PDA

View Full Version : Margaret Thatcher dead at 87


cutthemdown
04-08-2013, 06:31 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/world/europe/former-prime-minister-margaret-thatcher-of-britain-has-died.html

LONDON — Margaret Thatcher, a towering, divisive and yet revered figure who left an enduring impact on British politics, died on Monday of a stroke, her family said.

“It is with great sadness that Mark and Carol Thatcher announced that their mother Baroness Thatcher died peacefully following a stroke this morning,” a statement from her spokesman, Lord Tim Bell, said.

Lady Thatcher had been in poor health for months. She served as prime minister for 11 years, beginning in 1979. She was known variously as the ‘Iron Lady,’ a stern Conservative who transformed Britain’s way of thinking about its economic and political life, broke union power and opened the way to far greater private ownership.

Bacchus
04-08-2013, 06:47 AM
England hasn't been the same since she started their downfall.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
04-08-2013, 06:52 AM
England hasn't been the same since she started their downfall.

And it starts.

cutthemdown
04-08-2013, 07:03 AM
What a glorious victory when she slayed the mighty Argentinians. People on the Falklands love her!

Kaylore
04-08-2013, 07:24 AM
She was one of the greatest leaders in the UK. The left hates her, but she was an incredibly capable woman in a man's world. A great loss.

peacepipe
04-08-2013, 08:50 AM
Englands reagon. Loved by conservatives,not so much by everybodyelse.

gyldenlove
04-08-2013, 09:00 AM
Englands reagon. Loved by conservatives,not so much by everybodyelse.

She is pretty universally hated in England, their economy and industry never recovered from the damage that was done under her conservative government. I can't think of another democratically elected government leader who has been so universally disliked in their own country after they left office.

She definitely made her mark on Britain and in a lot of ways spearheaded the notion that a woman can lead a major international power.

Pick Six
04-08-2013, 09:07 AM
She was one of the greatest leaders in the UK. The left hates her, but she was an incredibly capable woman in a man's world. A great loss.

She definitely had the American left wing confused. They wanted more women, in power. They just didn't want THAT woman...:rofl:

RIP, Iron Lady...

Requiem
04-08-2013, 09:12 AM
She is pretty universally hated in England, their economy and industry never recovered from the damage that was done under her conservative government. I can't think of another democratically elected government leader who has been so universally disliked in their own country after they left office.

She definitely made her mark on Britain and in a lot of ways spearheaded the notion that a woman can lead a major international power.

Uh oh. . . you done said some bad words. You are gonna get in trouble. ;D

BowlenBall
04-08-2013, 09:17 AM
Uh oh. . . you done said some bad words. You are gonna get in trouble. ;D

Living in Abu Dhabi, most of the native English speakers I pal around with are from the U.K.

Out of the 6 or 7 I talked to today, not one had something nice to say about her.

Small sample size, sure, but still.... a bit odd.

gyldenlove
04-08-2013, 09:20 AM
Uh oh. . . you done said some bad words. You are gonna get in trouble. ;D

I lived there for 2 years and I don't think I ever met anyone who could have a full conversation about her without at some point saying how she did major damage to the economy and industry of UK. I am sure people exist who really liked her and think she only had good policies, but it is not a common attitude.

Requiem
04-08-2013, 09:33 AM
I lived there for 2 years and I don't think I ever met anyone who could have a full conversation about her without at some point saying how she did major damage to the economy and industry of UK. I am sure people exist who really liked her and think she only had good policies, but it is not a common attitude.

Oh definitely, I know. There aren't going to be a lot of people touting a person whose policies decimated their industrial capacity and left over a quarter of the population in poverty. . . but this is the OM. Same usual suspects heralding their same ilk-minded idols, regardless of how aloof they are to history.

Chris
04-08-2013, 09:38 AM
RIP Maggie from a Labour supporter. Much respect too from the little boy that celebrated the handover with your bodyguards ;)

ColoradoDarin
04-08-2013, 10:28 AM
I lived there for 2 years and I don't think I ever met anyone who could have a full conversation about her without at some point saying how she did major damage to the economy and industry of UK. I am sure people exist who really liked her and think she only had good policies, but it is not a common attitude.

You probably don't even know anyone who voted for Nixon either!

peacepipe
04-08-2013, 11:03 AM
You probably don't even know anyone who voted for Nixon either!

Did you read his post ??? He said he is sure there are some who loved her.

Kaylore
04-08-2013, 11:09 AM
You probably don't even know anyone who voted for Nixon either!

:rofl: Great quote.

Her approval is clearly in the positive in the UK according to polling data today and at the time of her exit from politics - except among leftists, with whom she is wildly unpopular. To me that is a sign she was good at het job.

Labour actually co-opted many of her policies and that is a reason the conservatives fell out of favour in the UK. The UK is actually pretty conservative as a country compared to their Euro cousins.

Chris
04-08-2013, 11:10 AM
:rofl: Great quote.

Her approval is clearly in the positive in the UK according to polling data today and at the time of her exit from politics - except among leftists, with whom she is wildly unpopular. To me that is a sign she was good at het job.

Labour actually co-opted many of her policies and that is a reason the conservatives fell out of favour in the UK. The UK is actually pretty conservative as a country compared to their Euro cousins.

Absolutely. And they weren't beforehand. She shaped what the UK is today. I still look to Germany as a good model though.

gyldenlove
04-08-2013, 11:15 AM
You probably don't even know anyone who voted for Nixon either!

I do, and I know people who have nice things to say about Nixon's politics.

peacepipe
04-08-2013, 11:20 AM
:rofl: Great quote.

Her approval is clearly in the positive in the UK according to polling data today and at the time of her exit from politics - except among leftists, with whom she is wildly unpopular. To me that is a sign she was good at het job.

Labour actually co-opted many of her policies and that is a reason the conservatives fell out of favour in the UK. The UK is actually pretty conservative as a country compared to their Euro cousins.
She was pushed out by her own party. Her party didn't think too much of her. But like I said,loved among conservatives not so much by everybody else.

gyldenlove
04-08-2013, 11:24 AM
:rofl: Great quote.

Her approval is clearly in the positive in the UK according to polling data today and at the time of her exit from politics - except among leftists, with whom she is wildly unpopular. To me that is a sign she was good at het job.

Labour actually co-opted many of her policies and that is a reason the conservatives fell out of favour in the UK. The UK is actually pretty conservative as a country compared to their Euro cousins.

I am not sure where you get that from, but it clearly isn't a reputable source. She had the 2nd lowest approval rating of any prime minister after WW2 in the UK during her reign and her own party kicked her out of office at a time when the party was dead in the polls and she was polling even worse than the party average.

Her approval is high today because she is dead, nobody in England likes to speak ill of the dead.

Chris
04-08-2013, 11:26 AM
I'd say all claims in this thread are accurate. She's a divisive figure but she defined modern England.

Blart
04-08-2013, 12:23 PM
Party in Trafalgar Square this Saturday!
http://isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk/

http://i.imgur.com/5HzULOE.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/JCgV8Io.png


The classic:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/K-BZIWSI5UQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Blart
04-08-2013, 12:24 PM
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hsq3H_6XuFA" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AqonCo0A68o" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>


This is a great day. Baking a cake right now

Blart
04-08-2013, 12:28 PM
Holy crap, easiest mix tape ever.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IlkXQm7tSCY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wcXi-VYy_Yw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



Random Thatcher Facts:


1) Her economic ideology destroyed the UK's working class, and moved nearly all manufacturing overseas.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/12/05/uk-britain-inequality-oecd-idUKTRE7B40HB20111205

2) Oblivious to the troubles of newly unemployed and impoverished workers, she thought it would be a good idea to introduce a poll tax. Heh.

http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/asset/5162f1eccd6578646110b07a/mobile/79292353_10.jpg

http://gothamist.com/2013/04/08/photos_the_1990_poll_tax_riot_that.php#photo-1

3) The long term legacy of her economic policy blew up in everyone's faces in 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_%28financial_markets%29

4) She loved apartheid.

5) She supported Pinochet.

<iframe width="400" height="225" src="http://www.democracynow.org/embed/story/2013/4/8/margaret_thatcher_1925_2013_tariq_ali" frameborder="0"></iframe>

TonyR
04-08-2013, 12:44 PM
She almost single-handedly revitalized British pop music!

Musical responses to Thatcher came in three varieties. There were songs that took a hard look at the country, especially during the early 1980s recession and the Falklands war: the aimless dispossessed of Ghost Town, the conflicted dockworker of Shipbuilding, the struggling poor of A Town Called Malice, the despair-poisoned citizens of the The’s Heartland. There were the character assassinations: Crass’s incandescent Falklands response How Does It Feel to Be the Mother of 1,000 Dead (quoted to the lady herself at Prime Minister’s Question Time), the Blow Monkeys’ somewhat premature (Celebrate) The Day After You, Morrissey‘s Margaret on the Guillotine and Elvis Costello‘s venomous Tramp the Dirt Down.

I could name dozens more but there are hundreds in the third category: whole careers, like that of the Smiths, implicitly underpinned by opposition to Thatcherite values. Look at the long list of people who played benefit gigs for such causes as the miners’ strike or Red Wedge and you’ll find such seemingly unlikely names as Wham! and Spandau Ballet’s Gary Kemp. http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-pop-rock-music

errand
04-08-2013, 12:45 PM
Annette Funicello died today too she was 70 years old

errand
04-08-2013, 12:50 PM
one of Margaret's greatest quotations - " the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money"

gunns
04-08-2013, 12:50 PM
I do, and I know people who have nice things to say about Nixon's politics.

See SoCal.

I'm more devastated by Annette Funicello dying. A big part of my childhood. She was the girl all of us wanted to look like. MiC? See ya real soon. keY? Because we like you! M O U S E.

ColoradoDarin
04-08-2013, 01:03 PM
I do, and I know people who have nice things to say about Nixon's politics.

It was a classical reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Kael#Alleged_Nixon_quote)

TonyR
04-08-2013, 01:07 PM
You Sullivan haters will probably be surprised by this since you've incorrectly labeled him a "liberal", but he LOVED her. Good read from him on Thatcher linked below.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/04/08/thatcher-liberator/

I was a teenage Thatcherite, an uber-politics nerd who loved her for her utter lack of apology for who she was. I sensed in her, as others did, a final rebuke to the collectivist, egalitarian oppression of the individual produced by socialism and the stultifying privileges and caste identities of the class system. And part of that identity – the part no one ever truly gave her credit for – was her gender. She came from a small grocer’s shop in a northern town and went on to educate herself in chemistry at Oxford, and then law. To put it mildly, those were not traditional decisions for a young woman with few means in the 1950s. She married a smart businessman, reared two children and forged a political career from scratch in the most male-dominated institution imaginable: the Tory party.

mhgaffney
04-08-2013, 01:10 PM
England hasn't been the same since she started their downfall.

Here here.

mhgaffney
04-08-2013, 01:13 PM
She was one of the greatest leaders in the UK. The left hates her, but she was an incredibly capable woman in a man's world. A great loss.

She was a tyrannical servant of the 1%.

Beantown Bronco
04-08-2013, 01:16 PM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HOxeH_OQpFw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Blart
04-08-2013, 01:31 PM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/R3nYGoppmoA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

A successful riot. The regressive poll tax was reversed and Thatcher was forced to step down.

Chris
04-08-2013, 01:33 PM
You Sullivan haters will probably be surprised by this since you've incorrectly labeled him a "liberal", but he LOVED her. Good read from him on Thatcher linked below.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/04/08/thatcher-liberator/

Pffffffffffffff who called Sullivan a liberal?

TonyR
04-08-2013, 01:43 PM
Pffffffffffffff who called Sullivan a liberal?

LOL You clearly don't spend much time in the WRP. I should probably follow your lead but can't help myself!

bronco militia
04-08-2013, 01:54 PM
Here here.

oh, so she supported Israel......:rofl:

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQfKXXAnX9gG9jsMV7KL26pbZD534-A-TkPQ7QmYLqop1jSKkcr

RIP!

BroncoLifer
04-08-2013, 02:13 PM
She certainly saw the problem with the Euro far in advance:

"Basically, she outlined the problems with the euro perfectly, that Germany would chafe at the inevitable need for greater inflation, and that the poorer countries would inevitably be uncompetitive and need bailouts that would not easily be forthcoming."

http://www.businessinsider.com/margaret-thatcher-on-the-euro-2013-4

bpc
04-08-2013, 02:17 PM
RIP M. Thatcher! The world needs more LEADERS like her and Reagan.

