Thatcher has only a month left to live? Watch

Astor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#21
Report 11 years ago
#21
Apologies for serious lack of grammar check, there are reasons.
0
quote
reply
FadeToBlackout
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#22
Report 11 years ago
#22
Thatcherism is essentially a conflict politics. In short, it has to have enemies to fight against.

She was elected in '79 promising to fight against economic problems, to force the country to take a bitter medicine (with the side effect of unemployment) which would, eventually, cure it. There was a minor economic upturn in '82 that helped her, but the Falklands war really helped her. By showing that she would stand and fight, that she "was not for turning" she proved to the country and the voters that she meant business- if she can fight Galtieri, why not inflation? Scargill later fell into that same position as an enemy- she needed people and things to fight against in order to define her politics.

The Falklands was "a stand-up to autocratic Fascism", but it was also a massive vote-winner- her next election was as much a landslide on the back of this victory as the famous "Khaki" election of 1901.
0
quote
reply
Melancholy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#23
Report 11 years ago
#23
She tolerated unemployment to keep inflation down? Not being funny but waaaaay back then the UK Government controlled the bank of England; advice: try not to talk about what you know not.

Inhumane? She she order rifing squads? Again, select your words confidently, sure, but contextually, crucially.

You are giving me no reason as to why Thatcher is a '*****', it is widely established that she 'saved Britain' from being the sick man of Europe surrfering from 'socialist strangulation', to being a key player. You are talking s ***, if indeed, these are actually you words at all (he he, 'gotcha')
Why don't you crawl back up her arse where you belong?

(hehheh - no offence, Astor :p:) Surely a difference of opinion [not surprising given that I value socialism much more than your right-wing self]? I think that she's a witch; you think she's the queen.
0
quote
reply
Astor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#24
Report 11 years ago
#24
(Original post by TML)
Why don't you crawl back up her arse where you belong?

(hehheh - no offence, Astor :p:) Surely a difference of opinion [not surprising given that I value socialism much more than your right-wing self]? I think that she's a witch; you think she's the queen.
No I don't, I think the Queen is the Queen and Margaret Thatcher Britains second most influential, historical and important PM of all time.

She has recently been voted Britains BEST PM, that even shocks me considering the amount of people with your Daily Mail filth, but hey, I wont argue.
0
quote
reply
FadeToBlackout
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#25
Report 11 years ago
#25
I think the Queen is the Queen and Thatcher thought that SHE was the Queen :p:
0
quote
reply
_jackofdiamonds
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#26
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#26
(Original post by FadeToBlackout)
I think the Queen is the Queen and Thatcher thought that SHE was the Queen :p:
Didn't she start to use the 'royal we' towards the end?
0
quote
reply
Astor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#27
Report 11 years ago
#27
(Original post by FadeToBlackout)
I think the Queen is the Queen and Thatcher thought that SHE was the Queen :p:
It would be foolish of me to disagree, however, she was older than her and they are both women in huge positions of influence & power.
0
quote
reply
Xx Tomásíona - Mháire xX
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#28
Report 11 years ago
#28
(Original post by _jackofdiamonds)
I heard this rumour from somebody. Apparently some high ranking member of the church let it slip at some dinner. Thinking about placing a bet if there's any bookies running it.
:eek: Rumours make the baby Jesus cry :hmpf: :mad:

On a serious note: You shouldn't tell things like that. What an awful thing to do.
0
quote
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#29
Report 11 years ago
#29
(Original post by Astor)
You'll repeat will you?....

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...d+thing.&meta=

Please don't rely on other people's arguments.
Fantastic. If this was in D&D, that'd be a social death.
0
quote
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#30
Report 11 years ago
#30
(Original post by RK89)
Fine, i will put some things down, though this will not be anything near exhaustive:
1. Homes for Votes. You should be able to find out about that with a quick google if you need me to prove it to you.
2. Poll tax. Seem to remember that one causing riots.
3. Falklands war. She seemed to go to war to revive her flagging poll ratings.
Could you answer my questions now?
1. Hardly admirable, but I imagine every government has gerrymandered where it thought it could get away with it.

2. Poll tax - better than what came before, hi-jacked by left wing councils to bring down the government - not only did it survive, it changed quickly to accommodate and actually increased its share of the vote if I recall. All in all, I'd say that's a fairly impressive accomplishment rather than anything else.

3. No decent and civilised person would not have fought the Falklands War. To suggest British lives were sacrificed for votes is beyond contempt.
0
quote
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#31
Report 11 years ago
#31
(Original post by TML)
You mean with all that unemployment, social unrest and greedy culture? She helped accelerate the global shift of power away from accountable governments into the hands of transnational corporations and their lobbyists: she championed the supremacy of financial values over human ones. A lot of her legacy was disastrous - an enormous increase in unemployment, the collapse of manufacturing industry and the doubling of inflation. There is no way of regarding that as a good thing.
I dislike this branding of capitalism as greedy. To define property is not in the least bit greedy, it is only what the individual chooses to do with it that can be interpreted as greed. Plenty of those made rich on the back of Thatcher's reforms are now notable philanthropists. Ditto "she championed the supremacy of financial values over human ones" - humanity should be exercised by human beings, not by government.

Unemployment was a short-term sacrifice for long term gain. Any change in the economy would require that.

Anyone who celebrates Thatcher's death is quite simply scum. Here was a women who devoted a significant proportion of her life to the service of her country and who always tried to do what was right.
0
quote
reply
Dionysus
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#32
Report 11 years ago
#32
Bottles of red wine have been awaiting the day for years. Still, I wouldn't actually wish death on anybody - not even her.

