RIP Margaret Thatcher
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-04-2013, 09:49 PM
RE: RIP Margaret Thatcher
(12-04-2013 03:02 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  But, Pfizer might have you arrested for misspelling their name.





Fast forward to 28 seconds.

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2013, 10:24 PM (This post was last modified: 14-04-2013 08:20 PM by Erxomai.)
RE: RIP Margaret Thatcher
(08-04-2013 10:35 AM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(08-04-2013 10:04 AM)FSM_scot Wrote:  And that makes her some kind of hero? Hell no. Take off the "oh she was a woman in a mans world " glasses and look at what she did to this country, how she ground people into the ground, sold off our assets, made our economy financial based (part of the cause of the double dip recession the uk is still suffering through),communities were torn apart, benefits Cut to the point people had a hard time feeding their families, made thousands unemployed, privatised public services, covered up a massacre in Ireland, covered up the death of fans at a football game, Supported apartheid labelling the anti apartheid movement "terrorists". Supporter of Pinochet, The Poll tax unfairly trialled on the scots in an attempt at revenge for her receiving no seats from my country.
There is so much more.

She was not a champion of women or women's rights, she was an evil person who beat this country into submission making life worse for men, women and children, she was one of the worst rulers in my countries history, over 2 decade on and the country still hasn't recovered from the damage she inflicted. The last time that happened it involved the Luftwaffe.

Not that I'm overly up on 80's politics but from what I can gather she saved the country from economic ruin.

That could be considered positive.

^^^this was huge. You young'ns don't remember.

Her other huge contribution was she introduced Gorbachev to Reagan and told Ronny that Gorby would be amenable to work with the evil West and lead to the tearing down the Great Wall of China.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2013, 09:08 AM
RE: RIP Margaret Thatcher
Ssssooo..... I read a lot of criticism but I have to wonder... Why was she re-elected, twice?
Could it be that everything being protested here now was actually popular back then?
History is always inaccurate but some of the assumptions here are plainly revisionist.

Same question could be applied to Reagan and most other american presidents though.
----------
And as for not criticising Apartheid. How often does Cameron or Obama criticise everything that is currntly wrong with the world? And South Africa was and still is a big trade partner.

And I don't know if someone here mentioned it or if I read it somewhere else, but Mandela was always a questionable figure.
There was evidence of him forming a guerilla army and planning an armed revolt. When questioned he said "well, I wasn't really gonna do it". And is that really inspiring confidence?
I would equate him there with Gandhi.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch...hi/308550/
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

Aspiring optimist
Eternal Pragmatist.
With the uncanny ability to see all sides in every argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2013, 09:20 AM (This post was last modified: 14-04-2013 09:23 AM by FSM_scot.)
RE: RIP Margaret Thatcher
(14-04-2013 09:08 AM)Caveman Wrote:  Ssssooo..... I read a lot of criticism but I have to wonder... Why was she re-elected, twice?
Could it be that everything being protested here now was actually popular back then?
History is always inaccurate but some of the assumptions here are plainly revisionist.

Same question could be applied to Reagan and most other american presidents though.
----------
And as for not criticising Apartheid. How often does Cameron or Obama criticise everything that is currntly wrong with the world? And South Africa was and still is a big trade partner.

And I don't know if someone here mentioned it or if I read it somewhere else, but Mandela was always a questionable figure.
There was evidence of him forming a guerilla army and planning an armed revolt. When questioned he said "well, I wasn't really gonna do it". And is that really inspiring confidence?
I would equate him there with Gandhi.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch...hi/308550/
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

Like Britain current government she got less than 1/3 of the votes but because that 1/3 of votes was for the Tories and the other 2/3's was for various other parties technically she got the majority, its a stupid system. That was just an example I don't know the exact figures, just that it wasn't the majority of voters that allowed her to be re-elected.

You missed the point about apartheid, it wasn't that she didn't speak out against it, it was she actually in favour of it referring to the anti apartheid movement as "terrorists".

edit. The 1979 election there was a total of 31,221,362 votes cast, her party won with 13,697,923 of them so she got just over 1/3 total votes meaning the majority of voters voted aghainst her party. source

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2013, 10:30 AM
RE: RIP Margaret Thatcher
... and the '83 win was on the back of the Falklands jingoism.

How many times have we seen unpopular leaders chuck a few missiles around to boost their ratings?

