BREAKING: Margaret Thatcher dead at age 87

Jun 9, 2004
13,753
1
Canada
#41
you are making a very clumsy comparison.iran and uae are less than 90 miles apart not 8000 miles.
What's the difference - your territory is your territory. Is there a specific number of miles after which your territory is no longer really your territory? If we go by that logic, we might as well give the green light to the Russians to invade Alaska, Canada should take over Greenland, Spain should take Gibraltar, Morocco should take the Canaries, etc. etc. etc. Hell, everyone should pull an IR and cease all the embassies of the other countries in their territory and then we'll have a real nice peaceful situation! ;)
 

Flint

Legionnaire
Jan 28, 2006
7,016
0
United States
#42
What's the difference - your territory is your territory. Is there a specific number of miles after which your territory is no longer really your territory? If we go by that logic, we might as well give the green light to the Russians to invade Alaska, Canada should take over Greenland, Spain should take Gibraltar, Morocco should take the Canaries, etc. etc. etc. Hell, everyone should pull an IR and cease all the embassies of the other countries in their territory and then we'll have a real nice peaceful situation! ;)
You saved me a post. We are witnessing the birth of a brilliant doctrine. If nobody dies, let it go. If it is "too far" never mind. You can't see it anyway.
 

oghabealborz

Elite Member
Feb 18, 2005
15,124
2,604
Strawberry field
#43
Seriously? So I suppose if Saudi Arabian army takes over Tunbs Islands you won't approve Iranian army taking them back,huh?

It was a totally unnecessary war by the Argentinian military junta, granted.
The Argentians underestimated the British determination under Thatcher and also their timing of the invasion was wrong ,perhaps if it was James kalahan or Harold Wilson they may have got away with just a slap on the wrist from UN security council .
 

AFRIRAN

IPL Player
Jun 8, 2010
2,521
0
#45
Please, you lose all credibility comparing Ahmadinejad with any politician in the west. Besides, your premise is wrong. I lose nothing if someone who makes a a million makes 10 million next year as long as I am making my $100,000. He could not have possibly taken the 10 million from me. Government can't fill the gap anyway. They have been at it since 1913 by shifting the tax burden up. 5% of the population pays upwards of 60% of all taxes and you still say there is a gap. I go as far as saying that a vibrant economy NEEDS income gaps. Anybody who signs your paycheck makes many times you do.
daash Flint you and him does not talk the same thing , you talk about the existing gap remain the same while the earnings increases ,I understand but it's not my preferred society of two level of the wealth ( poor and rich) but he says who cares the gap getting bigger how this can happen if you don't lose your middle class yes the margin of earning in poor level goes higher but you lose middle class so your rich is getting mind blowing richer , then rich can force things just like unions neutered in Thatcher era .

in a society wealth and social support spread in the way that poor can jump to the middle class ( benefit of education , medical care , retirement and comfort) , existing middle class be more comfortable and at the same rich get richer but within the norm that is a fair setup
 

Behrooz_C

Elite Member
Dec 10, 2005
16,651
1,566
A small island west of Africa
#47
ahmadinejad can not be very happy either to be compared with a warmonger who started a useless war of choice and killed scores of brits and argentinians.on her economic and social policies it's enough to say "the growth of a nation can not be achieved by keeping the downtrodden down".we saw the lingering effects of her divisive social engineering in the london riots 2 years ago.it is very ironic that the woman who hated "socialism" will be getting a state funeral whose cost will be paid by "other people's money".i ordered the "witch is dead" already just to make it a hit.in short, i say "rip=rust in peace".
Great copy and paste job. Now provide the source. I don't have time to google it! :p

you are making a very clumsy comparison.iran and uae are less than 90 miles apart not 8000 miles.
Not that it makes any difference to an illiterate admirer of authoritarianism like you but I will try anyway.

The Falklands are British, they were British before Argentina existed as a country. The inhabitants of the islands are also British who wanted to and still want to remain British. So when the Argentinian Junta regime invaded the island, the inhabitants asked for help from the motherland and help was given as it should have been. Being an admirer of dictatorship, of course you'd want the people to be oppressed, living under a regime they don't like.

What Thatcher did is what any other UK PM would have done or should have done. She defended her people when they called. At the end of the day, the Falklands have always been British and will always remain British.
 
