0

If she was such a terrible human being why was she elected at least 2 times and served for over 10 years? Apparently someone liked her.

Edited by Ancient Dragon

-1

My mom (b. 1926) suffered, in WW2, from Germans.
Not too much, they were quite polite.
But she ate clever then vomit it.
Nothing was to eat.
My little aunt just died from hungry.
Her name was Nina.

0

If she was such a terrible human being why was she elected at least 2 times and served for over 10 years?

If you can convince enough idiots to vote against their own self interest you can get elected. Of course, it also helps if you can get your rich buddies to give you millions for advertising and if you rearrange the voting districts in your favour.

0

I was pretty sure that this conversation would eventually bring JW out of his hidey-hole - spewing his own particular version of history and bile. The poor downtrodden rightwing - always being bullied by the facts and history.

0

If she was such a terrible human being why was she elected at least 2 times and served for over 10 years? Apparently someone liked her.

I think RJ just answered that for me. I may think that Obama is great and Bush (either) a plonker, but I have no idea what they're really like for the citizens of that country.

-1

So what? Maybe that person on social security wanted intil he/she was 65+ years old in order to afford taking that vacation. Don't you think he/she disserved it? I'm on social security and I resent your impression that we old people have not worked for 50+ years to get where we are today.

no, not all of them are lazy no-gooders. But that doesn't mean people who work hard all their lives should be denied the fruits of their labour just so others can have a good time!

"social services" here decided a few years ago that "large screen plasma televisions are a human right", and by now have extended that to cable internet, just so they can play Santa from our tax money.
When that was decided I was using a small 20 year old CRT television and using dialup because I couldn't afford that stuff, yet the taxes I was paying that caused me to not be able to afford it were used to provide that to others for free...

That's fair according to you?

-1

ah. and there's grimjack with his inevitable ad hominem attacks on those who don't share his left wing ideology of stealing from the workers to buy the votes of illegal aliens and lazy hippies.

0

Of course, it also helps if you can get your rich buddies to give you millions for advertising and if you rearrange the voting districts in your favour.

It doesn't work like that in UK (I know nothing about how they arrange voting discricts, or even if they have such a thing.) Voters don't vote for the PM, they vote for party members who, in turn, vote for the leader of the party. Then the Queen asks the leader to form a government. The process in US is similar, except for the Queen part.k We don't directly elect the President either, but vote for "electors" in November who in turn vote for the President in January the following year.

Edited by Ancient Dragon

0

It doesn't work like that in UK. Voters don't vote for the PM, they vote for party members who, in turn, vote for the leader of the party

And if you can buy enough party member seats then you win the election. Same difference.

The process in US is similar, except for the Queen part.k We don't directly elect the President either, but vote for "electors" in November who in turn vote for the President in January the following year.

And the Republicans, after gerrymandering their way into a congressional majority have proposed changing the rules for the Electoral College to get a lock on that as well. But we've already had this discussion elsewhere and this is the Iron Maiden thread.

-1

In my very poor country I'm sitting with 3G-modem
and I'm unemloyment for last 6-7 years. Where do I get money?
It is my secret.

1

And the Republicans, after gerrymandering their way into a congressional majority have proposed changing the rules for the Electoral College to get a lock on that as well.

I don't worry about that, over the past 200 years there have been more than 700 proposals to change it, none of them succeeded. (link)

Votes + Comments
Cool new avatar.
0

If she was such a terrible human being why was she elected at least 2 times and served for over 10 years? Apparently someone liked her.

She helped re-establish the socio-economic boundaries between the have and have-nots. She even managed to make it a regional thing. The North of England, Scotland and Wales were allowed to wallow in misery, while certain central parts and the south of England were enjoying a very cosy period indeed. Where do most of the voters in the UK live? Where do the Tory (Conservative) voters mainly live? Oh, I see, that'll explain it then.

Her legacy will be that Independence for Scotland and Wales will be a reality decades before it would have been otherwise. I'm not saying that this will necessarily happen soon, but the tide has changed significantly.

Edited by diafol

1

Her legacy will be that Independence for Scotland and Wales will be a reality decades before it would have been otherwise. I

And is that a bad thing?

0

I can't wait for Scotland and Wales to get independence from England, this of course will be sad in a way because it will mean the end of GB, but it will teach the miserable whinging buggers a lesson when the billions they get in support from Westminster is cut off, I can't imagine the EU being ready with a handout there.
The scottish parliament costs 72million sterling a year to run Click Here paid for by the GB taxpayers, they will get a shock rise in taxes when that lot all has to come from thier own purse. The Welsh assembly costs more than 40millions (2007) where will that come from?

1

I can't wait for Scotland and Wales to get independence from England.

That's the attitude we all love. :(
It's not independence from England. It's independence from the UK. You've just proven the nationalist POV, that many of the English think UK = England. Do the Scottish or Welsh believe Scotland = UK or Wales = UK? I don't think so. It seems peculiar to members of one country.

miserable whinging buggers

Why? Self-determination is a noble aspiration surely? You, I think are taking it personally that Scotland and Wales do not wish to be put upon by a non-representative government. You make it sound as though Scotland and Wales should be grateful to England for some reason? Perhaps grateful to you, from the tone of your post.

the billions they get in support from Westminster is cut off

This is already being cut off. If you knew anything about the Barnett forumla, you'd understand this. Successive governements, of all colours, have cut off funding for infrastructure and social development, keeping the regions you mention impoverished. This cannot be disputed. Independence for Wales, I don't think is a possibility in the next 5 years, as the economic situation here is very grim, but I do beleive that it is an inevitable eventuality, regardless of politicians' understanding that if they keep the regions in this underfunded state that it will delay this realisation.

