eat pork or go hungry...

First topic message reminder :

it seems some people are sick of the special demands made by other groups...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597082/Eat-pork-hungry-Frances-far-right-National-Front-leader-tells-schools-stop-offering-religious-alternatives-canteen.html

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

lovedust wrote:

So you say God's dietary laws may change according to circumstance... Yet the Mark 7:18 passage VOD has repeatedly referenced states Jesus has declared all food to be clean.

How can food be both diseased and yet necessarily clean?

that was a reference to you being able to eat of any food without exception, mainly foods previously considered against the laws or unclean as they would call it..

Sorry but you didn't answer my question?

How can food be both diseased and necessarily clean at one and the same time?

OH GOD...curiosity got the better of me....I had to look didnt I.....fool that I am

and I saw



































THIS

Didge wrote:Simple question for Victor, what right do you have to take the life of another, animal of human?

None, when you figure that out, then you will stop being a NAZI

YE GODS

If you really dont see the difference between taking the life of an animal and that of a human you are one sick individual....

but lets examine "right" shall we

firstly ...humans are predators...by nature
secondly (and whilst not particularly a "solid" argument) It states clearly in the OT that god gave dominion over all on earth to man....
thirdly, since I'm not Christian (which is why I say the above is not a solid argument) My own belief ALSO considers that whilst we should not permit unneedful suffering, there is no wrong in taking animals for food, and at need to preserve food..I.E destruction of vermin. (this also recognises the more modern "need" of maintaining a balance (which existing unbalance i would not argue is man made)
fourthly, by what "right" do you consider me wrong? by what heavenly or earthly power do you claim a right to attempt to force your notions upon me? that makes you no different than the other extremists around
finally...I have the right to do just what the hell i want...within the law....

and we get to this...Human life...would I take the life of a human? If the circumstances warranted it you bet I would...reluctantly yes...but of need ...yes..
(such as clear and present danger to life and limb, of myself, family or others and with no other reasonable choice (note reasonable...not some airy fairy possibility that "might" be feasible ))

I'll take you off ignore....for now.......

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

lovedust wrote:

If you believe in an omnipotent and eternal God, his laws must by definition be all-pervasive and eternal. So how could they change?

not at all if a decision was for a certain place and a time it might not be for everyone and forever....  

  YOU have no idea of the meanings of "omnipotence" or "for ever and ever..", do you oh heavenly dunce ???

FESS UP now, GIGATT  ~ you and DVO had to drop out of high school in year 10, (probably when you got her up the duff with your first kid, was it..) didn't you !

GOES a long way to explaining your collective ignorance, superstitions, illiteracy, gullibility and incompetency..    

  Godisgoodallthetime wrote:it seems some people are sick of the special demands made by other groups...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk  /news/article-2597082/Eat-pork-hungry-Frances-far-right-National-Front-leader-tells-schools-stop-offering-religious-alternatives-canteen.html

  

SEEMS to me that a lot, lot more people are disgusted and concerned over your racist mob's perverse and twisted way of presenting things...

JUST personally, my humble opinion is that you fascist pricks can shove all of your pork up your fat fascist arses..    

   EXCESSIVE consumption of Pork  has a lot of negative health effects,  including:

Halitosis
Clogged arteries
Increased diabetes
Increased risk of strokes
Risk of High blood pressure
Increased incidence of heart diseases
Decreased sexual "potency"
Premature senility
Sleep apnoea
Body odour
Obesity

IN ADDITION, those pigs of a swine persuasion  are also a prime source and nexus of many parasitic organisms, esp. hydatids and liver flukes, and diseases such as salmonella ~ necessitating heavy (and largely unregulated !) dosages of worm medicines and antibiotics in farmed livestock..     

AND then there's the fact that many modern day piggeries are little more than "factory farming" operations   ~ incorporating all of those unpalatable and antisocial issues that accompany such grossly unnatural practices ~ including animal cruelty, heavy water and soil pollution, excessive water use, excessive energy use, abusive farmworker/'labourer exploitation, noise and air pollution.    

I see Victor cannot answer a simple question, what right, do you have to take life whether animal or human?

All you gave was excuses, not a sound reason, I would like amoral answer, of which I know you have none


Take your time

Didge wrote:I see Victor cannot answer a simple question, what right, do you have to take life whether animal or human?

All you gave was excuses, not a sound reason, I would like amoral answer, of which I know you have none


Take your time

rights are an artificial notion. What Right has the Lion to be a lion? Does a Shark need the rights to eat me?         

