Thatcher is probably the most divisive figure we've ever had in the UK. Loved and loathed in equal amounts, depending on where you live and your livelihood. I'm not going to mourn her but nor will I dance on her grave as so many in the UK will be doing. She killed off the manufacturing industry but helped make the UK one of the leading countries in financial services. She privatized utility companies who now rip customers off each year making huge profits but the service has improved - except for the rail, which is an overpriced pile of crap. She fought communism abroad and retook the Falklands, while at home there was often turmoil, with the miner strike, the poll tax riots etc. Personally I'm benefiting from her policies to focus on the financial and services sectors so she's alright by me but she made so many people's lives a misery I can't really say she was completely wonderful.
Another big factor in German post World War Two economic success. After the war, literally millions of Germans were expelled from other countries or fled Soviet control to reside in what became West Germany. Thus the West Germans had millions of well educated, talented people that could immediately join the post war labor force with plenty of motivation to rebuild the country.
There is a plus side to this for even the Thatcher lovers: It means the Margaret dual should be locked down
I get the point you are trying to make here, but it's incredibly pathetic for somebody who claims the political stance that government should be significantly smaller, to then wax nostalgic for a paternalistic concept that political leaders are somehow in charge.
Perhaps he means he longs for a day when an American president (for example) did not spend the bulk of his time playing golf, hanging out with celebrities, and working (by his own admission) for his party to retake control of the House.....
You're right. He should spend 112 days on his ranch riding a horse. Yeah, it's not like he ever met Elvis. And that's bad because -? As for T.R, he's waxing nostalgic for something he believes existed before he was born.
Then it must be your writing style or absence thereof that makes you seem so immature. "Grew up" as in you were born during, or "grew up" as in you were actually old enough to form political opinions instead of sucking them up with the Enfamil?
I find that remark ironic coming from the queen of immaturity. But thanks for reminding me of why you're usually best left ignored.
That comment makes no sense. Being for smaller government doesn't mean that you're naive to whose in charge. It just means that you want less people in charge. In this case the wax nostalgic was for a more competent group of people in charge. But I realize how that concept gets lost in this american idol era of politics.
Ronald Reagan was 69 years old when he took office. And was nearly killed by an assassins bullet not two months later. Barack Obama was 47 years old when he took office. Twenty two years and being shot in the chest separate Reagan and Obama. So I think it is quite reasonable to give Reagan some more lattitude for relaxation than our relatively young novelty president who never worked a day in his life.
Why? Justify the idea that a 69 year old shouldn't be told to retire if he can't meet the expectations you have for a 47 year old. And you do realize, don't you, that every time you use the term "novelty president," you label yourself as a racist?
And you know full well that Barack Obama would NEVER have been seriously considered for any position above the Illinois state senate if he had not been a black man. That is not racist. It is a fact and you full well know it. To insist otherwise shows you to be a full blown racist.
I know no such thing and neither do you. It might not be cross burning, but such assertions are the same as the "soft bigotry of low expectations" Bush railed against back in 2000.
As the only one here who thinks that he could be President, Dayton is uniquely qualified to assess the suitability of politicians for that office.
Really? Just how common is it for a man to go from the Illinois state senate to President of the United States in just four years? And yes, you do know that Barack Obama would NEVER have even been nominated if he were not black. But of course you will never admit it.
It should be noted that Dayton voted for McCain, who was three years older than Reagan was at the start of his first term.
Digging deeper, I see. Let's now dissect the other half of your racism, which states that an enfeebled, old white man can do the job as a part-timer, but a vigorous, younger black man must work extra hours to prove his worth.
funny how the political pendulum always swings too far. Labour went too far down the socialist road and then along comes Thatcher and sends everything lurching too far down the Social Darwinism road. I'm quite sure that some of the things she did needed doing, but as some have mentioned the "reforms" came at a price and it seems that the price is happily being ignored, denied or dismissed by her acolytes, just as the downsides and contradictions of Reagan's actions are ignored on this side of the pond.