The Scottish and Welsh are no better than scroungers and beggars in your eyes. So, why do you care? Where does the vitriol come from? If you were in an unhappy marriage and your partner said, "I can't go on", you'd be doing cartwheels. But, it seems you feel betrayed. You were in a moderately happy marriage and your partner said "I don't love you anymore. I'm not sure if I ever did". Seems that the latter is more likely?

If you look back at history, you'd find that this was not a marriage made in heaven. But I need not go into that. Independence for small countries around the world is generally seen as a good thing, until it happens closer to home. Breaking up is hard to do, but just because it's hard and painful, doesn't mean it's wrong.

Edited by diafol

Votes + Comments
Well said.
-1

I can't help but think that break up of countries into smaller and smaller peices mostly help the multi-national corportations many of which are already bigger than many nations. The more countries competiting to attract the big multinationals to set up shop will just lead to more and more corporate subsidies and corporate welfare.

PS for all those R-winger whining about the lazy good for nothings, why is it that companies which throw hundreds of hard working people out of work in the name of "efficiencies" (aka out-sourcing) can be showered in tax-payer dollars but when those now unemployed people come asking for help you want to slam the door in their face?

PPS In the UK at least the vast majority of benefits-recievers are employed but are paid so little in the name of being "globally competitive" that they can't afford to house/feed their families.

-1
And the Republicans, after gerrymandering their way into a congressional majority have proposed changing the rules for the Electoral College to get a lock on that as well.

The Dems are doing it all the time, and much more effectively...
You're as are all your leftist friends projecting your own wrongdoings on your opponents, blaming them for what you're doing yourself.

The last US census was rigged to create a massive bias towards left leaning states for example, in order to get those to have a higher than actual population, leading to them getting more influence in the electoral college.
To achieve this illegal aliens were counted as citizens, among other things, in several states.

Of course the ultimate "success" of the "progressive movement" always means disaster. Economic collapse, massive bloodshed, large spread famine and poverty, oppression, government based on fear and the large scale murder of those who're not in line with "the program".

Vietnam, North Korea, China, USSR, Zimbadwe, Somalia, Yemen, the list goes on and on.

Lady Thatcher saved the UK from going the same way for a generation, maybe two, giving millions a chance to lead a life of freedom before their children and grandchildren are now squandering it all away in exchange for "free" iPhones and designer jeans.

0

Of course the ultimate "success" of the "progressive movement" always means disaster. Economic collapse, massive bloodshed, large spread famine and poverty, oppression, government based on fear and the large scale murder of those who're not in line with "the program".

Vietnam, North Korea, China, USSR, Zimbadwe, Somalia, Yemen, the list goes on and on.

What are you talking about? As far as I can tell the "progressive movement" is defined by loosening social restrictions (eg. removing prohibitions against homosexuality, removing prohibitions based on race/gender), and embracing multiculturalism. Whereas genocide is the complete reversal of those views by first ostrascizing then killing the "other".

Fascist dictators (Right-wing taken to extreme) have been just as dangerous/deadly through history as Socialist/Communist dictators (Left-wing taken to extreme). The problem is them being DICTATORS not which political side them come from.

0

The last US census was rigged to create a massive bias towards left leaning states ... To achieve this illegal aliens were counted as citizens, among other things, in several states.

Well, that may be your spin on that, the truth is that they are counted as a matter of 1980 US law.

0

Economic collapse

Caused by deregulation started by Reagan (Republican) and the actions of Wall Street and the big banks (which support the Republicans)

massive bloodshed

From wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which were started by George Bush.

large spread famine and poverty

Poverty caused by people losing their life savings when deregulated companies like Enron and WorldCom screwed them over.

oppression, government based on fear

Patriot act anyone?

Vietnam

A war that went on much longer than necessary thanks to Nixon's behind the scenes antics in order to defeat Johnson.

1

A war that went on much longer than necessary thanks to Nixon's behind the scenes antics in order to defeat Johnson.

You had a lapse in memory maybe? Nixon never defeated Johnson because Johnson didn't run for a second term.

Edited by Ancient Dragon

0

Sorry. I should have said Humphrey. What a silly mistake that was. Not at all related to my aging brain (really). I really should take a break, cool down and go to my happy place ;-P

Edited by Reverend Jim

0

I found the original source. It stated

Shortly after Nixon took office in 1969, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover informed him of the existence of the file containing national security wiretaps documenting how Nixon’s emissaries had gone behind President Lyndon Johnson’s back to convince the South Vietnamese government to boycott the Paris Peace Talks, which were close to ending the Vietnam War in fall 1968.

2

which were close to ending the Vietnam War in fall 1968.

We all know that "close" is next to meaningless in politics and peace negotiations.

0

True. But as Wayne Gretzky said, you miss 100% of the shots that you don't take. If you don't attend the peace talks your chances of reaching a peace agreement are zero. Similar to Reagan's people convincing Iran to hold on to the hostages until after the election.

1

Similar to Reagan's people convincing Iran to hold on to the hostages until after the election.

Proof??? This is the first time I heard that conspiracy theory.

1

Nice piece of science fiction. Do you beleve everything you read on the internet? That first link presented not one schred of evidence to prove the allegations. I'm not saying they are false, just unfounded and unproven. I could have written that fairy tail too.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.