when thatcher dies...

[shagnasty]

So so close.

You would have thought it was a life changing incident but the cunt was as bad as ever, a real nasty piece of work

 

[derf]

No, wrong.

First, Thatcher is no longer a legitimate target. When she held power, though, she was. Scargill, whether I agree with him or not, never held power over armed forces. His say could not commence wars or unleash weapons of mass destruction.

No, Thatcher's death will be a cause for celebration, but will hold no political significance here and now; her bastard son and heir, Brown and his moral compass, is where the ire must be directed for now.

But he's a political enemy so he would be a legitimate targets to stop him ever gaining power.

Which makes your self-righteous condemnation of other people celebrating the death of their political hate figures somewhat hollow, doesn't it?

These people were murderers and would kill again.

 

[tar1984]

"Murderer" is a loaded term though. Their supporters saw them as freedom fighters.

 

[danny la rouge]

But he's a political enemy so he would be a legitimate targets to stop him ever gaining power.

Is that your opinion? Not one I share.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think we should get something permanent on the fourth plinthe before cruel winter arrives.

A huge bronze turd labelled "Maggie T".

 

[krtek a houby]

of course, it's not as though people haven't tried to hasten the glorious day

Yes, I remember being in Brighton with my family a year or so after and feelings were still running high. The owners of this pub/restaurant were rude to us, weren't sure they could accomodate us - there was plenty of space - owner said it "wasn't your money I'm worried about" referring to our Irish accents. We ended up eating there but it was most uncomfortable.

Do love Brighton though but this childish celebrating of violence? Tsk, tsk.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Funny, I could have sworn that it was Argentina that invaded the Falklands.

I suppose it depends which "ancient claim" you believe takes precedence.

I, for one, will mourn her passing. She isn't The Divine Margaret or anything, but she had an agenda, she was open about it, and she achieved it. Her politics are not my politics, but I respect her.

"Open about it"?
Nope, she wasn't. Don't you think that even arch-conservative like the CBI would have organised against her if they'd realised that she meant to destroy british manufacturing rather than just "trim the fat"?
Get real.

 

[ViolentPanda]

But he's a political enemy so he would be a legitimate targets to stop him ever gaining power.

Interesting how you're supposedly so against killing unless it's someone you dislike.
Not that you're a hypocrite, oh no.

These people were murderers and would kill again.

Most murderers only commit a single crime.
Don't let facts get in the way of you, though.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Is that your opinion? Not one I share.

It's a pretty stupid opinion too, given that although Scragill has been painted as redder than red, his socialism has always been squarely democratic.
derf, of course, has a bit of a problem differentiating the various forms of socialist politics.

 

[derf]

Interesting how you're supposedly so against killing unless it's someone you dislike.
Not that you're a hypocrite, oh no.


Most murderers only commit a single crime.
Don't let facts get in the way of you, though.

I did not say I wanted to kill Scargill. I only said that, by the logicof others here, he would be a legitimate target.

The murderers I referred to killed 202 people on one sitting. I have no problem with people like that getting a bullet. They are not fighters, they are murderers.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

This idea that supporting the death of one person automatically means you must support the deaths of everyone else really baffles me - but it's extremely common, I see it all the time.

"Oh you think Pol Pot needed shooting you must also want your mum to get shot" eh?

 

[cesare]

I did not say I wanted to kill Scargill. I only said that, by the logicof others here, he would be a legitimate target.

The murderers I referred to killed 202 people on one sitting. I have no problem with people like that getting a bullet. They are not fighters, they are murderers.

I wonder how many were killed in one stting at Hiroshima?

 

[derf]

This idea that supporting the death of one person automatically means you must support the deaths of everyone else really baffles me - but it's extremely common, I see it all the time.

"Oh you think Pol Pot needed shooting you must also want your mum to get shot" eh?

But the whole thread is about celebration of a death due to the political beliefs of that person. Further, some posters are saying they would support her political murder and do support the attempt to do so.
If you support political murder, you must accept that the opposition have the same right to bump you off for your opinions.

 

[Belushi]

I did not say I wanted to kill Scargill. I only said that, by the logicof others here, he would be a legitimate target

No they wouldnt. As I and others pointed out earlier theres no logical comparison between the democratically elected head of a Trade Union and a head of government involved in the military occupation of another country.

But hey, thinking isnt really your strongpoint is it derf? stick to scabbing and exploiting children in the developing world.

 

[Belushi]

But the whole thread is about celebration of a death due to the political beliefs of that person.

Nope, its about the celebration of the death of a person due to their actions.

Do at least try and think clearly derf.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

But the whole thread is about celebration of a death due to the political beliefs of that person. Further, some posters are saying they would support her political murder and do support the attempt to do so.
If you support political murder, you must accept that the opposition have the same right to bump you off for your opinions.

What? Er, no, not in the slightest.

If you say "I support the murder of Thatcher because she's a horrible old witch who destroyed the country" you don't have to accept that the opposition have any right to kill you at all. Unless you happen to be a horrible old witch who destroyed the country.

 

[AKA pseudonym]

But the whole thread is about celebration of a death due to the political beliefs of that person. Further, some posters are saying they would support her political murder and do support the attempt to do so.
If you support political murder, you must accept that the opposition have the same right to bump you off for your opinions.

i think she has already been politically murdered...
i wouldnt mind her physical murder as long as it was sore and stingy...

