Support NeoGAF

[nib95]

Probably been posted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XDtClJYJBj8

Wow, she went in HARD.

 

[rodvik]

I would agree with nearly everything you said except it was more than just a change. In her last term of power she started to ignore the advice of her own cabinet. When she lost the likes of Lawson & Howe's support, it was pretty much over. Especially as public support was already disappearing because the the poll tax

Agreed. As someone who took to the streets over the poll tax I can say that was not a happy time.

Protip. Never get in the way of a police horse

 

[Duffyside]

Guessing this hasn't been shared?

Andrew Sullivan

 

[larme113]

Reagan and Herself got what they deserved in the end. I only wished they would have lived longer in their final states.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Doesn't Sullivan like RON PAUL? lols.

 

[rodvik]

Guessing this hasn't been shared?

Andrew Sullivan

That was well written, a good piece.

Doesn't Sullivan like RON PAUL? lols.

No he supports Obama now after being appalled by the crazy turn the Republican party took.

 

[PJV3]

Oh come on. Attack Thatcher's 'womanliness' Please, it was Jackson's last ditch at TV before she goes out to pasture

You're really reaching with that, she made it clear it was her own view of what womanhood was, and it was one comment in a speech focused on Thatcher's political legacy.

 

[Duffyside]

No he supports Obama now after being appalled by the crazy turn the Republican party took.

Sssh! In this day and age we try to find reasons to dismiss people so we don't have to listen to them or consider viewpoints which may challenge our stubborn worldview.

 

[bjb]

Reagan and Herself got what they deserved in the end. I only wished they would have lived longer in their final states.

Shit son...Going in hard.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Sssh! In this day and age we try to find reasons to dismiss people so we don't have to listen to them or consider viewpoints which may challenge our stubborn worldview.

What?

It was a fellatory opinion piece. I disagree with Thatcher and her policies at a fundamental level so a blog post by some idiot isn't going to challenge fuck all.

 

[PJV3]

What?

It was a fellatory opinion piece. I disagree with Thatcher and her policies at a fundamental level so a blog post by some idiot isn't going to challenge fuck all.

It was funny.

Pre Thatcher nobody smiled, nobody had a job and life was grim.

The Olympics, gay and multicultural stuff just took the biscuit. Not forgetting the pop music she invented.

 

[Ding-Ding]

Agreed. As someone who took to the streets over the poll tax I can say that was not a happy time.

Protip. Never get in the way of a police horse

Ouch!!!

You're really reaching with that, she made it clear it was her own view of what womanhood was, and it was one comment in a speech focused on Thatcher's political legacy.

No, she is talking from her own perspective. I went to school in the 80's and I didn't see the place held together by sellotape. It may have been different in some of the more deprived cities but them places had been rotting since the 60's.

Glenda has a short memory if she thinks life before Thatcher was a utopia. No heating, no electricity, rubbish everywhere, no foreign investment, everywhere someone was on strike and if they did work it was for 3 days a week. People used to goto work on a nightshift with a sleeping bag & expect to get paid.

1970's UK = Utter fucking shitpit

 

[PJV3]

Ouch!!!



No, she is talking from her own perspective. I went to school in the 80's and I didn't see the place held together by sellotape. It may have been different in some of the more deprived cities but them places had been rotting since the 60's.

Glenda has a short memory if she thinks life before Thatcher was a utopia. No heating, no electricity, rubbish everywhere, no foreign investment, everywhere someone was on strike and if they did work it was for 3 days a week. People used to goto work on a nightshift with a sleeping bag & expect to get paid.

1970's UK = Utter fucking shitpit

So things like the Oil crisis don't exist in your history, poor British management?. I've already accepted that unions contributed to some of the problems, but you seem incapable of a balanced discussion.

I remember electricity, heating and clean streets, not the 3 day week as I was only 3.

But that wasn't Glenda's point anyway, she was talking about the move to individualism and greed and Thatcher dismissing the idea of community and society.

 

[Angry Fork]

This dancing on her grave is below feeble though and comes from the usual suspects who frankly just appear bitter because she beat them when alive.

Chichikov responded to this before, basically saying public opinion is often shaped by how we view past politicians. The deification of Reagan has certainly helped this country move further right, and if that is allowed, then jumping on their graves should be allowed also.

Fuck forced universal sympathy for people, does not matter if they're dead or what their family members think. The neoliberals created all the bs we're dealing with now. They should have shit talked about them until the end of days so we continue to fight their policies and never go back to them again.

American, so I can't offer much insight. But I do feel compelled to share. This is one of the most brilliant insights I've ever heard. Perfectly illustrates one of the worst problems with the left.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdR7WW3XR9c

False dichotomy

 

[nib95]

False dichotomy

This isn't anything against you in particular Angry Fork, in-fact, we may even agree on this, but it's mildly bothersome just how many GAF'ers these days resort to "false dichotomy" as a response to so many things. At least back it up with something a bit more meaningful. What part of it you find a fallacy, what the alternatives are etc.

 

[Angry Fork]

This isn't anything against you in particular Angry Fork, in-fact, we may even agree on this, but it's mildly bothersome just how many GAF'ers these days resort to "false dichotomy" as a response to so many things. At least back it up with something a bit more meaningful. What part of it you find a fallacy, what the alternatives are etc.

You're right my bad, no offense taken.

@ duffyside Socialists are in favor of the wealth ordinary people create (and what/how this is created) being in the hands of the creators, not funneled up to a select few. Even if you could prove poor people's income went up post-Thatcher that means fuck all if all of it went away to paying for higher priced necessities in for-profit corporate monopolized tyranny.

We are in favor of everyone being comfortable/middle class without gross excess, which is obviously possible, everyone being poor isn't remotely necessary to achieve equality. Thatcherites don't want equality though which is the point really, they want their class to remain in power, and people like them to be able to succeed without interference from the dirty proles.

Anyone who doesn't succeed in this rigged game is left to fend for themselves as social programs are devastated. That's what the guy was talking about in the video (and Glenda Jackson in the other), not that he was jealous of rich people.

 

[rodvik]

Chichikov responded to this before, basically saying public opinion is often shaped by how we view past politicians. The deification of Reagan has certainly helped this country move further right, and if that is allowed, then jumping on their graves should be allowed also.

Fuck forced universal sympathy for people, does not matter if they're dead or what their family members think. The neoliberals created all the bs we're dealing with now. They should have shit talked about them until the end of days so we continue to fight their policies and never go back to them again.

I think it is where you draw the line. For me that kind of response is reserved for a terrorist or dictator like the ones Thatcher opposed. I cannot bring myself to dance on the grave of an elected leader of a liberal democracy even if her politics were not mine.

I dont much like George Bush but when he dies I hope I will be able to express my disagreement with his policies and not look like a bitter douche at the same time (not saying you are by the way).

I strongly agree with you about undoing much of the clearly failed economic policies the right have served up over the past few decades, but we can do that by winning the spirited battle of ideas, not by looking like petty minded fools when a leader of the other side dies.

 

[Duffyside]

You're right my bad, no offense taken.

@ duffyside Socialists are in favor of the wealth ordinary people create (and what/how this is created) being in the hands of the creators, not funneled up to a select few. Even if you could prove poor people's income went up post-Thatcher that means fuck all if all of it went away to paying for higher priced necessities in for-profit corporate monopolized tyranny.

We are in favor of everyone being comfortable/middle class without gross excess, which is obviously possible, everyone being poor isn't remotely necessary to achieve equality. Thatcherites don't want equality though which is the point really, they want their class to remain in power, and people like them to be able to succeed without interference from the dirty proles.

Anyone who doesn't succeed in this rigged game is left to fend for themselves as social programs are devastated. That's what the guy was talking about in the video (and Glenda Jackson in the other), not that he was jealous of rich people.

Your language and what I believe is your tone truly gives me the creeps. You rattle off words like "for-profit" like I'm supposed to agree, or even consider, that it's "evil." Or that I would think "equality" should be a goal.

I'm actually pretty stunned you would admit the bolded. I've often heard conservative mouth-pieces speak of how "the left wants everyone to be equally miserable" or "mediocrity for everyone," but I don't parrot it because it seemed so simplistic and reductionist. But that's what you're saying, pretty plainly.

Seems that you wanted to show how wrong I was to agree with Thatcher's sentiment of the left rather having "the poor poorer, as long as the rich were less rich," but nothing you've said here has done anything but further codify that belief.

"Without gross excess" is a terrifying term too, as it's entirely subjective, and strips a human of their inherent right to pursue whatever brings them their own joy in favor of whatever "society," or "the government" deems from their perch to be a worthy pursuit. That's real tyranny.

 

[anaron]

Just saw the Glenda Jackson video. What a fucking queen.

