IT IS INCREDIBLE HOW ALL THESE JEWS PROMOTE THE MIXING OF THE RACES AND THE PEOPLES THOUGHT THEIR CONTROLLED MEDIA AND TALK AT THE SAME TIME OF RACISM. THEY ARE THE WORTS RACIST SINCE IN A WORLD LIKE TODAY THEY STILL KEEP ON BEHAVING LIKE A TRIBE IN THE WAY "YOU ARE ONLY JEW AND YOU BELONG TO OUR TRIBE IF YOUR MOTHER WAS A JEW". I SEE IT CLEARLY THIS IS THE HUGE MANIPULATION WE FACE NOWADAYS ABOUT RACISM. THEY ARE THE WORKS RACISTS. THE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT MOST VALUE GIVE TO THEIR RACE, THEY ARE LIKE THE NAZIS. NOBODY ELSE IN THIS WORLD IS TALKING ABOUT RACE MORE THAN THEY DO. THEY ARE EITHER CYNICS OR MANIPULATORS. I INVITE YOU TO FIND OUT BY YOURSELF ABOUT ALL THIS BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE VERY CLEAR IN ALL WHAT IS AND HAS BEEN WRITTEN IN THE MEDIA.

I do not understand why you confuse things by talking of anti-SEMITISM when talking about anti-jews. Most westerns jews are NOT semitic, they are khazarian converts to judaism.
Only Arabs are SEMITIC, so anti-arabism and anti-islam only, should and could be labelled anti-semitism.
why do modern jews pretend to be semitic? to claim some biblical rights? those were made regarding semitic jews which were almost eradicated by the khazarian-nazis: Hilter, karl marx, stupid einstein, oppenheimer (atomic bomb) and bolshovic Lenin and Co...and all other conspirators, revolutions fermentors, warmongers, wrms dealers, pornographers (hugh hefner, miachel winner, jerry springer, jonathan ross...) and their females conterparts (prostitutes baronness de rothchilds...).
Lets concentrate on what is good and go back to our churches and mosques and turn our backs to satan and his disciples. Amen.

Hi

Appreciate that this is a little off topic (to say the least!), I apologise but I am wondering if anyone here can help me. I am currently looking at opportunities concerning Dubai property investment . I've heard an awful lot about this recently. Just wondered if anybody here has bought anything out there and can comment good or bad. Look forward to your thoughts,

Thanks

James

Boy oh boy, you erroneously call Sarko a Jew and all hell breaks loose from you responders. It must be pretty close to the surface ,both pro and con, for a lot of people.

Tom said "And if his grandfather were German would he not be German?"

No he wouldn't be.
Unless you are suggesting that JFK was Irish, that George Washington was British, that Tiger Woods is Thai and Barrack Obama is White.

Obviously, you are the one who is confused...

Tom, if his grandfather was German,and if his grandmother and both parents were French, he would definitely be French not German. However, I understand your confusion seeing that in the US (not sure it's still true) but 1/8 of black blood made you a black and a slave. But with this logic how can people call themselves Americans?

There is anti-semitism and racism everywhere, let's fight a bit more to find out which one occurs more, shall we? It's such a constructive way to spend time, bottom line is Sarko is not a Jew or Jewish(neither his mother or his grandmother were Jewish) he is of Jewish descent.

Sarkozy is right in opposing Turkey's becoming a member of the European Union.

Check out the shocking story at the following link.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Apr05/0,4670,TurkeyInternetCensorship,00.html

Like the Chinese, the Turks block web sites. Also, the Turkish government tried to imprison the Nobel Prize winner Orhan Pamuk for the "crime" of insulting Turkish society.

The Turks want us to respect how they suppress human rights. We respect them.

At the same time, we want the Turks to respect our right to preserve Western values. We have every right to prevent Western values (in Europe) from being contaminated by Turkish or Islamic values.

