Dear UK Browncoats: Satan's Stoking the Fires of Hell in Preparation for Margaret Thatcher's Imminent Arrival! by Skywalken

America loves a winner!

Strong lady and champion for freedom.

Lots of respect there.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 10:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Strong lady and champion for freedom.

Lots of respect there.

Champion for freedom? Only if you ignore how so incredibly anti-freedom she really was. She got her "Iron Lady" moniker because of how anti-freedom she was. You either do it her way, or else. Yes, wonderful woman, responsible for the destruction of British Industry, the me-culture, and the foundations of the economic policies that have caused Britain to be hardest hit in the current economic crisis. Not to mention her governments incompetence was what allowed the Falklands war to start in the first place. Assuming it was incompetence. Her approval rating was through the floor prior to that conflict, afterwards she surfed the war high for the next decade. Maybe that's what she wanted, I wouldn't put it past her to get British soldiers killed in her dictatorial lust for power.

One of the worst Prime Ministers we ever had.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 11:13 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Isn't that old battle-axe dead yet?

Quote:
Maybe that's what she wanted, I wouldn't put it past her to get British soldiers killed in her dictatorial lust for power.

So you're saying she's related to the Bushes?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 11:46 AM

America loves a winner!

Should change your name to 'comrade'. Were it not for her and Reagan, the Berlin Wall might just have well stayed up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 12:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Should change your name to 'comrade'. Were it not for her and Reagan, the Berlin Wall might just have well stayed up.

You say tomato, I say "Fuck you!"

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Look it up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 12:56 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Should change your name to 'comrade'. Were it not for her and Reagan, the Berlin Wall might just have well stayed up.

You say tomato, I say "Fuck you!"

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Look it up.

Wasn't talking to you, simpleton.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 1:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Should change your name to 'comrade'. Were it not for her and Reagan, the Berlin Wall might just have well stayed up.

You say tomato, I say "Fuck you!"

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Look it up.

Wasn't talking to you, simpleton.

Hard to tell. You didn't address it to anyone in particular, or quote anyone, so I figured you were talking to anyone who didn't fall to their knees in praise of ol' hatchet-face Thatcher...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 2:33 PM

America loves a winner!

I replied to comrade's comments, and didn't feel the desire to re-post his comments again.

Much as I've done w/ yours, kwickie.

Clear enough for ya, or do I need to draw you a picture ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 10:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Should change your name to 'comrade'. Were it not for her and Reagan, the Berlin Wall might just have well stayed up.

I'd say you should change your name to ignorant, but I'm not sure you could spell it. Go look up the reasons for the collapse of the soviet union, and you'll see that it came from endemic internal factors, mostly stemming back to the 'reforms' of the 1960's, even the death of Stalin. You think a continent spanning empire would collapse because Ronald Ray-gun called them evil for eight years? Please, he was in power a short period before the collapse, a collapse brought on by decades of mismanagement, followed by further late 80's reforms that did more harm to the communist party than good. The Soviet Union would have probably collapsed at the same time if mickey mouse was president.

The Soviet Union was held together by a cult of personality centred around Stalin, which is why so many Russians still think Stalin was a great man, despite his being a dribbling maniac. That's how cults of personality work, and why they're generally a bad thing, it's why some deluded people still think Thatcher was one of the best prime ministers we ever had, when clearly she was a power mad bitch who irreparably harmed this country. Stalin's death did more harm to the Soviet Union than anything Ray-gun and Bitcher did.

For that matter, since your common refrain whenever any non-American says something you don't like about the US and it's politics is that "they don't know anything about US politics, and should keep out of it", may I take this opportunity to inform you that while your comments are often unfounded, you really obviously do know nothing about British politics, beyond some cookie cutter far right American propaganda, which is worse than nothing, so you should refrain from commenting on it, lest you make yourself look an even bigger fool.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 11:32 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Should change your name to 'comrade'. Were it not for her and Reagan, the Berlin Wall might just have well stayed up.

I'd say you should change your name to ignorant, but I'm not sure you could spell it. Go look up the reasons for the collapse of the soviet union, and you'll see that it came from endemic internal factors, ....blah blah blah.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 2:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Translation:
Don't attack the woman I love!