Life is Life is Death, Life Feeds of Life.

The Only Life form that does not NEED to consume other life forms to survive are plants.

Which is why Plants are the most Spiritually advanced life on this planet         

I concur whether it is man or beast life is equally as sacred..... but that does not mean it is immoral to take it, to kill and to murder are two different things.

And the angel of the lord came unto me
snatching me up from my place of slumber.
And took me on high and higher still
Until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself.
And he brought me into a vast farmlands of our own midwest.
And as we descended cries of impending doom rose from the soil.
One thousand nay a million voices full of fear.
And terror possessed me then.
And I begged "Angel of the Lord what are these tortured screams?"
And the angel said unto me,
"These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots!
You see, Reverend Maynard,
Tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust."
And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat
Like the tears of one million terrified brothers and roared,
"Hear me now, I have seen the light!
They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul!
Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers!"
Can I get an amen? Can I get a hallelujah? Thank you Jesus.
Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on.
This is necessary.

It was daylight when you woke up in your ditch.
You looked up at your sky then.
That made blue be your color. You had your knife there with you too.
When you stood up there was goo all over your clothes.
Your hands were sticky.
You wiped them on your grass, so now your color was green.
Oh Lord, why did everything always have to keep changing like this.
You were already getting nervous again.
Your head hurt and it rang when you stood up.
Your head was almost empty.
It always hurt you when you woke up like this.
You crawled up out of your ditch onto your gravel road and began to walk,
waiting for the rest of your mind to come back to you.
You can see the car parked far down the road and you walked toward it.
"If God is our Father," you thought, "then Satan must be our cousin."
Why didn't anyone else understand these important things?
You got to your car and tried all the doors.
They were locked. It was a red car and it was new.
There was an expensive leather camera case laying on the seat.
Out across your field, you could see two tiny people walking by your woods.
You began to walk towards them.
Now red was your color and, of course,
Those little people out there were yours too.

lovedust wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

that was a reference to you being able to eat of any food without exception, mainly foods previously considered against the laws or unclean as they would call it..

Sorry but you didn't answer my question?

How can food be both diseased and necessarily clean at one and the same time?

the dietary laws made it so they cannot eat it, why i do not know, it could have been anything, something unclean means it would defile you spiritually not that it was necessarily actually physically unclean food...

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:I see Victor cannot answer a simple question, what right, do you have to take life whether animal or human?

All you gave was excuses, not a sound reason, I would like amoral answer, of which I know you have none


Take your time

rights are an artificial notion.  What Right has the Lion to be a lion? Does a Shark need the rights to eat me?         

Life is Life is Death, Life Feeds of Life.

The Only Life form that does not NEED to consume other life forms to survive are plants.

Which is why Plants are the most Spiritually advanced life on this planet         

I concur whether it is  man or beast life is equally as sacred..... but that does not mean it is immoral to take it, to kill and to murder are two different things.

Rights are indeed real when the bases of the argument in regards to halal is around rights itself. As in this instance being are claiming rights to the animal in regards to how it is slaughtered, thus if you accept that animals have rights, raising and killing animals for food is morally wrong. An animal raised for food is being used by others rather than being respected for itself. In philosopher's terms it is being treated as a means to human ends and not as an end in itself.
Thus those who back the view against halal have no moral argument because they contradict themselves over the moral right of the animal in the first place, hence why the real argument is more a prejudice view against Islam and has nothing to do with the rights of the animal in the first place

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

lovedust wrote:


Sorry but you didn't answer my question?

How can food be both diseased and necessarily clean at one and the same time?

the dietary laws made it so they cannot eat it, why i do not know, it could have been anything, something unclean means it would defile you spiritually not that it was necessarily actually physically unclean food...

  But you said God may vary his dietary advice from one location to the  next:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

let me make it simple, if God says to me, while you are in Britain don't eat the chicken, then says to you while you are in italy don't eat the pork, is he still all powerful and all knowing...

Surely if eating chicken spiritually defiles you in Britain and eating pork spiritually defiles me in Italy, they will also spiritually defile us wherever else we eat them? So why would God make his dietary advice space/time specific?

Didge wrote:I see Victor cannot answer a simple question, what right, do you have to take life whether animal or human?

All you gave was excuses, not a sound reason, I would like amoral answer, of which I know you have none


Take your time

well I kinda thought I'd answered that, hey ho ...

BUT to reiterate...

