mumkin Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 No, but she broke all the tools they needed to work with, in the most vindictive action of any PM before or since. There is no chance of us regaining the wealth and good standards we had before she came and smashed everything, then sold what was left to whoever wanted it. Friend or Foe. Like all grocers, she knew the price of everything, and the value of nothing. She was a patriot and a pragmatist. She fought hard for our rights (the rebate in Europe) and recognised that the age of coal and government by the communist-led NUM was over. Have we, as a nation, suffered without our coal being dug out at great cost with the permanent threat of strikes? She was a libertarian and a believer in personal responsibility. She gave the people the money to choose how to spend it and taxation was reduced FOR ALL. She gave the poorer the right to their own home, one of her most successful policies. It allowed millions to escape poverty today by having control over their own property and finances. When she left office the nation was undeniably fitter, richer and stronger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 She was a patriot and a pragmatist. She was a self-serving misanthrope, who was so far up the backside of people like Reagan and Pinochet that when they brushed their teeth, HER gnashers gleamed.. She began her economic reforms by increasing interest rates and introducing budget cuts. She cut the budget on social services like health care, education and housing, and placed legal restrictions on trade unions. She was also responsible for committing our troops to join the first gulf war. She fought hard for our rights (the rebate in Europe) and recognised that the age of coal and government by the communist-led NUM was over. Have we, as a nation, suffered without our coal being dug out at great cost with the permanent threat of strikes? She fought hard to do what Hitler, the Kaiser, and Napoleon all failed to do - Bring the country to their knees. She was a libertarian and a believer in personal responsibility. She permitted her government to get away with some shocking deeds, no personal responsibility there! Cecil Parkinson, for example-look at the shocking and cavalier way he obtained a legal gag on Sarah Keays when she gave birth to his illegitimate daughter after an affair! She gave the people the money to choose how to spend it and taxation was reduced FOR ALL. She gave the poorer the right to their own home, one of her most successful policies. It allowed millions to escape poverty today by having control over their own property and finances. No, she taught that greed is good. She sold things to people that they already owned... Council housing, British telecom, the Gas Board, the Steel industry etc. She increased the gap between the Haves and the Have-Nots. When she left office the nation was undeniably fitter, richer and stronger. only if you were in the upper echelons of society Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mumkin Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 She was a self-serving misanthrope, who was so far up the backside of people like Reagan and Pinochet that when they brushed their teeth, HER gnashers gleamed.. She began her economic reforms by increasing interest rates and introducing budget cuts. She cut the budget on social services like health care, education and housing, and placed legal restrictions on trade unions. She was also responsible for committing our troops to join the first gulf war. She fought hard to do what Hitler, the Kaiser, and Napoleon all failed to do - Bring the country to their knees. She permitted her government to get away with some shocking deeds, no personal responsibility there! Cecil Parkinson, for example-look at the shocking and cavalier way he obtained a legal gag on Sarah Keays when she gave birth to his illegitimate daughter after an affair! No, she taught that greed is good. She sold things to people that they already owned... Council housing, British telecom, the Gas Board, the Steel industry etc. She increased the gap between the Haves and the Have-Nots. only if you were in the upper echelons of society There are non so blind as those who do not want to see......and anyway, your points of view hold no water with me, as anyone (such as yourself) who wishes death on another human being doesn't have a valid point and therefore your points of view are not even worthy of any consideration:shakes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VideoPro Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Margaret Thatchra. The reason I no longer live in the UK. When she dies, I'm going to come back, buy a shovel and deliver her personally to the devil. Then I will go for eight pints in the East House and eat two proper chip butties afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 There are non so blind as those who do not want to see......and anyway, your points of view hold no water with me, as anyone (such as yourself) who wishes death on another human being doesn't have a valid point and therefore your points of view are not even worthy of any consideration:shakes: Obviously these points won't wash with you. You've already pointed out that there's none so blind, etc... Your mind is made up, and you are making it patently obvious that you won't allow yourself to be confused with the facts. Ask most of the forummers who know me personally- I'm a very pleasant and caring person. I'm just making an exception for her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Margaret Thatchra. The reason I no longer live in the UK. When she dies, I'm going to come back, buy a shovel and deliver her personally to the devil. Then I will go for eight pints in the East House and eat two proper chip butties afterwards. Deliver her to the devil? ROFL! What was that saying? "Heaven doesn't want her, and hell is afraid she'll take over!" ? And probably terrified that she'll start selling off shares in hell-fire, too! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Deliver her to the devil? ROFL! What was that saying? "Heaven doesn't want her, and hell is afraid she'll take over!" ? And probably terrified that she'll start selling off shares in hell-fire, too! lol There are no such things as god or the devil let alone heaven and hell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 . . . .She began her economic reforms by increasing interest rates and introducing budget cuts. She cut the budget on social services like health care, education and housing, and placed legal restrictions on trade unions. Economic action that was necessary, just as this time around, to help the country recover from the previous Labour administrations crass overspending. She was also responsible for committing our troops to join the first gulf war. Iraq had invaded Kuwait – would you have left them to get on with it, and take Saudi as well? She fought hard to do what Hitler, the Kaiser, and Napoleon all failed to do - Bring the country to their knees. No, bringing the country to its knees is what the unions did in the 70s and Thatcher prevented them from doing again. No, she taught that greed is good. She sold things to people that they already owned... Council housing, British telecom, the Gas Board, the Steel industry etc. Many families on low incomes now have houses they don’t have to pay rent on, that were bought very cheaply – how is that greed? She increased the gap between the Haves and the Have-Nots. No,m ther haves and have nots did that themselves, by some working and others being lazy. only if you were in the upper echelons of society No. Anybody wh’s actually willing to put some effort in does better under a society which correctly rewards enterprise and drive, rather than one which rewards idleness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Economic action that was necessary, just as this time around, to help the country recover from the previous Labour administrations crass overspending. Iraq had invaded Kuwait – would you have left them to get on with it, and take Saudi as well? No, bringing the country to its knees is what the unions did in the 70s and Thatcher prevented them from doing again. Many families on low incomes now have houses they don’t have to pay rent on, that were bought very cheaply – how is that greed? No,m ther haves and have nots did that themselves, by some working and others being lazy. No. Anybody wh’s actually willing to put some effort in does better under a society which correctly rewards enterprise and drive, rather than one which rewards idleness. It’s surprising how many people think the wealthy were all born with a silver spoon up their arse. I don’t think talking sense will alter their opinions. FROM RAGS TO RICHES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophal Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Has anyone seen the new Thatcher film with Merel Streep? Is it out yet? Just saw an advert for it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.