The more fascist she gets, the damper AURaptor's underware gets

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 2:41 AM

PIRATECAT

THE FAB FOUR AND THE 80S, John Paul, Ronnie, and Maggie. What a great band. Yeh there were other right wing bands The Police, U2, and 38 Special. Those where the days. How about that time Ole Maggie sunk that Portuguese heavy cruiser with one torpedo. She never wasted weapons. Remember that joke about if your 30 and didn't own a car your a LOSER. Or the Cowboy put the whole Soviet Empire on alert when "start the bombing" live on the radio. Who can forget the shaking dictator of Poland when JP ripped into him. Man those where the days, yeh I miss em. England, people could buy there own home, garden with there alotments, and urban renewal. The Great was back in Britain. The Poles were not written off from WW2. Levis, Coca Cola, and Rock music were alive behind the Iron Curtain. I guess are tax dollars in Europe paid off. Great times.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 9, 2009 6:46 AM

CAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Yes, wonderful woman, responsible for the destruction of British Industry, the me-culture, and the foundations of the economic policies that have caused Britain to be hardest hit in the current economic crisis. ...

Britains recession is not noticeably worse than average, and its economic record over the last 20 years or so has generally been better than that of e.g. Germany or France.

The British governments finances, I grant you, are lamentable – very nearly the worst in the developed world. Obviously this must be due to a politician who left office eighteen years ago. The alternative might be to blame the left-of-centre government that has held office for the last twelve years, and has run steadily increasing deficits for the last decade.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 9, 2009 7:17 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Or perhaps blaming the sodders who voted for em, that works too.

Anyhows, solvin that problem's easier for you folk, there's certainly no shortage of stakes, pitchforks and torches - and you've even got historical precedent, right ?

Bloody hell, I'd lay fair odds you could prolly find a guillotene around if you looked hard enough!

Now, here across the pond, we tend more in the direction of some rope, a tree, and a nervous horse, but I digress....

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 9, 2009 12:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
Britains recession is not noticeably worse than average,

Actually, it's much worse than average, and it's kinda noticeable.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
and its economic record over the last 20 years or so has generally been better than that of e.g. Germany or France.

Germany has outperformed us for decades, they had a slow down over the last decade due to the incorporation of east and west Germany, but still had a larger more productive economy than we do or did. France and the UK are generally comparable, currently they're out performing us.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
The British governments finances, I grant you, are lamentable – very nearly the worst in the developed world. Obviously this must be due to a politician who left office eighteen years ago. The alternative might be to blame the left-of-centre government that has held office for the last twelve years, and has run steadily increasing deficits for the last decade.

What left of centre government? If you're talking Labour then you've missed a big point of how they got elected in the first place. Tony Blair reinvented the Labour party, moved away from the left-wing politics, it's not Neil Kinnock party, hasn't been for awhile.

Labours been completely incompetent in their handling of dozens of things, but it's stupid to claim that what Thatcher did 18 years ago has no bearing on today. A big part of the current economic crisis in this country stems from the wholesale destruction of British industry that took place under Thatcher, coupled with Thatchers deregulation of the financial markets. Just because it took over two decades for the fallout to strike, doesn't make it any less her fallout. And frankly if anything Labour's worst economic mistakes have come where they've emulated Thatcherism, not superseded it.

All her proponents are constantly bleating how this country was changed for the better because of her, how today we should all be thankful, but when you criticise her actions and how they effect Britain of today, oh she left office 18 years ago, so it can't be her fault. Either she had a lasting effect on this country or not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 9, 2009 6:12 PM

AG05

She's got my respect if for no other reason than she gave the Argies a well-deserved slapping in the Falklands.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 9, 2009 6:58 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by AG05:
She's got my respect if for no other reason than she gave the Argies a well-deserved slapping in the Falklands.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

The credit for that has to go to the Royal Navy and the British army, to be able to react well and get the job done despite the cutbacks and budgeting problems of the day.

Thatcher on the other hand was unable to avoid the problem to begin with, with failures in diplomacy and intelligence....

or if you believe the more cynical she created the crisis to begin, and fought the war to boost her own failing popularity.

