Margaret Thatcher 1925-2013

[guyser]

I ask you again; Did Cameron change his stance on Thatcher's mistakes, as he put it, in regards to her refusal to support pressure on the Apartheid government and for her calling Mandela a terrorist?

We have her own party throwing her under the bus for her stance on the Apartheid government, yet, there are still those who are still trying to excuse her.

Been covered already , sadly you dont know politics and the reasoning behind his intital stance, his party was in trouble and society blamed her. The next CPC leader will probably say much the same about Harper just to get the "I am not Harper " vote

His glowing tribute to the woman, troubles and all, suggest he is fine with the overall book on Thatcher.

You however, will cherry piok little tiny parts to keep on bloviating about some minor shite or another and take it all out in context.

Edited April 12, 2013 by guyser

[eyeball]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I know.

I put the quotation marks around it to point out to you that I was talking about now - not 1987. So you thought Thatcher was mediocre - so what?

Her mediocrity has lots to do with what you're talking about, she was just another no-account run-of-the-mill gay-basher in a world that's filled with no-account gay-bashers.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the point that I was making - which was about some leaders/countries now vs. 1987.

So you're saying this isn't a new point you're making? Aren't you suggesting there should be a statute of limitations on showing disrespect for gay-bashers and that Thatcher makes the grade?

Do I include Thatcher in what, exactly? She hasn't been "running the world" for quite some time now.

The list of gay-bashers.

Again. The reference was to 1987. Lots of people had less tolerant views about gays back then, which was the point I was responding to. Does that make it right? Of course not, but it doesn't make her unique/the devil incarnate, either. We grow as a society, which is why gays have a lot more rights worldwide than they did in 1987. However. Some societies have not grown. Some leaders, of some countries, are still very anti-gay - and gays are being persecuted. Which was the point being made. I'm not seeing the criticism for that from those criticizing Thatcher. Which was my point.

So what, this is a thread about Margaret Thatcher. Again, when something is bleedingly obvious like the fact that gay bashers have and probably always will exist what is the point of belabouring it? To justify 1987 as the point at which Thatcher is grand-mothered into your good graces?

Again, I didn't forget to put quotation marks around anything. I have no idea what you're going on about. None at all.

My mistake, I guess I just half expected you to find some new minuscule point to drag out over Hell's half acre.

[Signals.Cpl]

And according to Thatcher,so was Mandella.

Also she thanked a fascist dictator who led a violent military coup and killed tens of thousands of Chileans for politics for bringing democracy to Chile!

And she was against gay rights!

Perhaps you like her because maybe you share her views?

WWWTT

Glad to know you don't think the Church Street Bombing in 1983 was not a terrorists action.

When a leader be it Nelson Mandela or anyone else supports violence to achieve his means and the violence in question is a terrorist attack they are responsible for the consequences, just because Nelson Mandela did a lot of good does not erase his leadership in, activities with and support of an organization that committed terrorist attacks nay he convinced the leadership of the ANC to create the military wing and resort to violence thus Margaret Thatcher had a legitimate point.

[WWWTT]

Here's another good link about an British MP who was concerned about history being rewritten

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/glenda-jackson-on-the-death-of-margaret-thatcher-i-had-to-speak-out-to-stop-history-being-rewritten-8569392.html

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Glad to know you don't think the Church Street Bombing in 1983 was not a terrorists action.

When a leader be it Nelson Mandela or anyone else supports violence to achieve his means and the violence in question is a terrorist attack they are responsible for the consequences, just because Nelson Mandela did a lot of good does not erase his leadership in, activities with and support of an organization that committed terrorist attacks nay he convinced the leadership of the ANC to create the military wing and resort to violence thus Margaret Thatcher had a legitimate point.

Sorry,not exactly sure about the details of this act.

I should also point out that I am not totally sure about all the alleged crimes against humanity committed by the South African government.

However,I am aware of several of the big ones!

WWWTT

[Hudson Jones]

Been covered already , sadly you dont know politics and the reasoning behind his intital stance, his party was in trouble and society blamed her. The next CPC leader will probably say much the same about Harper just to get the "I am not Harper " vote

You mean Cameron was actually in favour of Thatcher's refusal to pressure the Apartheid government, but he was playing politics?\\

[Signals.Cpl]

Sorry,not exactly sure about the details of this act.

