Americans Call Them “Wimps” But It’s the French Who Burn Cities Over a Gas Tax Hike

The “yellow vest” street protest movement has provoked the most violent confrontation between the people and government since May 1968. And it started out over a gas tax. Meanwhile Americans put up with all sorts of nonsense but have the nerve to call the French cowards and wimps.

32 thoughts on “Americans Call Them “Wimps” But It’s the French Who Burn Cities Over a Gas Tax Hike

  1. @AT sez, “Globalization is a massive job and wealth transfer from the first world to the third world. It also lessens taxes on multinationals at the expense of the citizen.”

    Thank you, now we have something concrete to discuss.

    We agree that multinationals are a problem, so what do we do about them? Right now it’s pretty much the law of the jungle, GE can make billions of dollars in sales and pay no taxes. This is because they can claim that even though they made sales in the US, they didn’t make any profit in the US. They somehow made all their profit in the Cayman’s where they made forty dollars in sales. Oh, and coincidentally it happens to be where their bank is located.

    This is a multi-national problem, involving not only the US, but every other country that does business with GE, they’re also losing money to the same shell game.

    Given that it is a *global* problem, it seems obvious that it requires a *globalist* solution. Otherwise, they will always have some version of the shell game available, and some little place like the Cayman’s to help them along.

    re: “a massive job and wealth transfer from the first world to the third world”

    Jobs, yes. And we agree that’s a bad thing for the US. However, the wealth transfer isn’t to the third world, but right back into those multinationals. But your overall point is mistaken, globalism isn’t about making these things happen, but recognizing the reality that they do happen and dealing with them on a global basis.

    re: .It also lessens taxes on multinationals at the expense of the citizen

    Same as above – it is isolationism which allows this to happen; but the exact, same thing happens with purely domestic corporations here in the US. The rich get richer at the expense of the citizen. Republicans wholeheartedly support this, Democrats quietly support it, and Socialists are wholeheartedly against it. Trump’s tax cut lessened those taxes even more at the expense of the citizen.

    Trump supports isolationism for the same reason as any other multinational CEO does: he makes money at the expense of the citizen. He gets away with it because of his base is convinced it somehow benefits them.

    It boggles the mind.

    If you’re truly against those things you claim to be against, you’ll work against them by voting for Socialist laws and candidates rather than Trump and the Corporate Agenda.

      • Privyet Komrade! We’ll get you your very own Mao hat and Sanders 2020 sticker ASAP.

        But I still fail to see how burning cars in Paris is going to stop Trump and his multinational cronies from cheating We The People out of Our The Money …

    • I certainly wouldn’t consider taking one from a “teacher” who thought that communicable diseases chose their hosts based on sexual identity, native language, or eye color.

      Neither would I take such a course from a “teacher” who thought he could diagnose communicable diseases based on photographs he believes to be faked in the first place.

      Nor from one which would prefer not to tell young people how to prevent the spread of communicable diseases, even as he was being paid to do so.

      Said hypothetical teacher would probably benefit from such a course far more than I would.

      Hypothetically.

      • So for whom are you rooting?

        Your beloved globalist (Macron) or We the People (the Yellow Jackets)?

      • *IF* I were rooting for anyone, it would be based on real-world considerations and an understanding of the issues.

        The Yellow Vests believe Macron is screwing over the working class in favor of the rich. I’d think you’d love him for that, given who you chose to be our President.

        Yes, some fascists, bigots and other extremists have jumped on the bandwagon – but that isn’t the root cause. Nor is the problem “globalism” per se – it’s about Macron’s DOMESTIC policies. (FUN FACT: hatred of immigrants is due in a large part to domestic economic problems, just like here.)

        I’m not in favor of rioting, especially when it does more damage to private property than its supposed targets. (Imagine your beloved truck being beaten with bats, overturned, and set on fire – would you still be rooting for the rioters?)

        Neither am I in favor of the type of Elitism of which Macron stands accused.

      • Don’t you think that at this point that the French people would elect Trump over Macron?

        And don’t be evasive.

        Fortune favors the bold.

      • > And don’t be evasive.

        That’s funny, you’ve never given a direct answer in your life.

        “No” – 65% of the French disapprove of Trump at last polling.

        The French solidly rejected Le Pen (who Trump endorsed) in favor of the promises Macron made. I suspect that if *that* election were re-run today Le Pen could actually take it. But that would be less a validation of her policies than a rejection of Le Pen’s actions.

        Then again, if Hillary-v-Trump was re-run today, I have no doubt we’d be saying “Madam President” come January.

        So, given that you’re now in favor of non-evasive answers, what specific problems do you have with globalism?

      • Globalization is a massive job and wealth transfer from the first world to the third world.

        It also lessens taxes on multinationals at the expense of the citizen.

        The Clinton tour is not going very well. The empty seats make the tour look like an NFL game. I do hope Hillary steals the nomination again. It guarantees four more years of Trump.

      • Well, let’s see. There was a Civil Rights movement, an anti-war movement, the feminist movement, a divestiture movement, and an LBGTQ movement.

        So I guess, yes.

  2. Yeah, it’s become fashionable to bash the French ever since they showed more sense about Iraq than we did. Even when history has shown them to be right, we still call them cowards.

    Probably the best example of “Ugly American” is the US tourist in France sighting the Statue of Liberty in Paris and observing, “Those French will steal anything.” It’s bad enough that the average American is ignorant of history; gleefully advertising such ignorance is downright embarrassing.

    The French helped us out in our revolution, we didn’t have any generals so they loaned us one of theirs. (Even Geo. Washington admitted he was under qualified for the position)

    Anyone who thinks the French are wimps needs to read up on La Résistance. We didn’t free France from the Nazis – we joined in when the WWII was nearly over.

      • And rejoined in 2009, illustrating the difference between Nicolas Paul Stéphane Sárközy de Nagy-Bócsa and Charles André Joseph Marie de Gaulle….

        Henri

  3. Americans are wimpy and are more supportive of, and more dominated by their Washington DC central government than their own state governments (“State”, as a sovereign entity, in the American sense is a misnomer given that Washington has relegated the states back to colonial status, a big concern way back since the Anti-Federalist opposition to the Constitution).

    It must be nice to live near your state central government, as do French citizens, so that the People can give the overinflated egos ensconced there a loving slap on the backsides of their heads when they need it.

    In America this type of action would be labeled “subversive”, “communist inspired”, and met with a militarized police force, along with the approval of the wimpy American “ignorami”.

    The French citizens, however to my knowledge, don’t regularly make the analogous trip en masse to the central government of the European Union, the same way Americans don’t regularly make the trip en masse to the central government in Washington DC to express their displeasure with their assholes in charge.

    • “Globalism” is another word for “accepting reality” – we have a global economy whether you like it or not. The idiot-in-chief initiates a ludicrous trade war with China and US stocks take a hit. We create chaos in South America and our victims come up here looking for refuge. We start a war in the ME and gas prices go up (not to mention people flying planes into buildings).

      It didn’t matter back in the days when China and N Africa were civilized and Europeans were rubbing blue mud on their bellies while howling at the moon. One group could make a decision without affecting the others, that is simply no longer true.

      I find that life just works better if I accept reality as it actually exists, rather than insisting that it should conform to my wishes.

      • > Gee, I didn’t know globalism was a psychological term.

        No … but the refusal to accept objective reality is an abnormal psychological condition. The good news is that it can be cured by turning off Fox and looking out the window.

        So – what is your problem with global socioeconomic reality anyway? You’ve brought it up three times, I assume you’ve some reason for your opinion – care to share?

      • Here’s reality:

        Trump is President.

        Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court.

        The scroungers aren’t getting in.

        The refugee racket has dried up.

        And it’s just the beginning.

      • Yes, you’re right – we’ve got an unqualified idiot in the oval office and an unqualified attempted rapist on the Supreme Court. Those are indeed unpleasant realities.

        However, I have no idea what those realities have to do with your objections to globalism. (and if you evade the question again, I’ll assume you have no idea what you’re talking about) (again)

      • Three strikes and you’re out, and so I am free to speculate.

        My speculation is that you don’t really understand the issues involved. You know that Faux News tells you it’s A Bad Thing, and it sounds vaguely like those scary crying two-year-old terrorists invading your country and therefore you’re against it. But understand it … no.

        I could be wrong, though, however you’d have to list some actual specifics in order to convince me. Typing Scary Words doesn’t cut it.

        Just to start with ‘law of the jungle’ is pretty much the exact opposite of globalism. Peace treaties are examples of globalism, as are international agreements on what constitutes “justice.’

        In point of fact, globalism is the *cure* for those scary words you listed.

      • The U.N. Pact on Migration is very scary, very scary indeed.

        (And that disease-infested caravan, filled with fighting-age men, simply grabs toddlers for photo ops.)

      • Thanks, Teach – I didn’t really need my speculation confirmed, but I do appreciate the effort.

        I do feel compelled to remind you that bearers of false witness and other liars go straight to Hell. According to Dante, you’ll be sent to an even deeper pit than sodomites. The good news is that you can look down on them as you fly over, won’t that be fun?

      • Tomorrow’s uprising in France may mark the moment of violent revolution against the traitorous globalists.

        Now, that will be fun.

      • > violent revolution against the traitorous globalists.

        @McFly – knock, knock? Anybody home?

        You’ve already conclusively proven that you have no idea WTF ‘globalism’ actually means. You’re like a cat trying to cover up on a tile floor. Your scat is plainly visible, there’s use pretending otherwise, you’re not fooling anyone, and yet you keep trying.

        However, your silly antics do provide some small amount of amusement to the humans who are watching.

Leave a Reply