Either way, I think the Falklands war was more of a black eye for Thatcher, and a victory for Britain's Armed Forces.

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 10, 2009 5:03 AM

CAVALIER

Citizen, I have before me a piece in the 23rd April edition of The Economist entitled “Hubris and Nemesis” which states:

“Although the British economy seemed fated to be the world’s fall-guy, it has not turned out that way. As global activity slid into the abyss in the final months of 2008, it became clear that other big economies—notably Japan and Germany—were falling farther.”

“Three months ago, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicted that Britain would see a 2.8% decline in GDP this year, the most severe among the G7 economies. Forecasts published by the IMF on April 22nd revised the fall in British national output to an even graver 4.1%, worse than Mr Darling’s new projection of 3.5%. But even that bigger contraction was surpassed by new figures for three other countries, with Japan and Germany suffering the most from projected falls in GDP this year of 6.2% and 5.6% respectively (see chart 2).”

The chart referenced shows Britains recession as being worse than that of Canada, the United States, or France, but better than that of Italy, Germany, or Japan.

So if you want to assert that Britains recession is “much worse than average”, please cite a source more reputable than The Economist.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13528003

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 10, 2009 8:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
So if you want to assert that Britains recession is “much worse than average”, please cite a source more reputable than The Economist.

Three countries being projected to be worse hit than Britain hardly disproves the concept that Britain will be hit worse than average, more proves it, so thanks for supporting my case I guess.

At any rate a sample size of seven countries is hardly enough to be claiming anything about world wide averages. A better way would be too look at how the British recession looks to rack up against overall world economic recession, which would be the average of all the worlds economies together, yes?

According to the IMF (which is where The Economist got it's figures as you note) the overall economic contraction looks to be about 1.3% in 2009:

Quote:
Even with determined steps to return the
financial sector to health and continued use of
macroeconomic policy levers to support aggregate
demand, global activity is projected to
contract by 1.3 percent in 2009.

page 13
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/01/pdf/text.pdf

While Britain's economy is set to shrink by 4.1% in real GDP over the same period.
http://www.imf.org/external/country/GBR/index.htm

I think that shows fairly well that the UK economy will contract by somewhat more than the average, as opposed to your assertion, that the UK recession will not be worse than average. Now sure, perhaps my initial pejorative that "Britain [is] hardest hit" isn't entirely accurate, but I'd contend it's more accurate than the adoring fan lust of Thatcher I was contending with.

It's about the average of the G7 by your article, but it's way above average for the global crisis.

Lastly I'd thought I note something you may have missed from the article, namely that it makes the case that the UK isn't worse off because of Government measures which have resulted in that huge deficit you were lamenting earlier (that graph for the public debt is interesting too, look at that). Seems that your link defends labour much more efficiently than it does Thatcher.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 10, 2009 8:26 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Translation:
Don't attack the woman I love!

The more fascist she gets, the damper AURaptor's underware gets

I greatly respect her, that's no lie. She's no sort of 'fascist' at all, which is why I DO respect her. It's funny, how you have it so completely backwards, so very often.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 10, 2009 8:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I greatly respect her, that's no lie. She's no sort of 'fascist' at all, which is why I DO respect her. It's funny, how you have it so completely backwards, so very often.

Naw, what's funny is that you tar other people with your brush and are deluded enough to think it sticks. You respect her because she was a right wing authoritarian who wasn't above using violence on her own people to get her on way if necessarry. That kind of person is the kind you're pretty consistent about supporting (except when they're on the other side, then they's bad).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 10, 2009 10:32 AM

America loves a winner!

1st I've heard of her using violence on HER OWN PEOPLE, to get her way. So it really debunks your view of how I supposedly see her.

But she supported Poland's bit for freedom against the Soviets, and that's a good thing in my book.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 10, 2009 10:37 AM

SIMONWHO

Just to clarify, it's not Margaret Thatcher day, it's Star Wars day, as in the common saying "May the Fourth be with you."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 10, 2009 11:16 AM

PEACEKEEPER

Keeping order in every verse

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
1st I've heard of her using violence on HER OWN PEOPLE, to get her way. So it really debunks your view of how I supposedly see her.