I should also point out that I am not totally sure about all the alleged crimes against humanity committed by the South African government.

However,I am aware of several of the big ones!

WWWTT

One does not excuse the other unless you would extend the same courtesy to Western Soldiers committing crimes in theatre just because the other does it...

[Guest American Woman]

Aren't you suggesting there should be a statute of limitations on showing disrespect for gay-bashers and that Thatcher makes the grade?

No, I'm not. Perhaps if I use hyperbole, you'll get the point I was making. Someone supporting slavery in 1700 America is hardly as shocking as someone supporting it in the U.S. today.

It's not about a statute of limitations - it's about the changes in society - and the way society thinks - over the years.

If you still don't get it - oh, well.

[Guest American Woman]

You mean Cameron was actually in favour of Thatcher's refusal to pressure the Apartheid government, but he was playing politics?\\

Thatcher, according to the Apartheid government itself, was very critical of Apartheid.

[eyeball]

No, I'm not. Perhaps if I use hyperbole, you'll get the point I was making. Someone supporting slavery in 1700 America is hardly as shocking as someone supporting it in the U.S. today.

It's not about a statute of limitations - it's about the changes in society - and the way society thinks - over the years.

If you still don't get it - oh, well.

Oh what?

Gay Marriage....March 27, 2013

With Flip-Flop Frenzy Over, Anti-Gay Marriage Democrats Dig In

Should I go see how much most Republicans have changed over the years too?

Edited April 13, 2013 by eyeball

[jbg]

What happened to Kim Campbell's other foot?

You mean her other brain?

[Signals.Cpl]

It was the times.

She got lucky with Argentina that made her look like a hero.

How did Argentina make her look like a hero? Virtually the entire world was of the opinion that the Falkland Islands were lost and could not be retaken with the available forces yet she made it happen. This had little to do with luck and a lot to do with the abilities of the British forces to get the job done and the leadership both military and civilian, as a lesser leader would have would have stuck to lodging complaints with the UN and the islands would be Argentinian right now, against the wishes of all but three of the islands inhabitants.

And she rode the booming world economy for a short period.

Which period are you referring to?

But in the end even her own party couldn't throw her under the bus fast enough!

And seeing as she had to lead through some very tough times her political life expectancy was limited.

She was against labor,gay rights and human rights.

Yet she worked tirelessly to get jobs for people. She opposed Apartheid through means that she believed were right. And as mentioned by AW she was not unique for her time as to her stance on gay rights.

She was all ok with military coups,and fascist dictators killing thousands of people.

Do you realize that in most of those nations you are referring to there was not "right" choice? The choice was between dictator A who killed his own people, or dictator B who also killed his own people.

[Signals.Cpl]

Actually,the current government right now in Afganistan still has many policies and laws that are similar the Taliban government had.

So therefore,anyone who supports the Afganistan government now,supports similar governments as the Taliban.

Many government have overlapping policies with regard to policies of other government, this statement is akin to stating that the NDP platform has many policies in common with the Nazis and therefore the NDP approves similar governments as the Nazis.

Furthermore,Ronald Reagan and Thatcher WERE actual supporters of the Taliban and Al Quida and gave them money,support and weapons!!!

WWWTT

And at the time it seemed like a good idea, its nice having that 20/20 vision to criticize...right?

[Signals.Cpl]

Looks like you are right.

Still does not excuse her failure to help end apartheid!

WWWTT

How do you know that she didn't help end Apartheid? Maybe her approach was more effective? Do you have concrete proof that she failed to help end it?

[Signals.Cpl]

No it's not!

You pointed out an opinion that a few people have.

WWWTT

And you point to an opinion YOU have... prove that she did nothing to end apartheid.

[Signals.Cpl]

Can millions of people be living in a vacuum???

Here is the proof that you live in a fantasy world, if Hitler had died in May 1941 he would have had a funeral that Chavez could only dream of whereas in 1945 not so much. Ever thought that maybe just maybe people in Venezuela haven't discovered how bad they were screwed? Look at Greece, 10 years ago the leadership that brought them in line with European Standard of living would have been hailed hailed as heroes while now that the people see how bad they have been screwed they might not feel quite the same way.

Edited April 13, 2013 by Signals.Cpl

[Signals.Cpl]

Ya actually I have been proving many links of the news right here.

Guess you didn't see that one.