BroncoLifer
04-08-2013, 02:21 PM
You Sullivan haters will probably be surprised by this since you've incorrectly labeled him a "liberal".......

Actually, I label him unbalanced and what surprises me is that you continue to think so highly of him. How's his Trig Palin obsession doing these days? That episode alone is proof that his brain isn't firing on all cylinders.

Requiem
04-08-2013, 02:21 PM
loloooooooooooooooooooooooL

Archer81
04-08-2013, 02:24 PM
RIP Iron Lady.

:Broncos:

peacepipe
04-08-2013, 02:27 PM
RIP M. Thatcher! The world needs more LEADERS like her and Reagan.

Neither would even make it through a primary here in the US nowadays,they'd be called liberals.
Thatcher supported socialized medicine,raised taxes,believed in climate change & gun control laws.
Reagon raised taxes & compromised with dems,to say the least.

Blart
04-08-2013, 02:40 PM
Neither would even make it through a primary here in the US nowadays,they'd be called liberals.



http://i.imgur.com/eVu3iKl.jpg

Old Dude
04-08-2013, 02:43 PM
Annette Funicello died today too she was 70 years old

well that sucks

Chris
04-08-2013, 03:50 PM
Neither would even make it through a primary here in the US nowadays,they'd be called liberals.
Thatcher supported socialized medicine,raised taxes,believed in climate change & gun control laws.
Reagon raised taxes & compromised with dems,to say the least.

Having said that Reaganomics laid the groundwork for corporations to get so powerful they now fund both parties.

Kaylore
04-08-2013, 03:53 PM
My dad said every boy he knew rubed one out to Annette Funicello.

DenverDynamite
04-08-2013, 04:17 PM
My dad said every boy he knew rubed one out to Annette Funicello.

I suppose had I been born twenty years earlier that would have been me as well. As it was, she was just the thick-eyebrow lady on the Skippy peanut butter comercials.

Rohirrim
04-08-2013, 04:48 PM
Rabid ideologue who suffered from pathological tunnel vision. Don't mourn her loss. Our government is filled with such people. Which is why it's circling the toilet and taking the country down with it.

Rohirrim
04-08-2013, 05:18 PM
I'm sadder about the death of Andy Johns. http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/showbiz/music/obit-andy-johns/index.html?hpt=hp_t5

Broncojef
04-08-2013, 05:22 PM
Can't believe Anette Funicello is being mentioned in the same breath. To bad leaders like Thatcher and Reagan are gone, the world is in need of that kind of leadership and is found wanting, its even worse some of you have revisionist history on who our true heros were.

DHallblows
04-08-2013, 05:25 PM
She didn't die like 15 years ago? News to me.

peacepipe
04-08-2013, 05:37 PM
Can't believe Anette Funicello is being mentioned in the same breath. To bad leaders like Thatcher and Reagan are gone, the world is in need of that kind of leadership and is found wanting, its even worse some of you have revisionist history on who our true heros were.

Revisionist? That's ironic coming from you.

24champ
04-08-2013, 06:23 PM
We need leaders that promote more topless protesting.

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/XqMu6aPKKw7OY7mbpf0p.w--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9MjE3ODtjcj0xO2N3PTMwMDA7ZHg9MD tkeT0wO2ZpPXVsY3JvcDtoPTQ1ODtxPTg1O3c9NjMw/http://media.zenfs.com/es_US/News/es.afp.com/TRARP3487744.jpg

Requiem
04-08-2013, 06:28 PM
Can't believe Anette Funicello is being mentioned in the same breath. To bad leaders like Thatcher and Reagan are gone, the world is in need of that kind of leadership and is found wanting, its even worse some of you have revisionist history on who our true heros were.

Yep. The world needs more administrations that had over 130 former cabinet members be indicted or found guilty on federal charges. Woohoo!

Blart
04-08-2013, 07:09 PM
http://i.imgur.com/pdBGN3E.jpg

ColoradoDarin
04-08-2013, 07:41 PM
http://i.qkme.me/358zt8.jpg

Dr. Broncenstein
04-08-2013, 07:42 PM
Stay mad, Bloodyfart.

rugbythug
04-08-2013, 07:57 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/world/europe/former-prime-minister-margaret-thatcher-of-britain-has-died.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

Sounds Like she did a good job getting the Economy out of the Gutter.

Blart
04-08-2013, 07:59 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/world/europe/former-prime-minister-margaret-thatcher-of-britain-has-died.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

Sounds Like she did a good job getting the Economy out of the Gutter.

That's disputable. Why didn't we see unemployment drop until she was out of office?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/04/08/opinion/040813krugman7/040813krugman7-blog480.png

Blue is the UK. Thatcher came to power in '79. She left (humiliated and hated) in 1990.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/did-thatcher-turn-britain-around/

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
04-08-2013, 08:25 PM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/529271_10151553062973588_1281849439_n.png

Cito Pelon
04-08-2013, 08:46 PM
Maggie and Reagan took over in some stressful years. The bugaboo of Communist threat to world stability was real. Everybody was scared ****less about the USSR and their influence. Thatcher and Reagan laughed at them and broke the Iron Curtain. Those two had a lot of impact on world events, brought a new phase into geopolitics.

JPPT1974
04-08-2013, 08:55 PM
RIP to the woman known as the Iron Lady. She and Ronald Reagan helped change to alter history!

cutthemdown
04-08-2013, 09:22 PM
People call her a loser for helping Reagan stand up for the private sector and stand against the Soviet Union. Remember them?

Meanwhile your great leader Obama doing nothing to stop Iran from getting a nuclear device, or N Korea from develping their nukes into warheads that can fit on a missile. Oh but he is making sure magazines cant have 30 rounds, gays can marry, lying to us about healthcare reform, screwing up Libya and getting people killed, slow economic growth, high taxes, high has prices but a really good golf game.

Cito Pelon
04-08-2013, 09:30 PM
People call her a loser for helping Reagan stand up for the private sector and stand against the Soviet Union. Remember them?

Meanwhile your great leader Obama doing nothing to stop Iran from getting a nuclear device, or N Korea from develping their nukes into warheads that can fit on a missile. Oh but he is making sure magazines cant have 30 rounds, gays can marry, lying to us about healthcare reform, screwing up Libya and getting people killed, slow economic growth, high taxes, high has prices but a really good golf game.

Dude inherited a Middle East war, dude inherited an economy in meltdown, so him and his guys have done a good job. Please.

SimonFletcher73
04-08-2013, 09:34 PM
87 and white. Reminds me of Ed McCaffrey.

Dr. Broncenstein
04-08-2013, 09:40 PM
87 and white. Reminds me of Ed McCaffrey.

Dude. Lol.

SoCalBronco
04-08-2013, 09:45 PM
87 and white. Reminds me of Ed McCaffrey.

Nice

peacepipe
04-08-2013, 10:41 PM
People call her a loser for helping Reagan stand up for the private sector and stand against the Soviet Union. Remember them?

Meanwhile your great leader Obama doing nothing to stop Iran from getting a nuclear device, or N Korea from develping their nukes into warheads that can fit on a missile. Oh but he is making sure magazines cant have 30 rounds, gays can marry, lying to us about healthcare reform, screwing up Libya and getting people killed, slow economic growth, high taxes, high has prices but a really good golf game.

Her own party kicked her out. Hell,England isn't even trying to remember her in a kind light.

Broncojef
04-08-2013, 10:48 PM
People call her a loser for helping Reagan stand up for the private sector and stand against the Soviet Union. Remember them?

Meanwhile your great leader Obama doing nothing to stop Iran from getting a nuclear device, or N Korea from develping their nukes into warheads that can fit on a missile. Oh but he is making sure magazines cant have 30 rounds, gays can marry, lying to us about healthcare reform, screwing up Libya and getting people killed, slow economic growth, high taxes, high has prices but a really good golf game.

Nah let them enjoy their economy and their socialist President, he hasn't done a thing for the good of this country and seems hell bent on destroying it. Liberals can't be happy unless everyone is miserable with them. It took Reagan 4 years to finally start turning around the mess Carter left us and roughly the same for Thatcher to recover the "progressive mess" in her country as well...I doubt we recover from this idiot. If people are still stupid enough to have those beliefs they aren't ever going to have a clue.

Broncojef
04-08-2013, 11:06 PM
Dude inherited a Middle East war, dude inherited an economy in meltdown, so him and his guys have done a good job. Please.

Why is it Bush could do nothing right and you guys continue to give this idiot a free pass? Ever think the Democratic Congress both in the Senate and the House during Bush's tenure could have been responsible at all? Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi...remember every person deserved a house, issued credit to the folks who couldn't afford a house? NBC counted the dead every night on the world news, day blah blah blah of the conflict, Cindy Sheehan and protestors cried on television every night and yet Obama continued the wars, created more of his own, continues to take away liberties, has scandal after scandal everyone ignores and there is no outrage and folks like you are silent giving him the free pass? Is there anything, anything at all this guy can do that would cause you concern?

peacepipe
04-09-2013, 06:50 AM
Why is it Bush could do nothing right and you guys continue to give this idiot a free pass? Ever think the Democratic Congress both in the Senate and the House during Bush's tenure could have been responsible at all? Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi...remember every person deserved a house, issued credit to the folks who couldn't afford a house? NBC counted the dead every night on the world news, day blah blah blah of the conflict, Cindy Sheehan and protestors cried on television every night and yet Obama continued the wars, created more of his own, continues to take away liberties, has scandal after scandal everyone ignores and there is no outrage and folks like you are silent giving him the free pass? Is there anything, anything at all this guy can do that would cause you concern?
Cause our moron in chief,GWB screwed up everything he touched.
Not to mention that for the first 6 yrs of GWBs presidency REPUBLICANS controlled all three houses. The damage was already done at that point. GWB & posse had already ****ed up with the GWB tax cuts &,the colossal blunder called the Iraq war.he got handed a country in peace, & with a surplus. He then left it in financial ruin.

Requiem
04-09-2013, 07:23 AM
Maggie and Reagan took over in some stressful years. The bugaboo of Communist threat to world stability was real. Everybody was scared ****less about the USSR and their influence. Thatcher and Reagan laughed at them and broke the Iron Curtain. Those two had a lot of impact on world events, brought a new phase into geopolitics.

And their hand in Perestroika was?

TonyR
04-09-2013, 07:45 AM
Actually, I label him unbalanced and what surprises me is that you continue to think so highly of him. How's his Trig Palin obsession doing these days? That episode alone is proof that his brain isn't firing on all cylinders.

So I'll assume you didn't read his take on Thatcher, most of which you'd probably agree with. Oh, well. Continue wallowing in your ignorance.

Rohirrim
04-09-2013, 07:52 AM
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/pb-130409-thatcher-parties-da-04.photoblog900.jpg

There's deep mourning in the streets of London.
http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/09/17668032-the-witch-is-dead-thatcher-not-mourned-by-all-as-some-britons-party?lite

Rohirrim
04-09-2013, 08:04 AM
Nah let them enjoy their economy and their socialist President, he hasn't done a thing for the good of this country and seems hell bent on destroying it. Liberals can't be happy unless everyone is miserable with them. It took Reagan 4 years to finally start turning around the mess Carter left us and roughly the same for Thatcher to recover the "progressive mess" in her country as well...I doubt we recover from this idiot. If people are still stupid enough to have those beliefs they aren't ever going to have a clue.

The downfall of America started with Reagan, just as the fall of England started with Thatcher. No matter how hard some ignorant ideologues stick their heads in the sand, the numbers don't lie.

All that Reagan and Thatcher did for their respective countries was to take the idea of "All for one, and one for all" and replace it with the idea that the purpose of labor was to lift the already wealthy to new heights of wealth by any means possible. Kind of like an international Downton Abbey. It's been tried many times before, and always with the same result. In the Robber Baron era of the 1890's critics called it the "Horse and Sparrows" economy, based on the idea that if you feed enough oats to the horse, he'll leave some in his droppings for the sparrows to pick out. Reagan/Thatcher called it "Supply Side Economics." Same thing. It was a shift of values, a shift into classes, like Romney, a direct descendant of Reagan/Thatcher was only too happy to point out. They replaced the pursuit of an equitable society with a celebration of greed. You can put this latest crash of the Wall Street casino directly on their doorsteps.

Kaylore
04-09-2013, 08:25 AM
That's such a stupid argument. So Reagan, with a Democrat controlled congress single handedly ruined the country and no one since has been able to fix it? Same with Thatcher, right?

"It's so broken not even a bunch of other liberals can fix it! It's broken forever!"





