A Complete Waste of Space

callmeslick wrote:

Pudfark wrote:

callmeslick wrote: only so long as people like you are stupid sheep and go along with the plan. Speaking of expertise, yours seems to have become useless whining. You aren't, in doing so, helping French society a bit.

Nic....I just quoted the pertinent part above for ya....Hope ya didn't have to read all the horse shit that went along with it. Here is what that above quote means?

It means that Slick is upset with those folks who don't go along with his program and act like "stupid sheep". Further, name calling "useless whining". Then the shaming, "You aren't, in doing so, helping French society" to further my socialist agenda. There you have it, Voila!

Old Pudfark sez: " Same shit, different day... "

nonsense. A nation full of finger-pointers and whiners gets nothing accomplished. If you have goals, pursue them, if not, sit down and figure out some goals.
Blaming other people, or concocting conspiracies accomplishes nothing. That is my point. Note, at no time, did I espouse a 'socialist agenda'. Human rights and equality for all ethnic groups, without special favors to any is not socialism. A global economy is not socialism. A multicultural society is not socialism.
All of those ideas will work quite nicely within a capitalist-based economy.

There we go again....the "socialist" agenda hidden under the "utopian" theme, stirring
in the destruction of the "capitalist" economy, currently being maimed with excessive taxation and regulation. The new "happy meal"...it's good for me and it's gonna be good for ewe.

Yes, Slick...you do "skirt" using the word socialism. However, you define it to the "T". There's a big difference between the words "transparent" and "apparent". The former, you are not....the later, you are.

All of course meant respectfully.....

callmeslick wrote:so, preserving your way of life requires shutting out the rest of the world? I wonder how long that would work for France.

You don't have to "shutting out the rest of the world". You just have to prevent massive population movement, especially with people from different ethnical; cultural & religious background.

how does giving equal rights to women and homosexuals destroy your society? Don't you really mean 'destroy my comfort zone'? Because, giving equal rights to women and gays opens your society to greater possibilities for good, and you are simply too xenophobic to cope with it. Welcome to 2012.

Because: 1, mariage is still originally a religious institution that was sanctionned by the state, hence allowing mariage to gay people is desacralizing mariage and cutting it from it's religious origin to make it only a civil act. That's just one more nail in the coffin of our Catholic inheritance, which is exactly what has shaped us the way we are now, and is the basis of our society.
Because: 2, gay mariage is only another step in the way of gay adoption, and I wouldn't want poor kids to end up being raised by degenerates.
Because: 3 gay mariage? Then what? Human-animal mariage? Then what? Legalisation of paedophilia?

Each and every step in this direction breaks the fundamentals of our society and of it's values. You don't know where it will stop. Or rather yes I do and I don't like it.

Only so long as people like you are stupid sheep and go along with the plan. Speaking of expertise, yours seems to have become useless whining. You aren't, in doing so, helping French society a bit.

I don't plan to go along with the plan...

Thanks for the personnal attack, I'll prepare some for my next reply.

Well pudfark, the totalitalitarian regime will be ultraliberalist... not socialist economics-wise.

Worst of both worlds, except for the ruling class.

A good example is the closing of all small shops in cities one after the other, while big supermarkets open instead nearby.

A number of small owners are being replaced by 1 ultra rich owner, 1 or a few managers and the rest of slaves.
Works for agriculture, works for pretty much everything.

In France, taxes are killing small businesses, while the multinationals pay no taxes, or almost none.

Nic

Becoming quite the right wing homophobe there Nic.

well I said that this way to stirr a bit of shit.

I don't have anything against homosexuals as long as they are not the in your face type. I personally thing it's a perversion, and that it ain't natural, but well to each their own right?

Now, all those in your face type that always ask for equal rights?

Gays have the right to marry just like other people, as long as they marry a person of the opposite sex. Union with someone of the same sex is already possible in the form of a civil union anyway. Do they want us to force piests to marry them at the Church next?

I think all those "gay rights" movement have a very sinister agenda. And they usually have a very shady background. Just look that the first gay rights activists in the US, backed by the rockefeller foundation... and with creepy links with paedophiles.

Just look at the FEMEN phenomenon... it's clearly a manipulation, financed and organised by whom? it would be interesting to know.

Nic

I most definitely agree with the last two posts Nic has made. +1 on both'em.

I disagree with your take on Nic's statements, Soapy.
I don't believe Nic is what you suggest. I know, I'm not.
I do believe in a "legal union" for gay folks...in that they should not
be discriminated against, when/if it comes to an application or utilization of the
same rights that "married" couples enjoy. Meaning? "Marriage" is a religious term/word not to be confused with "union" which is applicable to the "else wise" category. Marriage is not the one word which fits both. Folks who accuse others of
homophobia in an attempt to do that? Well, it has the appearance of trying to "slip things in the back door"...pun intended.

Just for the sake of gentle discussion?
Let's say? You have four son's and no daughters?
How many "son in-laws" are you looking forward to acquiring?

Just saying...and not trying to poke anything in yer business.....

Edit: Seems like Nic...got in there ahead of me...

Just for the sake of gentle discussion?
Let's say? You have four son's and no daughters?
How many "son in-laws" are you looking forward to acquiring?

Just saying...and not trying to poke anything in yer business.....

Not looking forward to any as it happens in that hypothetical premise. In reality I have 1 son and 1 daughter. My main hope for both of them is that they are happy and healthy. If either of them were to be gay I would be unhappy about not having Grandchildren, but at the same time be supportive about their life choices. Much the same as I don't feel that my kids have to follow my political beliefs or moral choices when they are adults but I would like them to be similar to mine. If my son decided he wanted to be gay, well that is his decision based on his choice. I try to be a good guy, a good father and husband, work hard at my job, and try to be a good person in society too. I think ( well I know ) my son as he becomes older ( he's going to be 15 soon ) is starting to appreciate that more and more when he compares me to his peer's folks. My 10 year old daughter is the same, free thinking but at the same time appreciates how the missus and I lead our life and accept people for who they are, not what they are.


Back to Nic.

Gays have the right to marry just like other people, as long as they marry a person of the opposite sex. Union with someone of the same sex is already possible in the form of a civil union anyway. Do they want us to force piests to marry them at the Church next?

I think all those "gay rights" movement have a very sinister agenda. And they usually have a very shady background. Just look that the first gay rights activists in the US, backed by the rockefeller foundation... and with creepy links with paedophiles.

I agree with civil unions as this gives both parties the same rights in law as the rest of us. As to forcing priest to marry people, well not that long ago priests would only marry people of the same church, and not marry people who had had children out of wedlock, or people who had divorced. The Catholic church ( of which I was born into ) was pretty strict on this not too long ago. The Catholic church is not alone in this, other Christian faiths are just as guilty of being reactionary too.

The sinister agenda of gay rights? Maybe yes, maybe no. Not being a gay right campaigner, I'm out of the loop. The human rights issue on the other hand, yup. Most movements have "sinister" agendas if you look at them.

What surprises me most Nic, is how an intelligent guy like you has become taken in by so many obvious fakirs. I understand your anger but feel it is misplaced towards some very easy targets.

You misread me. I didn't name the gays as targets. Did I?

I was just trying to say that all the hoopla about "allowing gay mariage" only desacralized the religious value of mariage for people who still believed in God, and that it was yet another nail in the coffin of our roots.

People fail to realise that equating gay civil union and religious mariage is yet another jab at our very religious base. Oddly enough, most people are religious.

Nic

Scratch that, all people are religious.

nicolas10 wrote:Scratch that, all people are religious.

Nope.