 

[Angry Fork]

Your language and what I believe is your tone truly gives me the creeps. You rattle off words like "for-profit" like I'm supposed to agree, or even consider, that it's "evil." Or that I would think "equality" should be a goal.

I'm actually pretty stunned you would admit the bolded. I've often heard conservative mouth-pieces speak of how "the left wants everyone to be equally miserable" or "mediocrity for everyone," but I don't parrot it because it seemed so simplistic and reductionist. But that's what you're saying, pretty plainly.

Seems that you wanted to show how wrong I was to agree with Thatcher's sentiment of the left rather having "the poor poorer, as long as the rich were less rich," but nothing you've said here has done anything but further codify that belief.

"Without gross excess" is a terrifying term too, as it's entirely subjective, and strips a human of their inherent right to pursue whatever brings them their own joy in favor of whatever "society," or "the government" deems from their perch to be a worthy pursuit. That's real tyranny.

I said comfortable/middle class, that is not poor or misery. And yes if 1 person accumulates vast percentages of wealth that other people create, to the detriment of society, then that's a problem.

I know you don't think equality is a good thing I wasn't attempting to debate that, I was disputing Thatcher's claim that the left wants everyone to be poor as long as the rich are too.

 

[Duffyside]

I said comfortable/middle class, that is not poor or misery. And yes if 1 person accumulates vast percentages of wealth that other people create, to the detriment of society, then that's a problem.

I know you don't think equality is a good thing I wasn't attempting to debate that, I was disputing Thatcher's claim that the left wants everyone to be poor as long as the rich are too.

She didn't say as long as the rich are poor too. She said less rich. She was addressing the whine of "the gap has gotten larger." The point being if the choice was "the average income of the rich doubled, and the poor's increased by 10%" against "the average income of the rich stayed the same, and the poor's increased by 5%," many of the left would prefer the second option.

The simple accumulation of wealth isn't a problem at all, as long as it's earned legitimately. Trying to prevent that would inevitably prevent invention, innovation, advancement, as believe it or not, the accumulation of wealth is quite the motivating factor.

 

[Angry Fork]

She didn't say as long as the rich are poor too. She said less rich. She was addressing the whine of "the gap has gotten larger." The point being if the choice was "the average income of the rich doubled, and the poor's increased by 10%" against "the average income of the rich stayed the same, and the poor's increased by 5%," many of the left would prefer the second option.

The simple accumulation of wealth isn't a problem at all, as long as it's earned legitimately. Trying to prevent that would inevitably prevent invention, innovation, advancement, as believe it or not, the accumulation of wealth is quite the motivating factor.

1. The income gain becomes less relevant when all of the tax-driven social programs are also taken away in this shift, as that extra 5% will have to be given back to the rich through privatization schemes. Nonetheless I have no clue whether or not the 5-10% scenario is actually true or not.

2. Most scientists, doctors, public workers, non-profits, charities etc. disprove this. Accumulation of high wealth is a motivating factor for people not interested in serving the public good. Anyone who thinks they have a great idea and wants to go for it will do so regardless of whether or not riches is guaranteed, as the idea in itself is motivation. Self-reliant, interesting people are driven most by autonomy, intellectual curiosity and the freedom to explore those curiosities. Wealth is a bonus.

Also we are not starved of innovation, there are millions of talented, intelligent people who would do what they do because they love it and genuinely want to, nobody is so special they should be given hundreds/thousands of times more wealth and opportunity than all of the other talented intelligent people. I think having free universal education at all levels would do a lot more for innovation than trickle down/low taxes on rich and vouchers for religious-affiliated private schools.

 

[War Peaceman]

She didn't say as long as the rich are poor too. She said less rich. She was addressing the whine of "the gap has gotten larger." The point being if the choice was "the average income of the rich doubled, and the poor's increased by 10%" against "the average income of the rich stayed the same, and the poor's increased by 5%," many of the left would prefer the second option.

The simple accumulation of wealth isn't a problem at all, as long as it's earned legitimately. Trying to prevent that would inevitably prevent invention, innovation, advancement, as believe it or not, the accumulation of wealth is quite the motivating factor.

My goodness. Wealth inequality has real, tangible and negative effects on social harmony as well as on economies. Wealth hoarding (as is occurring right now), slowed innovation, social discontent. The idea that socialism can't have aspiration, as implied, is simply wrong. The idea isn't for everyone to have the same level of wealth but to have enough to be survive comfortably while still having the will to earn more. Money is caught up less in dynasties and more accurately rewarded to those who DO as opposed to those who once did or whose ancestors did. It keeps money flowing and rewards success not heritage.

