Margaret Thatcher, Britain's Iron Lady, Dead at 87

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Buddha12, Apr 9, 2013.

  1. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,719
    Or you can blame subsequent governments for not taking down the reforms... or is it that they actually wanted them in place while they were in power?
    If you didn't like something that was put in place 30 years ago - subsequent inaction is just as much to blame if those reforms are now causing issues.
    But biased thinking fails to accept that.
    But they didn't fall apart immediately, and possibly not at all. As stated above, 40+% of the country voted for Thatcher, more than voted for Blair or any subsequent government. She had landslide victories to support her. The "eyesore" that you see is someone else's functional structure. If subsequent governments didn't think the functionality was needed or desired anymore - why didn't they rip it down? They had the opportunity - but all you see is the "eyesore" and not the inaction by subsequent governments to take it down. Its ridiculous to blame the architect for putting in place what was needed at the time and not blame others for removing it when they felt it wasn't.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    “Obama did send an official delegation to Caracas to attend last month’s funeral for the deceased Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.”

    Obama sent no one to Thatcher's funeral, how decent of him. The Republicans did at least send a few representatives over to attend.

    Seems that Obama did not care to much for her but that should not let him go against protocol about sending tepresenatives to a head of states funeral as he did with Chavez.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,719
    It's not a fair comparison, as Thatcher's funeral was not an official state funeral - it merely looked like it and was paid for by the state - but nonetheless is NOT an official state event.
    This led a number of countries to take different stances as to who to send - some sending former heads of state rather than the current head (e.g. Australia).
    I'm sure it would have been somewhat different had it been an official state event.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    Just because it wasn't an "official" state funeral she was a leader of England and deserved to be shown respect of at least one person from Obamas administration to attend but as I said the Republicans did send some people over there, at least they understand protocol, Obama does not it would seem.
     
  8. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I had an idea regarding the disposition of Thatcher's remains, and the British deficit. Here it is:

    Maybe they could break up little bits of her to sell off to adoring conservatives and capitalists. A finger-bone here, a shin there: it could add up.

    Or instead, they could dunk her in fixative, and prop her up outside 10 Downing Street, charging ten pounds a photograph. They could take her plastic-sealed corpse around on a tour of failed Welsh coal-towns and charge a fiver for eight cricket balls to be thrown at her reinforced head.

    Or is the notion of the free market suddenly too much for those parasites? Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,110
    That wouldn't change the responsibility for the reforms. Thatcher imposed them, Thatcher is to blame for imposing them.

    As with Reagan's vandalisms, I am not going to blame its opponents, the people who fought against them, for their implementation and consequences.

    The fact that the government Reagan crippled and the political arena he corrupted and the political forces he defeated and marginalized were not able to recover, take power, repair his damages and revoke his policies and recover from his "reforms", is to his credit - he won. I do not blame the consequences of his triumphs on those he defeated. Thatcher likewise.
    The consequences of Thatcher's reforms were immediate and have continued to this day. She is to blame for them. You are one who chose the analogy to the building "falling apart" - choose another, if you like, I will follow. Anything reasonable analogous to what happened and is happening to England under Thatcher's policies and reforms, in comparison with well governed countries, will do. So would your admission that England's situation displays "functional structure" established by Thatcher.

    Something like 40% of the US voted for Reagan as well - the parallels keep showing up. He had similar "landslide" electoral victories to support him. That does not absolve him of responsibility for the consequences of his policies and "reforms" - consequences everywhere visible and still coming down on the country he swore to govern well.
     
  10. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    Well your premise that President Obama has not said anything about Thatcher's death is wrong. He sent his condolences to Thatcher's family and the UK 24 hours prior to the posting of your OP. Further, Vice President Biden attended her funeral.

    http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/04/obama-salutes-thatcher-champion-of-freedom-161076.html

    Two, given how American conservatives are so dead set against universal healthcare it is fascinating to watch them support Thatcher who was a staunch supporter of The United Kingdom’s socialized healthcare system.
     
  11. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    Can you please show me a link that proves that Biden went there? Thank you.

    As for Obama not saying anything, I posted that statement BEFORE Obama did make a statement. Obama sent condolances a day after she died, not on the day she died.
     
