|
On April 09 2013 02:51 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 02:49 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 09 2013 02:45 Aristodemus wrote:
Argentina attacked and invaded British soil, yet "Maggies military strikes" make her a villain? She called Nelson Mandela a terrorist and sided with Pinnochet and the Khymer Rouge. There's no defending that. Hasn't Mandela said she helped him to be released?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-we-were-wrong-to-call-mandela-a-terrorist-413684.html
Refusing to back sanctions against apartheid South Africa as late as the 1980s and calling Mandela a terrorist. What a Prime Minister, RIP.
|
On April 09 2013 02:36 KwarK wrote:
DeepElemBlues,
And yet people repeat "there is no such thing as society" over and over as they heap condemnation upon her. Such is the state of popular political dialogue. Reading context is pretty hard.
Personally I'm not saddened by the "death" of this alleged "Thatcher" anyway, since she doesn't exist: there are individual cells, and there are organs 
|
Northern Ireland23717 Posts
On April 09 2013 02:52 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 02:30 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 02:24 Iyerbeth wrote:On April 09 2013 02:15 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 02:10 Rossie wrote:
A toxic, inhumane woman whose world view was typified by the statement: "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."
Everything that went wrong with the UK (housing crisis, banking crisis, lopsided dependence on the City, de-industrial revolution and the stricken communities created by it) was the direct result of her policies.
The only good thing I can say about her is that David Cameron is twice as evil. Taken out of context as you would know if you'd looked into her history and politics at all before repeating such a often misquoted statement. Here it is in full "They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation" What it means is that saying that something is "society's problem" or an obligation of society doesn't mean anything because society isn't a real person who can come in and fix everything for us. It's made up of individual men and women. You should take your meaningless, superficial and ultimately idiotic critique back to youtube comments where they belong. I think it's somewhat misleading to suggest that that is the quote in full there.
What is wrong with the deterioration? I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—“It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it”. That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people: “All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!” but when people come and say: “But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!” You say: “Look” It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!”
And you don't agree that there is a disconnect in the mind of the people between demanding that their neighbour subsidise their income when they want a government grant and putting the burden on 'society'? Because I think there is. I think things would be an awful lot better if there was a genuine awareness of people that while we have this safety net in place, and we should have it, it is paid for by individuals and families. When you go on the dole there is a family that might be scraping by that is being forced to add your expenses into their weekly budget because you are telling society that you cannot support yourself. When people take money from the state they don't think about it in those terms because the idea that society is a person who is very rich and has money to spare is much more comforting. But it's not true, society doesn't exist, when you become a burden on society you are becoming a burden on real people and on real families. Yes, society is made up of people -- but not just people, but also institutions. "Society" and "people" are not exclusive concepts. Rather, they're completely linked to each other. This is what political ideology does when it comes across a word it doesn't like -- it tried to twist it or erase it into something else. Society exists, and you live in it. Some people are a burden to society -- but it isn't just the poor. A lot of institutions and people can burden society in different ways -- which in turn effects real people. When you spend tax dollars on military power that the country doesn't need -- you're burdening society. Everyone is paying into something that is essentially useless. When a company shirks its taxes and pays its workers unlivable wages -- they're burdening society. Maggie wants to erase the notion of society (and "community" would be another pesky word she doesn't like, I imagine). So where does that leave business? Or government? Governments and businesses don't belong to any one person -- so how the hell do they exist? Because we live in a society. I wish Kurt Vonnegut were alive right now. His main philosophy of "extending families" would do well to be represented here.
Exactly, the quote, in or out of context is really irrelevant. People don't hate her because of the 'there is no society' quote, but the subsequent actions of her time in power. People aren't always morons you know and can make a value judgement based on what happened around them and in their communities.
Not to say Thatcher was personally culpable in everything at all, but her role in creating a more divisive, antagonistic society in certain respects was a pretty big one.
|
On April 09 2013 02:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Surely, you're not an Argentinian, and even more surely, you didn't lose anyone due to her military actions. "Innocent people [snigger]?" Right... Surely everyone who died from Maggie's military strikes were completely guilty and deserved to be executed. I'm just gonna say it the vibe I'm getting here is that it doesn't matter that Argentina attacked unprovoked, the Western, capitalist side was just plain wrong. Because. Show nested quote +Yes, to a degree they did, and Maggie didn't appreciate them -- or do you think British people in the 1970's were just inherently lazier for no real reason? She used idiotic rhetoric to simply segregate people from each other -- to tell use that we're not responsible for anyone else. Her rhetoric was as wrong and stupid as it is cruel. 1. Britain's economy in the late 1970s was an absolute shambles. Fact. 2. As already explained, she did not say that we are not responsible for anyone else. 3. It is typical of the Left to accuse the Right of idiocy, dividing people, being wrong and stupid and cruel. And yet, we see the most idiotic of ideas (communism/socialism) come from the left, we see the most cruel and divisive and wrong rhetoric come from the Left (the hatred expressed for the rich, or for Christians, or for whites, etc.), and we've seen that their ideas are simply wrong (list all communist countries here, crashed and burned every one except NK and Cuba) (also list the social democratic countries crashing and burning ((save Germany)) in Europe right now) (also list the massive failures of countries like Argentina to improve their economies). So really, just keep throwing out the typical agitprop line straight from the Kremlin circa 1949.
1. Britain's economy was an absolute shambles because we were recovering from the biggest wars in history. Thatcher implemented a temporary fix which has now come back to hurt us.
3. Sure, everything that you disagree with is idiocy and we all countries should do everything exactly like the USA does. Europeans are all communists or socialists at heart. /sarcasm
|
On April 09 2013 02:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 02:49 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 09 2013 02:45 Aristodemus wrote:
Argentina attacked and invaded British soil, yet "Maggies military strikes" make her a villain? She called Nelson Mandela a terrorist and sided with Pinnochet and the Khymer Rouge. There's no defending that. Show nested quote +Margaret Thatcher stated that "So, you'll find that the more reasonable ones of the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in the future government, but only a minority part. I share your utter horror that these terrible things went on in Kampuchea." She objected to kicking them out of the UN for the sake of retaining a dialogue with the more reasonable elements within the country while condemning the atrocities.
You think there were reasonable elements within the Khmer Rouge?
|
United States41931 Posts
On April 09 2013 02:52 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 02:30 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 02:24 Iyerbeth wrote:On April 09 2013 02:15 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 02:10 Rossie wrote:
A toxic, inhumane woman whose world view was typified by the statement: "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."
Everything that went wrong with the UK (housing crisis, banking crisis, lopsided dependence on the City, de-industrial revolution and the stricken communities created by it) was the direct result of her policies.
The only good thing I can say about her is that David Cameron is twice as evil. Taken out of context as you would know if you'd looked into her history and politics at all before repeating such a often misquoted statement. Here it is in full "They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation" What it means is that saying that something is "society's problem" or an obligation of society doesn't mean anything because society isn't a real person who can come in and fix everything for us. It's made up of individual men and women. You should take your meaningless, superficial and ultimately idiotic critique back to youtube comments where they belong. I think it's somewhat misleading to suggest that that is the quote in full there.
What is wrong with the deterioration? I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—“It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it”. That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people: “All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!” but when people come and say: “But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!” You say: “Look” It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!”
