Hitler Less Bad Than Liberals

[Perianne]

I think this is so accurate.

http://moonbattery.com/graphics/hitler-abortion.jpg

[Kathianne]

Wow.

[Drummond]

... I dunno. My gut reaction is that they were roughly on an equal footing.

Both groups disgustingly believe in Holocausts as a means to an end, it seems to me ... although ... Hitler was racist with it ...

And both Hitler and Lefties believe(d) in exercising absolute authority over people (Lefties a bit more sneakily so, but it remains true all the same).

You know, the more I think about it, the less easy it is for me to tell them apart. Admittedly the titchy moustache Hitler wore helps, though ...

[Drummond]

I think this is so accurate.

http://moonbattery.com/graphics/hitler-abortion.jpg:clap::clap::clap::clap::cool:

[Perianne]

... I dunno. My gut reaction is that they were roughly on an equal footing.

Both groups disgustingly believe in Holocausts as a means to an end, it seems to me ... although ... Hitler was racist with it ...

And both Hitler and Lefties believe(d) in exercising absolute authority over people (Lefties a bit more sneakily so, but it remains true all the same).

You know, the more I think about it, the less easy it is for me to tell them apart. Admittedly the titchy moustache Hitler wore helps, though ...

They are both horrible. But at least Hitler didn't kill his own children.

[Drummond]

Wow.

Wow indeed, Kathianne. Quite an eye-opener, eh ?

[Drummond]

They are both horrible. But at least Hitler didn't kill his own children.

Point well taken, obviously, & thanks. [Though he did order the death of his wife and pet dog, if I remember correctly, in his very last days.]

[Perianne]

Wow indeed, Kathianne. Quite an eye-opener, eh ?

I'm not getting the "Wow" thingy.

[Kathianne]

Wow indeed, Kathianne. Quite an eye-opener, eh ?

I'm totally pro-life, have been forever. I don't do false dichotomies though. I do attempt to stay consistent in what I believe to be right, including 'conservative' as opposed to big government.

[Perianne]

Point well taken, obviously, & thanks. [Though he did order the death of his wife and pet dog, if I remember correctly, in his very last days.]

D'oh!!! His dog?

[Kathianne]

Point well taken, obviously, & thanks. [Though he did order the death of his wife and pet dog, if I remember correctly, in his very last days.]

Indeed, he shot his dog. I'm pretty sure the 'wife' aka as cover for his homosexuality or non-sexuality thingy.

[Drummond]

D'oh!!! His dog?

Actually, I need to check that out for total accuracy. I know that in Hitler's final days, he, Eva Braun, and senior staff, took refuge in a bunker .. and that the effectiveness of cyanide pills were tested out. The first one to be used was tested on a dog. I'm not totally sure it was HIS dog, but he undoubtedly had one killed just as a test.

[Noir]

Yeah I'm well worse than hitler. Spot on.

[Drummond]

Yeah I'm well worse than hitler. Spot on.

Impressive, Noir. Very well done ! :clap::clap:;)

[Drummond]

I'm totally pro-life, have been forever. I don't do false dichotomies though. I do attempt to stay consistent in what I believe to be right, including 'conservative' as opposed to big government.

Without wanting to stray too far from the thread subject, we've found that, though big Government isn't to be PREFERRED, there are times when, quite literally, nothing else will do. On your side of the Pond, surely you've found the same ?

In the UK .. austerity measures are a Big Government solution to a crippling debt problem, in large measure created by the Lefties who presided before them. Without that solution, we'd be heading - slowly, perhaps, but nonetheless surely - in the direction that Greece is experiencing. So we NEED that Big Government intervention, and one that has far-reaching consequences in all walks of life.

How about within the US ? The aftermath of 9/11 .. what ELSE but a Big Government solution could've properly answered it ? The big military response ... the call by GW Bush for worldwide, international cooperation at Governmental level, in fighting the War on Terror ... the freezing of terrorist assets ... not forgetting, of course, the creation of Homeland Security ! Do you seriously believe you'd have been better off had none of that been applied ?

Needless Big Government definitely IS to be avoided. But don't make the mistake of believing that there aren't times when practicalities demand it.

[Kathianne]

Without wanting to stray too far from the thread subject, we've found that, though big Government isn't to be PREFERRED, there are times when, quite literally, nothing else will do. On your side of the Pond, surely you've found the same ?

In the UK .. austerity measures are a Big Government solution to a crippling debt problem, in large measure created by the Lefties who presided before them. Without that solution, we'd be heading - slowly, perhaps, but nonetheless surely - in the direction that Greece is experiencing. So we NEED that Big Government intervention, and one that has far-reaching consequences in all walks of life.

How about within the US ? The aftermath of 9/11 .. what ELSE but a Big Government solution could've properly answered it ? The big military response ... the call by GW Bush for worldwide, international cooperation at Governmental level, in fighting the War on Terror ... the freezing of terrorist assets ... not forgetting, of course, the creation of Homeland Security ! Do you seriously believe you'd have been better off had none of that been applied ?

Needless Big Government definitely IS to be avoided. But don't make the mistake of believing that there aren't times when practicalities demand it.

Housing non-violent perps and having federal government involved in areas small groups or local governments can handle, isn't 'conservative.' Period. Fact. Indisputable truth!

Government in US, should be limited as put forth in Constitution-which is not even close to what we currently have.

[Drummond]

Housing non-violent perps and having federal government involved in areas small groups or local governments can handle, isn't 'conservative.' Period. Fact. Indisputable truth!

Government in US, should be limited as put forth in Constitution-which is not even close to what we currently have.

I see no reason to disagree with you, Kathianne. Your points are well made.

I have never been in favour of NEEDLESS Big Government interventions (anyone wanting to dispute that is invited to try and prove otherwise). All I'm saying, and all I ever have said on this subject when you get down to it, is that Big Government solutions are, sometimes, necessary. In the examples I cited before, it's surely evident that nothing else would've sufficed.

[fj1200]

I have never been in favour of NEEDLESS Big Government interventions (anyone wanting to dispute that is invited to try and prove otherwise).

Done and done. Countless threads prove it though you never admit to it. Go ahead, look them up. :)

[PixieStix]

Big government is complicit in the murder of millions of babies. THAT is what big government gets you.

[Drummond]

Done and done. Countless threads prove it though you never admit to it. Go ahead, look them up. :)

... no. YOU prove your case.

In fact, why haven't you already done so ?

Because ... YOU CAN'T .... ?

[Cue some insults, &/or a bit of post-editing, instead ... ?]

[PixieStix]

Oh and big government also erases the middle class. Without a middle class we are a socialist nation. It is simple, and liberals want to make it something it is not

[Kathianne]

... no. YOU prove your case. In fact, why haven't you already done so ?Because ... YOU CAN'T .... ?[Cue some insults, &/or a bit of post-editing, instead ... ?]I'm not into insulting but you already agreed about big government, when it fits for you.

[fj1200]

... YOU CAN'T ....

I did. Repeatedly. It's in all of the threads you've dropped and won't pull up again. Of course that doesn't keep you from raising the same points over and over in completely unrelated threads.

[fj1200]

Oh and big government also erases the middle class. Without a middle class we are a socialist nation. It is simple, and liberals want to make it something it is not

How so?

[Kathianne]

How so?

By the very nature of control through regulations. The elite protects the elite.

[Drummond]

I'm not into insulting but you already agreed about big government, when it fits for you.

Not a fair argument ... sorry.

My position is perfectly clear. I have said that Big Government is not to be preferred. If an alternative approach can be used, all well and good.

But that is NOT ALWAYS THE CASE. I've cited for you the example of much-needed post-9/11 actions. What else but a Big Government approach could have possibly carried out what was necessary ?

Prove me wrong if you can.

For example: Homeland Security is a Big Government answer to your nation's security needs. Do you argue for them to be disbanded ? And replaced with what, that stands a chance of being even half as effective ?

[fj1200]

By the very nature of control through regulations. The elite protects the elite.

Some argue that big government led to the rise of the middle class via union support. I don't necessarily disagree with you but I don't see the link. I think big government harms the middle class through poor tax policy, etc. but that's by incompetence and not design. My working theory anyway.

[Kathianne]

Not a fair argument ... sorry.

My position is perfectly clear. I have said that Big Government is not to be preferred. If an alternative approach can be used, all well and good.

But that is NOT ALWAYS THE CASE. I've cited for you the example of much-needed post-9/11 actions. What else but a Big Government approach could have possibly carried out what was necessary ?

Prove me wrong if you can.

For example: Homeland Security is a Big Government answer to your nation's security needs. Do you argue for them to be disbanded ? And replaced with what, that stands a chance of being even half as effective ?

Homeland should be done away with. Repetitious of what needs to be done. Too intrusive.

I'm not taking bait, you've stated your preference for big government for the ends you wish.

I disagree.

