| Marknow 17.04.2013 14:14 |
I watched the British news this last week regarding the passing of "The Iron Lady", she was cremated today amid much argument in the British media and amongst everyday British citizens in general, quite a hero to some and a villain to others. I cannot recall anyone in recent history who has generated so much divisive debate as to how they will be remembered. Seeing people celebrating her death was a bit much I think, although I am far too young to have experienced her policies. The Falklands war in 1982 comes to the forefront as one thing she did most people agreed with, unless of course you are Argentinian, or a Queen fan for that matter. Queen had planned to tour South America in 1983 to Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay in October and November but decided against it because of the Falklands conflict. Damn you Margaret Thatcher!!! :) For better or worse RIP, but you still cost us a Tour!!!! |
| Hangman_96 17.04.2013 14:19 |
Whatever she may have done, we shouldn't speak ill of the dead. |
| waunakonor 17.04.2013 14:33 |
Why not? Are they going to start haunting us? |
| mooghead 17.04.2013 16:52 |
Wow... This is in 'serious discussion' |
| brENsKi 17.04.2013 16:58 |
waunakonor wrote: Why not? Are they going to start haunting us?i agree. f*ck her she can't do anything personally, as someone starting out in work at the time she came to power, i have no difficulty or truck with the decisions she made - they were cold and businesslike and 100% necessary. what i do have issue with is the complete lack of humanity, compassion or even thought for the common man when she delivered her message of privatisation, mine closures and sell-offs.... it was done with all the subtlety and compassion of a paving slab....heartless c*nt as for queen's decision to not tour argentina in '83? really - a political one was it? if so - if they were so politically minded, why the later tour of sth africa? bollox!!! - they went where the money was |
| ANAGRAMER 18.04.2013 01:40 |
Marknow wrote: I watched the British news this last week regarding the passing of "The Iron Lady", she was cremated today amid much argument in the British media and amongst everyday British citizens in general, quite a hero to some and a villain to others. I cannot recall anyone in recent history who has generated so much divisive debate as to how they will be remembered. Seeing people celebrating her death was a bit much I think, although I am far too young to have experienced her policies. The Falklands war in 1982 comes to the forefront as one thing she did most people agreed with, unless of course you are Argentinian, or a Queen fan for that matter. Queen had planned to tour South America in 1983 to Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay in October and November but decided against it because of the Falklands conflict. Damn you Margaret Thatcher!!! :) For better or worse RIP, but you still cost us a Tour!!!!Hang on a minute. Check your facts. Queen decided to take 1983 off in view of the fact that they were exhausted and needed 'a break from each other' . Watch Days of our lives doc and hear the words from the band themselves Also, it wasn't Margaret Thatcher who invaded the Falklands, I think you might want to look a bit closer to home on that front |
| ANAGRAMER 18.04.2013 01:42 |
ANAGRAMER wrote:That's if you are South American!Marknow wrote: I watched the British news this last week regarding the passing of "The Iron Lady", she was cremated today amid much argument in the British media and amongst everyday British citizens in general, quite a hero to some and a villain to others. I cannot recall anyone in recent history who has generated so much divisive debate as to how they will be remembered. Seeing people celebrating her death was a bit much I think, although I am far too young to have experienced her policies. The Falklands war in 1982 comes to the forefront as one thing she did most people agreed with, unless of course you are Argentinian, or a Queen fan for that matter. Queen had planned to tour South America in 1983 to Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay in October and November but decided against it because of the Falklands conflict. Damn you Margaret Thatcher!!! :) For better or worse RIP, but you still cost us a Tour!!!!Hang on a minute. Check your facts. Queen decided to take 1983 off in view of the fact that they were exhausted and needed 'a break from each other' . Watch Days of our lives doc and hear the words from the band themselves Also, it wasn't Margaret Thatcher who invaded the Falklands, I think you might want to look a bit closer to home on that front |
| Togg 18.04.2013 06:05 |
