|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Margaret Thatcher /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1365527040 Message started by WebsterMark on 04/09/13 at 10:04:00 |
|
Title: Margaret Thatcher Post by WebsterMark on 04/09/13 at 10:04:00 A rare leader sadly lacking in today's world. God speed Mrs. Thatcher. |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by Dane Allen on 04/09/13 at 10:08:39 596B6C7D7A6B7C436F7C650E0 wrote:
A great Lady and a great Human Being, she was a true protector of what is right, true and just. She is a strong role model and was a wise leader. |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by Midnightrider on 04/09/13 at 12:28:15 RIP , you deserve it. |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by bill67 on 04/09/13 at 13:28:18 Smart women she raised taxs when needed,So was Ronald Reagan he raised taxes 7 out of the 8 years he was in office.Reagan's problem was he spend to much money. |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by srinath on 04/10/13 at 19:17:50 I have 1 point to add though to this Thatcher love fest here. Do you know of 1 worthwhile thing to come out of england once she got to the throne - It was late 79 wasn't it ? Yea anything decent/cool/collectible ? Yea didn't think so. OK OK some 79 cars were fine, but they had been designed and built several years prior to 79. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by ZAR on 04/11/13 at 19:44:31 5352494E415448200 wrote:
Much like yourself. Nothing decent/cool/collectable has come out of your mouth since you "claimed" your throne on this forum! Sorry to hi-jack your thread Webster! Just had to get that off my chest! |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by WebsterMark on 04/12/13 at 05:03:44 He’s always reminded me of a compilation of Beavis and Butthead…. |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by srinath on 04/12/13 at 18:17:55 Say anything you like, you're getting tired of losing that's what I read when I see these weak posts. Sorry webby, you're losing and losing bad. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by WebsterMark on 04/13/13 at 06:21:01 It’s always nice when someone reinforces your point for you. Thanks dude. Cool. Webster |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by arteacher on 04/13/13 at 09:35:36 3E3F24232C39254D0 wrote:
Srinath, sometimes you amaze me. Posts like this indicate that you don't care what you say, or whether or not it has anything to do with the topic or not, and THAT tells me you just post to see yourself in print, and that you get your jollies by contradicting what other people say, just for the sake of contradicting. (sorry- do I need to use smaller sentences?) Of your last 25 posts, one was NOT in the tall table, and was actually useful advice. It seems to me that you should find a forum that deals exclusively with politics and religion and hang out there, if they will let you. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by srinath on 04/13/13 at 20:34:50 You dont have to tell me where to go, thank you very much. OK let me get back to my point and make it as a point than as a bumper sticker. The cool vehicles of the british auto industry were all designed and built in the heyday of unionism. The MG's TD's, B's etc, the austins, the Mini's, the triumph spitfires, the Jag xke's as well as norton, bsa and triumph motorcycles. In the 50's and 60's where the factories were unionised everyone had a stake in the company and man did they build some really cool cars and bikes. The 70's came around and the cars while designed well (they were older design usually) and union vs management disputes lead to cars coming out of the factory looking pretty but every other one was a "monday morning job". Then of course Thatcher comes along and kills the unions. And with it we lose triumph, MG, and all the rest of em. Think about it, how did union busting lead to the demise of the whole company ? and the industry ? So like they seem to say in england "Ding dong the witch is dead". India was the only place that made a "british" motorcycle - the enfield. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by WebsterMark on 04/14/13 at 04:34:59 In the 50's and 60's where the factories were unionised everyone had a stake in the company and man did they build some really cool cars and bikes. At the height of Detroit’s union success; ‘everyone had a stake’ and the cars were crap. Union takes away competition and competition is what drives quality. The fools protesting Thatcher are the equivalent of the suburban teenagers I saw last year marching in the local OWS parade wearing $90 Nike’s his evil corporate sell-out daddy bought him for Christmas…. Part of the ‘cool cars and bikes form the 50’s and 60’s is the result of looking through rose colored glasses. The war was over and new products were flooding the market. Bikes were just coming into their own back then. Motorcycle innovation was just starting to hit the beginnings of mainstream. By the way, I saw one of the brand new Gold Wings and the technology is simply amazing. Of course it’s $20K too…. |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by srinath on 04/15/13 at 00:45:18 The britsh cars and bikes of that period were just gorgeous. They worked ... well to be kind - when they wanted. The american cars were not that good looking - but TBH had their high points - 56 bel air, 65 mustang etc etc, and these 2 were comparable. I dont count these as lacking competition - there were no japanese, we still had german and these 2 competing with each other. You should realize every industralised country subsidizes their major - including the auto industry and most of them are more so than the US, then or now. Europe and japan has full on health care among other things. And they have always had. In the shadow of what effectively happened in england - the death of all the auto companies we know and being replaced by Japanese and american effectively killed the auto industry for england. Completely to be laid @ Thatcher's feet. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by Dane Allen on 04/15/13 at 09:02:45 043631202736211E322138530 wrote:
Great context!! Nostalgia is a pretty fowerful force. The only goal of unions was and is to perpetuate the union. It's like a pseudo-government always needing more and more dues. |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by WebsterMark on 04/15/13 at 09:05:55 Unions had their time and played their role in moving the USA forward. They were a force for good at one time. However, they've become the monster they ate; perhaps worse than the monster they fought ever was. |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by srinath on 04/15/13 at 11:50:12 6C5E59484F5E49765A49503B0 wrote:
OK sadly while this is true, however unions have reversed themselves - the nadir of unions was the early 90's ... when it was run by the mob. They have gotten weaker and weaker and actually cleaner and cleaner. One important aspect you are forgetting - all industrially advanced nations and some not so advanced have subsidized their manufacturing far more heavily not to mention more unionised. They also dont have to worry about retiree health care or even employee health care. You should stop comparing some theoretical utopia where Ron paul is president, Illegal aliens are in jail, and anchor babies are anchoring their parents in the 3rd world and smell the diesel fumes from trucks flying through from mexico ... Without unions, factories will be filled with Illegals, and the american workers will die of starvation. That is of course until the Illegals get citizenship for doing jobs american workers wont do, and since now they are american ... guess what they wont do it either. We then need new illegals to do the jobs americans wont do. Rush "sadly I may have run out of middle names for this guy but in this context it is not needed" Limbaugh sometime back n 2007-08 (Y'know where we may have had some hope of redemption) was going on and on for 1 hour about how arab terrorists will find "Illegal alien invaders" and pay them 100K+ etc to bomb small towns and what not ... after listening to it for nearly 1 hr waiting @ a muffler shop I think - he was about to close when some Illegal called in ... and said "he said he was not going to commit a crime cos he's made his home here for 35 years" blah blah ... and rush said ... OK you've lived here for 35 years ... so you've been a criminal for 35 years and you're telling me you wont commit a crime ... you already have and you should spend atleast 35 years in jail my friend. Finally I found something to agree with Rush Limbaugh on. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by Dane Allen on 04/15/13 at 13:16:39 645651404756417E524158330 wrote:
I wonder if it was just a coincidence, I wonder if the unions were just looking for an in, like they did in Russia, to overthrow capitalism and setup a soviet style system with them in charge. Kinda worked by the end of the 60s and early 70s but then, as always happens, they ran out of other people's money. |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by srinath on 04/15/13 at 14:32:46 10353A31153838313A540 wrote:
I wonder if it was just a coincidence, I wonder if the unions were just looking for an in, like they did in Russia, to overthrow capitalism and setup a soviet style system with them in charge. Kinda worked by the end of the 60s and early 70s but then, as always happens, they ran out of other people's money.[/quote] I cant find anything about this via google or yahoo, so I am assuming it came straight from an overactive imagination coupled with a good infusion of "facts" from Faux news. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by arteacher on 04/16/13 at 13:13:54 Unions negotiate contracts that set out the terms of employment between a worker and a company. Unfortunately employers in heavily unionized countries de-humanize employees, and regard them as a liability, rather than an asset. Back in the day unions were necessary to bring working conditions up to a safe level. Unfortunately it also bred an "us and them" attitude. As far as union workers go, they can't improve their situation no matter how hard they work, so they become disillusioned (here I am busting my bum, and Fred over there is doing far less work and getting the same pay as me) and do the minimum amount of work to keep their jobs. Unions are a part of our cultural outlook as well. A Japanese auto manufacturer built a huge plant here in Ontario with the intention of treating employees as they were treated in Japan. It didn't work because our culture is an "us and them" culture and the workers were unwilling to give their trust to the employer. |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by srinath on 04/16/13 at 17:13:43 64414E45614C4C454E200 wrote:
