Puzzle made to me by a contact with whom I compare my ideas but completely opposite to mine. Here the policy proposals of FN: – strong immigration restriction, accused the French of impoverishing the poor and enrich the wealthiest allowing them to push through there on labor costs and be a threat to French culture, is a points program that generate the most passion in one direction or the the other, the topic of immigration, however, is emerged as a central theme in the program and the speech of the National Front in the 1980s (during the 1974 presidential election for example, the platform of four pages Proposed by Jean-Marie Le Pen makes no allusion to the immigration23), what Patrick Weil analysis as a perception of immigration as a theme to become paying the electoral level. – repeal of the law of Pleven 1972 ( prohibiting racist, it is a revision of Decree-Law Marchandeau 21 April 1939) of the Law. – Repeal of the law Pleven of 1972 (prohibiting racist, it is a revision of Decree-Law Marchandeau of April 21, 1939), the loiGayssot 1990 (increased punitive legislation against racism and prohibit the dissemination Holocaust denial). – preservation of traditional lifestyles, especially in rural areas, as required by protectionism and stopping the construction of mosques in France These first three points show that: – Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy did not invent anything with these statements of double punishment (deprivation of citizenship) and shows clearly what was referred to voters. – That the repeal of laws on racism combined to double jeopardy and the cessation or almost immigration is unequivocal: it is clear is targeted. – That maintain a rural area and use the cons-productive protectionism is: nothing to do with a traditional right-wing ideology. A small overview of some key points: – sovereignty vis-à-vis the United States of American and international organizations such as NATO and the European Union – the punishment of crimes, with higher penalties – the. Your opinion? Micdal: Let us compare our time to be objectifsur what a traditional party today. Communism is a far too … What you say in terms of representation: you're absolutely and because it is a scandal. Francis: Well … 1) the first three points are clearly xenophobic as they are abroad. 2) debate has nothing to do with racist .. 3) Preserve rural areas and to protectionism is not extreme but cons productive today, which demonstrates that this is not a traditional party of the right, I did not say it was extreme. It's populism, I would almost say … – by cutting taxes cons: it could be extreme … But not now want to develop. Finally, I said that the proposals are seen in the FB together is hard Radical … How can you say otherwise? proposals FN dan his sets are hard and radical ……… Francis: I have to say (my question will be deleted you can count on it lol): 1) No hatred, fear … nothing to do with. Del'amour nothing to do with just the fear of strangers. 2) To me, the fact of wanting to abolish these laws is not something trivial, it goes beyond freedom of expression: the racist are not opinions. 3) to protectionism in the global economy is very dangerous, especially with so many manufactured goods from China at low prices. 4) What country are you talking about when you talk of tax harmonization? It extreme proposals because they would completely change our internal and external policy. It is radical because the solutions proposed installment in the heap. It's like amputate both arms and both legs as these prevention solutions … Francis Ton1) because I find it extreme-immigration policy of this half-century, said exactly the opposite of what you affirm. The facts are persistent … 2) The debate is not the model etas-Americans but rather: what is racist can be characterized by facts proven scientifically or not even a. 2) The debate is not the model etas-Americans but rather: what is racist can be characterized by scientifically proven facts or even just qu'unopinion? The answer is obvious and therefore the legislature has decided. 3) I agree with you on the finding, but not for the remedy. 4) If you see any harmony in your chart is that I do not know read … Also, you do not tip that payroll taxes … France is more advantageous in other areas of tax, do not worry … Sonnen klinge: 200% deficit, I wont did not say … and other economic structural problems significant enough … You know, the Japanese are here: http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/les-mysteres-de-la-dette-japonaise_fr_art_946_50246.html The economist Paul Krugman, price "Nobel" of the economy in 2006, has rightly pointed out the archaic economic positions …
this party is to just be the spokesperson for many people who think that whisper loudly proclaims the FN
A bit long as a question! The right has always held speeches like this, see Candide Gringoire, I'm everywhere … And the speech until Marchais of the PCF was not different from the FN is moderate to hand, it is never out of law even when it is deprived of parliamentary representation. In 2002 what was the score of M Le Pen? and the candidate CPF? And then how many members of the FN and how CPF? In all things we must know why keep
the traditional right had a safeguard that does not have the party of extreme right, Catholicism. and at one time, even if it does not prevent the crap, in the electorate, it does not condone provided and this is an important difference that must be taken into account. in call FN, I do see an attempt to forget that it is a question of a party of extreme right, that is very perverse and probably intended (a politically correct label), I was a pretty young when Latin America was under the yoke of fascist dictatorships (with the backing of the U.S.), crimes against humanity were committed then and that, among the new generations we do not really know, that is very dangerous.
