Why are some folk keen on making a point at the funeral?

[adubya]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to DodgyAgent again.

[doodab]

You actually have not argued anything at all. You have simply made sweeping generalisations, tenuously linking todays problems with Thatcherism without explaining why. Neither have you explained why you sneer at "materialism" in "others" as a destructive entity without explaining how this squares with your own priviliged position.

I have cited on many occasions before she died evidence that high levels of income inequality in a society correlates strongly with all sorts of social ills including crime, physical and mental health. That isn't sneering at materialism in others, it's a critique of a society founded upon materialism, which is one of the underpinnings of Thatcherism. I'm also at a loss to understand why you think I'm "privileged" exactly? Because I earn more than the minimum wage?

Nothing you say is backed by any sort of argument. for instance the "widening inequality between rich and poor" what does this mean exactly? Does it mean that the poor are better off because there are more rich people? Are you saying that everyone should be poor in order to keep people like you happy? Or does it mean that people like you should be rich but everyone else should be poor?

Actually Dodgy most of what I say is backed by argument. The fact you haven't noticed is down to your being a small minded, ignorant, cretinous, malodorous, misanthropic irrelevant little spiv **** who is too thick to notice or comprehend.

You are not able (or intelligent enough) to put her reforms into the context of what went before her, you do not even bother to try and argue how she could have changed her policies to prevent the problems of today developing. The reason you do not actually explain anything is because either you cannot or you do not want to. So which is it bigotry or stupidity?

Actually Dodgy I did suggest how she might have done things differently, last time you came out with this line of ill thought out crap. I have also on several occasions (again before her death) said that what she did was necessary but that she should have done it differently. That seems to have passed you by.

Do you know any words other than cliche?

Had she actually given a thought to what would become of the local economies and developed a strategy for what to do with these people when they no longer had jobs she might have implemented that and offered them a better option than striking. As it was the only options these people were considering were to take it lying down or put up a fight, and her brutalist tactics only served to polarize them and strengthen their resolve.

The simple fact is that she was prepared to spend millions and sacrifice lives to defend the Falklands but appears not to have been in the least bit concerned with the welfare of the 190,000 British citizens that worked in the mines, or their families and local communities, they were simply "casualties" in her war with the unions.

A number of other people have given you facts and figures as well. All you do is trot out the same old tripe, which frankly doesn't hold up. At the end of the day you are a blind idealogue with no interest in reason or argument, so it's waste of time trying. Which is why you are on ignore where you belong.

[shaunbhoy]

I'll just be glad when the whole episode is over. Another dead politician................WGAS?

[darmstadt]

I'll just be glad when the whole episode is over. Another dead politician................WGAS?

Well obviously DA does

[Doggy Styles]

You actually have not argued anything at all. You have simply made sweeping generalisations, tenuously linking todays problems with Thatcherism without explaining why. Neither have you explained why you sneer at "materialism" in "others" as a destructive entity without explaining how this squares with your own priviliged position.

Nothing you say is backed by any sort of argument. for instance the "widening inequality between rich and poor" what does this mean exactly? Does it mean that the poor are better off because there are more rich people? Are you saying that everyone should be poor in order to keep people like you happy? Or does it mean that people like you should be rich but everyone else should be poor?

You are not able (or intelligent enough) to put her reforms into the context of what went before her, you do not even bother to try and argue how she could have changed her policies to prevent the problems of today developing. The reason you do not actually explain anything is because either you cannot or you do not want to. So which is it bigotry or stupidity?

These are all fair points.

But you have to remember that the psyche of most people then was of 'takers', a reliance on other people and the state to provide for them, including jobs. Encouraging people to change from that mind-set to more self-reliance was the right thing to do for the longer-term prosperity of the country, but inevitably painful because decades of featherbed industries (and their unions) left millions unprepared for the change, and many never managed it.

I have some sympathy with them on that score, although blaming Thatcher is merely blaming the situation that needed Thatcher in the first place, which clearly could not continue.

I don't know how else the government could have stopped subsidising loss-making industries, they did kick off a lot of re-generation schemes, but they handled some things crassly, like the poll tax, which gave the 'takers' more fuel to their protests.

