Rev. BigDumbChimp Posts: 185 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 02 2007,22:14    Well anyone with a shred of ability to see this adminstration for what it is knew this was coming. I do like the fact he only commuted his sentence instead of a pardon. Which means exactly zero. As I said at my blog Quote This is essentially a pardon. He serves no time and he'll never suffer the problems that anyone else with a conviction record like his would. All those Bush groupies will be falling over themselves to give him a job. OH NO. He has to pay a $250,000 fine! Right. They'll be plenty of under the table gifts to make that a whitewash. If anything this cements his place as a martyr for the idiot right wingnuts. I bet this increases his sellability in the private sector exponentially. If this isn't proof that Bush is a joke, I don't know what is.

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 02 2007,22:18    It's conclusive proof that Bush is a traitor to the rule of law in this country, in my book. I understand that Keith Olbermann will call for the President's resignation tomorrow night. -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Hermagoras Posts: 1260 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 02 2007,23:23    Quote (Kristine @ July 02 2007,22:18) It's conclusive proof that Bush is a traitor to the rule of law in this country, in my book. I understand that Keith Olbermann will call for the President's resignation tomorrow night. What would Bush's resignation do, with Cheney in charge?  Impeachment needs to start with the Veep. -------------- "I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 02 2007,23:36    Well, I'm sure Olbermann knows that. But first we must determine from which branch of government Cheney must resign. (The Judicial Branch, perhaps?) -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,06:14    When I read this my thoughts were: "Dude! If I were American I'd be pissed" Well actually, those weren't my thoughts precisely, I was translating them so our American friends could relate better to them. Just FYI, what I actually thought was: "Golly gosh! Those colonial chappies have a bit of a rum administration. Mind you, we've just had a transfer of power that borders on the hereditary, but then being a monarchy we like that sort of thing. I wonder if it's possible for that Bush fellow to make the corruption and nepotism of his government any more obvious. Why not simply come out and actually ADMIT to being wrong over Irq etc? After all this action is basically a signal that this was the case. I wonder when he'll pay Her Majesty the 200 odd years of back taxes the upstart owes her." And Obama apparently doesn't want him impeached! I'd love to be able to comment from a position of smug superiority, but we have a government that has reduced scientific funding in real terms (i.e. per researcher. The amount of money has gone up, the amount of researchers has gone up more than the amount of money, the amount of bureacracy has gone up enormously, so the money per researcher is less), quite literally destroyed civil liberties so that we are less free now due to "terrorism hysteria" than we were during the second world war, ruined the health service with bureacracy, put more knee jerk legislation onto the statute books and more spin and lies into the media than the two previous administrations combined, taken the country to war on a demonstrably falsified mandate against international consensus, refused to change a 19th century inspired and obviously flawed foreign policy, and is determined to intervene in people's personal lives to an unprecedented degree. Louis -------------- Bye.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,06:21    Quote (Louis @ July 03 2007,06:14) When I read this my thoughts were: "Dude! If I were American I'd be pissed" Well actually, those weren't my thoughts precisely, I was translating them so our American friends could relate better to them. Just FYI, what I actually thought was: "Golly gosh! Those colonial chappies have a bit of a rum administration. Mind you, we've just had a transfer of power that borders on the hereditary, but then being a monarchy we like that sort of thing. I wonder if it's possible for that Bush fellow to make the corruption and nepotism of his government any more obvious. Why not simply come out and actually ADMIT to being wrong over Irq etc? After all this action is basically a signal that this was the case. I wonder when he'll pay Her Majesty the 200 odd years of back taxes the upstart owes her." And Obama apparently doesn't want him impeached! I'd love to be able to comment from a position of smug superiority, but we have a government that has reduced scientific funding in real terms (i.e. per researcher. The amount of money has gone up, the amount of researchers has gone up more than the amount of money, the amount of bureacracy has gone up enormously, so the money per researcher is less), quite literally destroyed civil liberties so that we are less free now due to "terrorism hysteria" than we were during the second world war, ruined the health service with bureacracy, put more knee jerk legislation onto the statute books and more spin and lies into the media than the two previous administrations combined, taken the country to war on a demonstrably falsified mandate against international consensus, refused to change a 19th century inspired and obviously flawed foreign policy, and is determined to intervene in people's personal lives to an unprecedented degree. Louis Now now Louis, the NHS isn't a lost cause yet. It's sinking, sure enough, but it CAN be saved. Also, let us not forget it was the milk snatcher who started the rot, like so many things. (I'm not excusing Blair, who has done little to help matters, although I think his is the best premiership we've had in...well since before milk snatcher at any rate) -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,06:29    Oh I know the NHS isn't a lost cause yet, none of it is, well perhaps except the civil liberties. The trend is towards further restriction, a greater "Little Britain" mentality. I despair. Oh and don't think it's party political btw (I'm not a party political person, I prefer to judge each action on it's meirts. Something called "the evidence", which is a weird concept in politics 'twould appear). Blair's govt has fucked up things I care about (scientific funding [see most recent Nature for example] and civil liberties). I am no fan of Lady Thatcher, I AM however a fan of Dennis Thatcher, mainly for comedy reasons. Anyway, New Labour have been the best centre right, conservative government any Tory could have hoped for (apart from the fox hunting ban perhaps!). My uncle, who is a Tory stereotype of the most pernicious kind, loves Blair. Everything he could have wanted has come true! He might grumble a bit about taxes occasionally but he is vastly better off under this "Labour" govt than he was under the last "Tory" govts. Vote Looney (or Liberal!) it's the only serious choice. Louis -------------- Bye.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,06:44    Quote (Louis @ July 03 2007,06:29) Oh I know the NHS isn't a lost cause yet, none of it is, well perhaps except the civil liberties. The trend is towards further restriction, a greater "Little Britain" mentality. I despair. Oh and don't think it's party political btw (I'm not a party political person, I prefer to judge each action on it's meirts. Something called "the evidence", which is a weird concept in politics 'twould appear). Blair's govt has fucked up things I care about (scientific funding [see most recent Nature for example] and civil liberties). I am no fan of Lady Thatcher, I AM however a fan of Dennis Thatcher, mainly for comedy reasons. Anyway, New Labour have been the best centre right, conservative government any Tory could have hoped for (apart from the fox hunting ban perhaps!). My uncle, who is a Tory stereotype of the most pernicious kind, loves Blair. Everything he could have wanted has come true! He might grumble a bit about taxes occasionally but he is vastly better off under this "Labour" govt than he was under the last "Tory" govts. Vote Looney (or Liberal!) it's the only serious choice. Louis Personally I'm old labour. Very old labour. Like, I'm roughly in line with Ken Livingston, old Labour. As in, I'd bring in higher taxes and tell people that, and funnel money into science, the arts, education and the NHS. I'd rob from the rich and give to the future, as it were. So I vote the most  left leaning party there is (or will, when theres an election) Lib Dem. I personally hate milk snatcher with a passion. As was stated on Mock The Week once: "Her grave is going to become a urinal for all decent people". and "So many people will want to dance on her grave they'll need to scatter her ashes in Ibiza." -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,08:27    Quote (Kristine @ July 02 2007,22:18) It's conclusive proof that Bush is a traitor to the rule of law in this country, in my book. I understand that Keith Olbermann will call for the President's resignation tomorrow night. Bush is just saying he and his administration is above the law.  How did that turn out for Nixon? Okay, so I'm an optimist. I love Olberman. (Only in a totally manly, way of course!) So, will Bush get Worst Person In The World Award tonight, and Libbey The Worser Person Award?  And couldn't Cheney pick up The Worst Person In The World Award pretty much every night?   Ian and Louis... Milkman? -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Rev. BigDumbChimp Posts: 185 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,09:12    Quote (J-Dog @ July 03 2007,08:27) Quote (Kristine @ July 02 2007,22:18) It's conclusive proof that Bush is a traitor to the rule of law in this country, in my book. I understand that Keith Olbermann will call for the President's resignation tomorrow night. Bush is just saying he and his administration is above the law.  How did that turn out for Nixon? Okay, so I'm an optimist. I love Olberman. (Only in a totally manly, way of course!) So, will Bush get Worst Person In The World Award tonight, and Libbey The Worser Person Award?  And couldn't Cheney pick up The Worst Person In The World Award pretty much every night?   Ian and Louis... Milkman? I'm looking forward to Olbermann tonight. I didn't catch the Daily show last night but I think it and Colbert are on vacation which is a shame.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,09:17    J-Dog, Maggie Thatcher (ex-UK PM) was known as "Thatcher, Thatcher, Milk Snatcher" because she had various education policies (not least of which was the cessation of free school milk for kids) that were less than wonderful. Louis -------------- Bye.

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,09:36    Per Ed Brayton at ScienceBlogs, there is nothing in the US Constitution that gives him permission to do this.  Very interesting. http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....riv.php -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,09:49    Quote (J-Dog @ July 03 2007,09:36) Per Ed Brayton at ScienceBlogs, there is nothing in the US Constitution that gives him permission to do this.  Very interesting. http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....riv.php Ed is talking about executive privilege, which really has nothing to do with the power of the President to issue pardons and reprieves.  The latter power is codified in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,10:02    Quote (Louis @ July 03 2007,09:17) J-Dog, Maggie Thatcher (ex-UK PM) was known as "Thatcher, Thatcher, Milk Snatcher" because she had various education policies (not least of which was the cessation of free school milk for kids) that were less than wonderful. Louis In the same way that cancer is "less than wonderful". -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,10:39    Quote (carlsonjok @ July 03 2007,09:49) Quote (J-Dog @ July 03 2007,09:36) Per Ed Brayton at ScienceBlogs, there is nothing in the US Constitution that gives him permission to do this.  Very interesting. http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....riv.php Ed is talking about executive privilege, which really has nothing to do with the power of the President to issue pardons and reprieves.  The latter power is codified in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. Thank you Carlsonjok - and my education continues!  (Please don't send me a bill for Constitutional Law 101 though!) -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,10:53    Well anyway, Rev. Barky has a humorous new moniker for Bushie. -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,11:05    Quote (J-Dog @ July 03 2007,10:39) Thank you Carlsonjok - and my education continues!  (Please don't send me a bill for Constitutional Law 101 though!) You are welcome. But, fear not. You can further your education for the low, low price of $2.80. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,11:07    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,06:21) (I'm not excusing Blair, who has done little to help matters, although I think his is the best premiership we've had in...well since before milk snatcher at any rate) Best PM since Callaghan?  Now that's what I call damning with faint praise. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

deejay Posts: 113 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,11:24    Quote (carlsonjok @ July 03 2007,09:49)   Quote (J-Dog @ July 03 2007,09:36) Per Ed Brayton at ScienceBlogs, there is nothing in the US Constitution that gives him permission to do this.  Very interesting. http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....riv.php Ed is talking about executive privilege, which really has nothing to do with the power of the President to issue pardons and reprieves.  The latter power is codified in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. This is true.  Bush's application of justice here may be capricious, but it is constitutional.   Bush will (hopefully) pay a stiff political price for this move, and I imagine that it will stand as a primary example of his imperial approach to the presidency. What's bugging me, though, is the fact that the times he openly flouted the constitution, as with the electronic eavesdropping program and executive signing statements, he wasn't criticized as harshly as he seems to be now.

