• 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!

Baroness Thatcher dies, age 87 [W:113]

Andalublue said:
Well, there IS a constitution, just not a codified one. There's also a Bill of Rights, and has been since 1689. This is virtually the first thing you learn as a politics undergraduate.
Click to expand...

Codified is what matters and the English Bill of Rights is a biggest joke ever.
 
Re: Baroness Thatcher dies, age 87

Penderyn said:
Totally and utterly and forever evil, as you know. We are living through the results of her insane policies, as you know. Stop posturing and look at the evil she and her stinking gang did to Britain. Amongst other things, the other countries will never consent to live with the squalid spite and bullying that her forelock-tuggers in England go in for, so she's done for the UK.
Click to expand...

Your hyperbole is noted and ignored
 
Re: Baroness Thatcher dies, age 87

Quag said:
Your hyperbole is noted and ignored
Click to expand...

Well, in that you are true to your idol. She never listened to truth either - except from Gwynfor, but you won't know about hard things like that. A closed mind in a spiteful body, I say!
 
Re: Baroness Thatcher dies, age 87

Penderyn said:
Well, in that you are true to your idol. She never listened to truth either - except from Gwynfor, but you won't know about hard things like that. A closed mind in a spiteful body, I say!
Click to expand...

Never said I loved her, only that it is wrong to rejoice in someone's death unless they are truly evil. Thatcher was by no means close to being evil. She may have had very different political views to you but she was not evil.
Your attempts to claim she was the most evil person to have ever lived anywhere merely makes you out to be a partisan hack with no merit to your posts. Exactly the same as those who jumped for joy at Chevez`s death
 
Re: Baroness Thatcher dies, age 87

Quag said:
Never said I loved her, only that it is wrong to rejoice in someone's death unless they are truly evil. Thatcher was by no means close to being evil. She may have had very different political views to you but she was not evil.
Your attempts to claim she was the most evil person to have ever lived anywhere merely makes you out to be a partisan hack with no merit to your posts. Exactly the same as those who jumped for joy at Chevez`s death
Click to expand...

We disagree. I rejoice in no-one's death, but I'd wanted to see her tried and hanged, for the general moral benefit. I was on the Notts/Derby border when whe was running her police state. Were you? She was as evil as it is possible to get, in my view, false in thought and voice, bullying, spiteful and disgusting, besides being a war-criminal and a bitter hater of all humanity. You stand either for Thatcher or decency, and that's it.
 
Last edited:
Re: Baroness Thatcher dies, age 87

Penderyn said:
We disagree. I rejoice in no-one's death, but I'd wanted to see her tried and hanged, for the general moral benefit. I was on the Notts/Derby border when whe was running her police state. Were you? She was as evil as it is possible to get, in my view, false in thought and voice, bullying, spiteful and disgusting, besides being a war-crin imal and a nbitter hater of all humanity. You stand either for Thatcher or decency, and that's it.
Click to expand...

I consider you false in thought and voice as you have been rejoicing in her death.
As to the standing for thatcher or decency crap that is a false dichotomy sorry you are full of hate and spite nothing more.
 
Re: Baroness Thatcher dies, age 87

Quag said:
I consider you false in thought and voice as you have been rejoicing in her death.
As to the standing for thatcher or decency crap that is a false dichotomy sorry you are full of hate and spite nothing more.
Click to expand...

I'm just a normal, decent British person. She was the ultimate ****, as you know. Stop posturing. I never rejoice at anyone's death, but I did want her hanged, obviously, as a tyrant and a war criminal. Heil Smelly bones!
 
Re: Baroness Thatcher dies, age 87

Penderyn said:
I'm just a normal, decent British person. She was the ultimate ****, as you know. Stop posturing. I never rejoice at anyone's death, but I did want her hanged, obviously, as a tyrant and a war criminal. Heil Smelly bones!
Click to expand...

You are not normal and you are the one posturing. :peace
 
Re: Baroness Thatcher dies, age 87

Penderyn said:
We disagree. I rejoice in no-one's death, but I'd wanted to see her tried and hanged, for the general moral benefit. I was on the Notts/Derby border when whe was running her police state. Were you? She was as evil as it is possible to get, in my view, false in thought and voice, bullying, spiteful and disgusting, besides being a war-criminal and a bitter hater of all humanity. You stand either for Thatcher or decency, and that's it.
Click to expand...

You are one sick puppy, mister.
 
austrianecon said:
Codified is what matters and the English Bill of Rights is a biggest joke ever.
Click to expand...

Weird post. "Codified is what matters"??? You mean it's more important to have a single constitution document than it is to have a constitution? Bizarre.