To the best of my knowledge Queen had no serious plans to tour in that year, they all agreed to put the band on hold for a while, it had nothing to do with the political situation. Mrs T did what was needed at that time, no country has the right to march into another and take it hostage, she did a brave thing, it was worth it and the Argentine leaders should hang their heads in shame for causing the deaths of 100's of people. Her politics were tough but it was what this country needed at the time, whilst I wouldnt want to go backwards we could do with a few more MP's with balls like her. i didnt agree with everything she did back then but I respected her, which is more than I can say for pretty much all the MP's now. |
| thomasquinn 32989 18.04.2013 06:31 |
Anyone who still believes that what Thatcher did was good for the country evidently never seriously considered her policies. Thatcher is responsible for the most of the problems concerning healthcare and education in Britain, not to mention the impoverished regions, particularly in the north of England. It's like Reagan: conservatives keep screaming how great he was, but they consistently ignore the fact that under Reagan's presidency, the national debt skyrocketed from 997 billion to over 2.6 TRILLION dollars. When, in about forty or fifty years, historians start writing serious and more or less neutral histories of the 20th century with the benefits of hindsight, I am fairly sure that they will condemn Thatcher as one of the worst PM's of the century, particularly for her strict dogmatism, her inability to compromise and her complete and total lack of respect for human beings. |
| A Word In Your Ear 18.04.2013 10:46 |
My Father Lost his job due to Thatcher. As a young boy/teen my spending money then stopped (had to cut back on family spending). I could not afford tickets to see a lot of the Queen Gigs I would have loved to go to. Damn you!!! Mrs. T!!!!!!!!!!! |
| ANAGRAMER 18.04.2013 11:47 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Anyone who still believes that what Thatcher did was good for the country evidently never seriously considered her policies. Thatcher is responsible for the most of the problems concerning healthcare and education in Britain, not to mention the impoverished regions, particularly in the north of England. It's like Reagan: conservatives keep screaming how great he was, but they consistently ignore the fact that under Reagan's presidency, the national debt skyrocketed from 997 billion to over 2.6 TRILLION dollars. When, in about forty or fifty years, historians start writing serious and more or less neutral histories of the 20th century with the benefits of hindsight, I am fairly sure that they will condemn Thatcher as one of the worst PM's of the century, particularly for her strict dogmatism, her inability to compromise and her complete and total lack of respect for human beings.You have a good point about her dogmatism but you have to ask yourself what else could she have done given the circumstances she inherited in the late 70s The country was broke, we were supporting nationalised industries whose customs and practice were choking the country to death Would you rather have had Michael Foot dealing with Scargill, or the red haired welsh fella whose name escapes me Not to mention their policies on defence which were laughable, now and then Someone HAD to grasp the nettle But, on reflection, a bit of compassion on her part wouldn't have gone amiss..... |
| ANAGRAMER 18.04.2013 11:49 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Anyone who still believes that what Thatcher did was good for the country evidently never seriously considered her policies. Thatcher is responsible for the most of the problems concerning healthcare and education in Britain, not to mention the impoverished regions, particularly in the north of England. It's like Reagan: conservatives keep screaming how great he was, but they consistently ignore the fact that under Reagan's presidency, the national debt skyrocketed from 997 billion to over 2.6 TRILLION dollars. When, in about forty or fifty years, historians start writing serious and more or less neutral histories of the 20th century with the benefits of hindsight, I am fairly sure that they will condemn Thatcher as one of the worst PM's of the century, particularly for her strict dogmatism, her inability to compromise and her complete and total lack of respect for human beings.What particular healthcare problems did she cause (out of interest)? |
| thomasquinn 32989 19.04.2013 06:32 |