Rev. BigDumbChimp Posts: 185 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,11:46    Quote (deejay @ July 03 2007,11:24) Quote (carlsonjok @ July 03 2007,09:49)     Quote (J-Dog @ July 03 2007,09:36) Per Ed Brayton at ScienceBlogs, there is nothing in the US Constitution that gives him permission to do this.  Very interesting. http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....riv.php Ed is talking about executive privilege, which really has nothing to do with the power of the President to issue pardons and reprieves.  The latter power is codified in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. This is true.  Bush's application of justice here may be capricious, but it is constitutional.   Bush will (hopefully) pay a stiff political price for this move, and I imagine that it will stand as a primary example of his imperial approach to the presidency. What's bugging me, though, is the fact that the times he openly flouted the constitution, as with the electronic eavesdropping program and executive signing statements, he wasn't criticized as harshly as he seems to be now. Well I disagree to some extent. At the time of the wiretaps and such it was the repubs in power but he was still criticized fairly harshly for it. It's just that those in power made it virtually impossible to do anything about it. These are all just "symptoms" of the president's abuse of executive privilege, the disdain for both the separation of powers and the rule of law. Nixon would be so proud.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,11:48    Quote (JohnW @ July 03 2007,11:07) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,06:21) (I'm not excusing Blair, who has done little to help matters, although I think his is the best premiership we've had in...well since before milk snatcher at any rate) Best PM since Callaghan?  Now that's what I call damning with faint praise. What was wrong with Callaghan? -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,12:10    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,11:48) Quote (JohnW @ July 03 2007,11:07)   Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,06:21) (I'm not excusing Blair, who has done little to help matters, although I think his is the best premiership we've had in...well since before milk snatcher at any rate) Best PM since Callaghan?  Now that's what I call damning with faint praise. What was wrong with Callaghan? Well, he was nothing special, but my point was that "best PM since before Thatcher" means "better than Thatcher or Major".  I've seen unicellular pond life that would have been better than Thatcher or Major. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,12:20    Quote (JohnW @ July 03 2007,12:10) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,11:48)   Quote (JohnW @ July 03 2007,11:07)   Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,06:21) (I'm not excusing Blair, who has done little to help matters, although I think his is the best premiership we've had in...well since before milk snatcher at any rate) Best PM since Callaghan?  Now that's what I call damning with faint praise. What was wrong with Callaghan? Well, he was nothing special, but my point was that "best PM since before Thatcher" means "better than Thatcher or Major".  I've seen unicellular pond life that would have been better than Thatcher or Major. True. I liked Callaghan though. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,12:34    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,11:48) What was wrong with Callaghan? Harry Callahan: I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk? -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Roland Anderson Posts: 51 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,12:40    Quote (Louis @ July 03 2007,09:17) Maggie Thatcher (ex-UK PM) I do wish that people would refer to Lady Thatcher by her correct title, which is "That Fucking Thatcher Cow". I hate her more that I hate anyone. I hope she dies in pain.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,12:47    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,06:44) Personally I'm old labour. Very old labour. Like, I'm roughly in line with Ken Livingston, old Labour. As in, I'd bring in higher taxes and tell people that, and funnel money into science, the arts, education and the NHS. I'd rob from the rich and give to the future, as it were. So I vote the most  left leaning party there is (or will, when theres an election) Lib Dem. I personally hate milk snatcher with a passion. As was stated on Mock The Week once: "Her grave is going to become a urinal for all decent people". and "So many people will want to dance on her grave they'll need to scatter her ashes in Ibiza." Not me. There is no British political party that comes close to representing my views over the spectrum of policies/areas. BTW. What is the OP about? Sorry for my ignorance.

Rev. BigDumbChimp Posts: 185 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,12:57    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 03 2007,12:47) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,06:44) Personally I'm old labour. Very old labour. Like, I'm roughly in line with Ken Livingston, old Labour. As in, I'd bring in higher taxes and tell people that, and funnel money into science, the arts, education and the NHS. I'd rob from the rich and give to the future, as it were. So I vote the most  left leaning party there is (or will, when theres an election) Lib Dem. I personally hate milk snatcher with a passion. As was stated on Mock The Week once: "Her grave is going to become a urinal for all decent people". and "So many people will want to dance on her grave they'll need to scatter her ashes in Ibiza." Not me. There is no British political party that comes close to representing my views over the spectrum of policies/areas. BTW. What is the OP about? Sorry for my ignorance. Read this. It's a good timeline on the whole deal with Scooter Libby. He was the head of staff for Vice Pres. Cheney who  president Bush just basically let out of an imposed prison sentence of 30 months for lying to the courts. But its much more involved than that. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story....00.html

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,13:04    Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ July 03 2007,12:57) Read this. It's a good timeline on the whole deal with Scooter Libby. He was the head of staff for Vice Pres. Cheney who  president Bush just basically let out of an imposed prison sentence of 30 months for lying to the courts. But its much more involved than that. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story....00.html Please tell me I am wrong here. The link looks as though somebody upset a politician and so a politically apointed (non-elected) person gave away details of a US CIA agent to upset her husband. Is that correct? I hope I am wrong as that would be too bad.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,13:10    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,16:02) Quote (Louis @ July 03 2007,09:17) J-Dog, Maggie Thatcher (ex-UK PM) was known as "Thatcher, Thatcher, Milk Snatcher" because she had various education policies (not least of which was the cessation of free school milk for kids) that were less than wonderful. Louis In the same way that cancer is "less than wonderful". Depends who gets it. Louis P.S. Also Thatcher bashing is very last season darling. There were some positives after all......just wait whilst I remember what they were....hmmmm...errmmm...oh yes! She won HER war (to paraphrase the cover of Private Eye from last week or perhaps the week before.) ;-) -------------- Bye.

Richardthughes Posts: 11177 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,13:21    Provides 2400% of your RDT (Recommended Daily Tard): http://michellemalkin.com/2007....omments -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Rev. BigDumbChimp Posts: 185 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,13:23    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 03 2007,13:04) Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ July 03 2007,12:57) Read this. It's a good timeline on the whole deal with Scooter Libby. He was the head of staff for Vice Pres. Cheney who  president Bush just basically let out of an imposed prison sentence of 30 months for lying to the courts. But its much more involved than that. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story....00.html Please tell me I am wrong here. The link looks as though somebody upset a politician and so a politically apointed (non-elected) person gave away details of a US CIA agent to upset her husband. Is that correct? I hope I am wrong as that would be too bad. It's it's most boiled down form that's part of it yes. It more goes to a pretty serious crisis that we in the US have been having with our President thinking that he is above the law and above our constitution. It all started with the trumped up evidence that was used to get us into the current war in Iraq. Bush and his cronies didn't like that the fact that someone was calling them on their bullshit. They then decided to out the whistleblower's wife as an undercover CIA agent. This is a big no no. During the course of trying to determine who the person was who outed Valerie Plame, Scooter Libby lied in court about various conversations, times lines and such, thus committing perjury. Being in the position he is in and being that our Vice President basically is an evil dishonest son of a bitch who has no use with the law, the President decided to laet him out of jail. That is a very condensed version of the events. If anyone would like to add or subtract please feel free.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,13:26    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,06:44) ... I personally hate milk snatcher with a passion. As was stated on Mock The Week once: "Her grave is going to become a urinal for all decent people". and "So many people will want to dance on her grave they'll need to scatter her ashes in Ibiza." That would probably depend upon where you live. If you was a resident of the Falkland Islands or some parts of Eastern Europe you may just have a different opinion. I aint claiming she was perfect. Just that your POV may depend upon geography.

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,13:51    Quote (Richardthughes @ July 03 2007,13:21) Provides 2400% of your RDT (Recommended Daily Tard): http://michellemalkin.com/2007....omments Thanks rich, I think I may not be able to eat for a couple days now.  I only made it through the first dozen or so comments--calls for the president to be castigated because he didn't offer a full pardon, total dismissal of the rule of law, and the obvious calls for the slamming of whatever the liberals may do....  tardarific. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Rev. BigDumbChimp Posts: 185 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,13:55    Quote (blipey @ July 03 2007,13:51) Quote (Richardthughes @ July 03 2007,13:21) Provides 2400% of your RDT (Recommended Daily Tard): http://michellemalkin.com/2007....omments Thanks rich, I think I may not be able to eat for a couple days now.  I only made it through the first dozen or so comments--calls for the president to be castigated because he didn't offer a full pardon, total dismissal of the rule of law, and the obvious calls for the slamming of whatever the liberals may do....  tardarific. Malkin isn't as in your face "Ghengis Cunt" as Coulter but she's close.

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,14:04    Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ July 03 2007,13:55) Quote (blipey @ July 03 2007,13:51) Quote (Richardthughes @ July 03 2007,13:21) Provides 2400% of your RDT (Recommended Daily Tard): http://michellemalkin.com/2007....omments Thanks rich, I think I may not be able to eat for a couple days now.  I only made it through the first dozen or so comments--calls for the president to be castigated because he didn't offer a full pardon, total dismissal of the rule of law, and the obvious calls for the slamming of whatever the liberals may do....  tardarific. Malkin isn't as in your face "Ghengis Cunt" as Coulter but she's close. The Kansas City Star runs her fairly regularly.  I almost always try to work my way through Malkin, but it usually hurts.  It was much better when the column next to hers was Molly Ivins, may she rest in peace. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,14:08    Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ July 03 2007,13:23) ... It's it's most boiled down form that's part of it yes. It more goes to a pretty serious crisis that we in the US have been having with our President thinking that he is above the law and above our constitution. It all started with the trumped up evidence that was used to get us into the current war in Iraq. Bush and his cronies didn't like that the fact that someone was calling them on their bullshit. They then decided to out the whistleblower's wife as an undercover CIA agent. This is a big no no. During the course of trying to determine who the person was who outed Valerie Plame, Scooter Libby lied in court about various conversations, times lines and such, thus committing perjury. Being in the position he is in and being that our Vice President basically is an evil dishonest son of a bitch who has no use with the law, the President decided to laet him out of jail. That is a very condensed version of the events. If anyone would like to add or subtract please feel free. Not sure what to say. So a desk driving political employee is considered worth more than someone who actually does risk their life in service to country?

Rev. BigDumbChimp Posts: 185 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,14:25    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 03 2007,14:08) Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ July 03 2007,13:23) ... It's it's most boiled down form that's part of it yes. It more goes to a pretty serious crisis that we in the US have been having with our President thinking that he is above the law and above our constitution. It all started with the trumped up evidence that was used to get us into the current war in Iraq. Bush and his cronies didn't like that the fact that someone was calling them on their bullshit. They then decided to out the whistleblower's wife as an undercover CIA agent. This is a big no no. During the course of trying to determine who the person was who outed Valerie Plame, Scooter Libby lied in court about various conversations, times lines and such, thus committing perjury. Being in the position he is in and being that our Vice President basically is an evil dishonest son of a bitch who has no use with the law, the President decided to laet him out of jail. That is a very condensed version of the events. If anyone would like to add or subtract please feel free. Not sure what to say. So a desk driving political employee is considered worth more than someone who actually does risk their life in service to country? Well it's really more about the man who was criticizing the Bush policies and the lies that bush told than about Libby. He just ended up being the fall guy for the whole deal due to his own perjury. They used his wife (the CIA agent) as a tool to get back at him and to send a message to others who might be critical of the administration that they would stoop to any level to get back at people and to protect their power. This is far from over.

