A Note Of Appreciation To My U.k. Friends...

...for the lend of a former Head-of-State of great stature, Margaret Thatcher, and also a phenomenal tenor, Ronin Tynan, who graced the Reagan funeral with magnificent versions of Ave Maria and Amazing Grace, while also doing interim duty with the sitting choir.

Both lent extreme grace to an extraordinary event; especially Mrs. Thatcher, who is quite frail these days due to recent medical difficulties.

Her remnant mettle was on display today as she honored her colleague of years past.

You are lucky to have them yet, and hopefully for some years to come.

Maggie pity her party gave her the sack seems she thought she was above the qween but she was a good friend of ron and at the end that is what matters

Margaret Thatcher was the worst thing that ever happened to politics in the United Kingdom.

Her politics were those of greed and self-interest. Her policies destroyed countless lives and left a legacy of "Thatcherism" which is a shame on our history.

I can't say I recall her years with much pleasure. She brought discord and division in her wake in whatever she touched. Even the Conservatives are wary of her legacy - most distancing themselves from her more cranky ideas, like "there is no such thing as society". She was, latterly, able to reduce everything to a Profit and Loss statement.

Personally, I think she lost it, which is why she was sugically removed from office via an in-house coup.

Is there any mechanism in the US to remove a President if his closest aids and Cabinet think he is perhaps a little flakey? No particular reason, just interested. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@12 June 2004 - 03:09
...for the lend of a former Head-of-State of great stature, Margaret Thatcher, and also a phenomenal tenor, Ronin Tynan, who graced the Reagan funeral with magnificent versions of Ave Maria and Amazing Grace, while also doing interim duty with the sitting choir.

Both lent extreme grace to an extraordinary event; especially Mrs. Thatcher, who is quite frail these days due to recent medical difficulties.

Her remnant mettle was on display today as she honored her colleague of years past.

You are lucky to have them yet, and hopefully for some years to come.

---

Keep the Bitch

With my blessing


PLEASE

Keep the Bitch



She was never head of state, thats the Queen......she just thought she was.

You would seem to be ruled by your emotions, the lot of you.

I appreciate your perspective(s), but on the international level, she was an important ally of the U.S., as is Tony Blair; for these alliances we are grateful.

It would appear Mr. Blair awaits a quick and unlovely exit also.

I wonder that your anti-Thatcher sentiment is coloring your thoughts of Reagan?

Funny Mr. Tynan doesn't merit any note; perhaps being Irish like Reagan is also a detriment. :)

Thatcher was worse than Bush.


She sold the family silver to pay for her mismanagement of the economy... even being, in theory, self sufficient in Oil couldnt pay for her crap... what a waste.

She only give a shit about her millionaire friends, whilst trying to dismantle the Welfare State as it cost too much... because her Tax Cuts were so big that she had to pay for them by selling off every profitable thing the Government had (which subsidised the Loss making Services, therefore making Government even more expensive).

She then sold of things that didnt even belong to the Government, but to Local Authorities (Water Authorities)...so helping create financial Crisis in those areas they had no control over.

Then she introduced Right to Buy... not a bad thing in itself, except that the Local Authorities werent allowed to use the money raised by selling off Social Housing, so creating a Housing Shortage of epic proportions that eventually lead to the Boom/Bust Housing Market we see today, were no one on reasonable wages can buy a house in some areas.

Yes, her Rich Friends made a bundle out of the Lower Middle and Working Classes...



She's an evil Bitch, and if the terrorists had actually got her in Brighton, there would have been Street Parties in many parts of Britain..

I suppose you don't think much of Mr. Tynan, then. ;)

Sounds like Maggie was trying to introduce the theoretical American "smaller government/capitalism" model to your country.

Much too traumatizing; I could have told her it would never work.

Even we only manage it in bits and pieces, and then only within the normal ebb-and-flow of American politics.


EDIT: I almost missed your assertion Maggie was worse than Bush: Duly noted, for future reference.