Sickening.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
14-04-2013, 11:46 AM
RE: RIP Margaret Thatcher
(14-04-2013 09:20 AM)FSM_scot Wrote:  edit. The 1979 election there was a total of 31,221,362 votes cast, her party won with 13,697,923 of them so she got just over 1/3 total votes meaning the majority of voters voted aghainst her party. source

Yes, but by that logic every party in the country had the majority vote against them so we shoulda had no Government. In fact, by that logic pretty much every party has lost in every election.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hughsie's post
14-04-2013, 12:08 PM (This post was last modified: 14-04-2013 02:40 PM by Caveman.)
RE: RIP Margaret Thatcher
(14-04-2013 09:20 AM)FSM_scot Wrote:  
(14-04-2013 09:08 AM)Caveman Wrote:  And as for not criticising Apartheid. How often does Cameron or Obama criticise everything that is currntly wrong with the world? And South Africa was and still is a big trade partner.

And I don't know if someone here mentioned it or if I read it somewhere else, but Mandela was always a questionable figure.
There was evidence of him forming a guerilla army and planning an armed revolt. When questioned he said "well, I wasn't really gonna do it". And is that really inspiring confidence?
I would equate him there with Gandhi.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch...hi/308550/
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

You missed the point about apartheid, it wasn't that she didn't speak out against it, it was she actually in favour of it referring to the anti apartheid movement as "terrorists".
source

Well, if the only alternative is armed rebellion, I can see that.
And again, governments don't always do the populist thing. It might have been motivated economically.
Heck, they had a nuclear program since back in the Seventies, keep them on your good side.

Also, hindsight from 2013 is easy. But in the Eighties, before internet, before smartphones with cameras, there was so little information. You are judging them by standards we hold now. Thirty years on and with an infinitely higher amount of information at our disposal.
(edit: quote tags)

Aspiring optimist
Eternal Pragmatist.
With the uncanny ability to see all sides in every argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2013, 07:40 PM
RE: RIP Margaret Thatcher
(14-04-2013 09:20 AM)FSM_scot Wrote:  
(14-04-2013 09:08 AM)Caveman Wrote:  Ssssooo..... I read a lot of criticism but I have to wonder... Why was she re-elected, twice?
Could it be that everything being protested here now was actually popular back then?
History is always inaccurate but some of the assumptions here are plainly revisionist.

Same question could be applied to Reagan and most other american presidents though.
----------
And as for not criticising Apartheid. How often does Cameron or Obama criticise everything that is currntly wrong with the world? And South Africa was and still is a big trade partner.

And I don't know if someone here mentioned it or if I read it somewhere else, but Mandela was always a questionable figure.
There was evidence of him forming a guerilla army and planning an armed revolt. When questioned he said "well, I wasn't really gonna do it". And is that really inspiring confidence?
I would equate him there with Gandhi.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch...hi/308550/
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

Like Britain current government she got less than 1/3 of the votes but because that 1/3 of votes was for the Tories and the other 2/3's was for various other parties technically she got the majority, its a stupid system. That was just an example I don't know the exact figures, just that it wasn't the majority of voters that allowed her to be re-elected.

You missed the point about apartheid, it wasn't that she didn't speak out against it, it was she actually in favour of it referring to the anti apartheid movement as "terrorists".

edit. The 1979 election there was a total of 31,221,362 votes cast, her party won with 13,697,923 of them so she got just over 1/3 total votes meaning the majority of voters voted aghainst her party. source

To say 2/3 of the population voted AGAINST her is a bit of stretch.
I assume she got into power because she formed a coalition with minor parties?
You don't vote for a minor party without knowing what party it forms a coalition with.
ie: National is a major party here. ACT is a minor party that always forms a coalition with National, if I don't want National in power I'm not going to vote for ACT...

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2013, 07:52 PM
RE: RIP Margaret Thatcher
(14-04-2013 07:40 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  To say 2/3 of the population voted AGAINST her is a bit of stretch.
I assume she got into power because she formed a coalition with minor parties?
You don't vote for a minor party without knowing what party it forms a coalition with.
ie: National is a major party here. ACT is a minor party that always forms a coalition with National, if I don't want National in power I'm not going to vote for ACT...

Over here it's the first past the post system. The country is divided up into between 600 and 700 voting areas which each send 1 MP to Parliament. Any party that wins in the vote in over half the voting areas can form a Government without needing to form a coalition. Quite often one party will have less that half the total votes but more than half of the MPs.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2013, 08:04 PM
RE: RIP Margaret Thatcher
What hughsie said ^

Basically the voting system in the uk works like this.

Say there is 10 people voting with a choice of 10 party's one party got 2 votes, one party gets no votes the other 7 parties get one vote each. The party that got the 2 votes would be the winner Even though the majority of the votes wasn't for them.

Basically it's a system that doesn't fairly represent the views of the majority of voters.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: