Baroness Thatcher passed away

Itismehonest

BobQ wrote: »

That is not the point. The point is that it is our duty to protect our citizens and sovereign territory before they are invaded.

In an ideal world, yes. In an ideal world that would also cover protection of the people & property here at home. Crime would be eliminated.

In real life we know that Government can't be watching everyone, everywhere all the time to keep them safe.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. It's very easy to say now we should have been there but we weren't. So we had to deal with the situation as it existed. Armed invaders on British territory & citizens living under occupying forces.

StevieJ

trollopscarletwoman wrote: »

How on earth do you connect that users comments with mine apart from mischief? Totally different subjects and it won't help you.

What planet are you on? I merely stated that you were not the first one to accuse him/her of building a strawman today (then provided a link to the other) what is complicated about that ?

Sampong

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/general-news/no-respect-from-george-galloway-as-he-tweets-on-thatcher-death-1-5564254

Unsurprising behavior from Galloway - what a truly vile individual.

CLAPTON

StevieJ wrote: »

What planet are you on? I merely stated that you were not the first one to accuse him/her of building a strawman today (then provided a link to the other) what is complicated about that ?

She's not very bright you know.

Treadmill

I will agree to remain silent about Margaret Thatchers death as long as her supporters agree to do the same.

trollopscarletwoman

StevieJ wrote: »

What planet are you on? I merely stated that you were not the first one to accuse him/her of building a strawman today (then provided a link to the other) what is complicated about that ?

Working on that I assume you agree that a strawman case is apparent to 2 different users.

BobQ

In view of the comments about what is appropriate to post about Thatcher on this thread, the following link presents a well argued case for the etiquette of the situation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-death-etiquette

But the key point is this: those who admire the deceased public figure (and their politics) aren't silent at all. They are aggressively exploiting the emotions generated by the person's death to create hagiography. Typifying these highly dubious claims about Thatcher was this (appropriately diplomatic) statement from President Obama: "The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend." Those gushing depictions can be quite consequential, as it was for the week-long tidal wave of unbroken reverence that was heaped on Ronald Reagan upon his death, an episode that to this day shapes how Americans view him and the political ideas he symbolized. Demanding that no criticisms be voiced to counter that hagiography is to enable false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts, distortions that become quickly ossified and then endure by virtue of no opposition and the powerful emotions created by death. When a political leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that only praise be permitted but not criticisms.

He goes on to remind us that this great champion of freedom also denounced Nelson Mandela as a terrorist.

chewmylegoff

Anyone rejoicing in her death, or even who fixates on her as the cause of problems in certain parts of the country is a bit dim in my view. She was the elected prime minister, voted in fairly using the country's electoral system. If you want to hate anyone then logically it should be the 40-ish% of the electorate who voted in three successive Tory governments. She simply gave the country what it voted for. People need to deal with that rather than blaming a single politician for supposedly victimising them.


Good to see some utter balderdash from ken livingstone as well - claiming that the country had full employment in 1979 when she took power! Hilarious stuff.

ess0two

She'll be best remembered like Jimmy Saville, for screwing miners.

trollopscarletwoman

Itismehonest wrote: »

In an ideal world, yes. In an ideal world that would also cover protection of the people & property here at home. Crime would be eliminated.

In real life we know that Government can't be watching everyone, everywhere all the time to keep them safe.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. It's very easy to say now we should have been there but we weren't. So we had to deal with the situation as it existed. Armed invaders on British territory & citizens living under occupying forces.

Near on a 1000 lives between each sides isn't worth the John Wayne/Iwo Jima feeling. If privately asked I wonder whether relatives of Falklands British deceased would say it was worth Thatchers' war.