The Iron Lady.

I wager I wouldn't. She didn't like same-sex couples to my knowledge and while it factors in my assessment, it isn't large enough to overshadow her contributions.
 
The intense hatred against Thatcher cannot be written off as an internet thing. It long predates the internet.
 
Per said:
The intense hatred against Thatcher cannot be written off as an internet thing. It long predates the internet.
Click to expand...

Yeah, she has attracted very divisive opinions ever since she was elected. Some people say she saved Britain. Other than she divided it and threw it into the gutter. Even in British politics, there doesn,t seem to be many moderate opinions of her. It's not like she encouraged it anyhow, with the ''with me or against me'' stance she often took.
 
Hardly a great politician. Just a lucky one. She had an ineffectual unelectable opposition and a majority (if you can call 40% of the country a majority) in parliament that allowed her to do what she wanted without any problems. If you think Thatcher's great then Blair is "great" too.

The Falklands War boosted her popularity as people are generally moronic when it comes to war and patriotism. All she had to do was ride on that for years. And then there was the oh-so wonderful culture of greed she and Reagan introduced.

Then there was the racism, nationalism, homophobia etc. Not to mention any moron saying "well she was the first woman PM" needs to realise she did nothing for the cause of women in politics, with only 20% of MPs being women today. She didn't care about women. She cared about Thatcher.

edit: Btw Tag, she implemented homophobic law in section 28
 
I am surprised that no one has brought up those so far
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TFx9u1t1LY[/youtube]


Per said:
The intense hatred against Thatcher cannot be written off as an internet thing. It long predates the internet.
Click to expand...
try explaining that the kidz which actually believe recording history would have started with the internt.
 
Maybe it's just me, but you had to have done more than a few very bad things to deserve this:

They look genuinely happy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzXY9Lld-38

And the celebrations continued onto the night: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgaYos7q24o

Care for some death cake? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QiZPoo7H90

LOL? They are: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnonhGdD4ig

I certainly don't remember another western world leader's death being so celebrated. I was amazed at the amount of videos of celebrations upon her death.

Hell, and I thought she was hated here, but of course, we only had to suffer one of her adventures, the british had to suffer two entire mandates.
 
Don't forget, we are talking about the country of Hollyoaks and The Daily Mail (with apologies to Mikey). I'm no fan of Thatcher or her philosophy myself, but it won't do to judge an issue by how willing a populist mob is to misbehave over it. Were that the rubric we were applying, we could easily surmise that football hooligans' lives were being destroyed by the opposing team winning games.
 
I don't know, maybe I don't know the brits that well, but I don't remember celebrations like those even when murderous dictators here died. At most demonstrations for having them go to trial for their actions, but that's it. So I don't know, maybe they're just like that.

So, with that in mind I'd like to ask. Are there celebrations like those every time a former british prime minister dies in the UK?
 
It's kind of cool that she had a movie made about her while she was still breathing. Although I doubt she was able to enjoy it.

Apart from that, I say good riddance. She was a stupid cunt with penis envy and bad ideas and opinions she forced upon mentally emasculated men.

I did like her Falklands politics, though. Sort of cool to wage a war over some bogs with sheep and fools. Totally surrealist.
 
Yamu said:
Don't forget, we are talking about the country of Hollyoaks and The Daily Mail (with apologies to Mikey). I'm no fan of Thatcher or her philosophy myself, but it won't do to judge an issue by how willing a populist mob is to misbehave over it. Were that the rubric we were applying, we could easily surmise that football hooligans' lives were being destroyed by the opposing team winning games.
Click to expand...

Hey Hollyoaks is crap (an partly filmed less than a mile away from my house) but we make up for it with Stephen Fry!, so when you think about it the world still owes us... but as part of a agreement with you all to not end up paying back anything we will settle for the following,

1) America can keep the following people, Simon Cowell and Piers Morgan Any attempts to return them we will use Ant & Deck on you, you have been warned.

2) Victoria Beckham is to be force fed a bacon sandwich daily, and not allowed to design anything ever again. If she does we will force you all to watch Gok Wans fashion TV shows on a loop for 72 hours.