[DodgyAgent]

I have cited on many occasions before she died evidence that high levels of income inequality in a society correlates strongly with all sorts of social ills including crime, physical and mental health. That isn't sneering at materialism in others, it's a critique of a society founded upon materialism, which is one of the underpinnings of Thatcherism. I'm also at a loss to understand why you think I'm "privileged" exactly? Because I earn more than the minimum wage?

So if this is the problem what is the answer? I take it you would support the repeal of Thatchers reforms so that everyone except the trade unions, politicians and the elite of the arts council were poor?



Actually Dodgy most of what I say is backed by argument. The fact you haven't noticed is down to your being a small minded, ignorant, cretinous, malodorous, misanthropic irrelevant little spiv **** who is too thick to notice or comprehend.


Show me one example where you argue a point, back it with evidence rather than overabundant use of manipulative cliches


Actually Dodgy I did suggest how she might have done things differently, last time you came out with this line of ill thought out crap. I have also on several occasions (again before her death) said that what she did was necessary but that she should have done it differently. That seems to have passed you by.

How? the country was bust and she had a choice between paying welfare benefits or investing the money in entrepreneurial activity (quite how this was going to happen you tell me?)



A number of other people have given you facts and figures as well. All you do is trot out the same old tripe, which frankly doesn't hold up. At the end of the day you are a blind idealogue with no interest in reason or argument, so it's waste of time trying. Which is why you are on ignore where you belong. Give me an example

You have not raised one single logical argument. You have no idea of how to debate. Like the rest of your ilk you believe that every argument needs to be won no matter how ridiculous it is. You cannot argue that her reforms should have been rolled back, nor can you show where the money was to come from to regenerate the economy and you seem to assume that money grows on trees.

[DodgyAgent]

These are all fair points.

But you have to remember that the psyche of most people then was of 'takers', a reliance on other people and the state to provide for them, including jobs. Encouraging people to change from that mind-set to more self-reliance was the right thing to do for the longer-term prosperity of the country, but inevitably painful because decades of featherbed industries (and their unions) left millions unprepared for the change, and many never managed it.

I have some sympathy with them on that score, although blaming Thatcher is merely blaming the situation that needed Thatcher in the first place, which clearly could not continue.

I don't know how else the government could have stopped subsidising loss-making industries, they did kick off a lot of re-generation schemes, but they handled some things crassly, like the poll tax, which gave the 'takers' more fuel to their protests.

At last whether I/anyone agree the point someone makes a proper reasoned argument. hypocretins take note!

[Peoplesoft bloke]

At last whether I/anyone agree the point someone makes a proper reasoned argument. hypocretins take note!

Bollocks

The only people who you consider capable of what you define as "reasoned argument" are those who broadly share your narrow view of the world.

[DodgyAgent]

Bollocks

The only people who you consider capable of what you define as "reasoned argument" are those who broadly share your narrow view of the world.

It may be narrow but at least I explain it which is more than what you seem to be capable of. You and your ilk have still not explained why Thatchers reforms should have been repealed nor have you disproved my argument that you contractors are beneficiaries of Thatcherism and you are therefore the epitome of the so called "greed and materialism culture fostered by Thatcherism. You say manufacturing declined under her which it did not. You say that she closed down the entire mining industry even though Harold Wilson closed more pits that she did. You even "argue" (ifone can call it that) that she could have done things differently despite the fact that her government offered the miners very agreeable terms to not strike. You even castigate her for making thousands of people jobless even though you are perfectly comfortable forging yourselves into millionaires by designing and building technologies that put more people out of work than anything that Thatcher could have done.

I am just confused as to what exactly your beef with Thatcher is. I have a feeling that it is more to do with either a hatred of women or some personal issue that haunts you. Or could it be that you simply feel guilty about removing so many HR jobs whilst making lots of money in the process and that you can like the true coward you are regain your moral consciousness by despising the person who made you rich.

[DodgyAgent]

Bollocks

The only people who you consider capable of what you define as "reasoned argument" are those who broadly share your narrow view of the world.

I do not necessarily agree with the point he made but IO respect the fact that he made it and argued it so eloquently. The reason why I have not made a counter argument is because - well I am not sure I can.

Having read the post I happen to agree with it, whereas you say you disagree but you do not explain why.