But she supported Poland's bit for freedom against the Soviets, and that's a good thing in my book.

Violence on her own people.Let me give you an example.The Miners Strike where the entire government and police force treated the miners like second rate tosspots simply for defending their right to work.Oh, and the economic violence of The Poll Tax(which by the way the British Public just would nit stand for).And yes ,she did enable so many more people yo buy their own homes.Its just a pity she then forced the same amount of people to lose them again with a mortgage interest rate of 17%.Under Thatcher,those who were on the bottom rungs of the ladder basically lost their grip and sunk into the gutter and she gave not a shit.A whole generation of people watched their Fathers lose their jobs,watched the police wield their truncheons indiscriminately against anybody who stood up and said boo,and ensured that same generation woild grow up hating everything about the Tory party.Even though Brown and his cronies are really not much better,the legacy that bitch left behind ensures that they will probably stay in power for the foreseeable future.I grew up under Thatcher,and watched my folks crumple under the strain. And you people revere her!!!!.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 10, 2009 11:29 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
And you people revere her!!!!.

Yeah, pretty much. You see, I don't automatically conclude that the resulting violence was an order which came directly from her, and only her, nor do I know how 'innocent' those involved were.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 10, 2009 11:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
1st I've heard of her using violence on HER OWN PEOPLE, to get her way. So it really debunks your view of how I supposedly see her.

Not really, because we only have your word for that and your word is worthless.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 10, 2009 11:46 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
1st I've heard of her using violence on HER OWN PEOPLE, to get her way. So it really debunks your view of how I supposedly see her.

Not really, because we only have your word for that and your word is worthless.

Your comment doesn't even make any sense. Please, grow the hell up, and stop being such a gorram troll.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 10, 2009 12:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Your comment doesn't even make any sense. Please, grow the hell up, and stop being such a gorram troll.

Actually it makes perfect sense, your inability to understand the simplest sentences is hardly anything new, simply a further example of your evident retardation. As for the troll remark, I'm carrying on perfectly legitimate conversations with everyone, except you. You on the other hand have descended into personal insults the moment I or anyone else has said something you don't like, explaining why it's impossible to have an honest debate with you. Clearly you haven't got a clue what you're talking about, beyond your blind admiration for any right wing authoritarians that come along. Something you even admit (first you've heard of it).

Now you're clearly attempting to devolve this thread into a flame war, clearly since you've spent every post being personally insulting at the drop of a hat. Where you call me a Troll, you continue to act like one. So how about you grow the hell up, stop assigning your words and actions to other people, that is for once take responsibility for your insipid acts and troll elsewhere. If I want a flame war I'll speak to you again, but I don't, and since you never have any interest in honest debate, there's no point in facilitating your trolling any further. Bubbye.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 10, 2009 4:40 PM

America loves a winner!

I'll draw this out for you, as your dim mind can't comprehend human speech.

I said I hadn't heard of, as you put it, PM Thatcher ordering violence on her own people, for her own interest. That is a factual statement, as I had indeed never heard that. You dismiss what I SAY I myself know on the matter, as if you can gauge what I do or don't know. Then you say you'll have to take me at my word on this ( I'm telling you what I've heard, who else can say what I do or don't know ? ) I'm TELLING YOU what I know here, and yet you still try to pick a fight over that ?? That's the pure ESSENCE of being a troll on your part, whether you know it or not.

When I say I hadn't heard of something, it means EXACTLY THAT. There's no reason or room for you to pontificate on such B.S. as to whether I'm telling the truth here, it is, as Niska would say - SOLID. It is FACT.

Why we still fussin' over this ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 11, 2009 1:43 AM

No, I said we only have your word that that is the case, and given that you're a proven liar, and that your word counts for nothing with nearly every poster on this site, your word doesn't prove what you claimed it did. There's plenty of room to question the truth of anything that comes out of you, as Niska (no doubt a hero of yours) would say "You're not so solid". You seem insanely sure that your word is fact, which is highly amusing given that your word is proven time and again to be nothing but fabrication.