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,14:30    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 03 2007,14:08) Not sure what to say. So a desk driving political employee is considered worth more than someone who actually does risk their life in service to country? I don't think the comparison you are making is the correct one.  Libby isn't the show here and I have a hard time sharing everyone's indignation at the decision to commute his sentence.  To be sure, it is a crime that he lied to a grand jury and he was probably complicit in the underlying crime of outing Valerie Plame in the first place. But, it is my opinion that Libby is basically a useful idiot, a fall guy.  The real problem children in this whole sordid affair are Cheney and, most likely, Karl Rove.  So, it wasn't a matter of trading off Plame for Libby.  Rather, Plame "had" to be outed to shore up the edifice of the Administrations justification for going into Iraq.  Libby was a tool of the adminstrations policy and a sacrifice to the special prosecutor. The commutation of his sentence was, as I have heard it described, the way to shield him from punishment, but keeping the conviction on the books so that, if hauled before Congress, he can still invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify against himself (and, by extension, his bosses.)  Sweet little deal. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,14:37    Quote (carlsonjok @ July 03 2007,14:30) Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 03 2007,14:08) Not sure what to say. So a desk driving political employee is considered worth more than someone who actually does risk their life in service to country? I don't think the comparison you are making is the correct one.  Libby isn't the show here and I have a hard time sharing everyone's indignation at the decision to commute his sentence.  To be sure, it is a crime that he lied to a grand jury and he was probably complicit in the underlying crime of outing Valerie Plame in the first place. But, it is my opinion that Libby is basically a useful idiot, a fall guy.  The real problem children in this whole sordid affair are Cheney and, most likely, Karl Rove.  So, it wasn't a matter of trading off Plame for Libby.  Rather, Plame "had" to be outed to shore up the edifice of the Administrations justification for going into Iraq.  Libby was a tool of the adminstrations policy and a sacrifice to the special prosecutor. The commutation of his sentence was, as I have heard it described, the way to shield him from punishment, but keeping the conviction on the books so that, if hauled before Congress, he can still invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify against himself (and, by extension, his bosses.)  Sweet little deal. Damn.  For a talking horse head, you sure do make a lot of sense. And if you talked out of your other end you'd be the one granting the pardon, I mean commuting the sentence? -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,15:21    Quote (carlsonjok @ July 03 2007,14:30) Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 03 2007,14:08) Not sure what to say. So a desk driving political employee is considered worth more than someone who actually does risk their life in service to country? I don't think the comparison you are making is the correct one.  Libby isn't the show here and I have a hard time sharing everyone's indignation at the decision to commute his sentence.  To be sure, it is a crime that he lied to a grand jury and he was probably complicit in the underlying crime of outing Valerie Plame in the first place. But, it is my opinion that Libby is basically a useful idiot, a fall guy.  The real problem children in this whole sordid affair are Cheney and, most likely, Karl Rove.  So, it wasn't a matter of trading off Plame for Libby.  Rather, Plame "had" to be outed to shore up the edifice of the Administrations justification for going into Iraq.  Libby was a tool of the adminstrations policy and a sacrifice to the special prosecutor. The commutation of his sentence was, as I have heard it described, the way to shield him from punishment, but keeping the conviction on the books so that, if hauled before Congress, he can still invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify against himself (and, by extension, his bosses.)  Sweet little deal. I strongly suspect (but don't expect to ever see proof) that Libby knew this was the deal all along.  He takes the fall for his boss, his boss' boss makes sure he never sees any jail time, the slush fund takes care of the $250,000, Fourth-branch Dick continues to walk the earth a free man, everyone's happy.  I think this was all explained to him before Plame was ever outed. It was wrong to let him off, but I can think of one or two others who should have been thrown into a deeper, darker hole for a lot longer. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,17:01    Quote (deejay @ July 03 2007,11:24) Bush will (hopefully) pay a stiff political price for this move, and I imagine that it will stand as a primary example of his imperial approach to the presidency. Alas, he won't be criticized at all for his imperial presidency.  That's because the US people (and both political parties) don't HAVE any gripe with empire. Their gripe is that Dubya is screwing it up with his incompetence.  If Dubya had run roughshod over Iraq in three weeks, like he planned on doing, he'd be celebrated as a hero right now. Neither Democans nor Republicrats would reject the idea that the US has the inherent right to unilaterally run the world as it sees fit.  We are, after all, the, uh, "only remaining superpower". -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,18:21    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 03 2007,13:26) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,06:44) ... I personally hate milk snatcher with a passion. As was stated on Mock The Week once: "Her grave is going to become a urinal for all decent people". and "So many people will want to dance on her grave they'll need to scatter her ashes in Ibiza." That would probably depend upon where you live. If you was a resident of the Falkland Islands or some parts of Eastern Europe you may just have a different opinion. I aint claiming she was perfect. Just that your POV may depend upon geography. Oh, the falklands was a great victory. Except the UK practically invited the invasion by pulling out the defence forces. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Hermagoras Posts: 1260 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,22:00    Quote (Roland Anderson @ July 03 2007,12:40) Quote (Louis @ July 03 2007,09:17) Maggie Thatcher (ex-UK PM) I do wish that people would refer to Lady Thatcher by her correct title, which is "That Fucking Thatcher Cow". I hate her more that I hate anyone. I hope she dies in pain. What's that Elvis Costello line: "When England was the whore of the world / Margaret was her Madam" -------------- "I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

deejay Posts: 113 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,07:24    Quote (Richardthughes @ July 03 2007,13:21) Provides 2400% of your RDT (Recommended Daily Tard): http://michellemalkin.com/2007....omments That would be the Vitamin A of Tard, wouldn't it? As in high levels are toxic.

deejay Posts: 113 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,07:56    I extend my thanks to both our resident reverends for replies to my earlier comment.  I feel, well, is "blessed" the right word?

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,09:20    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,18:21) ... Except the UK practically invited the invasion by pulling out the defence forces. I have not heard about that. Are you certain that the defence forces where halved imediately before the invasion? Even if true, why would that be an invitation to invasion? I don't consider Thatcher to be evil BTW. She had some bad policies and some good ones. You probably don't remember the state of the country before she came to office. We had a shedload of problems back in the 70's.   Quote (carlsonjok_Posted on July 03 2007 @ 14:30) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 03 2007,14:08) Not sure what to say. So a desk driving political employee is considered worth more than someone who actually does risk their life in service to country? I don't think the comparison you are making is the correct one.  Libby isn't the show here and I have a hard time sharing everyone's indignation at the decision to commute his sentence.  To be sure, it is a crime that he lied to a grand jury and he was probably complicit in the underlying crime of outing Valerie Plame in the first place. But, it is my opinion that Libby is basically a useful idiot, a fall guy.  The real problem children in this whole sordid affair are Cheney and, most likely, Karl Rove.  So, it wasn't a matter of trading off Plame for Libby.  Rather, Plame "had" to be outed to shore up the edifice of the Administrations justification for going into Iraq.  Libby was a tool of the adminstrations policy and a sacrifice to the special prosecutor. The commutation of his sentence was, as I have heard it described, the way to shield him from punishment, but keeping the conviction on the books so that, if hauled before Congress, he can still invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify against himself (and, by extension, his bosses.)  Sweet little deal. Cheers for the correction. I probably shouldn't have commented in the first place as my knowledge on the subject is extremely sketchy.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,09:27    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,09:20) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,18:21) ... Except the UK practically invited the invasion by pulling out the defence forces. I have not heard about that. Are you certain that the defence forces where halved imediately before the invasion? Even if true, why would that be an invitation to invasion? I don't consider Thatcher to be evil BTW. She had some bad policies and some good ones. You probably don't remember the state of the country before she came to office. We had a shedload of problems back in the 70's. The forces were removed not long before the attacks. How is that NOT an invitation? The Argentines wanted them back because they're strategically important, and we have left with the door wide open. No, I don't recall what it was like in the 70's. I wasn't born then, but I DO know what she did, and what life was like before then. I studied that vicious lying woman in detail because I wanted to know why everyone hated her, and why there were riots in the streets. Now I know, she sold the UK up the river and didn't care. I'm no patriot, but if you're in charge of a country, you do NOT do that. Bringing it back on topic, I think Bush has done a similar thing here, except instead of gutting the economy, he's let someone who broke the law and should be brought down to the fullest extent of the law off practiaclly scot free. It's a disgrace. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,09:46    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,09:27) The forces were removed not long before the attacks. How is that NOT an invitation? The Argentines wanted them back because they're strategically important, and we have left with the door wide open. No, I don't recall what it was like in the 70's. I wasn't born then, but I DO know what she did, and what life was like before then. I studied that vicious lying woman in detail because I wanted to know why everyone hated her, and why there were riots in the streets. Now I know, she sold the UK up the river and didn't care. I'm no patriot, but if you're in charge of a country, you do NOT do that. Bringing it back on topic, I think Bush has done a similar thing here, except instead of gutting the economy, he's let someone who broke the law and should be brought down to the fullest extent of the law off practiaclly scot free. It's a disgrace. What forces where removed and when? I still don't see that (if true) is an invitation to atack. When was the Falkland Islands part of an independent Argentina? BTW. Not everyone (even in the UK) hated her. Under Thatcher some things got worse but some things got better. IMO she was not an evil person. I do remember some of the stuff that happened in the 60s-70s here. Power cuts, 3 day weeks, people in full employment requiring benefits to live, food and fuel shortages etc. TBH the main topic here is beyond my comprehension as I am ill-informed of the detail.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,09:59    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,09:46) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,09:27) The forces were removed not long before the attacks. How is that NOT an invitation? The Argentines wanted them back because they're strategically important, and we have left with the door wide open. No, I don't recall what it was like in the 70's. I wasn't born then, but I DO know what she did, and what life was like before then. I studied that vicious lying woman in detail because I wanted to know why everyone hated her, and why there were riots in the streets. Now I know, she sold the UK up the river and didn't care. I'm no patriot, but if you're in charge of a country, you do NOT do that. Bringing it back on topic, I think Bush has done a similar thing here, except instead of gutting the economy, he's let someone who broke the law and should be brought down to the fullest extent of the law off practiaclly scot free. It's a disgrace. What forces where removed and when? I still don't see that (if true) is an invitation to atack. When was the Falkland Islands part of an independent Argentina? BTW. Not everyone (even in the UK) hated her. Under Thatcher some things got worse but some things got better. IMO she was not an evil person. I do remember some of the stuff that happened in the 60s-70s here. Power cuts, 3 day weeks, people in full employment requiring benefits to live, food and fuel shortages etc. TBH the main topic here is beyond my comprehension as I am ill-informed of the detail. Name some of the good she did then. Actual good. Stuff that didnt turn out to be a way in for her cronies. When you come up with stuff ask yourself was it worth it? I know some people like her. So what? Some people like Nick Griffin (No, I'm not saying they are the same, just that people like different things, some of them things they shouldn't like). I don't get how you don't see the removal of the defense force (cutting down that is, not total packing of bags) is an invitation. If you know that someone wants something of yours, if you turn your back and go "oops, can't see it now, hope no one steals it" how is that NOT an invitation to steal it (albeit with implication you're going to get it back)? Things weren't great in the 60's/70's, but at least the economy was, you know, THERE. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,10:25    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,09:59) Name some of the good she did then. Actual good. Stuff that didnt turn out to be a way in for her cronies. When you come up with stuff ask yourself was it worth it? I know some people like her. So what? Some people like Nick Griffin (No, I'm not saying they are the same, just that people like different things, some of them things they shouldn't like). I don't get how you don't see the removal of the defense force (cutting down that is, not total packing of bags) is an invitation. If you know that someone wants something of yours, if you turn your back and go "oops, can't see it now, hope no one steals it" how is that NOT an invitation to steal it (albeit with implication you're going to get it back)? Things weren't great in the 60's/70's, but at least the economy was, you know, THERE. Well some good stuff. In 1978 a lance corporal in the British army earned so little that he would be getting welfare payments to support a family. Now a lance corporal had on average served more that 3 years in the army. Yet still required welfare to support a wife and child. In the early 70s late 60s my mother used to go to every single shop in town before purchasing food so that she could save a penny or 2 on each item. Cash was tight. Those things changed under Thatcher's government. You still haven't shown evidence that the FI defence force was cut in half yet. Why not? I am not dissputing it BTW, you may be correct, I just aint seen evidence. Now as to "invitation". Since when is a reduced guard = to an invitation? If I guard my property with a fully loaded 2 barelled shotgun then take 1 cartridge out is that an invitation to tresspass on my property? I don't think so. Why would an Argentine claim to the Falklands be legitimate?