[Voted4Reagan]

They are both horrible. But at least Hitler didn't kill his own children.he considered his Dogs his children... and he did kill them

[PixieStix]

By the very nature of control through regulations. The elite protects the elite.


exactly. Liberals apparently have a block to those facts. They are blinded by their ideals

[fj1200]

exactly. Liberals apparently have a block to those facts. They are blinded by their ideals

That was rather non-specific.

[PixieStix]

That was rather non-specific.

No it wasn't. Kathianne expressed exactly what I would have

I refuse to teach a non teachable. I tried for years and all it got us was Obama.

[PixieStix]

By the very nature of control through regulations. The elite protects the elite.

And everyone else gets crumbs, like dogs.

Let them eat cake

[Drummond]

Homeland should be done away with. Repetitious of what needs to be done. Too intrusive.

I'm not taking b as it, you've stated your preference for big government for the ends you wish.

I disagree.

Your argument - I'm putting this diplomatically ! - is grossly unfair.

I have stated NO preference for Big Government. I recognise its practicality in certain situations, and I state this is so.

And it is. That's just a fact of life.

You say you want Homeland Security to be done away with. Very well. How would YOU assure America's security, in the face of the terrorist threats ranged against it, to anything like the same level of effectiveness, through WHAT alternative means ?

[fj1200]

No it wasn't. Kathianne expressed exactly what I would have

I refuse to teach a non teachable. I tried for years and all it got us was Obama.

:rolleyes: Discussion isn't advanced with generic cliches.

[gabosaurus]

If we are going to make lame comparisons...

http://americanbuilt.us/images/war-criminals/hitler-vs-bush.jpg

[Balu]

Yeah I'm well worse than Hitler. Spot on.
Really? Or you didn't get a point? The thread is dedicated to comparison of the consequences. You want to compare? :laugh:

[Drummond]

If we are going to make lame comparisons...

http://americanbuilt.us/images/war-criminals/hitler-vs-bush.jpg

Completely pathetic.

You're comparing Hitler's tyranny with measures taken by GW Bush to safeguard American lives !! More ... you're even trying to rubbish Bush's integrity, even to the point of finding a way of being kinder to terrorists than they could possibly deserve.

Point #3, for example ... 'Scapegoat terrorists'. WHAT terrorists have been 'scapegoated' .. ?????

And this so-called 'media driven fear campaign'. Are you saying that America faces no terrorist threat ? Did 9/11 never happen ? Was it all just a Hollywood production, in LeftieWorld .. ????

I'm not going to waste too much time on you, Gabby. The simple fact is that the President, as is true of the US Government, has certain duties where the American people are concerned ... and does it get any more fundamental TO those duties, than to protect life and limb of American citizens, to protect against enemies meaning harm to them ??

If GW Bush had never taken the actions he did, there'd have been loud calls, actually insistent clamourings, to have him impeached. You know it, I know it, everyone here must at least strongly suspect it. AND ... who'd have been clamouring the loudest, Gabby, IF NOT HIS LEFTIE OPPOSITION ?

Bush would have had NO RIGHT WHATEVER to be derelict in his duties ! AND NEITHER WAS HE.He did all he could to help protect your nation, once the existence of the threat against it was a proven fact, and he did so in the most effective of ways that could be devised.

It completely astonishes me that there are even RIGHT WINGERS who'll be critical of his DOING HIS JOB. And, in the process, taking measures that, through their effectiveness, have warded off terrorist attacks against the American mainland ever since.

That the Left will attack a President for doing his job is a 'given', if he happens to be a product of, and representing, the GOP. But, to do this in a way that attacks him for keeping Americans safe, to the best of his ability ??

Utterly SHAMEFUL.

There are times when only Big Government solutions will serve. It isn't about preference; that's just a Leftie-inspired red herring. It's about doing what you MUST, for the sake of - as in this case - safeguarding peoples' lives !!

To put it another way: since when was it a RIGHT WING thing to do, to give terrorists needless, wholly avoidable, victories ??? Because anything less than the maximum possible efforts to thwart terrorists does them such favours.

And ... if it happened, if an authority worked to LESSEN its defences against an enemy ... well, you tell me ... wouldn't that be treasonous ?

Think about it.

I want someone to prove to me that there was, and is, a 'Small Government' equivalent to the 'Big Government' solution to fighting terrorism, and keeping you safe in your beds. One that'll be as effective, or more effective, than what's already in place. If that can't be done ... then accept that I AM RIGHT IN MY VIEWS AND APPROACH.

[Balu]

If we are going to make lame comparisons...

http://americanbuilt.us/images/war-criminals/hitler-vs-bush.jpg

http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/scratch_one-s_head.gif

[Kathianne]

Completely pathetic.

You're comparing Hitler's tyranny with measures taken by GW Bush to safeguard American lives !! More ... you're even trying to rubbish Bush's integrity, even to the point of finding a way of being kinder to terrorists than they could possibly deserve.

Point #3, for example ... 'Scapegoat terrorists'. WHAT terrorists have been 'scapegoated' .. ?????

And this so-called 'media driven fear campaign'. Are you saying that America faces no terrorist threat ? Did 9/11 never happen ? Was it all just a Hollywood production, in LeftieWorld .. ????

I'm not going to waste too much time on you, Gabby. The simple fact is that the President, as is true of the US Government, has certain duties where the American people are concerned ... and does it get any more fundamental TO those duties, than to protect life and limb of American citizens, to protect against enemies meaning harm to them ??

If GW Bush had never taken the actions he did, there'd have been loud calls, actually insistent clamourings, to have him impeached. You know it, I know it, everyone here must at least strongly suspect it. AND ... who'd have been clamouring the loudest, Gabby, IF NOT HIS LEFTIE OPPOSITION ?

Bush would have had NO RIGHT WHATEVER to be derelict in his duties ! AND NEITHER WAS HE.He did all he could to help protect your nation, once the existence of the threat against it was a proven fact, and he did so in the most effective of ways that could be devised.

It completely astonishes me that there are even RIGHT WINGERS who'll be critical of his DOING HIS JOB. And, in the process, taking measures that, through their effectiveness, have warded off terrorist attacks against the American mainland ever since.

That the Left will attack a President for doing his job is a 'given', if he happens to be a product of, and representing, the GOP. But, to do this in a way that attacks him for keeping Americans safe, to the best of his ability ??

Utterly SHAMEFUL.

There are times when only Big Government solutions will serve. It isn't about preference; that's just a Leftie-inspired red herring. It's about doing what you MUST, for the sake of - as in this case - safeguarding peoples' lives !!

To put it another way: since when was it a RIGHT WING thing to do, to give terrorists needless, wholly avoidable, victories ??? Because anything less than the maximum possible efforts to thwart terrorists does them such favours.

And ... if it happened, if an authority worked to LESSEN its defences against an enemy ... well, you tell me ... wouldn't that be treasonous ?

Think about it.

I want someone to prove to me that there was, and is, a 'Small Government' equivalent to the 'Big Government' solution to fighting terrorism, and keeping you safe in your beds. One that'll be as effective, or more effective, than what's already in place. If that can't be done ... then accept that I AM RIGHT IN MY VIEWS AND APPROACH.

No one was atguing for anything but federal for war. Keeping the federal under contro, yes.

[Gunny]

I think this is so accurate.

http://moonbattery.com/graphics/hitler-abortion.jpg

Hitler WAS a progressive leftist.

[Black Diamond]

I'm totally pro-life, have been forever. I don't do false dichotomies though. I do attempt to stay consistent in what I believe to be right, including 'conservative' as opposed to big government.
So a correct thread title may have been " Pro choicers less bad than Hitler"

[Drummond]

No one was atguing for anything but federal for war. Keeping the federal under contro, yes.

I'm sorry, but your reply isn't understood.

In any case, you've not replied to my post #34. You have said that you want Homeland Security 'done away with'. I've asked you, in consideration of why you object to it, what you'd replace it with that was 'Small Government'. Do you have an answer for me ?

As for your current comment, that of 'keeping the federal under control', does this mean that you want to curb their activities ? Only allow them LESS power, LESS autonomy, to do their jobs, and to do them well ? Do I correctly understand this from your comment ?

I can't help but wonder: the victims of 9/11, those waiting to die on or in the Twin Towers, from the terrorist attacks of that day ... would they have ever approved of a curbing of autonomy exercised against those who are helping to stop a repeat of such an attack ?

It's possible that you doubt that you're on a war footing with Islamic terrorists. Even leaving aside why you might think such a thing, tell me, do the terrorists ranged against you think that ?? Aren't they dedicated to doing your country harm ? Won't they, given enough opportunity to, happily launch as many future attacks as they can ? Do you DOUBT this is true ?

If not, why rein back the abilities of those tasked to defend you ?

[Drummond]

Hitler WAS a progressive leftist.:clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Kathianne]

I'm sorry, but your reply isn't understood.