3) The Kardashians are to be lobotomised, all traces of them are to be scoured from the earth and they are then to be loaded onto a old Saturn 5 rocket and shot into the Sun.

4) A good Battlestar Galactica squeal or film to be made, Caprica was a let down, we would however settle for season two of Stargate Universe to be made just to finish of the story.

And, then we will be just about equal for the gift that is Mr Fry.
 
Tagaziel said:
I wager I wouldn't. She didn't like same-sex couples to my knowledge and while it factors in my assessment, it isn't large enough to overshadow her contributions.
Click to expand...

No she didnt like Homosexuals period, research the now infamous and backwards 'Section 28' law that the Thatcher government brought in.

She destroyed many families and home towns across the UK, if you lived in the South East Thatcher made you VERY rich but the rest of the country was shafted by her big time.

Reform was needed but she literally stripped the UK of all Manufacturing and Industrial centres creating us into a 'Service' nation - she de-regulated the banks in the city which of course has led to the problems we've seen today. She also sold off most public owned bodies to foreign private firms with the intent for us to rent our own resources BACK from them - utterly ridiculous.

I support the way she tackled Argentina and the IRA, bar that she is perhaps one of the most damaging politicians ever to have held office in the UK.

The North of Britain is still suffering from her devastating policies, high rates of unemployment, crime, drug use ect - problems that never existed to the extent prior to Thatcher taking office.

The unions needed tackling but she didnt just bring them in-line she destroyed most of the country in the process, making a few richer.

Its very difficult for people to truly understand the suffering she caused, families were broken apart, people lost their jobs never to find work again, some gave up and committed suicide - people couldnt feed their families during the industrial actions of the 80's. Brothers and fathers still dont talk to each other depending if one of them crossed the pikett lines ("once a scab always a scab" as someone in my office says...)

I remember watching MovieBobs review on the Thatcher film and he REALLY didnt get it - Americans generally wont though, her legacy lives on simply because of the grief and suffering she caused.

This is how Thatcher is viewed in the North, this is how most people in Yorkshire see her.
 
Gonzalez said:
So, with that in mind I'd like to ask. Are there celebrations like those every time a former british prime minister dies in the UK?
Click to expand...

Nope, just her.
 
you know Radman, you have to see it that way.

There was never enough money for

Schools

free health care

social support

fighting unemployment


But, there was always money for

Nuclear weapons in silos

Nuclear weapons on submarines

nuclear weapons on planes

nuclear weapons on nuclear weapons

and so on.

And the same was true for all the other nations, be it west or east.
 
Money comes a strong economy, britian and the united states economy depended on influence in other areas of the globe. Influence is much easier to attain with nuclear weapons
 
BonusWaffle said:
Money comes a strong economy, britian and the united states economy depended on influence in other areas of the globe. Influence is much easier to attain with nuclear weapons
Click to expand...

Wich is probably the truth behind Kim Jong-Un wanting nuclear weapons and the US willing to go to war over not letting them having them. Loss of influence, you cannot push North Korea around nor invade it if they have nukes. And NK would gain influence in the region and maybe even have an edge against SK. Altho as soon as NK had their nukes the US would be quick to give nukes to, or at least deploy their own nukes in SK.

You know, my country (Argentina) has had nuclear plants for decades now and we can generate all the necessary components to build nuclear weapons, yet we decide not to have them... unless... maybe we do have a few nukes hidden away that no one knows about... I always wondered... I mean, we do have a "satellite" launching programme going on... *starts hearing US military helicopters around him*
 
Luckily (or sadly) for me, México signed the Tlaltelolco treaty, that declares that we are not going to use nuclear tech for war purposes, so, we are nukeless, yet peaceful... he... he... If we talk abput nuclear power, yes. But about internal peace... That's other story, kids.
 
Crni Vuk said:
you know Radman, you have to see it that way.

There was never enough money for

Schools

free health care

social support

fighting unemployment


But, there was always money for

Nuclear weapons in silos

Nuclear weapons on submarines

nuclear weapons on planes

nuclear weapons on nuclear weapons

and so on.

And the same was true for all the other nations, be it west or east.
Click to expand...

complete nonsense
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top