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,10:33    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,10:25) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,09:59) Name some of the good she did then. Actual good. Stuff that didnt turn out to be a way in for her cronies. When you come up with stuff ask yourself was it worth it? I know some people like her. So what? Some people like Nick Griffin (No, I'm not saying they are the same, just that people like different things, some of them things they shouldn't like). I don't get how you don't see the removal of the defense force (cutting down that is, not total packing of bags) is an invitation. If you know that someone wants something of yours, if you turn your back and go "oops, can't see it now, hope no one steals it" how is that NOT an invitation to steal it (albeit with implication you're going to get it back)? Things weren't great in the 60's/70's, but at least the economy was, you know, THERE. Well some good stuff. In 1978 a lance corporal in the British army earned so little that he would be getting welfare payments to support a family. Now a lance corporal had on average served more that 3 years in the army. Yet still required welfare to support a wife and child. In the early 70s late 60s my mother used to go to every single shop in town before purchasing food so that she could save a penny or 2 on each item. Cash was tight. Those things changed under Thatcher's government. You still haven't shown evidence that the FI defence force was cut in half yet. Why not? I am not dissputing it BTW, you may be correct, I just aint seen evidence. Now as to "invitation". Since when is a reduced guard = to an invitation? If I guard my property with a fully loaded 2 barelled shotgun then take 1 cartridge out is that an invitation to tresspass on my property? I don't think so. Why would an Argentine claim to the Falklands be legitimate? If you remove the very thing that is keeping someone off property you see as being yours then they're likely to nick it. If you reduce the size of a force to a number small enough that the opponents could easily take what they want and what they think is theres (note, I did not say they had a legit claim) then they aren't likely to stand about playing with string. I'm looking for it, I'm sure that's what I read about it, and I'm looking, but I'm also doing other things, so it's not nuber 1 priority right now. (It's good to have a civilised discussion). -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,10:34    Umm, Stephen, I think you are conflating things here.  A wage rise for a group of people who were underpaid (as indeed my mother was as a teacher at the time) does not translate into good things going on at the level of the country.   What Thatcher and her cronies did that was unforgiveable was throw several million onto the scrap heap and not give them a hand off it.  When I was in Sheffield a few years ago, they had as a news item the amazing idea that they could re-train ex colliery and steel workers as electricians and joiners and suchlike.  This should have been done decades ago.   The only reason Thatcher could afford to do what she did was North sea oil. Another point- the reasons why people are better off today have little to do with her and her friends- cheap foreign labour, increased division of labour and improved technology make a big difference.  On the macro scale, the UK economy grew more in the 30 years after WW2, as in % growth, than it did under her rule! What perhaps you could say is that her inspired destructionism meant that the UK got a head start into the brave new world of services, and as such has been able to make more money quicker than some other countries.  Of course whether you regard such a brave new world, with the attendant good and bad things, as overall a good thing depends on your viewpoint.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,10:43    The level of ignorance here is astounding but I won't comment on that.  What I do wonder is why is this crap being floated on this board?

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,10:47    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,10:33) If you remove the very thing that is keeping someone off property you see as being yours then they're likely to nick it. If you reduce the size of a force to a number small enough that the opponents could easily take what they want and what they think is theres (note, I did not say they had a legit claim) then they aren't likely to stand about playing with string. I'm looking for it, I'm sure that's what I read about it, and I'm looking, but I'm also doing other things, so it's not nuber 1 priority right now. (It's good to have a civilised discussion). Oh, I don't mind staying civilised. Despite what I have said I am not a Maggie fan. I just do not see her as evil. The country she "inherited" was a mess and some things improved under her government. Not everything BTW. As to the FI defence, take your time. I just do not recall the defense being weakend imediately prior to the invasion. IIRC the marines on FI was twice the normal amount at the time of the invasion (still only about 2 platoons BTW). No, you did not state that Argentina had a legitimate claim. I had just implied that is what you meant from previous (indirect) comments.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,10:54    Quote (guthrie @ July 04 2007,10:34) Umm, Stephen, I think you are conflating things here.  A wage rise for a group of people who were underpaid (as indeed my mother was as a teacher at the time) does not translate into good things going on at the level of the country.   What Thatcher and her cronies did that was unforgiveable was throw several million onto the scrap heap and not give them a hand off it.  When I was in Sheffield a few years ago, they had as a news item the amazing idea that they could re-train ex colliery and steel workers as electricians and joiners and suchlike.  This should have been done decades ago.   The only reason Thatcher could afford to do what she did was North sea oil. Another point- the reasons why people are better off today have little to do with her and her friends- cheap foreign labour, increased division of labour and improved technology make a big difference.  On the macro scale, the UK economy grew more in the 30 years after WW2, as in % growth, than it did under her rule! What perhaps you could say is that her inspired destructionism meant that the UK got a head start into the brave new world of services, and as such has been able to make more money quicker than some other countries.  Of course whether you regard such a brave new world, with the attendant good and bad things, as overall a good thing depends on your viewpoint. Some good points. I don't really want to say that Thatcher was perfect, she wasn't. I do think that reducing the power of the unions was good thing though. I am saying that as a member of a strong union BTW. But in the 60s-70s Unions where spoiling the country IMO. I agree that a working person should earn enough to suport a family, but they should have to do productive work. Agh! I am sounding like a Thatcher fan. I am not. I just do not accept that she was evil and was plotting to make life worse for everyone in the working class.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,11:02    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,10:47) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,10:33) If you remove the very thing that is keeping someone off property you see as being yours then they're likely to nick it. If you reduce the size of a force to a number small enough that the opponents could easily take what they want and what they think is theres (note, I did not say they had a legit claim) then they aren't likely to stand about playing with string. I'm looking for it, I'm sure that's what I read about it, and I'm looking, but I'm also doing other things, so it's not nuber 1 priority right now. (It's good to have a civilised discussion). Oh, I don't mind staying civilised. Despite what I have said I am not a Maggie fan. I just do not see her as evil. The country she "inherited" was a mess and some things improved under her government. Not everything BTW. As to the FI defence, take your time. I just do not recall the defense being weakend imediately prior to the invasion. IIRC the marines on FI was twice the normal amount at the time of the invasion (still only about 2 platoons BTW). No, you did not state that Argentina had a legitimate claim. I had just implied that is what you meant from previous (indirect) comments. Ah, my bad, it was AFTER the start of the invasion. The defence was small to begin with (FAR too small) and they invaded without provocation, so we pulled out THEN. Appologies for the mixup in the timeline. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,11:06    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,10:54) Quote (guthrie @ July 04 2007,10:34) Umm, Stephen, I think you are conflating things here.  A wage rise for a group of people who were underpaid (as indeed my mother was as a teacher at the time) does not translate into good things going on at the level of the country.   What Thatcher and her cronies did that was unforgiveable was throw several million onto the scrap heap and not give them a hand off it.  When I was in Sheffield a few years ago, they had as a news item the amazing idea that they could re-train ex colliery and steel workers as electricians and joiners and suchlike.  This should have been done decades ago.   The only reason Thatcher could afford to do what she did was North sea oil. Another point- the reasons why people are better off today have little to do with her and her friends- cheap foreign labour, increased division of labour and improved technology make a big difference.  On the macro scale, the UK economy grew more in the 30 years after WW2, as in % growth, than it did under her rule! What perhaps you could say is that her inspired destructionism meant that the UK got a head start into the brave new world of services, and as such has been able to make more money quicker than some other countries.  Of course whether you regard such a brave new world, with the attendant good and bad things, as overall a good thing depends on your viewpoint. Some good points. I don't really want to say that Thatcher was perfect, she wasn't. I do think that reducing the power of the unions was good thing though. I am saying that as a member of a strong union BTW. But in the 60s-70s Unions where spoiling the country IMO. I agree that a working person should earn enough to suport a family, but they should have to do productive work. Agh! I am sounding like a Thatcher fan. I am not. I just do not accept that she was evil and was plotting to make life worse for everyone in the working class. I don't think she set out to, she just didn't care if she did. She totally gutted the economy, thanks to her, we now have virtually no primary or secondary industry. Oh, and Skeptic, WHO is being ignorant, pray tell? -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,11:25    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,11:06) I don't think she set out to, she just didn't care if she did. She totally gutted the economy, thanks to her, we now have virtually no primary or secondary industry. Oh, and Skeptic, WHO is being ignorant, pray tell? I think that the blame is missplaced. We had virtually no (internationally) competitive industry before she became prime minister. BTW. Don't bother with skeptic as I doubt he/she will bother to give a honest answer.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,11:46    Quote (skeptic @ July 04 2007,10:43) The level of ignorance here is astounding but I won't comment on that.   Expert on British history, are ya, Skeptic? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,11:54    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,11:25) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,11:06) I don't think she set out to, she just didn't care if she did. She totally gutted the economy, thanks to her, we now have virtually no primary or secondary industry. Oh, and Skeptic, WHO is being ignorant, pray tell? I think that the blame is missplaced. We had virtually no (internationally) competitive industry before she became prime minister. BTW. Don't bother with skeptic as I doubt he/she will bother to give a honest answer. We had an economy. Her reigime started brightly, and rapidly fell into being one of the worst in many a year. I don't think she was "evil" just unprincipled, self centred, domineering and cruel. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,12:02    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 04 2007,17:46) Quote (skeptic @ July 04 2007,10:43) The level of ignorance here is astounding but I won't comment on that.   Expert on British history, are ya, Skeptic? Hell, I know I'm not! Louis P.S. Undoubtedly dear Lenny, it was the fact that we have inadvertantly been mean to Shurb and his minions. Since Skeptic hasn't bothered to inform us why atheists are really mean and damaging to society, I have no doubt he'll equally fail to point out how we wicked "liberals"* are bashing poor innocent conservatives. Shame really. *Yeah I know, but guess what we're dealing with. -------------- Bye.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,12:05    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,11:54) We had an economy. Her reigime started brightly, and rapidly fell into being one of the worst in many a year. I don't think she was "evil" just unprincipled, self centred, domineering and cruel. I would like a point by point account. I can remember life being much worse for working people in the 60s and 70s than in the late 80s. Maybe I am mad and remember things wrong. Tell me explicitily how Maggie Thatcher was worse for the working* class than the Labour governments (or indeed conservative ones) from the 1960s or 70s! *I actually mean working class here. Not parasites.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,12:27    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,18:05) *I actually mean working class here. Not parasites. Roll up, roll up, come and see the comedy inherent in the discussion. Louis P.S. {sings} "There may be touble aheeeeeead......" -------------- Bye.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,13:37    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,12:05) *I actually mean working class here. Not parasites. You mean people who don't actually work for a living? Like, say, the majority stockholders in Fortune 500 corporations -- most of whom inherited their wealth, and none of whom work for a single ducat they recieve in dividends? Those parasites? (giggle) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,13:45    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,12:05) I can remember life being much worse for working people in the 60s and 70s than in the late 80s. Maybe I am mad and remember things wrong. Well, in the US, anyway, the 60's and early 70's were an economic boom time.  Real wages went continually up (and have gone down every year since). It wasn't till the mid-70's that the economy tanked -- which led to the rise of the Reagan Republicans in the early 80's.  They pulled the economy back with a program of giving huge welfare payments to the wealthy, and of wastefully lavish Keynesian military spending.   Kind of like, ya know, Dubya is trying to do today. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

don_quixote Posts: 110 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,14:11    Here's the Olbermann special opinion: You ceased to be the President of the United States It's stunning!