WWWTT

Hand picking sources that support your twisted political position does not qualify as facts...

[Signals.Cpl]

Here's another good link about an British MP who was concerned about history being rewritten

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/glenda-jackson-on-the-death-of-margaret-thatcher-i-had-to-speak-out-to-stop-history-being-rewritten-8569392.html

WWWTT

That is like saying that 400 emails from the PM's riding in Calgary represent the opinion of the rest of Canada or taking 400 emails from Toronto-Danforth and claiming they represent the opinions of all Canadians.

[Guest American Woman]

How do you know that she didn't help end Apartheid? Maybe her approach was more effective? Do you have concrete proof that she failed to help end it?

We've got the claim of the anti-Thatcher crowd that she did nothing to help end Apartheid - and we've got Nelson Mandela* thanking her for helping end it as well as F.W. de Klerk,* the last apartheid-era president of South Africa, saying that she exerted more influence in what happened in South Africa than any other political leader; that Thatcher correctly believed that more could be achieved through constructive engagement with his government than international sanctions and isolation of the South African government. We've also got WWWTT acknowledging that Thatcher tried to get Mandela released from prison.

*Mandela and de Klerk were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "for their work for the peaceful termination of the apartheid regime, and for laying the foundations for a new democratic South Africa," so I'd say their words about the situation mean something.

Here is the proof that you live in a fantasy world, if Hitler had died in May 1941 he would have had a funeral that Chavez could only dream of whereas in 1945 not so much. Ever thought that maybe just maybe people in Venezuela haven't discovered how bad they were screwed? Look at Greece, 10 years ago the leadership that brought them in line with European Standard of living would have been hailed hailed as heroes while now that the people see how bad they have been screwed they might not feel quite the same way.

We've got WWWTT comparing the reaction of the death of a leader in power - to the death of a leader who hasn't been in power for some time now. There's a difference in the reaction of such deaths just by that reality alone.

But selective pictures do not tell the story. I offer up the pic of Thatcher with the claim that she "hated" Mandela - WWWTT re-posted this pic even after acknowledging that she did call for his release from prison; after I posted that de Klerk said Thatcher did more to release Nelson Mandela out of prison than any of the other hundreds of anti-apartheid committees in Europe. It doesn't follow that she "hated" him when considering her actions.

But back to the pics - one could selectively choose to post a pic of Palestinians dancing in the streets after 9-11 or one of the countless pics of people mourning around the world. Choosing the former, it could be presented by some as 'the reaction to 9-11 was cheering.' Seems to me that's what's happening here.

And oh yes, by pointing these things out, I've been accused by Hudson of supporting countless dictators in the past 50 years.

Edited April 13, 2013 by American Woman

[WWWTT]

Here is the proof that you live in a fantasy world, if Hitler had died in May 1941 he would have had a funeral that Chavez could only dream of whereas in 1945 not so much. Ever thought that maybe just maybe people in Venezuela haven't discovered how bad they were screwed? Look at Greece, 10 years ago the leadership that brought them in line with European Standard of living would have been hailed hailed as heroes while now that the people see how bad they have been screwed they might not feel quite the same way.

This is maybe the only comment that you have made that I will actually respond to.

You are creating a hypothetical scenario and pre determining the outcome.

You are comparing an re elected public official that did not use a military to invade another country to someone who had used genocide.

In the 1930's-40's,there was no tv,no internet,very different world back then.

Even this comment is not really worth my time to debate the events that occurred.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

We've got the claim of the anti-Thatcher crowd that she did nothing to help end Apartheid - and we've got Nelson Mandela* thanking her for helping end it as well as F.W. de Klerk,* the last apartheid-era president of South Africa, saying that she exerted more influence in what happened in South Africa than any other political leader; that Thatcher correctly believed that more could be achieved through constructive engagement with his government than international sanctions and isolation of the South African government. We've also got WWWTT acknowledging that Thatcher tried to get Mandela released from prison.

*Mandela and de Klerk were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "for their work for the peaceful termination of the apartheid regime, and for laying the foundations for a new democratic South Africa," so I'd say their words about the situation mean something.

We've got WWWTT comparing the reaction of the death of a leader in power - to the death of a leader who hasn't been in power for some time now. There's a difference in the reaction of such deaths just by that reality alone.