In any case, you've not replied to my post #34. You have said that you want Homeland Security 'done away with'. I've asked you, in consideration of why you object to it, what you'd replace it with that was 'Small Government'. Do you have an answer for me ?

As for your current comment, that of 'keeping the federal under control', does this mean that you want to curb their activities ? Only allow them LESS power, LESS autonomy, to do their jobs, and to do them well ? Do I correctly understand this from your comment ?

I can't help but wonder: the victims of 9/11, those waiting to die on or in the Twin Towers, from the terrorist attacks of that day ... would they have ever approved of a curbing of autonomy exercised against those who are helping to stop a repeat of such an attack ?

It's possible that you doubt that you're on a war footing with Islamic terrorists. Even leaving aside why you might think such a thing, tell me, do the terrorists ranged against you think that ?? Aren't they dedicated to doing your country harm ? Won't they, given enough opportunity to, happily launch as many future attacks as they can ? Do you DOUBT this is true ?

If not, why rein back the abilities of those tasked to defend you ?

I'm on break, on phone, not good at texting. I said fed should do as stated in Constitution, no usurping. Defense is theirs. Homeland Security is not necessary. There is nothing to show they 'are connecting the dots' any better. Indeed with more layers, probably less.

But you are likely to say, 'throw more money and people at the problem.' Much like schools and war on drugs.

[Abbey Marie]

Indeed, he shot his dog. I'm pretty sure the 'wife' aka as cover for his homosexuality or non-sexuality thingy.

Perhaps a severe case of ED? :eek:

[Gunny]

I need to unhinge my anger. Now if any of y'all want to get in line to kick this SOB's ass I got tickets for sale. I had to go inside to keep from killing his simple ass. He's trying t use this baby to control the mother.

And yeah I'm pissed.

[Drummond]

I'm on break, on phone, not good at texting. I said fed should do as stated in Constitution, no usurping. Defense is theirs. Homeland Security is not necessary. There is nothing to show they 'are connecting the dots' any better. Indeed with more layers, probably less.

But you are likely to say, 'throw more money and people at the problem.' Much like schools and war on drugs.

If you're right, then why is it that Homeland Security even exists ? And do they, and the 'Feds', never talk to each other, swap information, liaise ?

I don't know where you get 'you are likely to say, 'throw more money and people at the problem.'' ... from. I'd just say this, though .. is there any such thing as too much security ? If even just one additional person dies because Homeland Security doesn't do its job, that's one too many.

You are, whether you like it or not, on a war footing with the world's terrorists. You haven't asked for that war, but for as long as they remain a threat, the truth is that you're stuck with that reality. Cutting back on any response to it just doesn't make any sense to me.

[bullypulpit]

I think this is so accurate.

http://moonbattery.com/graphics/hitler-abortion.jpg


The first one to use a Hitler analogy automatically loses the argument.

[NightTrain]

The first one to use a Hitler analogy automatically loses the argument.


If the shoe fits, feel free to lace that bitch up.

[Black Diamond]

The first one to use a Hitler analogy automatically loses the argument.

Horseshit...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The first one to use a Hitler analogy automatically loses the argument.

That is so often said when the comparison is fully justified. Also said by those that never like the darkness of that monster used to highlight their own stinking darkness.
When it is justifiably used , it is a purpose well served IMHO....
LEFTISTS, LIBS AND DEMS ARE ALL ASSHATS THAT FIT IN WELL WITH A HITLER MENTALITY. --Tyr

[gabosaurus]

...
LEFTISTS, LIBS AND DEMS ARE ALL ASSHATS THAT FIT IN WELL WITH A HITLER MENTALITY. --Tyr

You might add Thatcherites to that list.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bJbeeKBPCU

[Kathianne]

If you're right, then why is it that Homeland Security even exists ? And do they, and the 'Feds', never talk to each other, swap information, liaise ?

I don't know where you get 'you are likely to say, 'throw more money and people at the problem.'' ... from. I'd just say this, though .. is there any such thing as too much security ? If even just one additional person dies because Homeland Security doesn't do its job, that's one too many.

You are, whether you like it or not, on a war footing with the world's terrorists. You haven't asked for that war, but for as long as they remain a threat, the truth is that you're stuck with that reality. Cutting back on any response to it just doesn't make any sense to me.

I'm sorry if this comes off condescending, but you don't fully understand our very confusing government any better than I understand your unwritten constitution. Indeed, neither of us needs to. I don't however say what your government SHOULD do.

Homeland Security is a cabinet level department, wholly part of executive branch of Federal Government. It was created for admirable reasons that seemed logical immediately following 9/11. Basically it's supposed to function as the center of intelligence gathering. Yet, the issues with CIA, FBI, Secret Service, NSA, and about 100 other lesser known departments are still not able to connect all the dots, nor by their own admissions, deal with emerging extremists here or abroad. With Homeland Security we have the FBI all over the world and CIA working here as well as abroad. It's a waste and leads to less accountability.

Regardless of whether government, businesses, corporations, the more layers and people, the more turf wars and less cooperation. Businesses though tend to break into divisions to curtail some of that effect.

[LongTermGuy]

I'm not getting the "Wow" thingy.



....I get it Often...and "understand" why and who gives it....:laugh:



:coffee:

[Drummond]

You might add Thatcherites to that list.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bJbeeKBPCU

Then again, you might not.

Lefties hate her with a passion ... EVEN the mere MEMORY of her, after she died ... because she was so very effective at countering their sabotaging ways. She knew what she had to do, she did it, and the Left hate the fact that she succeeded, AND won election victories on the back of it.

It says something really vile about the Left, doesn't it, when they have to still stoop to trying to trample on her memory, long after she's dead !!

[Drummond]

I'm sorry if this comes off condescending, but you don't fully understand our very confusing government any better than I understand your unwritten constitution. Indeed, neither of us needs to. I don't however say what your government SHOULD do.

Not at all .. I'm content to be corrected, when there's good cause for it. And you do have a point.


Homeland Security is a cabinet level department, wholly part of executive branch of Federal Government. It was created for admirable reasons that seemed logical immediately following 9/11. Basically it's supposed to function as the center of intelligence gathering. Yet, the issues with CIA, FBI, Secret Service, NSA, and about 100 other lesser known departments are still not able to connect all the dots, nor by their own admissions, deal with emerging extremists here or abroad. With Homeland Security we have the FBI all over the world and CIA working here as well as abroad. It's a waste and leads to less accountability.

This all sounds like bad organisational planning. As you say ... dots not connected. Failures, from your description, seem not to come from the PLAN to centralise functions, so that the head knows what all its limbs are doing, but just the failure to make it all work smoothly.


Regardless of whether government, businesses, corporations, the more layers and people, the more turf wars and less cooperation. Businesses though tend to break into divisions to curtail some of that effect.

Be that as it may - and maybe I'm betraying my lack of understanding of basic American systems - don't you have an infrastructure where computer link-ups bridge gaps such as this ? Can't Homeland Security DEMAND that this be fixed, and cite security needs to get it done ? Over here, we have people demanding to know why computer databases don't just talk to each other, and centralise intelligence-gathering functions so that optimum control- efficiency is achieved with the minimum of fuss ..

Here, we have GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters, aka 'The Doughnut'). It's advanced technical capacity to monitor ALL emails, ALL telephone calls happening in all locations within the UK, and well beyond, is well known. Indeed, we even pass some of our intelligence-gathering material over to the US, to supplement your own capacities. The only impediment to their doing all of this is whether they are allowed to go that far.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You might add Thatcherites to that list.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bJbeeKBPCU

THATCHER had nothing in common with those vermin.
She wielded great power to stop a cancer there but she could not cut it out completely. After she left office it came back tenfold in power--thus we have a nation that will soon fall the to vermin that its damn leftists invited in.
Unless they immediately start deporting all muslims they will fall. I predict that in as little as 10 years possibly but certainly by 20 years time from now, the old Britain will no longer exist.
It will become a stinking sharia hell hole. Sad but a surefire reality...
France matches the same insane path!!!
As do we!!! Tyr

[Drummond]

THATCHER had nothing in common with those vermin.
She wielded great power to stop a cancer there but she could not cut it out completely. After she left office it came back tenfold in power--thus we have a nation that will soon fall the to vermin that its damn leftists invited in.
Unless they immediately start deporting all muslims they will fall. I predict that in as little as 10 years possibly but certainly by 20 years time from now, the old Britain will no longer exist.
It will become a stinking sharia hell hole. Sad but a surefire reality...
France matches the same insane path!!!
As do we!!! Tyr

Well - to be fair, Tyr, and limiting this to the immediate problems pertinent to Mrs Thatcher's era, which she was tasked with remedying, since she couldn't foresee modern-day Islamic terrorism .. your description of what happened when she left Office isn't, within that context, quite accurate. Most of the laws she introduced still exist, and they still curb Trade Union freedoms to enough of an extent to make the chaos of the late Seventies nearly impossible to replicate. For example ... secondary picketing and flying pickets. It's all still illegal, made so by Margaret Thatcher's Government. Before this was introduced, we saw chaotic 'mob rule' scenes outside places of work, with busloads of pickets ferried in from all sorts of places, with the one aim to intimidate people into staying on strike, whether OR NOT they wanted to remain on strike.

