On April 09 2013 02:49 DeepElemBlues wrote: (also list the social democratic countries crashing and burning ((save Germany)) in Europe right now)
the notion that social democratic countries in europe bar germany is crashing and burning is so stupid it is almost provoking, but maybe that was your intent all along.
On April 08 2013 21:49 McBengt wrote: This might be the first time the 21 gun salute shoots the coffin, just to be sure.
Jokes aside, she was probably the most well recognized british politician ever, and the most polarizing. Will be interesting to see the fallout from this, I imagine quite a lot of scorn and schadenfreude will follow.
Someone has been watching Frankie Boyle's stuff it seems My condolences go out to her close family and friends, she has been ill for a while now so it isn't too much of a shock that this has happened. She was a very polarising figure, you either loved what she did or hated her for it. I won't put my thoughts on her in here because I don't want to start an argument.
On April 09 2013 00:35 Zystra wrote: Too many Socialists in this thread.
Not really trying to derail this thread with a political debate, but I think she hit the nail on the head here. Socialists harp on about how much the 1% earn. Well listen to this, if we were to tax the 1% to the point that they lose more than half of their earnings, they will take their businesses, their ideas, their knowledge and their intellect elsewhere which will doom the other 99% to being much poorer.
Well Said and RIP Mags.
Hehe you use a clip where she outright lies in the face of everyone and you talk about "socialism" which you know nothing about. Which country is better off? Socialist Sweden or UK? Looking at welfare, its pretty obvious. (although I agree sweden has gotten worse since we got a right wing party as government).
Rest In Peace Iron Lady, I hope people realize the truth and your crimes against humanity so that you may not be rememberd in lies, but rather someone we can learn to stray far, far away from.
I'm a liberal and I think she's correct. If we tax the arses off of the rich, what's stopping them from going elsewhere and taking their businesses with them?
Mind you, I think in recent years that ideas has come to some big extremes such as the recent controversy around companies like Google, Amazon and Starbucks avoiding tax.
On April 09 2013 03:23 Ksi wrote: It's quite interesting to see the differences between America's narrative about Reagan after his death and Brit's reactions to Thatcher's death. They both pretty much harmed the exact same people, but our lower class has throngs of people who put Reagan below only Jesus. I envy you Brits for having a populace that is at the very least aware of their own self interests.
It's actually a pretty good argument for the monarchy. Thatcher was never head of state, so loving or hating her is less about patriotism than it is for Reagan.
You do have a point there, but I think it was only true back in the 80's. In today's political climate, only one side of our political spectrum uses the argument that hating on the President is somehow unpatriotic. The American right actually believes that the senators filibustering every bill, the congressmen yelling "you lie" at Obama at the state of the union, and all the other blanket hatred of our current president is actually their patriotic duty. Only they genuinely and truly believe that they represent the only "real" America. To them, they're literally fighting the anti-christ, and Republican Jesus is on their side.
Or you're just a political bigot who believes whatever he sees on MSNBC...
Point essentially made regarding about the biased/partisan political media in the States if ever one was needed.
Not really trying to derail this thread with a political debate, but I think she hit the nail on the head here. Socialists harp on about how much the 1% earn. Well listen to this, if we were to tax the 1% to the point that they lose more than half of their earnings, they will take their businesses, their ideas, their knowledge and their intellect elsewhere which will doom the other 99% to being much poorer.
Well Said and RIP Mags.
Hehe you use a clip where she outright lies in the face of everyone and you talk about "socialism" which you know nothing about. Which country is better off? Socialist Sweden or UK? Looking at welfare, its pretty obvious. (although I agree sweden has gotten worse since we got a right wing party as government).
Rest In Peace Iron Lady, I hope people realize the truth and your crimes against humanity so that you may not be rememberd in lies, but rather someone we can learn to stray far, far away from.
I'm a liberal and I think she's correct. If we tax the arses off of the rich, what's stopping them from going elsewhere and taking their businesses with them?
Mind you, I think in recent years that ideas has come to some big extremes such as the recent controversy around companies like Google, Amazon and Starbucks avoiding tax.
Not really trying to derail this thread with a political debate, but I think she hit the nail on the head here. Socialists harp on about how much the 1% earn. Well listen to this, if we were to tax the 1% to the point that they lose more than half of their earnings, they will take their businesses, their ideas, their knowledge and their intellect elsewhere which will doom the other 99% to being much poorer.
Well Said and RIP Mags.