And what's a joke about the BoR?
The Act set out that there should be:

* no royal interference with the law. Though the sovereign remains the fount of justice, he or she cannot unilaterally establish new courts or act as a judge.
* no taxation by Royal Prerogative. The agreement of the parliament became necessary for the implementation of any new taxes
* freedom to petition the monarch without fear of retribution
* no standing army may be maintained during a time of peace without the consent of parliament.[7]
* no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law (simultaneously restoring rights previously taken from Protestants by James II)
* no royal interference in the election of members of parliament
* the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament
* "grants and promises of fines or forfeitures" before conviction are void
* no excessive bail or "cruel and unusual" punishments may be imposed
Click to expand...
 
Andalublue said:
Weird post. "Codified is what matters"??? You mean it's more important to have a single constitution document than it is to have a constitution? Bizarre.

And what's a joke about the BoR?
Click to expand...

Yes, having a document say like the US Constitution which lays out for the layman what rights are and what roles each part of government does simplifies the understanding and allows citizenship to understand and make informed choices. Uncodified Constitutions like in the UK where the closest document to a "constitution" was Treaty of the Union (1707) but it's only used in Scotland and doesn't register legally in England or Wales makes it impossible to read and understand rights. For example The Freedom of Information Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998 were new laws which aren't together but gives rights. So to know your "rights" new rights you have to read 2 new documents.

And Yes, English BoRs is a joke. It only applies to Parliament members and bans Catholic ascendency now since the right to have arms is dead and gone in the UK.
 
austrianecon said:
This is about Maggie and her screw up in Northern Ireland. People wanted to give her credit on Sun.. agreement. Then fail to accepted she had policies contrary to that agreement weeks after signing it. And it was you that brought up the other stuff, not I. But they have no constitutional right if there is no constitution. UK has no constitution but various laws and agreements that can change at anytime. Like, say Irish Republican's voting rights in Northern Ireland. US has a constitution and people have constitutional rights. Both forms struggle with problems but at the end of the day people assert their constitutional rights in court, while the other requires Government to give that right.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you're talking about - either on Thatcher in Northern Ireland or the UK unwritten constitution. The Guardian takes an even more socalist-left view of Thatcher's legacy (give the article is written by Gerry Adams) than normal on world matters but others take a more realistic and balanced view and recognise the impact of the first steps taken in 85.

austrianecon said:
Yes, England would lose those areas to Scotland. What the Shetlanders do after that requires an agreement between Scotland and them which could take years. Then if Shetland leaves it would take a while after that to decide where they go. So it could be years after that before they would rejoin England or stay independent themselves.
Click to expand...

I advise you to do some reading on the Scottish referendum before you make more of a fool of yourself. All that's been agreed so far is the actual question to be asked. All else is up for negotiation with many pushing for much of the negotiation to be completed before the referendum takes place.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
You have no idea what you're talking about - either on Thatcher in Northern Ireland or the UK unwritten constitution. The Guardian takes an even more socalist-left view of Thatcher's legacy (give the article is written by Gerry Adams) than normal on world matters but others take a more realistic and balanced view and recognise the impact of the first steps taken in 85.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have gotten a moderate nationalist to comment on the subject, like say John Hume?
 
Ben K. said:
Couldn't have gotten a moderate nationalist to comment on the subject, like say John Hume?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm still trying to work out why an "Austrian" has such strong views about the UK - particularly the Irish dimension. I was distracted.

Here's a little from John Hume after Thatcher's death.

-- “However, with the help of American influence, she had the strength to withstand Unionist intransigence and sign up to the Anglo Irish Agreement.“This was a significant move and a key foundation stone in the beginning of our Peace Process which culminated in the signing of the Good Friday Agreement 15 years ago tomorrow.” Link.
Click to expand...

Personally I think it needs a good 100 years for history to look back more objectively on the period of "the troubles." There may or may not be any nation states in Europe by then and these turf and religious wars may seem very odd through history's eyes.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Sorry, I'm still trying to work out why an "Austrian" has such strong views about the UK - particularly the Irish dimension. I was distracted.

Here's a little from John Hume after Thatcher's death.



Personally I think it needs a good 100 years for history to look back more objectively on the period of "the troubles." There may or may not be any nation states in Europe by then and these turf and religious wars may seem very odd through history's eyes.
Click to expand...

Oops, I was referring to the Guardian's selection of nationalist POV.
I believe Austrianecon's an Irish American. "Austrian" may be another part of his genealogy or reflect his economic views or both *shrug*.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
You have no idea what you're talking about - either on Thatcher in Northern Ireland or the UK unwritten constitution. The Guardian takes an even more socalist-left view of Thatcher's legacy (give the article is written by Gerry Adams) than normal on world matters but others take a more realistic and balanced view and recognise the impact of the first steps taken in 85.
Click to expand...

Actually, sorry to say I do. UK "Constitution" isn't codified which means it's mainly common law based. Which is law developed by judges through decisions of courts or opinions. So ideas such as Diplock Courts existed which despite what you think of Irish Republican groups or Unionist groups is down right distasteful. Well, Gerry Adams writing you know it's ghost written. :lol:

Christian Science Monitor? Seriously? So the pro-Unionist front in the US? You are gonna have to try harder.