See, from the UK Government's own Website ...

https://www.gov.uk/industrial-action-strikes/going-on-strike-and-picketing


Secondary picketing

You mustn’t picket other companies whose employers aren’t in a dispute with your union - this is called secondary picketing. For example, it’s illegal to go to your employer’s customers to convince them not to handle your employer’s goods.

Flying pickets

Flying pickets are groups of striking workers that move from one workplace to another to picket them. Usually flying pickets are illegal - you can only join a picket line at your workplace.

Trade union reps can be on picket lines at different workplaces if they’re responsible for organising workers in those workplaces.
Before Mrs Thatcher, all of this was legal. Consequently .... here's an example of the mob rule that a Big Government approach had to fix ... AND DULY DID, ultimately, through the power of the rule of law ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6XlKzxCcE4

What ELSE but Government intervention could have put a stop to this disgusting behaviour ?? Not a preferred action. But, as the clip shows, a very NECESSARY one.

[Kathianne]

Not at all .. I'm content to be corrected, when there's good cause for it. And you do have a point.



This all sounds like bad organisational planning. As you say ... dots not connected. Failures, from your description, seem not to come from the PLAN to centralise functions, so that the head knows what all its limbs are doing, but just the failure to make it all work smoothly.



Be that as it may - and maybe I'm betraying my lack of understanding of basic American systems - don't you have an infrastructure where computer link-ups bridge gaps such as this ? Can't Homeland Security DEMAND that this be fixed, and cite security needs to get it done ? Over here, we have people demanding to know why computer databases don't just talk to each other, and centralise intelligence-gathering functions so that optimum control- efficiency is achieved with the minimum of fuss ..

Here, we have GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters, aka 'The Doughnut'). It's advanced technical capacity to monitor ALL emails, ALL telephone calls happening in all locations within the UK, and well beyond, is well known. Indeed, we even pass some of our intelligence-gathering material over to the US, to supplement your own capacities. The only impediment to their doing all of this is whether they are allowed to go that far.

Our government, like the country-actually moreso-is massive. DHS has 240,000 employees. http://www.dhs.gov/about-dhs

I'd have assumed that included all the agencies that fall under it, such as CIA, etc. But maybe not? There's an organizational chart at above link, it's PDF so can't c & p.

There's no doubt that our intelligence has the capacity to do as you say above-they are prohibited though from much of that, without warrants. The most they can do is collect data, not texts, without warrant. Some of that has recently been further curtailed.

Even our ijit representatives understand that Americans will crushingly limit government, if government doesn't bring itself under some control. Your being OK, with 'Big Government' would make you a liberal minded person here. Seriously.

[Kathianne]

Here's some perspectives that are close to mine own:

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/abolish-department-homeland-security

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/17/8047461/dhs-problems

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well - to be fair, Tyr, and limiting this to the immediate problems pertinent to Mrs Thatcher's era, which she was tasked with remedying, since she couldn't foresee modern-day Islamic terrorism .. your description of what happened when she left Office isn't, within that context, quite accurate. Most of the laws she introduced still exist, and they still curb Trade Union freedoms to enough of an extent to make the chaos of the late Seventies nearly impossible to replicate. For example ... secondary picketing and flying pickets. It's all still illegal, made so by Margaret Thatcher's Government. Before this was introduced, we saw chaotic 'mob rule' scenes outside places of work, with busloads of pickets ferried in from all sorts of places, with the one aim to intimidate people into staying on strike, whether OR NOT they wanted to remain on strike.

See, from the UK Government's own Website ...

https://www.gov.uk/industrial-action-strikes/going-on-strike-and-picketing


Before Mrs Thatcher, all of this was legal. Consequently .... here's an example of the mob rule that a Big Government approach had to fix ... AND DULY DID, ultimately, through the power of the rule of law ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6XlKzxCcE4

What ELSE but Government intervention could have put a stop to this disgusting behaviour ?? Not a preferred action. But, as the clip shows, a very NECESSARY one.

That misses my intended point about Thatcher my friend in regards to my saying she could not cut out the cancer. That cancer(leftists) brought in the very menace and destructor(muslims) that will demolish the nation.
She indeed had to concentrate on saving the nation from the leftists at that time, with no way to see or even deal with the grave future threat muslim immigration was to present..-Tyr

[Drummond]

Our government, like the country-actually moreso-is massive. DHS has 240,000 employees. http://www.dhs.gov/about-dhs

I'd have assumed that included all the agencies that fall under it, such as CIA, etc. But maybe not? There's an organizational chart at above link, it's PDF so can't c & p.

There's no doubt that our intelligence has the capacity to do as you say above-they are prohibited though from much of that, without warrants. The most they can do is collect data, not texts, without warrant. Some of that has recently been further curtailed.

Even our ijit representatives understand that Americans will crushingly limit government, if government doesn't bring itself under some control. Your being OK, with 'Big Government' would make you a liberal minded person here. Seriously.

Much of what you describe is also true (or effectively so) for this side of the Pond. However, the drive to centralise everything is much greater here than in the US. This may have much to do with the fact that we're a smaller island nation.

BUT ... WHY do you persist with saying that I'm 'OK' with 'Big Government' .. ?? I see it as a necessary evil, to be invoked as and when it's really NECESSARY to do so.

Margaret Thatcher was - without the smallest doubt - a hardline Conservative politician, far more so than we'd been used to in the UK up to that point. But, she was a pragmatist, dedicated to her sense of reality .. and she saw Big Government solutions to problems as necessary to invoke, when they WERE necessary. To her, that end justified the means, and she was always completely unapologetic about what she did.

Now - you tell me - who, in America, views Mrs Thatcher as 'a liberal minded person' .. ? Yet, she was realistic enough to know what needed to be done, when it was needed .. and she proceeded without hesitation, or regret, wielding whatever extent of power it took to achieve her aims of the moment.

What I don't understand about the American Right, is how it is that you ever put preferences above even the necessary levels of realism you need to recognise and deal with issues ? I thought that being wedded to propagandist, unyielding stances in defiance of the demands of reality, was a LEFTIE trait ??

There are times when only a Big Government solution will suffice ! That's simple truth. Time and again, British history has proven that beyond question. Curbing Trade Union vandalism was something only able to be fixed through the rule of law, requiring a heavy-handed Governmental approach. This is simple truth ... THERE WAS NO OTHER WAY.

To say otherwise is to deny reality. In Government, you do what you MUST to best serve the people who put you there. If Government opts out of its responsibilities, it isn't fit to govern in the first place.

[Kathianne]

Much of what you describe is also true (or effectively so) for this side of the Pond. However, the drive to centralise everything is much greater here than in the US. This may have much to do with the fact that we're a smaller island nation.

BUT ... WHY do you persist with saying that I'm 'OK' with 'Big Government' .. ?? I see it as a necessary evil, to be invoked as and when it's really NECESSARY to do so.

Margaret Thatcher was - without the smallest doubt - a hardline Conservative politician, far more so than we'd been used to in the UK up to that point. But, she was a pragmatist, dedicated to her sense of reality .. and she saw Big Government solutions to problems as necessary to invoke, when they WERE necessary. To her, that end justified the means, and she was always completely unapologetic about what she did.

Now - you tell me - who, in America, views Mrs Thatcher as 'a liberal minded person' .. ? Yet, she was realistic enough to know what needed to be done, when it was needed .. and she proceeded without hesitation, or regret.

What I don't understand about the American Right, is how it is that you ever put preferences above even the necessary levels of realism you need to recognise and deal with issues ? I thought that being wedded to propagandist, unyielding stances in defiance of the demands of reality, was a LEFTIE trait ??

There are times when only a Big Government solution will suffice ! That's simple truth. Time and again, British history has proven that beyond question. Curbing Trade Union vandalism was something only able to be fixed through the rule of law, requiring a heavy-handed Governmental approach. This is simple truth ... THERE WAS NO OTHER WAY.

To say otherwise is to deny reality. In Government, you do what you MUST to best serve the people who put you there. If Government opts out of its responsibilities, it isn't fit to govern in the first place.

As I said, the only areas where the federal government should have dominion are those given to it by the Constitution, those not given are retained by the states.