Hehe you use a clip where she outright lies in the face of everyone and you talk about "socialism" which you know nothing about. Which country is better off? Socialist Sweden or UK? Looking at welfare, its pretty obvious. (although I agree sweden has gotten worse since we got a right wing party as government).
Rest In Peace Iron Lady, I hope people realize the truth and your crimes against humanity so that you may not be rememberd in lies, but rather someone we can learn to stray far, far away from.
I'm a liberal and I think she's correct. If we tax the arses off of the rich, what's stopping them from going elsewhere and taking their businesses with them?
Mind you, I think in recent years that ideas has come to some big extremes such as the recent controversy around companies like Google, Amazon and Starbucks avoiding tax.
On April 09 2013 03:23 Ksi wrote: It's quite interesting to see the differences between America's narrative about Reagan after his death and Brit's reactions to Thatcher's death. They both pretty much harmed the exact same people, but our lower class has throngs of people who put Reagan below only Jesus. I envy you Brits for having a populace that is at the very least aware of their own self interests.
It's actually a pretty good argument for the monarchy. Thatcher was never head of state, so loving or hating her is less about patriotism than it is for Reagan.
You do have a point there, but I think it was only true back in the 80's. In today's political climate, only one side of our political spectrum uses the argument that hating on the President is somehow unpatriotic. The American right actually believes that the senators filibustering every bill, the congressmen yelling "you lie" at Obama at the state of the union, and all the other blanket hatred of our current president is actually their patriotic duty. Only they genuinely and truly believe that they represent the only "real" America. To them, they're literally fighting the anti-christ, and Republican Jesus is on their side.
Or you're just a political bigot who believes whatever he sees on MSNBC...
On April 09 2013 02:15 DeepElemBlues wrote: Socialists and other creatures of the Left
On April 09 2013 02:59 DeepElemBlues wrote: Well Strawman leftist,
I don't mind listening to arguments on both sides, but I have a strong dislike of hypocracy. If you're going to call people out on being a political bigot, I would hope that you would be decent enough to be better than the ones you accuse.
On topic: So far I've been learning a lot on the subject from both right wing and left wing forums. I'll leave my judgement to the people that lived under her rule. Good bye to an influencial person of the 70's.
On April 09 2013 03:23 Ksi wrote: It's quite interesting to see the differences between America's narrative about Reagan after his death and Brit's reactions to Thatcher's death. They both pretty much harmed the exact same people, but our lower class has throngs of people who put Reagan below only Jesus. I envy you Brits for having a populace that is at the very least aware of their own self interests.
It's actually a pretty good argument for the monarchy. Thatcher was never head of state, so loving or hating her is less about patriotism than it is for Reagan.
You do have a point there, but I think it was only true back in the 80's. In today's political climate, only one side of our political spectrum uses the argument that hating on the President is somehow unpatriotic. The American right actually believes that the senators filibustering every bill, the congressmen yelling "you lie" at Obama at the state of the union, and all the other blanket hatred of our current president is actually their patriotic duty. Only they genuinely and truly believe that they represent the only "real" America. To them, they're literally fighting the anti-christ, and Republican Jesus is on their side.
Or you're just a political bigot who believes whatever he sees on MSNBC...
On April 09 2013 02:59 DeepElemBlues wrote: Well Strawman leftist,
I don't mind listening to arguments on both sides, but I have a strong dislike of hypocracy. If you're going to call people out on being a political bigot, I would hope that you would be decent enough to be better than the ones you accuse.
On topic: So far I've been learning a lot on the subject from both right wing and left wing forums. I'll leave my judgement to the people that lived under her rule. Good bye to an influencial person of the 70's.
and 80s, 90s, 00s and still the creator of the dominant political consensus in the UK to this day. One of the reasons Thatcher is so decisive is because her legacy was so broad. Modern Britain is her creation, she is no mere historical figure.
She'd been on my bucket list of people to read up on more since high school when she was quoted on a radio ad for the Heritage Foundation. Influential and unforgettable, to be sure, but I don't know enough about her to agree or disagree with her politics.
Did anyone see "The Iron Lady" perchance? Is it relatively accurate, or is it mostly just propaganda?
I always find it a little funny that the "center" left always reviles Thatcher so, given Thatchers reforms more or less established the current political consensus in Britain. She may have been center right in her day, and maybe a few of her reforms were a bad idea or simply poorly managed, but as a sum what she did for the country firmly places her in a position most ostensible centrists could get behind enthusiastically. Prior to Thatcher the State in Britain was positively a leviathan.
