Maggie Thatcher dead - Mega merge thread

Anynama141

Nodin wrote: »

Pat Finucane...the evidence? You brought it up, after all.

Refresh Noddy, refresh!!

Anynama141

Nodin wrote: »

And behold, more bollocks.

Wandered in front of a mirror?

Nodin

Anynama141 wrote: »

Wandered in front of a mirror?

Another well researched and pondered answer. Your contributions really are lifting the level.

Anynama141

Seachmall wrote: »

My only claim is that your claim is false. Burden of proof belongs to you I'm afraid.

So you don't have to support your claim?

Shinner logic at work here. "We're fighting a war, until you shoot back, in which case we aren't"....

AEDIC

Am Chile wrote: »

.....she destroyed the mining industry in britain.

No...she really didnt. What she did was turn off the life support machine for an industry that was on its knees and was running at a loss for years. Industry and technology had moved on but the coal industry hadn't.

Some of it was because it was strangled by a move in demand and cheaper alternatives in the free market, but also because it was strangled by its own unions and their inability to move with society.

Subsequent Labour governments have not breathed life back into the coal or mining industry for one very good reason...there is no life there able to bring it back to the level it once was.

She might have been responsible for a lot of things, but destroying the mining industry was not one of them.

fishy fishy

Anynama141 wrote: »

Wandered in front of a mirror?

you know what they say about when posters start getting personal with each other = it means the have lost the arguement.

wonderfullife

Nodin wrote: »

Doesn't say much about the electoral system overthere when those massive majorities were generated by a vote that was usually under 42%.

Ah sure look at Al Gore, doesn't say a lot about a 2 party-system when the popular vote can be won (and won well) and still lose.

Electoral systems are what they are - all parties and candidates are in the same system.

You can't underplay the majorities she achieved as leader by blaming the systems when similar systems have been in place in the UK for decades and most other leaders don't even get close to those majorities.

Anynama141

Nodin wrote: »

Another well researched and pondered answer. Your contributions really are lifting the level.

Thank you sir. You are a worthy opponent.

donfers

wonderfullife wrote: »

It's worth noting that she was re-elected in 1983 and 1987 with majorities of 144 and 135, the biggest majorities of a Government in the UK since war time.

By both 1983 and 1987 the British people were very aware of her policies towards: Ireland, Northern Ireland, Argentina, communism, trade unions.

Yet she was still re-elected with massive majorities. Even during her 3 terms she recorded some of the highest approval ratings for a Prime Minister.

So we can sit here and continue to hate/vilify/resent her, as a figurehead, but the fact of the matter is she was democratically elected by the people who gave her the mandate to carry out her policy decisions. This was not a one-term PM who got elected and decided to go maverick on a bunch of policies the people did not mandate her to implement.

popular is not necessarily a good thing

being tough and ruthless is not necessarily a good thing

jaysus, a lot of the apologists for here are coming out with the same old stuff and it amuses me that their attempts to justify her time in office could also be used to justify Stalin or Hitler's regimes

i don't think civilised human beings should ever celebrate someone's death, I was disappointed when I saw american citizens dancing on the streets when bin laden was killed and i'm not going to engage in the let's party stuff here.....because there is an element of truth to the hypothesis that the left can be quite intolerant, extreme and dogmatic in their views on these kind of things and true liberal should accept that bad or misguided or callous ruthless people exist

having said all that, i have never witnessed such a torrent of illwill towards somebody in death as i have seen today and the really eye-opening thing is the relevant positions of those in society who defend her and consider her to be great and those who think she stood for everything that is wrong with western governments i.e. greed, inequality, corruption, self-interest - the point being that we can tell a lot about somebody based on who is saying what about them after their death and to quite a large degree, more so than in anything i have witnessed before, the ordinary joe, the man and woman on the street despise her and what she stood for while the politcal, conservative elites, the power-holding autocrats are telling us she was great...i think that says a lot

The Backwards Man

Margaret Thatcher did a hell of a lot more for me and my family than the so called republicans dancing on her grave ever have, or ever will.

Like her or loathe her, she did what had to be done, and while the fantasists can have their jollies, us realists can acknowledge her will, strength and determination.

RIP

Anynama141

AEDIC wrote: »

No...she really didnt. What she did was turn off the life support machine for an industry that was on its knees and was running at a loss for years. Industry and technology had moved on but the coal industry hadn't.

Some of it was because it was strangled by a move in demand and cheaper alternatives in the free market, but also because it was strangled by its own unions and their inability to move with society.

Subsequent Labour governments have not breathed life back into the coal or mining industry for one very good reason...there is no life there able to bring it back to the level it once was.

She might have been responsible for a lot of things, but destroying the mining industry was not one of them.

Welcome to the no-fact zone. Fair warning: Your information is not welcome here.

Mr Whirly

I would not normally rejoice in the death of an old woman but in this case I will make an exception and only wish it had happened 30 years ago.

true

wonderfullife wrote: »

By every economic metric available, she left the UK in an infinitely stronger position to which she took over. Employment, GDP, debt - go through the entire spectrum and compare 1979 with 1990 and you might see why they voted for her consistently.

+1. Plus she ensured that agression from the like of the IRA, the Russians and the Argentinians would not succeed. RIP.

Anynama141

fishy fishy wrote: »

you know what they say about when posters start getting personal with each other = it means the have lost the arguement.

Good point. I did find his 'more bollocks' post quite personal.

Nodin

wonderfullife wrote: »

Ah sure look at Al Gore, doesn't say a lot about a 2 party-system when the popular vote can be won (and won well) and still lose..

America is a different kettle of fish entirely, given the federal nature of the place and the balancing act that requires.

wonderfullife wrote: »

Electoral systems are what they are - all parties and candidates are in the same system.

You can't underplay the majorities she achieved as leader by blaming the systems when similar systems have been in place in the UK for decades and most other leaders don't even get close to those majorities.

...which makes no difference to the fact that at her peak she only got 42% of the popular vote. It's hardly a ringing endorsement.

redappple

One of my 'friends' on facebook . . .

suicide_circus

seamus wrote: »

My condolences to the British people on her passing.

Wow

fishy fishy

Anynama141 wrote: »

Good point. I did find his 'more bollocks' post quite personal.

no, that wasn't a personal statement - that was a comment on a regular post - he was critisising the statement, not the poster. You on the other hand are starting to criticize the poster - i.e. "walk past a mirror" and referring to the poster as Noddy instead of his actual name. As I said - when somebody starts to personally insult, they do so because they have lost the argument. You didn't do yourself any favors :rolleyes:

Power Gear

Mr Whirly wrote: »

I would not normally rejoice in the death of an old woman but in this case I will make an exception and only wish it had happened 30 years ago.

It's quite amusing to hear the wailing of moralising fools, demanding respect for the memory of an unsympathising sociopath.

Seachmall

Anynama141 wrote: »

So you don't have to support your claim?

Shinner logic at work here. "We're fighting a war, until you shoot back, in which case we aren't"....

Not Shinner's logic, partly because I'm not a Shinner but predominantly because it's a commonly accepted procedure of debate.

'When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".' - Wikipedia


If you make a claim and can't support it I'm well within reason to dismiss it as false.

Fratton Fred

mccarthy37 wrote: »

I know of ten Irish men she didn't treat very well.

That is really what the entire thing boils down to with republicans.

The IRA stood up to her, looked her in the eye

And lost.

By the way, she conceded after the fourth hunger striker had died, bit the army council refused to let the others give up because they were getting too good pr out of it. The IRA killed more hunger strikers than Maggie.

bit of a bogey

http://www.isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk/

space_man

apparently poor Maggie was reading one of those "on this day" articles on her iPad when this popped up!

in her dementia induced state of confusion the poor gal must have choked on her Wetabix!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpV2mpgGO54

:eek:

old hippy

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Margaret Thatcher did a hell of a lot more for me and my family than the so called republicans dancing on her grave ever have, or ever will.

Like her or loathe her, she did what had to be done, and while the fantasists can have their jollies, us realists can acknowledge her will, strength and determination.

RIP

I'm no republican & I won't be partying or dancing but she was a bad 'un and no amount of hagiographies or revisionism will change that...

AEDIC

Power Gear wrote: »

It's quite amusing to hear the wailing of moralising fools, demanding respect for the memory of an unsympathising sociopath.

Also quite ironic that those accusing her of having a lack of sympathy are quite comfortable in portraying a lack of sympathy... :rolleyes:

fishy fishy

AEDIC wrote: »

Karma - those accusing her of having a lack of sympathy are quite comfortable in portraying a lack of sympathy... :rolleyes:

FYP

AEDIC

fishy fishy wrote: »

FYP

Karma? Do you also believe in ghosts and aliens?

Chuck Stone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The IRA stood up to her, looked her in the eye

And lost.

In Fred's world?

Even BA experts admitted they couldn't defeat the IRA and this was known long before the Troubles wound down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRJGfe0k7rI

My name is URL

awec wrote: »

The majority of British society has her to thank.

I bet the thought of that would have sickened her to the very core. Given her refusal to accept that 'society' had any actual meaning!

Scruffles

Terry1985 wrote: »

I bet the miners will have a nice plot in one of the many closed coal mines for her.

yeah,she royaly ****ed over the northern england and poor people in general,she certainly isnt going to be missed by the majority,terrible air of superiority and elitism about her and others of her wealth/class, good riddance now the country can bury her 'legacy' in the past where it belongs.
however woud never wish illness on anyone and besides all the strokes she has had she was also dealing with dementia which is a very cruel illness.