Murraysrightplum Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 Football Talk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calculus Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 Football Talk? Right winger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 Presumably your book is the Conservative Party Manifesto of 1983. Diana Gould faced up to her on television and found her out for the liar she was. If the sinking of the Belgrano was so honorable, why did Thatcher need to lie about it? Because that's what politicians do. Given the war, which was justified under the UN Charter, sinking the Belgrano was perfectly right, whatever direction it was heading. Much as I loathed her domestic politics, she did the right thing in liberating the Falklands and, incidentally, the Argentine people. They don't show any gratitude, mind. The "Malvinas" seem to be the get-out clause for every failing second-rate politician in Buenos Aires. If the islanders want to be British, fine. If they want to be Argentinian, equally fine. It's the right of self-determination, another article of the UN Charter. In domestic politics, she goes down as the most vicious and divisive PM since Lord Liverpool and that, I hope, will be her epitaph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 She fooled you too then, clearly. It's a good thing that Thatcher was the last PM to get away with fooling the whole country over a foreign war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bemmyredjeff Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 Had it not been for Maggie I'd still be having to go out on strike every few months. ( RoyalMail ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dolman Pragmatist Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 Because that's what politicians do. Given the war, which was justified under the UN Charter, sinking the Belgrano was perfectly right, whatever direction it was heading. Much as I loathed her domestic politics, she did the right thing in liberating the Falklands and, incidentally, the Argentine people. They don't show any gratitude, mind. The "Malvinas" seem to be the get-out clause for every failing second-rate politician in Buenos Aires. If the islanders want to be British, fine. If they want to be Argentinian, equally fine. It's the right of self-determination, another article of the UN Charter. In domestic politics, she goes down as the most vicious and divisive PM since Lord Liverpool and that, I hope, will be her epitaph. I'll continue to disagree with you on your analysis of the Falklands, but otherwise I think you've summed her up perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fka dagest Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 Is there anyway Cardiff City can be blamed for her death? or even Lee Johnson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 or even Lee Johnson? Give it time and some on here will have the board and Steve L responsible for the miners strike and the poll tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 She was a vile woman who systematically destroyed working class society in this country in pursuit of a new social order which has directly led to the way The City of London has behaved over the last 5 years. She ripped the heart out of British industry and the communities that surrounded the coal mines, ship yards and steel mills not to create something better but to try and secure a political legacy for herself. There are very few figures in recent British history that I would find satisfaction in their demise, but she is one (her old adversary Scargill is another) and I fully accept the barbs that people will (quite justifiably) throw my way about that being beyond the realm of good taste One thing I would say for her was that she was justified in taking back the Falklands. The British government has just as much of a duty to protect the inhabitants of Port Stanley as it does the residents of Bristol, London, Birmingham, etc. It was perhaps 'unfortunate' that it led to her winning another term in office. It's just a shame that she showed so much less compassion to people in Barnsley, Manchester, Leeds or Liverpool than she did or the Falklands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 I despised her. I wonder if they will dare to do a minutes silence at the Manc derby tonight. Will be carnage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 If you want read this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11518331 Won 3 elections and never lost one. Obviously the British voters liked her.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 Because that's what politicians do. Given the war, which was justified under the UN Charter, sinking the Belgrano was perfectly right, whatever direction it was heading. Much as I loathed her domestic politics, she did the right thing in liberating the Falklands and, incidentally, the Argentine people. They don't show any gratitude, mind. The "Malvinas" seem to be the get-out clause for every failing second-rate politician in Buenos Aires. If the islanders want to be British, fine. If they want to be Argentinian, equally fine. It's the right of self-determination, another article of the UN Charter. In domestic politics, she goes down as the most vicious and divisive PM since Lord Liverpool and that, I hope, will be her epitaph. Re the Falklands, look up HMS Endurance, the only link the Falklands had with the UK at the time. Due to her cuts, that link was being taken away by Thatcher,that was the spark that lit the Argues flame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eco Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 If you want read this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11518331 Won 3 elections and never lost one. Obviously the British voters liked her.... And the vast majority of the press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Butterfield Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 And the vast majority of the press. Bingo, same for ol tony B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted April 8, 2013 Admin Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 I think it is amazing all over the 'net how many are suddenly political experts.Many of them including on here were not even alive during her tenure but suddenly jump on the bandwagon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddoc Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 I think it is amazing all over the 'net how many are suddenly political experts. Many of them including on here were not even alive during her tenure but suddenly jump on the bandwagon I blame alternative