The right to take a human life would be initiated by necessity Due to clear and present danger from another human/s. THAT right is enshrined in law both secular and religious laws in most countries.

the right to take an animals life does not need "reason" per se. I.E except in certain very specific cases, IT is allowed in law both secular and religious in most countries. there may be rules around which animals, some are outright protected to preserve numbers, others are protected as "food" and others are protected by general property law...BUT apart from some very specific religious beliefs, THERE are NO "rights" attached to animals.

You see didge...as veya says "rights " are a legal construct...you and I actually do NOT have any rights whatsoever, except those that we could FORCE upon others...that is why society grants rights under law....to preserve the peace.

go and read what the Universal declaration of human rights says in its PREAMBLE....there is nothing about "it being a nice thing to do"
Nothing about "morals" (except as justification)

IT IS PURELY....to preserve peace, to try to prevent needless conflict...

Now as to YOU questioning MY right to kill animals, YOU have NO higher moral ground to claim since you also kill animals...the difference between you and I however is that I do it personally...YOU choose the chicken way...and do it by proxy...

the man who kills by proxy is no different than the man who kills directly...

Indeed you are possibly worse than I since you have no concern about suffering...you have clearly stated a number of times that the means and methods of killing are irrelevant. Presumably you apply the same approach to the dogs in [china????] which are slowly strangled to death in order to improve the flavour.

You miss the point with your rants, killing is not inhumane....killing and causing NEEDLESS suffering is. whether this is a "moral" argument or not is open to question, however, since it is within our power to minimise suffering then it seems correct that we do so..
why do you think when we shoot deer, the MINIMUM acceptable calibre is .243??(and for larger deer .308) why do we not shoot deer with a .22 long rifle.....I'll leave you to find the characteristics of those rounds and do the maths.....

You are merely concerned with appeasement to your Muslim "friends", you "CLAIM" to know better than the combined and far greater intellect, knowledge and experience of the British Veterinary Association...who oppose halal on welfare grounds.
You posted an absolutely pathetic response about hunting in another thread, using a sound bite from PETA of all things, firstly, you do know how disreputable PETA is dont you? You are aware of how discredited they are?
secondly, that paper you quoted is only mentioned on 2 other websites, both of which are extremist animal rights websites. the paper is NOT available ANY WHERE on the WWW merely referenced by these sites...which means in all likelyhood that either it does NOT exist, it is a figment to prop up PETA, or it is so discredited that NO_ONE will publish it...

IF you are going to post evidence...at least make it credible....

Oh...and less of this......quote didge "Yes you gave me another example of why you are an utter Nazi"......because 1) as people found to their utter horror.....I CAN be an effective spokesman for "the other side"...(your favourite game didge...recognise it...devils advocate???)
and 2), anymore and you'll be back on ignore....I have enough fuckwittery to put up with IRL atm thank you.

Nems wrote:

Didge wrote:


Christian in the loosest term, when 5% are church goers, again being a Christian nation and the teachings of Jesus also would mean to accommodate, not instead deny choice, because that means they are discriminated against for being a Jew and a Muslim. So what relevance does it mean to be a Christian nation in regards to equality for all on this? Nothing
Again I am for all choices, not anything being denied, this is what I said and hence it will cost more.
Again about a Muslim country is invalid, because not only is each Muslim country different with its laws, but not all Muslims come from a Muslim ethnic background, there are now also thousands of Muslim converts.
It is nothing about demanding either, why is it wrong to accommodate food Nems, where religions have this requirement? This is providing as you would for a vegetarian or Vegan, thus they certainly have a right to be treated equal, and having equal options on food is fair. So again the point on Muslim countries is making all Muslims here culpable for the laws of Muslim countries. You are also basically saying one religious group is okay because the nation is Christian, so migrants from Christian countries are welcome, but we should not provide equal rights to food here to other faiths, because they are not Christian.
I thought the Christian thing to do would be to help make this work for all.


Again though you miss the point on the food itself, being as this is the argument used on how humane the practice is being a smoke screen. Religious beliefs as long as they do not supersede our discrimination or criminal laws should thus not be an issue. I think you will find also that Muslim countries do very well accommodate for westerners with western food and alcohol within areas for Westerners.

I dont care how many people do or dont go to church this is is a Christian country. You cant  include vegetarian in this I dont think a vegetarian is going to be offended at his cheese being in the same fridge as a bit of ham.

Can you show where schools and hospitals and prisons etc in Muslim countries provide alternative menus for non Muslims?

From Experience I have found Vegetarians (   really Vegans) to be more pedantic than Muslims... and many wont eat cheese as it is still an animal product   One of my work colleagues wont but stuff at the sandwich shop any more because he noticed they used the same tongs for handling cold meat (ham and chicken) as salad.

And all but the most dickish Muslims will happily take a vegan or vegetarian alternative, it doesn't have to be Halal meat. To be fair you cant just offer halal(doesn't help Buddhists) and Vegan caters for everyone (besides allergies)

 
   GENUINE "Vegans" won't eat honey, yoghurt, cheese or other dairy, or eggs, (nor will they drink beer, mead, wine or ciders, unless classified as "vegan" under organic labelling) ~ nor any foods that have been fertilised, harvested or transported using animals at any stage...

True "vegans" are philosophically opposed to the exploitation of animals anywhere within their food chain.. Nor will they support animals being exploited for sports or medical research.

REAL "vegans" also don't have any woollen and leather products in their wardrobes !  :: 

VEGETARIANS can and often do include these non-lethal non-meat animal products in their diets. Those using eggs and dairy are sometimes identified as 'Ovo-lacto vegetarians'..

A lot of people often don't understand where those "vegans" are coming from, usually confusing them with vegetarians in general ~ many times it seems to follow some celebrity(s) claiming to be "vegan" as a fashion statement, when they're so clearly not (just have a look for the leather shoes and belts, and fur coats..).   

Lone Wolf wrote: 
    GENUINE "Vegans" won't eat honey, yoghurt, cheese or other dairy, or eggs, (nor will they drink beer, mead, wine or ciders, unless classified as "vegan" under organic labelling) ~ nor any foods that have been fertilised, harvested or transported using animals at any stage...

True "vegans" are philosophically opposed to the exploitation of animals anywhere within their food chain.. Nor will they support animals being exploited for sports or medical research.

REAL "vegans" also don't have any woollen and leather products in their wardrobes !    :: 

VEGETARIANS can and often do include these non-lethal non-meat animal products in their diets. Those using eggs and dairy are sometimes identified as 'Ovo-lacto vegetarians'..

A lot of people often don't understand where those "vegans" are coming from, usually confusing them with vegetarians in general ~ many times it seems to follow some celebrity(s) claiming to be "vegan" as a fashion statement, when they're so clearly not (just have a look for the leather shoes and belts, and fur coats..).   

.. I definitely respect those who are vegans Bee..terrific!

But life must be just a bit more difficult for the ,well I suppose when first becoming Vegan anyway,,,unless they were Vegan since childhood.

A lot of "vegetarians" and "vegans" mix and match to suit themselves, depending on how they feel about stuff.

I don't eat meat, but I do eat fish, although not very often. I don't eat anything with cochineal in it, and I avoid make up which has that in as well.

I don't usually wear leather, and I would never buy a leather handbag, coat, or sofa. I do have some leather shoes which I particularly liked, but they were second hand.

i respect there right to eat what ever they feel is right but they should then cater for themselves and not expect the schools to foot the bill...

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:i respect there right to eat what ever they feel is right but they should then cater for themselves and not expect the schools to foot the bill...

HF that gets my vote.

Too many choices given to to many and when they are too young.

Burger and chips or Ffull roast with four proper vegetables............ Kids usually choose the former, and then when they are getting old enough to choose " Don't like that, never eat peas, salad makes me sick " only because they have never been made to eat it. If they are hungry enough they would eat anything. I doubt many would drop down dead unless they had an anaphylactic shock.

How many died whilst rationing was around ?

gerber wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:i respect there right to eat what ever they feel is right but they should then cater for themselves and not expect the schools to foot the bill...

HF that gets my vote.

Too many choices given to to many and when they are too young.

Burger and chips or Ffull roast with four proper vegetables............  Kids usually choose the former, and then when they are getting old enough to choose " Don't like that, never eat peas, salad makes me sick "  only because they have never been made to eat it.  If they are hungry enough they would eat anything.  I doubt many would drop down dead unless they had an  anaphylactic  shock.

How many died whilst rationing was around ?

thats a good point about rationing, lets face it there are plenty of old folk still around who went through rationing and they are still fit..lol

i just think its gone crazy with choices and bending over backwards to every apparent need, bring your own oor eat what is supplied..

Sassy wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:


Re: eat pork or go hungry...
Post by Sassy Yesterday at 12:13 pm

yep, I'm sure that's the kind of thing they said in Germany in the 30s.