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,16:07    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,12:05) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,11:54) We had an economy. Her reigime started brightly, and rapidly fell into being one of the worst in many a year. I don't think she was "evil" just unprincipled, self centred, domineering and cruel. I would like a point by point account. I can remember life being much worse for working people in the 60s and 70s than in the late 80s. Maybe I am mad and remember things wrong. Tell me explicitily how Maggie Thatcher was worse for the working* class than the Labour governments (or indeed conservative ones) from the 1960s or 70s! *I actually mean working class here. Not parasites. Who said anything about the working class specifically? Rioting in the streets was a nice game set up by Thatcher, lovely fires they made. Here's a LOVELY statistic. I quote: "Since Margaret Thatcher first came to power in 1979, the number of people living below the official poverty line in Britain increased from 6 million to 11.7 million by 1986. Employment in manufacturing industry has decreased by almost 2 million, while the number employed in the service sector has increased by 746,000" An increase in over FIVE MILLION living below the poverty line. FIVE MILLION. Lets say it again FIVE MILLION. While the rich got rich, the poor mostly got poorer. At least until Black Wednesday..... ridiculous boom and bust economics that sent our economy crashing, even the rich got poor that day. Here's another choice quote: "She had a preference for indirect taxation over taxes on income, and value added tax (VAT) was raised sharply to 15%, with a resultant actual short-term rise in inflation.[citation needed] These moves hit businesses -- especially the manufacturing sector -- and unemployment quickly passed two million, doubling the one million unemployed under the previous Labour government." Privitisation, unemployement of (officially) 3.6 million or (estimated) 5 million. 5 million unemployment! This was a RISE from the previous labour figures. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Rev. BigDumbChimp Posts: 185 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,16:52    Quote (skeptic @ July 04 2007,10:43) The level of ignorance here is astounding but I won't comment on that.  What I do wonder is why is this crap being floated on this board? Do tell skeptic. Enlighted us. Or are you just going to do a drive by trolling?

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,17:25    I'm not sure what the point is but I do know that none of this has anything to do with evolutionary theory or science unless you're Lenny and you think that everything is connected via the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy.  As to the lesson in English history, I have no opinion as I have no more than general knowledge.  But as far as Libby, the facts of this case have been completely lost in liberal hysteria which many here seem to happily mouth.  And anyone who thinks Keith Olbermann is enlightened is riding a two-seat short bus. IMHO

Rev. BigDumbChimp Posts: 185 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,17:30    Quote (skeptic @ July 04 2007,17:25) I'm not sure what the point is but I do know that none of this has anything to do with evolutionary theory or science unless you're Lenny and you think that everything is connected via the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy.  As to the lesson in English history, I have no opinion as I have no more than general knowledge.  But as far as Libby, the facts of this case have been completely lost in liberal hysteria which many here seem to happily mouth.  And anyone who thinks Keith Olbermann is enlightened is riding a two-seat short bus. IMHO Please tell us the "real" facts then.

Dr.GH Posts: 2324 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,18:00    I think that the religious extremists that basically control the US Executive branch and most of the Justice Branch may have already established their theocracy.  The burnings just haven't started in earnest.  There are more hired killers in Iraq than professional "soldiers."  The "soldiers" have set a record for murder and rape.  They are supposedly under some sort of legal and "moral" controls. Honest folks, I think we are done. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,18:05    Quote (skeptic @ July 04 2007,17:25) I'm not sure what the point is but I do know that none of this has anything to do with evolutionary theory or science unless you're Lenny and you think that everything is connected via the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy.  As to the lesson in English history, I have no opinion as I have no more than general knowledge.  But as far as Libby, the facts of this case have been completely lost in liberal hysteria which many here seem to happily mouth.  And anyone who thinks Keith Olbermann is enlightened is riding a two-seat short bus. IMHO Does absolutely EVERYTHING on this board have to be about science? No, I don't believe it does. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,19:11    Quote (skeptic @ July 04 2007,17:25) I'm not sure what the point is but I do know that none of this has anything to do with evolutionary theory or science unless you're Lenny and you think that everything is connected via the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy.  As to the lesson in English history, I have no opinion as I have no more than general knowledge.  But as far as Libby, the facts of this case have been completely lost in liberal hysteria which many here seem to happily mouth.  And anyone who thinks Keith Olbermann is enlightened is riding a two-seat short bus. IMHO Says you.  (shrug) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,19:19    This board is fundamentally about evolutionary science and the creationists who fear and reject it. Everything on this board does not have to be about science, but it's a good idea to keep the non-scientific content in the minority. Just make sure to toss in a science post or two for every one about habanero pot pies.

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,19:29    Quote (skeptic @ July 04 2007,09:43) The level of ignorance here is astounding but I won't comment on that.  What I do wonder is why is this crap being floated on this board? Because if we started flushing crap somebody might get flushed down with it. And you know we love to keep certain people around for laughs. So be grateful. *Extends foot for kissing* -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

clamboy Posts: 299 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,21:35    Quote (Kristine @ July 04 2007,19:29) *Extends foot for kissing* Muchas smooches from el Con-KISS-tador! I know, I just jump in for fun when the fish are leaping into the pan, like afDave. But fer real, *skeptic*, you are a hoot. Where do you get your talking points, The Dittohead Daily? I know, I know, it's only perjury when a Democrat does it, blah blah blah, (yawn) (shrug) as Lenny would say. Really, do you have *any* thoughts not previously filtered by the editorial board of the Washington Times?

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,22:15    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 04 2007,13:37) Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,12:05) *I actually mean working class here. Not parasites. You mean people who don't actually work for a living? Like, say, the majority stockholders in Fortune 500 corporations -- most of whom inherited their wealth, and none of whom work for a single ducat they recieve in dividends? Those parasites? (giggle) Well yes, I suppose that they are. Almost everything that is worth having is achieved through someones labour. Therefore if someone enjoys the fruits of civilisation but does nothing to contribute, then the description as a parasite seems acurate. Then again, I imagine that the majority of us living in the 1st World could probably be described as parasites on the 3rd World.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,22:47    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,16:07) ... Rioting in the streets was a nice game set up by Thatcher, lovely fires they made. Here's a LOVELY statistic. I quote: "Since Margaret Thatcher first came to power in 1979, the number of people living below the official poverty line in Britain increased from 6 million to 11.7 million by 1986. Employment in manufacturing industry has decreased by almost 2 million, while the number employed in the service sector has increased by 746,000" An increase in over FIVE MILLION living below the poverty line. FIVE MILLION. Lets say it again FIVE MILLION. While the rich got rich, the poor mostly got poorer. At least until Black Wednesday..... ridiculous boom and bust economics that sent our economy crashing, even the rich got poor that day. Here's another choice quote: "She had a preference for indirect taxation over taxes on income, and value added tax (VAT) was raised sharply to 15%, with a resultant actual short-term rise in inflation.[citation needed] These moves hit businesses -- especially the manufacturing sector -- and unemployment quickly passed two million, doubling the one million unemployed under the previous Labour government." Privitisation, unemployement of (officially) 3.6 million or (estimated) 5 million. 5 million unemployment! This was a RISE from the previous labour figures. What is the poverty line? Would you consider a person that has access to housing, heating, adequate food and clothing to be living in poverty? Privitisation wasn't universally bad. At least 1 business going private was a good thing. The telecomms area was a major bonus to it's customers by going private. On the whole though I do agree with you on that point. Water, power and the railway should have stayed in public ownership. Mass unemployment was very worrying. That was in the early years of her government though. Things did improve. Manufacturing declined because we was uncompetitive. It was cheaper to buy imported goods rather than UK manufactured ones and so that is what most people did. It is sad that British manufacturing has dropped drastically but how would you have prevented that happening? I can only think of a few unaceptable ways. 1)Reduce British workers wages and working conditions to make UK products cheaper. or 2)Ban imported goods. or 3)Impose a huge tarrif onto imported goods that threatened UK ones (effectively the same as number 2). VAT. Is that a tax that the UK has any authority on? I am not certain but thought VAT was a EU tax.

clamboy Posts: 299 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,01:02    Well, I'll be danged. The Washington Times actually editorialized thusly (quoted at dailykos): "Perjury is a serious crime. This newspaper argued on behalf of its seriousness in the 1990s, during the Clinton perjury controversy, and today is no different. We'd have hoped that more conservatives would agree. The integrity of the judicial process depends on fact-finding and truth-telling. A jury found Libby guilty of not only perjury but also obstruction [of] justice and lying to a grand jury. It handed down a very supportable verdict. This is true regardless of the trumped-up investigation and political witch hunt. It is true regardless of the unjustifiably harsh sentence. Had Mr. Bush reduced Libby's sentence to 15 months, we might have been able to support the decision. Alas, he did not." Tepid, yes, and full of the usual conservative culture of victimhood, but that's as close to a criticism of Bush that one will ever find in that paper. When the Washington Times tut-tuts a Bush action, you can pretty much tell that that particular action was beyond any definition of "proper," or "legal," or "Constitutional."

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,01:16    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,22:47) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,16:07) ... Rioting in the streets was a nice game set up by Thatcher, lovely fires they made. Here's a LOVELY statistic. I quote: "Since Margaret Thatcher first came to power in 1979, the number of people living below the official poverty line in Britain increased from 6 million to 11.7 million by 1986. Employment in manufacturing industry has decreased by almost 2 million, while the number employed in the service sector has increased by 746,000" An increase in over FIVE MILLION living below the poverty line. FIVE MILLION. Lets say it again FIVE MILLION. While the rich got rich, the poor mostly got poorer. At least until Black Wednesday..... ridiculous boom and bust economics that sent our economy crashing, even the rich got poor that day. Here's another choice quote: "She had a preference for indirect taxation over taxes on income, and value added tax (VAT) was raised sharply to 15%, with a resultant actual short-term rise in inflation.[citation needed] These moves hit businesses -- especially the manufacturing sector -- and unemployment quickly passed two million, doubling the one million unemployed under the previous Labour government." Privitisation, unemployement of (officially) 3.6 million or (estimated) 5 million. 5 million unemployment! This was a RISE from the previous labour figures. What is the poverty line? Would you consider a person that has access to housing, heating, adequate food and clothing to be living in poverty? Privitisation wasn't universally bad. At least 1 business going private was a good thing. The telecomms area was a major bonus to it's customers by going private. On the whole though I do agree with you on that point. Water, power and the railway should have stayed in public ownership. Mass unemployment was very worrying. That was in the early years of her government though. Things did improve. Manufacturing declined because we was uncompetitive. It was cheaper to buy imported goods rather than UK manufactured ones and so that is what most people did. It is sad that British manufacturing has dropped drastically but how would you have prevented that happening? I can only think of a few unaceptable ways. 1)Reduce British workers wages and working conditions to make UK products cheaper. or 2)Ban imported goods. or 3)Impose a huge tarrif onto imported goods that threatened UK ones (effectively the same as number 2). VAT. Is that a tax that the UK has any authority on? I am not certain but thought VAT was a EU tax. Good grief.  Are you too young to remember the Thatcher years, Stephen, or has a warm rose-tinted glow already settled over the '80s? "Mass unemployment was very worrying" - not to the Thatcherites it wasn't.  It was created.  Deliberately.  How better to increase profitability and help the rich get richer than to make several million people desperate for a job, or terrified of losing the ones they had? Still, never mind, eh?  Quite a few of them still had "access to housing, heating, adequate food and clothing", and the ones who didn't were probably "parasites". -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,02:26    Quote (JohnW @ July 05 2007,01:16) Good grief.  Are you too young to remember the Thatcher years, Stephen, or has a warm rose-tinted glow already settled over the '80s? "Mass unemployment was very worrying" - not to the Thatcherites it wasn't.  It was created.  Deliberately.  How better to increase profitability and help the rich get richer than to make several million people desperate for a job, or terrified of losing the ones they had? Still, never mind, eh?  Quite a few of them still had "access to housing, heating, adequate food and clothing", and the ones who didn't were probably "parasites". I am not too young to remember the 80's but a rose-tinted glow on my part is possible. After all, I did have a pretty good time during the 80's. When you say "Thatcherite" who do you mean? You say that mass unemployment was deliberately created. There may be some truth in that but I don't think it is the whole story. We had an awfull lot of businesses that run unprofitably and in a changing global trading market they where almost certainly unsustainable. Having "access to housing, heating, adequate food and clothing" is a rare thing in the World as a whole. It is even relatively new in the industrialised UK. Something that has dramatically changed within my lifetime. You (and many others) object to my using the word parasite. Let me explain what I mean. I consider anyone that chooses to not contribute towards society yet expects to live a 1st World lifestyle (paid for by others) as a parasite. I do not consider someone that wishes to contribute but is unable to do so in the same light. If someone recieves aid from others without contributing, why is that not parasitical?