And the British state does and has 'bump you off' for your opinions

where you been fool...

everytime i see this thread bumped my hopes rise she's brown bread

 

[Urbanblues]

Apparently, Thatcher will lie in state in Westminster Hall; when she dies, that is. This is fitting when you consider that the cunt lied to the state only a short distance away for many years.

That wasn’t why I was posting. My problem is as a wheelchair user I won’t get to see Thatcher in her coffin; more precisely, I won’t be able to hawk up a great wad of phlegm and gob in her eye; or, empty the contents of my stomach over her death’s head.

I wonder; could I bring a case under the DDA?

Gawd bless 'er. May she rest in pieces!

 

[In Bloom]

These people were murderers and would kill again.

And what would you call the Falklands? Shoot to kill?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I did not say I wanted to kill Scargill. I only said that, by the logicof others here, he would be a legitimate target.

Except that your logic didn't stand up, as I pointed out earlier. Conflating Scargill and a head of state/member of government is just weaselling on your part.

The murderers I referred to killed 202 people on one sitting. I have no problem with people like that getting a bullet. They are not fighters, they are murderers.

Well, they had "Pak" Harto's shining example of placing value on life to go by, didn't they? Perhaps if he hadn't engineered Indonesia spending decades in a dictatorship, there'd have been less of a likelihood of native Islamicist activism of the sort that caused the Bali bombings.
From small acorns, derf...

 

[ViolentPanda]

But the whole thread is about celebration of a death due to the political beliefs of that person.

Wrong.
This thread is about celebrating the death of a person because of her political actions, and because she opened the door to neo-liberal economics in Europe, with all the attendant consequences.

 

[DotCommunist]

I can't believe derf is still using the honorific without any sense of irony.

Despite the evidence of Suharto being the sort of murderouse bastard he claims to hate.

Clearly it's not murder if the state does it. Revol had it right. He cannot see th state as a political agent, just something to slavishly obey. R/W tossbag.

 

[Ralph Masters]

This idea that supporting the death of one person automatically means you must support the deaths of everyone else really baffles me - but it's extremely common, I see it all the time.

"Oh you think Pol Pot needed shooting you must also want your mum to get shot" eh?

No that's probably Polly Potts your thinking of.

 

[Pickman's model]

Apparently, Thatcher will lie in state in Westminster Hall; when she dies, that is. This is fitting when you consider that the cunt lied to the state only a short distance away for many years.

That wasn’t why I was posting. My problem is as a wheelchair user I won’t get to see Thatcher in her coffin; more precisely, I won’t be able to hawk up a great wad of phlegm and gob in her eye; or, empty the contents of my stomach over her death’s head.

I wonder; could I bring a case under the DDA?

Gawd bless 'er. May she rest in pieces!

bring the case now so there's the chance you'll have access for the glorious day

 

[ViolentPanda]

No that's probably Polly Potts your thinking of.

I'd kill her. She nicked my crayons in infants school, the cow!

 

[Meltingpot]

The mining industry was tough and dangerous but some would argue that what they got in its place - mass unemployment, poverty, depression, a lack of dignity and a near-total collapse of communities - was a lot, lot worse.

Yep, plus in years to come as oil grows scarcer we may well come to regret the fact that we don't have our own coal to turn to any more.

 

[Meltingpot]

What legacy is that then?

Unaffordable housing?

A generation of people with educations and qualifications and crippling debts unable to do anything but work in call centres?

Shit public transport run by private operators (but more expensive to the taxpayer than the old system was)?

Or the few cunts who did do well out of her and stood around pouring champers while Rome burned?

I think it's about time we posted that pic from a thread recently with Reagen etc standing around laughing and clinking glasses and going "We told them all that the wealth would 'trickle down'."

This, and a lot more could be added to it such as, for example, the 1990 TV deregulation bill which opened ITV and Channel 4 up to "competition" so that instead of halfway decent commercial television we now have endless "reality" programmes and dire game shows.

 

[rekil]

Despite the evidence of Suharto being the sort of murderouse bastard he claims to hate.

The kind of fellow successive british governments enjoyed selling weapons and supplying millions in aid to even after events like the Santa Cruz massacre had been filmed and broadcasted. "I am proud to be one of you", said Mrs.T in praise of the regime.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yep, plus in years to come as oil grows scarcer we may well come to regret the fact that we don't have our own coal to turn to any more.

Oh, we've still got massive reserves of it, but it'll be quite hard to access, mostly because although the sensible thing to have done would have been to "mothball" pits, keep the pumps running etc, the Tories decided on total shut-down, so most of the workings are flooded and will cost a fortune to rehabilitate before mining can be re-started. For want of a nail and all that...

 

[In Bloom]

Oh, we've still got massive reserves of it, but it'll be quite hard to access, mostly because although the sensible thing to have done would have been to "mothball" pits, keep the pumps running etc, the Tories decided on total shut-down, so most of the workings are flooded and will cost a fortune to rehabilitate before mining can be re-started. For want of a nail and all that...

Would reopening the pits really be the best idea at this stage anyway? We need to be moving away from fossil fuels, otherwise the entire world's going to be completely fucked in the near future.