...or maybe it wasn't broken and socialism just doesn't work? Hmmmm.....

Kaylore
04-09-2013, 08:29 AM
Here's the Iron Lady ripping into socialism like a boss

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/okHGCz6xxiw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

peacepipe
04-09-2013, 08:38 AM
Here's the Iron Lady ripping into socialism like a boss

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/okHGCz6xxiw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Apparently if you're a conservative, no matter how bad your policies are,as long as you say socialism sucks you're good.

BroncoBeavis
04-09-2013, 08:38 AM
Here here.

See kids. Many of you are firmly in the Gaff camp. Repent before any point of no return. LOL

BroncoBeavis
04-09-2013, 08:41 AM
The downfall of America started with Reagan, just as the fall of England started with Thatcher. No matter how hard some ignorant ideologues stick their heads in the sand, the numbers don't lie.

I suppose you're here to tell us that 13% inflation was a dream come true. LOL

BroncoBeavis
04-09-2013, 08:46 AM
There's deep mourning in the streets of London.
http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/09/17668032-the-witch-is-dead-thatcher-not-mourned-by-all-as-some-britons-party?lite

Alternate take:

Many on the left in the UK have no shame. Like most things, they need another lesson from Sir Winston on how it's done.

The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions. It is very imprudent to walk through life without this shield, because we are so often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting of our calculations; but with this shield, however the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honor.
It fell to Neville Chamberlain in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man. But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? What were these wishes in which he was frustrated? What was that faith that was abused? They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart – the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril, and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity or clamour. Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with most perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful devastating struggle in which we are now engaged….
Herr Hitler protests with frantic words and gestures that he has only desired peace. What do these ravings and outpouring count before the silence of Neville Chamberlain’s tomb?

Rohirrim
04-09-2013, 08:56 AM
That's such a stupid argument. So Reagan, with a Democrat controlled congress single handedly ruined the country and no one since has been able to fix it? Same with Thatcher, right?

"It's so broken not even a bunch of other liberals can fix it! It's broken forever!"





...or maybe it wasn't broken and socialism just doesn't work? Hmmmm.....

Their "leadership" changed the direction of both countries, especially in economics. Remember Reagan's "welfare queens in Cadillacs?" They split the population into classes. Romney reflected the change in his "47%" comment. Why bother trying to have an equitable society when half the people are just lazy slobs on the dole, right? Greed is good. Greed brings good results. Those who are rich are inherently good. Those who are not are inherently lazy. They made it alright to be rapacious. They gave their blessing.

Like I said, the numbers don't lie. Since Reagan/Thatcher our laws, regulations and tax codes have heaved over in a sea change to benefit the already rich while wages have stagnated or sunk in real dollars. Meanwhile, productivity has gone up. It's been a grand rip-off for thirty years and their philosophical "leadership" led the way.

Rohirrim
04-09-2013, 09:10 AM
Alternate take:

Many on the left in the UK have no shame. Like most things, they need another lesson from Sir Winston on how it's done.

You like quotes? Here's one of my favorites. It's from Teddy Roosevelt:

At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will. At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth. That is nothing new.

Simply put, Reagan/Thatcher believed the opposite.

BroncoBeavis
04-09-2013, 09:17 AM
Simply put, Reagan/Thatcher believed the opposite.

You're right. That is simply put. Not really true. But simple.

Blart
04-09-2013, 09:59 AM
That's such a stupid argument. So Reagan, with a Democrat controlled congress single handedly ruined the country and no one since has been able to fix it? Same with Thatcher, right?

"It's so broken not even a bunch of other liberals can fix it! It's broken forever!"

...or maybe it wasn't broken and socialism just doesn't work? Hmmmm.....

http://i.imgur.com/siX4A.jpg

The past 30 years of neoliberal capitalism are now socialist?

Just don't tell that to any Nordic countries, who have a higher GDP per capita than the USA, higher standard of living, higher happiness ratings, etc.

Blart
04-09-2013, 10:03 AM
Maggie and Reagan took over in some stressful years. The bugaboo of Communist threat to world stability was real. Everybody was scared ****less about the USSR and their influence. Thatcher and Reagan laughed at them and broke the Iron Curtain. Those two had a lot of impact on world events, brought a new phase into geopolitics.

Reagan and Thatcher were great Anti-Soviet warriors, but you're forgetting about one of their most important allies!

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/644095_419285241462594_1481511561_n.jpg

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2004/06/reagans_osama_connection.html

Kaylore
04-09-2013, 10:33 AM
So what? We allied with Stalin to shut down Hitler, and he was worse in many ways. By your logic, Blart, FDR and Churchill are traitors to be condemned for doing so.

BroncoBeavis
04-09-2013, 10:36 AM
The past 30 years of neoliberal capitalism are now socialist?

Just don't tell that to any Nordic countries, who have a higher GDP per capita than the USA, higher standard of living, higher happiness ratings, etc.

Per capita GDP is a pretty useless measure. Usually an indicator of tiny populations wedded to large scale resource developement. Qatar leads the world in per capita GDP by most measures. Should they be the model?

Norway's another popular example among people who like to make that argument. But let's get serious. Less than 5 million people, yet the world's 3rd largest exporter of oil. They're some offshore drillin' MFers. Easily lead the world in Per Capita Offshore Oil Rigs.

Is that the model?

The most amazing thing to me is when progressives want to couple their pie-slice measuring dependence with agrarian utopianism. In most cases, you can only have one or the other.

Kaylore
04-09-2013, 10:39 AM
The left doesn't like that someone can have more than someone else. And they believe government is better at spending your money than you will ever be (I suppose spending it is one thing they are "better" at). They know better because they have "the people's interests" at heart.

TonyR
04-09-2013, 10:55 AM
Per capita GDP is a pretty useless measure...

Interesting how you latched on to his comment about per capita GDP but ignored the rest of the information in that post. I wonder why? (Fyi, I don't really wonder why, because I know why...)

Bronco Yoda
04-09-2013, 10:57 AM
http://i.imgur.com/siX4A.jpg

The past 30 years of neoliberal capitalism are now socialist?

Just don't tell that to any Nordic countries, who have a higher GDP per capita than the USA, higher standard of living, higher happiness ratings, etc.

You should also add EDUCATION to the mix. A super power now with the higher test scores, with (bar far) fewer study hours and happy students. What a trifecta!

Interestingly enough in some parts of this region it's harder to get into teachers college than medical school. Me thinks that says something...

Archer81
04-09-2013, 10:58 AM
She was right about most things. Wrong about some things. Some people loved her, some people hated her. She made an impact on history. Devolving into an argument about it seems counter productive to me. She did not care if people liked her. She did what she thought was the right thing, not the popular thing. A lesson for modern day politicians.

:Broncos:

Bronco Yoda
04-09-2013, 11:05 AM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Hf67SPzC3tQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Blart
04-09-2013, 11:08 AM
Per capita GDP is a pretty useless measure. Usually an indicator of tiny populations wedded to large scale resource developement. Qatar leads the world in per capita GDP by most measures. Should they be the model?

Norway's another popular example among people who like to make that argument. But let's get serious. Less than 5 million people, yet the world's 3rd largest exporter of oil. They're some offshore drillin' MFers. Easily lead the world in Per Capita Offshore Oil Rigs.


bzzt wrong. Nordic countries don't rely on natural resources - their people make them strong.

"With very few natural resources, the mixed economy of Denmark relies almost entirely on human resources. Its industrialised market economy depends on imported raw materials and foreign trade."
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Economy_of_Denmark.html

The same can be said for Sweden. You might have an argument with Norway, but if they're following the same model as Sweden & Denmark then there's no worry when their oil runs out - they'll be on green energy by then anyway.

The welfare state has proven that when you put money into educating and caring for people, poverty sharply declines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare%27s_effect_on_poverty), and they become innovative and productive.

The left doesn't like that someone can have more than someone else. And they believe government is better at spending your money than you will ever be (I suppose spending it is one thing they are "better" at). They know better because they have "the people's interests" at heart.

"Capitalism means male baldness research gets more funding than malaria" - Bill Gates

BroncoBeavis
04-09-2013, 11:20 AM
Interesting how you latched on to his comment about per capita GDP but ignored the rest of the information in that post. I wonder why? (Fyi, I don't really wonder why, because I know why...)

Actually I'm pretty sure the graph wasn't added until later.

Blart
04-09-2013, 11:25 AM
^^ Sorry, I'm obsessive with edits

TonyR
04-09-2013, 11:34 AM
Actually I'm pretty sure the graph wasn't added until later.

He edited at 12:21, you responded at 12:36. Although I suppose it's possible your response took 15 minutes to formulate...

BroncoBeavis
04-09-2013, 11:35 AM
Interesting how you latched on to his comment about per capita GDP but ignored the rest of the information in that post. I wonder why? (Fyi, I don't really wonder why, because I know why...)

In reality it has more to do with range selection than anything. I could just as easily break it into the "Great Prosperity 1947-1975" and "The Great Regresssion 1976-Now" and the numbers wouldn't materially change. Then we could play Blame Jimmy instead. You can tell any story you like if you get to magically determine your own start and end points.

In reality, most things pale in comparison (economically) to the post-war period. That much should not surprise anyone. Yet that's the only thing really being established here.

BroncoBeavis
04-09-2013, 11:38 AM
He edited at 12:21, you responded at 12:36. Although I suppose it's possible your response took 15 minutes to formulate...

Don't know what happened. Guessing I just didn't refresh the page before I hit the reply button.

BroncoLifer
04-09-2013, 11:41 AM
So I'll assume you didn't read his take on Thatcher, most of which you'd probably agree with. Oh, well. Continue wallowing in your ignorance.

I will. I'll continue to be ignorant of much of what Andrew Sullivan thinks. I'll survive.

TonyR
04-09-2013, 11:50 AM
I will. I'll continue to be ignorant of much of what Andrew Sullivan thinks. I'll survive.

And yet you're all up to speed on his "Trig Palin obsession". Interesting.

Kaylore
04-09-2013, 12:29 PM
"Capitalism means male baldness research gets more funding than malaria" - Bill Gates

In America? Absolutely. Is there a Malaria outbreak in the US? How many people do you know who get Malaria? Most of the outbreaks are on another continent. And only few a die each year. Not that those deaths aren't sad, but we're talking about first world versus third world. The US averages around 1500 malaria infections a year, most infected overseas, and zero die. Conversely, baldness affects 49 million Americans.

The US spends $1 Billion on baldness every year, though a good deal of that is on temporary fixes (wigs, spray on, etc.) I don't know how much is spent on malaria, but it's probably not much. But then we don't spend a lot of the black plague, leprosy or small pox. Why? Because they aren't a problem.

On the flip side, the 5 top killers in America are 1. Heart disease. 2. Cancer. 3. Chronic Respiratory disease. 4. Stroke and 5. Accidents. The US spends around 80 Billion on heart disease alone. Even more is spent on Cancer (it was harder for me to find exact numbers because they are broken down by the type but just lung, brain and blood cancer beat heart disease.)

So this kind of comment that makes socialists like you feel like it shows how broken capitalism is doesn't work when you really get down to it. I'm not going to sit here and say capitalism makes for perfect health care, but really, you can do better.

And personally if someone wants to shell out money for hair plugs, more power to them.

Rohirrim
04-09-2013, 12:40 PM
The left doesn't like that someone can have more than someone else. And they believe government is better at spending your money than you will ever be (I suppose spending it is one thing they are "better" at). They know better because they have "the people's interests" at heart.

Equitable does not mean "even." In 1980 the average CEO made thirty times more than the average employee. Nothing wrong with that. After Reagan, that figure moved up to 525 times the rate of the average employee.

Government is supposed to spend. Says right there in the preamble to the Constitution. It's supposed to collect and spend revenue in order to, "...form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."

What it's not supposed to do is allow its representatives to collect money directly from the top 1% and then write legislation and regulations to favor that 1% which is what has been going on for thirty years. We no longer have representative government. Our government operates for the welfare of the corporations who can buy representation. We're the first Lobbyocracy. Given the state of income and wealth inequality in America right now, the idea of "domestic tranquility" is right out the window.

Government is there to ensure that the rungs of the ladder are available, equally to all. It's up to you whether you make use of them. I don't know what the "left" wants, but I want the same thing that TR wanted for America, a square deal. Instead of a rigged game.

BroncoLifer
04-09-2013, 12:46 PM
And yet you're all up to speed on his "Trig Palin obsession". Interesting.

I'm not at all up to speed on it. That's why I asked if there were any developments.

