Vanilla “The Thatch was never a great one for human rights, so if she's your role model, then perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree.”

Your response to US regarding dearest Margaret was mis-directed. She is one of my favourite quotation sources and inspirations.

I would consider her contribution to human rights includes standing squarely and resolutely
against the evils of communism
against the evils of South American Dictators who invade alien islands to deflect attention from a failing domestic economy.

She was a leading supporter to de-criminalise homosexuality at a time when it was illegal, an obvious “human rights” issue.

She similarly supported the de-criminalisation of abortion.

She defended the British electorate against the excesses of the European Union to the point, Gordon Browns government continue to be the beneficiaries of the negotiations which she initiated to correct the inequalities /inequities of EU funding.

She pushed forward the sale of council housing to the long-term sitting tenants, giving millions of people the opportunity to own their own homes, at a discount.

She broke the nationalised government monopolies across a range of industries, which improved the rights of ordinary people to choose, rather than have their right of choice denied them.

As an example of how far women can aspire, dearest Margaret is one of the few who has actually reached the absolute pinnacle of political public life.

She is a lady who has proven her worth far beyond being one of the “Domestic slaves and birthing machines”

Like US said “she is living proof feminism DOESN'T have 'a long way to go' in OUR society. Her saying that from the position of prime minister IS a pretty convincing argument”

Re “never a great one for human rights”

I am not sure what you base that assumption on. Maybe you would like to elaborate with some specific examples which can be challenged, rather use it as a throw-away ad hominine.

What happens Col? If someone somewhere in cyberspace mentions Thatcher does a little alarm go off in your mind, guiding you to the spot where you can go in to bat for her? Your eerie ability to pick up some anti-Thatch rhetoric is very impressive.

Anyway, I base it on refusing to support sanctions against South Africa and referring to the ANC as terrorist. I base it on Section 28. I base it on the philosophy that the state is not responsible for those who fall by the wayside. I base it on the idea that workers should not be permitted to bargain collectively. I base it on her Enoch Powell-inherited attitude to immigration.

I know, I know, I'm wrong, you're right, she's great. You know, I really don't need a lecture about this Col. I do understand the idea that economic sanctions don't always work. (I'm no supporter of affirmative action, either.) I understand the trickle-down effect and I know what "there is no such thing as society" means. I appreciate the points you make in your post. But in a general sense I disagree with her, and with you, and that's why I said what I said.

I also don't believe that The Thatch "living proof feminism DOESN'T have 'a long way to go' in OUR society”. I think she's living proof that, in the 80s and even moreso now, feminism has come a long way. There's a difference.

The feminist movement have to maintain the 'victim' status in order to remain relevant. When someone tells Hillary to do his ironing she is offended. When someone tells a father that he is not allowed to access his kids because of some false allegation no one blinks an eyelid. Women don't like to be labeled domestic slaves and yet what women wants a man who does not provide for his family? Maybe a few like the idea in theory but not in practice. Many of us still take our hats off today to our mums who were mums, housekeepers and most of all there for us. Most of them seemed far more content than the stressed out career women of today.

Dear Vanilla

you said:

"You argue with other sects, like Islam. You have stated many times that you believe women should be cooking scrumptious delights in the kitchen while the men chop wood."

1/ You argue with other sects:.. err..and you don't argue with those on the other end of the political spectrum to yourself? :)

2/ "Women cooking.. men chop wood" err.. kind of. Men also empty the LOO.. (if needed).. it is the strength I gain from the work my wife does, in looking after our 'in house' needs, that gives me the strength to do the jolly hard tiring, exhausting outside work that also needs to be regularly done.

GINXy had it right 'You are a GRUBBY little man' :) damn..and I thought no one was looking at me when I was total filth from fighting my way through some logs with me trusty Stihl 035! But I'm not little.. a 6 footer.
I wonder if 'grubby little man' is the male equivalent to 'two dollar hooker'? hmmm I prefer not to go down that path, as it becomes a silly slanging match. Bless you Ginxy... God is very patient.

But (Vanilla) suggesting that all my rationality and reason etc went out the window with my conversion to Christ.. well thats something we can debate another time :) I'm ok with my faculties there.

CJ.. you are clearly a new convert to the "Kaysar spin zone" and presenting me as one of the E.B... when in fact you will see more spagetti strap tops than 'pseudo burkahs' in our fellowship.

We are 'open'... we don't enforce those ideas.. I would personally prefer that we were closer to the Biblical ideal, but that would be a choice matter.

But if some deluded brother stood up and started saying how "Homosexual behavior is not condemned in the Bible" you would probably only here one word "SecURRRRRity" as people looked sideways :)

Boazy, you are positively Neanderthal. Tell us, does 'her indoors' cover her hair at prayer meetings? Do you? If she does and you don't, why is that exactly?

And what does Keysar Trad have to do with this thread?

Now you are all being really really unfair to David. His group wear slate coloured clothes, not those positively sinful dark grey robes the other mob wear. It's perfectly obvious that they have nothing in common with each other.

Clearly if the circumstances of David's upbringing had been different he still would not have been waving a scimitar and calling "Death to infidels", more likely a sword and the call would have been "Death to pagans" - how can you all miss the blindingly obvious distinctions. :)

R0bert