• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama sends former officials to Thatcher funeral

j-mac said:
Yes, because hitting the nail on the head, regardless of the cowardly lean posted by some who are deep down ashamed of admitting their true lean is call for most Alenski-ites to claim not that they are outed, but rather that one 'just doesn't understand'.....What a crock.
Click to expand...

He was suggesting that if you don't care that Obama didn't go to the funeral that you are a liberal or a progressive. Look up the definitions J. They have nothing to do with each other. Am I a libertarian because I think Ron Paul seems like a nice guy? **** no. It has nothing to do with libertarianism. Just like this has nothing to do with liberalism.

And really? Bringing up Alenski? WTF does that have to do with anything other than paranoid delusions?
 
roughdraft274 said:
He was suggesting that if you don't care that Obama didn't go to the funeral that you are a liberal or a progressive. Look up the definitions J. They have nothing to do with each other. Am I a libertarian because I think Ron Paul seems like a nice guy? **** no. It has nothing to do with libertarianism. Just like this has nothing to do with liberalism.
Click to expand...

Most everyone who follows politics understands who and what 'liberals' or 'progressives' are, though they are often confused themselves.

All you need do is look at the previous posts by SamSmart who said that BHO was too busy (Sure!) and then in the next post said that Thatcher wasn't universally liked anyway. These are the usual silly excuses we get from the leftists. All over the map but willing to defend their man no matter what the cost to their own integrity.

And really? Bringing up Alenski? WTF does that have to do with anything other than paranoid delusions?
Click to expand...

Because saul Alinsky played a large part in designing the modern 'progressive' mind, and we can see the consequences everywhere.
Click to expand...
 
samsmart said:
-- As I understand it, Thatcher did some very serious damage to the manufacturing base in the UK in order to make London the financial center of Europe.
Click to expand...

Two separate things here. 1 she stopped the government subsidies going to inefficient state owned manufacturing. 2, she deregulated the city of London stock market which led to the city becoming a major financial centre.

samsmart said:
-- There were a lot of workers who lost their jobs because of this economic shift.
Click to expand...

There were a lot of people made unemployed from the state industries but these were centres which were going to go anyway. Previously, over 250 mines were closed by the Labour party in the 60's but you never hear about complaints of unemployment or attacks on the working class about this. Thatcher's period in power saw 180 or so mines closed but this gets all the attention because she was a radical Conservative.

One thing many who complain about Thatcher's actions forget is that the EEC had brought in laws about state sponsored / subsidised companies so changes were going to happen anyway - nobody on the socialist side here in the UK / Europe ever mentions this when attacking Thatcher.

samsmart said:
--And it's currently causing the UK a lot of problems since they no longer have the manufacturing base that is now leaving China and going back to more developed countries for more advanced types of manufacturing, such as the US.
Click to expand...

Our manufacturing went a different way, 1.6 million jobs were created during Thatcher's period however a lot more in the heavy industries were lost. We may have less of a manufacture based but it's not laughing stock manufacture which was the case in the 70's.

samsmart said:
--This is why there were people in the UK who drank a bottle of champagne at news of her death.

So it would be more accurate to say that Margaret Thatcher was respected by the people of Britain - except for those who didn't. And most of those lost their jobs because of her policies, and her policies have come back to bite the UK.
Click to expand...

Most who drank to her death were socialists or had views which were more in line with the old USSR in the 70's. There was no mass riot or protest at her funeral today and the protest parties all fizzled out anyway.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Reality jarring with your mythology Skipinder? The people he gassed were Kurds with a "K", The ones you were so upset about when Saddam did it. (with his US supplied gas)
Click to expand...
Churchill was a low level alcoholic and a mediocre politician. He also saved England - the right man in the right place in history. He was no saint. He was good enough, and that's enough for me. There's no honor in denigrating an obviously good man, whatever his faults may have been.
 
Grant said:
Most everyone who follows politics understands who and what 'liberals' or 'progressives' are, though they are often confused themselves.

All you need do is look at the previous posts by SamSmart who said that BHO was too busy (Sure!) and then in the next post said that Thatcher wasn't universally liked anyway. These are the usual silly excuses we get from the leftists. All over the map but willing to defend their man no matter what the cost to their own integrity.



Because saul Alinsky played a large part in designing the modern 'progressive' mind, and we can see the consequences everywhere.
Click to expand...