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,03:40    Ok, how about this one- she used central gvt powers to make it impossible for Councils to oppose selling off council housing dead cheaply, whilst not making any provision to replace it.  Like all scams, this worked well for a while, until in the past few years councils have been unable to meet demand for affordable housing, leading to increased use of hotels, homelessness etc etc.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,03:51    Quote (guthrie @ July 05 2007,03:40) Ok, how about this one- she used central gvt powers to make it impossible for Councils to oppose selling off council housing dead cheaply, whilst not making any provision to replace it.  Like all scams, this worked well for a while, until in the past few years councils have been unable to meet demand for affordable housing, leading to increased use of hotels, homelessness etc etc. I agree that was a bad policy. A few people prospered at the expense of many.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,04:42    Ladies and Gentlefolk, I think that based on the two strands in this thread we can come to one conclusion: Governments=bastards. Therefore with that in mind I am starting the "Disaffected Individual Society Acting Solely To Effect Revolution". Our acronym might leave something to be desired but we shall tear down the governments and systems of this world and replace them with a cult of personality worshipping me a just and fair system of effecting law, order and the systems we must use to help the people acheive greatness. It will all be different when we're in power. Oh yes, oh yes it will. Louis P.S. It has been said that in a democracy a society gets the government it deserves. In all the whinging about the wickedness of La Thatcher (and my whinging about the wickedness of Tony B Liar, and other people's whinging about the wickedness of the IQ 70 mouth breathing oxygen thief that sits on the throne of the United States of Ambulatory Beefburgers) we forget one thing. Interestingly, we forget one thing for two different and mutually opposed reasons. That thing is that, as Caesar's slave reminded him, these governments are comprised of people. Not super humans, just ordinary flesh and blood humans like you and me (except Darth Robo of course). This means two things: 1) that these people who rule are prone to error (this we never seem to forget)  but also that these people do not act in isoolation. Blame Thatcher or Blair or Bush or whoever all you like, they did what they did with the complicity of a swathe of other people. So I don't hate the individual, I hate the apathy of people like me and you who don't go and change it. Protest and harranguing the govt works. It got women and black people the vote, it got rid of the poll tax etc etc etc. Get involved with people like Mark Thomas (in the UK) and organisations like Liberty and Amnesty and the ACLU in the USA. Fight for change. Don't just give your money, but your time. It really does work. 2) Whatever and whoever replaces them with also be comprised of people. People are both the strong and weak link in the chain. That's why it's our responsibility to keep them in check. The Libby thing is a disgrace. What's more of a disgrace is that the populace of the USA seems to look up from their burgers, moo about how outrageous it is for a while and go back to sleep. And don't think I would condemn we British any less. We're just looking up from a steak and ale pie. Any government will NEVER get everything right, it's not possible. But they can get things right enough. There is an alternative to party political, ideology driven, belief based politics of spin and placation, and that's politics based on the evidence. It's harder, slower moving and more difficult, and sadly that's why I see no party here or abroad do more than flirt with it occasionally. Oh well, rant over. -------------- Bye.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,06:37    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,22:47) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,16:07) ... Rioting in the streets was a nice game set up by Thatcher, lovely fires they made. Here's a LOVELY statistic. I quote: "Since Margaret Thatcher first came to power in 1979, the number of people living below the official poverty line in Britain increased from 6 million to 11.7 million by 1986. Employment in manufacturing industry has decreased by almost 2 million, while the number employed in the service sector has increased by 746,000" An increase in over FIVE MILLION living below the poverty line. FIVE MILLION. Lets say it again FIVE MILLION. While the rich got rich, the poor mostly got poorer. At least until Black Wednesday..... ridiculous boom and bust economics that sent our economy crashing, even the rich got poor that day. Here's another choice quote: "She had a preference for indirect taxation over taxes on income, and value added tax (VAT) was raised sharply to 15%, with a resultant actual short-term rise in inflation.[citation needed] These moves hit businesses -- especially the manufacturing sector -- and unemployment quickly passed two million, doubling the one million unemployed under the previous Labour government." Privitisation, unemployement of (officially) 3.6 million or (estimated) 5 million. 5 million unemployment! This was a RISE from the previous labour figures. What is the poverty line? Would you consider a person that has access to housing, heating, adequate food and clothing to be living in poverty? Privitisation wasn't universally bad. At least 1 business going private was a good thing. The telecomms area was a major bonus to it's customers by going private. On the whole though I do agree with you on that point. Water, power and the railway should have stayed in public ownership. Mass unemployment was very worrying. That was in the early years of her government though. Things did improve. Manufacturing declined because we was uncompetitive. It was cheaper to buy imported goods rather than UK manufactured ones and so that is what most people did. It is sad that British manufacturing has dropped drastically but how would you have prevented that happening? I can only think of a few unaceptable ways. 1)Reduce British workers wages and working conditions to make UK products cheaper. or 2)Ban imported goods. or 3)Impose a huge tarrif onto imported goods that threatened UK ones (effectively the same as number 2). VAT. Is that a tax that the UK has any authority on? I am not certain but thought VAT was a EU tax. Your rose tinted spectacles are worrying to me. My family were at their richest in the 80's (as far as I can tell) and THEY hated Thatcher, because they could see what she was doing to the people less well off. You must have been in one HELL of an ivory tower. No, because that isn't what the poverty line represents. The poverty line is the minimum level of income one needs to be able to get an ADEQUATE standard of living. Anyone below the line DOES NOT HAVE AN ADEQUATE STANDARD OF LIVING. So what if it's worse than Ethiopia? This ISN'T Ethopia, and there should be a damn good standard of living, for 5 million more people from the previous decade, this reality slipped away. "Mass unemployment was very worrying. " As has been mentioned, not to her government it wasn't. The rich were getting richer and we were in a boom. A BOOM I tells yer! But because it was unsustainable it collapsed. Mass unemployment became even WORSE during this time. At the time it was a UK determined thing, because it was brought in after consulting the EU. The 80's was a great time if you started out rich. If you were poor, it got worse for you. A lot worse. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Darth Robo Posts: 148 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,06:38    Query:  Did someone call for an assassin droid?  Is skeptic complaining about those damned "liberals" again?     -------------- "Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,06:57    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,22:15) Then again, I imagine that the majority of us living in the 1st World could probably be described as parasites on the 3rd World. And they would be correct. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Rev. BigDumbChimp Posts: 185 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,07:38    Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ July 04 2007,17:30) Quote (skeptic @ July 04 2007,17:25) I'm not sure what the point is but I do know that none of this has anything to do with evolutionary theory or science unless you're Lenny and you think that everything is connected via the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy.  As to the lesson in English history, I have no opinion as I have no more than general knowledge.  But as far as Libby, the facts of this case have been completely lost in liberal hysteria which many here seem to happily mouth.  And anyone who thinks Keith Olbermann is enlightened is riding a two-seat short bus. IMHO Please tell us the "real" facts then. Real facts skeptic. Chop chop!

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,07:55    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 05 2007,06:37) Your rose tinted spectacles are worrying to me. My family were at their richest in the 80's (as far as I can tell) and THEY hated Thatcher, because they could see what she was doing to the people less well off. You must have been in one HELL of an ivory tower. No, because that isn't what the poverty line represents. The poverty line is the minimum level of income one needs to be able to get an ADEQUATE standard of living. Anyone below the line DOES NOT HAVE AN ADEQUATE STANDARD OF LIVING. So what if it's worse than Ethiopia? This ISN'T Ethopia, and there should be a damn good standard of living, for 5 million more people from the previous decade, this reality slipped away. "Mass unemployment was very worrying. " As has been mentioned, not to her government it wasn't. The rich were getting richer and we were in a boom. A BOOM I tells yer! But because it was unsustainable it collapsed. Mass unemployment became even WORSE during this time. At the time it was a UK determined thing, because it was brought in after consulting the EU. The 80's was a great time if you started out rich. If you were poor, it got worse for you. A lot worse. I don't think that I lived in an ivory tower. You may think that but I don't. Both my parents went to work throughout most of my childhood. Apart from 1 year of unemployment I have worked since Sep 1978. You have not explained what you consider to be poverty. Do you consider someone that lives in a house that is heated and can afford adequate food and clothing to be living in poverty? I don't. Within my lifetime workers did not have the standard of living that some people on welfare in the UK enjoy now. Why do you think that a person living in the UK automatically deserves a standard of living that is higher than a citizen of Ethiopia? Don't get me wrong, I want a higher standard of living for everyone than that, but why would someone deserve it? You think that mass unemployment was a deliberate choice by Thatchers government. I don't. I think it was mainly due to a changing World market. Sure, some of it could be down to specific conservative policies but I doubt that the explanation is as simple as just that. VAT: I will concede as I don't know much about it. During most of the 80's I was working abroad and came back to visit about 2-6 times per year. Each time I returned there seemed to be more cars on the road and more leisure facilities which makes me think that things got steadily better for most people.

snoeman Posts: 109 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,08:11    Louis:   Quote Ladies and Gentlefolk, I think that based on the two strands in this thread we can come to one conclusion: Governments=bastards. Therefore with that in mind I am starting the "Disaffected Individual Society Acting Solely To Effect Revolution". Our acronym might leave something to be desired but we shall tear down the governments and systems of this world and replace them with a cult of personality worshipping me a just and fair system of effecting law, order and the systems we must use to help the people acheive greatness. It will all be different when we're in power. Oh yes, oh yes it will. Louis Heh.  As I read that, my thoughts drifted back to 1971 (even though I was only 3 at the time):  "Meet the new boss; same as the old boss..."