In that poll, she would have been a 12 :P

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@12 June 2004 - 08:24
In that poll, she would have been a 12 :P

---

Well, I do remember her saying it would be painful..... ;)

What RF forgets to mention is that when Maggie came to power, the country was already bankrupt. Any government, even a Labour one, would have had to privatise most of the utilities to pay for the massive debts run up by the previous government.

As for the right to buy scheme, local authorities were perfectly able to use profits from the sales to create more social housing. There was only one rule which stopped them: they had to pay off the outstanding loans used to create the current housing schemes first. Exactly the same reasonable conditions a bank or building society would place on individuals who had taken out loans.

Some authorities chose not to do so as a political gesture, but instead invested the money. The income from these investments was far less than interest payments on the original loans. Lunacy. If they had paid off the existing loans they could have taken out new loans (probably on better terms) and built more housing.

Considering that the right to buy scheme has been in operation for about 20 years, you might think that by now the loans would have been repaid anyway. If so, you would be wrong. And despite the change of government 7 years ago almost the same rules are still in place. If the rules were so bad you would think they would have been removed entirely.

Meanwhile, what's happening in central government? At a time when the economy is booming, our idiot of a chancellor is borrowing money when he should be repaying loans. And his spending plans show no indication of slowing down. If the economy takes a downturn (which it must if the government keeps taking all the money) we will not even be able to service the debts, nevermind have any money to maintain services. But of course that is his plan, because by then the Labour party will be unelectable again, and once again the incoming government will be blamed for all the ills that befall our country.

Of course, he is borrowing when interest rates are low. Why are they so low? Because he gave up on the idea of actually managing the economy and dumped it in the laps of a few at the Bank of England. And the excessively low interest rates have fooled quite a lot of people that they can afford housing at prices which would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. The excessive rises have happened under THIS government.

I've asked this before, and got no answer. If Maggie was so unpopular, how come she kept getting voted back in? And with a share of the popular vote far in excess of that achieved by the current government!!!

Remember, it takes 38% of the popular vote to elect a Labour government, but 44% to elect a Conservative one. Elbridge Gerry would be a proud man if he knew.

Very nicely summarized, lynx.

I always though Mrs. Thatcher tried to teach responsible fiscal habits to those who weren't having it.

Ere now, I hadn't seen the history of it laid out so succinctly.

I have copied your post to my archive; it is a model rebutal.

Well done. ;)

I feel I must apologize for clouding the issue with my impertinent mention of Ronin Tynan.

Sorry. :huh:

The problem with things like Thatcherism is not the wealth of the country as a whole, it is the division of wealth within the country.

It is also perfectly plausible to lower the tax burden on businesses and on the wealthy. Simply reduce the spending you make on the welfare state, then you don't need as much coming in.

I use American model where free health care is, as I understand it a rare thing. We could go the same way and reduce taxation accordingly. I for one don't want that, even if I can afford the insurance I would need.

Thatcherism was designed for a certain type of person and it probably worked for them, however it had no time for those not within that socio-economic group.

The reason it lasted for so long was that traditional Conservatives, even those who were losing out by the policies would still vote Conservative. It is because they had to, as they did not want to be seen as wearing a cloth cap and owning a whippet. Their Conservatism was more a badge of aspiration than association.

It is only when the lunacy went too far that her own people got rid of her. Then they chose a man who ran away from the circus to become an accountant as their new leader.

Ah.

That would be Mr. Major?

Poor fellow seemed to suffer a thrashing every other day, at least.

All that stand up, sit down, stand up, sit down, stand up, sit down.....

What's all that about anyway?

All your parliamentaries are very poorly mic'ed; I never have been able to make out just what is being said. :huh:

Although you didn't mention him, keep Brian Mulroney as well. We don't want him back.

:ninja:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@12 June 2004 - 16:23
Ah.

That would be Mr. Major?

Poor fellow seemed to suffer a thrashing every other day, at least.

All that stand up, sit down, stand up, sit down, stand up, sit down.....

What's all that about anyway?

All your parliamentaries are very poorly mic'ed; I never have been able to make out just what is being said. :huh:

---

We call that Prime Minister's question time. It's when the Prime Minister gets asked questions, hence the name. I think it used to be twice a week for half an hour, but Mr Blair changed it to once, but for an hour.

