Thatcher Dead

It's gone a bit off topic but there's some good debate here. The general public on the whole has little interest or knowledge in politics and that's often the reason we get the idiots we do in-charge so any discussion is all good.

Just a reminder to keep it civil though. Just because someone does not agree with you it does not give you the right to insult them.

 

F**k off.

 

They have to die, then it's alright to insult them.

 

It's hardly research is it? I simply don't care if you went to South Africa for 5 weeks. If you came back adhering to the line that Nelson Mandela was solely a terrorist the plight of black people clearly failed to move you. All over the world the ANC was being recognised and sanctions called for.

And I really don't care what your mate says he earned. Most miners earned well, relatively speaking, but nothing like that. Your mate surely knows this. You do exactly what you accuse me of. You don't answer my points at all. You just spout more guff and call it 'common sense' - tomorrow's flat earth thinking. We are not going to dent each other views in the slightest, so let's agree to differ.

As I get older I have definitely shifted in my opinions, I am much more more moderate than I was and I don't still believe in all I believed in during the 1980's. I suspect you are more moderate too. But that's Thatcher isn't it? She chose only the lexicon of conflict. No one's going to see her other than in terms of which side they were on.

 

Hear hear.

 

Only wierdos get into politics, normal people ***** about it

 

nowadays anyway

 

"The lexicon of conflict" - i fort dat was jimbob russo.. my bad. fml.

 

As I thought, no experience whatsoever to back up your opinions.

I'll answer any points you like, or questions you want, if it's valid. But your points say, for example, that Germany succeeded even with militant unions, but it is just a stupid point, as we cannot compare the relative militancy. Make points if you wish, but instead of making points that can't be discussed make points that have at least a speck of substance behind it. I know that you left wingers struggle with that concept, but give it a bash.


What about you? What points can you answer? What to do call someone that bombs innocent people for a political point? Is that a valid way to get a point across. We are not talking about assassination of political figures here, we are talking about indiscriminate bombing of totally innocent civilians, including blacks!

Ok, so you don't care whether I went to South Africa. But it helped formmy opinion. You asked me, so i told you. What formed yours?

By the way, De Clerk in case you don't know, was the South African president and whose government that was following apartheid. He says that Thatcher was passionately against Apartheid and made her views plain at every opportunity. So you know more than him do you, smartarse?

I could go on taking your rubbish to pieces, but you are right. There is no way that I could ever dent your views just so long as you refuse to listen to the truth. At least I've tried to justify where I get my views, whereas all you have done is spout rubbish that you could have easily read in todays Daily Mirror.

 

Pollyticks and football, very similar discussions - it is very rare for someone to change their view - maybe over a long period of time people mellow from their original opinion.

Maggie for me was a decent pm, russo for me was the worst ever wfc chairman/owner/shareholder. It will be very difficult for anyone to change my views on either. I respect that others views will conflict to mine and all i can say to that is - who the feck are leeds united?

 

It cheers me to realise that all te hypocritial union leaders, the extreme left wing politicians such as George Galloway, IRA bombers and just about every low-life masquerading as a left wing comedian (and Joey Barton) have all come out to rejoice in the death of Margaret Thatcher. Whereas those with dignity, even her political enemies, respect her achievments.

 

I would actually like to know from someone that actually knows some facts as to why Thatcher is said to have destroyed coal mining communities, wheres Scargill who refused any attempts to make the industry more economic, when a huge majority of miners didn't want to strike, he refused to ballot his members, but still organised the dispute and relished the fighting amongst the communities and the battles at the picket lines, is treated as a hero? Lets have some facts here, not rhetoric and soundbites!

What can you come up with?

 

Thank you UEA, I was going to answer ZZtop myself, but you have said pretty much what I wanted to say :sign15::sign15::sign15:

 

The point isn't what her opponents didn't do, it's what she did. I don't know enough to start a reasoned debate, but I personally think slating her opposition is pointless as its not the point people are making. I think it's reasonable to critise her polices, whilst understanding the opposition weren't up to much either.

 

Well we'll see how many are as upset as you and sign the e petition, compared that choose not to sign it.

Thatcher, I remind you, won three elections and didn't lose any. Which, as far as I know is the longest run of public support for any PM this century. But, that is a guess, enlighten me if I am wrong. Churchill lost two elections and won one election in 1952' whilst winning less votes in 1952 than Labour.

Thatcher is paying for half the costs of the funeral out of her estate, and did not want the state funeral that she was offered. Most of the cost is down to security against people like you that want to disrupt the funeral.

You are both coming across as sad individuals. At least you will have the opportunity to join the disruption alongside the Irish terrorists, Al queda and all the sad old individuals that used to try and disrupt the country with violence and initimidation, all those years ago. You should welcome the chance.

 

Blair had a Won 3 Lost 0 record too

 

Student scum no doubt being delusional as they lack common sense and life experience.

 

Are all Irish nationalists terrorists then? Does that make me a terrorist for agreeing with Mandela's ideals?

 

Oh of course how can we forget that hero....

 

feckin brilliant, now Maggie will bolster the concervatives votes with that action..

hoorah for Mags...


zz - who offered her the state funeral?

 

Here is another sweeping generalisation that older people tend to make that pisses me off. There are a small % of idiots, as there are in the adult world. These students are also people that have been brought up and raised by the older generation, if all students are scum, clearly the 'older' generation have failed as parents?

 

Forza... How old do you think I am..?

Also where did I say "All students are scum"?

 

Yes, but I think Thatcher was in office for a little longer:naughty:

 

St Peter apparently. Turned him down flat.

 

I did re-read it and realise you didn't say all students are scum. So I apologise, I have however heard many 'older' people say similar things

 

No, and no, where have I said anything different? I agree with Mandela's ideals, but I didn't bomb innocent people, therefore I am not a terrorist either.

 

Of course not. A large proportion of students will take the opposite view to their parents just because they want to take the contrary view, or at the very least, explore the contrary view. It makes them more rounded individuals and good parents will be happy to see that happen. Those parents will have done the same to their parents previously, including myself. It is a right of passage. When students get over their little "expression of individuality" most of them become normal again!

 

I thought not, all bluster, no substance. Not a murmer!

 

Margaret Thatcher went to heaven a little bit too soon
St Peter said "you're not quite dead, come back this afternoon".

 

Well it's important to rememebr that just because people celebrate her death doesn't make them terrorist. Thatcher wanted to move the catholics out of NI and redraw the border. They are tasteless and lack dignity, perhaps idiots, but not all terrorists.

 

No of course, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that they were. But, you raise an important point, I thought Thatcher wanted the status quo. In what way did she want to ship Catholics out and redraw the border?

 

ZZTop - You seem very informed about the miner's strike. You've also said that you're prepared to answer any questions, so I wonder if you wouldn't mind answering these.

1. You assert that a huge majority didn't want to strike. Could you present your evidence for this please?

2. A MORI poll taken nationally at the time for LWT's Weekend World, showed that 62 per cent of miners were prepared to strike over pit closures. Could you say why you believe that poll was wrong or fixed?

3. During the NUM strike, a ballot was held by the NACODS pit supervisors/managers union which returned 82.5 per cent in favour of strike action. Can you say why you believe that ballot to have been wrong or fixed?

4. You say that the cause of the strike was Scargill's failure to hold a ballot and later imply that it was held simply to satisfy his ego and a perverse desire to see people fighting one another. Could you present your evidence for this?

5. Many academics and analysts have concluded that the strike was deliberately provoked by the Thatcher government in order to smash the NUM, who'd been instrumental in the downfall of the previous Tory government. Evidence for this is provided by the infamous Ridley Plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridley_Plan) which advocated stockpiling coal, impoverishing strikers, importing foreign coal, employing scab lorry drivers, creating a large mobile national riot police force and provoking a strike in early spring when coal demand was low etc. Since you know the causes of the strike to have been completely different and entirely to satisfy Scargill's perverse desires, could you explain how this plan was in fact a cunning fake and how so many have been fooled by it? Perhaps you'd also take the time to explain the coincidence of all these planned actions actually taking place during the strike?

6. On a slightly different subject, I was interested to read your condemnation of Nelson Mandela and the ANC as terrorists (despite your agreement with their cause). You explained this was because innocent people were sometimes caught up in their actions and suffered as a result. A few years earlier, during World War 2, the French resistance (including a good proportion of communists and socialists), carried out a very similar campaign of sabotage and bombings against the oppressors, during which some innocent people suffered and died. Could you confirm whether the resistance were thus 'terrorists' since they clearly meet your criteria.

 

A lot of people will have negative views about them after the protests. Certainly from seeing it first hand - there were a lot of scum bags who appear to have there to cause trouble.

Being someone who left school at 16, my views are probably very different to those on here who attended Uni. My main gripe about the students i've met is that many have a hugely inflated ego, and lack common sense. I'm also baffled as to why some students don't think about their future, or their career before starting Uni. Again though, this is a select proportion of the many students out there.

 

Fair enough. I would argue that's down to poor parenting though, parents should encourage these things.