1. So if someone thinks that the president might be busy with a domestic bombing and North Korea that means they are a liberal? Did you think before you typed that? You're insults, btw, do nothing to further the conversation.

2. He wrote a book that very few people have read that some of the more unstudied conservatives out there give way too much credit.
Click to expand...
 
Wiseone said:
Just an FYI, Obama will be at the memorial for the Boston Marathon on Thursday while Thatcher's funeral is on Wednesday, now I don't know the times of each of these events or how quickly the President can fly across the Atlantic or what other business he has on his schedule but I imagine between the two most Americans would agree he should be in Boston.
Click to expand...

1) Whose disagereing with that? Most people who are bothered by his choice on this thread seem to suggest they feel the first lady or the VP should go and have clearly sttated they understand that the President would attend to Boston. I've seen just a tiny few, even on this thread, who are suggesting Obama should go instead of going to Boston.

2) The initial plans were made and announced PRIOR to the bombing taking place so attempting to put that out there as a means of cowing those who have an issue with it is basically throwing out an after the fact excuse. There would be a difference with him choosing to change plans after the bombing occured.
 
Last edited:
humbolt said:
Churchill was a low level alcoholic and a mediocre politician. He also saved England - the right man in the right place in history. He was no saint. He was good enough, and that's enough for me. There's no honor in denigrating an obviously good man, whatever his faults may have been.
Click to expand...

Good morning, humbolt. :2wave:

Well said! :applaud:

He was also a very clever man with words, using the quick quip to make his point, and I do enjoy that! Reagan was good at that, too! We all have faults, but living in a fishbowl can't be the easiest way to spend your life! Both he and Thatcher will long be remembered, while those who won't or can't can't give credit when deserved will soon fade. It costs nothing to be generous towards other people, because none of us are infallible, and we have all made mistakes. :shrug:
 
Zyphlin said:
1) Whose disagereing with that? Most people who are bothered by his choice on this thread seem to suggest they feel the first lady or the VP should go and have clearly sttated they understand that the President would attend to Boston. I've seen just a tiny few, even on this thread, who are suggesting Obama should go instead of going to Boston.

2) The initial plans were made and announced PRIOR to the bombing taking place so attempting to put that out there as a means of cowing those who have an issue with it is basically throwing out an after the fact excuse. There would be a difference with him choosing to change plans after the bombing occured.
Click to expand...

I didn't read the entire topic so I was just throwing it out there, but good point on the time when the delegation to London was planned.
 
j-mac said:
All that hate you harbor is going to eat you up man....Hopefully you don't believe in Karma.
Click to expand...

hey, i'm listening ... because there is no one on these boards who knows more about hate than you
 
notquiteright said:
Doesn't take too long to see your POV on The President, but I do note you didn't deny what I said.... :lol:
Click to expand...

I noted numerous things he got right, including handling of Somali pirates. Hint: this happened long before you got here. You lose.
 
roughdraft274 said:
1. So if someone thinks that the president might be busy with a domestic bombing and North Korea that means they are a liberal? Did you think before you typed that? You're insults, btw, do nothing to further the conversation.
Click to expand...

What could BHO possibly do that isn't already being done? Do you think that apart from being a gifted orator, the purchaser of billion dollar industries, the originator of shovel-ready jobs, he is also a crack investigator? The man should just spend more time being a figurehead, a la Joe Biden, and leave the serious stuff to others until he finally nails that job at ESPN.
2. He wrote a book that very few people have read that some of the more unstudied conservatives out there give way too much credit.
Click to expand...

That could be an Obama sentence.
 
roughdraft274 said:
He was suggesting that if you don't care that Obama didn't go to the funeral that you are a liberal or a progressive. Look up the definitions J. They have nothing to do with each other. Am I a libertarian because I think Ron Paul seems like a nice guy? **** no. It has nothing to do with libertarianism. Just like this has nothing to do with liberalism.
Click to expand...

That's silly.

No one said that the act of excusing Obama MAKES you a liberal or progressive. He said that the people in the thread excusing him happen to BE (self-described) liberals or progressives.

Are you purposely conflating the two, or are you simply confused about the difference?
 
With Cheney, Kissinger, and Blair attending, even Dubya chickened out of the war criminal get-together.
 
polgara said:
He was also a very clever man with words, using the quick quip to make his point, and I do enjoy that!
Click to expand...