Now, I've little interest in continuing to facilitate your trolling, you lie and insult from the first dissent, that's trolling and your the one who did it. Your attempts to tar me with your behaviour doesn't work, it just makes you look more like the idiotic delusional troll that you seem constantly determined to prove yourself to be. I realise you're not very bright, and honestly believe that you're proving your case against me, when you're in fact proving it against yourself, but that just makes your actions all the more sad, desperate and pathetic. As I've said, your impotent trolling to defend yet another right wing authoritarian is something I have no more time for, and says everything about you that anyone could care to know. Your determination to push this thread off (so we'll stop questioning one of your heros no doubt) topic, and narcissistically make it about yourself (your impotent attempts to pass your actions in that regard off on me notwithstanding) ends here, go shout at a wall angry crazy person.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 11, 2009 8:09 AM

CAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Three countries being projected to be worse hit than Britain hardly disproves the concept that Britain will be hit worse than average, more proves it, so thanks for supporting my case I guess.

At any rate a sample size of seven countries is hardly enough to be claiming anything about world wide averages.

A sample of seven countries, three of which have been hit harder than Britain, (and another of which is Britain) proves that Britain has been hit harder than average? Really?

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

A better way would be too look at how the British recession looks to rack up against overall world economic recession, which would be the average of all the worlds economies together, yes?

According to the IMF (which is where The Economist got it's figures as you note) the overall economic contraction looks to be about 1.3% in 2009:

While Britain's economy is set to shrink by 4.1% in real GDP over the same period.
http://www.imf.org/external/country/GBR/index.htm
…

It's about the average of the G7 by your article, but it's way above average for the global crisis.

By your own argument, the UK is doing about as badly as other industrialised countries. So I might wonder what makes you think that Britain is doing especially badly because of a politician who left office eighteen years ago – and who never had any influence in the countries that are doing worse than Britain.

It is true that the developing world is developing faster than the developed world. This has been true since the economic reforms in China and India from 1980-1990. Catch up growth has always been faster.

I might point out that those reforms were a rather Thatcherite matter of deregulation and privatisation.

I do not propose to argue further with someone who asserts that coming fourth in a pack of seven proves that someone is doing worse than average.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 11, 2009 9:22 AM

America loves a winner!

citizen

I've never lied here, and you know that. It's just more trolling on your part that you perpetuate the false stereo type of me. " Proven " liar ? That's really funny , coming from you.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 11, 2009 10:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
One of the worst Prime Ministers we ever had.

I recall a fight you picked with me eariler this year when you attempted to deny that the United Kingdom was..well..united. You had made some statement about american abuses of natives to make some kind of a point that americans were horrible so I brought up Northen Ireland. You scoffed that off as being a fault of the "English" with whom you had no connection. When I asked how that could be since the United Kingdom exists under one flag you blathered in some direction or another. I can't even recall it.

But I do see that you now write that Margaret Thatcher was: "one of the worst PMs we ever had". Your inconsistancies astound.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 11, 2009 1:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
One of the worst Prime Ministers we ever had.
I recall a fight you picked with me eariler this year when you attempted to deny that the United Kingdom was..well..united. You had made some statement about american abuses of natives to make some kind of a point that americans were horrible so I brought up Northen Ireland. You scoffed that off as being a fault of the "English" with whom you had no connection. When I asked how that could be since the United Kingdom exists under one flag you blathered in some direction or another. I can't even recall it.

But I do see that you now write that Margaret Thatcher was: "one of the worst PMs we ever had". Your inconsistancies astound.

Speaking of trolls picking fights. Your memory is all manner messed up though, since that was a fight you picked, defending AURaptor, or rather, yourself...

Funny how you turn up when Rappo's trollin' and needs some support, ain't it...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 11, 2009 1:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
A sample of seven countries, three of which have been hit harder than Britain, (and another of which is Britain) proves that Britain has been hit harder than average? Really?

Ahh, I see when you use it it proves you right, when I point out it doesn't prove what you claim you misrepresent what I said. Good job. I actually said if there was only three countries (implying in the world) doing worse than the UK, that proves my point. I was playing off of how damning you thought the evidence was, when in reality it proves very little, I can't help it if your argument isn't as strong as you want to believe it to be.