(Original post by Libertin du Nord)
I dislike this branding of capitalism as greedy.
That's like saying 'I dislike this branding of bananas as yellow'
0
quote
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#33
Report 11 years ago
#33
(Original post by Dionysus)
That's like saying 'I dislike this branding of bananas as yellow'
You're an authoritarian socialist, I doubt you'd understand abstract concepts, so I won't bother trying to explain further than I have above.
0
quote
reply
Dionysus
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#34
Report 11 years ago
#34
(Original post by Libertin du Nord)
You're an authoritarian socialist, I doubt you'd understand abstract concepts, so I won't bother trying to explain further than I have above.
If you're going to arrogantly insult me, you could at least bother to 'understand' my own political position. I'm about as Authoritarian as a submissive sadomasochist.
0
quote
reply
Melancholy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#35
Report 11 years ago
#35
humanity should be exercised by human beings, not by government.
That's a personal disagreement, I'm afraid. I believe that ethnic minorities, for example, have the right of state protection. I believe in freedom of speech, perhaps a tad corrupted form of it admittedly, however I don't believe that shouting "Hi-jack" on a plane should be encouraged (indeed, there should be a punishment to act as a deterrent form such foolish behaviour). Granted it is not "pure freedom of speech" however I do believe in some form of liberty regarding the issue.

My main problem with libertarianism, no offence, is that it seems to encourage an indifference towards racism - something which particularily jars with my morals; which is why I favour an interventionalist government. Indeed, I was debating against a libertarian which said that the governent should not punish a man for burning dogs, as if animals do not have rights, and the only right a man has is self-ownership. However in order for social justice to be executed then the authority needs some form of influence over us.

It's a personal disagreement with the right-end of the spectrum, and libertarianism. Thus I'd class myself more of a socialist; though not foolish enough to go all the way down that road.

Yes, there should be some flexibility and some liberty, but I believe there should be a limit.
0
quote
reply
Dionysus
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#36
Report 11 years ago
#36
(Original post by TML)
That's a personal disagreement, I'm afraid. I believe that ethnic minorities, for example, have the right of state protection. I believe in freedom of speech, perhaps a tad corrupted form of it admittedly, however I don't believe that shouting "Hi-jack" on a plane should be encouraged (indeed, there should be a punishment to act as a deterrent form such foolish behaviour). Granted it is not "pure freedom of speech" however I do believe in some form of liberty regarding the issue.

My main problem with libertarianism, no offence, is that it seems to encourage an indifference towards racism - something which particularily jars with my morals; which is why I favour an interventionalist government. Indeed, I was debating against a libertarian which said that the governent should not punish a man for burning dogs, as if animals do not have rights, and the only right a man has is self-ownership. However in order for social justice to be executed then the authority needs some form of influence over us.

It's a personal disagreement with the right-end of the spectrum, and libertarianism. Thus I'd class myself more of a socialist; though not foolish enough to go all the way down that road.

Yes, there should be some flexibility and some liberty, but I believe there should be a limit.
I do believe that's the best post I've ever read on TSR.
0
quote
reply
Melancholy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#37
Report 11 years ago
#37
Fantastic. If this was in D&D, that'd be a social death.
I've gotten away with it in D&D before It saves me the hassle of typing at midnight when I'm tired. I can just use other people's opinions from the BBC website which reflect my own.
0
quote
reply
Melancholy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#38
Report 11 years ago
#38
(Original post by Dionysus)
I do believe that's the best post I've ever read on TSR.
Nah, my other 3500 posts are better :p:
0
quote
reply
_jackofdiamonds
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#39
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#39
(Original post by Libertin du Nord)
I dislike this branding of capitalism as greedy
But greed is good, as the man said.
0
quote
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#40
Report 11 years ago
#40
(Original post by TML)
That's a personal disagreement, I'm afraid. I believe that ethnic minorities, for example, have the right of state protection.
Speaking as someone who was once referred to as an 'ethnic minority' in this country *snigger* I can quite categorically say that I don't need some overarching bully to defend me. As a human being, I'm quite capable of that myself.

Dependence is good for no-one, which is what protection requires.

My main problem with libertarianism, no offence, is that it seems to encourage an indifference towards racism - something which particularily jars with my morals
Well, someone has every right to be racist, just as they have a right to be vile, vulgar, ugly, gaudy, stupid and so forth. There's a lot of things as bad as racism that we allow to go on

Equally however, to suggest that we treat everyone as equal because we have some discrimination legislation and a bunch of industrial tribunals is throwing us into a false sense of security. We cannot identify prejudice in all its forms - indeed, only a few of the most overt, and while some are 'protected' this simply increases the problems for others. Discrimination will always exist anyway, the best way to rid ourselves of it is to appeal to people's self-interest.

This reminded me of a fact that apparently interviewers make a broad decision on a prospective employee within two minutes. Doubtless based near entirely on appearance, mannerisms, accent - which realistically are just more forms of discrimination.

; which is why I favour an interventionalist government. Indeed, I was debating against a libertarian which said that the governent should not punish a man for burning dogs, as if animals do not have rights, and the only right a man has is self-ownership.
I'm suspicious of animal rights types myself. It seems they only care about rights where fluffy and pleasant-looking animals are being mistreated. Nobody cares about what happens to spiders and flies - possibly the most abused of all creatures. That's what makes me believe it's more personal emotionalism than logic which drives these.
0
quote
reply
X

Reply to thread

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you like exams?

Yes (135)
18.42%
No (445)
60.71%
Not really bothered about them (153)
20.87%

Watched Threads

View All