Margaret Thatcher dies at 87

[Leftbehind]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDtClJYJBj8

I loved the shout "we can't take it" from the Tory bench. Hard to take the truth indeed.

And the Speaker's reaction to fake outrage, priceless.

Typical celebrity turned politician hypocrite is hypocritical. Maybe when Glenda Jackson moves into a council house and gives her Oscar award to a homeless person I will take her seriously. At least George Galloway and Gerry Adams seem sincere in there thrashings.

So becoming rich but wanting an equal society anyway because you've known what it's like not to be is considered hypocritical to you, but a woman who professed to roll back the state (in actuality just subsidies and support for the working class) whilst centralising power and proscribing which videos could be watched and precisely what schools were allowed to (or in this case couldn't) teach on homosexuality isn't. Oh and supporting authoritarian dictators lol.  

So, when is Glenda Jackson gonna give up 83% of her annual earnings? Tell me, do you personally think you are entitled to healthcare primarily funded with money from Glenda Jackson’s wallet?

Probably when she adopts the laughable notion that voluntary charity is the best way to redistribute wealth and help the struggling working classes despite its complete failure to do just that in Victorian times. As for healthcare - absolutely, and she probably does to.

As for healthcare - absolutely, and she probably does to.

So, you think the upper 1% should pay for your needs. In other words, you are a contemptible parasite. It is not an unfair idea for a national sales tax or flat income tax that puts all people in the same bracket to cover a national healthcare plan. It is unfair for the wealthy people at the top to pay for your healthcare because you have not earned the money they have earned in life. Everyone has one basic thing that makes them equal-your natural instinct to make a profit if you choose to follow it.  The fact that you support the redistribution of wealth in order to save your own money proves this instinct.

Doubt I've read such horsesh**t, congrats. I do indeed support progressive taxation like most normal people (excluding capitalist apologists like yourself) because otherwise the actual parasites - the capitalists - in our economy would quickly turn healthcare into something working-class couldn't afford (like many in your country couldn't) for their own profit, and to assert that my opposition to it proves your ludicrous rule is astonishing: it's not about 'saving my own money', I wouldn't have any money to save (and most people find the notion of profit re healthcare to be abhorrent btw). Which brings us neatly round to your parasites again - prepared to enforce and strengthen an absurdly unequal pay for equal work but 'contemptible' when it's taxed unequally. Cry me a river.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDtClJYJBj8

I loved the shout "we can't take it" from the Tory bench. Hard to take the truth indeed.

And the Speaker's reaction to fake outrage, priceless.

Typical celebrity turned politician hypocrite is hypocritical. Maybe when Glenda Jackson moves into a council house and gives her Oscar award to a homeless person I will take her seriously. At least George Galloway and Gerry Adams seem sincere in there thrashings.

So becoming rich but wanting an equal society anyway because you've known what it's like not to be is considered hypocritical to you, but a woman who professed to roll back the state (in actuality just subsidies and support for the working class) whilst centralising power and proscribing which videos could be watched and precisely what schools were allowed to (or in this case couldn't) teach on homosexuality isn't. Oh and supporting authoritarian dictators lol. 

So, when is Glenda Jackson gonna give up 83% of her annual earnings? Tell me, do you personally think you are entitled to healthcare primarily funded with money from Glenda Jackson’s wallet?

Probably when she adopts the laughable notion that voluntary charity is the best way to redistribute wealth and help the struggling working classes despite its complete failure to do just that in Victorian times. As for healthcare - absolutely, and she probably does to. As for healthcare - absolutely, and she probably does to.

So, you think the upper 1% should pay for your needs. In other words, you are a contemptible parasite. It is not an unfair idea for a national sales tax or flat income tax that puts all people in the same bracket to cover a national healthcare plan. It is unfair for the wealthy people at the top to pay for your healthcare because you have not earned the money they have earned in life. Everyone has one basic thing that makes them equal-your natural instinct to make a profit if you choose to follow it.  The fact that you support the redistribution of wealth in order to save your own money proves this instinct.