Infinite Chaos said:
I advise you to do some reading on the Scottish referendum before you make more of a fool of yourself. All that's been agreed so far is the actual question to be asked. All else is up for negotiation with many pushing for much of the negotiation to be completed before the referendum takes place.
Click to expand...

What are the assets? Oh that's right Oil. Anything else you want to argue on?
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Sorry, I'm still trying to work out why an "Austrian" has such strong views about the UK - particularly the Irish dimension. I was distracted.
Click to expand...

Oh it could be both my parents were born in Ireland, lived in Northern Ireland before my mother decided she had enough and left while pregnant with me.. and me spending my youth in Ireland (North and South) visiting family and waking up one day during our summer trips to visit family to find out my father was murdered by UVF for being Catholic in a pub called The Heights Bar.
 
Ben K. said:
I believe Austrianecon's an Irish American. "Austrian" may be another part of his genealogy or reflect his economic views or both *shrug*.
Click to expand...

It's economic views.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Personally I think it needs a good 100 years for history to look back more objectively on the period of "the troubles." There may or may not be any nation states in Europe by then and these turf and religious wars may seem very odd through history's eyes.
Click to expand...

I think this is a good benchmark for historical review.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Sorry, I'm still trying to work out why an "Austrian" has such strong views about the UK - particularly the Irish dimension. I was distracted.

Here's a little from John Hume after Thatcher's death.



Personally I think it needs a good 100 years for history to look back more objectively on the period of "the troubles." There may or may not be any nation states in Europe by then and these turf and religious wars may seem very odd through history's eyes.
Click to expand...

"Turf and religious wars" have lasted thousands of years. I suspect they'll still be with us in 100 years.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
"Turf and religious wars" have lasted thousands of years. I suspect they'll still be with us in 100 years.:cool:
Click to expand...

Thatcher was a tragic figure..who took the reins of the Conservative party..

She took the poison chalice.. run by men..who eventually stabbed her in the back..(Et tu Brutus??)

The worst one was Michael Heseltine..who has excused himself from any pomp or ceremony...
 
wolfie said:
Thatcher was a tragic figure..who took the reins of the Conservative party..

She took the poison chalice.. run by men..who eventually stabbed her in the back..(Et tu Brutus??)

The worst one was Michael Heseltine..who has excused himself from any pomp or ceremony...
Click to expand...

She will be remembered, and admired, long after her critics, enemies and betrayers are known only to graduate students researching their Ph.D. dissertations.:cool:
 
austrianecon said:
Actually, sorry to say I do. UK "Constitution" isn't codified which means it's mainly common law based. Which is law developed by judges through decisions of courts or opinions.
Click to expand...

LOL. You're heading even further away from the original point of the thread and you're also contradicting yourself. The UK constitution is something for another thread but I see no point in turning a flexible living constitution into something written in stone which may not be relevant in 2-300 years time.

austrianecon said:
Well, Gerry Adams writing you know it's ghost written. :lol:
Click to expand...

And? Has Mr Adams since refuted what was written?

austrianecon said:
Christian Science Monitor? Seriously? So the pro-Unionist front in the US? You are gonna have to try harder.
Click to expand...

So you think Mr Hume's statement is innaccurate or somehow made up just because it's from a source you don't like. Heyo, good refutation. :applaud


austrianecon said:
-- What are the assets? Oh that's right Oil. Anything else you want to argue on?
Click to expand...

I think you're just arguing for the sake of it and have lost track of what you were originally saying. Your start point was about the UK losing small islands "England would lose Forties, Shetland, Moray and Northern Scotland Coast so in reality that's like 80% plus of the Northern Sea Oil that England has rights to."

Anyhow, this is pretty pointless - I'll come back when the thread gets back on track. :beam:


 
Jack Hays said:
Infinite Chaos said:
Personally I think it needs a good 100 years for history to look back more objectively on the period of "the troubles." There may or may not be any nation states in Europe by then and these turf and religious wars may seem very odd through history's eyes.
Click to expand...

"Turf and religious wars" have lasted thousands of years. I suspect they'll still be with us in 100 years.:cool:
Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:
She will be remembered, and admired, long after her critics, enemies and betrayers are known only to graduate students researching their Ph.D. dissertations.:cool:
Click to expand...

Your second statement is what I was trying to hint at. Here in the UK the main protesters on the streets all look suspiciously like they aren't old enough to have been born when Thatcher was in power, they're mostly all brandishing Socialist Worker Party / Socialist Worker posters or old union flags.

They don't represent the rest of us.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Your second statement is what I was trying to hint at. Here in the UK the main protesters on the streets all look suspiciously like they aren't old enough to have been born when Thatcher was in power, they're mostly all brandishing Socialist Worker Party / Socialist Worker posters or old union flags.

They don't represent the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I believe you.:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom