• 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

Another who doesn't know that the decision was made before Boston happened.

I know that but it is still silly to make this out to be a big deal.. It just isn't.
 
Considering Michelle "batcrazy" Bachmann, and Newt "the hypocrit" Gingrich were there.. then I think it was wise that basically no world leaders were present... Talk about stinking up the place... frankly a disgrace and insult to the memory of Maggie Thatcher

You wouldn't have even liked her so stop the feigned disgust.
 
Perhaps because it is true?

If a statement is true it shouldn't matter what the political persuasion is.
Rhetorical questions have little to do with truth, and it was not seeking truth, it was an expression of political orientation.

My point was more that a poster who claims the mantle of "libertarianism" continuously defends neocons with quotes from other neocons while making neocon argument.
 
This is unbelievable....Not one current official to send to Margret Thatcher's funeral? I mean come on! How many times can Obama snub England? Or any of our other traditional allies for that matter?

For comparison consider, I believe that when Reagan died, England was represented by the current, as well as the former PM at the time, the Queen herself, and other dignitaries....We can't spare one current administration official?

BTW, I know that the partisan progressives will instantly say that Bush isn't going either, being as that is the go to excuse for them, and personally I don't think that is right either...Bush should go.
At least the VP, the Sec of State should have attended.

Margaret Thatcher was one of the free world's greatest leaders, and she will be missed.
 
Rhetorical questions have little to do with truth, and it was not seeking truth, it was an expression of political orientation.

My point was more that a poster who claims the mantle of "libertarianism" continuously defends neocons with quotes from other neocons while making neocon argument.

It seems you have no idea what a 'neo-con' actually is.

Forget your personal labels, which mean little to anyone else, and check for the truth.
 
It seems you have no idea what a 'neo-con' actually is.

Forget your personal labels, which mean little to anyone else, and check for the truth.
Beyond your inability to find "truth" in what the neocon Kristol pronounced, I find it funny that my commenting about the neocon Kristol fawning over the neocon Thatcher is a display of my not understand who is or is not a neocon.

LOL!
 
If he went you would be be saying he should be in Washington! I lieu of what has happened in Boston, he is where he should be and this thread is truly silly.


Well, thanks for telling me what I would say....You're completely, and enormously wrong, and it is rather arrogant of you to ascribe to tell me what I would or would not do, but that aside, the announcement that no one would attend was made BEFORE Boston....So yeah, want to try again?
 
Beyond your inability to find "truth" in what the neocon Kristol pronounced, I find it funny that my commenting about the neocon Kristol fawning over the neocon Thatcher is a display of my not understand who is or is not a neocon.

LOL!

"Neo-con" has a specific political meaning, and it isn't the slur you and your ilk have turned it into.
 
"Neo-con" has a specific political meaning, and it isn't the slur you and your ilk have turned it into.
I specifically applied it to Kristol and Thatcher, show how that is incorrect.

"William Kristol (born December 23, 1952) is an American neoconservative political analyst and commentator."

"The election of Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minster in 1979 in the United Kingdom brought new imputus to neoconservative ideas on both sides of the 'pond', with Thatcher representing the triumph of key 'neoconservative' ideas not only over the 'socialist' ideals of the European post-war consensus, built around union representation and the Welfare State - but over traditional 'British conservatism' too. So-called Reagonomics and Thatcherism were two names for the same neoconservative policy."
 
Last edited:
Beyond your inability to find "truth" in what the neocon Kristol pronounced, I find it funny that my commenting about the neocon Kristol fawning over the neocon Thatcher is a display of my not understand who is or is not a neocon.

LOL!

Has Kristol or Thatcher ever been anything else but Conservatives?
 
I specifically applied it to Kristol and Thatcher, show how that is incorrect.

"William Kristol (born December 23, 1952) is an American neoconservative political analyst and commentator."

"The election of Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minster in 1979 in the United Kingdom brought new imputus to neoconservative ideas on both sides of the 'pond', with Thatcher representing the triumph of key 'neoconservative' ideas not only over the 'socialist' ideals of the European post-war consensus, built around union representation and the Welfare State - but over traditional 'British conservatism' too. So-called Reagonomics and Thatcherism were two names for the same neoconservative policy."

Most progressive liberals tend to throw out that term as an antisemitic slur...That's a fact.
 
Most progressive liberals tend to throw out that term as an antisemitic slur...That's a fact.

They use it as a pejorative in an effort to appear 'intellectual' but their cluelessness, and their antisemitism yes, is always eventually exposed.
 
Most progressive liberals tend to throw out that term as an antisemitic slur...That's a fact.
I'm still waiting for you to show that my calling them neoconservative was incorrect, and you can add whether I am being "antisemitc" in doing so.

Stop dancing and make a point about my comments, not what you think you saw from someone somewhere.
 
I'm still waiting for you to show that my calling them neoconservative was incorrect, and you can add whether I am being "antisemitc" in doing so.

Stop dancing and make a point about my comments, not what you think you saw from someone somewhere.


Well, first off, you don't get to set the rules around here, so your demands are really funny....Secondly, provide a link to what you posted about Thatcher and we'll talk....
 
They use it as a pejorative in an effort to appear 'intellectual' but their cluelessness, and their antisemitism yes, is always eventually exposed.
How stupidly ironic, complaining about pejoratives when tossing out claims of antisemitism!

How rich!
 
well, first off, you don't get to set the rules around here, so your demands are really funny....secondly, provide a link to what you posted about thatcher and we'll talk....
ffs! Wow!
 
The "libertarian" defends the memory of an ultra conservative with a quote from a neocon.

Love it!

As you should be aware, there is a strain of conservatism that is close to libertarianism. That was certainly where Baroness Thatcher resided. As for Kristol, there are issues where he and I part company, but in this instance he was both on point and rhetorically superior.:cool:
 
I know that but it is still silly to make this out to be a big deal.. It just isn't.

I think that issuing a diplomatic snub to one of our closest allies IS a big deal.
 
I'm still waiting for you to show that my calling them neoconservative was incorrect, and you can add whether I am being "antisemitc" in doing so.

Stop dancing and make a point about my comments, not what you think you saw from someone somewhere.

Firstly you must understand what 'neo' means. Do you know?

Then you have to know what is meant by 'Conservative', as defined by Margaret Thatcher. Do you know that?

When you have put it all together then we can judge whether Margaret Thatcher was, in fact, a "Neo-Conservative".
 
How stupidly ironic, complaining about pejoratives when tossing out claims of antisemitism!

How rich!

If this were a thread about the problems in the Middle East I think we'd soon discover where you stand.

As it is, let's stick with Margaret Thatcher, the most honored civilian woman in British history.
 
As you should be aware, there is a strain of conservatism that is close to libertarianism. That was certainly where Baroness Thatcher resided. As for Kristol, there are issues where he and I part company, but in this instance he was both on point and rhetorically superior.:cool:
Some believe ambiguity is a strength in debate.

As for your subservience to Kristol, I have no doubt.
 
Some believe ambiguity is a strength in debate.

As for your subservience to Kristol, I have no doubt.

You should have some doubt because the poster already pointed out that he did have issues with Kristol. You should read further than the first line.
 
Firstly you must understand what 'neo' means. Do you know?

Then you have to know what is meant by 'Conservative', as defined by Margaret Thatcher. Do you know that?

When you have put it all together then we can judge whether Margaret Thatcher was, in fact, a "Neo-Conservative".
I already have, I asked for you or anyone interested to show I was incorrect. It goes beyond prefix analysis.
 
Back
Top Bottom