ANAGRAMER wrote:In 1988, she started the privatization of the National Healthcare Service, leading to a host of problems that are, by now, endemic throughout Europe - costs for patients rose instead of falling (because the object of healthcare became to make as big a profit as possible with as little cost as possible), the quality of numerous treatments declined, and most of all (which is what I regard as the greatest evil of all) the pressure on General Practitioners rose enormously.thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Anyone who still believes that what Thatcher did was good for the country evidently never seriously considered her policies. Thatcher is responsible for the most of the problems concerning healthcare and education in Britain, not to mention the impoverished regions, particularly in the north of England. It's like Reagan: conservatives keep screaming how great he was, but they consistently ignore the fact that under Reagan's presidency, the national debt skyrocketed from 997 billion to over 2.6 TRILLION dollars. When, in about forty or fifty years, historians start writing serious and more or less neutral histories of the 20th century with the benefits of hindsight, I am fairly sure that they will condemn Thatcher as one of the worst PM's of the century, particularly for her strict dogmatism, her inability to compromise and her complete and total lack of respect for human beings.What particular healthcare problems did she cause (out of interest)? link |
| john bodega 19.04.2013 09:07 |
Meh, fuck Argentina anyway. |
| splicksplack 19.04.2013 10:20 |
Lostman wrote: Whatever she may have done, we shouldn't speak ill of the dead.I can't think why not. Do you avoid speaking ill of Hitler? And if it's because of her family well fuck them. Her daughter was sacked by the BBC because she was a racist and the son received a 4 year suspended jail sentence and has difficulty finding countries that will give him a visa. Thatcher was a vindictive bitch. She espoused anti-gay policies while there was a record of gay teenage suicides in the UK The people that support her are at best un-educated, at worst out and out selfish bastards. Camerons lot are no better and the country is headed for some major unrest. |
| brENsKi 19.04.2013 11:12 |
splicksplack wrote:right - vindictive bitch she may have been - bu t saying it's ok to trash talk her because we do Hitler is perhaps the worst comparison you could've madeLostman wrote: Whatever she may have done, we shouldn't speak ill of the dead.I can't think why not. Do you avoid speaking ill of Hitler? Thatcher was a vindictive bitch. She espoused anti-gay policies while there was a record of gay teenage suicides in the UK Camerons lot are no better and the country is headed for some major unrest. |
| thomasquinn 32989 19.04.2013 12:16 |
You make a common mistake - that by putting that the universalizing remark "we shouldn't speak ill of the dead" into perspective by naming an example to the contrary that everyone can agree on, namely Hitler, one is in fact equating the person of whom we were originally exhorted not to speak ill of. As for the topic you are addressing: I think it's perfectly justified to 'trash-talk' her because she never avoided 'trash-talking' (without using obscene language, of course) her opponents. Moreover, I think that anyone who commented on the death of Pinochet by saying the English people have lost a true friend deserves all the trash-talk in the world. |
| Queen fan 19.04.2013 13:21 |
Freddie was secretly entertaining the troops on the good ship lollypop, and stuffing all the cannons with daffodils . |
| thomasquinn 32989 19.04.2013 13:22 |
Queen fan wrote: Freddie was secretly entertaining the troops on the good ship lollypop, and stuffing all the cannons with daffodils .Don't look now, but Obama's behind you to take your guns away. |
| Queen fan 19.04.2013 13:26 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote:Is Ignorance really such bliss?Queen fan wrote: Freddie was secretly entertaining the troops on the good ship lollypop, and stuffing all the cannons with daffodils .Don't look now, but Obama's behind you to take your guns away. |
| waunakonor 19.04.2013 13:32 |
Godwin's Law! /thread |
| thomasquinn 32989 19.04.2013 13:34 |
Queen fan wrote:I don't think so, but you evidently do, considering your deranged posts on QZ.thomasquinn 32989 wrote:Is Ignorance really such bliss?Queen fan wrote: Freddie was secretly entertaining the troops on the good ship lollypop, and stuffing all the cannons with daffodils .Don't look now, but Obama's behind you to take your guns away. |
| thomasquinn 32989 19.04.2013 13:36 |
waunakonor wrote: Godwin's Law! /threadI really hate it when people draw the Godwin-card. It's not an argument, it's a discussion-killer. When something, anything, is out of bounds for comparison (let's be frank and just call it what it is - a cultural taboo), you are destroying objective inquiry. It is a misunderstanding that two things must be closely related for a comparison to make sense. When comparing, you are also contrasting. A true, professional, well-conducted comparison of Hitler and Thatcher might reveal very interesting similarities AND differences. For instance, I would be willing to bet that you'd find that both Hitler and Thatcher relied more on theatrics and charisma than on content and policy in getting into office and remaining there. |
| waunakonor 19.04.2013 13:40 |
I was kidding... |
| thomasquinn 32989 19.04.2013 13:44 |
waunakonor wrote: I was kidding...I understood that you were not trying to kill the discussion, but I did really want to say this because others suggested the same thing seriously without using the actual words "Godwin's Law". |
| Marknow 19.04.2013 14:06 |
A right can of worms I have opened... |
| thomasquinn 32989 19.04.2013 14:11 |
Marknow wrote: A right can of worms I have opened...Well, if you're going to mention Thatcher you are going to run into...shall we say "conflicting opinions"? |
| Marknow 19.04.2013 14:21 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote:Marknow wrote: A right can of worms I have opened...Well, if you're going to mention Thatcher you are going to run into...shall we say "conflicting opinions"? That's a very diplomatic answer. :) I should have known what I was getting into.... |
| Marknow 19.04.2013 15:05 |
Togg Wrote " To the best of my knowledge Queen had no serious plans to tour in 1983" No serious plans to tour in '83? Here is a concert ticket and poster for the cancelled show in Uruguay in 1983. link link |
| Marknow 19.04.2013 15:06 |
Brian was quite outspoken against the war, on the bands behalf.. Taken from http://www.queenconcerts.com/queenzone/1100729.html 46-48 min. Brian May. "It's very tragic that we were fighting a war with them" "I hated and despised the fact that we were out there killing their young men and they were killing ours" "I feel it was a dreadful tragic mistake and I wish we could have done something to prevent it, but obviously we couldn't" "Our view of that war was that we were out on tour in Europe at the time and we weren't reading the English news papers, except for after we read everything else, for instance the French and German attitude to it, and everybody thought we were complete idiots, they couldn't imagine we were making such fools of ourselves." BP Fallon(interviewer) to Brian "It was stupid wasn't it? all that argy bargy stuff" Brian "Disgusting, and then we read things like The Sun and we couldn't believe it, we were just so ashamed" "There was no reason we should have been fighting these people really, there had to be some other way this could have been sorted out, In my humble opinion a piece of land that is not worth killing young boys for." Politics did have a roll to play in the decision to not tour South America in 1983, imho. |
| thomasquinn 32989 19.04.2013 15:10 |
Serious bonus points for Brian there. |
| scollins 24.04.2013 00:36 |
How dare yous compare hitler to that walking abortion, and I was taught not to speak ill of the dead? Well I was also brought up that you had to earn respect and that cunt didnt have any respect for the miners familys the steelworkers familys the familys of the 96 dead football fans at hillsborough because she covered up for the fuckin police so that bitch deserves NO RESPECT and I hope she rots in hell, no onto argentina what gives the english the right to own land at the other side of the planet? As far as im aware they are getting booted out of every single country that they ever occupied as no one wants them... |
| Holly2003 24.04.2013 03:51 |
scollins wrote: How dare yous compare hitler to that walking abortion, and I was taught not to speak ill of the dead? Well I was also brought up that you had to earn respect and that cunt didnt have any respect for the miners familys the steelworkers familys the familys of the 96 dead football fans at hillsborough because she covered up for the fuckin police so that bitch deserves NO RESPECT and I hope she rots in hell, no onto argentina what gives the english the right to own land at the other side of the planet? As far as im aware they are getting booted out of every single country that they ever occupied as no one wants them... lol at the numpty. |
| bulsara76 24.04.2013 07:08 |
The war was in 1982 and we talk about late 1983, and Brazil and Uruguay had no war with UK...I think there should be other reasons. I hear Queen would play in River Plate stadium -Argentina-. We have not to forget that Latin American countries have serious problems with inflation in that time. When Frank Sinatra came to Argentina in 1981, just months after Queen's gig, the producer lost a million dollar because a dollar stampede -although the place was sold out-. Other reason could be a change in queen producers of the band, Freddy and the guys were working in the solo material. |
| brENsKi 24.04.2013 08:22 |
scollins wrote: onto argentina what gives the english the right to own land at the other side of the planet? As far as im aware they are getting booted out of every single country that they ever occupied as no one wants them...in your over-zealous hand-wringing in earnest exercise, in which you cite "ownership" as the key to your argument you neglect two key aspects of the whole debate: 1. aren't Argentina claiming "ownership" also under the guise of sovereignty? and by default isn't that equally as bad as the English (sic) - surely you mean British...as last time i checked you and your natives north of the border remain British until 2015 2. the Falkland Islands/Malvinas have been entitled to self-determination and under whatever pretext you like they chose Britain (one junta as opposed to another) so therefore, your Govt are doing no more than upholding the islanders' rights. ps - forget the oil reserves etc, too uneconomic for britain to do anything with 8,000 miles away and Argentina has no investment capital or infrastructure to make it viable either |
| Marknow 24.04.2013 13:10 |
@ bulsara76 link In 1982, Queen again become the “public enemies”. The motive was the Falkland War between Great Britain and Argentina. Due to the “enemy song” Under Pressure, despite the war, topped the Argentinian charts, the Argentinian government forbid to broadcast the Queen music on TV and radio and declared all four members personas non grata. It would seem that this scandal should’ve caused the compassion towards the band from the progressive society and increase its popularity in the UK. Nothing of the sort – the press lash out on Queen for the last year’s tour, accusing them in the lack of patriotism, and their new single Las Palabras De Amor, in which the Spanish words were used, was equaled to the high treason. Mercury, unlike the “progressive society”, wasn’t too excited about that war, calling it the senseless murder of young people, and the release of Las Palabras De Amor in the circumstances of jingoist hysteria was an act of a true civil manhood. The press attacked Mercury with new insults. The propaganda worked – the new singles didn’t find much success. In diplomacy, the term "*persona non grata*" (Latin, plural: "personae non gratae"), literally meaning "an unwelcome person", refers to a foreign person whose entering or remaining in a particular country is prohibited by that country's government. It is the most serious form of censure which one country can apply to foreign diplomats, who are otherwise protected by diplomatic immunity from arrest and other normal kinds of prosecution. |
| bulsara76 26.04.2013 23:43 |
@Marknow I'm Argentinian and a Queen fan, and I can assure you that Queen was never declared a persona non grata... The real fact is that during the -i think- 3 months period of war (in 1982), ALL ENGLISH MUSIC -even Lennon's songs of peace- was forbidden, and the local radio should play for instance, Argentinian bands of rock n roll or traditional songs. |
| Togg 29.04.2013 06:24 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Anyone who still believes that what Thatcher did was good for the country evidently never seriously considered her policies. Thatcher is responsible for the most of the problems concerning healthcare and education in Britain, not to mention the impoverished regions, particularly in the north of England. It's like Reagan: conservatives keep screaming how great he was, but they consistently ignore the fact that under Reagan's presidency, the national debt skyrocketed from 997 billion to over 2.6 TRILLION dollars. When, in about forty or fifty years, historians start writing serious and more or less neutral histories of the 20th century with the benefits of hindsight, I am fairly sure that they will condemn Thatcher as one of the worst PM's of the century, particularly for her strict dogmatism, her inability to compromise and her complete and total lack of respect for human beings.I think you have to keep in mind what the Uk was like in the 70's before you make that statement. Britain was on it's knees at that time the unions had us by the balls and needed to be removed from holding the country to ransom. She was instrumental in doing that, thank god. As for education, she was responsible for taking away school milk for which she got a lot of flak, however it later turned out that she herself opposed the policy and was forced into it by the treasury. Personnal wealth rose by 80% in the 80's mainly due to the increase in house prices, but the effect was that the average british resident was far better off than they had been in the 70's or at any time prior to that. Coal miners suffered yes, but lets face it there was no money left in coal production in the uk it had to go at sometime, she happened to be the one, and unfortunately much of the trouble the miners suffered was directly due to there own unions. Like any prime minister she can be used to make many points for and against but you have to look at the economy in the uk prior to their tenure and post before you comment. In this case we were better off as a country and were no longer in the grip of the unions.Speaking as someone who lived through both decades either side of Thatcher I would say we were in better shape during and after as a whole. |
| john bodega 29.04.2013 09:36 |
Should've pumped "Another One Bites The Dust" from a giant PA when the Belgrano went in. *gurgle gurgle* |