Last edited:
Jun 9, 2004
13,753
1
Canada
#49
daash Flint you and him does not talk the same thing , you talk about the existing gap remain the same while the earnings increases ,I understand but it's not my preferred society of two level of the wealth ( poor and rich) but he says who cares the gap getting bigger how this can happen if you don't lose your middle class yes the margin of earning in poor level goes higher but you lose middle class so your rich is getting mind blowing richer , then rich can force things just like unions neutered in Thatcher era .

in a society wealth and social support spread in the way that poor can jump to the middle class ( benefit of education , medical care , retirement and comfort) , existing middle class be more comfortable and at the same rich get richer but within the norm that is a fair setup
Personally, I'm all for the middle class and I think that's the segment of society that grows the economy not the super rich. I have explained this dynamic before... Most of the dollars that the middle class earns get thrown back into economy to produce economic output via spending. The lower income bracket simply doesn't have the spending power and the upper income bracket is usually obsessed with the creation and retention of wealth. Also a higher percentage of the dollars spent by the lower and middle classes gets translated to economic activity while a much lower percentage of every dollar spend by the upper income brackets translate to economic activity (i.e. a $50-$100 normal purse requires the same amount of labour and manufacturing activity as a $1500 Gucci purse).

All that said, you have to appreciate that at the time of Thatcher, the unions in the UK had become too powerful and this was seriously hurting UK's global competitiveness and overall economy. In 1979, they were pretty much in the same shoes as the Americans in 2008, where auto union workers were for example making so much money that their companies could no longer be competitive on the global market. This produces a vicious cycle of lower productivity, lower profits and eventually layoffs, which is exactly what happened in the 2008 finanfical crisis in 2008 and is not to the benefit of the workers or ultimately the middle class.

So, this is not a black and white issue that unions are great and their aim is to help maintain the middle class. In most instances they simply price their workers out of the job market and they often become a deterrent to free market activity. We've had the same issue in relatively socialist Canada and the unions have been on a serious decline for the past two decades. I'm not saying that they have become obsolete or that they shouldn't be around, but they can not lose track of their main goal which should be training their work force to be more efficient, rather than constantly asking for double or triple inflation adjustments to their income.
 

Behrooz_C

Elite Member
Dec 10, 2005
16,651
1,566
A small island west of Africa
#50
hahaha...you couldn't make this stuff up. Not that I am surprised. I just found out that Arthur Scargill and Bob Crow, two outspoken union leaders and socialite champions of working class and the poor have annual earnings of over £100k. Capitalist to the core. You really couldn't make this stuff up. But it goes to show the hypocrisy of the left. Not that any of this is new but anyway.
 

masoudA

Legionnaire
Oct 16, 2008
6,199
22
#51
hahaha...you couldn't make this stuff up. Not that I am surprised. I just found out that Arthur Scargill and Bob Crow, two outspoken union leaders and socialite champions of working class and the poor have annual earnings of over £100k. Capitalist to the core. You really couldn't make this stuff up. But it goes to show the hypocrisy of the left. Not that any of this is new but anyway.
You are a puzzle to me -
when it comes to British politics you are a conservative - yet when it gets to USA, you suddenly become an Obama fan!!! what gives?
 

Chinaski

Elite Member
Jun 14, 2005
12,269
352
#53
Because he lives in England. Why is it a puzzle?
Well thats not a valid reason per se. A lot of people in England dont give a fuck about thatcher nor about obama. Not to speak about Britain because a significant part of non english brits are even happy about her death.
 
May 12, 2007
8,093
11
#54
Well thats not a valid reason per se. A lot of people in England dont give a fuck about thatcher nor about obama. Not to speak about Britain because a significant part of non english brits are even happy about her death.
I am sure he is affected by media over there.
 

Flint

Legionnaire
Jan 28, 2006
7,016
0
United States
#55
The Argentians underestimated the British determination under Thatcher and also their timing of the invasion was wrong ,perhaps if it was James kalahan or Harold Wilson they may have got away with just a slap on the wrist from UN security council .
They didn't call her the Iron Lady for nothing. Funny thing is that all the feminists who made a career out of fighting for strong women hated her.
 

Flint

Legionnaire
Jan 28, 2006
7,016
0
United States
#56
hahaha...you couldn't make this stuff up. Not that I am surprised. I just found out that Arthur Scargill and Bob Crow, two outspoken union leaders and socialite champions of working class and the poor have annual earnings of over £100k. Capitalist to the core. You really couldn't make this stuff up. But it goes to show the hypocrisy of the left. Not that any of this is new but anyway.
No surprise here either. Every time Congress wants to hear a testimony about poverty you see Alec Baldwin or Susan Sarandon in the seat talking about how horrible poverty is. I challenge anyone to find me a video where an actual homeless person testified in front of the Congress. The people you see on TV are those who are the "advocates", i.e. people who actually make a living out of defending the homeless. Of course, homelessness will never go away this way because there are kids are to be sent to college and mortgages to be paid.
 

Flint

Legionnaire
Jan 28, 2006
7,016
0
United States
#58
Even funnier is Maggie herself was not very found of Womens either ! I dont think she ever had one in her cabinet ! you know what women are like ...
Unrelated, but some woman was being interviewed and she said her worst job was when she worked for Working Woman magazine. I swear I am not making it up.
 
#59
Copying and pasting this from a Facebook user who was commenting on a status earlier this week - a bit more to ponder about Thatcher (whether you agree or disagree with the following policies)...

1. She supported the retention of capital punishment
2. She destroyed the country's manufacturing industry
3. She voted against the relaxation of divorce laws
4. She abolished free milk for schoolchildren ("Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher")
5. She supported more freedom for business (and look how that turned out)
6. She gained support from the National Front in the 1979 election by pandering to the fears of immigration
7. She gerrymandered local authorities by forcing through council house sales, at the same time preventing councils from spending the money they got for selling houses on building new houses (spending on social housing dropped by 67% in her premiership)
8. She was responsible for 3.6 million unemployed - the highest figure and the highest proportion of the workforce in history and three times the previous government. Massaging of the figures means that the figure was closer to 5 million
9. She ignored intelligence about Argentinian preparations for the invasion of the Falkland Islands and scrapped the only Royal Navy presence in the islands
10. The poll tax
11. She presided over the closure of 150 coal mines; we are now crippled by the cost of energy, having to import expensive coal from abroad
12. She compared her "fight" against the miners to the Falklands War
13. She privatised state monopolies and created the corporate greed culture that we've been railing against for the last 5 years
14. She introduced the gradual privatisation of the NHS
15. She introduced financial deregulation in a way that turned city institutions into avaricious money pits
16. She pioneered the unfailing adoration and unquestioning support of the USA
17. She allowed the US to place nuclear missiles on UK soil, under US control
18. Section 28
19. She opposed anti-apartheid sanctions against South Africa and described Nelson Mandela as "that grubby little terrorist"
20. She support the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and sent the SAS to train their soldiers
21. She allowed the US to bomb Libya in 1986, against the wishes of more than 2/3 of the population
22. She opposed the reunification of Germany
23. She invented Quangos
24. She increased VAT from 8% to 17.5%
25. She had the lowest approval rating of any post-war Prime Minister
26. Her post-PM job? Consultant to Philip Morris tobacco at $250,000 a year, plus $50,000 per speech
27. The Al Yamamah contract
28. She opposed the indictment of Chile's General Pinochet
29. Social unrest under her leadership was higher than at any time since the General Strike
30. She presided over interest rates increasing to 15%
31. BSE
32. She presided over 2 million manufacturing job losses in the 79-81 recession
33. She opposed the inclusion of Eire in the Northern Ireland peace process
34. She supported sanctions-busting arms deals with South Africa
35. Cecil Parkinson, Alan Clark, David Mellor, Jeffrey Archer, Jonathan Aitkin
36. Crime rates doubled under Thatcher
37. Black Wednesday – Britain withdraws from the ERM and the pound is devalued. Cost to Britain - £3.5 billion; profit for George Soros - £1 billion
38. Poverty doubled while she opposed a minimum wage
39. She privatised public services, claiming at the time it would increase public ownership. Most are now owned either by foreign governments (EDF) or major investment houses. The profits don’t now accrue to the taxpayer, but to foreign or institutional shareholders.
40. She cut 75% of funding to museums, galleries and other sources of education
41. In the Thatcher years the top 10% of earners received almost 50% of the tax remissions
42. 21.9% inflation
 
#60
Margaret Thatcher's funeral is set to cost the tax payer £10 million. I personally believe it should be a private affair as her body would take a route from Westminster Abbey to St. Paul's (quite a distance!) - I fear riots, which would look awful on UK's reputation, and GB's chances of Eurovision glory.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/thatchers-funeral-dubbed-insult-250000-1821716

Death of Margaret Thatcher: Taxpayer-funded state funeral dubbed an insult to 250,000 Scots who lost their jobs during her reign
10 Apr 2013 07:26

THE former PM will receive a full ceremonial funeral with military honours next Wednesday but politicians have branded this the final insult to Scots.
Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's funeral has angered many Scots Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's funeral has angered many Scots
Ian Torrance

THE £10million cost of Margaret Thatcher’s funeral was yesterday slammed as an insult to the 250,000 Scots whose jobs she wiped out.

The former prime minister will receive a full ceremonial funeral with military honours at St Paul’s Cathedral next Wednesday.

Labour MSP Neil Findlay said: “When her heirs apparent, Cameron and Osborne, are introducing the bedroom tax for the poor and low-paid and tax cuts for millionaires, news that her funeral will cost £10million is the final insult to the communities and people’s lives she destroyed.”

Findlay – who is campaigning to overturn criminal convictions against miners during the bitter 1984 strike – added: “The policies Thatcher introduced destroyed the skilled manufacturing and heavy industries in my area. The local steelworks, Polkemmet colliery, British Leyland and many engineering plants were all closed as a result of her corrosive free market dogma.

“Compare her final days at the Ritz and an £10million funeral to the final years of some of the people in my community and we see can why people are angry.”

Former Labour MP Dennis Canavan, now chair of the Yes to independence campaign, said: “I know that she is being described by her sycophantic supporters as a conviction politician. It is just a pity that her convictions left a legacy of untold misery for many families and communities across Scotland and beyond.

“I think it is rather ironic that Margaret Thatcher very strongly criticised public spending on even essential services and yet here we have millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money being spent on her funeral.”

Most Scottish MPs will boycott the recall of the Westminster Parliament today to commemorate Thatcher’s death.

Almost all Labour backbenchers from north of the Border will be away from London for the special session – which will be an uncritical tribute to the longest serving peacetime PM of the 20th century. None of the SNP’s six MPs are expected to attend, apart from Westminster leader Angus Robertson MP.

But a Scottish Government spokesman said First Minister Alex Salmond will go to the funeral in London next Wednesday.

Last night, senior political figures echoed film and TV director Ken Loach’s views that Thatcher’s funeral should be a privatised affair.

Labour MP Graham Stringer said a privatised firm like BT should “step up” and pay for the ceremony.

The former Whip added: “I think that would be symbolic and beautifully appropriate. The church service with military honours I have no difficultly with – she was prime minister at a time when we were at war with Argentina.

“It is the taxpayers’ money which she always claimed she wanted to save.”

Ian Lavery, a former miner who recently quit as Parliamentary aide to Deputy Labour Leader Harriet Harman, said Thatcher should not receive what amounts to a state funeral in all but name.

The Labour MP for Wansbeck, in Northumberland, was nauseated by tributes to a PM who branded him, his family, his former colleagues and his constituents "the enemy within”.

He said: “She classed us with Argentinians – she called them the enemy without and the miners the enemy within.

“I’m pretty angry that people think she should have special treatment. Maybe she should but not positive special treatment.”

Labour MP for Midlothian David Hamilton – a former miner who was imprisoned over the 1984 strike – said the leaders of political parties had to be respectful but many MPs had other plans for today. He added: “Thank God we’re not going to see her like again.

"I find it galling that the only time she shed a tear was when she was stabbed by her own party. She never shed a tear for any of the families and communities she destroyed.

"I’m not bitter but we should not look back on her times as glorious – she destroyed communities in our nation of Scotland and across the north of England.

"She can be remembered for a lot – but none of it is good.”

Scotland Yard revealed last night that police are considering using pre-emptive stop and search powers to prevent troublemakers disrupting Thatcher’s funeral.

Met chiefs are likely to use section 60 of the Public Order Act, allowing officers to stop anyone without discretion.

A spokesman said a senior officer can implement the law where they have the “intelligence and grounds to suggest it is necessary”.

The use of section 60 next Wednesday is currently under review, he added.

The force said they want to speak anyone who plans to protest so their right to do so can be maintained.

Police last used section 60 powers during the royal wedding in April 2011.