And you don't agree that there is a disconnect in the mind of the people between demanding that their neighbour subsidise their income when they want a government grant and putting the burden on 'society'? Because I think there is. I think things would be an awful lot better if there was a genuine awareness of people that while we have this safety net in place, and we should have it, it is paid for by individuals and families. When you go on the dole there is a family that might be scraping by that is being forced to add your expenses into their weekly budget because you are telling society that you cannot support yourself. When people take money from the state they don't think about it in those terms because the idea that society is a person who is very rich and has money to spare is much more comforting. But it's not true, society doesn't exist, when you become a burden on society you are becoming a burden on real people and on real families. Yes, society is made up of people -- but not just people, but also institutions. "Society" and "people" are not exclusive concepts. Rather, they're completely linked to each other. This is what political ideology does when it comes across a word it doesn't like -- it tried to twist it or erase it into something else. Society exists, and you live in it. Some people are a burden to society -- but it isn't just the poor. A lot of institutions and people can burden society in different ways -- which in turn effects real people. When you spend tax dollars on military power that the country doesn't need -- you're burdening society. Everyone is paying into something that is essentially useless. When a company shirks its taxes and pays its workers unlivable wages -- they're burdening society. Maggie wants to erase the notion of society (and "community" would be another pesky word she doesn't like, I imagine). So where does that leave business? Or government? Governments and businesses don't belong to any one person -- so how the hell do they exist? Because we live in a society. I wish Kurt Vonnegut were alive right now. His main philosophy of "extending families" would do well to be represented here.
Her point cuts both ways. When you allow a business to cheat its taxes then it is not robbing the idea of society, it is robbing real people. That is even more relevant today while Amazon, Starbucks and so forth dodge taxes in the UK. They're not stealing from the government or from society, they're stealing from you and me and Thatcher got that and would have gone after them for it.
As for the military being a waste, it is strange to me that you make that point while talking about Thatcher, who presided over the last time British soil was invaded by a foreign nation and used the military to secure the self detirmination of British people, to make that point. Either way, the military is something we democratically vote to spend money on, it's not especially relevant to anything.
|
I wasn't born in her era but reading about the policies she introduced, I am kinda on the fence.
I agree with the tax changes. Maybe tax cuts should have been less relaxed for the rich but I didn't agree with Poll Tax because from what I heard, many communities in the North and in Scotland where they trialled the scheme simply couldn't pay the rates demanded. Income tax should have been remained the default.
On invading the Falklands. I agree with that move. Despite geographical distance, Argentina holds no claim to the Falkland Islands. Their citizens are British subjects and in a recent poll voted almost unanimously to stay a British overseas territory. We should have defended our territories in that situation and we did.
On the coal miners strike and the manufacturing industry in Britain, we should have tried to save it instead of leaving it to decline like Thatcher did.
On Northern Ireland, a hard-line stance should not have been pursued especially towards Republican prisoners on hunger strike. The Good Friday agreement and a second Bloody Sunday inquiry should have happened years ago.
|
United States41931 Posts
On April 09 2013 02:55 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 02:52 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 02:49 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 09 2013 02:45 Aristodemus wrote:
Argentina attacked and invaded British soil, yet "Maggies military strikes" make her a villain? She called Nelson Mandela a terrorist and sided with Pinnochet and the Khymer Rouge. There's no defending that. Margaret Thatcher stated that "So, you'll find that the more reasonable ones of the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in the future government, but only a minority part. I share your utter horror that these terrible things went on in Kampuchea." She objected to kicking them out of the UN for the sake of retaining a dialogue with the more reasonable elements within the country while condemning the atrocities. You think there were reasonable elements within the Khmer Rouge?
I couldn't name names but I'd wager that every institution everywhere has people of varying fervour and corruptability.
|
1. Britain's economy was an absolute shambles because we were recovering from the biggest wars in history. Thatcher implemented a temporary fix which has now come back to hurt us.
Ummm, World War 2 ended in 1945. Britain's economy was in a shambles because Eden and the rest built a huge welfare state supported by a malformed economic apparatus. Most of the world, Britain not excluded, had huge economic boom times in the 1960s that turned into stagflation and other economic badness in the 1970s, because of bad government policies.
3. Sure, everything that you disagree with is idiocy and we all countries should do everything exactly like the USA does. Europeans are all communists or socialists at heart. /sarcasm
Well Strawman leftist, the things I listed as idiocy are in fact idiocy, I made no claims regarding everything I disagree with being idiocy, or that every country should do everything just like the USA, or that all Europeans are all commie pinko reds at heart.
Simply pointing out that one system is evidently vastly superior to both the communist/socialist and social democratic models, as results have shown time and time again.
|
On April 09 2013 02:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 02:39 Iyerbeth wrote:On April 09 2013 02:30 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 02:24 Iyerbeth wrote:On April 09 2013 02:15 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 02:10 Rossie wrote:
A toxic, inhumane woman whose world view was typified by the statement: "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."
Everything that went wrong with the UK (housing crisis, banking crisis, lopsided dependence on the City, de-industrial revolution and the stricken communities created by it) was the direct result of her policies.
The only good thing I can say about her is that David Cameron is twice as evil. Taken out of context as you would know if you'd looked into her history and politics at all before repeating such a often misquoted statement. Here it is in full "They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation" What it means is that saying that something is "society's problem" or an obligation of society doesn't mean anything because society isn't a real person who can come in and fix everything for us. It's made up of individual men and women. You should take your meaningless, superficial and ultimately idiotic critique back to youtube comments where they belong. I think it's somewhat misleading to suggest that that is the quote in full there.
What is wrong with the deterioration? I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—“It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it”. That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people: “All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!” but when people come and say: “But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!” You say: “Look” It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!”
And you don't agree that there is a disconnect in the mind of the people between demanding that their neighbour subsidise their income when they want a government grant and putting the burden on 'society'? Because I think there is. I think things would be an awful lot better if there was a genuine awareness of people that while we have this safety net in place, and we should have it, it is paid for by individuals and families. When you go on the dole there is a family that might be scraping by that is being forced to add your expenses into their weekly budget because you are telling society that you cannot support yourself. When people take money from the state they don't think about it in those terms because the idea that society is a person who is very rich and has money to spare is much more comforting. But it's not true, society doesn't exist, when you become a burden on society you are becoming a burden on real people and on real families. I absolutely agree that people need to be aware of the cost to real people, I certainly wouldn't argue otherwise. My issue with her statement that there is no such thing as society was that she was specifically dismissing the concerns of real people, many of who she was actively causing severe disruption to (severe enough that its effects are still apparent today) for an ideological class war. She specifically disliked the idea of everyone in it together, which is why she was dismissing society. Her concern, even in the quote, isn't deteriation of society, isn't that work should pay decently, that housing should be built and available (see: Liverpool especially) or even a concern for people in general. Her statement that society doesn't exist really is an attack on society, in favour of personal greed. She merely obfuscates it well behind her language, the message is unmistakable. I agree that she was ideologically motivated but you cannot divorce her from the context in which she operated in. Class war was upon her and the country was falling apart. The post war economic consensus had led to a lack of investment in British industry, complacency, British products becoming uncompetitive on the world market and increasingly large sectors of money losing business becoming part of the public sector until eventually the state became literally bankrupt. The working class fired the first salvo in the impending class war when they brought the country to its knees with strikes at the suggestion that the state could not afford to subsidise their lifestyles forever when their produce was worth less than their pay. Heath fell to the working class attacks and Thatcher rose to take the fight back at them, a fight which was subsequently won and saw a significant increase in the standard of living of the general population compared to that which would have been had the class war been lost. Again, context defines her actions.
I would again agree that her actions must be considered in context, but I hadn't begun to explain why I think she was wrong on everything else she said and did. I was merely hoping to point out that quoting the "there is no such thing as society" line is absolutely quoting her within context, she really did mean to say that looking out for one's self was the important bit, not working to prevent the deterioration of society. I think your first response to that, where you had expanded the quote to a more pleasant light, was what was missing the context with that line. She absolutely should be remembered as the prime minister who said there is no such thing as society.
Her policies though, when taken in context, were still those of a prime minister actively attempting to divide the country. That is never a good leader, and as such it's hardly surprising that the majority of those she specifically attacked will remember her with hatred. It is also, I think, unfair to presume that had she not won (and what a devestating victory it was) that everything would have collapsed and failed. The alternative wasn't to do nothing. I would be surprised if any alternative could have done quite so much damage the UK as she was able to.
|
On April 09 2013 02:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 02:55 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 09 2013 02:52 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 02:49 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 09 2013 02:45 Aristodemus wrote:
Argentina attacked and invaded British soil, yet "Maggies military strikes" make her a villain? She called Nelson Mandela a terrorist and sided with Pinnochet and the Khymer Rouge. There's no defending that. Margaret Thatcher stated that "So, you'll find that the more reasonable ones of the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in the future government, but only a minority part. I share your utter horror that these terrible things went on in Kampuchea." She objected to kicking them out of the UN for the sake of retaining a dialogue with the more reasonable elements within the country while condemning the atrocities. You think there were reasonable elements within the Khmer Rouge? I couldn't name names but I'd wager that every institution everywhere has people of varying fervour and corruptability.
The "reasonable elements" were people opposed to the Viet Minh, not people opposed to genocide.
|
On April 09 2013 02:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Surely, you're not an Argentinian, and even more surely, you didn't lose anyone due to her military actions. "Innocent people [snigger]?" Right... Surely everyone who died from Maggie's military strikes were completely guilty and deserved to be executed. I'm just gonna say it the vibe I'm getting here is that it doesn't matter that Argentina attacked unprovoked, the Western, capitalist side was just plain wrong. Because.
Even British people thought her reaction was disproportionate to what needed to be done. She wasn't defending Britain, she was punishing Argentina. There is a difference.
Show nested quote +Yes, to a degree they did, and Maggie didn't appreciate them -- or do you think British people in the 1970's were just inherently lazier for no real reason? She used idiotic rhetoric to simply segregate people from each other -- to tell use that we're not responsible for anyone else. Her rhetoric was as wrong and stupid as it is cruel. 1. Britain's economy in the late 1970s was an absolute shambles. Fact. 2. As already explained, she did not say that we are not responsible for anyone else. 3. It is typical of the Left to accuse the Right of idiocy, dividing people, being wrong and stupid and cruel. And yet, we see the most idiotic of ideas (communism/socialism) come from the left, we see the most cruel and divisive and wrong rhetoric come from the Left (the hatred expressed for the rich, or for Christians, or for whites, etc.), and we've seen that their ideas are simply wrong (list all communist countries here, crashed and burned every one except NK and Cuba) (also list the social democratic countries crashing and burning ((save Germany)) in Europe right now) (also list the massive failures of countries like Argentina to improve their economies). So really, just keep throwing out the typical agitprop line straight from the Kremlin circa 1949.
You completely just changed the topic here. The point is why was the economy struggling? I never argued that the economy needed help. But her idea of help, and yours I assume, is to help institutions that don't really need help and will always exist in one form or another. People want to work, and trade will always exist. We don't need to think that if we don't give "businesses" as much comfort as possible, then people somehow just become useless bags of meat.
Right-wingers talk about businesses as if they're sentient beings. "Tax them and they'll leave." Who/What will leave? A name on a billboard? I understand there are economic nuances to be discussed in keeping businesses healthy and growing -- but realize that the only reason to care about any of that is for the impact they have on society. Business can do very well for itself while society suffers, for example, the Industrial Revolution. Great for business -- but society struggled.
What's important, and what a public servant should be concerned with is the actual welfare of the people. She didn't see it that way.
All countries provide welfare to one degree or another. All governments foster societies of one quality or another. You can care for your society and still have a free market -- just like you can believe in society and still realize that the burdens of society are ultimately carried by individuals. You use "Communism" and "Marxism" the way Maggie uses the word "society". You don't know what the words mean.
What you're saying about "Christians and whites" --- I don't even want to know, don't care. It seems completely out of line, meaningless, and irrelevant. "Something, something culture war" complaints from the people who're getting culturally left-behind by no one's fault but their own.
|
On April 09 2013 02:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 02:10 Rossie wrote:
A toxic, inhumane woman whose world view was typified by the statement: "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."
Everything that went wrong with the UK (housing crisis, banking crisis, lopsided dependence on the City, de-industrial revolution and the stricken communities created by it) was the direct result of her policies.
The only good thing I can say about her is that David Cameron is twice as evil. Taken out of context as you would know if you'd looked into her history and politics at all before repeating such a often misquoted statement. Here it is in full Show nested quote +"They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation" What it means is that saying that something is "society's problem" or an obligation of society doesn't mean anything because society isn't a real person who can come in and fix everything for us. It's made up of individual men and women. You should take your meaningless, superficial and ultimately idiotic critique back to youtube comments where they belong.
i know i don't have any right to speak up as a big lurker in this community, but dear god, are you expressing yourself aggressively lately. i noticed the attitude in the falklands thread way back. what's bothering you, rl troubles? either way you should maybe take a deep breath before posting, since so many people here look up to admins, with TL being so idiot-proof and all, so no point leaving a bad example...
|
United States41931 Posts
On April 09 2013 02:58 Clbull wrote:
On the coal miners strike and the manufacturing industry in Britain, we should have tried to save it instead of leaving it to decline like Thatcher did.
On Northern Ireland, a hard-line stance should not have been pursued especially towards Republican prisoners on hunger strike. The Good Friday agreement and a second Bloody Sunday inquiry should have happened years ago.
We tried to save the mining and manufacturing industry for decades, nationalising each business that went bankrupt in turn as they were unable to find buyers for their merchandise, failed to properly invest and became unprofitable. The result is that in 1976 the country went bankrupt. Literally. The PM had to go to the IMF and ask for a loan to pay the wages of those who were employed by the state because their labour did not pay for itself because it had been subsidised after it ceased to be productive. She didn't hate miners, it's not that simple. The country didn't have any money.
On Northern Ireland, the hunger strikers demanded to be treated as political prisoners after planting bombs that killed civilians. Thatcher insisted that they be treated as common criminals because in her view once you start murdering people over your politics that's what you become. Politics is politics and murder is murder, there isn't a crossover and being really hungry doesn't change that. It's unfortunate that Bobby Sands thought that if he got hungry enough then murder would become political but his eventual death wasn't enough to convince me.
|
On April 09 2013 02:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 02:55 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 09 2013 02:52 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 02:49 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 09 2013 02:45 Aristodemus wrote:
Argentina attacked and invaded British soil, yet "Maggies military strikes" make her a villain? She called Nelson Mandela a terrorist and sided with Pinnochet and the Khymer Rouge. There's no defending that. Margaret Thatcher stated that "So, you'll find that the more reasonable ones of the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in the future government, but only a minority part. I share your utter horror that these terrible things went on in Kampuchea." She objected to kicking them out of the UN for the sake of retaining a dialogue with the more reasonable elements within the country while condemning the atrocities. You think there were reasonable elements within the Khmer Rouge? I couldn't name names but I'd wager that every institution everywhere has people of varying fervour and corruptability.
So basically there's no one. I did History at Uni and did a reasonable bit on Cambodia. They were as extreme as it gets and as they only lasted for 4 years there was never any time for them to mellow and a Gorbachev to come around. We're talking about a regime who were killing people for wearing glasses.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On April 09 2013 02:15 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Socialists and other creatures of the Left are angry that she took them on on their own terms, ground them into a pulp, destroyed the sinecures and subsidies and distortions that had wrecked the economy during the 70s, and basically pwned the hidebound, reactionary Left over and over again. Now that she's incapable of rhetorically body-slamming them, the bile they kept inside for so long is being vomited out.
Music to my ears.
RIP Margaret. World needs more Union crushers like her.
|
Northern Ireland23717 Posts
I actually agree with Thatcher on the hunger strikers and her position is one I agree with to this day. People are walking the streets because of Good Friday who are nothing more than ill-educated killers.
Sometimes you have to swallow a bitter pill to progress though, I suppose.
|
On April 09 2013 02:59 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +1. Britain's economy was an absolute shambles because we were recovering from the biggest wars in history. Thatcher implemented a temporary fix which has now come back to hurt us. Ummm, World War 2 ended in 1945. Britain's economy was in a shambles because Eden and the rest built a huge welfare state supported by a malformed economic apparatus. Most of the world, Britain not excluded, had huge economic boom times in the 1960s that turned into stagflation and other economic badness in the 1970s, because of bad government policies. Show nested quote +3. Sure, everything that you disagree with is idiocy and we all countries should do everything exactly like the USA does. Europeans are all communists or socialists at heart. /sarcasm Well Strawman leftist, the things I listed as idiocy are in fact idiocy, I made no claims regarding everything I disagree with being idiocy, or that every country should do everything just like the USA, or that all Europeans are all commie pinko reds at heart. Simply pointing out that one system is evidently vastly superior to both the communist/socialist and social democratic models, as results have shown time and time again.
