Maggie Thatcher death discussion thread - Mod rules in first post

Norwesterner · 12-04-2013 09:18PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Is he not entitled to his opinion?

He talked about strangling Teresa May, digging out her heart with a knife and sexually assaulting her.
Now imagine a Garda saying this about a female T.D, and let us know if you'd want him patrolling the street with a badge.

Lingua Franca · 12-04-2013 09:48PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

words

Just pointing out that the British were less than honest/blatantly untrustworthy about it, and that the controversy continues despite what anyone on this forum says.

Spook_ie · 12-04-2013 10:13PM

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Just pointing out that the British were less than honest/blatantly untrustworthy about it, and that the controversy continues despite what anyone on this forum says.

No it would seem to me that a lot of people are caught up in the glare of the "Sun's" headlines and blame MT even for the "Gotcha" headline they used.

The British were fighting a war, declared or not, with Argentina, even without the sovereignty of the islands the Argentinians were holding and threatening British Citizens against their will.

If the situation arose that Irish citizens were being held against their will would you like the Irish Gov to do everything possible or just to limit themselves to telling the aggressors to go sit on the naughty step?

Lingua Franca · 12-04-2013 10:33PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

No

No to what part of my post, exactly?

it would seem to me that a lot of people are caught up in the glare of the "Sun's" headlines and blame MT even for the "Gotcha" headline they used.

Really? I missed that post, can you point me to it? Because it seems to me that you're the first person to mention the "Gotcha" headline in this thread and that the people who are less than enamoured of MT wouldn't be putting any faith in anything that the Sun says.

The British were fighting a war, declared or not, with Argentina, even without the sovereignty of the islands the Argentinians were holding and threatening British Citizens against their will.

Yes, I know. Well, apart from the "threatening" part, what were they threatening them with? Again, how does this contradict my post?

If the situation arose that Irish citizens were being held against their will would you like the Irish Gov to do everything possible or just to limit themselves to telling the aggressors to go sit on the naughty step?

In all honesty I wouldn't expect anything more of the Irish government. I have absolutely no faith in them.

true · 12-04-2013 10:53PM

Latchy wrote: »

For the Popes 3 day visit in 2011 it also cost the UK taxpayer £10 million which had many asking the question ,why didn't the richest organisation in the world pay for it at it's own expense ?

good question. As the British are paying ( along with the IMF and EU ) for our current bailout, and historically have been the ones to invest in this country / give us handouts ( through infrastructure decades ago or through the EEC / EC in seventies, eighties, nineties + noughties ) we should care about how the British spend their money, in case they have none left to throw our way.

gurramok · 12-04-2013 11:14PM

true wrote: »

good question. As the British are paying ( along with the IMF and EU ) for our current bailout, and historically have been the ones to invest in this country / give us handouts ( through infrastructure decades ago or through the EEC / EC in seventies, eighties, nineties + noughties ) we should care about how the British spend their money, in case they have none left to throw our way.

At least try to speak the truth. The bailout was not a handout, it was a LOAN with interest to be paid on it.

end of the road · 12-04-2013 11:18PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

The British were fighting a war, declared or not, with Argentina, even without the sovereignty of the islands the Argentinians were holding and threatening British Citizens against their will.

they would have been better off negotiating with the argentines to facilitate the removal of the people from the islands and then sign them over to the argentines, would have cost less and would save a large amount of money in the long run

Weathering · 12-04-2013 11:20PM

true wrote: »

good question. As the British are paying ( along with the IMF and EU ) for our current bailout, and historically have been the ones to invest in this country / give us handouts ( through infrastructure decades ago or through the EEC / EC in seventies, eighties, nineties + noughties ) we should care about how the British spend their money, in case they have none left to throw our way.

What nonsense. The British give us a loan which will be paid back with interest. It's a business deal for them not a charitable act. According to UK government figures, trade with Ireland exceeds total UK trade with Brazil,China,India and Russia so it's in their best interests.

I love the line "Historically been the ones to give us handouts" haha that made me chuckle. Did you ever hear of the famine?

true · 12-04-2013 11:24PM

gurramok wrote: »

At least try to speak the truth. The bailout was not a handout, it was a LOAN with interest to be paid on it.

Call the money whatever you want - the bailout was from them ( UK/IMF/EU )because nobody else would lend us money / thought we would ever pay it back. The money ( hundreds of millions in total ) we got from the EC / EEC over 4 decades ( and the UK was the 2nd biggest contributer to EEC / EC funds after Germany ) though different funds ( agricultural subsidies / grants / strructural funds etc ) was handouts, not a loan.

We should care how the UK spends their money, in case they have none left to throw our way

mike65 · 12-04-2013 11:26PM

end of the road wrote: »

they would have been better off negotiating with the argentines to facilitate the removal of the people from the islands and then sign them over to the argentines, would have cost less and would save a large amount of money in the long run

And Argentina would have been suffering under the Generals for years longer as that would have bolstered their power within Argentina. Its never much mentioned but that failed attempt to take and hold the Falklands also freed the people from a Fascist regime.

true · 12-04-2013 11:40PM

Weathering wrote: »

The British give us a loan which will be paid back with interest.