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,10:37    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 05 2007,07:55) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 05 2007,06:37) Your rose tinted spectacles are worrying to me. My family were at their richest in the 80's (as far as I can tell) and THEY hated Thatcher, because they could see what she was doing to the people less well off. You must have been in one HELL of an ivory tower. No, because that isn't what the poverty line represents. The poverty line is the minimum level of income one needs to be able to get an ADEQUATE standard of living. Anyone below the line DOES NOT HAVE AN ADEQUATE STANDARD OF LIVING. So what if it's worse than Ethiopia? This ISN'T Ethopia, and there should be a damn good standard of living, for 5 million more people from the previous decade, this reality slipped away. "Mass unemployment was very worrying. " As has been mentioned, not to her government it wasn't. The rich were getting richer and we were in a boom. A BOOM I tells yer! But because it was unsustainable it collapsed. Mass unemployment became even WORSE during this time. At the time it was a UK determined thing, because it was brought in after consulting the EU. The 80's was a great time if you started out rich. If you were poor, it got worse for you. A lot worse. I don't think that I lived in an ivory tower. You may think that but I don't. Both my parents went to work throughout most of my childhood. Apart from 1 year of unemployment I have worked since Sep 1978. You have not explained what you consider to be poverty. Do you consider someone that lives in a house that is heated and can afford adequate food and clothing to be living in poverty? I don't. Within my lifetime workers did not have the standard of living that some people on welfare in the UK enjoy now. Why do you think that a person living in the UK automatically deserves a standard of living that is higher than a citizen of Ethiopia? Don't get me wrong, I want a higher standard of living for everyone than that, but why would someone deserve it? You think that mass unemployment was a deliberate choice by Thatchers government. I don't. I think it was mainly due to a changing World market. Sure, some of it could be down to specific conservative policies but I doubt that the explanation is as simple as just that. VAT: I will concede as I don't know much about it. During most of the 80's I was working abroad and came back to visit about 2-6 times per year. Each time I returned there seemed to be more cars on the road and more leisure facilities which makes me think that things got steadily better for most people. Ok, firstly, the ivory tower thing was a little bit heated and seemed to imply I was having a go at you, I wasn't I was having a go near you, not the same thing. Secondly, YES I consider someone in the UK without adequate living standards is in poverty, even if they have shelter and heat, why the hell don't you? Do you REALLY think there's no poverty in the UK? Don't you consider the inability to provide an adequate standard of living compared to the UK expected standard to be poverty? If not, why not? Thirdly, I didn't mean they DESERVE it, just that, since the UK is a far richer country they SHOULD deserve an adequate standard of living, and should EXPECT one, as opposed to Ethipoia, who deserve one but probably don't have one, and are less likely to expect one. I don't think they got together and said "How many can we drive out today?" I think they just didn't CARE that they made so many unemployed. They felt what they did was the best for the country, and so they aimed for it. Thatchers use of the John Adams comment about people getting crushed in the wheels (paraphrasing, obviously) shows just how much they didn't care. If someone sees massive problems for a proposed action and DOES NOT CARE then they aim to do it, if only by collateral. They got better for the rich, and worse for the poor. The fact you cannot accept this, and think that just because a large number of people suddenly had more cinemas and such like means the UK was A-OK is, to me, really, really REALLY disturbing. You only saw a small part of what was happening. If you are in a room where 100 people are having a party and 5 are being tortured you might be forgiven for thinking that pretty much is having a good time there and things are generally fine, but if you don't bother to look in the rest of the house and see the 400 being tortured before you claim "so I think the whole house is absolutely fine" then your opinions are tainted. REALLY tainted. I never saw any of this first hand, but my family did and they've told me the good and bad that they saw. I've studied this and seen a fair amount of good, but also a whole lot of bad. Believe me, if you really look without simply stating "Nope, what I saw suggested it was sunshine and roses" then you'll see that away from the affluence, there was a whole lot of trouble. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,11:40    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 05 2007,10:37) I don't think they got together and said "How many can we drive out today?" I think they just didn't CARE that they made so many unemployed. They felt what they did was the best for the country, and so they aimed for it. Thatchers use of the John Adams comment about people getting crushed in the wheels (paraphrasing, obviously) shows just how much they didn't care. If someone sees massive problems for a proposed action and DOES NOT CARE then they aim to do it, if only by collateral. Ian, I think it was more sinister than that.  It wasn't just that they didn't care; mass unemployment was the means by which they shifted money and power in the direction of their supporters.  If people have lost their job, or are frightened of losing thier job, it's much easier to accept lower wages and poorer working conditions.  I'm sure many of them were decent enough to have preferred another way of achieving their aims, but they thought it was a price worth paying.  Which is an easy decision to make when it's not you paying the price. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,11:42    Quote (JohnW @ July 05 2007,11:40) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 05 2007,10:37) I don't think they got together and said "How many can we drive out today?" I think they just didn't CARE that they made so many unemployed. They felt what they did was the best for the country, and so they aimed for it. Thatchers use of the John Adams comment about people getting crushed in the wheels (paraphrasing, obviously) shows just how much they didn't care. If someone sees massive problems for a proposed action and DOES NOT CARE then they aim to do it, if only by collateral. Ian, I think it was more sinister than that.  It wasn't just that they didn't care; mass unemployment was the means by which they shifted money and power in the direction of their supporters.  If people have lost their job, or are frightened of losing thier job, it's much easier to accept lower wages and poorer working conditions.  I'm sure many of them were decent enough to have preferred another way of achieving their aims, but they thought it was a price worth paying.  Which is an easy decision to make when it's not you paying the price. That's true enough. I don't think the milk snatcher cared one jot about anyone but herself. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,14:25    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 05 2007,10:37) Ok, firstly, the ivory tower thing was a little bit heated and seemed to imply I was having a go at you, I wasn't I was having a go near you, not the same thing. Secondly, YES I consider someone in the UK without adequate living standards is in poverty, even if they have shelter and heat, why the hell don't you? Do you REALLY think there's no poverty in the UK? Don't you consider the inability to provide an adequate standard of living compared to the UK expected standard to be poverty? If not, why not? Thirdly, I didn't mean they DESERVE it, just that, since the UK is a far richer country they SHOULD deserve an adequate standard of living, and should EXPECT one, as opposed to Ethipoia, who deserve one but probably don't have one, and are less likely to expect one. I don't think they got together and said "How many can we drive out today?" I think they just didn't CARE that they made so many unemployed. They felt what they did was the best for the country, and so they aimed for it. Thatchers use of the John Adams comment about people getting crushed in the wheels (paraphrasing, obviously) shows just how much they didn't care. If someone sees massive problems for a proposed action and DOES NOT CARE then they aim to do it, if only by collateral. They got better for the rich, and worse for the poor. The fact you cannot accept this, and think that just because a large number of people suddenly had more cinemas and such like means the UK was A-OK is, to me, really, really REALLY disturbing. You only saw a small part of what was happening. If you are in a room where 100 people are having a party and 5 are being tortured you might be forgiven for thinking that pretty much is having a good time there and things are generally fine, but if you don't bother to look in the rest of the house and see the 400 being tortured before you claim "so I think the whole house is absolutely fine" then your opinions are tainted. REALLY tainted. I never saw any of this first hand, but my family did and they've told me the good and bad that they saw. I've studied this and seen a fair amount of good, but also a whole lot of bad. Believe me, if you really look without simply stating "Nope, what I saw suggested it was sunshine and roses" then you'll see that away from the affluence, there was a whole lot of trouble. Ok, forget the ivory tower thing. I'm not bleeding, it doesn't matter. Yes I do think tht there is poverty in the UK. I would also like something to be done about it. But there is a need to decide what poverty actually is. I suspect (but don't know) that you would agree with this. http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/key%20facts.shtml I don't. I do not see any way that you could eliminate poverty if you use those criteria. Why would anyone consider a person that has housing, heating, clothing, reasonable amounts of food, access to clean water, education and health services to be living in poverty? Now I recognise that some people in the UK do not have that and accept that those people are living in poverty and that is an outrage. Hell, I would be willing to pay more tax if it was actually used effectively to assist our citizens that actually do live in poverty. I am sure you don't think that 3rd World people deserve to live in poverty. I do think that our high standards of living are partly responsible for a fair amount of the 3rd Worlds problems though. I would agree that they didn't say, "How many can we drive out today?" I also agree that some of their policies increased unemployment. What I don't think is that all the woes where entirely avoidable had we only had a more caring government. Things did get better for the rich. No surprise there, that is the way things tend to go (how would you go about preventing that?). The torture analogy is a tad harsh and I can only state things as I saw them. In my lifetime living standards have greatly improved for almost everyone in the UK. Almost everyone, there are some exceptions but I do not believe the % is very high at all. I do not subscribe to "Nope, what I saw suggested it was sunshine and roses". Why do you think that? Maybe my communication skills are so poor I am giving you that impression. What "affluence" are you reffering to BTW? I am not certain but get the impression that you consider me to be rich. I am not. It is just that in my life I have seen the general living standards of ordinary people improve almost beyond measure, in this country.

Paul Flocken Posts: 290 Joined: Dec. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,14:27    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 05 2007,11:42) That's true enough. I don't think the milk snatcher cared one jot about anyone but herself. i should go back and reread the whole thread thoroughly, but i think it is fascinating that the UK had a virtually identical analog to reagan's 'ketchup is a vegetable' schtick of the 80's. Sincerely, Paul PS  When, just for fun, I googled 'ketchup is a vegetable' I only got as far as 'ketchup is a...' and google finished the rest.  the first hit is here. -------------- "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,16:22    Quote (JohnW @ July 05 2007,11:40) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 05 2007,10:37) I don't think they got together and said "How many can we drive out today?" I think they just didn't CARE that they made so many unemployed. They felt what they did was the best for the country, and so they aimed for it. Thatchers use of the John Adams comment about people getting crushed in the wheels (paraphrasing, obviously) shows just how much they didn't care. If someone sees massive problems for a proposed action and DOES NOT CARE then they aim to do it, if only by collateral. Ian, I think it was more sinister than that.  It wasn't just that they didn't care; mass unemployment was the means by which they shifted money and power in the direction of their supporters.  If people have lost their job, or are frightened of losing thier job, it's much easier to accept lower wages and poorer working conditions.  I'm sure many of them were decent enough to have preferred another way of achieving their aims, but they thought it was a price worth paying.  Which is an easy decision to make when it's not you paying the price. Are working conditions/pay worse for most people ATM than in 1978?