Going back to that Sullivan article, the idea of Thatcher as some kind of liberator is absurd. The idea that capitalism and free markets brought greater social equality is absurd. Look at the amount of female CEOs for example. She introduced the vile Section 28 for goodness sake.

Yes, she definitely transformed the economic approach of the country. She was still an authoritarian and socially-conservative practitioner.

 

[kitch9]

Reagan and Herself got what they deserved in the end. I only wished they would have lived longer in their final states.

Ooh, big man are we....

She and her policies were democratically voted in. She had a mandate for what she did, unlike the militant unions who thought taking a vote would get in the way.

In a democracy you have to accept that the other guy will win sometimes, and wishing ill on them is quite frankly childish and pathetic.

 

[hellclerk]

She didn't say as long as the rich are poor too. She said less rich. She was addressing the whine of "the gap has gotten larger." The point being if the choice was "the average income of the rich doubled, and the poor's increased by 10%" against "the average income of the rich stayed the same, and the poor's increased by 5%," many of the left would prefer the second option.

The simple accumulation of wealth isn't a problem at all, as long as it's earned legitimately. Trying to prevent that would inevitably prevent invention, innovation, advancement, as believe it or not, the accumulation of wealth is quite the motivating factor.

I would like to point out that of the bolded, the latter would be economically preferable to the lower classes as opposed to the former. See, if that much money were to be moving through the system, it would add to currency inflation, thus stunting the actual advantages that 10% average increase allows considering that the top (presumably 1%-5%) increases by 100%. However, a 5% increase in only the lower economic brackets would contribute much less to inflation and allow for actual increase in buying power for the poor, something the poor tend to use immediately. This would drive the economy, drive job growth, increase the wealth of the economy, and, well wouldn't you know it, improve the incomes of the rich by a modest, but noticeable margin.

 

[kitch9]

I would like to point out that of the bolded, the latter would be economically preferable to the lower classes as opposed to the former. See, if that much money were to be moving through the system, it would add to currency inflation, thus stunting the actual advantages that 10% average increase allows considering that the top (presumably 1%-5%) increases by 100%. However, a 5% increase in only the lower economic brackets would contribute much less to inflation and allow for actual increase in buying power for the poor, something the poor tend to use immediately. This would drive the economy, drive job growth, increase the wealth of the economy, and, well wouldn't you know it, improve the incomes of the rich by a modest, but noticeable margin.

No where in the statement does it say 5% - inflation?

 

[Ding-Ding]

the move to individualism and greed and Thatcher dismissing the idea of community and society.

Do you mean Thatcher's "There is no society" quote that the left wing press use yet none print the entire interview.

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation

 

[Kurtofan]

Do you mean Thatcher's "There is no society" quote that the left wing press use yet none print the entire interview.

"I'm homeless, the government must house me"

How dare those homeless people want housing, what entitlement.

Coming from a person who died at the fucking Ritz hotel

 

[Ding-Ding]

"I'm homeless, the government must house me"

How dare those homeless people want housing, what entitlement.

Coming from a person who died at the fucking Ritz hotel

You miss the point she was making entirely. Though why am I surprised by that here.

EDIT: Hold on, your french aren't you. So hows the socialist government going. Is the new high tax rate going well?. Hows Bernard Arnault, France's richest man... Is he a Belguin citizen yet?

 

[PJV3]

Do you mean Thatcher's "There is no society" quote that the left wing press use yet none print the entire interview.

Anybody who knows about pre welfare state Britain, will recognise what she means.

We were the richest and most powerful nation on earth, and we had slums and workhouses and grinding poverty. It took the action of society through the state to sort it out, not charity and throwing your neighbour a bone.

 

[dalin80]

Anybody who knows about pre welfare state Britain, will recognise what she means.

We were the richest and most powerful nation on earth.

Britain was utterly bankrupt and seriously fucked pre welfare state after two world wars and an empire collapse.

 

[Kurtofan]

You miss the point she was making entirely. Though why am I surprised by that here.

EDIT: Hold on, your french aren't you. So hows the socialist government going. Is the new high tax rate going well?. Hows Bernard Arnault, France's richest man... Is he a Belguin citizen yet?

The government isn't actually socialist besides the name, Hollande is very centrist and isn't going to replace neoliberal austerity any time soon.