Doubt I've read such horsesh**t, congrats. I do indeed support progressive taxation like most normal people (excluding capitalist apologists like yourself) because otherwise the actual parasites - the capitalists - in our economy would quickly turn healthcare into something working-class couldn't afford (like many in your country couldn't) for their own profit, and to assert that my opposition to it proves your ludicrous rule is astonishing: it's not about 'saving my own money', I wouldn't have any money to save (and most people find the notion of profit re healthcare to be abhorrent btw). Which brings us neatly round to your parasites again - prepared to enforce and strengthen an absurdly unequal pay for equal work but 'contemptible' when it's taxed unequally. Cry me a river.

Capitalist apologist? What is there to apologize for? Capitalism is natural. To say capitalism is bad for humanity is equivalent to saying homosexuality is bad for humanity-it is a natural instinct in man. The definition of a parasite is the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How do the capitalist live off their “hosts” expense? The businesses they run: are they not built on the capital first placed into creating the business by the owner? Or do the employees put in the money to start the company, and then the owner milks all the profit from it while the employees get nothing? No business has ever been built on the latter format, except in collectivist societies.

Your final sentence implies that CEO’s and business owners do not work hard. Have you managed hundreds of stores, tried to arrange massive transportation networks, and continue to keep costs in check? It’s impossible to do alone. Assistants must be hired, and these assistants have to be managed as well.

All in all, the ultimate failure of socialism is the fact that it contradicts mans natural individualist nature.

[Leftbehind]

Capitalist apologist? What is there to apologize for? Capitalism is natural. To say capitalism is bad for humanity is equivalent to saying homosexuality is bad for humanity-it is a natural instinct in man.

Capitalism is sociopathic, allowing millions to die through enforced scarcity of resources whilst sections live in abundance. If it was so 'natural' why did it take so long for it to emerge?

The definition of a parasite is the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How do the capitalist live off their “hosts” expense? The businesses they run: are they not built on the capital first placed into creating the business by the owner? Or do the employees put in the money to start the company, and then the owner milks all the profit from it while the employees get nothing? No business has ever been built on the latter format, except in collectivist societies.

They may start businesses through having the capital in the first place, but their success is dependent on workers - who, through the course of capitalism are seeing the remuneration for their work fall ever further - below subsistence in many cases - with profits funnelled to the capitalists.

Your final sentence implies that CEO’s and business owners do not work hard. Have you managed hundreds of stores, tried to arrange massive transportation networks, and continue to keep costs in check? It’s impossible to do alone. Assistants must be hired, and these assistants have to be managed as well.

No one's ever said that managers don't have stress in their jobs, but no more so than the underpaid and overworked workers (much less so in my direct experience) and yet are paid astronomical multiples - that continue to grow each year in spite of everything. Case in point being our significant, and expanding, sector in the UK: our supermarkets.

Not even mentioning those who evade tax whilst seeing fit to benefit from the society taxes provided.

All in all, the ultimate failure of socialism is the fact that it contradicts mans natural individualist nature.

The failure of socialism was its belief it could be self-contained whilst the rest of the world remained capitalist (especially in economically insignificant areas). Socialism has to be delivered by the working class around the world, if it is ever to be successful. Thankfully your lot are making capitalism increasingly untenable.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Capitalism is sociopathic, allowing millions to die through enforced scarcity of resources whilst sections live in abundance. If it was so 'natural' why did it take so long for it to emerge?

Human beings are naturally sociopathic people, I am ashamed to say. I believe in the concept of original sin. The people at the top are going to want to stay there.

You are arguing that capitalism did not develop until later in history because it is not natural. Yes, the modern free enterprise form of capitalism which I subscribe do has only come about in the last four hundred years or so. But were the days of feudalism and serfdom where people were not considered human and were bound to the land they toiled on with their masters reaping in all the fruits of their labor not a sociopathic system? It seems to me that you are equating selfishness only to free market capitalism.

They may start businesses through having the capital in the first place, but their success is dependent on workers - who, through the course of capitalism are seeing the remuneration for their work fall ever further - below subsistence in many cases - with profits funneled to the capitalists.

This is true, but it comes to the basic argument that they are employed by choice. Don’t like the work, don’t work there. The argument that “all work is like this” or “they have not other choice” is silly. I am looking for employment right now. I will go dig ditches if someone will have me. It may not pay the bills for a grown man with a family, but ifs an option if he is that opposed to the policies of his employer.