If we do not look for debt write down / default on the interest. We are still borrowing 20 billion a year just to keep the lights on. Do you ever see a time when we can repay the hundreds of billions plus interest, when we cannot even come close to breaking even, despite all the "cutbacks"?

Ah well, at least they gave us good infrastructure, from the harbours canals / railways / historic old buildings to the farm grants to the new motorways. They cannot take that back.

delthedriver · 12-04-2013 11:40PM

Weathering wrote: »

What nonsense. The British give us a loan which will be paid back with interest. It's a business deal for them not a charitable act. According to UK government figures, trade with Ireland exceeds total UK trade with Brazil,China,India and Russia so it's in their best interests.

I love the line "Historically been the ones to give us handouts" haha that made me chuckle. Did you ever hear of the famine?

Gosh, I think the Famine was long before Mrs Thatcher's time in office

Happyman42 · 12-04-2013 11:42PM

true wrote: »

If we do not look for debt write down / default on the interest. We are still borrowing 20 billion a year just to keep the lights on. Do you ever see a time when we can repay the hundreds of billions plus interest, when we cannot even come close to breaking even, despite all the "cutbacks"?

Ah well, at least they gave us good infrastructure, from the harbours canals / railways / historic old buildings to the farm grants to the new motorways. They cannot take that back.

What do you think they built that infrastructure with? Their own money or the money plundered from this and other colonies. That hat you are doffing must be obstructing your vision.

delthedriver · 12-04-2013 11:48PM

end of the road wrote: »

they would have been better off negotiating with the argentines to facilitate the removal of the people from the islands and then sign them over to the argentines, would have cost less and would save a large amount of money in the long run

Perhaps, using the above logic, Ireland could negotiate with Iceland and sign
Co. Donegal over to them, saving the Irish taxpayer a small fortune

delthedriver · 12-04-2013 11:51PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

What do you think they built that infrastructure with? Their own money or the money plundered from this and other colonies. That hat you are doffing must be obstructing your vision.

Perhaps building the infrastructure provided much employment to locals at the time???;)

drakshug · 12-04-2013 11:51PM

A lot of Maggie apologists on here and a lot of people who didn't live in the UK under her government. I was 13 when she came to power. she defined my generation. Her way of talking down to people, her disdain and dismissal of people forced out of work. The way she destroyed whole communities and yet protected her own. Her talk of a classless society whilst creating a society of two classes - the haves and have nots.
She never understood us Scots and her ideology never got a foothold in Scotland as it did in the home counties. Thatcherism is repugnant and even though the UK media are trying to whitewash and reinvent her legacy I was reminded of it all too vividly last Monday getting a train through Lanarkshire coming back to Ireland. Going past what used to be Ravenscraig steel works and seeing what used to be coal bings and down through North Ayrshire where there was 40% unemployment - it brought it all back. She destroyed it all and ripped the heart out of whole areas. as for her successes. It was a time of boom and bust, of the beginning of casino economics, of a rise in poverty and inequality and of the destruction of the public housing stock
Thatcher may be dead but Thatcherism is still alive and prosperous in Tory and Labour policies. I won't be mourning.

Weathering · 13-04-2013 12:04AM

true wrote: »

If we do not look for debt write down / default on the interest. We are still borrowing 20 billion a year just to keep the lights on. Do you ever see a time when we can repay the hundreds of billions plus interest, when we cannot even come close to breaking even, despite all the "cutbacks"?

Ah well, at least they gave us good infrastructure, from the harbours canals / railways / historic old buildings to the farm grants to the new motorways. They cannot take that back.

I see you ignored most of my post,probably as you knew it was correct and you had no lies to counter it. He you go off with this figures again,just like yesterday when you were spouting them out of your a$$ and didn't respond.

Yeah they left us with so much we shoud be eternally greatful for roads,harbours and old building. I mean we would still be living in caves if it weren't for the British occupation. God bless genocide I mean britain

Weathering · 13-04-2013 12:08AM

delthedriver wrote: »

Gosh, I think the Famine was long before Mrs Thatcher's time in office

Yeah well done. True said historically britain gave Ireland handouts. It was in relation to that

end of the road · 13-04-2013 12:16AM

delthedriver wrote: »

Perhaps, using the above logic, Ireland could negotiate with Iceland and sign
Co. Donegal over to them, saving the Irish taxpayer a small fortune

no, nice try but your point is ridiculous, the falklands cost a lot of money to defend and also the equipment used to defend it could be better used at home to protect the british mainland

delthedriver · 13-04-2013 12:18AM

Weathering wrote: »

Yeah well done. True said historically britain gives Ireland handouts. It was in relation to that

Apologies Weathering,

Did not mean to be smart. Just felt it was time to inject a little humour:)

Sorry the thread has become a bit tiresome for me.

Good Night!