Will we ever go back to that cleanly? I highly doubt it, but it should be the goal. From what I can glean from your extended discussions on unions and Thatcher, she just went further than Reagan with PATCO or Truman with the coal miners. Reagan broke that union, Truman reined the other in. Neither would attempt that kind of control that Thatcher did, it would have caused non-union people to rise up. Nope, our unions were never as strong as yours, though there were decades with violence. It was our markets and businesses that kept the unions from becoming strong.

Now the union bosses and politicians are joined by elections and PACs. There's reasons why Walker is doing as well as he is, he's seen as anti-union. But that was as governor. ;)

I suggest you take a skim at those links I sent regarding DHS, they are food for thought when discussing safety and costs.

[Drummond]

That misses my intended point about Thatcher my friend in regards to my saying she could not cut out the cancer. That cancer(leftists) brought in the very menace and destructor(muslims) that will demolish the nation.
She indeed had to concentrate on saving the nation from the leftists at that time, with no way to see or even deal with the grave future threat muslim immigration was to present..-Tyr

Yes, I'm well aware of it, Tyr. I wasn't at all sure how it could have been pertinent to Mrs Thatcher's era to discuss Muslim incursions, since only a fairly small fraction of present-day levels had reached our shores in her time, which was my own point, too. Besides ... what we now know of their terrorism was NOT known of, back then. It was never her problem.

The UK was swamped with immigrants, including the Muslim variety, only long after she ceased to be our Prime Minister. After her time, we had John Major as our PM, who served his own term as a Conservative Prime Minister. After him, came Tony Blair ... who only THEN ushered in a sufficiently Left-wing Government with the intention to open the floodgates to Muslim incursions in any sizeable way.

Post-1997, several years after Mrs Thatcher's departure, was the time of great increases in immigration, encouraged by Blair's Labour Government, and more so still under Gordon Brown later on.

What people don't get about Blair is that, as genuine as he was about fighting Islamic terrorism, he was a main proponent of the lie that 'Islam is a religion of peace'. He's always stuck to that, and his laxness on immigration mirrors that apparent 'belief'. And a sizeable portion of the blame for the UK's current issues lies fairly and squarely with HIM, and HIS Government.

[Drummond]

As I said, the only areas where the federal government should have dominion are those given to it by the Constitution, those not given are retained by the states.

Will we ever go back to that cleanly? I highly doubt it, but it should be the goal. From what I can glean from your extended discussions on unions and Thatcher, she just went further than Reagan with PATCO or Truman with the coal miners. Reagan broke that union, Truman reined the other in. Neither would attempt that kind of control that Thatcher did, it would have caused non-union people to rise up. Nope, our unions were never as strong as yours, though there were decades with violence. It was our markets and businesses that kept the unions from becoming strong.

Now the union bosses and politicians are joined by elections and PACs. There's reasons why Walker is doing as well as he is, he's seen as anti-union. But that was as governor. ;)

I suggest you take a skim at those links I sent regarding DHS, they are food for thought when discussing safety and costs.

It's after 5AM here, so I'll maybe come back to this when I've had some sleep !

I'd say right now that Reagan may have had his own Union problems, but I doubt that he had an entire Union CULTURE to defeat. In the late 1970's, our Unions were used to riding roughshod over even the most basic of civil behaviours. They had to be broken of that entire mentality. Only sweeping powers could do it.

Even on the very morning of her first election victory, a leading Unionist figure went on the BBC to insist that Mrs Thatcher had to work with the Unions, 'or else'. To her immense credit, she totally ignored him, and proceeded to whittle away at the basis of that arrogance so that our Society ultimately became a fully viable one once more.

She did what she HAD to do. It's that simple.

Maybe here, it's different to America. We have no 'three month cooling off period' here, we never have had.

Anyway - I'm signing off for now.

[fj1200]

You might add Thatcherites to that list.

Noooooooooowwwww you've done it.

:martian:

[Drummond]

Noooooooooowwwww you've done it.

:martian:

Well, as the self-styled 'One True Thatcherite', you should be in there, pitching a robust defence of the Iron Lady. Wild horses shouldn't be able to stop you.

But of course, you're doing nothing of the kind.

That's because you're a fraud.

[fj1200]

Well, as the self-styled 'One True Thatcherite', you should be in there, pitching a robust defence of the Iron Lady. Wild horses shouldn't be able to stop you.

But of course, you're doing nothing of the kind.

That's because you're a fraud.

You do the blustery sputtering bit and I'll ignore someone who doesn't care about what she posted nor what you post back. Besides I'll just defend small-government conservatism against those who don't really understand it.

[Drummond]

You do the blustery sputtering bit and I'll ignore someone who doesn't care about what she posted nor what you post back. Besides I'll just defend small-government conservatism against those who don't really understand it.

Doesn't matter whether she cares about what she's posted about, or not. If I feel like replying, I'll do so. What's more, I won't seek your approval beforehand.

As for just defending small-government Conservatism ... your feeling that you have to include this is just more proof of your fraudulence. As 'The One True Thatcherite', you should be a stronger adherent, and defender, of what she did when in Government, than anyone else, even including me !! Yet .... you do nothing to concede that Mrs Thatcher was right, on occasions, to exercise Big Government solutions to problems in society. You likewise fail to acknowledge, much less defend, that she was NEVER apologetic about doing so.

She simply DID what she HAD TO DO.

But, supposed 'Thatcherite' that you 'are', you couldn't care less about that. The real truth is that you are her ideological enemy, just as you are against other Conservatives, and you're using whatever excuse you can latch on to at any one time, in order to formulate a basis for attacking them.

You're a complete fraud. It's totally obvious.

[Kathianne]

Hitler WAS a progressive leftist.

Indeed he was. He was also an evolutionary Darwinist, thus his comparison with Sanger's PP has one connection of making them like each other.

[Gunny]

You do the blustery sputtering bit and I'll ignore someone who doesn't care about what she posted nor what you post back. Besides I'll just defend small-government conservatism against those who don't really understand it.

Why you always have to be ragging on drummond?

[Drummond]

Why you always have to be ragging on drummond?

It's partly because he enjoys it.

More annoying to him is the fact that I see right through him. Nothing he says fools me.

FJ is an ideological opponent of the type he claims NOT to be. He's a 'Thatcherite', so he claims, yet won't stand full-square behind her philosophies and her decisions when she was tested within Government (in fact, to some extent, he happily distances himself from them). He attacked a key Conservative British Government manifesto pledge, on another thread. He has proven himself loyal to the Leftie Greek Government's own, original, objectives on their economy, those they 'committed themselves to' when seeking power .. and he's been more loyal to them than even their own Party proved to be !!

And he doesn't hesitate to attack not only me here, but any other Conservative daring to question his bona fides. Or, just if he's in the mood to do so ...

He's a fraud. He knows I know it, he knows he has no way of proving otherwise. He even knows that, over time, his Leftie thinking will betray him more and more, and that I'm alert to that reality. So, of course, he'll attack me any and every way he can.

[Gunny]

The first one to use a Hitler analogy automatically loses the argument.

Yeah? So what's that say out you lefties that love to try and call him conservative? Y'all love to drag him up and call him something he never was.

[Drummond]

Yeah? So what's that say out you lefties that love to try and call him conservative? Y'all love to drag him up and call him something he never was.

I once took a look at Hitler's 25-point manifesto (the one he had to dream up, before he'd managed to establish his dictatorship). Of those 25 policy commitments, I found a good TWELVE of them were at least as hardline, if not more so, than a typically hardline set of commitments would be from British SOCIALISTS. Particularly damning was Hitler's commitment to wholesale Nationalisation, that of grabbing companies and industries and enslaving them to State ownership, crushing capitalistic entrepreneurialism. Hitler's programme was more aggressively done than any hardline Socialist Government, here, ever attempted.

People overlook that Hitler had an uphill struggle to get the funding he needed to build his Party in its early days. He approached businesses for funding .. but the Nazis were one Party they didn't want to contribute to. It was seen as too Socialist to be trusted.

How right they were.

[Gunny]

Fuck Hitler. That dude had a pair and he ran down main street in Carentan with a Tommy gun. 101st Airborne.

[fj1200]

If I feel like replying, I'll do so. What's more, I won't seek your approval beforehand.

As for just defending small-government Conservatism ... your feeling that you have to include this is just more proof of your fraudulence. ...

You're a complete fraud. It's totally obvious.

I never said you couldn't do it, I just said you're wasting your time. And I'll just go ahead and keep on defending small government conservatism as I do every day. It galls you that you're imagination keeps letting you down.


Why you always have to be ragging on drummond?

I posted to Gabby.


More annoying to him is the fact that I see right through him. Nothing he says fools me.

I laugh at your ignorance.

[Drummond]

I never said you couldn't do it, I just said you're wasting your time. And I'll just go ahead and keep on defending small government conservatism as I do every day. It galls you that you're imagination keeps letting you down.

In the face of evident truth, who needs 'imagination' ?

