I hereby fine Société Générale 8,000 bitcoins for violating the American constitution (never mind jurisdiction since they don't care for it either), notice duly served by posting this comment in a public forum and witnessed by whoever happens to read this.
Yeah the United States never does anything outside its jurisdiction that anyone else finds annoying.
That said, the level of institutionalized corruption in France is pretty outrageous. If I recall correctly, the president of France receives a truck load of cash every year which can be used with zero accountability (and that's legal). Of course the French (and pretty much any democratic country) can look at our electoral system and laugh.
This is what appears to me to be an American (or USian to be more precise) complaining about France fining a US Blogger, so a direct comparison of the US to France is highly apropos.
Except that Mike Shedlock is not personally America and has no control of the actions of the American government.
Also, there's only one nation in the world called "America," so it's plenty precise. The continents are "North America" and "South America," or jointly "the Americas." Posturing aside, I don't believe that a reasonable person is likely to confuse them.
> Also, there's only one nation in the world called "America,"
That's going way off topic, but I couldn't resist. I can't find such nation in the globe.
And the continent is called "America". There is even one country that formed by the union of several smaller ones that calls itself "United States of America" because it's located at this continent called "America".
> That's going way off topic, but I couldn't resist. I can't find such nation in the globe.
Are you also opposed to referring to the United Mexican States/Estados Unidos Mexicanos as simply "Mexico"?
Come to think, it's a little odd that you find "America," a word found in only one nation's name, to be imprecise, but are totally fine with "United States," which is found in two current and like ten historical nations.
> And the continent is called "America". There is even one country that formed by the union of several smaller ones that calls itself "United States of America" because it's located at this continent called "America".
On further reading, the definition of a "continent" is completely arbitrary, but dividing the Americas into two continents has been standard in the English-speaking world for ages. The single-continent standard used in the Hispanic world is equally arbitrary; you don't get to claim that your arbitrary standard is objectively correct but ours is cultural imperialism.
I was responding to someone who was cheerfully making anti-French statements because a US citizen was mistreated by some piece of the French government. This is no different (except in degree) from an Pakistani citizen (say) being killed by the US government, also outside its legal jurisdiction.
You were responding to someone who was being derogatory towards Société Générale. How is this 'Anti-French'? Isn't your objection here pretty ironic considering the topic at hand?
Yes but to make sweeping complaints about the French as an American is absurd. (And note that I myself pointed out that France has a serious problem with institutionalized corruption, not that the US has anything to crow about.)
> "Yes but to make sweeping complaints about the French as an American is absurd."
I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere in this dicussion:
"Insane laws in one place do not make laws in another place any less insane. If we universalized your attitude towards criticism, then only those blessed to live in utopias would have the privilege of leveling complaints at other systems."
Americans do get to criticize the French government. Americans get to criticize the American government. French get to criticize the French government. French get to criticize the American government. Zimbabweans get to criticize the Portuguese government. The Portuguese get to criticize the the Swiss government.
Everybody gets to criticize any government they please, no matter what government happens to lay stake to the place that they live. It is absurd to think otherwise.
Nobody you were replying to made any sweeping complaints about the French. And pointing it out as a citizen of the U.S. doesn't count as crowing unless you get defensive and interpret it that way.
He only brought it up to show the absurdity of it - the poster is probably from the US. Any other nation's constitution / body of laws could have been used as the example.
quick translation: before 2001 the President and its ministers used to receive "secret funding" that they could use for whatever they wanted. The money came from Banque de France (public money, not money from a private bank).
This has been mostly suppressed in 2001 (the amounts are now public information), except for secret services funding (for obvious reasons).
So your example is a bit inaccurate and a bit outdated. That said, we certainly have our share of nepotism and collusion.
I'm glad it's been reformed (I think it came to light during the ELF scandal). But yes, my overall point is it's just a matter of pot calling kettle black.
That's cute. You need one thing -- someone to enforce that for you.
A court they would listen to, an army, your buddy Louie with a baseball bat, ready to break their CEO's knees.
Societe Generale is in a better standing than you here. Some courts in some countries (France) using their enforcement agencies will most likely do their bidding for them.
In other words I can fine everyone millions of dollars. Look I fined you and everyone here $1B. Guess what chance I have of collecting that?
Disregard other things, deep down that is what it boils down to.