Sarkozy is right on the mark about trying to restrict immigration into France and about trying to prohibit Turkey from entering the European Union (EU). We should condemn Washington for trying to pressure France (and the rest of the EU) into admitting Turkey into the EU.

The last 6 years has demonstrated that Washington is incompetent on matters of foreign policy.

20+ years ago a woman on a train from Marseilles to Paris told me that Marseilles was filled with dirty Arabs and Jews.

Of course there's anti-semitism in France. Isn't there in the US?

Antisemitism still exists for sure in french society. Old antisemitism has been repressed for many years after WW2 but can still be found in elitist french circles and in rural communities. By far the most antisemitic groups in France now are arab muslims for whom their traditional antisemitism takes now the mask of antiZionism. This trend is followed and propagated by many left organizations who consider arab muslims as the new proletariat (and a reserve of votes). To read in these comments that the only discrimination in France is against arabs and blacks (it does exist) is appalling. Torched synagogs, aggression of jewish children, a recent aggression against a rabbi in the subway in Paris, all this has been reported in the press and is no invention. It never helps to ignore facts.

"So according to Bill Emmott, Sarkozy is a Jew because even though he was baptised and raised as a catholic, his mother's father was once a Jew."

And if his grandfather were German would he not be German? You are confusing ethnicity with religion, and from your other posts, you are confused on many other fronts too.

In 15 years of living in France, I've never personally seen a sign of antisemitism in France - though I'm sure it exists. I have, however, seen hundreds, if not thousands, of instances of racism against Arabs and Muslims in general.

True story: A year or two ago, a lunatic in the Lyon area wanted to get his 15 minutes of fame, so he attacked a random Arab on the street with an axe, nearly severing his arm. That didn't even make the local paper. So he spray-painted insults on tombs in a Jewish cemetary. That made national TV news for days, up until he was arrested and explained that he'd done it because it was more newsworthy than doing what he wanted to do - killing arabs.

Why the old canard? It's not old, but as fresh as today's news. From Chirac down to the Frenchman on the street, anti-semitism is rife within the sick, hypocritical society that is France.

Balance:

It is not about being PC, it is about being NOT　WRONG. As usual and despite what they pretend, when it comes to France most US or British papers are wrong not even on their analysis (read the title of this conversation...) but simply on facts, pure and simple.

Why Bill Emott has stated wrongly that Sarkozy was a Jew and why do you pretend wrongly that he is viewed as such by "a lot of French people" while only Vichy nostalgists have ever raised that point? Why would mention this wrong fact as a novelty?
Well well, it is to fuel the old canard that France is antisemite country. Last time I checked there has been a Jew as head of state or government (Leon blum) in France while not in the US. So why this old canard?

Sarkozy is the best candidate to become president of France. He will reform France and transform it into an economic powerhouse.

His best ideas are slamming the door shut on Islamic immigrants and prohibiting Turkey from entering the European Union. I also like his idea of promoting free trade, but he is not a free-trade bigot like the typical American.

A free-trade bigot supports free trade between the USA and non-free markets like Mexico and China. This kind of free trade is fake free trade. It destroys the quality of life in the USA.

What Sarkozy supports is genuine free trade with only other free markets. I like his ideas of protecting the quality of life in the West by protecting it from Islamic bigots and fake free trade.

I like the fact that he recognizes Western values as supreme.

If loses the French election, could he run for the American presidency? I would vote for him.

Gemini,

Such political correctness is tiring. Sarkozi's Jewish relations IS important (and he IS a Jew) in the eyes of a lot of French people.

Bill Emmott is exactly like the politicians during the Vichy regime and their nazis inspirators. If you happen to have one grand parent that was a Jew, even if he converted to catholicism, then you are a Jew.
So according to Bill Emmott, Sarkozy is a Jew because even though he was baptised and raised as a catholic, his mother's father was once a Jew.
Well done Bill Emmott, you are truly a dispicable person.