I can usually make out what they are saying, so it may be an accent thing. If you are talking about the ordinary members, I think they are picked up by hanging mics, so it really depends on where they are standing, or on how good the director is in homing in on that particular mic, I suppose.

Does your leader do the same thing, weekly open questions from the leader of the opposition, leader of the third party and from ordinary members, both Government and non Government, televised for the nation to watch live.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@12 June 2004 - 10:06
Sounds like Maggie was trying to introduce the theoretical American "smaller government/capitalism" model to your country.

Much too traumatizing; I could have told her it would never work.

Even we only manage it in bits and pieces, and then only within the normal ebb-and-flow of American politics.

---

Hmmm that was Reagan's platform.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J'Pol@12 June 2004 - 10:13

Does your leader do the same thing, weekly open questions from the leader of the opposition, leader of the third party and from ordinary members, both Government and non Government, televised for the nation to watch live.

---

:P

No, no-that would never do.

We couldn't manage our secrets too easily that way. :D

Have you seen any of the 9/11 hearings J'Pol?

We haven't got any politicians with the discipline to do things your way.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4+12 June 2004 - 19:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 12 June 2004 - 19:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@12 June 2004 - 10:13

Does your leader do the same thing, weekly open questions from the leader of the opposition, leader of the third party and from ordinary members, both Government and non Government, televised for the nation to watch live.

---

:P

No, no-that would never do.

We couldn&#39;t manage our secrets too easily that way. :D

Have you seen any of the 9/11 hearings J&#39;Pol?

We haven&#39;t got any politicians with the discipline to do things your way. [/b][/quote]
I wasn&#39;t having a go honestly .... well maybe me tougue was a wee bit in me cheek ;)

No I haven&#39;t seen any of the hearings. This month I have mostly not been keeping up on what is going on. I have had some worky type homework to do which has been taking up most of my depleted concentration resources.

My attention span has also

I must also confess to being somewhat disconnected of late; busier with "stuff" than usual, then Reagan&#39;s death (sorry, he was a hero of mine), the D-Day remembrances, the board&#39;s difficulties (just when I had gotten back into my "rut", so to speak)-I have spent much time mulling the events of the last several decades, and come to the conclusion that, while we share much, we don&#39;t share all.

While this has actually cost me some sleep lately, I have also concluded that it matters not at all-I have significant areas of empathy with everyone here, and none of us is diminished in the least by our ongoing failure to convince the other(s) of the rightness of our positions or the wrongness of others&#39;.

There are wires that will remain crossed, shorted, or missing altogether, but it doesn&#39;t matter, because just as repairs and arguments are made or accepted, other things arise to replace them.

I believe this is indicative of the human condition, rather than any special thick-headedness on anyone&#39;s part.

Liken it, if you will, to a gender conflict; the only solution ever to be found is the rare (very rare) and special connections formed by the luck or happenstance of a chance pairing or timely point.

I feel incredibly blessed to have had rather more than my share of such luck on this board, and, unless I totally miss my guess, a few others may feel the same way.

I think I prefer this latest brand of interplay; there is a tone of acceptance and acknowledgement that doesn&#39;t often show itself, and I think that is a good thing. ;)

j2

Points taken and well made as usual.

The interesting thing to me is that our politics are so far apart, you are a supporter of Thatcherism, or it&#39;s American equivalent. I on the other hand find it despicable. I feel it is as far from Christianity as one can be.

I am and ever have been convinced that Jesus was a socialist. All of his teachings were that we should provide for others and that we should look after the weak and the needy (I don&#39;t remember him ever specifically mentioning the huddled masses (pardon the pun)). To our own detriment if need be.

To each according to his needs from each according to his means, I can almost hear Him saying it, in fact ....

Thatcherism is more of a look after your own kind, the people who matter and "to the devil the hindmost" sort of way of thinking. However the most important thing is that we can respect each others views and our right to express them.

Thank you, JP.

Actually, I think more along the lines of "Teach a man to fish...", instead of giving him a government voucher entitling him to free fish.