Not really trying to derail this thread with a political debate, but I think she hit the nail on the head here. Socialists harp on about how much the 1% earn. Well listen to this, if we were to tax the 1% to the point that they lose more than half of their earnings, they will take their businesses, their ideas, their knowledge and their intellect elsewhere which will doom the other 99% to being much poorer.
Well Said and RIP Mags.
Hehe you use a clip where she outright lies in the face of everyone and you talk about "socialism" which you know nothing about. Which country is better off? Socialist Sweden or UK? Looking at welfare, its pretty obvious. (although I agree sweden has gotten worse since we got a right wing party as government).
Rest In Peace Iron Lady, I hope people realize the truth and your crimes against humanity so that you may not be rememberd in lies, but rather someone we can learn to stray far, far away from.
I'm a liberal and I think she's correct. If we tax the arses off of the rich, what's stopping them from going elsewhere and taking their businesses with them?
Mind you, I think in recent years that ideas has come to some big extremes such as the recent controversy around companies like Google, Amazon and Starbucks avoiding tax.
Infrastructure? A well-educated, able workforce?
Plenty of other countries have this.
I didn't say that other countries don't, it's just that too often the tax issue is made out to be too simplistic in terms of the high-earners especially. You don't fall into that trap btw, not saying that at all!
On April 09 2013 03:23 Ksi wrote: It's quite interesting to see the differences between America's narrative about Reagan after his death and Brit's reactions to Thatcher's death. They both pretty much harmed the exact same people, but our lower class has throngs of people who put Reagan below only Jesus. I envy you Brits for having a populace that is at the very least aware of their own self interests.
It's actually a pretty good argument for the monarchy. Thatcher was never head of state, so loving or hating her is less about patriotism than it is for Reagan.
You do have a point there, but I think it was only true back in the 80's. In today's political climate, only one side of our political spectrum uses the argument that hating on the President is somehow unpatriotic. The American right actually believes that the senators filibustering every bill, the congressmen yelling "you lie" at Obama at the state of the union, and all the other blanket hatred of our current president is actually their patriotic duty. Only they genuinely and truly believe that they represent the only "real" America. To them, they're literally fighting the anti-christ, and Republican Jesus is on their side.
Or you're just a political bigot who believes whatever he sees on MSNBC...
On April 09 2013 02:59 DeepElemBlues wrote: Well Strawman leftist,
I don't mind listening to arguments on both sides, but I have a strong dislike of hypocracy. If you're going to call people out on being a political bigot, I would hope that you would be decent enough to be better than the ones you accuse.
On topic: So far I've been learning a lot on the subject from both right wing and left wing forums. I'll leave my judgement to the people that lived under her rule. Good bye to an influencial person of the 70's.
Calling a socialist a socialist is not bigotry, it's identification.
Now saying that all socialists want to put the heads of rich people on pikes or that all socialists are greedy powermongers who simply want to tell everyone what to do, that would be stereotyping at best and bigotry at worst.
Let's please raise our level of critical thinking and reading comprehension from the horrible level of ability public and post-secondary education has given us, and start reading what is actually written. "Strawman leftist" was bad writing which I apologize for, he is a leftist using strawmen.
Not really trying to derail this thread with a political debate, but I think she hit the nail on the head here. Socialists harp on about how much the 1% earn. Well listen to this, if we were to tax the 1% to the point that they lose more than half of their earnings, they will take their businesses, their ideas, their knowledge and their intellect elsewhere which will doom the other 99% to being much poorer.
Well Said and RIP Mags.
Hehe you use a clip where she outright lies in the face of everyone and you talk about "socialism" which you know nothing about. Which country is better off? Socialist Sweden or UK? Looking at welfare, its pretty obvious. (although I agree sweden has gotten worse since we got a right wing party as government).
Rest In Peace Iron Lady, I hope people realize the truth and your crimes against humanity so that you may not be rememberd in lies, but rather someone we can learn to stray far, far away from.
I'm a liberal and I think she's correct. If we tax the arses off of the rich, what's stopping them from going elsewhere and taking their businesses with them?
Mind you, I think in recent years that ideas has come to some big extremes such as the recent controversy around companies like Google, Amazon and Starbucks avoiding tax.
Everyone agrees with that, but it's oversimplified. It depends on what you tax and how you tax it. For example, increasing income tax by 10% is not going to suddenly make business owners pack up and leave. Increasing corporation ta by 10% might.
She stood for beliefs which were likely conditioned into her by her early life, just like anyone would do. But she fought for these beliefs with conviction and strength, and for that she must be admired. She made good decisions and bad ones, just like everyone would in a position of such importance, and clearly not everyone was ever going to be happy. In my opinion radical change was needed, and suffering is a necessary part of that (potentially not enough mitigation by Thatcher, however), but if people disagree then that's there right. However, celebrating someone's death, as people I know are doing, is absurd and disrespectful - she was no mass murderer or serial rapist. RIP
On April 09 2013 02:49 DeepElemBlues wrote: (also list the social democratic countries crashing and burning ((save Germany)) in Europe right now)
the notion that social democratic countries in europe bar germany is crashing and burning is so stupid it is almost provoking, but maybe that was your intent all along.
Very well, every social democratic country in Europe bar Germany that did not engage in social welfare and tax and banking reforms in the mid-1990s are currently crashing and burning. Those countries that did engage in sensible reform would be the Scandinavian countries, who experienced on a much smaller scale the very problems the Eurozone is facing now. And guess what: they made doing business easier in their countries, they broadened the tax base, they made parts of their welfare systems means-tested, and they crafted their welfare programs in general so as to actually get people back to
Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal, they're already crashed and burned. Greece is electing large numbers of neo-Nazis for Chrissakes.
France is teetering, much of its banking system wrapped up in debts from the above countries. That's the elephant in the room, what will happen to France if the southern Euro countries fully go belly-up.
Eastern Europe is stagnant, minus countries like Estonia that told Keynesians to screw off and find themselves in fine shape.
Germany cannot (or rather, will not) hand out money forever.
The Eurozone is fucked and not even heaven on Earth, Scandinavia, will emerge unscathed. But it will emerge less scathed because of reforms that tightened up the social welfare system probably about the time you stopped shitting in diapers. You probably would not have been happy about them at the time.
On April 09 2013 03:23 Ksi wrote: It's quite interesting to see the differences between America's narrative about Reagan after his death and Brit's reactions to Thatcher's death. They both pretty much harmed the exact same people, but our lower class has throngs of people who put Reagan below only Jesus. I envy you Brits for having a populace that is at the very least aware of their own self interests.
It's actually a pretty good argument for the monarchy. Thatcher was never head of state, so loving or hating her is less about patriotism than it is for Reagan.
You do have a point there, but I think it was only true back in the 80's. In today's political climate, only one side of our political spectrum uses the argument that hating on the President is somehow unpatriotic. The American right actually believes that the senators filibustering every bill, the congressmen yelling "you lie" at Obama at the state of the union, and all the other blanket hatred of our current president is actually their patriotic duty. Only they genuinely and truly believe that they represent the only "real" America. To them, they're literally fighting the anti-christ, and Republican Jesus is on their side.
Or you're just a political bigot who believes whatever he sees on MSNBC...
On April 09 2013 02:15 DeepElemBlues wrote: Socialists and other creatures of the Left
On April 09 2013 02:59 DeepElemBlues wrote: Well Strawman leftist,
I don't mind listening to arguments on both sides, but I have a strong dislike of hypocracy. If you're going to call people out on being a political bigot, I would hope that you would be decent enough to be better than the ones you accuse.
On topic: So far I've been learning a lot on the subject from both right wing and left wing forums. I'll leave my judgement to the people that lived under her rule. Good bye to an influencial person of the 70's.
Calling a socialist a socialist is not bigotry, it's identification.
Now saying that all socialists want to put the heads of rich people on pikes or that all socialists are greedy powermongers who simply want to tell everyone what to do, that would be stereotyping at best and bigotry at worst.
Let's please raise our level of critical thinking and reading comprehension from the horrible level of ability public and post-secondary education has given us, and start reading what is actually written. "Strawman leftist" was bad writing which I apologize for, he is a leftist using strawmen.
So sadly, no. I was not being hypocritical.
Don't make out that is what your posting in this thread has been like, because it's patently not. You know what you're doing so at least stand by it.
On April 09 2013 03:23 Ksi wrote: It's quite interesting to see the differences between America's narrative about Reagan after his death and Brit's reactions to Thatcher's death. They both pretty much harmed the exact same people, but our lower class has throngs of people who put Reagan below only Jesus. I envy you Brits for having a populace that is at the very least aware of their own self interests.
It's actually a pretty good argument for the monarchy. Thatcher was never head of state, so loving or hating her is less about patriotism than it is for Reagan.
You do have a point there, but I think it was only true back in the 80's. In today's political climate, only one side of our political spectrum uses the argument that hating on the President is somehow unpatriotic. The American right actually believes that the senators filibustering every bill, the congressmen yelling "you lie" at Obama at the state of the union, and all the other blanket hatred of our current president is actually their patriotic duty. Only they genuinely and truly believe that they represent the only "real" America. To them, they're literally fighting the anti-christ, and Republican Jesus is on their side.