Winston Churchill also deservedly won the Nobel Prize for Literature, something quite out of the reach for Barrack Obama. Although BHO did win the Nobel Peace Prize for Good Intentions, Churchill actually won peace the hard way.
Reagan was good at that, too! We all have faults, but living in a fishbowl can't be the easiest way to spend your life! Both he and Thatcher will long be remembered, while those who won't or can't can't give credit when deserved will soon fade. It costs nothing to be generous towards other people, because none of us are infallible, and we have all made mistakes
Click to expand...

Reagan, Churchill and Thatcher were all honorable people and great leaders, and probably never snorted cocaine in their lives.
 
Grant said:
What could BHO possibly do that isn't already being done? Do you think that apart from being a gifted orator, the purchaser of billion dollar industries, the originator of shovel-ready jobs, he is also a crack investigator? The man should just spend more time being a figurehead, a la Joe Biden, and leave the serious stuff to others until he finally nails that job at ESPN.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but your pure hatred for the man doesn't negate the fact that he is president and is currently needed here. He doesn't need to be an investigator. He needs to be here for more than just standing around. Just because you don't understand what the president does doesn't mean he does nothing.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Sorry, but your pure hatred for the man doesn't negate the fact that he is president and is currently needed here. He doesn't need to be an investigator. He needs to be here for more than just standing around. Just because you don't understand what the president does doesn't mean he does nothing.
Click to expand...

You seem to have missed the part as to WHY he is needed.

I don't HATE the guy. I just believe him to be an incompetent, a poseur, and a great deal less than honest-all character flaws that have been obvious to anyway who has looked at his resume, words, and actions.
 
Harshaw said:
That's silly.

No one said that the act of excusing Obama MAKES you a liberal or progressive. He said that the people in the thread excusing him happen to BE (self-described) liberals or progressives.

Are you purposely conflating the two, or are you simply confused about the difference?
Click to expand...

What he said was ambiguous, but either way he's wrong.

I took it to meant, if you are defending Obama, you are a identifying yourself as liberal. Which would be a stupid comment.

But he very well could have meant that everyone defending Obama is a self-identified liberal, which not all of them are. So he would be wrong.

I might have pulled the wrong meaning from what he said, it happens, but regardless what he's saying is wrong.
 
Harshaw said:
I noted numerous things he got right, including handling of Somali pirates. Hint: this happened long before you got here. You lose.
Click to expand...

WOW! Barrack Obama handled the Somalian pirates as well? I can see him hanging from a rope swing across the bloodied decks, a knife in his teeth, a sword at his side and a determined grin on his face. And wearing a puffy shirt.

Is there no end to this mans gifts??
 
Grant said:
You seem to have missed the part as to WHY he is needed.

I don't HATE the guy. I just believe him to be an incompetent, a poseur, and a great deal less than honest-all character flaws that have been obvious to anyway who has looked at his resume, words, and actions.
Click to expand...

He is needed because he is president and the final decisions on many matters are his. That's the only reason that's really relevant. All of your other talking points about shovel ready jobs etc. are only serving the purpose of changing the topic.
 
Grant said:
WOW! Barrack Obama handled the Somalian pirates as well? I can see him hanging from a rope swing across the bloodied decks, a knife in his teeth, a sword at his side and a determined grin on his face. And wearing a puffy shirt.

Is there no end to this mans gifts??
Click to expand...

Wow, you have a gift my friend. I haven't seen the twisting of words like that in quite some time.

My wife just wrecked her car. I told her not to worry, because she was very upset, that I would handle it. I think any reasonable person would understand that all I did by "handling it" was to call the insurance company, get it inspected, and bring it in to get it fixed. Saying I handled it didn't mean that I replaced her bumper all by myself.

Obama made the calls and he got it right. I can't believe your hatred for him makes you upset at that fact.
 
roughdraft274 said:
He is needed because he is president and the final decisions on many matters are his. That's the only reason that's really relevant. All of your other talking points about shovel ready jobs etc. are only serving the purpose of changing the topic.
Click to expand...

He is needed for 'final decisions on many matters"? What matters would those be? Anything?

This is a guy who gives the British a Walmart set of DVD's that are unplayable on the British system and you are now telling me he doesn't know that they have telephones over there as well?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom