Ba Strike

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Been successful? In what sense. I'd assume from the grammar of your responding posts that we would differ on what being successful is.

And I actually have much respect and admiration for many people, sometimes for just being nice people or because of what they do outside and in work. I admire people who work in a social care environment and teachers, for example. I admire people who do nothing special in terms of work but go out and do it, especially those who do touch manual work - probably because it needs doing and I wouldn't like to do it.

 

I don't admire politicians, especially not despicable people who may make risky decisions in politics aimed at eliminating working class power. Not someone who desired to allow business to operate with as little restriction as possible in a society that was not some free market. And not someone who did nothing for the miners, who had lost their jobs but were given no help in finding employment.

And certainly not someone who endorsed the poll tax and was Reagan's buddy. Oh, and certainly not someone who wanted and got Section 28. She had guts, but so did Stalin, so do terrorists. I don't admire guts alone.

[Right-Wing]

I'd assume from the grammar of your responding posts that we would differ on what being successful is.

 

Well done, when your argument runs out of steam, criticize grammar.

 

 

 

 

Sorry just edited out the majority of my reply because on reflection, I'd got a bit personal and bitter and twisted in the heat of the moment! No point in being offensive just because I totally disagree with you. God I'm going soft in my old age!

[jimbms]

LDV in reality Section 28 was just the same as any other act that stops a subject being actively promoted as being better than another. It is a popular misconception to say that it banned discussion of homosexuality altogether, if you look at the wording of the act it says that homosexuality shall not be promoted in schools without other forms of sexuality being promoted on equal standing. What Tatchel and his bully boy lackeys wanted was to have the subject promoted in a more positive way than any other. As for the miners, I come from a mining family and although most of them hated Thatcher for how she handled the strikers I think you will find that most old miners blame Scargill for forcing the situation, but it was neither who closed our coal industry down, instead it was cheap coal from at that time your communist friends. Now although she did a lot to cut the power of the unions who let's face it at that period of our history was bringing the country to its knees, it the labour government since who if you look carefully have introduced almost three times as many laws to stop unions from operating effectively and to prevent strike actions. So Maggie was Reagan's buddy and Blair was Bush's arselicker, the difference being on several occasions Reagan was told where to get off yet the so called great Labour leader never managed to have the guts to do that to Bush. You will also find more government services have been privatised under Labour than under a Conservative government. So before you go spouting off about the oh so great socialists try to get the facts first and you will find that whoever is in power they only do what those with money ask them to do and care little about the working man.

[Cambon]

LDV in reality Section 28 was just the same as any other act that stops a subject being actively promoted as being better than another. It is a popular misconception to say that it banned discussion of homosexuality altogether, if you look at the wording of the act it says that homosexuality shall not be promoted in schools without other forms of sexuality being promoted on equal standing. What Tatchel and his bully boy lackeys wanted was to have the subject promoted in a more positive way than any other. As for the miners, I come from a mining family and although most of them hated Thatcher for how she handled the strikers I think you will find that most old miners blame Scargill for forcing the situation, but it was neither who closed our coal industry down, instead it was cheap coal from at that time your communist friends. Now although she did a lot to cut the power of the unions who let's face it at that period of our history was bringing the country to its knees, it the labour government since who if you look carefully have introduced almost three times as many laws to stop unions from operating effectively and to prevent strike actions. So Maggie was Reagan's buddy and Blair was Bush's arselicker, the difference being on several occasions Reagan was told where to get off yet the so called great Labour leader never managed to have the guts to do that to Bush. You will also find more government services have been privatised under Labour than under a Conservative government. So before you go spouting off about the oh so great socialists try to get the facts first and you will find that whoever is in power they only do what those with money ask them to do and care little about the working man.

Good post!!

[jimbms]

Thank you Cambon, coming from you I will take that as a good compliment.

[P.K.]

BTW nothing wrong with Maggie, at least she had some guts

 

Well said jimbms. She was an absolute bloody star, certainly the UK hasn't had a prime minister of anything like that caliber since, and to be realistic, probably won't have ever again. She'd be a very hard act to better. You couldn't get away with speaking your mind these days, the political correctness care bear bunch would have you locked up in jail for being <insert term>ist.

Maggie polarised the UK, caused riots on our streets, destroyed manufacturing, killed hundreds of servicemen in the South Atlantic and then cynically exploited their deaths to get re-elected.

 

She was a disaster who made a virtue out of greed and left a legacy of hatred - so much for "serving the people". In her case it was "just those who vote tory."