This party is always good questions dixit Fabius adding that there also gives the most wrong answers
Throughout the list you have compiled, what are the extreme measures that you judge all about – the discourse on immigration is substantially the same as that required by a market before 1981. I also remind you that the Government Barre in 1978 had wanted to stop family reunion – which in itself is an aberration, primarily because it has forever changed the face of France, then he succeeded because an oil crisis quite important. It is the Council of State overturned the ban by discovering a general principle of law – see ben! – What is the most extreme between a law that prohibits the discussion of certain subjects and one that requires freedom of expression? I tell you what I think: the law unconstitutional Gayssot is for me and I think a run defense its unconstitutionality in the future, as the 2007 law allows. – How to preserve the rural world is extreme? That's what irritates me now: listen to the media there is more than the downtowns and. – How to preserve the rural world is extreme? That's what irritates me now: listen to the media there is more than the downtowns and lesbanlieues sensitive. The IEP Paris, which has made the affirmative, one of its principles, targets the suburban and non-rural France – the name of what? Rural France is France's Forgotten Republic, and there is a real scandal – fewer jobs, fewer services, development of rural poverty that people have dropped, etc.. Mitterrand asked at a small village and its church all his interlocutors were appointed. He knew well betray them. – Protectionism is it extreme? It is not the prerogative of the FN. You judge too quickly cons-productive, I do not see why it would be streamlined if it is – thank you spare me a few historical experiences, the current situation is absolutely not the same. I see no other means also to preserve our social … Incidentally, some right-wing political evokes the idea here or there, without giving it a name – Estrosi spoke not long ago, the party of Nicolas Dupont-Aignan was pointing too. The sovereign has nothing extreme, there are right. The sovereign has nothing extreme, there has droiteet left elsewhere. – Reducing the number of employees, taxes and corporate taxes have nothing extreme either. Ditto for the removal of government subsidies to anti-racist associations – I guess that's what this is especially. I made a turn at SOS Racism tonight, it's worth its weight in peanuts … The measures that we could finally discuss the two: the death penalty and Natal. I am personally against the death penalty is indeed extreme. As for abortion, it would involve restrictions not a ban. Countries like Poland have not legalized abortion they are not considered extreme for all that, though? If the birth rate is extremely encouraging … What, then, to encourage homosexuals to adopt go in third world countries eh? 
EDIT: You just can not prove what the positions are extreme. 1 / Where you see xenophobia, I see mainly the love of France is to preserve. 1 / Where you see xenophobia, I see mainly the love of France is to preserve French del'identité it is, not the hatred of foreigners. 2 / course . Go to the U.S., you will understand what it means freedom of expression and opinion. There are no laws prohibiting racism there, the United States are they extreme? Moreover and as I told you in private: the resurgence of racism today is a response to anti-racism – imposition of a multiculturalist model, cultural relativism, denial of differences, etc. 3. / I do not know what you're basis for a sweep of hand the idea of protectionism. Many economists do not attempt it and because it is a coherent response to global free trade. This is not to moralize capitalism but to rationalize it. 4 / On reducing the number of employees, taxes and corporate taxes … This would be especially harmonize with neighboring countries to avoid tax dumping. If this is extreme, so all our neighbors are, it must be consistent, eh? Finally, radicalism and. If this is extreme, so all our neighbors are, it must be consistent, eh? Finally, etl'extrémisme radicalism are two totally different things! EDIT # 2: 1 / I totally disagree. Again, it preserves the identity of France as others preserve the legacy of nature: France is an architecture, these are landscapes, they are traditions, terroir. It is a carnal relationship that many new French do understand and will never understand. So yes, France is not the veil. France this is not the djellaba, not the slippers, this is not the robe. These people will never be French and for good reason, "they do not live like the French." Like me you realize that we will open one of our endless discussions about it … 2 / Anodin or not it prevents that current laws muzzling thinking and you know very well: when you can be prosecuted for daring to say a reality – the majority of offenders are black or Arab – and whatever the motives of the person who says, I call it totalitarianism! So yes, in terms of freedom. 2 / Anodin or not it prevents that current laws muzzling thinking and you know very well: when you can be prosecuted for daring to say a reality – the majority of offenders are black or Arab – and whatever motivations of the person who says, I call it totalitarianism! So yes, in libertéd'expression, I think the U.S. model is more consistent and closer to the democratic ideal. It's still a scandal that there are only the FN stressing this point. 3 / We will now right in the wall, then screwed up to damn, I would try my luck. 4 / You choose: http:/ / fr.wikipedia.org / wiki / File: Cotisations_sociales_OCDE.png According to your logic, all the countries of France are left on the histogram, extremist country . I warn you I am completely HS. The rest may not be nice if there is .
You call that a question? Lol! On how you want us to answer you? Because over all, should be a pamphlet of thirty pages. Well have a first error: protectionism would be counter the Japanese seem to you it's like to keep 50 years and over a counter? One of the most protectionist in the world is Japan, it has been a leading financial strongholds. Japanese capitalists have significant market shares with us through this. So your allegation is without analysis or a prejudice basis. The rest is in keeping.
In the 50s, the FN had been considered a simple center-right party and would have been directly elected in the first round of presidential elections. Reminds me of what the nauseating Eric Zemmour said to an audience full of students: "J 'I was in elementary school in the 60s … It's a world you do not even know. It's a world where there was a good speller and where we knew the history of France. N' try it, it's dead. "Still, the FN, as you say very well, is not a traditional party. Today is the party of the cons-culture. The cons of future minority-culture. It is the party that defends the values, which were the norm in the 50s and 60s. But as has been observed for the 70 a total inversion of values that you seem happy, what was once the standard is now the exception. And there are still people in France for whom knowledge and preservation of a heritage matter. Human Ecology in fact. Before. Avantque France would become a completely Grant International.
If you resume the genesis of "political views" of Le Pen, you'll find something in this "tribune Poujadist" no other ambition than to populism and to live. In the 1970s, the "brain storming" of the band Le Pen were to identify the issues most touts for 1 – to speak of them, 2 – to 3 vote – to be elected 4 – to live. Le Pen is a politician who has the longest career "employee" of the republic (and Europe) since 1956 and his election as MP Poujadist (outside of "legacies preposterous") lives at taxpayer expense and has no ambition!