  12. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    It would have been awesome if Biden had fallen into her grave a la Cluseau/Mr. Bean/Leslie Nielsen. I would have certainly attended, if I had suitable reasons to think that would happen.
     
  13. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    Hey Joepistole where's that link that states that Biden went to Thatcher's funeral? I'm still awaiting your response or don't you have one?
     
  14. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    I don't feel at all elated.
    I don't even hate her any more.

    She has dropped off the end of life's conveyor belt,
    been carried by an angel to life's disposal chute.
    That kind of thing.

    Momento Mori.
    Ask not for whom the Bell tolls
    it tolls for thee.
     
  15. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    Well you see that is just it; Thatcher is not and has never been a head of state. Chavez was a sitting head of state. American conservatives keep acting like Thatcher was a head of state and clearly she has never been a head of state. So President Obama’s actions have been consistent with protocol. Unfortunately for American conservatives, as much as they want to make political hay with this, it just makes them look ignorant. They apparently don’t know who the head of state is for the UK. The head of state for the UK is and has been since 1952 Queen Elizabeth II. Additionally, Thatcher left public office in 1990. I don’t think President Obama has ever met Margret Thatcher. Barrack Obama was a law student when Thatcher left public office in 1990.

    Treating Thatcher like a head of state as American conservatives are demanding would be the greatest snub of all to the real head of state for the UK, Queen Elizabeth II and her subjects. So Amercian conservatives need to do something unusual for them, wake up to the facts, wake up to reality. And they wonder why people think they are ignorant when they keep doing stuff like this over and over again.

    Additionally, George Junior and Senior were also given invitations to Thatcher’s funeral and they both declined those invitations. George I was Vice President and President when Thatcher was prime minister, met her and worked with her. So why are you and your conservative fellows not ragging on George I and George II for declining the invitation to Thatcher’s funeral.
     
  16. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    I only asked you 2 times to provide the link that shows that Biden went to her funeral as YOU said he did, where's that link or did he really go?

    As far as what conservatives did or did not do, that was not the question nor what we are discussing here. Why are you trying to divert this matter towards something else?
     
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    Is it really that important? In the immediate aftermath of her death President Obama declined to attend her funeral as he had a full schedule – you know little things like the budget. And Biden was discussed as an alternative. But apparently Biden didn’t attend either. But none of that changes the fact that the OP is wrong. . . that President Obama did not issue condolences to her family and the people of the UK on the very day she died. What, you guys want President Obama to issue condolences before she dies? It is hard to get any faster.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/w...-of-britain-has-died.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    "With the passing of Baroness Margaret Thatcher, the world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend. As a grocer’s daughter who rose to become Britain’s first female prime minister, she stands as an example to our daughters that there is no glass ceiling that can’t be shattered. As prime minister, she helped restore the confidence and pride that has always been the hallmark of Britain at its best. And as an unapologetic supporter of our transatlantic alliance, she knew that with strength and resolve we could win the Cold War and extend freedom’s promise.

    Here in America, many of us will never forget her standing shoulder to shoulder with President Reagan, reminding the world that we are not simply carried along by the currents of history—we can shape them with moral conviction, unyielding courage and iron will. Michelle and I send our thoughts to the Thatcher family and all the British people as we carry on the work to which she dedicated her life—free peoples standing together, determined to write our own destiny." - President Obama 4/8/13

    Yeah, nor do you want the issue to be what conservatives did or did not do to be the issue. Because the fact is you and your fellow Republicans are being hypocritical when you choose to condemn President Obama for not attending Thatcher’s funeral while giving a pass to former Republican presidents - people who actually knew and worked with Thatcher - for doing the same thing. President Obama never knew or worked with Thatcher. If you want to be critical of President Obama for not attending Thatcher’s funeral, then you should also be critical of the Republican presidents who did not attend Thatcher’s funeral.

    Further you and your Republican fellows have accused President Obama of demonstrating favoritism to Chavez because he was a socialist and snubbing Thatcher because she was a conservative, not recognizing the fact that Chavez was a sitting head of state and Thatcher was never a head of state, or that Thatcher, by current American Republican standards, was quite a socialist in her own right.

    p.s. Below is President Obama's statement on Chavez's death, compare it with his comments on Thatcher's death.


