EPTMargaret Thatcher dies at age 87 - Page 19
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26336 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9781 Posts
On April 09 2013 20:36 sinii wrote: Lots of short sighted people, brainwashed by effects her actions had on their immediate surrounding areas where they live or lived are the one's who claim to hate her. They fail to see the bigger picture. Politics is full of men, ironically it was the one without balls who had the balls necessary to make the difficult decisions. She done the country a great service and it's sickening the hate she receives. And lots of people in London or the home counties like her. I don't say that they are brainwashed, because i am rational. The bigger picture is that she transferred all the wealth and power in this country to certain areas (her favourite ones) and left everyone else to rot. Brainwashed is just your way of saying you don't agree, probably because you live in an area that has benefited. Its naive to think that the places REALLY badly affected by Thatcher will recover. They haven't yet, and i don't see it happening any time soon. | ||
|
Rossie
136 Posts
On April 09 2013 20:36 sinii wrote: Bigger picture: The destruction of the British economy, you mean?Lots of short sighted people, brainwashed by effects her actions had on their immediate surrounding areas where they live or lived are the one's who claim to hate her. They fail to see the bigger picture. | ||
|
Aristodemus
England2009 Posts
| ||
|
sinii
England989 Posts
On April 09 2013 20:59 Jockmcplop wrote: And lots of people in London or the home counties like her. I don't say that they are brainwashed, because i am rational. The bigger picture is that she transferred all the wealth and power in this country to certain areas (her favourite ones) and left everyone else to rot. Brainwashed is just your way of saying you don't agree, probably because you live in an area that has benefited. Its naive to think that the places REALLY badly affected by Thatcher will recover. They haven't yet, and i don't see it happening any time soon. I use the term brainwashed because that is effectively where the hate is coming from, people in these areas got told by their parents about how bad she was how she shut down all the mine etc etc. They don't see the bigger picture, the mines were losing the country money. It was an unsustainable business and it was far too heavily dragged down with union rights and self entitled workers. Keeping the mines going would have made the entire country far worse off. There was literally no option but to do what she did, and she had to live with the hate she recieved for it. | ||
|
Hypemeup
Sweden2783 Posts
Shame she did suffer from alzheimers, I would not wish that on anymore, must be horribly stressful to live with. | ||
|
sinii
England989 Posts
On April 09 2013 21:18 Rossie wrote: Bigger picture: The destruction of the British economy, you mean? Well your clearly well informed and educated on the subject.... not. User was warned for this post | ||
|
Aeroplaneoverthesea
United Kingdom1977 Posts
On April 09 2013 21:38 sinii wrote: Well your clearly well informed and educated on the subject.... not. Yeah irony is not your friend. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26336 Posts
| ||
|
Aeroplaneoverthesea
United Kingdom1977 Posts
On April 09 2013 21:42 Wombat_NI wrote: Lol, posting a response in the manner of Bill and Ted is hardly a particularly good riposte is it? It's a total waste of time arguing about politics on TL. As soon as you posted anything about this at length you will have x number of clowns from America or Sweden born in the 90s who couldn't even point to Newcastle, Sunderland or Manchester on a map telling me how what she did was necessary for the British economy and how the unions were too powerful in 70s and 80s Britain which they only discovered after they read the post above their own. | ||
|
Hitch-22
Canada753 Posts
I fear this discussion has done me more good then most of you for now I'll shine a different light on the community and expect much less in dialogue and pouch for the few who can make a standing argument against Thatcher without falling to hyperbolic statements and grand gestures of inflaming idiotic assertions backed by sub-par (if any) sources. | ||
|
Aristodemus
England2009 Posts
On April 09 2013 21:46 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: It's a total waste of time arguing about politics on TL. As soon as you posted anything about this at length you will have x number of clowns from America or Sweden born in the 90s who couldn't even point to Newcastle, Sunderland or Manchester on a map telling me how what she did was necessary for the British economy and how the unions were too powerful in 70s and 80s Britain which they only discovered after they read the post above their own. Again and again you have insulted the views of people just because they are not from the UK. Do you think you represent the people of Britain? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26336 Posts
The necessity of dealing with rampant Union power abuses, I don't disagree with that. The Unions had essentially become another bloated, corrupt mess with egotistical figures at their heads. The tragedy is that in crushing the unions, it wasn't those people who suffered, but those at the bottom who bore the brunt of the impact. I don't necessarily subscribe to the view that this was her intention at the time, or that she was 'evil' and wanted to crush the poor, but it did create problems in those areas. I'm not against privitising industry, in and of itself ideologically. However if you're going to privatise, do it properly, don't half-ass it and create hybrid monstrosities that wouldn't survive as business in a real free market. Deregulation of the media, enabling Murdoch to establish a grip, I'm not sure was necessarily any kind of deliberate act to polarise our media in certain directions, but I feel it has had the consequence of doing so, to the detriment of the country. | ||
|
Aeroplaneoverthesea
United Kingdom1977 Posts
On April 09 2013 21:52 Aristodemus wrote: Again and again you have insulted the views of people just because they are not from the UK. Do you think you represent the people of Britain? Incorrect. I have insulted people views when it's clear they don't have the first clue about the country they're pretending to know about. That's the problem with TL's politics thread. Full of people without even a vague familiarity running their mouths like they're some kind of expert. The worst example of this I've seen being the ever comical London Riot's thread. | ||
|
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
On April 09 2013 21:47 Hitch-22 wrote: I fear this discussion has done me more good then most of you for now I'll shine a different light on the community and expect much less in dialogue and pouch for the few who can make a standing argument against Thatcher without falling to hyperbolic statements and grand gestures of inflaming idiotic assertions backed by sub-par (if any) sources. Are you suggesting those making arguements for her have done any differently? I could absolutely write a critique of her politics were it worth the time, but I imagine most people here really interested in the debate enough to read it will already have known what I were to say, before I say it. | ||
|
Aristodemus
England2009 Posts
For the record I am not supporting Thatcher, merely disappointed by the people celebrating her death. | ||
|
McBengt
Sweden1684 Posts
On April 09 2013 21:52 Aristodemus wrote: Again and again you have insulted the views of people just because they are not from the UK. Do you think you represent the people of Britain? It's a common theme, and always confusing. It's like saying straight people cannot talk about gay rights, or men not talk about women's rights. Makes no sense. | ||
|
Asymmetric
Scotland1309 Posts
On April 09 2013 20:36 sinii wrote: They fail to see the bigger picture. By bigger picture you mean the bank of England fixing interest rates to benefit London homeowners with total disregard for the needs of the rest of the country at the time right? She didn't save this country, she destroyed its future and began the boom and bust mentality we're currently in. | ||
|
Aeroplaneoverthesea
United Kingdom1977 Posts
On April 09 2013 22:06 McBengt wrote: It's a common theme, and always confusing. It's like saying straight people cannot talk about gay rights, or men not talk about women's rights. Makes no sense. It makes perfect sense when people demonstrate they have no idea about modern British society nevermind about British society in the 1970s. | ||
|
Hitch-22
Canada753 Posts
On April 09 2013 22:00 Iyerbeth wrote: Are you suggesting those making arguements for her have done any differently? I could absolutely write a critique of her politics were it worth the time, but I imagine most people here really interested in the debate enough to read it will already have known what I were to say, before I say it. Look no further then Kwark to see how one should discuss a topic. So what you're saying is its better to add no substance because people won't read it and a few lines of non-substance is better? That's what I got from your last part. | ||
| ||