I like the part where some 20 year old American who wasn't even alive in the 70s/80s thinks he knows more about British society than we do.
|
And why are some people in this thread claiming that people are only slagging her off now? Are you insane? We've been slagging her off ever since she was elected.
|
On April 09 2013 02:54 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 02:52 Leporello wrote:On April 09 2013 02:30 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 02:24 Iyerbeth wrote:On April 09 2013 02:15 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 02:10 Rossie wrote:
A toxic, inhumane woman whose world view was typified by the statement: "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."
Everything that went wrong with the UK (housing crisis, banking crisis, lopsided dependence on the City, de-industrial revolution and the stricken communities created by it) was the direct result of her policies.
The only good thing I can say about her is that David Cameron is twice as evil. Taken out of context as you would know if you'd looked into her history and politics at all before repeating such a often misquoted statement. Here it is in full "They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation" What it means is that saying that something is "society's problem" or an obligation of society doesn't mean anything because society isn't a real person who can come in and fix everything for us. It's made up of individual men and women. You should take your meaningless, superficial and ultimately idiotic critique back to youtube comments where they belong. I think it's somewhat misleading to suggest that that is the quote in full there.
What is wrong with the deterioration? I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—“It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it”. That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people: “All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!” but when people come and say: “But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!” You say: “Look” It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!”
And you don't agree that there is a disconnect in the mind of the people between demanding that their neighbour subsidise their income when they want a government grant and putting the burden on 'society'? Because I think there is. I think things would be an awful lot better if there was a genuine awareness of people that while we have this safety net in place, and we should have it, it is paid for by individuals and families. When you go on the dole there is a family that might be scraping by that is being forced to add your expenses into their weekly budget because you are telling society that you cannot support yourself. When people take money from the state they don't think about it in those terms because the idea that society is a person who is very rich and has money to spare is much more comforting. But it's not true, society doesn't exist, when you become a burden on society you are becoming a burden on real people and on real families. Yes, society is made up of people -- but not just people, but also institutions. "Society" and "people" are not exclusive concepts. Rather, they're completely linked to each other. This is what political ideology does when it comes across a word it doesn't like -- it tried to twist it or erase it into something else. Society exists, and you live in it. Some people are a burden to society -- but it isn't just the poor. A lot of institutions and people can burden society in different ways -- which in turn effects real people. When you spend tax dollars on military power that the country doesn't need -- you're burdening society. Everyone is paying into something that is essentially useless. When a company shirks its taxes and pays its workers unlivable wages -- they're burdening society. Maggie wants to erase the notion of society (and "community" would be another pesky word she doesn't like, I imagine). So where does that leave business? Or government? Governments and businesses don't belong to any one person -- so how the hell do they exist? Because we live in a society. I wish Kurt Vonnegut were alive right now. His main philosophy of "extending families" would do well to be represented here. Exactly, the quote, in or out of context is really irrelevant. People don't hate her because of the 'there is no society' quote, but the subsequent actions of her time in power. People aren't always morons you know and can make a value judgement based on what happened around them and in their communities. Not to say Thatcher was personally culpable in everything at all, but her role in creating a more divisive, antagonistic society in certain respects was a pretty big one.
I disagree. Some people just can't handle their limitations and will shout and moan about it forever. She made everyone richer and the gap between rich and poor went up only 10%.
Labour made everyone poorer and the gap between rich and poor went up by much more!
Thatcher was years ahead of her time on the economy, gay rights, abortion, the welfare state pretty much everything.
The petty vindictiveness of a vocal minority will soon be forgotten, but I guarantee you that Margaret Thatcher will go down in history as one of the greatest, most innovative politicians of all time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