I think where we differ is a function of our understanding of the human condition and it&#39;s nature, and whether or not it can be influenced:

Can/should a man be "taught to fish"?

What religious caveat is flouted by policies promoting self-sufficiency wherever possible?

Should we default to a "government-first" option?

As to the rest (Ex: the inherent greed of "bureaucracy" and inherent inefficiency of government-as opposed to private-enterprise), I think we also agree in principle; again, though, we are confronted by the "human" problem, and what to do about it.

Wasnt there something about the eye of a needle and Rich man going to heaven in that lot somewhere too?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skweeky@12 June 2004 - 14:19
Wasnt there something about the eye of a needle and Rich man going to heaven in that lot somewhere too?

---

&#39;splain that, Skweeky? :huh:

I have made my position clear on this a few times. I do not believe that the welfare state should be an excuse for the abrogation of personal responsibility.

I will happily help someone in need of help, in genuine need. However anyone who is not willing to work, because he is just as well off on benefits would get squat from me.

I will also, if someone needs it buy him the necessities of life, however not his cigarettes.

I would prefer a system where all able bodied people worked, including those on "benefit". If they are getting money from the state, then let them do some work for it I say. There are plenty of railings which could do with a lick of paint.

I am all for self sufficiency in fact have often worked 2 jobs when required. I never took a holiday in our first four years of marriage. I don&#39;t mean going away I mean taking a week off work. I always arranged another job when holidays were due. I remember once taking a fortnights leave to work in a shop, that bought number one son&#39;s first buggy.

(Your fish thing was very good and I liked the allusions, totally irrelevant of course given the context, but it was nice.)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4+12 June 2004 - 20:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 12 June 2004 - 20:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Skweeky@12 June 2004 - 14:19
Wasnt there something about the eye of a needle and Rich man going to heaven in that lot somewhere too?

---

&#39;splain that, Skweeky? :huh: [/b][/quote]
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven...


I believe Jesus was refering to a small gate in a city wall, known as an eye of the needle...

It was hard, but possible for a camel to go through one.... It had to virtually do the Limber to manage it ;)


Not being a Christian, i&#39;ll let those argue the exact quote...that was from memory, and school was a long time ago :P

One can give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, but if you drown him in the river he will never be hungry again


I don&#39;t think that was one of Jesus&#39; though. :blink:

RF: That is as close as damn it. The gate in question was low and traders avoided it because they could only get the camel in if they unloaded all their goods first. The inference being that worldy goods will prevent one from entering heaven.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggles@12 June 2004 - 20:44
One can give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, but if you drown him in the river he will never be hungry again


I don&#39;t think that was one of Jesus&#39; though. :blink:

---

I think that ones the Bush family motto :P

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@12 June 2004 - 14:27
I have made my position clear on this a few times. I do not believe that the welfare state should be an excuse for the abrogation of personal responsibility.

I will happily help someone in need of help, in genuine need. However anyone who is not willing to work, because he is just as well off on benefits would get squat from me.

I will also, if someone needs it buy him the necessities of life, however not his cigarettes.

I would prefer a system where all able bodied people worked, including those on "benefit". If they are getting money from the state, then let them do some work for it I say. There are plenty of railings which could do with a lick of paint.

I am all for self sufficiency in fact have often worked 2 jobs when required. I never took a holiday in our first four years of marriage. I don&#39;t mean going away I mean taking a week off work. I always arranged another job when holidays were due. I remember once taking a fortnights leave to work in a shop, that bought number one son&#39;s first buggy.

(Your fish thing was very good and I liked the allusions, totally irrelevant of course given the context, but it was nice.)

---

I am well-aware of your positions and thoughts on this, J&#39;Pol (they mirror mine exactly); question being, how does your government feel about things?

What should a government do, as a matter of course, apart from providing for the common defense and protecting the borders (I mention this last facetiously, of course :lol: )?

BTW: My fish "thing" was excellently rendered as well as being supremely appropriate, so blow it out your ass, OK?

Biggles-

Point well-made; riddled with logic.

