You're right, but Pittsburg is still even further away.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 13, 2009, 02:55:05 PM
Regarding armed forces, the US president has the Marine Corps, no such thing in France.
Huh? I'm not sure what the point is here.
Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2009, 02:39:25 PM
The PM leads the executive. :huh:
In some countries, the Parliament elects the chief judge of the supreme court or even the President. That does not make these offices "like the Speaker of the House" either unless I am missing some point MM was making. :huh:
He said the closest thing we have to a PM is the Speaker of the House. I understand the Speaker and a PM are different it is just that there are some similarities so it is not 'blatantly' untrue.
Quote from: Valmy on October 13, 2009, 03:39:00 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2009, 02:39:25 PM
The PM leads the executive. :huh:
In some countries, the Parliament elects the chief judge of the supreme court or even the President. That does not make these offices "like the Speaker of the House" either unless I am missing some point MM was making. :huh:
He said the closest thing we have to a PM is the Speaker of the House. I understand the Speaker and a PM are different it is just that there are some similarities so it is not 'blatantly' untrue.
The US President is much closer to a PM in a Parliamentary democracy than the Speaker of the House is. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2009, 05:07:33 PM
The US President is much closer to a PM in a Parliamentary democracy than the Speaker of the House is. :huh:
Pretty sure they're talking about the PM in the French system.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2009, 05:14:41 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2009, 05:07:33 PM
The US President is much closer to a PM in a Parliamentary democracy than the Speaker of the House is. :huh:
Pretty sure they're talking about the PM in the French system.
The PM in the French system heads the government, leads the ministers and decides on national policies (albeit unlike true Parliamentary democracies, his function is more administrative than decisive). There is no such function in the US government per se because the function of the French Prime Minister and the French President is combined in the US in the President.
The French Prime Minister does not chair the sessions of the French Parliament nor does he hold any procedural function in the Parliament. He is the head of the government and chairs the meetings of the French cabinet.
The French Parliament does have a position of the speaker. The Prime Minister couldn't be further from it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2009, 05:14:41 PM
Pretty sure they're talking about the PM in the French system.
Well that is a little weaker simply because a French PM does not even have to be a member of the National Assembly.
Eh I think the distinction MM was trying to make was that the American President's powers are limited because he has no legislative authority beyond his veto, and thus is rather limited in what he can do without Congressional opposition..something no PM of any country would ever have to deal with since legislative support is a requirement for the job.
Quote from: Valmy on October 13, 2009, 05:39:10 PM
Eh I think the distinction MM was trying to make was that the American President's powers are limited because he has no legislative authority beyond his veto, and thus is rather limited in what he can do without Congressional opposition..something no PM of any country would ever have to deal with since legislative support is a requirement for the job.
Not necessarily. Minority governments are not unheard of in Parliamentary democracies where no majority can form in the Parliament and for whatever reason earlier elections cannot or will not be called.
Many Parliamentary democracies also provide for a various degree of involvement of the President in appointing the Prime Minister (for example where the Parliament is unable to appoint one).
And the Prime Minister's "legislative authority" is usually entirely de facto, as he or she usually leads the Parliamentary majority (but again this is not always the case - again it is not unheard of for the Prime Minister to be a politician or a technocrat that is not the same person as the leader of the ruling party).
And then you can have the so-called "expert governments" (again usually appointed due to a Parliamentary crisis) that have no automatic backing of the Parliamentary majority.
In short: things are more complex and come in more variations than you guys think.
Quote from: Valmy on October 13, 2009, 05:37:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2009, 05:14:41 PM
Pretty sure they're talking about the PM in the French system.
Well that is a little weaker simply because a French PM does not even have to be a member of the National Assembly.
Does not have to be, but typically is. As opposed to the US system where executive branch officials can never hold a position in the legislature.
What Martinus is missing is that the European parliamentary systems lack true separation of legislative and executive powers.
Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2009, 06:08:38 PM
In short: things are more complex and come in more variations than you guys think.
I am familiar with minority governments and the like, after all it seems our northern neighbors have nothing but these days :P
I was just discussing the...basic concepts.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 13, 2009, 06:16:43 PM
What Martinus is missing is that the European parliamentary systems lack true separation of legislative and executive powers.
I am not missing it. I just think that despite differences, the President of the United States, not the Speaker of the House, is a closer equivalent of the Prime Minister in a Parliamentary Democracy.
Well most people think you are wrong and given your track record on knowledge of America...
Friendship before facts.
You have my support, Martinus. :thumbsup:
This thread definitely delivered.
I always thought Marti's portrayal of a lawyer was lame, but that pales in comparison to the lameness of Marti the Psychiatrist and Marti the Political Analyst. Marti the Analogizer is still top of the comedy charts, but these come close.
Quote from: grumbler on October 14, 2009, 07:01:01 AM
This thread definitely delivered.
I always thought Marti's portrayal of a lawyer was lame, but that pales in comparison to the lameness of Marti the Psychiatrist and Marti the Political Analyst. Marti the Analogizer is still top of the comedy charts, but these come close.
You forgot Marti the fauxmosexual, starring in The Lameness of The Shrew.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 14, 2009, 07:16:24 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 14, 2009, 07:01:01 AM
This thread definitely delivered.
I always thought Marti's portrayal of a lawyer was lame, but that pales in comparison to the lameness of Marti the Psychiatrist and Marti the Political Analyst. Marti the Analogizer is still top of the comedy charts, but these come close.
You forgot Marti the fauxmosexual, starring in The Lameness of The Shrew.
:huh: "Marti the Analogizer "
when will Marti upgrade to be a digitalizer?