Kaylore
04-09-2013, 12:47 PM
The government IS the problem, Rohirrim. Large super corps and government are both uber-powerful entities that have too much influence in our lives. The difference is the government has an army and controls our laws. You don't have to shop at Wal-mart. If you don't follow the US, you go to jail.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
04-09-2013, 12:52 PM
The government IS the problem, Rohirrim. Large super corps and government are both uber-powerful entities that have too much influence in our lives. The difference is the government has an army and controls our laws. You don't have to shop at Wal-mart. If you don't follow the US, you go to jail.

Truth^

peacepipe
04-09-2013, 01:09 PM
The government IS the problem, Rohirrim. Large super corps and government are both uber-powerful entities that have too much influence in our lives. The difference is the government has an army and controls our laws. You don't have to shop at Wal-mart. If you don't follow the US, you go to jail.

No kaylore,the difference is we have control over who runs our government. We have no power over who runs a corporation. The problem is corporations have too much influence in our government. The way you fix both is by voting out politicians,dem or rep, that serve them over the will of the people.

Kaylore
04-09-2013, 01:12 PM
No kaylore,the difference is we have control over who runs our government.

You're adorable.

peacepipe
04-09-2013, 01:19 PM
You're adorable.

I can understand, from your pov,being in the minority opinion, you feel you have no control over government.

Rohirrim
04-09-2013, 01:28 PM
No kaylore,the difference is we have control over who runs our government. We have no power over who runs a corporation. The problem is corporations have too much influence in our government. The you fix both is by voting out politicians,dem or rep, that serve them over the will of the people.

Bingo. :thumbs:

Add in: Get rid of Citizens United, outlaw lobbies, and make all elections publicly funded.

BroncoBeavis
04-09-2013, 01:35 PM
No kaylore,the difference is we have control over who runs our government. We have no power over who runs a corporation. The problem is corporations have too much influence in our government. The way you fix both is by voting out politicians,dem or rep, that serve them over the will of the people.

This is funny. There are 5 million or so corporations in this country you can choose to give your money to (or not). But because you're allowed to choose between one of two entities of power in Washington you somehow believe that makes them more accountable to you.

Bronco Yoda
04-09-2013, 01:39 PM
<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="512" height="400" id="movie_name" align="middle">
<param name="movie" value="http://www.bbc.co.uk/emp/worldwide/player.swf"/>
<param name="quality" value="high" />
<param name="wmode" value="direct" />
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" />
<param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" />
<param name="flashvars" value="playlist=http://playlists.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22076706A/playlist.sxml&config=http://www.bbc.co.uk/player/emp/2_0_55/config/default.xml&config_settings_autoPlay=true&enable3G=true&holdingImage=http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/66821000/jpg/_66821805_66821804.jpg&config_settings_showPopoutButton=false&embedReferer=http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/14895606&config_plugin_fmtjLiveStats_pageType=eav1&embedPageUrl=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22076706&config_plugin_fmtjLiveStats_edition=US&fmtjDocURI=/news/uk-politics-22076706&uxHighlightColour=0xff0000&config_settings_suppressItemKind=advert, ident&config_settings_showShareButton=true&mediatorHref=http://open.live.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/5/select/version/2.0/mediaset/journalism-pc/vpid/{id}&domId=emp-22076706-3843&config_settings_showUpdatedInFooter=true&config_plugin_fmtjLiveStats_pageType=eav6&config_settings_autoPlay=false&config_settings_showFooter=true&config_settings_showPopoutButton=false&config_settings_showPopoutCta=false&config_settings_addReferrerToPlaylistRequest=true"/>
<!--[if !IE]>-->
<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://www.bbc.co.uk/emp/worldwide/player.swf" width="550" height="400">
<param name="movie" value="http://www.bbc.co.uk/emp/worldwide/player.swf"/>
<param name="quality" value="high" />
<param name="wmode" value="direct" />
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" />
<param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" />
<param name="flashvars" value="playlist=http://playlists.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22076706A/playlist.sxml&config=http://www.bbc.co.uk/player/emp/2_0_55/config/default.xml&config_settings_autoPlay=true&enable3G=true&holdingImage=http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/66821000/jpg/_66821805_66821804.jpg&config_settings_showPopoutButton=false&embedReferer=http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/14895606&config_plugin_fmtjLiveStats_pageType=eav1&embedPageUrl=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22076706&config_plugin_fmtjLiveStats_edition=US&fmtjDocURI=/news/uk-politics-22076706&uxHighlightColour=0xff0000&config_settings_suppressItemKind=advert, ident&config_settings_showShareButton=true&mediatorHref=http://open.live.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/5/select/version/2.0/mediaset/journalism-pc/vpid/{id}&domId=emp-22076706-3843&config_settings_showUpdatedInFooter=true&config_plugin_fmtjLiveStats_pageType=eav6&config_settings_autoPlay=false&config_settings_showFooter=true&config_settings_showPopoutButton=false&config_settings_showPopoutCta=false&config_settings_addReferrerToPlaylistRequest=true"/><!--<![endif]--><a href="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflash"><img src="http://www.adobe.com/images/shared/download_buttons/get_flash_player.gif" alt="Get Adobe Flash player"/></a><!--[if !IE]>-->
</object><!--<![endif]-->
</object>

Archer81
04-09-2013, 01:53 PM
No kaylore,the difference is we have control over who runs our government. We have no power over who runs a corporation. The problem is corporations have too much influence in our government. The way you fix both is by voting out politicians,dem or rep, that serve them over the will of the people.


Like how Obama made sure Monsanto has legal protections, kinda like that?


:Broncos:

TonyR
04-09-2013, 01:56 PM
Thatcher on climate change:

[H]er speech laid out a simple conservative argument for taking environmental action: “It may be cheaper or more cost-effective to take action now,” she said, “than to wait and find we have to pay much more later.” Global warming was, she argued, “real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations.”

The Iron Lady’s speech makes for fascinating reading in the context of 2013′s climate acrimony, drenched as it is in party politics. In the speech, she questioned the very meaning of human progress: Booming industrial advances since the Age of Enlightenment could no longer be sustained in the context of environmental damage. We must, she argued, redress the imbalance with nature wrought by development.

“Remember our duty to nature before it is too late,” she warned. “That duty is constant. It is never completed. It lives on as we breathe.” http://grist.org/climate-energy/how-thatcher-made-the-conservative-case-for-climate-action/

TonyR
04-09-2013, 01:58 PM
...some other discomforting facts for today’s American right. Thatcher was a firm believer in international law – and opposed the US invasion of Grenada and Argentina’s invasion of the Falklands as a violation of that order. She was a strong supporter of nuclear deterrence and containment – as opposed to pre-emptive war. She wanted UN support for any intervention in Iraq, and inisted it be limited to restoration of the old borders. She cut taxes but, unlike the GOP under Reagan and the second Bush, she also cut spending seriously. She didn’t have any time for the loopy idea that cutting taxes would increase net revenues.

She inherited and handed over a fully socialized medical system, and, while tearing apart the government’s control of the economy, did not undo the welfare state in any profound way. “The National Health Service Is Safe With Us” was her constant refrain. Her policies on healthcare make Obama’s modest private sector-based reform look positively right-wing. She loathed Europe but signed the Maastricht Treaty, and deepened British ties to the Continent. She was the first Cold Warrior to respond to Gorbachev. In all this, she remains pragmatically alien to the current Southern-based GOP. And her undemonstrative Methodism was never worn on her sleeve.

Like Reagan, in other words, she could never be a contender in today’s GOP. She was far too conservative, in the proper sense of that word. She preferred order to revolution – and her own revolution was about the restoration of civic order, not its dissolution. http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/04/09/the-iron-ladys-green-side/

peacepipe
04-09-2013, 01:59 PM
Like how Obama made sure Monsanto has legal protections, kinda like that?


:Broncos:

He definitely isn't perfect,far from. He's a hell of a lot better than anyone reps or libertarians are parading.

Kaylore
04-09-2013, 02:06 PM
I can understand, from your pov,being in the minority opinion, you feel you have no control over government.

You really don't know me at all. I caucus every election cycle - even the crappy off-year ones. I've been a delegate to every level for my party. It's not that I don't think you can change things or that government can't do anything right.

It's that power corrupts and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If you give sweeping powers to government - even when you know that the intent is %100 righteous - that doesn't mean that it always will be. And my experience is that every single politician is lying sack of garbage. When permanently give away your liberties, you never get them back. And the power the government takes, the more open the door is for terrible things when a leader is bad.

It amazes me how the left will insist that corporations are bad because they have too much power and then say Republicans are bad, yet they want government to have all this power - power that Republicans sometimes will have, and then whine when they do things they don't like. Doesn't that bother you? Don't you see the flaw in that logic? You're the ones insisting that system allow for that! Yet many of you are naive enough honestly believe that "only Republicans are bad and Democrats would never abuse their power because they are all good."

Fools.

Archer81
04-09-2013, 02:06 PM
He definitely isn't perfect,far from. He's a hell of a lot better than anyone reps or libertarians are parading.


That's like saying he's the tallest midget.


:Broncos:

gyldenlove
04-09-2013, 02:10 PM
That's like saying he's the tallest midget.


:Broncos:

That is me.

peacepipe
04-09-2013, 02:12 PM
This is funny. There are 5 million or so corporations in this country you can choose to give your money to (or not). But because you're allowed to choose between one of two entities of power in Washington you somehow believe that makes them more accountable to you.

Yes, and corporations will make the call on who controls them regardless. Government on the other and,has this little thing called voting,you can vote for whoever you choose regardless of whether they belong to certain party or not. Yes,there are two major parties but there are Senators who have been elected that didn't belong to either party when elected.

ColoradoDarin
04-09-2013, 02:19 PM
Bingo. :thumbs:

Add in: Get rid of Citizens United, outlaw lobbies, and make all elections publicly funded.

Why do you hate the 1st Amendment?

Kaylore
04-09-2013, 02:22 PM
Yes, and corporations will make the call on who controls them regardless.

:rofl: You JUST said that "we" control government. Now ten posts later you're saying corporations control it. Which is it, Peacepipe?

BroncoBeavis
04-09-2013, 02:25 PM
Yes, and corporations will make the call on who controls them regardless. Government on the other and,has this little thing called voting,you can vote for whoever you choose regardless of whether they belong to certain party or not. Yes,there are two major parties but there are Senators who have been elected that didn't belong to either party when elected.

Like that matters. Let me know as soon as one gets elected that decides not to caucus with a party once he gets there. It's not how the dude titles himself that matters. It's who and what he votes for when he gets there.

And on another level, at least when I'm voting with my dollar on oil companies, I'm choosing between 4 or 5 companies that know a little something about the business.

But when I vote for my political leaders, I'm voting for a (likely ne'er employed-in-the-real-world) trial lawyer's perspective on how to produce energy. Or deliver health care. Or command the economy.

In all cases, it's about the least intelligent way you could ever imagine to solve most kinds of problems. Our government has its hands in far too many cookie jars.

peacepipe
04-09-2013, 02:42 PM
:rofl: You JUST said that "we" control government. Now ten posts later you're saying corporations control it. Which is it, Peacepipe?
We do control government,a point that seems to be lost on you. I also stated that the way you fix the influence corporations have over our government is by who you vote for. We can't control who runs a corporation. Unfortunately right now corporations have too much influence,a way to stop that is by electing politicians who put people 1st not corporations.

peacepipe
04-09-2013, 02:45 PM
Why do you hate the 1st Amendment?

You are aware that the 1st amendment isn't absolute,for example you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theatre.
Is bribery covered by the 1st amendment?

peacepipe
04-09-2013, 02:47 PM
:rofl: You JUST said that "we" control government. Now ten posts later you're saying corporations control it. Which is it, Peacepipe?

You misread it. What I was saying is corporations will decide who their CEO will be.

Kaylore
04-09-2013, 02:52 PM
You misread it. What I was saying is corporations will decide who their CEO will be.

Ahhh. Well to me the difference between a voter and a shareholder is negligible.

ColoradoDarin
04-09-2013, 02:59 PM
You are aware that the 1st amendment isn't absolute,for example you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theatre.
Is bribery covered by the 1st amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Add the 2 bolded portions together = Citizens United case.

So why do YOU hate the 1st Amendment?

PS. His gripe about lobbying is covered in there too.

Blart
04-09-2013, 03:07 PM
In America? Absolutely. Is there a Malaria outbreak in the US? How many people do you know who get Malaria? Most of the outbreaks are on another continent. And only few a die each year. Not that those deaths aren't sad, but we're talking about first world versus third world. The US averages around 1500 malaria infections a year, most infected overseas, and zero die. Conversely, baldness affects 49 million Americans.