Rat-

You may follow such direction as I provided J&#39;Pol. ;)

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced+12 June 2004 - 14:40--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced &#064; 12 June 2004 - 14:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@12 June 2004 - 20:26
<!--QuoteBegin-Skweeky

---

Quote:

---

@12 June 2004 - 14:19
Wasnt there something about the eye of a needle and Rich man going to heaven in that lot somewhere too?

---

&#39;splain that, Skweeky? :huh:

---

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven...


I believe Jesus was refering to a small gate in a city wall, known as an eye of the needle...

It was hard, but possible for a camel to go through one.... It had to virtually do the Limber to manage it ;)


Not being a Christian, i&#39;ll let those argue the exact quote...that was from memory, and school was a long time ago :P[/b][/quote]
Yes, but to whom/what was she referring?

Reagan?

If so, make a note to check when/if you arrive at the Pearly Gates; he&#39;ll be listed under "R".

I&#39;m wondering if John Kerry has given up on the idea of Heaven, owing to his outsized bank account?

He is having some real difficulty reconciling himself to the strictures of his Catholicism just now...his Church gazes askance at him, and he doesn&#39;t like it one bit.

I hear he&#39;s thinking of suing the Church for the "right" to Communion.

I wonder just who he thinks he is, presuming to instruct the Church on the matter of abortion?

He seems to have some absurd idea he can, at will, traverse the Rubicon between Church and State, in such direction as suits him, depending on which clothes he&#39;s wearing, or what day of the week it is.

I think it was because someone brought religion into politics...


I believe she was agreeing that a Right Wing Christian is a contradiction in terms, as Christians believe in forgiveness, charity and helping their fellow man...whereas Republicans/Conservatives believe in money....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@12 June 2004 - 15:09
I think it was because someone brought religion into politics...


I believe she was agreeing that a Right Wing Christian is a contradiction in terms, as Christians believe in forgiveness, charity and helping their fellow man...whereas Republicans/Conservatives believe in money....

---

May the Lord forgive your cynicism. :(

Have you completed your assignment yet?

No?

Have some more fish, then... :)

If he were capable of this then would it in fact be a Rubicon, oh you&#39;re being ironic I should have recognized that my apologies.

I think The Lord&#39;s point with regard to wealth related to what one did with it. Though it can be difficult sometimes, the chap spoke in riddles half of the time.

I am blessed in that I am unlikely to fall foul of any wealth rule. Having said that, in relation to the bulk of the earths population I am a very wealthy man indeed. As is anyone who is reading this.

People tend to look at who is wealthy in comparison to themselves. Try looking at who is poor in comparison to you, then read His words again.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@12 June 2004 - 15:15
If he were capable of this then would it in fact be a Rubicon, oh you&#39;re being ironic I should have recognized that my apologies.

I think The Lord&#39;s point with regard to wealth related to what one did with it. Though it can be difficult sometimes, the chap spoke in riddles half of the time.

I am blessed in that I am unlikely to fall foul of any wealth rule. Having said that, in relation to the bulk of the earths population I am a very wealthy man indeed. As is anyone who is reading this.

People tend to look at who is wealthy in comparison to themselves. Try looking at who is poor in comparison to you, then read His words again.

---

Then by your definition, and my understanding of it, Reagan stands in good stead with Him. ;)

Kerry&#39;s problem is a bit different:

http://www.sobran.com/columns/2004/040506.shtml

One is baptized a Christian, as I understand it.

My Good Lady was baptized when young, not by the Catholic faith. She later decided to become a Catholic, nothing to do with me, but was not baptized again as there was no need.

The Priest who instructed her agreed that she did not need to be baptized again. Given that he also had a PhD in theology in addition to his training as a Priest I assumed he was correct.

To my shame I cannot remember the exact words of baptism within a Catholic setting, however I do not remember it mentioning Catholicism. I will have to look into this.

I think however that the whole once a Catholic always a Catholic thing may be a bit overstated. Especially if he did not actually take any of the other sacraments, particularly confirmation. If he was baptized into Christianity, then raised as whatever (being a Protestant is not a religion) then he probably was a whatever.

I am sure that the good Lord will look on his deeds whilst on earth and judge him on those.