Or you're just a political bigot who believes whatever he sees on MSNBC...
On April 09 2013 02:15 DeepElemBlues wrote: Socialists and other creatures of the Left
On April 09 2013 02:59 DeepElemBlues wrote: Well Strawman leftist,
I don't mind listening to arguments on both sides, but I have a strong dislike of hypocracy. If you're going to call people out on being a political bigot, I would hope that you would be decent enough to be better than the ones you accuse.
On topic: So far I've been learning a lot on the subject from both right wing and left wing forums. I'll leave my judgement to the people that lived under her rule. Good bye to an influencial person of the 70's.
Calling a socialist a socialist is not bigotry, it's identification.
Now saying that all socialists want to put the heads of rich people on pikes or that all socialists are greedy powermongers who simply want to tell everyone what to do, that would be stereotyping at best and bigotry at worst.
Let's please raise our level of critical thinking and reading comprehension from the horrible level of ability public and post-secondary education has given us, and start reading what is actually written. "Strawman leftist" was bad writing which I apologize for, he is a leftist using strawmen.
So sadly, no. I was not being hypocritical.
Calling someone a creature was more what I was refering to, not the socialist bit. Maybe my comprehension of english nuances is terrible but it generally doesn't come across as neutral. But I'll leave this thread before it derails even more.
Everyone agrees with that, but it's oversimplified. It depends on what you tax and how you tax it. For example, increasing income tax by 10% is not going to suddenly make business owners pack up and leave. Increasing corporation ta by 10% might.
You'd be surprised, actually. That would severely decrease the disposable income of a large proportion of the population, so some businesses' custom would suffer, and then they might leave. With economics, you can't really just look at direct or obvious effects of decisions.
On April 09 2013 03:23 Ksi wrote: It's quite interesting to see the differences between America's narrative about Reagan after his death and Brit's reactions to Thatcher's death. They both pretty much harmed the exact same people, but our lower class has throngs of people who put Reagan below only Jesus. I envy you Brits for having a populace that is at the very least aware of their own self interests.
It's actually a pretty good argument for the monarchy. Thatcher was never head of state, so loving or hating her is less about patriotism than it is for Reagan.
You do have a point there, but I think it was only true back in the 80's. In today's political climate, only one side of our political spectrum uses the argument that hating on the President is somehow unpatriotic. The American right actually believes that the senators filibustering every bill, the congressmen yelling "you lie" at Obama at the state of the union, and all the other blanket hatred of our current president is actually their patriotic duty. Only they genuinely and truly believe that they represent the only "real" America. To them, they're literally fighting the anti-christ, and Republican Jesus is on their side.
Or you're just a political bigot who believes whatever he sees on MSNBC...
On April 09 2013 02:15 DeepElemBlues wrote: Socialists and other creatures of the Left
On April 09 2013 02:59 DeepElemBlues wrote: Well Strawman leftist,
I don't mind listening to arguments on both sides, but I have a strong dislike of hypocracy. If you're going to call people out on being a political bigot, I would hope that you would be decent enough to be better than the ones you accuse.
On topic: So far I've been learning a lot on the subject from both right wing and left wing forums. I'll leave my judgement to the people that lived under her rule. Good bye to an influencial person of the 70's.
Calling a socialist a socialist is not bigotry, it's identification.
Now saying that all socialists want to put the heads of rich people on pikes or that all socialists are greedy powermongers who simply want to tell everyone what to do, that would be stereotyping at best and bigotry at worst.
Let's please raise our level of critical thinking and reading comprehension from the horrible level of ability public and post-secondary education has given us, and start reading what is actually written. "Strawman leftist" was bad writing which I apologize for, he is a leftist using strawmen.
So sadly, no. I was not being hypocritical.
Don't make out that is what your posting in this thread has been like, because it's patently not. You know what you're doing so at least stand by it.
That's nice. I disagree.
Calling someone a creature was more what I was refering to, not the socialist bit. Maybe my comprehension of english nuances is terrible but it generally doesn't come across as neutral. But I'll leave this thread before it derails even more.
Ah well it is a nuance of English, the creature part was not meant pejoratively, I used it more as a synonym for creation of or member. Like, say, a "creature of the Right," would be someone on the Right who has been molded by Right-wing thinking, or simply, a "member" of the "Right" side of the spectrum.
EPT