No one's ever said that managers don't have stress in their jobs, but no more so than the underpaid and overworked workers (much less so in my direct experience) and yet are paid astronomical multiples - that continue to grow each year in spite of everything. Case in point being our significant, and expanding, sector in the UK: our supermarkets.

Position is based upon your education and your work ethic. If a man studies hard, he goes to a good university (with the help of loans from an institution which he is legally and morally obligated to pay back), and if he goes to a good university, he is more qualified for the position he seeks then the average worker. Some people are able to work their way from the bottom up, and their position reflects their work ethic.

Not even mentioning those who evade tax whilst seeing fit to benefit from the society taxes provided.

This I agree is repugnant.

The failure of socialism was its belief it could be self-contained whilst the rest of the world remained capitalist (especially in economically insignificant areas). Socialism has to be delivered by the working class around the world, if it is ever to be successful. Thankfully your lot are making capitalism increasingly untenable.

Socialism failed in the USSR and in China because men are corrupt, and their values become corrupted. One day, when I am digging ditches or doing whatever I need to do to earn money, I am going to be hurt, and my reaction is naturally going to want someone else to pay for me. If a man can get ahead under Socialism, he is going to try to get ahead. Look at the high levels of corruption in China.

[dead0man]

This is an international message board, since it has a sizable share of non-American posters.

Sure, it has an international group of posters and we do have an International sub-forum, but the theme of the Atlas is US politics/maps and such.

But thank you for not denying the place leans left.

[Antonio the Sixth]

But thank you for not denying the place leans left.

By American standards, yes. But as I said it makes no sense to apply American standards since we have such a sizable international community.

[Siloch]

Margaret Thatcher lowered the debt and increased productivity, she took a country that was known as the "sick man of Europe" and made it a global competitive economy and a respected power. (Until Labour came back for round 2, cheers for selling half our gold Gordon)

Public Debt as % of GDP

1979 - 43.6%
1990 - 26.6%

UK GDP

1979 - £199.2 Billion
1990 - £570.2 Billion

All Britain's industry was state owned and it was failing, it was costing the tax payers millions a year and the miners still wanted pay rises even though their industry was uncompetitive and damaging the economy. If they didn't get what they wanted, they went on strike because their union was so powerful. It had became so bad by 1979 that people were working in candle light, Britain was on the verge becoming a third world country, even the bin men were on strike.

Thatcher saved Britain, end of story. British industry had 30 years before Thatcher to try and moderinse and become competitive it refused and so it paid the price.

The unions killed our industry not Thatcher.

[DC Al Fine]

But thank you for not denying the place leans left.

By American standards, yes. But as I said it makes no sense to apply American standards since we have such a sizable international community.

Even by Euro standards, we lean left. I'd guess most of the American posters would support Parti Socialiste, Labour, SPD etc. over UMP, Conservatives, CDU.

[Јas]

R1 'will not' play full Thatcher song - BBC

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[countydurhamboy]

R1 'will not' play full Thatcher song - BBC

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm in love with Margaret Thatcher is 23rd. I wonder if the BBC play that? They should play both tbh it shouldn't be up to them decide what to and what not to play.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

All Britain's industry was state owned

No it was not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No it was not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No it was not. Quite the opposite actually: coal was, in 1984, still foundational to the rest of the economy. This was before the 'dash for gas' and all that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are doing what a lot of Tories do and confusing the Winter of Discontent with the Three Day Week.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't be absurd.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bin men go on strike quite a lot, actually. Some high profile strikes of that sort in Birmingham, Leeds and Southampton over the past few years.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There certainly were serious structural problems wrt British manufacturing in the 1970s, but the initial ultra-Monetarist economic policies of the Thatcher government (eventually abandoned, by the way, because they didn't work) would have caused factory closures and job losses on a huge scale even if that were not so.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

(Also, of note to UK posters, I'd never have guessed that Dan Hodges was her son!)

Yes, it is quite the random and bizarre detail, isn't it?

[You kip if you want to...]

R1 'will not' play full Thatcher song - BBC

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm in love with Margaret Thatcher is 23rd. I wonder if the BBC play that? They should play both tbh it shouldn't be up to them decide what to and what not to play.

Should go to Ofcom if they play I'm In Love With Maggie T. It's a case for bias, surely.

[Khunanup]

It takes a Liberal to point out that Chaiman Sanchez and Leftbehind are both wrong because both refuse to see that the other has any valid points of view at all. Humans are inherantly selfish an have an inherant need to live in a state of mutually supportive community. Unless you understand both all hope is lost.

[MaxQue]

I should want to register the fact than she only hastened the collapse of UK industry and mining. She did it in a pretty brutal and heartless way, too.

But, it would have collasped at a point.

The Industrial Era is finished. We are currently entering the Tech Era.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I should want to register the fact than she only hastened the collapse of UK industry and mining. She did it in a pretty brutal and heartless way, too.

But, it would have collasped at a point.

The Industrial Era is finished. We are currently entering the Tech Era.

The divide is between those who think the millions of lives destroyed in the process are collateral damage of the free market's wonderful work, and those who think they should be taken care of and and helped find a spot in the new economic order. And that's a big difference.

[MaxQue]

I should want to register the fact than she only hastened the collapse of UK industry and mining. She did it in a pretty brutal and heartless way, too.

But, it would have collasped at a point.

The Industrial Era is finished. We are currently entering the Tech Era.

The divide is between those who think the millions of lives destroyed in the process are collateral damage of the free market's wonderful work, and those who think they should be taken care of and and helped find a spot in the new economic order. And that's a big difference.

I'm quite aware of that and you know than I'm.
As for free market, it works well when it's free, but it's rarely is (more often we have oligarchy/duoplies/monopolies).

[Antonio the Sixth]

I should want to register the fact than she only hastened the collapse of UK industry and mining. She did it in a pretty brutal and heartless way, too.

But, it would have collasped at a point.

The Industrial Era is finished. We are currently entering the Tech Era.

The divide is between those who think the millions of lives destroyed in the process are collateral damage of the free market's wonderful work, and those who think they should be taken care of and and helped find a spot in the new economic order. And that's a big difference.

I'm quite aware of that and you know than I'm.
As for free market, it works well when it's free, but it's rarely is (more often we have oligarchy/duoplies/monopolies).

Wait, I wasn't attacking you or anything. I just felt that was something that needed to be added to your comment.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The double standard by the Right re: Chavez and Thatcher is utterly ridiculous.

On Chavez: "Good riddance to the evil Commie dictator!"
On Thatcher: "Please have class and respect the dead!"

F-ck that.

Feeling a little bit good about the death of someone you consider horrible who is in power is understandable (though regrettable), since there is a bit of hope for a change.   Feeling that way about someone who has been out of power for two decades is just vicious spite.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Does this imply then that she was in fact not a transformative leader who's like we shall never (etc, etc, etc), then?

[minionofmidas]

Feeling a little bit good about the death of someone you consider horrible who is in power is understandable (though regrettable), since there is a bit of hope for a change.   Feeling that way about someone who has been out of power for two decades is just... a little pointless. As is feeling aggrieved by the person's death.
Especially if their retirement was... nothing special. She wasn't important as some kind of grey eminence, major influence etc - though the damage she wrought remains largely in place - , nor was she anywhere near as irrelevant and disgraced as she would have deserved.

Which is why I haven't posted in this thread so far.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Does this imply then that she was in fact not a transformative leader who's like we shall never (etc, etc, etc), then?

?

She's neither Ahura Mazda nor Angra Mainyu if that's what you mean.

[Democratic Hawk]

RIP

[Antonio the Sixth]

Feeling a little bit good about the death of someone you consider horrible who is in power is understandable (though regrettable), since there is a bit of hope for a change.   Feeling that way about someone who has been out of power for two decades is just... a little pointless. As is feeling aggrieved by the person's death.
Especially if their retirement was... nothing special. She wasn't important as some kind of grey eminence, major influence etc - though the damage she wrought remains largely in place - , nor was she anywhere near as irrelevant and disgraced as she would have deserved.

This is exactly the way I see it.

[politicallefty]

I can't say I ever would have voted for Margaret Thatcher or her Conservative Party, but I find the reaction to her death by so many on the left to be completely abhorrent. I think it's disgusting. I absolutely cannot condone celebrating the death of a democratically-elected leader. I can't say I appreciated the Reagan Presidency at all, but I most certainly did not celebrate his death. Even with someone as hated as GWB, I would never actively celebrate his death, despite how much I hated his policies.

May she rest is peace (and I really do mean that).