The US spends $1 Billion on baldness every year, though a good deal of that is on temporary fixes (wigs, spray on, etc.) I don't know how much is spent on malaria, but it's probably not much. But then we don't spend a lot of the black plague, leprosy or small pox. Why? Because they aren't a problem.

On the flip side, the 5 top killers in America are 1. Heart disease. 2. Cancer. 3. Chronic Respiratory disease. 4. Stroke and 5. Accidents. The US spends around 80 Billion on heart disease alone. Even more is spent on Cancer (it was harder for me to find exact numbers because they are broken down by the type but just lung, brain and blood cancer beat heart disease.)

So this kind of comment that makes socialists like you feel like it shows how broken capitalism is doesn't work when you really get down to it. I'm not going to sit here and say capitalism makes for perfect health care, but really, you can do better.

And personally if someone wants to shell out money for hair plugs, more power to them.

Tell me more about capitalism and health care.

http://newshour.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/2012/10/02/US_spends_much_more_on_health_than_what_might_be_e xpected_1_slideshow.jpg

http://www.cnn.com/video/bestoftv/2011/06/15/exp.nr.american.life.expectancy.cnn.640x360.jpg

Blart
04-09-2013, 03:11 PM
Why do you hate the 1st Amendment?

The more money you have, the more 1st amendment you get. Poor people get a tin-can-telephone 1st amendment, and the wealthy elite get a megaphone 1st amendment.


http://freakoutnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Citizens_United.png


2012 was a Citizen's United beta-test. 2014 & 2016 you'll see a much more organized, tech-heavy effort.

peacepipe
04-09-2013, 03:20 PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Add the 2 bolded portions together = Citizens United case.

So why do YOU hate the 1st Amendment?

PS. His gripe about lobbying is covered in there too.
You must not be aware of all the free speech that is regulated everyday.

Kaylore
04-09-2013, 03:24 PM
Since when does spending on health care = greater life expectancy? That is exactly what is WRONG with health care in this country; wasting money on the symptoms.

Blart
04-09-2013, 03:25 PM
It's not even about free speech, it's about corporate personhood.

Should a foreign company (i.e. TransCanada) be able to heavily influence a U.S. Election? Citizen's United said yes, because corporations are people.

If you think special interests and lobbyists had a big influence before, prepare yourself for the next decade.

BroncoBeavis
04-09-2013, 03:29 PM
Since when does spending on health care = greater life expectancy? That is exactly what is WRONG with health care in this country; wasting money on the symptoms.

Life expectancy is just about the worst 'measure' you could design for health care.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/

Another point worth making is that people die for other reasons than health. For example, people die because of car accidents and violent crime. A few years back, Robert Ohsfeldt of Texas A&M and John Schneider of the University of Iowa asked the obvious question: what happens if you remove deaths from fatal injuries from the life expectancy tables? Among the 29 members of the OECD, the U.S. vaults from 19th place to…you guessed it…first. Japan, on the same adjustment, drops from first to ninth.

Blart
04-09-2013, 03:29 PM
Since when does spending on health care = greater life expectancy? That is exactly what is WRONG with health care in this country; wasting money on the symptoms.

Or perhaps for-profit healthcare is simply wasteful and inefficient.

http://www.pat2006.com/lib/i/illus/comparison.gif

Kaylore
04-09-2013, 03:32 PM
You still haven't responded to a single one of my rebuttals, Blart. You've just gone into full LABF mode where you just ignore responses and put up something to change the subject. I'm not wasting my time with you.

BroncoBeavis
04-09-2013, 03:33 PM
It's not even about free speech, it's about corporate personhood.

Just curious... What's the fundamental difference between a corporation and a union?

Rohirrim
04-09-2013, 03:34 PM
Why do you hate the 1st Amendment?

Corporations aren't people and speech isn't money. Ask any five year old.

Blart
04-09-2013, 03:40 PM
Life expectancy is just about the worst 'measure' you could design for health care.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/

Thanks I was really curious what the plutocracy thought about one of the most profitable industries in the USA. Written by Avik Roy, another Koch sucker (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_Res earch) at the Manhatten Institute.


Anyway, to refute this shill's point:

Deaths from cancer, per 100,000 people
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/newsgraphics/2010/0606-metrics/6-deaths.jpg

Annual consultations with doctors, per capita
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/newsgraphics/2010/0606-metrics/7-consultations.jpg

Hospital beds, per 1,000 people
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/newsgraphics/2010/0606-metrics/8-beds.jpg


Health care spending as a percentage of gross domestic product
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/newsgraphics/2010/0606-metrics/2-spending.jpg

BroncoBeavis
04-09-2013, 03:47 PM
Thanks I was really curious what the plutocracy thought about one of the most profitable industries in the USA. Written by Avik Roy, another Koch sucker (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_Res earch) at the Manhatten Institute.


Anyway, to refute this shill's point:

Deaths from cancer, per 100,000 people
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/newsgraphics/2010/0606-metrics/6-deaths.jpg

Annual consultations with doctors, per capita
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/newsgraphics/2010/0606-metrics/7-consultations.jpg

Hospital beds, per 1,000 people
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/newsgraphics/2010/0606-metrics/8-beds.jpg


Health care spending as a percentage of gross domestic product
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/newsgraphics/2010/0606-metrics/2-spending.jpg

Nice. Attack the source, then follow up with more meaningless crap. Death by Cancer? Not sure if you're aware but generally health care doesn't cause cancer.

If you want to compare based on cancer, you need to focus on survival rates, since that's all the health care system can do anything about.

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080716/cancer-survival-rates-vary-by-country

Where you live plays a role in cancer survival, according to a new study that shows the U.S., Japan, and France recorded the highest survival rates among 31 nations for four types of cancer. Algeria had the lowest survival rates for all four cancers.

"This is the first direct comparison of so many countries as far as I am aware," says Michel Coleman, MD, a professor of epidemiology and vital statistics at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the study's lead author.

While Coleman and other epidemiologists have long known that cancer survival rates vary country by country, and even within a country, the study lends hard numbers to the fact. Still, there were surprises. "I think the surprises were that the range in global survival is really quite wide," Coleman tells WebMD.

"Survival in the USA is high on a global scale but varies quite widely among individual states as well as between blacks and whites within the USA," he tells WebMD.

BroncoBeavis
04-09-2013, 03:52 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-136377/US-v-UK-The-breast-cancer-survival-stakes.html

An American woman's chances of developing breast cancer are slightly higher than her British counterpart - but she is far more likely to survive.

One U.S. woman in eight can expect to have the disease at some point in her life, compared with one in nine in Britain.

But five-year survival rates for all forms of the disease - including the most advanced - stand at 85 per cent in the U.S and just under 74 per cent in the UK. If the cancer is caught early - at what doctors call stage 1 - the differences in survival are even more shocking.

An American woman has a 97 per cent chance of being alive five years after diagnosis.

In Britain, this figure is only 78 per cent.

But according to you, the UK's "Health Care" is better 'cuz more American women develop Breast Cancer. Cool story bro.

StugotsIII
04-09-2013, 04:07 PM
Or perhaps for-profit healthcare is simply wasteful and inefficient.

http://www.pat2006.com/lib/i/illus/comparison.gif

Please….go live there...

Blart
04-09-2013, 04:12 PM
Please….go live there...

No thanks, I'll continue to advocate, donate & protest until we get it here.

Nice. Attack the source, then follow up with more meaningless crap.



What's funny is that in their refutation they list "GDP per capita" as the most important statistic, something we've already discussed in this thread :)

Anyway, I'm not convinced, and the OECD isn't convinced. That's why they continue to use Life Expectancy as a measure of healthcare effectiveness.
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/health/

Recent OECD analysis suggests that health care spending growth has contributed to the improvement in life expectancy, but other determinants such as rising living standards, environmental improvements, lifestyle changes and education are also important drivers. Taken together, these explain much of the cross-country differences in life expectancy, as well as changes over time. Further progress in population health status and life expectancy can be achieved by putting greater emphasis on public health and disease prevention especially among disadvantaged groups, and improving the quality and performance of health care systems.

But I can see why you'd try to move the goal posts.

ColoradoDarin
04-09-2013, 04:33 PM
The more money you have, the more 1st amendment you get. Poor people get a tin-can-telephone 1st amendment, and the wealthy elite get a megaphone 1st amendment.

.

2012 was a Citizen's United beta-test. 2014 & 2016 you'll see a much more organized, tech-heavy effort.

That does nothing to address the Constitutionality of it.

ColoradoDarin
04-09-2013, 04:36 PM
Corporations aren't people and speech isn't money. Ask any five year old.

Corporations are..... dun dun DUUUUUUUUUUN, people associating with each other people.

And the money part, well I guess the Supreme Court disagrees with you (I suspect that we'll also see the $ limit eliminated sometime soon).

Rohirrim
04-09-2013, 05:21 PM
Corporations are..... dun dun DUUUUUUUUUUN, people associating with each other people.

And the money part, well I guess the Supreme Court disagrees with you (I suspect that we'll also see the $ limit eliminated sometime soon).

And they can all participate in the political process - AS INDIVIDUALS. After all, that's the foundational difference of America's take on liberty and what separates us from what came before - liberty is defined as the sacred territory of the individual.

As far as the SCOTUS goes, read these:

Dred Scott v Sandford
Plessy v Ferguson
Buck v Bell
Korematsu v US
Bush v Gore

They are far from perfect. BTW, the original court finding of corporate "personhood" in Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad didn't even exist. The court didn't deal with the issue of personhood in the case. A court clerk made an error in the headnote.

It's really odd that we would want to give corporations personhood, anyway. After all, corporations were invented to shield individuals from legal responsibility for their actions.

I've seen a whole lot of corporations in my time. They look like this:

http://i.walmartimages.com/i/p/00/07/75/11/00/0007751100770_500X500.jpg

BroncoBeavis
04-09-2013, 05:56 PM
What's funny is that in their refutation they list "GDP per capita" as the most important statistic, something we've already discussed in this thread :)

Anyway, I'm not convinced, and the OECD isn't convinced. That's why they continue to use Life Expectancy as a measure of healthcare effectiveness.
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/health/



But I can see why you'd try to move the goal posts.

Yes, it's clear that the best way to measure a health care system is to use numbers that reflect homicides. Because what good is a health care system if it can't fight crime? LOL

BroncoBeavis
04-09-2013, 05:57 PM
And they can all participate in the political process - AS INDIVIDUALS. After all, that's the foundational difference of America's take on liberty and what separates us from what came before - liberty is defined as the sacred territory of the individual.

As far as the SCOTUS goes, read these:

Dred Scott v Sandford
Plessy v Ferguson
Buck v Bell
Korematsu v US
Bush v Gore

They are far from perfect. BTW, the original court finding of corporate "personhood" in Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad didn't even exist. The court didn't deal with the issue of personhood in the case. A court clerk made an error in the headnote.

It's really odd that we would want to give corporations personhood, anyway. After all, corporations were invented to shield individuals from legal responsibility for their actions.

I've seen a whole lot of corporations in my time. They look like this:

http://i.walmartimages.com/i/p/00/07/75/11/00/0007751100770_500X500.jpg

So what you're saying is Unions shouldn't be allowed to make political contributions.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/assets/images/cr_67_table1.jpg

Cito Pelon
04-09-2013, 06:35 PM
Why is it Bush could do nothing right and you guys continue to give this idiot a free pass? Ever think the Democratic Congress both in the Senate and the House during Bush's tenure could have been responsible at all? Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi...remember every person deserved a house, issued credit to the folks who couldn't afford a house? NBC counted the dead every night on the world news, day blah blah blah of the conflict, Cindy Sheehan and protestors cried on television every night and yet Obama continued the wars, created more of his own, continues to take away liberties, has scandal after scandal everyone ignores and there is no outrage and folks like you are silent giving him the free pass? Is there anything, anything at all this guy can do that would cause you concern?

jef, GWB had massive GOP support in the House and Senate. Some of the most massive support for any President.

Like always, if Obama was a Republican you'd be screaming how great he is with the same policies. It's all partisan with most folks around here.

Rohirrim
04-09-2013, 06:38 PM
No corporations. No unions. Publicly financed elections.

Cito Pelon
04-09-2013, 06:41 PM
And their hand in Perestroika was?

What I just posted. Everybody has differing opinions about the get tough attitude of Thatcher and Reagan, but one thing is for sure - they broke the Iron Curtain.

Rohirrim
04-09-2013, 06:47 PM
The Soviet Union collapsed of its own weight. Reagan was in the right place at the right time. Nothing England could do had anything to do with it.

StugotsIII
04-09-2013, 06:54 PM
The Soviet Union collapsed of its own weight. Reagan was in the right place at the right time. Nothing England could do had anything to do with it.

Russia collapsed because of the money the government spent on things like the military, etc…

They went broke.

StugotsIII
04-09-2013, 06:57 PM
Tell me more about capitalism and health care.

http://newshour.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/2012/10/02/US_spends_much_more_on_health_than_what_might_be_e xpected_1_slideshow.jpg

http://www.cnn.com/video/bestoftv/2011/06/15/exp.nr.american.life.expectancy.cnn.640x360.jpg

Hmmmm….wonder if that has to do with how people live their lives and not the actual health care they get?


Prolly not...

rugbythug
04-09-2013, 07:05 PM
Tell me more about capitalism and health care.

http://newshour.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/2012/10/02/US_spends_much_more_on_health_than_what_might_be_e xpected_1_slideshow.jpg

http://www.cnn.com/video/bestoftv/2011/06/15/exp.nr.american.life.expectancy.cnn.640x360.jpg

This Graph is Racist.

cutthemdown
04-10-2013, 03:59 AM
Soviet Union collapsed because they didn't invigorate and grow a robust private sector. You can have some state run, state ownership but not a lot if you want a strong economy. None is best. Let the private sector compete and that will spur advancement and growth. We owe Reagan so much he was such a great leader.

cutthemdown
04-10-2013, 04:08 AM
Our hero Reagan
Great slayer of Soviets
All hail his greatness

ColoradoDarin
04-10-2013, 06:50 AM
And they can all participate in the political process - AS INDIVIDUALS. After all, that's the foundational difference of America's take on liberty and what separates us from what came before - liberty is defined as the sacred territory of the individual.

As far as the SCOTUS goes, read these:

Dred Scott v Sandford
Plessy v Ferguson
Buck v Bell
Korematsu v US
Bush v Gore
Obamacare*

They are far from perfect. BTW, the original court finding of corporate "personhood" in Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad didn't even exist. The court didn't deal with the issue of personhood in the case. A court clerk made an error in the headnote.

It's really odd that we would want to give corporations personhood, anyway. After all, corporations were invented to shield individuals from legal responsibility for their actions.

I've seen a whole lot of corporations in my time. They look like this:


The point is, you have failed to address my post - corporations are free associations of people, a right preserved in the 1st A.

broncoblue
04-10-2013, 07:31 AM
Awful ,evil, working class hating bitch.I never speak ill of the dead but she made the rich richer the poor poorer . She killed steel ,coal and the working class people. Awful awful evil person.
#1 in the charts in uk is now "ding dong the witch is dead" ,this speaks volumes.
As for her funeral costing 8 million to 10 million pounds ,i say put her on raft and set fire to her on the thames .You couldnt use coal tho ,we have none .
Iron Lady RIP ..rust in pee.

Rohirrim
04-10-2013, 07:51 AM
The point is, you have failed to address my post - corporations are free associations of people, a right preserved in the 1st A.

Nobody is talking about stopping associations. We're talking about stopping them from buying elections.

BroncoInferno
04-10-2013, 07:53 AM
The point is, you have failed to address my post - corporations are free associations of people, a right preserved in the 1st A.

If corporations were taking votes from their rank and file on how to donate money, you might have a point. But they don't. This just empowers the board of directors to spend corporate funds to influence elections. Run-of-the-mill stock holders and rank and file employees have no say. That's not a case of "free associations of people" agreeing on how to pool their money. Also, money is not the same thing as speech.

Requiem
04-10-2013, 08:14 AM
ColoradoDarin, LMFAO.

BroncoBeavis
04-10-2013, 08:28 AM
No corporations. No unions. Publicly financed elections.

So you want elections where basically only the government is allowed to functionally speak.

TonyR
04-10-2013, 08:31 AM
ColoradoDarin, LMFAO.

LOL Exactly. I've been shaking my head at the cluelessness of his (and some others') posts as well, and I'm glad to see I'm far from the only one. Worrying about the 1st Amendment rights of corporations. Good god.

Rohirrim
04-10-2013, 09:07 AM
So you want elections where basically only the government is allowed to functionally speak.

As with the majority of your posts, I'm just left with WTF ???

BroncoBeavis
04-10-2013, 09:51 AM
As with the majority of your posts, I'm just left with WTF ???

It's not that difficult. Effective speech in the mass media age requires resources. You prefer a system where the government doles out those resources only to those who've been officially rubber-stamped. Everyone else (not approved by the government) is to remain functionally silent.

You don't see any free speech issues with this?

ColoradoDarin
04-10-2013, 09:56 AM
LOL Exactly. I've been shaking my head at the cluelessness of his (and some others') posts as well, and I'm glad to see I'm far from the only one. Worrying about the 1st Amendment rights of corporations. Good god.

Fail.

Not what I said, and not what I'm arguing for.

Try again.

ColoradoDarin
04-10-2013, 09:59 AM
I'm just glad that we're (mostly) done with all the hate-masturbation of the first couple of pages.

Tombstone RJ
04-10-2013, 10:16 AM
Awful ,evil, working class hating b****.I never speak ill of the dead but she made the rich richer the poor poorer . She killed steel ,coal and the working class people. Awful awful evil person.
#1 in the charts in uk is now "ding dong the witch is dead" ,this speaks volumes. As for her funeral costing 8 million to 10 million pounds ,i say put her on raft and set fire to her on the thames .You couldnt use coal tho ,we have none . Iron Lady RIP ..rust in pee.

I don't get it. You are kidding yourself if you think that steel and coal production in England is viable compared to other countries. I think all this angst and hate for Thatcher is because she addressed some real problems in England and her solutions weren't about being popular but more about keeping the economy affloat.

Sorry blue, but your hate is something I refuse to understand.

peacepipe
04-10-2013, 10:50 AM
It's funny how conservatives here claim to know more about thatcher & her popularity then the people of England. So popular,so right that her own party kicked out of power.

Tombstone RJ
04-10-2013, 10:54 AM
It's funny how conservatives here claim to know more about thatcher & her popularity then the people of England. So popular,so right that her own party kicked out of power.

I believe she had the second longest run of any Prime Minister of the 20th century so even if she wasn't "popular" she did get re-elected so I'm not sure how that works. Also, I never said she was popular, just that she had some very difficult things to deal with and that the way she delt with them was never going to make everyone happy. That's known as "leadership" something the not everyone understands.

Rigs11
04-10-2013, 11:04 AM
Our hero Reagan
Great slayer of Soviets
All hail his greatness

Raygun grew gubmint and the deficit.Isn't that anti repub philosophy? or does it only apply when an evil muslim prez like obama does it?

Rigs11
04-10-2013, 11:06 AM
oh and thatcher was a socialist. oh noes!

peacepipe
04-10-2013, 11:13 AM
I believe she had the second longest run of any Prime Minister of the 20th century so even if she wasn't "popular" she did get re-elected so I'm not sure how that works. Also, I never said she was popular, just that she had some very difficult things to deal with and that the way she delt with them was never going to make everyone happy. That's known as "leadership" something the not everyone understands.

GWB got reelected as well. So that isn't saying much. Not much at all.

Requiem
04-10-2013, 11:14 AM
I believe she had the second longest run of any Prime Minister of the 20th century so even if she wasn't "popular" she did get re-elected so I'm not sure how that works. Also, I never said she was popular, just that she had some very difficult things to deal with and that the way she delt with them was never going to make everyone happy. That's known as "leadership" something the not everyone understands.

Couldn't the same thing be said about our President? :rofl:

Rohirrim
04-10-2013, 11:17 AM
It's not that difficult. Effective speech in the mass media age requires resources. You prefer a system where the government doles out those resources only to those who've been officially rubber-stamped. Everyone else (not approved by the government) is to remain functionally silent.

You don't see any free speech issues with this?

Free speech is not an absolute. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. You can't stand in a mall screaming obscenities at children. You can't get up on a box in a public street and start calling out for the assassination of public figures. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War. Why? Because there were newspaper editors in the North fomenting secession and he couldn't allow a fifth column operating in his rear. Saving the Union came first.

You want to interpret the first amendment to mean that the rich and powerful can buy government and buy elections? I don't. You go with that interpretation and you might as well flush self-government down the toilet. Learn the difference between liberty and license.

Tombstone RJ
04-10-2013, 11:23 AM
Couldn't the same thing be said about our President? :rofl:

Not sure what your point is, all I know is she was the longest serving prime minister of the 20th century serving from 1979 until 1990. So even if she was only a 2 term prime minister I guess getting 2 terms is difficult, as she was the longest serving prime minister of the 20th century.

Also, quit following me around.

BroncoBeavis
04-10-2013, 11:27 AM
Free speech is not an absolute. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. You can't stand in a mall screaming obscenities at children. You can't get up on a box in a public street and start calling out for the assassination of public figures. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War. Why? Because there were newspaper editors in the North fomenting secession and he couldn't allow a fifth column operating in his rear. Saving the Union came first.

You want to interpret the first amendment to mean that the rich and powerful can buy government and buy elections? I don't. You go with that interpretation and you might as well flush self-government down the toilet. Learn the difference between liberty and license.

So you equate shouting fire in a crowded theater to the government determining who can speak when in matters of the future of government itself?

Abiding that anyone should ever be silenced by the government in regards to a core function of the government itself goes to the heart of why the 1st Amendment exists in the first place.

Requiem
04-10-2013, 11:35 AM
Not sure what your point is, all I know is she was the longest serving prime minister of the 20th century serving from 1979 until 1990. So even if she was only a 2 term prime minister I guess getting 2 terms is difficult, as she was the longest serving prime minister of the 20th century.

Also, quit following me around.

Obviously you don't get the point. Never do. Derp a derp. Sack up.

Tombstone RJ
04-10-2013, 11:42 AM
Obviously you don't get the point. Never do. Derp a derp. Sack up.

You have no point, other than to argue. Like I said, I don't know how general elections are done in the UK. Unless you want to eleborate and then explain how she was the longest serving prime minister of the 20th century in the UK then fine. I'm all ears.

Requiem
04-10-2013, 11:48 AM
You have no point, other than to argue.

I was pointing out how absurd your statement was. However, I doubt you would think that statement would be applicable to our POTUS.

Like I said, I don't know how general elections are done in the UK.

I know you don't. So why try and discuss things you actually have no knowledge of and attempt to criticize others on the subject which are of a higher informed opinion than your own?

Unless you want to eleborate and then explain how she was the longest serving prime minister of the 20th century in the UK then fine. I'm all ears.

I have full faith in your Googling abilities.

Rohirrim
04-10-2013, 11:54 AM
So you equate shouting fire in a crowded theater to the government determining who can speak when in matters of the future of government itself?

Abiding that anyone should ever be silenced by the government in regards to a core function of the government itself goes to the heart of why the 1st Amendment exists in the first place.

Why do you always propose false arguments and then hang onto them for dear life? Money is not speech. I guess we make that mistake now because the neoliberals Reagan and Thatcher launched a new world (actually an old, defunct Robber Baron world reborn) where markets are the same thing as liberty. I can see where some people, immersed in such a world, might make the mistake of believing that it stands to reason that money equals speech. Of course, in the neoliberal world, reason has nothing to do with it.

The SCOTUS ****ed up in the same way that they have in the past: They got caught up in the economic zeitgeist and just went along with the Washington herd, which after all is firmly latched onto the globalism money teat.

Tombstone RJ
04-10-2013, 11:57 AM
I was pointing out how absurd your statement was. However, I doubt you would think that statement would be applicable to our POTUS.

Not the same thing but whatever. The POTUS does not get elected by the popular vote but by the electoral college. Also, the POTUS can only serve two terms, not so with the pime minister.



I know you don't. So why try and discuss things you actually have no knowledge of and attempt to criticize others on the subject which are of a higher informed opinion than your own?

Look who's talking! Please, tell me how smart you are again!



I have full faith in your Googling abilities.

No thanks, I have you to educate me. You keep following me around...

BroncoBeavis
04-10-2013, 12:02 PM
Why do you always propose false arguments and then hang onto them for dear life? Money is not speech.

That's interesting. So what then is the justification for taxpayers funding political candidates? I mean since they're not really 'speaking' with it.

peacepipe
04-10-2013, 12:11 PM
Not the same thing but whatever. The POTUS does not get elected by the popular vote but by the electoral college. Also, the POTUS can only serve two terms, not so with the pime minister.





Look who's talking! Please, tell me how smart you are again!





No thanks, I have you to educate me. You keep following me around...
You do realize it was somewhat a bit of luck that she became the PM, she became leader of the conservative party,it was her party that got elected,she just happened to be the conservatives party leader,hence becoming the PM.

DenverBrit
04-10-2013, 12:21 PM
You do realize it was somewhat a bit of luck that she became the PM, she became leader of the conservative party,it was her party that got elected,she just happened to be the conservatives party leader,hence becoming the PM.

That's how all PMs are elected, not luck, but chosen by the party.

Requiem
04-10-2013, 12:27 PM
Not the same thing but whatever. The POTUS does not get elected by the popular vote but by the electoral college. Also, the POTUS can only serve two terms, not so with the pime minister.

Look who's talking! Please, tell me how smart you are again!

I know how electoral systems work here and abroad. Unlike most, I'm not an ignorant American who doesn't understand how other places work.

No thanks, I have you to educate me. You keep following me around...

I point out silly stuff when I see it. It just so happens that you continually make yourself look ridiculous. Better yourself.

Rohirrim
04-10-2013, 01:05 PM
That's interesting. So what then is the justification for taxpayers funding political candidates? I mean since they're not really 'speaking' with it.

Plucking out single sentences from a post is dishonest. You do it all the time.

The benefit to the people is that they get their government back. I recently read an article from a Harvard professor of political science. He likened our government representatives to lab rats. They tap the little machine and get a pellet. And that's how they spend the majority of their days, tapping the money machine in order to get the pellets required to stay in office. That's our system. A lobbyocracy. Which is why they never seem to respond to the issues that most Americans actually give a damn about.

cutthemdown
04-10-2013, 01:18 PM
Awful ,evil, working class hating b****.I never speak ill of the dead but she made the rich richer the poor poorer . She killed steel ,coal and the working class people. Awful awful evil person.
#1 in the charts in uk is now "ding dong the witch is dead" ,this speaks volumes.
As for her funeral costing 8 million to 10 million pounds ,i say put her on raft and set fire to her on the thames .You couldnt use coal tho ,we have none .
Iron Lady RIP ..rust in pee.

You can't say you don't speak ill of the dead then call her an evil awful person. Souds like you just spoke ill of the dead to me.

DenverBrit
04-10-2013, 01:21 PM
Awful ,evil, working class hating b****.I never speak ill of the dead but she made the rich richer the poor poorer . She killed steel ,coal and the working class people. Awful awful evil person.
#1 in the charts in uk is now "ding dong the witch is dead" ,this speaks volumes.
As for her funeral costing 8 million to 10 million pounds ,i say put her on raft and set fire to her on the thames .You couldnt use coal tho ,we have none .
Iron Lady RIP ..rust in pee.

Blue, were you living in England just before Maggie got elected?

BroncoBeavis
04-10-2013, 01:24 PM
Plucking out single sentences from a post is dishonest. You do it all the time.

I do it to get to exactly what I'm talking about. I doubt everyone wants to reread everything you posted all over again. I myself prefer people to address points specifically one at a time. I don't see any dishonesty in it. Especially when I addressed the hinge of your entire argument. Whether money is or isn't speech is the only real argument you have. You're just on the wrong side of it.

The benefit to the people is that they get their government back. I recently read an article from a Harvard professor of political science. He likened our government representatives to lab rats. They tap the little machine and get a pellet. And that's how they spend the majority of their days, tapping the money machine in order to get the pellets required to stay in office. That's our system. A lobbyocracy. Which is why they never seem to respond to the issues that most Americans actually give a damn about.

The problem with your analogy is that your rats are the ones who design and run the machine. They're not hapless bystanders like a rat in a cage. In reality you have it backwards. The government runs the rat maze. And provides the pellet dispensers for corporate rats to come tap on (while leaving a corresponding tip in the jar) So long as government officials offer those food pellets of power and influence, countless rats will inevitably come along to get as much out of it as they can.

The only real answer is to stop feeding the rats. They won't jump through all those hoops and mazes for nothing.

DenverBrit
04-10-2013, 01:29 PM
One of the great accomplishments during Maggie's tenur was her demolition of the extreme classes.....unions, who were power crazy and controlling government policy and the upper classes, who were out of touch. The middle classes thrived and the economy boomed. She stayed around too long, but wasn't elected to three terms because she was unpopular, she was reelected because of what she accomplished; painful as it was for many, it was overdue and inevitable.

WASHINGTON -- People talk about transformational politicians. But watching Margaret Thatcher take down the British class system was an education in how it's really done. It required the radical vision and iron will of someone who genuinely abhorred the status quo.

Thatcher demolished the two conservative pillars of British society: the labor unions that held the parliamentary Labor Party in bondage and the upper-class Tory leaders who resembled the benign but hapless relics of "Downton Abbey." It's hard to say which side was more hidebound and resistant to change, the unions or the aristocrats. They were unwitting partners in Britain's paralysis.

By breaking the power of the unions and the old Tory elite, Thatcher opened the way for a politically powerful British middle class. The universality of the middle class is America's enduring national myth, so it's hard for us to appreciate how narrow and precarious it was in Britain. Recall the disastrous aspirations for upward mobility of the bank clerk Leonard Bast in E.M. Forster's novel "Howard's End," and you have a sense of the limited, dreary vista that was middle-class life before Maggie.I had an unusual vantage on Thatcher's revolution in British politics. I was a graduate student at Cambridge in 1974 and 1975, a time when the class-bound straitjacket of British politics was painfully evident, but still unbreakable. The Labor Party had returned to power at the end of the coal strike of 1974, a union-organized exercise in national suicide. Thatcher had just seized the leadership of a Tory Party dazed by defeat and seemingly in the wilderness.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/09/the_revolution_of_margaret_thatcher_117863.html

TonyR
04-10-2013, 01:44 PM
The only real answer is to stop feeding the rats. They won't jump through all those hoops and mazes for nothing.

If only it were that simple. It's a mutually beneficial relationship. And neither side had any benefit to stop, in fact to the contrary. In your analogy, both sides are the rats. They're all fighting for power, influence, and money.

BroncoBeavis
04-10-2013, 02:11 PM
If only it were that simple. It's a mutually beneficial relationship. And neither side had any benefit to stop, in fact to the contrary. In your analogy, both sides are the rats. They're all fighting for power, influence, and money.

Well there's some truth to that. And it gets into a little bit of chicken and egg stuff... who's really to blame, the whore or the john?

When it comes to dispensing blame, it's simple. Both are at fault. Now we both feel better. But when it comes to realistic solutions, however, you have to get down to basics and look at the source.

Every time the federal government gets involved in markets, it will get exposed to market forces trying to harness it for certain people's/groups' benefit. There will always be interaction, temptation and finally corruption there. Trying to address the symptoms of that is like trying to plug holes one by one in a sieve. You'll never get there.

The real answer lies in keeping government influence out of markets as much as possible in the first place. Profit-driven organizations don't tend to bribe (or "contribute" to) officials who can't or won't help them.

Monsanto invested in politicians because they knew there was money in it at the end of the day. And they were obviously proven right.

Kaylore
04-10-2013, 02:17 PM
Can we remove a freedom just because we don't like the result? Depends on who you ask, but some would argue their ability to hire someone to represent their best interests is protected in the constitution. I had a buddy say he wanted "ALL" special interests gones from Washington. I asked why and of course he cited corporations. I then asked him if he'd be ok with all the others losing their voices as well: unions, civil rights groups, scientists who specialize in areas that the public at large doesn't care and/or is not educated about enough to form a good opinion on. Not all special interests are bad. Many aren't bad or good, but necessary because they represent an industry or aspect about our society that requires some expertise, and while not controversial, is important to society and must be factored into codefied law.

How many average citizens even care about each individual issue in our government? Do we as citizens take ownership of the consequences of ALL these things?

peacepipe
04-10-2013, 03:32 PM
Can we remove a freedom just because we don't like the result? Depends on who you ask, but some would argue their ability to hire someone to represent their best interests is protected in the constitution. I had a buddy say he wanted "ALL" special interests gones from Washington. I asked why and of course he cited corporations. I then asked him if he'd be ok with all the others losing their voices as well: unions, civil rights groups, scientists who specialize in areas that the public at large doesn't care and/or is not educated about enough to form a good opinion on. Not all special interests are bad. Many aren't bad or good, but necessary because they represent an industry or aspect about our society that requires some expertise, and while not controversial, is important to society and must be factored into codefied law.

How many average citizens even care about each individual issue in our government? Do we as citizens take ownership of the consequences of ALL these things?
There's no problem with special interest,it's a problem when the interest of a few undermine the interest of the many.

BroncoBeavis
04-10-2013, 04:17 PM
There's no problem with special interest,it's a problem when the interest of a few undermine the interest of the many.

So when a public sector union, for example, receives a pay raise, is that not by sheer definition the interest of a few undermining the interests of the many?

People tend to see their own interests as everyone's interest.

Tombstone RJ
04-10-2013, 05:09 PM
I know how electoral systems work here and abroad. Unlike most, I'm not an ignorant American who doesn't understand how other places work.

So how the POTUS gets elected and how the PM of the UK gets elected are not the same, yet you want me to draw some conclusion that they are the same. Again, I'm not sure what your point is other than you have no point. According to others here, Thatcher was PM because of her party affiliation. So, again, not at all like the POTUS that gets elected by the electoral college via a general election of the population of the entire USA. Also the PM can be elected more than twice whereas the president can't.

So again, you have no point other than you like to think you know what you are talking about.

I point out silly stuff when I see it. It just so happens that you continually make yourself look ridiculous. Better yourself.

:rofl: whatever

peacepipe
04-10-2013, 05:50 PM
So when a public sector union, for example, receives a pay raise, is that not by sheer definition the interest of a few undermining the interests of the many?

People tend to see their own interests as everyone's interest.

Apples & oranges. What's negotiated into a CBA & what money is spent bribing politicians is two desperate things.

BroncoBeavis
04-10-2013, 06:34 PM
Apples & oranges. What's negotiated into a CBA & what money is spent bribing politicians is two desperate things.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/assets/images/cr_67_table1.jpg

If it walks like a duck.

Rohirrim
04-10-2013, 07:32 PM
Can we remove a freedom just because we don't like the result? Depends on who you ask, but some would argue their ability to hire someone to represent their best interests is protected in the constitution. I had a buddy say he wanted "ALL" special interests gones from Washington. I asked why and of course he cited corporations. I then asked him if he'd be ok with all the others losing their voices as well: unions, civil rights groups, scientists who specialize in areas that the public at large doesn't care and/or is not educated about enough to form a good opinion on. Not all special interests are bad. Many aren't bad or good, but necessary because they represent an industry or aspect about our society that requires some expertise, and while not controversial, is important to society and must be factored into codefied law.

How many average citizens even care about each individual issue in our government? Do we as citizens take ownership of the consequences of ALL these things?

There's a difference between representing your case and buying votes.

W*GS
04-10-2013, 07:47 PM
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/assets/images/cr_67_table1.jpg

If it walks like a duck.

Where's Sheldon Adelson and his $150 million from 2012?

Blart
04-11-2013, 02:47 AM
So what you're saying is Unions shouldn't be allowed to make political contributions.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/assets/images/cr_67_table1.jpg

http://baihua.org/user_image2/2011/10/1320069010_1.png

2012 Spending (including soft money from PACs)

Business $2,708,652,702
Labor $141,153,422
Ideological $208,591,929
Other $559,743,023



It's almost like corporations and the government are linked somehow!!!!



http://i.imgur.com/EUrxA.jpg

TonyR
04-11-2013, 07:33 AM
It's almost like corporations and the government are linked somehow!!!!


LOL QFT!!! These guys keep dancing around with their desperate answers, pretending their perspectives on this are correct, whilst avoiding the rather large elephant in the room.

Rohirrim
04-11-2013, 07:37 AM
Oops.

Naw. They're just getting their lawful representation. :spit:



That's okay. I'm sure those people have a deep and abiding interest in the "general welfare" of the American people.

Kaylore
04-11-2013, 08:04 AM
Who is claiming special interests have the welfare of the American people? They don't. They care about their special interest. That's why they're special interest groups. Every group does this. Labor doesn't care if their industry is obsolete or if the country would be better if their factory closed. Pharm companies want to make money and charge a lot. Abortion activitists want their moral views forced on everyone else. Their whole existence is to champion small causes - regardless of the ethics.

