Slave to the Grave 26 Posted September 3, 2005 Having lived in Britain and France, I know where I'd rather be. I agree with DWB, Paris is not a friendly place and I think most French people would agree too. Down here in the South West, the weather is beautiful, the people are friendly, the wine is good, cheap and plentiful. The pace of life is different and the French in my opinion have their priorities right ie family and home before work, which is why 24 hour shopping is neither necessary nor desirable. 24 hour eating and drinking however..... Ah, yes the South of France, home of Petains Vichy collaborators. The place where the French actively helped to deport their Jews to concentration camps. No thanks, I'll stick with blighty. You're absolutely right Tempus, what the Vichy Collaborators did was indefensible, but my comparison is of France and Britain in 2005. Whilst on the subject, any discussion of concentration camps should begin with the British in South Africa. When you look at what they did to black South Africans. That was a precognitive pre-emptive strike against the Boers. So, what you're saying here Tempus is that German concentration camps were bad, but British concentration camps were good? I don't think the Brits systematically gassed millions of people. The Boers mostly died from disease. Oh, well that's Ok then. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Banshees Scream 110 Posted September 3, 2005 Try telling them that, you insensitive swine. Let's not be unfair.. Everyone has an open opinion.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
football_fan 42 Posted September 3, 2005 You're absolutely right Tempus, what the Vichy Collaborators did was indefensible, but my comparison is of France and Britain in 2005. Whilst on the subject, any discussion of concentration camps should begin with the British in South Africa. When you look at what they did to black South Africans. That was a precognitive pre-emptive strike against the Boers. So, what you're saying here Tempus is that German concentration camps were bad, but British concentration camps were good? I don't think the Brits systematically gassed millions of people. The Boers mostly died from disease. Oh, well that's Ok then. You both have valid points, but I don’t think it is fair to criticize England or France over what happened many years ago. If you look back into the history of any country, you are sure to find examples of gross human rights atrocities. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Windsor 2,233 Posted September 3, 2005 So are we slagging off Germany now? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slave to the Grave 26 Posted September 3, 2005 You're absolutely right Tempus, what the Vichy Collaborators did was indefensible, but my comparison is of France and Britain in 2005. Whilst on the subject, any discussion of concentration camps should begin with the British in South Africa. When you look at what they did to black South Africans. That was a precognitive pre-emptive strike against the Boers. So, what you're saying here Tempus is that German concentration camps were bad, but British concentration camps were good? I don't think the Brits systematically gassed millions of people. The Boers mostly died from disease. Oh, well that's Ok then. You both have valid points, but I don’t think it is fair to criticize England or France over what happened many years ago. If you look back into the history of any country, you are sure to find examples of gross human rights atrocities. Exactly FF. That's what I was trying to say. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Harvester Of Souls 40 Posted September 3, 2005 I think that we should try and dig some S**t up on the Swiss... Sat their all smug with their booby trapped bridges and compulsory gun ownership... why do they get away with it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slave to the Grave 26 Posted September 3, 2005 I think that we should try and dig some S**t up on the Swiss... Sat their all smug with their booby trapped bridges and compulsory gun ownership... why do they get away with it? Irritating clocks I suppose. But on the plus side, chocolates and mountains. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Banshees Scream 110 Posted September 3, 2005 I think that we should try and dig some S**t up on the Swiss... Sat their all smug with their booby trapped bridges and compulsory gun ownership... why do they get away with it? Perhaps because they've got all the rich bastards money tucked away in their banks. ......Money is everything. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slave to the Grave 26 Posted September 3, 2005 Money is everything. No, no, no, no, no. What about food and drink? You are all being so anglo-saxon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Genetic Rapist Posted September 3, 2005 Yep, at least the politicians then had the excuse that the Nazi's were unstoppable(valid or not) But what is Chirac's excuse for France's present state. I believe his present excuse is that the Nazis are unstoppable Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Banshees Scream 110 Posted September 3, 2005 Money is everything. No, no, no, no, no. What about food and drink? You are all being so anglo-saxon. Ah yes, Food and drink... Unless you steal you buy that with money don't you? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Oates 21 Posted September 3, 2005 Money is everything. No, no, no, no, no. What about food and drink? You are all being so anglo-saxon. Ah yes, Food and drink... Unless you steal you buy that with money don't you? It is possible to grow food, or catch it, or find it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Banshees Scream 110 Posted September 3, 2005 Money is everything. No, no, no, no, no. What about food and drink? You are all being so anglo-saxon. Ah yes, Food and drink... Unless you steal you buy that with money don't you? It is possible to grow food, or catch it, or find it. Or find kill and cook it? But it's not totally my style. There's a better chance you will see me eating any local restraunts diet menue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slave to the Grave 26 Posted September 3, 2005 It is possible to grow food, or catch it, or find it. Anyone would think you had recently been to France talking like that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Oates 21 Posted September 3, 2005 It is possible to grow food, or catch it, or find it. Anyone would think you had recently been to France talking like that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
honez 79 Posted September 4, 2005 Money is everything. No, no, no, no, no. What about food and drink? You are all being so anglo-saxon. Ah yes, Food and drink... Unless you steal you buy that with money don't you? It is possible to grow food, or catch it, or find it. Or find kill and cook it? From New Orleans are we? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr Strangelove 14 Posted September 6, 2005 According to Le Monde there is concern about how little information is being released about Chirac's health - not that he's going to croak soon, just that he's getting old. "The incident," the editorial concludes, "underlines the captain's age and makes the prospect of a third term more remote." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
football_fan 42 Posted April 12, 2008 France's Chirac gets pacemaker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Windsor 2,233 Posted September 3, 2011 He says he's 'not in a fit state' to stand trial on corruption charges. He was probably in no fit state to be President of France either but that didn't stop him... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Magere Hein 1,400 Posted September 3, 2011 He says he's 'not in a fit state' to stand trial on corruption charges. He was probably in no fit state to be President of France either but that didn't stop him... Grin. This made me think: perhaps it's a nice addition to the constitution to automatically put a president/prime minister/chancellor/whatever to trial after he or she leaves office, to check whether they did what they swore to do when they took it. regards, Hein 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sympathyforthedevil 11 Posted September 3, 2011 He says he's 'not in a fit state' to stand trial on corruption charges. He was probably in no fit state to be President of France either but that didn't stop him... Grin. This made me think: perhaps it's a nice addition to the constitution to automatically put a president/prime minister/chancellor/whatever to trial after he or she leaves office, to check whether they did what they swore to do when they took it. regards, Hein That sounds an excellent idea, Hein. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ImissMontpellier 73 Posted September 3, 2011 Former French President Jacques Chirac cannot attend his trial according his lawyers. He doesn't look well at all and I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't survive the next election Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JR976evil 906 Posted September 4, 2011 Former French President Jacques Chirac cannot attend his trial according his lawyers. He doesn't look well at all and I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't survive the next election It sounds a bit like the strategy Uncle Junior used during his trial in The Sopranos... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
