Quote:
Originally posted by Rudey
Again you attack me. You just don't stop. Fine.
This is a piece from the New York Times. The Times is one of the most reputable daily papers out there and often considered the best. You say I have anti-French views because I posted it?? Perhaps it's because I am intelligent, lived in France, speak French, eat French foods, have family in France with property, and also INVEST in French companies. Cut me a break. And you attack the author why? Because he wrote in the New York Times? Because he wrote for the National Review? Because he co-wrote a book detailing the friction between the US and France?? If you're going to attack me or the author, at least have some ground and merit. As it stands right now your reputation is one of violence, one of lies, one of absurdity, and oh yeah your link to France is that your brother went there for a little while.
-Rudey
|
Sorry but I don't see how pointing out that you have a historical bias against France as demonstrated by your posts on GC is an attack on you...
Look if you read the whole of my post you'll note that first I viewed this article as a gross oversimplification and American-centric view of French political expression. The second thing I brought up was the bias of the writer (and in your case poster) of the article - but then I moved on to the important part: namely the Gaulish approach to world politics, within the context of the goal of re-establishing or re-gaining French prominence; not the goal of simply thwarting American interests...
Seriously I thought the ol' Republican bashing of France was so 2003