Defending small government conservatism puts you at odds with your 'One True Thatcherite' claim for yourself. Margaret wasn't a fan of Big Government, but neither did she, in truth, reject it in terms of her own conduct. Indeed, history repeatedly shows that she PRACTISED it.

You say you defend small government conservatism EVERY DAY. Very well. In that case, you prove yourself to be a FRAUD every day.

I suppose, in a very perverse sense, this could be you trying to show us the truth about yourself ? It's a bizarre way of doing it. But, still ... keep proving what that is.

You really have no sense of shame at all, do you ?

[fj1200]

You say you defend small government conservatism EVERY DAY. Very well. In that case, you prove yourself to be a FRAUD every day.

Now WTF are you on about?

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/brittany_todd1/are%20you%20on%20crack_zpsirdvtamo.gif

[Kathianne]

Now WTF are you on about?

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/brittany_todd1/are%20you%20on%20crack_zpsirdvtamo.gif

If I understand correctly, pushing small government puts you at odds with Thatcher.

[Gunny]

I never said you couldn't do it, I just said you're wasting your time. And I'll just go ahead and keep on defending small government conservatism as I do every day. It galls you that you're imagination keeps letting you down.



I posted to Gabby.



I laugh at your ignorance.

You spend an inordinate amount of time needling Drummond. Who the Hell even knows what a Thatcherite is? :laugh:

[Gunny]

In the face of evident truth, who needs 'imagination' ?

Defending small government conservatism puts you at odds with your 'One True Thatcherite' claim for yourself. Margaret wasn't a fan of Big Government, but neither did she, in truth, reject it in terms of her own conduct. Indeed, history repeatedly shows that she PRACTISED it.

You say you defend small government conservatism EVERY DAY. Very well. In that case, you prove yourself to be a FRAUD every day.

I suppose, in a very perverse sense, this could be you trying to show us the truth about yourself ? It's a bizarre way of doing it. But, still ... keep proving what that is.

You really have no sense of shame at all, do you ?

She couldn't have rejected it anymore than Reagan could have. You ever tried to get a government employee fired? Takes an act of Congress and 3 magic tricks.

Want to cut government? The DJ's call the beltway around DC the ring around the Congo. Get rid of about 3/4 of those black slugs entrenched there, doing nothing but talking shit and watching ME work.

[fj1200]

If I understand correctly, pushing small government puts you at odds with Thatcher.

As would pushing small government put one at odds with Reagan in some respects. I think anyone being honest will not claim that Reagan, Bush, Thatcher, etc. (anyone since Coolidge anyway) never did anything that was "big government" but to attempt to cast those actions they did take as conservative because they did it is intellectually dishonest.

Nevertheless an example of small government Thatcherism was her union actions on the whole IMO. UK Labor markets were far less regulated after her time in office as before and as drummond will point out no one is talking seriously about rolling those back.


You spend an inordinate amount of time needling Drummond. Who the Hell even knows what a Thatcherite is? :laugh:

To some you can make it up as you go. :scared: A cursory look at Reaganomics and Thatcherism both show an ideology based on lower taxes, less regulation, monetary stability, and free markets but the rub is what they may have done in a vacuum vs. what was done in the real world.

[Gunny]

As would pushing small government put one at odds with Reagan in some respects. I think anyone being honest will not claim that Reagan, Bush, Thatcher, etc. (anyone since Coolidge anyway) never did anything that was "big government" but to attempt to cast those actions they did take as conservative because they did it is intellectually dishonest.

Nevertheless an example of small government Thatcherism was her union actions on the whole IMO. UK Labor markets were far less regulated after her time in office as before and as drummond will point out no one is talking seriously about rolling those back.



To some you can make it up as you go. :scared: A cursory look at Reaganomics and Thatcherism both show an ideology based on lower taxes, less regulation, monetary stability, and free markets but the rub is what they may have done in a vacuum vs. what was done in the real world.

The ideology has to suit the country. Britain no longer has the means to support free market trade.

All I really remember about Thatcher is we were on standby for 2 months straight in case we had to bail her ass out of the Falklands. Ronald wasn't going to let THAT happen.

It's kind of funny in hindsight. Brit Marines are as hard corps as it gets. And we were going to go save them?:laugh:

[Drummond]

If I understand correctly, pushing small government puts you at odds with Thatcher.

Exactly the point - thanks, Kathianne.

FJ insists he's a staunch supporter of small Government. Mrs Thatcher, on the one hand, believed as an article of faith that people should be as self-reliant as possible. But on the other, she didn't hesitate for a second in applying Big Government solutions to problems she saw as fixable by that means.

When it came to Trade Unions, that methodology was central to her way of stopping their vandalism. She curbed their right to congregate in picket lines of greater than six people at a time .. any more, and at least theoretically, those indulging in an 'illegally' large line could be arrested. Likewise, secondary picketing and 'flying pickets' (the practice of mobs of pickets being transported at a moment's notice to intimidate a workforce into not entering their workplaces) ... this was legal, until Margaret outlawed it. As a result, mob scenes such as Grunwick were prevented overnight.

As she saw it, Unions couldn't be trusted with the freedons they'd previously enjoyed, since they used them for wholly destructive purposes. Margaret used the full weight of the law to outlaw all the freedoms she saw as presenting society with avoidable issues.

And, she never, but never, regretted any of it. She was convinced her solutions were the correct ones to apply. It was simple, by her reckoning ... someone abuses freedoms, threatening harm as a consequence, then the State can dispense with them.

NOW .. FJ, ridiculously, bills himself as 'The One True Thatcherite' .. previously, 'The Ultimate Thatcherite'. By that - FRAUDULENT - reckoning, he, of all people in existence (!!!) should be completely loyal to all that Mrs Thatcher stood for.

But, HE'S NOT. He actually opposes a cornerstone of all she stood for ... a non-tolerance of anyone abusing their freedoms.

Therefore, HE IS A FRAUD.

Another example, by the way, is Section 28 legislation. See ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

I debated this with FJ a long time ago. He seemed surprised that Mrs Thatcher would ever consider its introduction. Here's what it was about ....


Section 28 or Clause 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 caused the addition of Section 2A to the Local Government Act 1986, which affected England, Wales, Scotland,. The amendment was enacted on 24 May 1988, and stated that a local authority "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"

Again .. this is State, Governmental, intervention in the freedom to promote, publish or teach 'gay friendly' material. It is, in fact, the first time in a century that anything of the kind was legislated for, here in the UK.

Mrs Thatcher didn't hesitate in going this far. Again, she saw it as an abuse of freedom for this to occur. She cracked down on it, with State powers. Unapologetically so.

Needless to say, our LEFTIES overthrew this legislation, once they took over Government.

My understanding is that FJ doesn't approve of what she did. Nonetheless, he still claims to be a Thatcherite, and not just ANY Thatcherite, either, but by his chosen description, an especially loyal one.

He's a fraud, pure & simple. QED.

[Drummond]

The ideology has to suit the country. Britain no longer has the means to support free market trade.

All I really remember about Thatcher is we were on standby for 2 months straight in case we had to bail her ass out of the Falklands. Ronald wasn't going to let THAT happen.

It's kind of funny in hindsight. Brit Marines are as hard corps as it gets. And we were going to go save them?:laugh:

That's interesting. What I recall of the period was that the US was seen to be frustratingly neutral over the whole affair.

It's good to know that you were on standby, and thanks for that. As it turned out, we were, of course, well capable of looking after ourselves, and defeating the enemy.

See this ... especially Margaret's comment almost at the end. It's one of my all-time favourite moments of her ....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHwCbIEVmG0

More recently, the Falkland Islanders had a referendum on whether to stay British, and their vote was overwhelmingly to stay as they were. I applaud them for that.

[fj1200]

The ideology has to suit the country. Britain no longer has the means to support free market trade.

I disagree, London is one of the world's major money centers for a reason. Also their exports/imports as percent of GDP are around 30% where the US is less than half that.


Exactly the point - thanks, Kathianne.

FJ insists he's a staunch supporter of small Government.

You're too easy. Your delusion rests in claiming that big government actions are in reality conservative. And FWIW I've always been a supporter of small government; Mags would approve.

I also note that she voted to decriminalize homosexuality and legalize abortion (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/margaret-thatchers-timeline-from-grantham-to-the-house-of-lords-via-arthur-scargill-and-the-falklands-war-8564555.html). :unsure: Since you're going to troll in more off topic stuff.

[Drummond]

You're too easy. Your delusion rests in claiming that big government actions are in reality conservative. And FWIW I've always been a supporter of small government; Mags would approve.

As a matter of general principle, she might well have. HOWEVER, Margaret was nothing if not pragmatic. She always solved problems in what she considered to be an effective way to do it. If you're consistent with your strength of opposition, however, you SHOULD be in fundamental disagreement with her .. yes ?

Or perhaps, when it really comes down to it, you could be as flexible on the issue as Margaret was. So tell us, then, are you prepared to support Big Government actions and applications on some occasions ??

But - do tell me. Are you actually accusing her of NOT being a Conservative ?? Because, time after time, as I've said, she DID take Big Government decisions, and apply them !!


I also note that she voted to decriminalize homosexuality and legalize abortion (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/margaret-thatchers-timeline-from-grantham-to-the-house-of-lords-via-arthur-scargill-and-the-falklands-war-8564555.html). :unsure: Since you're going to troll in more off topic stuff.

Immaterial. The two issues are different. Decriminalisation, and not wanting what you help decriminalise ACTIVELY PROMOTED, are by no means the 'same thing' !!

[fj1200]

As a matter of general principle, she might well have. HOWEVER, Margaret was nothing if not pragmatic. She always solved problems in what she considered to be an effective way to do it. If you're consistent with your strength of opposition, however, you SHOULD be in fundamental disagreement with her .. yes ?

Or perhaps, when it really comes down to it, you could be as flexible on the issue as Margaret was. So tell us, then, are you prepared to support Big Government actions and applications on some occasions ??

But - do tell me. Are you actually accusing her of NOT being a Conservative ?? Because, time after time, as I've said, she DID take Big Government decisions, and apply them !!

Repeat after me: "Big government decisions" are not conservative decisions.


Immaterial. The two issues are different. Decriminalisation, and not wanting what you help decriminalise ACTIVELY PROMOTED, are by no means the 'same thing' !!

:laugh: More selective "Thatcherism" from you. :laugh: And no, government shouldn't actively promote.

[Drummond]

Nevertheless an example of small government Thatcherism was her union actions on the whole IMO. UK Labor markets were far less regulated after her time in office as before and as drummond will point out no one is talking seriously about rolling those back.

Is this new ? Are you actually trying to rewrite history, to try and keep your absurd 'Thatcherite' claim about yourself 'intact' ???

So tell me. How is it an example of SMALL Government methodology, to pass a series of laws to curb State-allowed freedoms that Unions had enjoyed, but which they were going to be DENIED, under her Premiership ?????

I needn't illustrate what I'm talking about, as I've already done that on multiples of occasions, here, already !! Suffice it to say that passing laws to deny freedoms to people is not about SMALL Government, at all - it's about curtailing freedoms at a very BIG Government level. This is something Mrs Thatcher instituted, something she was proud to have arranged, something she NEVER regretted doing.

There is more truth to your assertion that Mrs Thatcher was a tax-cutter. She believed, as you say you believe yourself, that taxes constrain entrepreneurialism, and that an economy can be galvanised through keeping the shackling-effect away from businesses.

THAT SAID -- she'd ONLY do this when it could be AFFORDED. David Cameron's strategy has long been to allow tax cuts WHEN THEY CAN BE AFFORDED, and ONLY then. It's his misfortune, and that of the UK more generally, that our economic situation has been so very dire that he's had to institute austerity measures instead, with tax cuts simply NOT affordable, therefore, not attempted to any great extent.

Here's an example of Mrs Thatcher choosing, through sheer practicality, to consider a tax RISE, instead ...

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-04-08/margaret-thatchers-forgotten-tax-increase


For the most part Thatcher cut income taxes aggressively during her 11 years in office, from 1979 to 1990. She also deregulated the financial markets; privatized council housing and the national phone company, airline, and oil company; curbed powerful labor unions; distanced Britain from monetary union with Europe; fought Argentina over the Falkland Islands; and survived an assassination attempt by the Irish Republic Army.

But in 1981, Thatcher pushed through a tax increase at a time when the economy was shrinking and unemployment was around 9 percent. She did it because it seemed to her politically impossible to cut spending any further and yet she felt it was essential to cut the budget deficit. Shrinking the deficit, she felt, would bring down interest rates, which would enable private businesses to borrow and expand, ultimately leading to more growth.

“I was in the flat packing my hats into boxes for my trip to the United States,” Thatcher recalled in her memoirs, which are online at margaretthatcher.org (http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/110696). Alan Walters, an adviser, came in and pressed his argument for a smaller deficit. A short time later, as Thatcher was about to leave for America, Geoffrey Howe, her Chancellor of the Exchequer, came to her with a way to increase tax revenue without boosting rates: Postpone the inflation adjustment in tax brackets. That would push more families into the higher bracket—a big deal at a time of 13 percent inflation.

“This was the turning point,” Thatcher remembered.
When an economy shrinks, when what can be afforded is extremely limited, then expenditures are reined back, and if necessary, revenues ARE raised through more taxation. It doesn't have to be an example of direct taxation. Sometimes, it's possible to sneak a rise into the mix through indirect means.

I hope you're taking notes, FJ. By instinct, Conservatives are, yes, natural tax cutters. Mrs Thatcher was certainly no different. Nonetheless, true Conservatives are also pragmatists, and we will do what we MUST to best serve conditions of any one moment. If tax increases seem sensible, THEY WILL BE INSTITUTED, by CONSERVATIVES.

Your big problem, FJ, is that you just can't grasp this about Conservative thinking. We are realists .. we don't cling to dogma, come-what-may, ignoring whatever the real world throws at us. We have our preferences, yes. But, we DO what we MUST, according to what is CALLED FOR.

But you are NOT a true Conservative, so you don't understand anyone breaking with blind adherence to dogma in a totally single-minded fashion. This is the way of the LEFTIE, and you, being at heart A LEFTIE, are stuck with their thinking.

And that's the very evident, and an INCREASINGLY evident, truth of you.

[Drummond]

Repeat after me: "Big government decisions" are not conservative decisions.

IDIOT. They ARE, on those occasions when they're MANDATED.

And Mrs Thatcher understood that well, and more, history confirms that she LIVED by it.


.. no, government shouldn't actively promote.

Or, in the case you're referring to, you seek to crush a move towards that by enacting a BIG Government measure !!

Funny how you missed that critical fact out of your observation, FJ.

How's all this history rewriting working out for you ? You seem to have graduated from editing posts, to editing history !!!

[Kathianne]

No it wasn't. Kathianne expressed exactly what I would have

I refuse to teach a non teachable. I tried for years and all it got us was Obama.

Related:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/05/18/government-regulation-killing-economic-growth

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/10/regulation-killing-opportunity

http://watchdog.org/232460/regulation-obama-business/

[Kathianne]

and some liberals that learned first hand:

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/02/03/mugged-by-reality-the-eternal-recurrence/

[red state]

... I dunno. My gut reaction is that they were roughly on an equal footing.

Both groups disgustingly believe in Holocausts as a means to an end, it seems to me ... although ... Hitler was racist with it ...

And both Hitler and Lefties believe(d) in exercising absolute authority over people (Lefties a bit more sneakily so, but it remains true all the same).

You know, the more I think about it, the less easy it is for me to tell them apart. Admittedly the titchy moustache Hitler wore helps, though ...

Serious question.....not being sarcastic at all:

Can one be a racist against one's own race? I believe it is a good question that applies to Jews in America......as well as B.O. So, the answer to B.O. is YES (most definitely). Hitler was half Jew yet he most certainly killed them for some reason and I believe that is mostly out of some sort of shame he had that he shared their genealogy. What say you, Drummond?

[Drummond]

Serious question.....not being sarcastic at all:

Can one be a racist against one's own race? I believe it is a good question that applies to Jews in America......as well as B.O. So, the answer to B.O. is YES (most definitely). Hitler was half Jew yet he most certainly killed them for some reason and I believe that is mostly out of some sort of shame he had that he shared their genealogy. What say you, Drummond?

Well, Hitler was a cross between being evil scum and a nutter.

Yes, I think you can. You make good points, but additionally (I wish I could remember details) there was a case I read of, several months ago, of a Jew who shouted racist insults AT other Jews. It turned out that, for 'reasons' I can't fathom, that his outlook was pro-Arab in the anti-Jew sense.

I don't know if 'shame' was involved, but conviction certainly was.

I recall one instance when I was ashamed of being English. Living as I now do, across the border in Wales, I watched the 2011 riots evolve and expand over several days in various English cities .. and, even more embarrassingly, their origin-point was about a mile from where I was born, in north London. There I was, safe and sound in Wales, seeing rioting break out on the other side of the border, none of it ever straying across it. For the Welsh, it was life as usual. For England, it was looting, vandalism, buildings set on fire, and wholesale criminality on the largest scale I can ever recall seeing.

I was disgusted. And needless to say, because we have such strict gun laws, almost nobody could defend their properties usefully (and the police were invariably not up to the task).

When it all finally ended, the English courts worked well into the night, every night for several weeks, to clear the resulting court cases of all the various arrested thugs responsible.

So, yes, I'd say so .. maybe in extreme or rare circumstances, but yes.

[Kathianne]

By the very nature of control through regulations. The elite protects the elite.

Related:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/212141/


AUGUST 9, 2015

JOEL KOTKIN: More Local Decisions Usurped by Ideological Regulators. (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/local-675226-city-density.html) “Nothing is more basic to the American identity than leaving basic control of daily life to local communities and, as much as is practical, to individuals. The rising new regulatory regime seeks decisively to change that equation. To be sure, there is a need for some degree of regulation, notably for basic health and public safety, as well as maintaining and expanding schools, parks, bikeways and tree-planting, things done best when supported by local voters. But the current regulatory wave goes well beyond traditional methodology. It reflects policies more akin to those central planners, who, as Chapman University researcher Alicia Kurimska suggests, dominated city planning in the once-massive Soviet bloc.”


Hang a few, pour encourager les autres.


Plus: “But rather than being just the latest California lunacy, the demise of local control is now going national. A cascading tide of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations already threatens future developments, particularly those that cater to middle-class homeowners. In addition, regulations from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development aim to force communities into inviting a designated number of poor people to achieve greater sociological and racial balance.”



It’s like Obama is waging war against the suburbs. (http://www.amazon.com/Spreading-Wealth-Robbing-Suburbs-Cities/dp/1595230920/?_encoding=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=ur2&tag=insta0c-20)

[Gunny]

Well, Hitler was a cross between being evil scum and a nutter.

Yes, I think you can. You make good points, but additionally (I wish I could remember details) there was a case I read of, several months ago, of a Jew who shouted racist insults AT other Jews. It turned out that, for 'reasons' I can't fathom, that his outlook was pro-Arab in the anti-Jew sense.

I don't know if 'shame' was involved, but conviction certainly was.

I recall one instance when I was ashamed of being English. Living as I now do, across the border in Wales, I watched the 2011 riots evolve and expand over several days in various English cities .. and, even more embarrassingly, their origin-point was about a mile from where I was born, in north London. There I was, safe and sound in Wales, seeing rioting break out on the other side of the border, none of it ever straying across it. For the Welsh, it was life as usual. For England, it was looting, vandalism, buildings set on fire, and wholesale criminality on the largest scale I can ever recall seeing.

I was disgusted. And needless to say, because we have such strict gun laws, almost nobody could defend their properties usefully (and the police were invariably not up to the task).

When it all finally ended, the English courts worked well into the night, every night for several weeks, to clear the resulting court cases of all the various arrested thugs responsible.

So, yes, I'd say so .. maybe in extreme or rare circumstances, but yes.

Why would anyone in their right mind that's American or English want to join ISIS? Seems to be happening though. Sure. I want to go live in the desert in black pajama with a rag on my head killing innocent people for their beliefs because holding down that job at McDonald's is too tough.

[Kathianne]

http://pointsandfigures.com/2015/08/08/america-is-close-to-losing-its-freedom/


America Is Close to Losing Its Freedom

Posted by Jeff Carter (http://pointsandfigures.com/author/admin/)
on August 8th, 2015

If you don’t know who John Cochrane is you should. He blogs at The Grumpy Economist (http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/). He recently wrote a piece entitled, “The Rule of Law in The Regulatory State” (http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2015/08/rule-of-law-in-regulatory-state.html). It is one of the clearest eyed things I have read in a long time. If you are of the Democrat or Republican political persuasion, you ought to read it. Then, pour yourself a glass of something and ponder it for a while. This is should be the topic of conversation in political debates (http://pointsandfigures.com/2015/08/07/the-problem-with-debates-in-america/), and at dinner tables.


When the founding fathers walked out of Independence Hall in July of 1776, someone asked Ben Franklin what they had done. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”


We are in danger of losing our republic. America is on the brink of becoming something else, a regulatory state.
...

[fj1200]

Is this new ? Are you actually trying to rewrite history, to try and keep your absurd 'Thatcherite' claim about yourself 'intact' ???

So tell me. How is it an example of SMALL Government methodology, to pass a series of laws to curb State-allowed freedoms that Unions had enjoyed, but which they were going to be DENIED, under her Premiership ?????

I needn't illustrate what I'm talking about, as I've already done that on multiples of occasions, here, already !! Suffice it to say that passing laws to deny freedoms to people is not about SMALL Government, at all - it's about curtailing freedoms at a very BIG Government level. This is something Mrs Thatcher instituted, something she was proud to have arranged, something she NEVER regretted doing.

There is more truth to your assertion that Mrs Thatcher was a tax-cutter. She believed, as you say you believe yourself, that taxes constrain entrepreneurialism, and that an economy can be galvanised through keeping the shackling-effect away from businesses.

THAT SAID -- she'd ONLY do this when it could be AFFORDED. David Cameron's strategy has long been to allow tax cuts WHEN THEY CAN BE AFFORDED, and ONLY then. It's his misfortune, and that of the UK more generally, that our economic situation has been so very dire that he's had to institute austerity measures instead, with tax cuts simply NOT affordable, therefore, not attempted to any great extent.

Here's an example of Mrs Thatcher choosing, through sheer practicality, to consider a tax RISE, instead ...

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-04-08/margaret-thatchers-forgotten-tax-increase


When an economy shrinks, when what can be afforded is extremely limited, then expenditures are reined back, and if necessary, revenues ARE raised through more taxation. It doesn't have to be an example of direct taxation. Sometimes, it's possible to sneak a rise into the mix through indirect means.

I hope you're taking notes, FJ. By instinct, Conservatives are, yes, natural tax cutters. Mrs Thatcher was certainly no different. Nonetheless, true Conservatives are also pragmatists, and we will do what we MUST to best serve conditions of any one moment. If tax increases seem sensible, THEY WILL BE INSTITUTED, by CONSERVATIVES.

How many times do I need to correct you on your own history? Deregulation is not big government and that is what she did. She did not "curb state-allowed freedoms," she removed state-granted power from the unions (I'm not sure how you can be so ignorant to that fact). That is a move from the group to the individual.

I also note that the remainder of your diatribe is an argument for higher taxes. Do you need a lesson in supply-side economics? I'd be happy to provide such. :) Do you know what happened when Bush I instituted "sensible" tax increases? He got himself de-elected.

Cage Alert:


Your big problem, FJ, is that you just can't grasp this about Conservative thinking. We are realists .. we don't cling to dogma, come-what-may, ignoring whatever the real world throws at us. We have our preferences, yes. But, we DO what we MUST, according to what is CALLED FOR.

But you are NOT a true Conservative, so you don't understand anyone breaking with blind adherence to dogma in a totally single-minded fashion. This is the way of the LEFTIE, and you, being at heart A LEFTIE, are stuck with their thinking.

And that's the very evident, and an INCREASINGLY evident, truth of you.

This is an example of why you're a DumbF*. You make big government arguments and then have the gall to question my conservative viewpoints? You're ignorance is astounding. Now how about you put up or shut up and give me an example of where I have advocated for something other than small-government conservatism.

[fj1200]

IDIOT. They ARE, on those occasions when they're MANDATED.

And Mrs Thatcher understood that well, and more, history confirms that she LIVED by it.

Not really. Big government is not conservative. It's pretty much opposite of the definition. No matter how much blustery sputtering you do.


Or, in the case you're referring to, you seek to crush a move towards that by enacting a BIG Government measure !!

Funny how you missed that critical fact out of your observation, FJ.

How's all this history rewriting working out for you ? You seem to have graduated from editing posts, to editing history !!!

Be specific here: What big government measure did I wish to enact?

[Perianne]

Why you always have to be ragging on drummond?


You spend an inordinate amount of time needling Drummond. Who the Hell even knows what a Thatcherite is? :laugh:

I suppose it paid off. They won.

[DragonStryk72]

Sigh... why do I have to be the one arguing this? We need better Libs on the board, I swear to Christ.

Okay, so no, Planned Parenthood does not sell fetal organs and tissue. Sorry, but this is just patently false. What they do, is get permission from the pregnant women that come in to donate the fetal tissue, which includes STEM cells, to medical science. In turn, they send it off to groups that will link up the fetal tissue with various medical research groups.

Now, they do charge money, yes, but that is specifically for processing and shipping, not a sale. The Red Cross has to do the same thing with blood. Now, yeah, there may be some shenanigans going on concerning what the S&H fees actually, versus what they charge, but apparently, this is mostly due to the lack of oversight over the process.

So no, they're not like Hitler, not even close. I'm sorry, but whether or not you think abortion is right, voluntary tissue and organ donation is not Hitler material.

[fj1200]

I suppose it paid off. They won.

Will you be taking on the mantle of big-government "conservative"?

[Perianne]

Will you be taking on the mantle of big-government "conservative"?

You change quotes. Other than this, I will not respond to you.

[fj1200]

You change quotes. Other than this, I will not respond to you.

Aww, you're sweet. :)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You change quotes. Other than this, I will not respond to you.

Your wisdom is quite sound my friend. :beer: :beer: -Tyr