I actually used other means to support my case, I was just pointing out how your logic was flawed by turning it around, I'm glad we agree that your logic and argument were monumentally flawed though, nice to come to some consensus.

Oh, and word to the wise, if you're going to attempt to misrepresent my statements the way you did, you really shouldn't have included a quote of me saying the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim I did, makes you look silly

Quote:
At any rate a sample size of seven countries is hardly enough to be claiming anything about world wide averages.

Quote:
By your own argument, the UK is doing about as badly as other industrialised countries.

Nope, I said G7, which is hardly all the industrial nations, nor all the biggest economies, neither is it representative of all the industrialised nations. By your own reading of my arguments, plus the significance you apply to limited data sets, and your unwillingness to look out side those limited data sets, you rather dismiss your critical thinking skills I think.

Maybe the implication of your own arguments being that Labour wasn't all at fault, and Thatcher did have a part to play is what has caused you to be so upset? Cognitive dissonance will do that.

Quote:

I might point out that those reforms were a rather Thatcherite matter of deregulation and privatisation.

Hmm, this rather proves you haven't a clue what you're talking about, at least in respect to China. Deregulating business? It was Communist, that is no private businesses, it is now Leninist Corporatist, where there are businesses where the state has a controlling share. Hardly Thatcherite deregulation. In reference to your next paragraph I have to say, maybe there's not much point discussing anything further with someone who says things with little care if those things are even remotely true?

Quote:
I do not propose to argue further with someone who asserts that coming fourth in a pack of seven proves that someone is doing worse than average.

Oh dear me this is funny. YOU used that data to support your case mate, but I turn around your faulty logic and you say this? Is this it? When the data doesn't go your way you make ridiculous claims about what someone said (little noticing that you're only rubbishing the ridiculousness of your own argument), then storm off in the hope it'll stick?

Maybe I should propose not to discuss further with someone who somehow thinks the number 4.1 is lower than the number 1.9?

I'm not sure there's much point in discussing anything further with someone who thinks restricting their data set to only that which supports their case is logical, or even intelligent, nor with someone who feels it necessary to lie/misrepresent someone else's statements.

I certainly don't wish to speak further with someone who gets upset because they misinterpreted data, and can't handle having their error pointed out. Maybe next time you'll be able to come up with a cogent argument with some evidence? At least we've agreed on something, your argument was nonsense.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 11, 2009 5:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen

I've never lied here, and you know that.

That's a lie.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 12:03 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen

I've never lied here, and you know that.

That's a lie.

Prove it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 1:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen

I've never lied here, and you know that.

That's a lie.

Prove it.

Too easy:

Quote:

Obama claims he'll cut taxes for 95 % of the country, when most of them don't even PAY income taxes. I mean tax payers. Or Income tax NON payers, as the case may be.
-AuRaptor, October 7, 2008

No, 95% of the American tax payers do NOT pay income taxes. It's a fact. Dunno why you are bringing up blacks into the equation. I'm talking tax payers. - AuRaptor, October 7, 2008

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 2:47 AM

America loves a winner!

Being wrong = lying ? Then Obama is a liar too.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 4:19 AM

My goodness, it's like schoolyard fingerpointing in here today. Person A: "You're a liar!" Person B: "No, you are!" Person A: "Uh Uh..You are!"

My memory of third grade relates that the person who shouts the loudest will win the hearts of eager onlookers and thus the fight. Unless it devolves from intellectual sparing to fists whereupon the victory condition will change from who is "righter" to who is "stronger".

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
That was a fight you picked, defending AURaptor.

And of course speaking of non-truth-tellers, that quote is a hoot. I defend some people on here when they are right. Rap throws a bullseye on matters of national security. The only time I'm willing to compromise personal freedoms of the citizenery is to save lives. Rap understands this. Beyond that, he and I agree mayhap 45% of the time.

You I see as existing in a vein seperate from anybody else here. Quick to rebuke others for associations to one percieved evil or another coupled with an absolute certainty of your righetousness. You will not..(cannot I now believe)..acknowledge any personal contradictions. Example: You do not reside in the UK and yet somehow Margaret Thatcher was you PM?