To the person who says that Royal could revamp the country. Nonesense, A socialist is never a revamper and they are only connected with disintegration. As far as Clinton revamping the economy. All I can say is give us a break. He did nothing but run for reelection. If there was anything he did that could cause him to take credit it was keeping Greenspan and keeping Reaganomics. If it was Reaganomics then give credit to where credit is due.

I subscribe to the Economist because I like the writing style and I like the moderate tone of others I have met who are also subnscribers. But I can't say I really like the editorial position they take when it comes to Sarko. The magazine too often comes across just as shrill as any left-wing anti-globalization protester when it comes to defending certain ideas. Bill Emmott may not work for them anymore, but his take here might just as well have been clipped from that rag. I've lost count how many articles I've seen in recent weeks in that publication about how glorious the reign of Margret Thatcher was and how lucky France will be if it follows in that direction. I'd like to know something, seriously: For whom do you guys write this stuff? I can't possibly believe that you actually think the world is as simple as you make it out to be. Don't you think there are considerable social problems that exist today in Britain and America that are at least partly to be blamed for policies that origninated under Thatcher's and Reagan's tenure? Are you totally unable to have a discussion about how society as a whole - including the investor class - benefits from social protections of the modern welfare state, and how if we dismantle every one of them in a fit of free-market rapture, civilized society might actually completely break down. I don't hear Sarko talking at all about how the modern French state can balance the needs of society to maintain as much as possible of the protections garnered by common people over the years from the ravages of unbridled capitalism, while at the same time maintaining competitiveness in the global marketplace, in a time of global stagnation. No, all I hear is "I'll teach those scum to behave". The radical left hasn't had an original idea in decades, that's for sure; but the Economist and Mr. Emmott really do seem to be intent on fighting them to every last tooth and nail for the intellectual property rights patent on stupidy, with this nonsense about how the “rupture” of Sarko "is what France needs".

I subscribe to the Economist because I like the writing style and I like the moderate tone of others I have met who are also subnscribers. But I can't say I really like the editorial position they take when it comes to Sarko. The magazine too often comes across just as shrill as any left-wing anti-globalization protester when it comes to defending certain ideas. Bill Emmott may not work for them anymore, but his take here might just as well have been clipped from that rag. I've lost count how many articles I've seen in recent weeks in that publication about how glorious the reign of Margret Thatcher was and how lucky France will be if it follows in that direction. I'd like to know something, seriously: For whom do you guys write this stuff? I can't possibly believe that you actually think the world is as simple as you make it out to be. Don't you think there are considerable social problems that exist today in Britain and America that are at least partly to be blamed for policies that origninated under Thatcher's and Reagan's tenure? Are you totally unable to have a discussion about how society as a whole - including the investor class - benefits from social protections of the modern welfare state, and how if we dismantle every one of them in a fit of free-market rapture, civilized society might actually completely break down. I don't hear Sarko talking at all about how the modern French state can balance the needs of society to maintain as much as possible of the protections garnered by common people over the years from the ravages of unbridled capitalism, while at the same time maintaining competitiveness in the global marketplace, in a time of global stagnation. No, all I hear is "I'll teach those scum to behave". The radical left hasn't had an original idea in decades, that's for sure; but the Economist and Mr. Emmott really do seem to be intent on fighting them to every last tooth and nail for the intellectual property rights patent on stupidy, with this nonsense about how the “rupture” of Sarko "is what France needs".

Communists put their left foot on your neck; Nazis put their right foot on your neck: Socialists respond by putting both feet on your neck!

Reagan and Thatcher were cited because they had radical breaks from the policies that proceeded them not because the author likes them better than other politicians.

"You don't think Royale can revamp the country?"

No, actually, I don't.

It would be like blood-letting as a cure for anemia.

Like Bill Emmott, I think that France would benefit from a "rupture" with the conservativism that pervades the country, regardless of the nominal left-right labels. But I fear that it's precisely Sarko's rupture-making capacity that frightens the French. Other politicians tried to be change agents during the Chirac era--notably Alain Juppe and the much abused Dominique de Villepin. But as a consequence, they had their heads handed to them.