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,17:24    Quote (JohnW @ July 05 2007,11:40) Ian, I think it was more sinister than that.  It wasn't just that they didn't care; mass unemployment was the means by which they shifted money and power in the direction of their supporters.  If people have lost their job, or are frightened of losing thier job, it's much easier to accept lower wages and poorer working conditions.  I'm sure many of them were decent enough to have preferred another way of achieving their aims, but they thought it was a price worth paying.  Which is an easy decision to make when it's not you paying the price. Ooooh, a fellow commie.   The term for this is "resevre army of the unemployed". -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,17:26    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 05 2007,14:25) Things did get better for the rich. No surprise there, that is the way things tend to go (how would you go about preventing that?). Shoot them.   I'm KIDDING, dammit. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,18:37    " It is just that in my life I have seen the general living standards of ordinary people improve almost beyond measure, in this country." This bit is where you are leaving me baffled. You seem to be sticking your head in the sand when it comes to the poor people during the Thatcher era. Things did not get better, I even showed stats to show this, and yet you continue to say "well I saw things go well". I think this may be fairly comparible to the attitudes of some creos who claim no evidence for evo based upon a few hoaxes. When shown other evidence they go back to "Well I don't see it". Just because there are ameneties does not mean they are used by, or CAN be used by everyone. WHY do you not see someone who does not have an adequate standard of living to be poverty? I don't understand why you think these people are suddenly sunshine and roses because they're better off than most of other places. YES the poverty in, for example, Ethiopia is worse than British or American or Canadian poverty, but that doesn't mean that the first world poverty is magically no longer poverty because there are a few really frighteningly basic services available. Just because someone has a roof over their head doesn't mean they have a house worth living in, just because they CAN eat doesn't mean they have good food. Just because they have clothes doesn't mean they are really that good. "Margaret Thatcher made two significant contributions to poverty in the UK. She massively increased it, leaving at the end of the Conservative tenure one in three children living in households with less than half the average income (the official definition of poverty). Then she said it did not exist." My particular favourite though: "Margaret Thatcher's politics created the social and economic problems which governments today must address. She may still live in the dreams of the nostalgic right, but the rest of the world has moved on." -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,23:29    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 05 2007,18:37) " It is just that in my life I have seen the general living standards of ordinary people improve almost beyond measure, in this country." This bit is where you are leaving me baffled. You seem to be sticking your head in the sand when it comes to the poor people during the Thatcher era. Things did not get better, I even showed stats to show this, and yet you continue to say "well I saw things go well". I think this may be fairly comparible to the attitudes of some creos who claim no evidence for evo based upon a few hoaxes. When shown other evidence they go back to "Well I don't see it". Just because there are ameneties does not mean they are used by, or CAN be used by everyone. WHY do you not see someone who does not have an adequate standard of living to be poverty? I don't understand why you think these people are suddenly sunshine and roses because they're better off than most of other places. YES the poverty in, for example, Ethiopia is worse than British or American or Canadian poverty, but that doesn't mean that the first world poverty is magically no longer poverty because there are a few really frighteningly basic services available. Just because someone has a roof over their head doesn't mean they have a house worth living in, just because they CAN eat doesn't mean they have good food. Just because they have clothes doesn't mean they are really that good. "Margaret Thatcher made two significant contributions to poverty in the UK. She massively increased it, leaving at the end of the Conservative tenure one in three children living in households with less than half the average income (the official definition of poverty). Then she said it did not exist." My particular favourite though: "Margaret Thatcher's politics created the social and economic problems which governments today must address. She may still live in the dreams of the nostalgic right, but the rest of the world has moved on." My Bolding That is what I have a problem with. Clasing poverty as earning less than half the average income is crazy. By that criteria it would be damn near impossible to be rid of poverty. Examples: If living costs stayed as they are at present and nobody earned less than £100,000 per anum but the average wage was £300,000 you wold be classing people (earning as much as £149,000) as living in poverty. Yet if nobody earned more than £120/year and nobody less than £80 poverty would not exist.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,11:07    Quote Clasing poverty as earning less than half the average income is crazy. By that criteria it would be damn near impossible to be rid of poverty. Why? -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,12:42    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 05 2007,23:29) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 05 2007,18:37) " It is just that in my life I have seen the general living standards of ordinary people improve almost beyond measure, in this country." This bit is where you are leaving me baffled. You seem to be sticking your head in the sand when it comes to the poor people during the Thatcher era. Things did not get better, I even showed stats to show this, and yet you continue to say "well I saw things go well". I think this may be fairly comparible to the attitudes of some creos who claim no evidence for evo based upon a few hoaxes. When shown other evidence they go back to "Well I don't see it". Just because there are ameneties does not mean they are used by, or CAN be used by everyone. WHY do you not see someone who does not have an adequate standard of living to be poverty? I don't understand why you think these people are suddenly sunshine and roses because they're better off than most of other places. YES the poverty in, for example, Ethiopia is worse than British or American or Canadian poverty, but that doesn't mean that the first world poverty is magically no longer poverty because there are a few really frighteningly basic services available. Just because someone has a roof over their head doesn't mean they have a house worth living in, just because they CAN eat doesn't mean they have good food. Just because they have clothes doesn't mean they are really that good. "Margaret Thatcher made two significant contributions to poverty in the UK. She massively increased it, leaving at the end of the Conservative tenure one in three children living in households with less than half the average income (the official definition of poverty). Then she said it did not exist." My particular favourite though: "Margaret Thatcher's politics created the social and economic problems which governments today must address. She may still live in the dreams of the nostalgic right, but the rest of the world has moved on." My Bolding That is what I have a problem with. Clasing poverty as earning less than half the average income is crazy. By that criteria it would be damn near impossible to be rid of poverty. Examples: If living costs stayed as they are at present and nobody earned less than £100,000 per anum but the average wage was £300,000 you wold be classing people (earning as much as £149,000) as living in poverty. Yet if nobody earned more than £120/year and nobody less than £80 poverty would not exist. EVen if this were true, and I'm struggling to understand why, I think it quite....illuminating, that you're totally ignoring all the stuff I'm putting forward about Milk Snatcher and just banging on about what poverty is. Irrespective of whether you think the poverty line is poverty or not, did the figures rise, yes/no? If yes, is this a good or bad thing? Did the economy suffer under Thatcher, yes/no? Did Thatcher crush the powers of unions, yes/no? If yes is this a good or bad thing? Did Thatcher completely destroy what was left of the british primary (eg mining, farming etc.) economy, yes/no? (by destroy I mean remove it as a truely competative sector) Did she destroy the British secondary economy, yes/no? Tally up the results, if you have more yeses than nos what does this tell you? -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,14:19    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 06 2007,12:42) Irrespective of whether you think the poverty line is poverty or not, did the figures rise, yes/no? If yes, is this a good or bad thing? Did the economy suffer under Thatcher, yes/no? Did Thatcher crush the powers of unions, yes/no? If yes is this a good or bad thing? Did Thatcher completely destroy what was left of the british primary (eg mining, farming etc.) economy, yes/no? (by destroy I mean remove it as a truely competative sector) Did she destroy the British secondary economy, yes/no? Tally up the results, if you have more yeses than nos what does this tell you? I am fairly sure that you could find poverty figures that rose during Thatcher's premiership. Wether that is a good or bad thing is irelevant unless you can come to a concrete statement about what poverty is. Using the 50% average income scale could mean that every single person in the UK could have rising living standards while figures show poverty rising. I consider that absurd. I don't think that the economy suffered because of Thatcher. In 1976 (IIRC) Britain had to be bailed out by the IMF, I don't recal that happening under Thatcher. Thatcher did crush union power (or at least seriously reduced it). Good or bad thing? Both. Union power needed to be reduced but I think she went too far. Did thatcher destroy any part of the economy? I am uncertain but tend to believe that she just stoped UK tax money bailing out failing uncompetitive industries. Good or bad thing? Not sure. It may have been less costly to continue to subsidise/protect the mining industry (for example) than to throw open the doors to international competition, at least in the short term. In the longer term it may well have been a good thing. Coming from Wigan I had many friends in the mining industry and it was certainly costly to them in the imediate aftermath of mine closures, however they are all financialy better off now and in far less stessfull jobs. This may be completely different in the Welsh valleys however where an entire town could depend upon coal mining. So in conclusion, I believe that on the whole Britain improved in the 80s for most people. You can't just take the Thatcher years in isolation. Look at what proceeded it. In the 70s we had shortages in shops and power cuts depriving people of warmth and light and had to have the IMF bail out a completely messed up economy. Your description as "milk snatcher" is also...iluminating. It is an obvious atempt to demonise. She did not "snatch" milk at all. She stopped taking money from tax-payers to subsidise it. Good or bad thing? Bad. I do not mind subsidising a childs diet. Just don't make it sound as though she stole the milk when that is not the case. Why are you so resistant to put a pactical easy to measure description on poverty? I "bang on" about it because you keep stating that poverty increased where my experience differs from that claim. In the 60s my nuclear family lived in my mothers parents house. 6 people living in a 3 bedroom small terrace in Bootle, Liverpool. In winter we had overcoats on the bed to keep us warm and awoke to a cold house until the coal fire was lit. The floor was covered in lino with the odd rug to keep the chill off and we had no motor transport. Food was shopped for daily as we had no refigerator and nothing was wasted as we would eat left-overs as something called scouse. Washing was done by hand and dried in front of the fire or in the yard. In the 70s my nuclear family (4 of us) lived in a 3 bedroom house. We had storage heating and a gas fire. We had a car, refrigeration and a washing machine. My mother would go to every shop in town to save a penny on a product. We had shortages in the shops sometimes and had blackouts. Fod could be shopped for 2 or 3 times a week. We had carpetting throughout most of the house. In the 80s we had no shortages of life depending products. Food was plentifull(ish) and the whole house had fited carpets. Washing and drying could be done by machine. Almost every adult had a car. Yet you seem to be trying to tell me that I was sinking into poverty. Maybe I missunderstand. I hope so. Well not me specifically but I am an average UK citizen and so are most people that I know.   Quote (JohnW Posted on July 06 2007 @ 11:07)     Quote Clasing poverty as earning less than half the average income is crazy. By that criteria it would be damn near impossible to be rid of poverty. Why? Ask your question better and I will answer. Do you expect me to give an explanatory answer to the question "Why?" Be clearer. Your question could mean 2 things. If it was the first part I have already explained in the post that you queried.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,15:31    "Wether that is a good or bad thing is irelevant unless you can come to a concrete statement about what poverty is." Bollocks. It proves that the number of people who were poorer in real terms increased. THIS. IS. NOT. GOOD. It is also not meaningless. "I don't think that the economy suffered because of Thatcher." Then you're dreaming, frankly. I study this sort of thing, and the economy suffered a dramatic hit during the 80's, now let's think who was in power..... "Did thatcher destroy any part of the economy? I am uncertain but tend to believe that she just stoped UK tax money bailing out failing uncompetitive industries. " Then you're wrong. The industries weren't doing well, but Thatcher tried to squeeze all the money she could out of them, and when this made them unprofitable (due to, you know, there being millions less workers) she scrapped them. "So in conclusion, I believe that on the whole Britain improved in the 80s for most people." Then you don't have a clue. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,15:44    [quote=Stephen Elliott,July 06 2007,14:19] Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 06 2007,12:42)     Quote (JohnW Posted on July 06 2007 @ 11:07)       Quote Clasing poverty as earning less than half the average income is crazy. By that criteria it would be damn near impossible to be rid of poverty. Why? Ask your question better and I will answer. Do you expect me to give an explanatory answer to the question "Why?" Be clearer. Your question could mean 2 things. If it was the first part I have already explained in the post that you queried. 1.  Given that I don't think there are an awful lot of economies with first-world living standards but average annual incomes of £300,000 or £120, why is classing poverty as earning less than half the average income "crazy"? 2.  Why would it be "damn near impossible to be rid of poverty"? -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,17:20    Quote 2.  Why would it be "damn near impossible to be rid of poverty"? Spend awhile around my extended family and you'll have an answer to that question. Some people love making really horrible decisions. Not all poverty is the result of bad decision making. A lot of people go bankrupt from health problems and other things out of their control. But some of it is the result of bad decision making, and I don't know how you're going to eradicate that.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,17:56    Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2007,17:20) Quote 2.  Why would it be "damn near impossible to be rid of poverty"? Spend awhile around my extended family and you'll have an answer to that question. Some people love making really horrible decisions. Not all poverty is the result of bad decision making. A lot of people go bankrupt from health problems and other things out of their control. But some of it is the result of bad decision making, and I don't know how you're going to eradicate that. But Stephen is claiming that poverty is only impossible to erradicate if its based upon the definition accepted by the worlds governments. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,18:09    I don't know anything about the larger discussion you're having. I just automatically think about some of my relatives when I hear people discussing poverty. The ones who like to drunk drive, punch cops, and have weekly unprotected sex with somebody from the bar are always going to be poor and there's nothing anyone can do about that. You might want to call them the 'voluntary poor'. Catastrophic health care coverage by the government may be the single biggest thing we can do to reduce the 'involuntary poor'.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,18:15    Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2007,18:09) I don't know anything about the larger discussion you're having. I just automatically think about some of my relatives when I hear people discussing poverty. The ones who like to drunk drive, punch cops, and have weekly unprotected sex with somebody from the bar are always going to be poor and there's nothing anyone can do about that. You might want to call them the 'voluntary poor'. Catastrophic health care coverage by the government may be the single biggest thing we can do to reduce the 'involuntary poor'. That's fair enough so. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

PennyBright Posts: 78 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,18:37    Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2007,17:20) Quote 2.  Why would it be "damn near impossible to be rid of poverty"? Spend awhile around my extended family and you'll have an answer to that question. Some people love making really horrible decisions. Not all poverty is the result of bad decision making. A lot of people go bankrupt from health problems and other things out of their control. But some of it is the result of bad decision making, and I don't know how you're going to eradicate that. I agree with Steve.   There are always going to be people who just don't make the right choices.   We can - should - try to minimize that,  by doing the best we can to ensure that we're educating people about what the right kinds of choices to make are. But you can't force a horse to drink.   I don't know how useful income based definitions of poverty are.   For the purposes of social engineering through food, housing and education aid,  they're probably good enough. -------------- Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - Shakespeare (reputedly)