• 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

Historically inaccurate agit-prop.:naughty

"If only the Iron Lady were a model for our plastic men." --William Kristol:roll:

If it's agitation and propaganda then feel free to debunk it.

Too many people on this site like to do drive-by comments like this but fail to substantiate anything they say.
 
If it's agitation and propaganda then feel free to debunk it.

Too many people on this site like to do drive-by comments like this but fail to substantiate anything they say.

Beats impossibly common remarks such as expressing hope that someone dead is buried face down so she can see the hell she's going to. ;)
 
If it's agitation and propaganda then feel free to debunk it.

Too many people on this site like to do drive-by comments like this but fail to substantiate anything they say.

I'll just refer you to this week's edition of The Economist. Baroness Thatcher's photo is on the cover, with the caption "Freedom fighter" in large letters. Read and learn.:cool:
 
Beats impossibly common remarks such as expressing hope that someone dead is buried face down so she can see the hell she's going to. ;)

It's how I feel... plus I found it kind of funny. :p

I'll just refer you to this week's edition of The Economist. Baroness Thatcher's photo is on the cover, with the caption "Freedom fighter" in large letters. Read and learn.:cool:

Nice cop out.
 
If you're that lazy, I'll help you.

Margaret Thatcher: Freedom fighter | The Economist
Page Not Found - Debate Politics Forums...
6 days ago – ONLY a handful of peacetime politicians can claim to have changed the world. Margaret Thatcher was one. She transformed not just her own ...

:cool:

I don't think you're understanding. Since this is a debate forum, you're free to argue against what I said. Simply posting an article with no quotes or context is no better than someone posting a youtube video and saying, "Here! This proves you wrong."

Don't accuse me of being lazy because YOU won't type out an actual argument.
 
I don't think you're understanding. Since this is a debate forum, you're free to argue against what I said. Simply posting an article with no quotes or context is no better than someone posting a youtube video and saying, "Here! This proves you wrong."

Don't accuse me of being lazy because YOU won't type out an actual argument.

Only a handful of peacetime politicians can claim to have changed the world. Margaret Thatcher was one. She transformed not just her own Conservative Party, but the whole of British politics. Her enthusiasm for privatisation launched a global revolution and her willingness to stand up to tyranny helped to bring an end to the Soviet Union. Winston Churchill won a war, but he never created an “-ism”. The essence of Thatcherism was to oppose the status quo and bet on freedom: the right of individuals to run their own lives, as free as possible from micromanagement by the state.

In her early years in politics, economic liberalism was in retreat, the Soviet Union was extending its empire, and Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek were dismissed as academic eccentrics. The ideas of Friedman and Hayek persuaded her that things could be different. Most of this radicalism was hidden from the British electorate that voted her into office in 1979, largely in frustration with Labour’s ineptitude. What followed was an economic revolution. She privatised state industries, refused to negotiate with the unions, abolished state controls, broke the striking miners and replaced Keynesianism with Friedman’s monetarism. The inflation rate fell from a high of 27% in 1975 to 2.4% in 1986. The number of working days lost to strikes fell from 29m in 1979 to 2m in 1986. The top rate of tax fell from 83% to 40%.

For a world in desperate need of growth, this is the wrong direction. Europe will never thrive until it frees up its markets. America will throttle its recovery unless it avoids overregulation. China will not sustain its success unless it starts to liberalise. This is a crucial time to hang on to Margaret Thatcher’s central perception: that for countries to flourish, people need to push back against the advance of the state. What the world needs now is more Thatcherism, not less.:cool:
 
I'll just refer you to this week's edition of The Economist. Baroness Thatcher's photo is on the cover, with the caption "Freedom fighter" in large letters. Read and learn.:cool:

Because "Freedom fighters" associate with murderous fascist dictators and support Apartheid regimes....
 
Because "Freedom fighters" associate with murderous fascist dictators and support Apartheid regimes....

Sometimes they do. She shepherded the Zimbabwe peace and independence process to fruition and secured valuable assistance from Chile in the Falklands War.:cool:
 
Only a handful of peacetime politicians can claim to have changed the world. Margaret Thatcher was one. She transformed not just her own Conservative Party, but the whole of British politics. Her enthusiasm for privatisation launched a global revolution and her willingness to stand up to tyranny helped to bring an end to the Soviet Union. Winston Churchill won a war, but he never created an “-ism”. The essence of Thatcherism was to oppose the status quo and bet on freedom: the right of individuals to run their own lives, as free as possible from micromanagement by the state.

In her early years in politics, economic liberalism was in retreat, the Soviet Union was extending its empire, and Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek were dismissed as academic eccentrics. The ideas of Friedman and Hayek persuaded her that things could be different. Most of this radicalism was hidden from the British electorate that voted her into office in 1979, largely in frustration with Labour’s ineptitude. What followed was an economic revolution. She privatised state industries, refused to negotiate with the unions, abolished state controls, broke the striking miners and replaced Keynesianism with Friedman’s monetarism. The inflation rate fell from a high of 27% in 1975 to 2.4% in 1986. The number of working days lost to strikes fell from 29m in 1979 to 2m in 1986. The top rate of tax fell from 83% to 40%.

For a world in desperate need of growth, this is the wrong direction. Europe will never thrive until it frees up its markets. America will throttle its recovery unless it avoids overregulation. China will not sustain its success unless it starts to liberalise. This is a crucial time to hang on to Margaret Thatcher’s central perception: that for countries to flourish, people need to push back against the advance of the state. What the world needs now is more Thatcherism, not less.:cool:

You need to learn how to post a link.

Margaret Thatcher: The lady who changed the world | The Economist
 
"Sometimes the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't." --Little Big Man

I follow the directions. Too often it posts but says "link not found.":roll:

If all else fails you can use this technique:

  • Paste the title of the link in your post.
  • Select the title with your mouse or if you're using an iPad your finger.
  • Click the globe icon at the top of the edit box
  • Paste the link address in the dialog box, click OK
 
I find it amusing how quickly so many people on this forum resort to accusing other people of lying when they have been caught in a difficult position.

.: United States Senator John McCain :: Press Office :.


Romney brought it up in the 2nd debate and suffered a humiliating setback on it. Republicans were constantly throwing Benghazi at Obama, to lessen his advantage on foreign policy.

Did you read your own link??

Hillary Clinton said she was responsible!
 
Did you read your own link??

Hillary Clinton said she was responsible!
What does that have to do with anything? Did I mention Hillary Clinton or did I mention Republicans/Fox News?

It seems as if those who accuse others of lying are the most dishonest.
 
If all else fails you can use this technique:

  • Paste the title of the link in your post.
  • Select the title with your mouse or if you're using an iPad your finger.
  • Click the globe icon at the top of the edit box
  • Paste the link address in the dialog box, click OK

Thanks. Unfortunately that's what I have been doing.:cool:
 
Are you saying that O's decision to snub the funeral was made yesterday afternoon???

I have no idea when the decision was made and I really don't care. I'm just saying that if he did decide at the last minute not to attend the funeral, it was the prudent thing to do in view of current domestic events. I'm sure most reasonable people including the British Royals and members of Parliament will understand his absence. Why can't you?
 
Or maybe it's because she bucked the labor union push toward the morass of quasi socialist push toward mediocrity. No leader is everything to everyone, but is it too much to ask that they at least lead? She did.

Ah! Here, ladies and gentlemen, we have a bit of truth. To j-mac, the dearly departed Margarette Thatcher was a leader...as long as she "lead" on issues he vehemently opposed. And yet you contradict yourself, sir. By your own admission, "no leader is everything to everyone". So, why do you despise this nation's 44th President so?

Don't answer; you've already made your opinions of the man quite clear. I just wanted you to re-read your own hypocrisy.
 
I have no idea when the decision was made and I really don't care. I'm just saying that if he did decide at the last minute not to attend the funeral, it was the prudent thing to do in view of current domestic events. I'm sure most reasonable people including the British Royals and members of Parliament will understand his absence. Why can't you?

The decision was made public long before the Boston massacre, which had absolutely nothing to do with it.
 
hey, i'm listening ... because there is no one on these boards who knows more about hate than you


Aw heck Bubba, I don't hate anyone....Especially you my friend....I don't even know you personally....I offer defense of my opinions, and you, along with others don't seem to like that too much, as a result you feel the need to lash out, and attack personally those that don't agree with you. That you tend to believe that your typed words on an anonymous message board, or that you can insult your way to some sort of respect is a fools errand, and demonstrates a serious flaw in logic.

You are a smart guy bubba, I just wish you'd apply that aspiration toward rational discussion rather than bomb throwing, Alinsky type denigration....It just makes you look small.
 
Aw heck Bubba, I don't hate anyone....Especially you my friend....I don't even know you personally....I offer defense of my opinions, and you, along with others don't seem to like that too much, as a result you feel the need to lash out, and attack personally those that don't agree with you. That you tend to believe that your typed words on an anonymous message board, or that you can insult your way to some sort of respect is a fools errand, and demonstrates a serious flaw in logic.

You are a smart guy bubba, I just wish you'd apply that aspiration toward rational discussion rather than bomb throwing, Alinsky type denigration....It just makes you look small.

But personal ad hom attacks is what they do. I sincerely believe they can't help themselves, that anyone who disagrees with them is either unaware or evil and insults are their last (and often first) form of defense. Many times I now use the same tactics, after being ineffectually polite for too long.

And yes, much of the means of propaganda was refined by Saul Alinsky and trickled down through the culture and media until we see the consequences now and the direction they are taking.. Few leftists may realize the source of their anger, only that there are injustices that must be mended, not understanding that what will eventually happen will be much worse than whatever problems they hope to eradicate.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

Another who doesn't know that the decision was made before Boston happened.
 
Historically inaccurate agit-prop.:naughty

"If only the Iron Lady were a model for our plastic men." --William Kristol:roll:
The "libertarian" defends the memory of an ultra conservative with a quote from a neocon.

Love it!
 
Back
Top Bottom