I would argue you need special interest groups or you have majority tyranny.

BroncoBeavis
04-11-2013, 08:18 AM
Who is claiming special interests have the welfare of the American people? They don't. They care about their special interest. That's why they're special interest groups. Every group does this. Labor doesn't care if their industry is obsolete or if the country would be better if their factory closed. Pharm companies want to make money and charge a lot. Abortion activitists want their moral views forced on everyone else. Their whole existence is to champion small causes - regardless of the ethics.

I would argue you need special interest groups or you have majority tyranny.

The truth is they believe that just because they elect someone he/she's automagically going to defy human nature and start representing only the collective interest over their own personal ambition. What they fail to see is that 99% of the time, winning that election is just the first step towards fulfilling a personal ambition in the first place. Everyone has a 'special interest.' Even us. Even the people we elect.

Government has to balance those interests. Not suppress them. That's why the founders saw separation of powers as so important. Unfortunately we keep tearing those separations down in the name of collective will, and it all ultimately works against us. We need forgiveness for we know not what we do. :)

Rohirrim
04-11-2013, 08:20 AM
Who is claiming special interests have the welfare of the American people? They don't. They care about their special interest. That's why they're special interest groups. Every group does this. Labor doesn't care if their industry is obsolete or if the country would be better if their factory closed. Pharm companies want to make money and charge a lot. Abortion activitists want their moral views forced on everyone else. Their whole existence is to champion small causes - regardless of the ethics.

I would argue you need special interest groups or you have majority tyranny.

I agree. That's what freedom of speech is all about. Let them speak. But that's a whole different thing from energy companies (for just one example) writing the legislation and handing to their reps in congress who pass it without even reading it in exchange for a fat campaign contribution. What we have now is tyranny of the special interests, like TR said, twisting "...the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will."

BroncoBeavis
04-11-2013, 08:34 AM
It's almost like corporations and the government are linked somehow!!!!

I'm not saying they're not linked. It's obvious business has influence in government. Then again, the 'official' union spending numbers are just the tip of the iceberg.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304782404577488584031850026.html

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BG954_LABOR__NS_20120709185413.jpg

And unlike the 'business' category you monolithize so easily, that Labor spending pretty much all goes to one party. By a ratio of about 10:1.

But my purpose was never to say that one equals the other in influence either way. The point was my asking how far does this definition of "special interest" go? Or is this just about getting only the business spending out so unions can utterly dominate elections, like they did several decades ago.

Many Democrats only started lamenting other peoples' special interests when it began to tip the balance of power away from them.

peacepipe
04-11-2013, 08:36 AM
Who is claiming special interests have the welfare of the American people? They don't. They care about their special interest. That's why they're special interest groups. Every group does this. Labor doesn't care if their industry is obsolete or if the country would be better if their factory closed. Pharm companies want to make money and charge a lot. Abortion activitists want their moral views forced on everyone else. Their whole existence is to champion small causes - regardless of the ethics.

I would argue you need special interest groups or you have majority tyranny.

BS. Majority tyranny!? You know what other word means majority tyranny? DEMOCRACY.

BroncoBeavis
04-11-2013, 08:40 AM
I agree. That's what freedom of speech is all about. Let them speak. But that's a whole different thing from energy companies (for just one example) writing the legislation and handing to their reps in congress who pass it without even reading it in exchange for a fat campaign contribution. What we have now is tyranny of the special interests, like TR said, twisting "...the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will."

I really think part of what needs to happen is that government needs to slow down and start dealing with major issues one at a time. More than half of what goes into those bills wouldn't pass on their own accord. But lube it up and shove whatever you want into a byzantine "energy bill" or "defense bill" and as long as each politician gets some chunk they can take home to brag about, they're all good with just about anything that's put in there.

You can talk about sunlight and influence all day. But the government does this intentionally to keep real issues from ever even being discussed.

BroncoBeavis
04-11-2013, 08:46 AM
BS. Majority tyranny!? You know what other word means majority tyranny? DEMOCRACY.

Let me switch contexts for you.

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/brad_hirschfield/2011/02/prayer_without_religion_for_pu.html

Amidst the growing excitement these days about democracy breaking out all over the world, one might be tempted to call for greater respect for "the will of the people" right here at home. New polling by Rasmussen indicates that 65% of Americans favor prayer in our nation's public schools. So why not give the people what they want?

The argument that whatever the majority wants, it should get, is a dangerous and misguided understanding of democracy -- one which quickly leads to an ugly state of affairs in which the rights and dignity of minorities is readily ignored. Tocqueville called this phenomenon "tyranny of the majority", but whatever it is called, it is a real problem when we fail to recall that terms like "will of the people" refer to both a collective people and also to all of the individuals who make up that collective.

Many, if not most, school districts across the United States have overwhelming Christian majorities. Let them do what they will? Is that what Democracy requires?

peacepipe
04-11-2013, 08:57 AM
Let me switch contexts for you.

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/brad_hirschfield/2011/02/prayer_without_religion_for_pu.html



Many, if not most, school districts across the United States have overwhelming Christian majorities. Let them do what they will? Is that what Democracy requires?
They're obviously not in the majority. Not to mention that Rasmussen has a track record for skewing his poll numbers.

peacepipe
04-11-2013, 09:01 AM
Right now,I would say we're suffering from the tyranny of the minority. Our country has a a lot of work to be done,and all the rightards can do is obstruct,putting the country in gridlock.

BroncoBeavis
04-11-2013, 09:11 AM
They're obviously not in the majority. Not to mention that Rasmussen has a track record for skewing his poll numbers.

How about Gallup?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/18136/public-favors-voluntary-prayer-public-schools.aspx

http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr050826iii.gif

More religion in schools! So Saith the Democratic Majority. 1st Amendment be damned?

TonyR
04-11-2013, 09:29 AM
...the 'official' union spending numbers are just the tip of the iceberg...

So you're going to continue to pretend that unions have as much power and control in Washington as corporations?

BroncoBeavis
04-11-2013, 09:40 AM
So you're going to continue to pretend that unions have as much power and control in Washington as corporations?

I think I said I wasn't equating the two. Business' influence is probably greater overall, but far more bipartisan. Not that that necessarily matters from some people's perspectives.

But, like I also said, the object of reform can't just be to cut out the other guys' special interests while maintaining your own. Even if they're slightly less well-funded. I guess that's just a principle statement though. In reality it really is about kneecapping the other guys' supporters. His interests are always "special interests" My interests, are of course, "the will of the people" :)

Blart
04-11-2013, 10:14 AM
Many, if not most, school districts across the United States have overwhelming Christian majorities. Let them do what they will? Is that what Democracy requires?

A majority also want more school funding, including higher education, better paid teachers, etc. A majority believe the US government caters to special interests rather than the people. A majority believe the US should guarantee healthcare for everyone. A vast majority believe there's too much income inequality. (Last I checked, neither party supported these majority opinions.)

If you're still scared that the tyrannical majority will force all students to hate science and worship Allah, try social democracy.

Who is claiming special interests have the welfare of the American people? They don't. They care about their special interest. That's why they're special interest groups. Every group does this. Labor doesn't care if their industry is obsolete or if the country would be better if their factory closed. Pharm companies want to make money and charge a lot. Abortion activitists want their moral views forced on everyone else. Their whole existence is to champion small causes - regardless of the ethics.

I would argue you need special interest groups or you have majority tyranny.

I can't decide if you're Gordon Gekko or a Randroid.

BS. Majority tyranny!? You know what other word means majority tyranny? DEMOCRACY.


Exactly. Democracy is a fascist's biggest fear. This isn't hyperbole - all the right-wing heroes (Friedman, Mises, Rand, etc.) have spoken out against democracy, feel free to google.

To bring this discussion back on topic, this is why Margaret Thatcher supported fascist dictators, and why the US not only supports them, but slaughters citizens of publicly elected democracies.


http://img5.joyreactor.com/pics/post/dictator-movie-sasha-baron-cohen-quote-344165.png

BroncoBeavis
04-11-2013, 10:49 AM
Exactly. Democracy is a fascist's biggest fear. This isn't hyperbole - all the right-wing heroes (Friedman, Mises, Rand, etc.) have spoken out against democracy, feel free to google.

Pure Democracy, of the kind you seem to be arguing for was also James "Father of the Constitution" Madison's biggest fear.

A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual.

Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

If this sounds familiar, it's because it should.

Blart
04-11-2013, 11:02 AM
Wow great point, but you left out that James Madison was an aristocratic a-hole who was terribly afraid of people who didn't own land.

Whenever Madison talks about "the weaker party" or "the minority" it's obvious the minority he has in mind: wealthy landowners.

"the Constitution was intrinsically an aristocratic document designed to check the democratic tendencies of the period." - Gordon Wood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_S._Wood)

Or as Madison's close colleague John Jay put it,
"Those who own the country ought to govern it."

That's not really in dispute among Madison scholars.

BroncoBeavis
04-11-2013, 11:20 AM
Wow great point, but you left out that James Madison was an aristocratic a-hole who was terribly afraid of people who didn't own land.

Whenever Madison talks about "the minority" it's obvious the minority he has in mind: wealthy landowners.

"the Constitution was intrinsically an aristocratic document designed to check the democratic tendencies of the period." - Gordon Wood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_S._Wood)

That's not really in dispute among Madison scholars.

Gee wiz. A group of guys who built a whole system of government around the idea that purely-democratic tendencies needed to be checked believed democratic tendencies needed to be checked. Who wouldda thunk? LOL

But I've gotten where we needed to go. This is the dead end, where there is no room for agreement.

The Constitution is imperfect, maybe. So therefore, some people think a few of it's more inconvenient restrictions should be ignored.

The problem is, imperfect or not, this is the one document to rule them all. The one that binds. If you want to change it 'democratically' you need to work within the provided democratic constructs and amend it. Do it the right way.

But that's too hard to do (democratically) for many people so instead, they'll settle for a little judicial or legislative fiat when it suits them. Unfortunately, however noble their intentions that day, once you start playing that game, everyone else gets to play it too. The Bill of Rights becomes subject to a 51/49 vote. And all hell breaks loose. Just as Madison predicted.

Blart
04-11-2013, 11:32 AM
I got a little worked up there.

To be fair, Madison was precapitalist, and he saw the owners as benevolent people who'd oversee the welfare of the majority. He wasn't thinking of corporate executives stamping on people to maximize wealth. When Hamilton began to push the country that way, Madison became very upset which started their epic disagreements.

If you could bring him, or any founding father 200 years in the future, they'd be disgusted, depressed and I believe vehemently anti-capitalist.

BroncoBeavis
04-11-2013, 11:48 AM
If you could bring him, or any founding father 200 years in the future, they'd be disgusted, depressed and I believe vehemently anti-capitalist.

They would probably be disgusted, maybe depressed. At the end of the day though they'd probably wonder why we undid most of the protections they gave us and then sit around bitching about the results.

And they'd probably also believe we the people ultimately got the government we deserved.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73947.html

TonyR
04-11-2013, 02:25 PM
Margaret Thatcher’s last years were spent coping with dementia, a terrible illness. If, like us, you were disgusted by how she treated the least well off in Britain and around the world, the old line about not wishing something on your worst enemies still applies. We can’t help but think it’s pretty lousy to celebrate or gloat over anyone’s suffering and death and we don’t want anyone else to do it either.

We just want to place front and centre people who had no place in the Thatcherite worldview. And we want to do that in a way that can actually do some good. You can help us by donating to the excellent charities we have chosen to represent a fraction of them – the homeless, miners’ families, gay teenagers, Hillsborough survivors and South African victims of the Apartheid regime. – a quote from a British liberal group called Don’t Hate, Donate
http://donthatedonate.com/

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
04-11-2013, 09:49 PM
http://www.bromygod.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/lingerie-girls-028-04022013.gif

cutthemdown
04-12-2013, 01:20 AM
I got a little worked up there.

To be fair, Madison was precapitalist, and he saw the owners as benevolent people who'd oversee the welfare of the majority. He wasn't thinking of corporate executives stamping on people to maximize wealth. When Hamilton began to push the country that way, Madison became very upset which started their epic disagreements.

If you could bring him, or any founding father 200 years in the future, they'd be disgusted, depressed and I believe vehemently anti-capitalist.

The first thing they would say is THE PRESIDENT IS A ****ER? it would be like just like Blazing Saddles.

BroncoInferno
04-12-2013, 06:47 AM
The first thing they would say is THE PRESIDENT IS A ****ER? it would be like just like Blazing Saddles.

"He said the President is near!"