But selective pictures do not tell the story. I offer up the pic of Thatcher with the claim that she "hated" Mandela - WWWTT re-posted this pic even after acknowledging that she did call for his release from prison; after I posted that de Klerk said Thatcher did more to release Nelson Mandela out of prison than any of the other hundreds of anti-apartheid committees in Europe. It doesn't follow that she "hated" him when considering her actions.

But back to the pics - one could selectively choose to post a pic of Palestinians dancing in the streets after 9-11 or one of the countless pics of people mourning around the world. Choosing the former, it could be presented by some as 'the reaction to 9-11 was cheering.' Seems to me that's what's happening here.

And oh yes, by pointing these things out, I've been accused by Hudson of supporting countless dictators in the past 50 years.

The picture may have made some claim that Thatcher hated Mandela,but I have never made any such claim.

However,Thatcher did call Mandela a terrorist when he was only trying to bring democracy to his own country!

Thatcher praised Pinochet,and associating Pinochet with democracy when in fact he led a violent military coup and killed,tortured and raped tens of thousand whom he considered political opponents!

Furthermore,Thatcher lifted sanctions against Pinochet!

This act only further proves how much of a hypocrite she really was.

There is really not much more that I can add unless I see some other links that come up.

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

The picture may have made some claim that Thatcher hated Mandela,but I have never made any such claim.

Really. So the pictures you post don't represent your view?

At any rate, this is what I said - quote - I offer up the pic of Thatcher with the claim that she "hated" Mandela - WWWTT re-posted this pic even after acknowledging that she did call for his release from prison...

In other words, I SAID the pic made the claim.

However,Thatcher did call Mandela a terrorist when he was only trying to bring democracy to his own country!

Actually, the "only" there is what's in question. Targeting and purposely killing innocent civilians/children is a bit more than "only trying to bring democracy to his own country."

Thatcher praised Pinochet,and associating Pinochet with democracy when in fact he led a violent military coup and killed,tortured and raped tens of thousand whom he considered political opponents!

Which has absolutely nothing to do with South Africa, Apartheid, or Mandela.

Furthermore,Thatcher lifted sanctions against Pinochet!

She obviously doesn't think sanctions are a good idea, as they hurt the people. Something you selectively agree with - depending on your agenda, from what I can see.

This act only further proves how much of a hypocrite she really was.

Actually, it proves how much of a hypocrite those who selectively support sanctions are. Where's the hypocrisy in her stand? She didn't support them against SA, either.

There is really not much more that I can add unless I see some other links that come up.

I don't doubt that .... Edited April 13, 2013 by American Woman

[Signals.Cpl]

And oh yes, by pointing these things out, I've been accused by Hudson of supporting countless dictators in the past 50 years.

I have seen what Hudson/bud has accused you of and I am wondering why you even engage him. You must already know he is here to present a skewed one-sided view and would twist anything you say to fit his agenda, just like he has already done.

[Guest American Woman]

I have seen what Hudson/bud has accused you of and I am wondering why you even engage him. You must already know he is here to present a skewed one-sided view and would twist anything you say to fit his agenda, just like he has already done.

I'm not so much engaging him as I am refuting what he says. So much of what he posts needs to be refuted, so I do; I point out the flaws/errors in what he posts. I also feel that when he accuses me of such ludicrous things, he is hurting his own cause.

[Signals.Cpl]

This is maybe the only comment that you have made that I will actually respond to.

Graciously admitting you are wrong... a first for you...

You are creating a hypothetical scenario and pre determining the outcome.

No, I am pointing out history and the outcome was already determined. The reaction of the people depends on their knowledge and understanding of the situation, in the cases I presented they did not know or understand what poor leadership they had until after an event or a series of events.

You are comparing an re elected public official that did not use a military to invade another country to someone who had used genocide.

No, I am comparing the potential reaction of one leader death at two different times, and Hitler too was an elected public official of sorts.

In the 1930's-40's,there was no tv,no internet,very different world back then.

The same could be said about the 1980's, but more to the point just because there was no internet and limited modes through which to present video propaganda(theatres) does not mean that the world of 1930's and 1940's was so drastically different as to render it incomparable... but more interesting is that you try to use the same argument you decried AW for using.

Even this comment is not really worth my time to debate the events that occurred.

WWWTT

Why? Can't come up with anything to counter the arguments? Admitting that you are wrong?