Thatcher in hospital for checks

[DodgyAgent]

I've noticed more of a "we call other people names and try to categorise them into brigades" trend from the Thatcher apologists.

Those of us who can't stand her don't think the world owes us a living, but we do seem to have a better grasp of history and politics - not surprising. Thatcherism was all about soundbites and spin rather than substance. Before I get told I'm a manky commie subversive (again) let me state that unlike the Thatcher was wonderful sheep, I think she did good (a bit) and bad (a lot) stuff.

I notice it went very quiet about the Falklands once some of the actual history of it was cited rather than the rose-tinted Thatcher loving version.

As for charging down peaceful demos - would that be OK for fuel protestors? pro-hunting demos? or is it only causes you don't care about.

Thatcher claimed to be in favour of democracy and free speech - but only if the views expressed suited her.

One thing Thatcherism wasnt was about spin and soundbites, she actually did something, which whether you agree with iwhat she did or not is what she is remebered for.

Unlike idiots like you some people have enough confidence to take events, people and actions of people on their merits. Does it occur to you that:

Thatchers policy on the Unions maybe was right
Poll tax.. maybe wrong
Falklands.. Maybe maybe

There is a strain amongst people in their political views that they decide they are against someone or something that they couldnt possibly imagine that that someone/something could actually be right about some things if not others.

The horror of Milan for instance that someone could possibly sugges that GW Bush could be getting it right in Africa is such an example. Likewise the Thatcherites.. just because (in my opinion) she was right about the treatment of the unions that she was not necessarily right about the poll tax or even the falklands.

This sort of reasoning suggests a lack of confidence in a persons views or that maybe they have their own seperate agenda that has nothing to do with an objective view of right and wrong.

People like you were so incensed that she exposed your socialist cosy club of "grants" (your word), handouts and protection rackets to be what they are; divisive parasitic protection rackets. The fact that a lot of people suffered was the penalty they paid for people who indulged in socialism.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

One thing Thatcherism wasnt was about spin and soundbites, she actually did something, which whether you agree with iwhat she did or not is what she is remebered for.

Unlike idiots like you some people have enough confidence to take events, people and actions of people on their merits. Does it occur to you that:

Thatchers policy on the Unions maybe was right
Poll tax.. maybe wrong
Falklands.. Maybe maybe

There is a strain amongst people in their political views that they decide they are against someone or something that they couldnt possibly imagine that that someone/something could actually be right about some things if not others.

The horror of Milan for instance that someone could possibly sugges that GW Bush could be getting it right in Africa is such an example. Likewise the Thatcherites.. just because (in my opinion) she was right about the treatment of the unions that she was not necessarily right about the poll tax or even the falklands.

This sort of reasoning suggests a lack of confidence in a persons views or that maybe they have their own seperate agenda that has nothing to do with an objective view of right and wrong.

People like you were so incensed that she exposed your socialist cosy club of "grants" (your word), handouts and protection rackets to be what they are; divisive parasitic protection rackets. The fact that a lot of people suffered was the penalty they paid for people who indulged in socialism.

You haven't read a word I posted. Your "people like you" sneering tells me all I need to know. I didn't say everything she did was wrong.

Anyway, I see no point in a debate in which the other protagonist has already made up his mind what my background, opinions and motivations are without any knowledge. I could cite plenty of examples of Thatcher's cosy protections for her rich and powerful friends (General Pinochet), about her support for Apartheid (just for two examples), but what's the point? You prefer to refer to "idiots like me" rather than engage in actual debate - nothing, to say about democracy I notice.

If calling people who disagree idiots is the best you can manage, you are indeed a proud product of Thatcher.

I hope the other Thatcherites are pleased to have you in their "gang".

[sasguru]

There is a bit of a theme developing here. Interesting that the "society owes me a living" brigade are the ones that so hate her.