Finally in the words of the Late Dave Allen 'May your gods go with you'

delthedriver · 13-04-2013 12:20AM

end of the road wrote: »

no, nice try but your point is ridiculous, the falklands cost a lot of money to defend and also the equipment used to defend it could be better used at home to protect the british mainland

Of course you are right:)

Good night!

Norwesterner · 13-04-2013 12:24AM

drakshug wrote: »

A lot of Maggie apologists on here and a lot of people who didn't live in the UK under her government. I was 13 when she came to power. she defined my generation. Her way of talking down to people, her disdain and dismissal of people forced out of work. The way she destroyed whole communities and yet protected her own. Her talk of a classless society whilst creating a society of two classes - the haves and have nots.
She never understood us Scots and her ideology never got a foothold in Scotland as it did in the home counties. Thatcherism is repugnant and even though the UK media are trying to whitewash and reinvent her legacy I was reminded of it all too vividly last Monday getting a train through Lanarkshire coming back to Ireland. Going past what used to be Ravenscraig steel works and seeing what used to be coal bings and down through North Ayrshire where there was 40% unemployment - it brought it all back. She destroyed it all and ripped the heart out of whole areas. as for her successes. It was a time of boom and bust, of the beginning of casino economics, of a rise in poverty and inequality and of the destruction of the public housing stock
Thatcher may be dead but Thatcherism is still alive and prosperous in Tory and Labour policies. I won't be mourning.

I'm not a Maggie apologist, but getting fed up with this idea that there were no factories closed before Maggie or after Maggie.
Then you must remember the IMF in Britain, soaring inflation, continuous stikes, rubbish piling up in the street, the Winter of Discontent....when you were 12.

true · 13-04-2013 12:24AM

Weathering wrote: »

I see you ignored most of my post,probably as you knew it was correct and you had no lies to counter it.

Its all been answered already. You claimed "It's a business deal for them not a charitable act. According to UK government figures, trade with Ireland exceeds total UK trade with Brazil,China,India and Russia so it's in their best interests." Yes, trade and ties between these islands have always been strong and they do not want a destitute neighbour, with all the problems that could cause.

delthedriver · 13-04-2013 12:24AM

end of the road wrote: »

no, nice try but your point is ridiculous, the falklands cost a lot of money to defend and also the equipment used to defend it could be better used at home to protect the british mainland

Of course you are right:) I was going to suggest selling it to the Uk and making NI a 7 county place, thought it would be a step too far!:)

Good night!

Happyman42 · 13-04-2013 12:29AM

Weathering wrote: »

Yeah well done. True said historically britain gave Ireland handouts. It was in relation to that

It's interesting the Famine gets mentioned, because it's the same imperialist mindset that allowed the Irish to starve that turned a blind eye when vast swathes of the 'homeland' was laid waste. There where no colonies left so they carved up their own land to feed the greed.
You could almost imagine a 19th century MP writing something as condescendingly uncompassionate as this
http://tompride.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/bernard-ingham-hillsborough-letter.jpg?w=529&h=435

true · 13-04-2013 12:57AM

Happyman42 wrote: »

......that turned a blind eye when vast swathes of the 'homeland' was laid waste.

All countries have prosperous parts and other parts less prosperous. Belmullet is less affluent than Ballsbridge or Foxrock. Detroit is much poorer than Silicon Valley. Thats because of the collapse of the traditional US car manufacturing industry / rise of imported vehcles etc etc, and the rise of "new" technology industries in Silicon Valley. In the UK coal mines were going to close anyway as they were uneconomic / it was cheaper to import fuel. However the Mrts Thatchers government improved efficiency, controlled inflation, made sure inflation was under control, made sure strikes were not a problem etc....to the expent it was able to attract foreign investment and jobs to northern areas eg nissan to sunderland, toyota to derby etc. Just as shirtmakers here who found themselves in an industry unable to compete, and who had to seek work elsewhere if they wanted to work....so too with miners....the world did not owe them a living. The world owes nobody a living. Do you think it was only the hundreds of 1000's of irish to went to work in the UK in the eighties ...that the miners did not get any jobs then?

stretchdoe · 13-04-2013 01:10AM

Maggie Thatcher, can you hear me!!?

Maggie Thatcher!?

Your boys took a hell of a beating.

Your boys took a hell of a beating..

Hank Schrader · 13-04-2013 01:19AM

Norwesterner wrote: »

I'm not a Maggie apologist, but getting fed up with this idea that there were no factories closed before Maggie or after Maggie.
Then you must remember the IMF in Britain, soaring inflation, continuous stikes, rubbish piling up in the street, the Winter of Discontent....when you were 12.

Your post would suggest otherwise

Mr Tibbs · 13-04-2013 01:21AM

Poor auld Maggie is dead but she can still start a good argument. Often wondered if there hadn't been an election on the horizon would she have sent her forces on that little excursion to the South Atlantic.

gurramok · 13-04-2013 01:22AM

Will be interesting to see how many top league football matches in England will hold a minutes silence for Thatcher tomorrow(or later today). I suspect hardly any and that is hardly surprising.

Maggie Thatcher death discussion thread - Mod rules in first post

Comments