    "At this challenging time of President Hugo Chavez’s passing, the United States reaffirms its support for the Venezuelan people and its interest in developing a constructive relationship with the Venezuelan government. As Venezuela begins a new chapter in its history, the United States remains committed to policies that promote democratic principles, the rule of law, and respect for human rights." - President Obama


    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...-obama-death-venezuelan-president-hugo-chavez

    http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/washin...and-productive-relationship-with-venezue.html

    President Obama didn’t attend Chavez’s funeral either. So this notion that you and your fellow conservatives are trying to float, that President Obama has given preferential treatment to Chavez and snubbed Thatcher is, like most of what we see from the American conservative movement these days, just rubbish.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2013
  18. vulcan947 Registered Member

    Messages:
    26
    thatchers error, market economy policy, this has made us the servant not the master, yet had she known this she may have moderated them, histories what if scenario !!
     
  19. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,719
    Indeed - and subsequent governments are to blame for not overturning them (if that is what they wanted to do, rather than support them).
    And what exactly is it you have issue with in Thatcher's reforms? What do you feel she needs to take blame for?
    And took us from a miserable economy with an insular outlook to one that championed the free market. She raised the living standards of almost everyone in the country.
    Just as one might claim Da Vinci is to blame for the Mona Lisa, perhaps.
    The "falling apart" is merely a perception that some have. Some see the building falling apart - others see the issue with other aspects - like the lean-to or conservatory that subsequent governments tried/wanted to add. The building was of its time, and served the country well. Inaction by those that don't like it or want it can not be excused any blame that you want to hand out, if you feel the situation worthy of blame.
    And what exactly distniguishes a "well governed" country from England? What exactly about England is currently not "well-governed" - and then which parts could have been rectified by the 10+ years of Labour government since Thatcher?
    It may be harder in the US to make subsequent changes - especially if your Congress or whatever is actually not the same majority as the President, or whatever convoluted situations you can get into.
    It is generally different in the UK, unless there is a coalition (such as now).
    Labour had 10+ years to make all the changes they wanted. If you think the situation is bad now and you think it is because of Thatcher's reforms then think not only of why Labour didn't make the change, and then what the country would have been like had Thatcher NOT made those reforms.
    The reason Thatcher could make those changes is because the country was heading where the largest portion of the country did not want it to go. But feel free to keep blaming her exclusively - for improving our international relations, for improving the overall economic position of our country, for improving public services.
    You see a crumbling building and want to blame the architect... I see a building being battered by a global storm... and still standing. Is it the building that Thatcher built? Not entirely, it has been added to and taken away from. But it hasn't fallen. We're not bankrupt, our credit rating has only just been downgraded (after the majority of Europe already had been), but yes we are going through a period of austerity, as much of the world has been.
    Yep - Thatcher is to blame for all that. Noone else should take any blame at all, least not the 10+ years of Blair afterward.

    To lay all of today's issues at the feet of Thatcher is just ridiculous.
    If you want to do so for Reagan in the US, feel free.
     
  20. Gorlitz Iron Man Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    290
    There is actually a lot to blame Thatcher for and much that went on behind the scenes that is not generally known about. For one thing much of the praise and publicity that Thatcher got from the victory over Argentina in liberating the Falkland Islands is actually quite ironic to anybody that know about the history of the events prior to the Falklands War. What was happening prior to the war was that Thatcher had charged the Foreign Secretary with negotiating a deal that would have given Argentina joint sovereignty over the Islands in the short term and complete sovereignty and dominion in the long term. In short she and her government were quite prepared to sell out the Islanders. The Islanders were considered insignificant by Thatcher and she didn't actually care about them at all. What then happened was the Argentinian Generals invaded the Islands as a show of force to shore up their own power back in Argentina and show off there new military hardware, they didn't want to be simply given the Falkland Islands as this didn't suit their political needs. This however was most definately not acceptable to Thatcher who saw it as a dangerous precedent and a loss of face for Britain. It was never about protecting the rights or freedoms of the people who lived on the Islands, though this was the lie that was given to the British Public.
     
  21. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    That would make those living there feel very upset if they ever found that out.
     
  22. Gorlitz Iron Man Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    290
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2013
  23. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    What's happening?
    She's not back is she?
     

Share This Page