[La_Dolce_Vita]

 

Well done, when your argument runs out of steam, criticize grammar.

I am talking about the structure (and the context) of yours posts, not correcting you on english grammar you silly fool. And how is my argument running out of steam?

 

Jimbms

LDV in reality Section 28 was just the same as any other act that stops a subject being actively promoted as being better than another.

What Tatchel and his bully boy lackeys wanted was to have the subject promoted in a more positive way than any other.

Do you actually understand why Section 28 was brought about? As for Tatchell, no he didn't. You're an idiotic argument from a very ignorant perspective if you make statements such as this. The very thought that Tatchell or any other gay person wanted to teach children about gay stuff as better than any other sexuality is the sort of idea that some nitwit would dream up to spread misconception so as to generate opposition to repealing it.

 

instead it was cheap coal from at that time your communist friends.

Moronic comment here as well. Since when have I endorsed the regimes in eastern europe?

 

So before you go spouting off about the oh so great socialists try to get the facts first and you will find that whoever is in power they only do what those with money ask them to do and care little about the working man.

Nobody has, Stupid. I hate Blair (who is not socialist AT ALL) just as much as Thatcher. Though the Conservatives are more of a threat to the working class than Labour, but not by a great deal. Both parties are awful.

[jimbms]

LDV when the events around the miners strike was taking place you was but a boy and as you did not live amongst those involved and suffering your comment hold no weight. As for section 28 go read it in full and also tell me exactly what you remember about the events surrounding it at the time.

Note I again did not resort to calling you moronic, ignorant, idiotic or stupid. but if you need to lower yourself to name calling then who am I to argue with your standards.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV when the events around the miners strike was taking place you was but a boy and as you did not live amongst those involved and suffering your comment hold no weight. As for section 28 go read it in full and also tell me exactly what you remember about the events surrounding it at the time.

Note I again did not resort to calling you moronic, ignorant, idiotic or stupid. but if you need to lower yourself to name calling then who am I to argue with your standards.

You will have to provide better reasons than my not being there and not having lived through those times to claim my comments have no weight. You could be (and often are) rather ignorant of the background to some issues or you could have some brain problem that affects your ability to understand things as they happen, even though you are a contemporary of such events. You may have a particular understanding and this offers weight in particular respects, but you'll have to demonstrate to a better extent how irrelevent mine are.

 

I don't need to tell you anything. Nobody has ever argued for gay issues to be presented and taught as superior to any other, you ought to demonstrate where you get this preposterous idea from!

 

I can lower myself to calling your posts idiotic or moronic, it would be a departure from the usual mild-mannered replied, but your posts are more often than not very rude.

[jimbms]

I wonder if it is a coincidence that whenever someone makes a statement you do not like or falls outside your views, you have resort to name calling and tend to ignore some of the facts stated when they contradict you. This seems to happen quite a lot to myself and even more so with others. What's next, am I to be called bigotted and homophobic because I dare to say you are wrong? that seems to be your usual final resort. Anyway have a nice weekend, I shall.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You can talk, you are one of the rudest when it comes to replying to posts that disagree with your perspective.

And no, I would never call you homophobic OR point out something that you were saying as being homophobic unless there was good reason. It's never a final resort if I notice homophobia, racism etc.

 

Besides, I think you are drifting onto this because you won't carry your point of view any further.

[jimbms]

Nope I just can't be arsed arguing with your blinkered idealitic view of life. Now run along and get mugged please.

[mæŋksmən]

Nope I just can't be arsed arguing with your blinkered idealitic view of life. Now run along and get mugged please.

 

!!!!bingo!!!!

[pongo]

You couldn't get away with speaking your mind these days, the political correctness care bear bunch would have you locked up in jail for being <insert term>ist.

 

I agree with your sentiment although terrorist is the only ist I can think of in this context. Is that what you were thinking of ?

 

Bogus anti terrorism legislation and its use + media by press release, innuendo and leaks .... Labour have really only continued something which definitely grew under Mrs Thatcher's govt. Mrs Thatcher's govt was as equally anti Libertarian, anti freedom as, say, Blair Bush. Mrs Thatcher began well but her govt quickly abandoned libertarianism. Even in economics.

 

Back in the 1980s, you might not have agreed with the miners - but all libertarians and free thinkers flinched at the way the Police were employed to stop people travelling even within Britain.

 

The latest US bill targets 'belligerents' btw and calls for them to by held under military (as opposed to civil) powers. Aren't we all belligerents, from time to time ?

[jimbms]

I did say please mæŋksmən