 

[Ding-Ding]

Anybody who knows about pre welfare state Britain, will recognise what she means.

We were the richest and most powerful nation on earth, and we had slums and workhouses and grinding poverty. It took the action of society through the state to sort it out, not charity and throwing your neighbour a bone.

Yes it was, which is why I would put Clement Attlee as one of the three top Prime Ministers alongside Thatcher & Churchill.

The difference is, you blame Thatcher for just about everything, including the banking crash in 2008. Yet she just laid the foundations of the system.

I dont blame Atlee though for being the one who laid the foundations for the socialist model which failed so spectacularly in 1979. That was Wilson, Heath & Callaghan's fuck up just as 2008 was Brown & Blair's fault.

You however just want to blame Thatcher for everything, which is why I think your the one who has a problem with a balanced debate.

 

[PJV3]

In the 1880s, Booth didn't believe that 1/4 of londoners lived in poverty(he thought it was lower) His famous maps showed it was actually 1/3.

 

[Sane_Man]

Oh come on. Attack Thatcher's 'womanliness' Please, it was Jackson's last ditch at TV before she goes out to pasture

Nonsense. It was a completely legitimate topic to discuss. All we've been hearing since Thatcher died is how much of a role model to women she was. Jackson takes issue with that and she's well within her rights to.

 

[PJV3]

Yes it was, which is why I would put Clement Attlee as one of the three top Prime Ministers alongside Thatcher & Churchill.

The difference is, you blame Thatcher for just about everything, including the banking crash in 2008. Yet she just laid the foundations of the system.

I dont blame Atlee though for being the one who laid the foundations for the socialist model which failed so spectacularly in 1979. That was Wilson, Heath & Callaghan's fuck up just as 2008 was Brown & Blair's fault.



You however just want to blame Thatcher for everything, which is why I think your the one who has a problem with a balanced debate.

No I don't, and you know it. I have mentioned the unions, problems of underinvestment predating thatcher etc, I detest her solutions as short sighted, I also blame New Labour for it's part and responsibility.

 

[Ding-Ding]

No I don't, and you know it. I have mentioned the unions, problems of underinvestment predating thatcher etc, I detest her solutions as short sighted, I also blame New Labour for it's part and responsibility.

The neo socialist economy before Thatcher was dead, it was propped up by a series of governments that in 78/79 ran out of money. There was no foreign investment because of the unions and the rich were already paying a near 99% tax.

Wilson, Heath & Callaghan proved beyond doubt that negotiation didn't work. The Unions were not interested in dismantling the system which meant just one option... Controlled explosion.

Were people crushed in the fallout, undoubtedly but it was better than model collapsing naturally which it would have done, crushing everyone in the wreckage!

 

[elseanio]

Agree or disagree, the Liverpool fans are preparing a party today. Will be interesting to see how its handled. Maybe they'll just show 5 seconds of the game on Match of the Day, followed by some shite news report?

Liverpool fans are plotting a tasteless celebration of Baroness Thatcher’s death by unfurling offensive banners during Saturday’s match at Reading.
The action is being organised by some fans on online club forums, where Lady Thatcher has been attacked as she was Prime Minister at the time of the Hillsborough disaster in 1989.
One proposed banner reads: ‘You didn’t care when you lied, we don’t care that you died. Justice for the 96.’

Other Kop fans have said they will wear party hats.

A minute’s silence is planned at the game to commemorate the Hillsborough anniversary.
Reading — whose former owner John Madejski called for all Premier League clubs to observe a minute’s silence — are aware of the proposals and will choose a strategy this morning.

Some banners that have been seen lately at every Liverpool game:

 

[Sane_Man]

It's a little tasteless, sure, but vitriolic anger from the people of Liverpool is completely justified. Thatcher is on record as wanting the city to rot, why shouldn't they want her to rot?

 

[zero shift]

Do you mean Thatcher's "There is no society" quote that the left wing press use yet none print the entire interview.

That's pretty fucking disgusting. The quote is much more disgusting when its put into context. The homeless thing especially since nearly all of them have some type of mental illness.

EDIT: Hold on, your french aren't you. So hows the socialist government going. Is the new high tax rate going well?. Hows Bernard Arnault, France's richest man... Is he a Belguin citizen yet?

I'm sure he's pissed off with his nation having half your poverty rate, higher wages, and the lowest working hours and the best healthcare in the world.

 

[War Peaceman]

Well, communities were wrecked by Thatcher's policies. This is widely acknowledged by her advocates and critics. I think it is perfectly valid for members of these communities to celebrate. I wouldn't - there are more productive things that could be done to get back at what was done by her government's, but it makes sense.

 

[Willkiller]

Yes it was, which is why I would put Clement Attlee as one of the three top Prime Ministers alongside Thatcher & Churchill.

The difference is, you blame Thatcher for just about everything, including the banking crash in 2008. Yet she just laid the foundations of the system.

I dont blame Atlee though for being the one who laid the foundations for the socialist model which failed so spectacularly in 1979. That was Wilson, Heath & Callaghan's fuck up just as 2008 was Brown & Blair's fault.

You however just want to blame Thatcher for everything, which is why I think your the one who has a problem with a balanced debate.

Ding-Dong
Member

 

[PJV3]

The neo socialist economy before Thatcher was dead, it was propped up by a series of governments that in 78/79 ran out of money. There was no foreign investment because of the unions and the rich were already paying a near 99% tax.

Wilson, Heath & Callaghan proved beyond doubt that negotiation didn't work. The Unions were not interested in dismantling the system which meant just one option... Controlled explosion.

Were people crushed in the fallout, undoubtedly but it was better than model collapsing naturally which it would have done, crushing everyone in the wreckage!

We're never going to agree on the solution, you can flog everything you own and have loads of money to fund a great party, but you end up skint and having no possessions.

Union reform was needed, the TUC had lost control, show of hands wildcat strikes were out of order, my solution would have been more germanic style workers councils and union reps on boards of companies. Reforms of union voting systems and reforms of the attitude of British management to the people below them.

There were a whole host of problems in the 70s, international as well as domestic. I prefer longer term vision and solutions than she was capable of.


She's an important PM historically, but a terrible one in terms of long term impact.

 

[Ding-Ding]

Ding-Dong
Member

In case you haven't noticed but every poll so far shows that more people support my view rather than the we hate Thatcher brigade.

Sure it may not be evident on this forum but if you think that forums should only contain one opinion, may I suggest that North Korea maybe a country you would love to live in

There were a whole host of problems in the 70s, international as well as domestic. I prefer longer term vision and solutions than she was capable of.

Thats the problem, she didn't have the time. If you wanted a nice alternative then it needed to be done when Wilson was in power.

Also, when it came to leaving people behind like in the North etc then you need to start reading about the battles between Thatcher & the Labour councils. When foreign investment started, the South said "Open for Business" while the Labour councils we still licking their wounds crying for a return to the 70's"

 

[Sane_Man]

In case you haven't noticed but every poll so far shows that more people support my view rather than the we hate Thatcher brigade.

Sure it may not be evident on this forum but if you think that forums should only contain one opinion, may I suggest that North Korea maybe a country you would love to live in

Ding-Ding. You've hit a new low.

 

[Ding-Ding]

Ding-Ding. You've hit a new low.

Oh yes, someone holds a different opinion from you so they should just be quiet huh?

 

[Arksy]

Ding-Dong
Member

I agree, Thatcher was one of the best. She brought country from the near brink back to glory.

 

[Flatline]

That's pretty fucking disgusting. The quote is much more disgusting when its put into context. The homeless thing especially since nearly all of them have some type of mental illness.

Yeap. It takes major balls (or obnoxious audacity) to say that the quote was out of context when it's into context it's ten times worse. It only confirms what a truly despicable human being she was.

 

[Ding-Ding]

I agree, Thatcher was one of the best. She brought country from the near brink back to glory.

Get ready for a backlash then because apparently you are not allowed to have a different opinion here.

Sounds an alot like places like Sheffield in the 80's. Where about 1/3 of miners didn't go on strike in 84 and where treated like outcasts from those that did strike.

Still, when the differences of opinion became evident and people stopped talking to each other. It was easier to blame Thatcher than to take a long hard look at themselves

 

[Tom_Cody]

That's pretty fucking disgusting. The quote is much more disgusting when its put into context. The homeless thing especially since nearly all of them have some type of mental illness.

Yeap. It takes major balls (or obnoxious audacity) to say that the quote was out of context when it's into context it's ten times worse. It only confirms what a truly despicable human being she was.

This is the quote you're talking about, right?

'I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.'

I'm not sure if you guys are being serious or not. Poli-GAF is so weird.

I take that as a general call for self-reliance and personal-independence. That quote seems pretty innocuous to me.