I wonder if it was just a coincidence, I wonder if the unions were just looking for an in, like they did in Russia, to overthrow capitalism and setup a soviet style system with them in charge. Kinda worked by the end of the 60s and early 70s but then, as always happens, they ran out of other people's money.[/quote] I guess the fact that I cant find anything about this on Google implies this is another argument I have lost huh ... sad ... I have lost both arms, and legs, and my tongue isn't working either, and I am posting this with my hair ... and I am pretty bald ... so I lose all around I guess. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/16/13 at 22:39:54 Can we expect a flag of surrender then? |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by srinath on 04/17/13 at 05:36:03 6C7375726F6859695961737F34060 wrote:
No I am arm less, leg less, tounge less and my hair is all that is left to post. I cant be waving no flag ... Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by Dane Allen on 04/17/13 at 08:59:10 4E5157504D4A7B4B7B43515D16240 wrote:
Do you have him on the ropes? I still see him posting a lot, are you making any headway with reason and logic? |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by srinath on 04/17/13 at 16:03:51 684D42496D404049422C0 wrote:
Do you have him on the ropes? I still see him posting a lot, are you making any headway with reason and logic?[/quote] Not even close - JOG is still avoiding this gem here - 6C7375726F6859695961737F34060 wrote:
Yup ... It hits AMERICA. Yea ... Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/17/13 at 23:51:18 You continue to play the Class thing,It hits everyone.not JUst the Poor,, you parrot. |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by srinath on 04/18/13 at 06:12:52 687771766B6C5D6D5D65777B30020 wrote:
Well I'd believe that, except the top 1-2%, has got richer and richer during the recession. Its almost like the recession was cover for them firing their employees, and re hiring them @ lower and lower wages. Which they did BTW. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/18/13 at 09:46:38 So, next time I see you crying for "The Poor" , what youre really talking about is the lower 98%? |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by srinath on 04/18/13 at 11:27:26 4D5254534E4978487840525E15270 wrote:
That isn't the poor, its the non rich. We dont have a 98% poverty rate thankfully, cos we didn't elect Mitt "I would lower my taxes to 0% and raise y'all's taxs to 98% so you can all then work for me for pennies" RMoney to the office of president. It isn't affecting america JOG, the top 2% or so - maybe its 2.5, or 1.5 ... somewhere in there, those guys are not only not being hit my the crap, they are profiting from the crap that's hitting the rest of us. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by Dane Allen on 04/18/13 at 11:52:45 56574C4B44514D250 wrote:
That isn't the poor, its the non rich. We dont have a 98% poverty rate thankfully, cos we didn't elect Mitt "I would lower my taxes to 0% and raise y'all's taxs to 98% so you can all then work for me for pennies" RMoney to the office of president. It isn't affecting america JOG, the top 2% or so - maybe its 2.5, or 1.5 ... somewhere in there, those guys are not only not being hit my the crap, they are profiting from the crap that's hitting the rest of us. Cool. Srinath.[/quote] I think the funniest part of all this is that there were no Conservatives in the last election. We had "Left of Lenin" Obama and "Center Left" Romney, the pro-abortion, big government, liberal republican from Massachusettes. Romney lost not only because liberals want free stuff and to steal from hard working Americans but if you have to chose between two liberals then you may as well go with the one who is really good at it. Romney is the diet coke of liberalsim, Obama is the Everclear of liberalism. |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by srinath on 04/18/13 at 12:00:46 Funny yes, but no I dont think so - This is more like it. I think the funniest part of all this is that there were no Conservatives in the last election. We had "Center Left" Obama, and "Left of stalin" RMoney the pro-abortion, big government, communist tax dodging republican from Massachusettes. Romney lost not only because liberals found out RMoney had no honesty or personality and was using the tax code to enrich himself by stealing from hard working Americans but if you have to chose between two liberals then you may as well go with the one who is really good at it. Romney is the everclear of communism, Obama is the Everclear of liberalism.[/quote] Hey you were 1/2 right ... and That last sentence was killer. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by Dane Allen on 04/18/13 at 12:34:30 5E5F44434C59452D0 wrote:
Do you even own a dictionary??? |
|
Title: Re: Margaret Thatcher Post by srinath on 04/18/13 at 18:30:48 10353A31153838313A540 wrote:
No senor ... non. Maybe republicommunist geeve me ceeteezencheep, theen I can buy zee deectshunary for the englais. Cool. Srinath. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |