How to Hate the French: A User's Guide: Michael Lewis

Bloomberg ^ | April 9, 2003 | Michael Lewis

[WaveThatFlag]

Did Michael Lewis move to Berkeley, or is he just visiting?

[Support Free Republic]

---

Look into my eyes! You Vill not Succeed !
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Seeking the truth]

Here's a good way to hate the French!

Screw La France

[WaveThatFlag]

ping

[TomB]

For your enjoyment.

[WaveThatFlag]

lsufan, wideawake

[WaveThatFlag]

duh.

[hawkaw]

Promoting hatred on ALL of a country all because a democratic and free country's government did not support a war effort.

Hmm....

I just don't know if that is right or not.

In some cases "free" allies get to agree on things and in other cases they disagree.

To label some people just because their government's disagree .... I don't know. I don't think it is right.

[LizardQueen]

If what they want is the attention, why don't we just ignore them? Totally and completely?

Don't do business with them, don't talk to them at the UN or anywhere else, don't even acknowledge that they exist.

It works for me.

LQ

[Leisler]

We weren't having a high school debate. War, or no war. Are you in or out. We don't hate them for their limp wrist opinions, we hate them for being abject, spineless, lying, duplicitous cowards. We hate them for their actions, inactions and for what they are. And rightly so.

[FRgal4u]

hating the French just because they don't support our stance in Iraq ALONE is wrongheaded...but think about this..

For France as an ally of America...it did the following in the last few months..

1) Publically denounces the hegemony of America, saying France needs to play the COUTERWEIGHT role in the world stage

2) Going out of her way to stir up troubles for us all over the world...Villepin is travelling all over Africa, Turkey, Middle-East before the war and now AFTER the war...why...stir up troubles...(Villepin told the African countries, why vote with America in the UN because France will veto it anyway, why risk the umpopular vote...Villepin told the Turksm never allow the US troops open the Northern Front orelse Turkey will never be part of the EU...and the MiddleEast countries - try to stir up more troubles before and AFTER the war)..

3) France "unclear" position in supporting the Coalition of the Willing VS the dictatorship of Saddam...as an ally of ours, France refuses to openly support our troops, instead over 30% of the French hope we lost in this war!

4) France, now a core of the unholy trifecta - the Coalition of the LOOTERS...why would any American, supporting the war or not, should ever support the French position that the UN alone is THE player in the post-war Iraq reconbstruction effort (France has NO global influence in both economic and political terms - outside UN , NATO)...so why should the countries which have not shed a single drop of blood, spend a penny in this war play a role in the post-war reconstruction effort (If FRABCE wanna play, it gotta pay...forgive the Iraqi debts!!!)..

so, France is NO ALLY of America...we should not hate the French because they don't support our cause in Iraq alone, we should treat them as a competitor at best, a hostile entity at worst..France is no longer an Ally of the United States of America.

[peeve23]

I prefer to be more pragmatic when engaged in injuring the French.

I boycott things like peugeots, citroens, and renaults....and, yes, I have rented a renault from Hertz in the past. I don't rent them, lease them, or buy them. I don't buy their silly bottles of water. I refuse to buy anything with a label or marker that says, "made in france."

[LOC1]

The opposite of "like" is not "hate," it is "indifference."

[StonyMan451]

Michael Lewis is right on!

I think W ought to start quietly spreading the idea among the 3rd world countries in the U.N. that France's position on the Security Council is an anachronism of history and that their concerns would be more effectively represented by a country like, say, India.

After all, France has what?, 60 million people, while India has over 1 billion.

Aside from making the Security Council more relevant, it would have the added appeal of dissing the French in a way that would truly wound their pride.

There are only 2 problems with this plan: 1) it keeps us involved in the U.N. when I think we should get the helk out; and 2) the same logic could be used for England.

And another thing: We should propose that English or Spanish be used as the international language of diplomacy, rather than French. Have you ever noticed that nothing, absolutely NOTHING sounds manly in French? You simply can't have a masculine sounding sports team in French. But in Spanish, EVERYTHING sounds masculine. Examples:

English: The Bulls
Spanish: Los Toros
French: Les Taureaux

English: The Dodgers
Spanish: Los Trampistas
French: Les Embusqués

In Spanish even laughably feminine names sound good:

English: The Pussycats
Spanish: Los Mininos
French: Les minous

Use Google's Language tools at http://www.google.com/language_tools to try some yourself, and you'll see what I mean.

[M Kehoe]

The more I read about the French, the more I know how irrelevant they truely are.

5.56mm

[hawkaw]

Did you see what you wrote?

You hate ALL them is what you are telling me. All because their free government made a decision.

What you are doing here was practiced in Iraq and what the United States has tried to stop over and over again - that is everyone has the right to chose and voice his or her opinion without the fear of reprisals.

You are practicing hatred against all people when really their governments made the decision. President Bush even said that even though we may disagree with France, we will continue to go forward and work with them.

The comments on this board lately against people who are "free" and allowed to make their own "free" decisions is just plain old wrong. Even President Bush said he respected those people who were protesting the war. Bush said in his press conference that the protesters were wrong (which I agree with) but Bush supported the fact that they were allowed to freely protest.

One final point that I want to make is that large prescentages of people in Spain were against this war. Same with Britain and Denmark. Yet anything Spanish is okay to you. But say the word France, Germany and Canada (Canada who by the way now has shown polls that shows a large percentage of support for you guys and who even had troops fighting in the battle) and you are against ALL of the people. Why should the large percentage of people of Spain get a "Hall Pass" and those in France who supported the war not get that same "Hall Pass"?. That is not right in my mind

You guys are practicing hatred against ALL people from a countries who didn't do anything to you guys. Some of these people (like me) even supported the war effort and hated our government's stance.

In my mind what you some of you people are doing is not right and needs to stop if you truly believe in what American "freedom" is all about.

hawk

[WaveThatFlag]

Use Google's Language tools at http://www.google.com/language_tools to try some yourself, and you'll see what I mean.

Je me rends!

[dfwgator]

Let's not hate them, let's just ignore them.

[WaveThatFlag]

Yet anything Spanish is okay to you. But say the word France, Germany and Canada (Canada who by the way now has shown polls that shows a large percentage of support for you guys and who even had troops fighting in the battle) and you are against ALL of the people.

Speaking for myself, I don't hate ALL Canadians. Just the French ones.

[freelight]

Freedom cuts both ways--the French can say or do whatever they wish. However, they then have to live with the consequences of what they say or do.

I think I understand your main point--don't hate the people for what their government does. That's fine--I have French and Belgian and Canadian friends. However, I am free to despise their governmental decisions (or not). I don't hold them personally responsible. On the other hand, when there are democratically elected governments, "the people" in general are being represented. So if Canadians don't agree with their government's stance, and feel strongly about it, what will the consequences in the next Canadian elections? If the answer is "nothing", don't expect to get much sympathy from Americans on the "it's not us, it's our government" argument.