How "American" to digress on Reagan and Clinton while discussing French democracy ! As a matter of fact, the most significant development to stem from this election is the resurgence of a real Center with candidate Bayrou, whose men will not only be the discreet kingmakers to make Sarkozy President, but will also infiltrate UMP to guarantee the election of a majority of Centrists in the next Assemblée. Next step will be the passage to a "Sixth Republic"... who will look a lot like the American democracy and will mark the end of a real dichotomy between Left and Right, to be replace by superficial bipartyism, hiding a fundamental consensus on everything substantial... like in the U.S. This, by the way, is the only way to run a modern democracy.

pjca@iname.com

Clearly, the author of this fluff piece on Sarkozy doesn't live in the same France as I do, or watch the same French TV, read the same French papers, or listen to the same French radio. Sarkozy is omnipresent in the media - it's become something of a joke - and yes "as a minister, he has acted", but only to stage media events to position himself for the presidency. As minister of finance, he presided over balooning deficits far worse than those of his predicessors (including socialists). As minister of the interior (which in France means head of the national police apparatus), he presided over a collapse of community/police relations in poor neighborhoods - something that caused a lot of property damage and a few deaths, but that's a small price to pay for letting him campaign against immigrants and insecurity. One doesn't have to be left wing to see the man as a danger to France.

Is it a conservative analysis only because of the names the commentator cited? What's conservative about it? He doesn't espouse policy but draws relevant recent historical parallels. Are the parallels he draws incorrect? Of course not.

For John - the ecomonic crises that Reagan and Thatcher faced were far more daunting and structural than anything that Clinton faced. Debt is not an economic crisis in itself like the runaway inflation that Reagan faced when he took office. The point the commentator makes is that like Reagan and Thatcher, Sarkozy is facing the French problem head on.

Maybe Royal can make it happen it, too, but judging by the other comentators comments applying "a feminine touch" doesn't carry the same weight as rupture. The commentator states that a rupture is what france needs, not necessarily Sarkozy.

Don't let politics cloud your judgment.

"Very conservative point of view. Mentioning "Reagan" but not "Clinton" when Clinton clearly gave us the best economy in the history of the country and Reagan gave us the greatest debt in the history of the country."

That's not quite correct. Reagan and the spending of the congress at that time was high but the debt was paid off quickly by huge economic growth, this was also due to lowering taxes. I know people on the left continue to defy this, but history has born this out as true, and Reagan wasn't the first man to prove it.

Low taxes will mean high growth and actually more money gets put back into the treasury than is spent. This is exactly what is happening under Bush right now. His opponents have forecast gloom and doom debt for 3 years, and guess what? Nothing. The debt is minor and nothing near what they predicted. Supply side economics is what works, and that's a fact born out not by opinions or theories but because it is historically true.

Point of clarification John: The economy today is far better than when Clinton was president. Also Clinton inhereted a great economy which began to falter during his last year in office. It was Clinton that allowed the Enron's to happen and the dot-com house of cards to build up. He didn't do us any favors other than NAFTA and GATT.

Let's wait to see what actually materializes. Unless and until France shakes off its huge social welfare burden and comes to grips with immigrants who've no interest in integrating into a Western society, it will likely make little progress.

As for Clinton, his was a wasted 8 years of silliness. It was the Republican Congress that gave us a balanced budget - not the philandering Mr. Clinton.

Very conservative point of view. Mentioning "Reagan" but not "Clinton" when Clinton clearly gave us the best economy in the history of the country and Reagan gave us the greatest debt in the history of the country.

Sarkozy's maternal grandfather was a Jew who converted to Catholicism when he married Sarko's grandmother. The candidate himself is likewise a professing Roman Catholic, though of 1/4 Jewish descent.

That's a pretty conservative, elitist view. You don't think Royale can revamp the country?