comedians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 An interesting view... The Left hates Margaret Thatcher because she reminds them they are wrong about everything By Daniel Hannan PUBLISHED:00:22, 13 September 2012| UPDATED:07:41, 13 September 2012 Now and again, we are reminded of the sheer nastiness of a certain kind of Leftie. Not, let me stress, all Lefties: I have Labour friends who are motivated by a more or less uncomplicated desire to help the disadvantaged. But they march alongside some committed haters who define their politics not by what they like, but by what they loathe. They also define opponents not as human beings with whom they disagree, but as legitimate targets. A lack of empathy, bordering almost on sociopathy sits behind their talk of caring and sharing. On sale at the TUC Conference, before a storm of protest forced their withdrawal, were T-shirts glorying in the eventual death of Margaret Thatcher. ‘A generation of trade unionists will dance on Thatcher’s grave,’ says one, emblazoned with the image of her tombstone. 'Grotesque and obscene': Party packs for celebrating the death of Margaret Thatcher have been widely condemned Another is wrapped in a bag printed with the words: ‘In the event of Thatcher’s death, open bag and wear T-shirt immediately.’ The T-shirt has a picture of the former prime minister’s Spitting Image puppet, with the slogan: ‘Hey ho the witch is dead.’ Unbelievably, the ‘unemployed’ workers who produced them are taxpayer-funded. Stop and think for a moment about what these T-shirts are celebrating. Lady Thatcher is a frail and elderly grandmother. Yes, she was a strong-willed, divisive politician — and thank heaven she was. A more conciliatory figure would almost certainly not have made the changes necessary to rescue Britain from the mess we were in by the late Seventies. But what does it say about someone’s mindset that they slide so easily from disagreeing with Lady Thatcher’s politics to gloating over the idea of her death? 'To celebrate the big day': The pack contains specially themed balloons, party whistles and T-shirts are also being sold to celebrate the prospect of Lady Thatcher's death It’s not just one T-shirt seller at the TUC. You get the same sentiment on Twitter, internet comment threads, even on BBC comedy programmes. To a generation too young to remember the Thatcher governments — let alone the calamity that had preceded them — she is less a living, breathing woman than a symbol of evil, somewhere between Lady Macbeth and Cruella de Vil. So hostile to Thatcherism is the cultural climate, so preponderant the Billy Elliot view of the time (with the musical’s line ‘Merry Christmas Maggie Thatcher/We all celebrate today/Cos it’s one day closer to your death’), that young people must wonder how the lady won a single vote, let alone three general elections. When I speak to sixth-formers in my constituency — teenagers born long after she had left office — they often tell me, with breezy certainty, that the Eighties were years of unmitigated greed punctuated only by corruption. When I ask them how, then, they explain the results of the ballot box that saw Thatcher re-elected twice, they look uncomfortable and declare there must have been lots of nasty people in Britain. I am just old enough to remember the end of the Seventies: power cuts, three-day weeks, constant strikes, price and income controls, inflation. Worst of all, I remember the sense of despair, the conviction that Britain was finished. I don’t believe you can grasp Margaret Thatcher’s achievement without the context of what she displaced. Throughout the Sixties and Seventies, this country had been outperformed by every European economy. ‘Britain is a tragedy — it has sunk to borrowing, begging, stealing until North Sea oil comes in,’ said Henry Kissinger. The Wall Street Journal in 1975 was blunter: ‘Goodbye, Great Britain: it was nice knowing you.’ Margaret Thatcher’s victory in 1979 was like a thaw after the cruellest of winters. Inflation fell, strikes stopped, the latent enterprise of a free people was awakened. Having lagged behind for a generation, we outgrew every European country in the Eighties except Spain (which was bouncing back from an even lower place). As revenues flowed in, taxes were cut and debt was repaid, while public spending — contrary to almost universal belief — rose. In the Falklands, Margaret Thatcher showed the world that a great country doesn’t retreat forever. Lack of respect: Comedy programmes also insult Thatcher - a woman who is now an elderly, frail grandmother And by ending the wretched policy of one-sided detente that had allowed the Soviets to march into Europe, Korea and Afghanistan, she set in train the events that would free hundreds of millions of people from what, in crude mathematical terms, must be reckoned the most murderous ideology humanity has known. Why, then, do Lefties loathe her so much? You always get the same answer: ‘She closed down the old industries.’ She didn’t, of course: she simply stopped obliging everyone else to subsidise them. But let’s leave that objection to one side. Ask yourselves this, my Leftie friends: in what other developed country are the heavy industries still going as they were in the Seventies? The world was changing and every nation had to adapt. All over Europe and North America, steel mills, coal mines and dockyards were closing, unable to compete with the developing world. And unable to compete for a happy reason: a relatively high standard of living. Success: Margaret Thatcher's victory in 1979 was like a thaw after the cruellest of winters Which political parties are today seriously proposing we go back to massive subsidies, or nationalisation, for our old manufacturing sector? Only, as far as I can see, Respect, the Scottish Socialists and the BNP. This isn’t about logic, though. It’s about the desire of a certain kind of person to enjoy a good hate. I’ve noticed that Lefties are unusually ready to tell the world of their various hatreds. Look at how people describe themselves on Twitter: ‘hates Tories’, ‘hates capitalism’, ‘hates neo-liberals’. No doubt if you look hard enough you’ll find the odd ‘hates socialism’, but it’s much rarer. I’m not saying that hatred is exclusive to the Left: man is fallen, and we all occasionally give in to our baser instincts. But a Rightist is far less likely to boast about hating something. When I point this out, Lefties generally reply: ‘How can you possibly say that? Right-wingers are the biggest haters of all!’ Such a response is interesting on three levels. First, it’s not true. Second, it concedes the essence of the charge (yeah, we totally hate you, but you deserve it). Third, it’s a form of projection: because we hate you, you must feel the same way about us. In fact, the feeling is not reciprocated. The last time I spoke to Lady Thatcher was at a small dinner party two years ago. She had moments of great lucidity and, in one of them, paid a handsome compliment to Michael Foot, the Labour leader whom she had defeated in the 1983 general election. What a gentleman he had been, she said, what an orator, and how under-appreciated by his own party. I agreed with her about Michael Foot, but I couldn’t help wonder how many Labour MPs would be equally generous about her. No, what Lefties (with honourable exceptions) find hard to forgive is the lady’s very success: the fact that she rescued a country that they had dishonoured and impoverished; that she inherited a Britain that was sclerotic, indebted and declining and left it proud, wealthy and free; that she never lost an election to them. Their rage, in truth, can never be assuaged, for she reminds them of their own failure. Daniel Hannan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Till I'm Dead Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 Is this the woman that blamed the Hillsborough on the 'drunk' fans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo88 Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 At least you knew what she stood for, even if you did not agree with her.Unlike the rubbish we have currently in the House of Commons. A great Prime Minister I absolutely agree that you knew what she stood for. She was a politician who stood by her convictions. You knew what you were going to get, even if you didn’t like, it as she had a clear vision of where the country should go. Similar politicians from the other end of the political spectrum were Tony Benn and Michael Foot. They also had very clear visions and, if elected, would have stuck with them. Today? Vote for David Cameron, Ed Milliband or Nick Clegg and what will you get? Anything that happens to be popular at the time. None of them seem to have a vision beyond what they are going to have for breakfast tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Joe Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 war crime?, we were at war, the GB was an enemy ship redardless of if was in the exclusion zone or not or if it was a threat or not. our hospital ship was not a threat ,didnt stop it being attacked I suppose she was a superb and clever politician in exactly the same way that Hitler was a superb and clever politician. The sinking of the Belgrano was a war crime of the worst order, and she lied blatantly afterwards to try to get herself off the hook but was found out. Her aim was to crush the spirit of working people, and she achieved it. I'm amazed that anyone on a football forum has a good word to say for her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 I think it is amazing all over the 'net how many are suddenly political experts. Many of them including on here were not even alive during her tenure but suddenly jump on the bandwagon I was alive and forced on to the dole, then told I " was a price worth paying" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
everreddy Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 She well and truly ****ed up education, that's for sure. Didn't have a clue, snatched our third of a pint, and told all us teachers wot to do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 Is this the woman that blamed the Hillsborough on the 'drunk' fans? Oh yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murraysrightplum Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 war crime?, we were at war, the GB was an enemy ship redardless of if was in the exclusion zone or not or if it was a threat or not. our hospital ship was not a threat ,didnt stop it being attacked You do know that neither side officially declared war on each other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 Is this the woman that blamed the Hillsborough on the 'drunk' fans? It was. There's your football connection. Should we show tact and consideration for one who did not for the Hillsborough victims? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son of Fred Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 Probably. You don't find many people now who'd still claim Blair did a great job - both the left and the right were pretty unhappy with him by the end....war crimes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brockleb Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 I would suggest that those making positive comments about the woman weren't around when she was wrecking Britain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 Re the Falklands, look up HMS Endurance, the only link the Falklands had with the UK at the time. Due to her cuts, that link was being taken away by Thatcher,that was the spark that lit the Argues flame. Wouldn't disagree with that. Bl00dy stupid decision, and typical of her penny-pinching philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo88 Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 I suppose she was a superb and clever politician in exactly the same way that Hitler was a superb and clever politician. The sinking of the Belgrano was a war crime of the worst order, and she lied blatantly afterwards to try to get herself off the hook but was found out. Her aim was to crush the spirit of working people, and she achieved it. I'm amazed that anyone on a football forum has a good word to say for her. What often seems to be forgotten is that what is called the Falklands “Conflict” was in fact a war started by Argentina with Argentina having no hesitation in trying to kill British servicemen A lot has been made of the fact that Belgrano was sailing away from the exclusion zone, but this is irrelevant. It was ziging and zaging to try to avoid detection The Argentine navy had been instructed to launch a major attack the British task force around the Falklands. As part of this plan the Belgrano was planning to attack the British ships from the south east whilst at the same time an Argentinean aircraft carrier was planning to attack from the north. Had a British aircraft carrier been sunk by either attack, the loss of life would have been far greater than that caused by the sinking of the Belgrano As a result of the sinking, the Argentinean fleet went back to port and never came out again. http://en.mercopress.com/2004/05/03/general-belgrano-had-orders-to-attack-the-task-force Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 ...war crimes? Now Blair is unquestionably a war criminal, but then he studied under Maggie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.