I see like a scarlet letter the mark of the unwise. And since I seek wisdom from the wise, I cannot regard you as anything but a fool.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 6:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
And of course speaking of non-truth-tellers, that quote is a hoot. I defend some people on here when they are right.

Yes, as "non-truth tellers" goes this is rather appropriate. The incident you referenced was when myself and Crapo were going at each other, and you decided to insert yourself in the middle of that, by personally insulting me. Until you started attacking me in that thread, I'd never said a word to you on this site, as far as I recall. which is compelling evidence of your sock puppet status, your hatred of me arrived complete and fully formed before we'd even spoken. Clearly it was carry over from your other username, the one you don't wish to tarnish with your trollish acts here, or perhaps the one you wish to see shown as 'supported' by other users?

You picked that fight, regardless of how you attempt to claim I did. I returned fire and after a while you began whining and attempting to claim you were more intelligent than me and that your boundless knowledge was unassailable, while I knew nothing. You came in to Raps defence over issues that aren't anything like what you attempt to claim.

Now, I then offered to start over with you, you were claiming that you wanted to debate the issue at hand, so I said lets both drop the antagonism and do so. Your response? You left the thread, and I didn't hear from you again until you turned up a second time to say nothing on topic and only to insult me following a barrage of insults from your seeming puppet master, rap. Clearly you weren't interested in anything more than picking a fight, since that's all you indulged in, and when the opportunity arose to do other wise, you vanished. Then again here, who's picking fights? Who came in here and the first words out of their keyboard was a personal attack? That would be you, a pattern you've yet to break. Try to claim of it what you will, but the evidence is here for all to see.

Quote:

Rap throws a bullseye on matters of national security. The only time I'm willing to compromise personal freedoms of the citizenery is to save lives. Rap understands this. Beyond that, he and I agree mayhap 45% of the time.

And that eloquently disproves your claims at being a libertarian better than anything I could say.

EDIT:
I'd thought I'd tell you why I said that. You see, being someone who perhaps believes they're a libertarian, when really they're not, you probably need it pointing out. A true Libertarian wouldn't want to curb individual freedoms for state security. I was only recently reading a book about the Soviet Union, it interests me how closely your words above, echo some of the examples from the book. The soviets never dragged anyone to the GULAG for no reason, it was always to protect the citizenry, to protect the greater good. Rap understands that the same way most Authoritarians and Statists do, the way the Soviets and the Nazis did, the way, apparently, you do.

Quote:
You I see as existing in a vein seperate from anybody else here. Quick to rebuke others for associations to one percieved evil or another coupled with an absolute certainty of your righetousness. You will not..(cannot I now believe)..acknowledge any personal contradictions. Example: You do not reside in the UK and yet somehow Margaret Thatcher was you PM?

Hmm, well considering you have to lie about me, and my statements to even get the thinnest of supports for your wild claims about me, it's hardly surprising that I don't accept your nonsense allegation. Neither does it prove any sort of failing on my account. I never said I didn't reside in the UK, neither did I say that the UK wasn't currently a single country. Perhaps what I was saying at the time was too complex, too nuanced for your obviously limited mind to comprehend? Clearly the ability to place far flung historical events into their correct historical context is beyond you, as much as simple recall of something that happened a few short months ago. I wouldn't like to guess at the source of your mental retardation, beyond merely to point out it's existence.

It's very easy to claim contradiction, when you lie about what that person says. I notice there are no quotes to back your claims, of course how could there be? Your claims, as ever, are not true.

Quote:
I see like a scarlet letter the mark of the unwise. And since I seek wisdom from the wise, I cannot regard you as anything but a fool.

No, you see someone who doesn't fawn at the feet of authoritarians, nor share your authoritarian viewpoints, which your twisted psyche can only interpret as 'lack of wisdom', when in reality it's quite the opposite.

From you I see nothing but wild accusations and attacks on anyone you disagree with, and since those are the acts of far right authoritarians and fascists (and since you seem so determined to defend those people while claiming you don't) while claiming to be a libertarian, I can think of you as only a delusional troll. The difference between my accusation and yours is that yours is groundless, while you prove mine with nearly every post.