The only thing I have against Maggie is that her charging down of "a very peaceful demo" was clearly not brutal enough

Read posts more carefully. Where have I said that society owes me a living? I still believe that grants for students from poor backgrounds is the right thing. It's the state giving a helping hand to people who want to move on. Far better than the handouts they give to the feckless and lazy.
Incidentally I never got one as my parents earned too much and I have never taken a penny from the state.

And last I time I heard we were supposed to live in a democracy with the right to peaceful protest.

[sasguru]

You haven't read a word I posted. Your "people like you" sneering tells me all I need to know. I didn't say everything she did was wrong.

Anyway, I see no point in a debate in which the other protagonist has already made up his mind what my background, opinions and motivations are without any knowledge. I could cite plenty of examples of Thatcher's cosy protections for her rich and powerful friends (General Pinochet), about her support for Apartheid (just for two examples), but what's the point? You prefer to refer to "idiots like me" rather than engage in actual debate - nothing, to say about democracy I notice.

If calling people who disagree idiots is the best you can manage, you are indeed a proud product of Thatcher.

I hope the other Thatcherites are pleased to have you in their "gang".

I agree with the above. DA's ad hominem attacks and failure to actually read the posts suggest more about him than anything else. He accuses people of what he actually does himself. The psychological term is "projection".

[DodgyAgent]

I agree with the above. DA's ad hominem attacks and failure to actually read the posts suggest more about him than anything else. He accuses people of what he actually does himself. The psychological term is "projection".

In your own words:

I remember the infamous march that I went on protesting against the removal of student grants - something I still believe in, BTW

[sasguru]

In your own words:

I remember the infamous march that I went on protesting against the removal of student grants - something I still believe in, BTW

Your point being? You really can be incredibly dense sometimes.

[DodgyAgent]

You haven't read a word I posted. Your "people like you" sneering tells me all I need to know. I didn't say everything she did was wrong.

Anyway, I see no point in a debate in which the other protagonist has already made up his mind what my background, opinions and motivations are without any knowledge. I could cite plenty of examples of Thatcher's cosy protections for her rich and powerful friends (General Pinochet), about her support for Apartheid (just for two examples), but what's the point? You prefer to refer to "idiots like me" rather than engage in actual debate - nothing, to say about democracy I notice.

If calling people who disagree idiots is the best you can manage, you are indeed a proud product of Thatcher.

I hope the other Thatcherites are pleased to have you in their "gang".

I stand entirely by what I said. Again you are trying to trivialise her impact by spinning the Pinochet incident into policies and actions that happened 10-15 years earlier.
As I said she was not perfect, but the policies she implemented had a huge impact on our lives today.. "Peole like you" try to spin her frailties and errors as if they somehow held some sort of equivalence with her achievements. And if you bothered to read my threads then you will see that I have more valid criticisms of Thatcher than you do, but at least i make an effort to keep them into some sort of proportion to her achievements.

[DodgyAgent]

Your point being? You really can be incredibly dense sometimes.

Isnt a student grant a state handout? or am I being dense here?

[sasguru]

I stand entirely by what I said. Again you are trying to trivialise her impact by spinning the Pinochet incident into policies and actions that happened 10-15 years earlier.
As I said she was not perfect, but the policies she implemented had a huge impact on our lives today.. "Peole like you" try spin her frailties and errors as if they somehow held some sort of equivalence with her achievements. and if you bothered to read my threads then you will see that I have more valid criticisms of Thatcher than you do, but at least i make an effort to keep them into some sort of perspective.

I acknowledge that someone like her was necessary at the time, but as Baggy has said she knew more what she didn't like rather than than having a vision of how to replace it.
Which is why Britain by most measures still has a much poorer infrastructure than it's European neighbours and an economy over reliant on the City. In that sense Thatcher's legacy hasn't worked out yet.

[sasguru]

Isnt a student grant a state handout? or am I being dense here?

It could also be regarded as an investment in the country. Graduates generally pay more into the coffers over their lifetimes. Huge amounts of money has been spent raising the number of students while lowering the value of degrees to be almost worthless. That money would have been better spent subsidising the hard working but less well off to do worthwhile degrees.