They were blind until it was too late as well.

_________________
Live, Love, Laugh and move forward.   There is always a better day ahead.

Sassy

You see David...this is the progressive....The moment you so much as mention "resistance" to being assimilated into the hive mind, you are compared to a disgusting relic of a by-gone age...You do realise that in your post you have challenged their core dogma....multiculturalism

Who has, David or me?   Because I haven't Victor.   And it is entirely relevant.   They are not trying to keep the status quo, they are trying to change the status quo to exclude Muslims and Jews, and they are doing it as part of a larger pattern, because of their party views.   They are not called the National Front for nothing, and much as she may try to distance herself from her father, it is mostly his followers that have transferred their allegiance to her after he stepped down.

Sassy I am afraid you amalgamate everything. In France Jews and Muslims have their own butchers. Here in the name of multiculturalism we bend over backwards. Please don't use the racist card with me as you are far from the truth!

If you read back David, I am referring to the views of Le Pen.   France has always tried to be fair.   She, on the other hand, in line with her party views and definitely the views of her father, is not.   She is trying to do the total opposite.    The only council that are doing this is the one she has taken over, because as you obviously know, it is the councils that arrange the funding for school dinners in France.   That is why the council she is running is behaving totally differently and installing different rules to the ones she hasn't managed to get her hands on.

Sassy wrote:If you read back David, I am referring to the views of Le Pen.   France has always tried to be fair.   She, on the other hand, in line with her party views and definitely the views of her father, is not.   She is trying to do the total opposite.    The only council that are doing this is the one she has taken over, because as you obviously know, it is the councils that arrange the funding for school dinners in France.   That is why the council she is running is behaving totally differently and installing different rules the ones she hasn't managed to get her hands on.

It is the town or city? France has no council system. Also Marine has never been a mayor   

The areas that are affected are those that the FN won in the municipal elections last month, as the school meals are administered by the municipal councils, which is the information I have gleaned from reading the OP and articles. I must say, you made me wonder about councils, as I you lived in France, however municipal councils seem to exist:

In March 2003, a constitutional revision has changed very significantly the legal framework towards a more decentralized system and has increased the powers of local governments. Albeit France is still one the most centralized major countries in Europe and the world.

Administrative units with a local government in Metropolitan France (that is, the parts of France lying in Europe) consist of:

about 36,000 communes, headed by a municipal council and a mayor, grouped in
96 départements, headed by a conseil général (general council) and its president, grouped in
22 régions, headed by a regional council and its president.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_France#Local_government

Fascists in France have taken the mayor’s post in 14 towns after the second round of the local elections on Sunday.

The same day, a national opinion poll put the fascist Front National second in the race for the European elections in May – on 22%, just behind the conservative UMP on 24% and ahead of president François Hollande’s Parti Socialiste (similar to the Labour Party in Britain) with 19%.

Substantial

The FN took the substantial towns of Béziers and Fréjus as well as the seventh sector of Marseille – with a population of 150,000, this is the biggest of the FN’s gains – to add to the former mining town of Hénin-Beaumont that it won on an absolute majority in the first round of the municipal elections.

The party also won the smaller towns of Mantes-la-ville, Le Pontet, Hayange, Beaucaire, Cogolin, Villers-Cotterêts and Le Luc.

Fascist splinter group the Ligue de Sud, led by FN founder member Jacques Bompart, took three more towns: Orange, where Bompart has been mayor since 1995, Bollène and the tiny Camaret-sur-Aigues.

The FN now has 1,496 local councillors – up from just 60 – with another 102 going to its far right allies.

http://www.dreamdeferred.org.uk/2014/04/france-analysis-14-fascist-mayors-as-front-national-surge-continues/

It is in these areas that the problem is arising.

Councillors: Bad translation... Better translation Municipal Councillors Each Town or city have a certain number of Conseillers Municipaux according to the number of inhabitants - from 7 to 69. They elect a mayor. It is a bit like a President and his/her government. Now only 14 were elected out of 37000 municipalities. So out of the 1496 MCs only 14 had the majority. I am not questioning the fact that the FN is an extreme right party. You are amalgamating meaning you are mixing everything.

No, I am saying the OP refers to the 14 where the FN were elected and not to the others.

Sassy wrote:No, I am saying the OP refers to the 14 where the FN were elected and not to the others.

14 out of 37000... Come on they will be overruled by the the Departements, the Regions and the State. 14!    

I never said they wouldn't. They probably will. But the reasons they are doing it remain the same.

Are some schools being told that they can no longer provide food that had previously been supplied to pupils and instead they must eat pork instead? If the answer that is yes then it surely can't be seen as anything other than a provocative act aimed at one section of the community and something that most reasonable people in this country would see as something worthy of the BNP.

Irn Bru wrote:Are some schools being told that they can no longer provide food that had previously been supplied to pupils and instead they must eat pork instead? If the answer that is yes then it surely can't be seen as anything other than a provocative act aimed at one section of the community and something that most reasonable people in this country would see as something worthy of the BNP.

why, if schools are being asked to control costs, surely not having to supply the stupid demands of every religion would save a great deal of money...  

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:Are some schools being told that they can no longer provide food that had previously been supplied to pupils and instead they must eat pork instead? If the answer that is yes then it surely can't be seen as anything other than a provocative act aimed at one section of the community and something that most reasonable people in this country would see as something worthy of the BNP.

why, if schools are being asked to control costs, surely not having to supply the stupid demands of every religion would save a great deal of money...  

Is it just a cost-cutting measure?

Irn Bru wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

why, if schools are being asked to control costs, surely not having to supply the stupid demands of every religion would save a great deal of money...  

Is it just a cost-cutting measure?

yes, i would think it is....  

Then you would think wrong, because none of the other municipalities are doing it, only the ones that the FN have taken over.

Sassy wrote:Then you would think wrong, because none of the other municipalities are doing it, only the ones that the FN have taken over.

that's because they are the only ones with the balls to make the tough decisions, that's why they are getting votes and hopefully Britain will follow suit.

if they schools say to all parents, we are supplying these choices and that is it, if you don't like it get your kids a pack up that cannot be discrimination...  

 

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

why, if schools are being asked to control costs, surely not having to supply the stupid demands of every religion would save a great deal of money...  

Is it just a cost-cutting measure?

yes, i would think it is....  

You just think it is but you're not sure,,,,,,correct?

Sassy wrote: 

    ::attn:: ::attn:: 

Sassy wrote:Then you would think wrong, because none of the other municipalities are doing it, only the ones that the FN have taken over.

As I said they are only 14 municipalities out of 37000 and the region/Departement will overrule their decisions.

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Sassy wrote:Then you would think wrong, because none of the other municipalities are doing it, only the ones that the FN have taken over.

that's because they are the only ones with the balls to make the tough decisions, that's why they are getting votes and hopefully Britain will follow suit.

if they schools say to all parents, we are supplying these choices and that is it, if you don't like it get your kids a pack up that cannot be discrimination...  

The only ones with the "balls" to target innocent schoolkids?

lovedust wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

that's because they are the only ones with the balls to make the tough decisions, that's why they are getting votes and hopefully Britain will follow suit.

if they schools say to all parents, we are supplying these choices and that is it, if you don't like it get your kids a pack up that cannot be discrimination...  

The only ones with the "balls" to target innocent schoolkids?

Yes Lovey, takes balls to do that doesn't it!   

David wrote:

Sassy wrote:Then you would think wrong, because none of the other municipalities are doing it, only the ones that the FN have taken over.

As I said they are only 14 municipalities out of 37000 and the region/Departement will overrule their decisions.

I'd already replied to that point David.   It probably will get overturned, that doesn't cover up what the FN are trying to do though or their raison d'être.

...I say pimp Farage out and put the proceeds to the poor.

Sassy wrote:

David wrote:

As I said they are only 14 municipalities out of 37000 and the region/Departement will overrule their decisions.

I'd already replied to that point David.   It probably will get overturned, that doesn't cover up what the FN are trying to do though or their raison d'être.

And I have already replied to you that they have no real power a lot of noisy tactics like UKIP Who have allies themselves to the NF     They use bully tactics so why make more publicity for them?!

lovedust wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

that's because they are the only ones with the balls to make the tough decisions, that's why they are getting votes and hopefully Britain will follow suit.

if they schools say to all parents, we are supplying these choices and that is it, if you don't like it get your kids a pack up that cannot be discrimination...  

The only ones with the "balls" to target innocent schoolkids?

it takes balls to make tough decisions and they made them instead of pussy footing around and worrying about being PC..

we could do with some of them in this country and hopefully we soon will have some..

But a pork alternative is a good thing for all kids - Jewish, Christian, atheist - given pork is a relatively unhealthy meat.