Clearly Rap didn't like the fidelity and perfection of one of his authoritarian heros being questioned, and immediately began trolling, an effort he often indulges in to silence dissent or subjects he doesn't wish discussed. I find it interesting when his efforts fall flat, you immediately pop up in a flagrant attempt to carry on his crusade. Just something to think about (that is, for other people to think about, you've clearly shown thinking is not a skill you possess

).

Until next time you feel like proving yourself a jumped up idiotic troll, good bye.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 7:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Being wrong = lying ? Then Obama is a liar too.

Haven't you called him that more than once?
Or are you saying you were lying then, too?

And yes, being wrong, being PROVEN WRONG, and STILL STANDING THERE TELLING EVERYONE ELSE YOU'RE RIGHT, THEY'RE WRONG, AND THEY'RE TOO FUCKING STUPID TO ADMIT IT, is lying. That's you to a fucking tee.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 8:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I said lets both drop the antagonism and do so. Your response? You left the thread.

Indeed I did. The text becomes weary and burdensome and teaches me nothing. As in this very post I'm quoting now, I honestly try to read the toxic words but my mind wanders. So I grabbed one line of it and posted this. Then I'll click to other threads to learn something new, as I just did 20 minutes ago in the Inara's secret thread, where I hope I'm adding some similar intellectual value to others.

Dude, I don't know why you feel you must call people names, or make references to issues nobody can control, like america's dark history. I don't get it.

That's all the further I'm going to take this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Indeed I did. The text becomes weary and burdensome and teaches me nothing. As in this very post I'm quoting now, I honestly try to read the toxic words but my mind wanders. So I grabbed one line of it and posted this. Then I'll click to other threads to learn something new, as I just did 20 minutes ago in the Inara's secret thread, where I hope I'm adding some similar intellectual value to others.

So basically we're agreed, you're carrying out a vicious vendetta against me, even though I've done and said nothing to you to deserve it, you're just that violently opposed to anyone who dares have a different opinion to you.

Or in other words, you've got no defence, you know you're in the wrong so you're going to post this and hope it makes you out to be the better man in a fight you started.

Quote:
Dude, I don't know why you feel you must call people names, or make references to issues nobody can control, like america's dark history. I don't get it.

Well, because they call me names and turn about's fair play. Why do you feel it necessary to turn up in a thread, and attack people for no reason? Why do you have to do all the things you accuse me of doing, but worse and unsolicited? Why do you want to sweep certain things under the carpet, while blow others out of all proportion? Why do you spend half your time attacking people, then the other half desperately trying to convince yourself all your name calling is being done by other people?

Quote:
That's all the further I'm going to take this.

Nice try, but you started this, with your following me around troll act. Still I haven't attacked you for no reason, not once. Every time we've spoken it's because you've turned up with a list of unsolicited vitriol, I've not once yet returned the favour. It's going to take much much more than baseless accusations and hypocritical attempts to palm your behaviour off on me to make your angel act stick. Until next time you decide to start a fight.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
you've got no defence,

Hey kwicko, wanna pick up your red pen?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
you've got no defence,
Hey kwicko, wanna pick up your red pen?

I'll do it. Wanna isn't a word, but defence (with a C, not an S) is a legitimately spelled English word. I'm just saying if you're trying to make yourself look clever, it's best not to try and pick up spelling errors in perfectly legitimate words, especially not with your woefully bad spelling

Your US-Centrism is showing again

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:37 AM

Well by gum you're right!
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/defence
Dang 'ole brits with their dang 'ole words!
colour, honour, labour. Now defence.

How about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanna
It's not just a relaxed pronunciation of "want to" but also a city in Germany and a character in Dune. I should have remembered that for all the times I've read the book.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Well by gum you're right!
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/defence
Dang 'ole brits with their dang 'ole words!
colour, honour, labour. Now defence.

How dare we come up with our own spellings for our own words in our own language. Fuckers.

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
It's not just a relaxed pronunciation of "want to" but also a city in Germany and a character in Dune. I should have remembered that for all the times I've read the book.

Or, in other words, still not a word.

I wouldn't have even bothered, or thought it necessary to pick you up on it, if it wasn't for the whole defence/defense (hey that one is even flagged by my spell checker) thing. I'm just sayin' is all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:52 AM