Spikey
Col Rouge quotes Margaret Thatcher:

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

Yes sound understanding of human organization whats your point?
does your imagination run out beyond the cut and paste?

Re “They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first."

Yes that is something I live by and you should learn, if you want to amount to something.

Re “A constituent's view of Margaret Thatcher:

"Margaret Thatcher's premiership haunts the UK today: mass unemployment, corporate greed, asset stripping, recycled debt and New Labour." (The Yorkshire Post 22 December 2008)”

Well since that piece of drivel is attributed to “Yorkshire Post” 2008, it is quite likely it is from a disgruntled old commie, still upset that 25 years ago Margaret Thatcher made him work for his wages, instead of bludging off the taxes of real people…

Btw 2008, Baroness Thatcher no longer sat in parliament, she has no constituency and thus, no constituents.

So your assertion to “A constituents View”, is about as sound and stable as most of the other garbage you post.

Mind you Dearest Margaret would have had the perfect response to the bludging old pinko scumbag, who wrote that piece of irrelevant dross, in the first place.

“And what a prize we have to fight for: no less than the chance to banish from our land the dark divisive clouds of Marxist socialism.”

She showed Gormley and Scargill and their cesspool of corrupt mates in the Trades Union Council, who was elected by the people to run the country and who was not…

and she showed them who had class versus who had just a comb-over (Scargill).

Have a nice day

Foxy/Bronwyn

"Tact is the ability to tell a man he has an open mind
when he has a hole in his head."

Who cares who the author was. Margaret dearest probably plagiarised it.

Hopefully no-one, but no-one will ask her the same question since apart from the hole in the head, poor old Margaret dearest has a few holes in her brain with a long-term dementia.

Now she confuses the Falkland war with the Baltics and insists that Dennis darling is still on the upside of planet earth.

See it can happen when you delegate others to do your dirty work, thus, the brain remains on an indefinite semester break!

daggett: << I pointed out at the same time that he first attacked me for allegedly using a second account, another person was openly using a second account, yet he seemed to find that perfectly acceptable.

Why isn't that hypocrisy? >>

It wasn't the first time I'd challenged James on the use of his multiple sockpuppet accounts. As I recall, the person to whom he refers used a sockpuppet briefly and openly, and never did so again. James (et al), on the other hand, chose to tell lies about his multiple accounts and to attack me endlessly for exposing his habitual use of sockpuppets. He's never forgiven me, poor dear.

Mind you, the exercise was useful in that he seems to have abandoned his former dishonest practices, and even admitted to them in this thread - albeit indirectly. However, he seems to be resiling from his lapse into honesty, for some reason that escapes me.

James/dagget/et al's accusations of me being somehow "vicious" towards him and his dishonestly expressed screwball ideas reminds me of the old Lou Reed song -

"Vicious, you hit me with a flower..."

Get help, James.

P.S. - is there anybody at all on OLO who has been persuaded by James/daggett that the 9/11, Madrid, London etc terrorist attacks were in fact orchestrated by the American government?

I thought when Christopher wrote, "Not while it's against the forum rules, James," he was telling us that the use of a second account on OLO could never be condoned.

But apparently, Christopher, did not mean that after all.

Apparently he thinks its only reprehensible for some people to make use of a second account, but not others. As far as I recall on that occasion my alleged use of a second account was no less 'brief' than the use of a second account by that other OLO user, so it would be interesting to learn from Christopher why he chose to only attack me on that occasion and not the other person.

No C J Morgan, while known to be verbose I never entered the thread.
Sorry I know you think I am too far right but the true very left concern me as much as the right.
America has much blood on its hands but not this time, better I not say what I think of that theory.
Glove puppets.
This thread had good intentions, we got lost but ANY known user of two tags including our freind Jonathan seems to be a clear breach of forum rules.
Any one who uses one to get around those posting limits should get a life.
Can I say all we need here is for existing rules to be enforced?

Col Rouge,

I'll try again and see if your brain's any clearer.

Your unattributed quotation has Margaret Thatcher saying:

“We want a society where people are free to make choices..." etc. Note the word 'society'.

"...to be generous and compassionate." Yes, she was compassionate to her gun-running son when he was jailed. And she's trying to get her daughter out of the pooh for her racist remarks about South African cricketers. She was generous to Johnny Major until he found a mind of his own and disobeyed her Ladyship (he was then PM but Maggie hadn't gone gracefully. She thought he was one of her constituents).

Thatcher goes on: "This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything...” The word 'society again, and a third time.

Now the quotation from 'Women's Own', October 31 1987: “...there is no such thing as society [sic - all her own words]. There are individual men and women, and there are families."

So no such thing as 'society' - just individuals. Dog eat dog. Devil take the hindmost. Where's her compassionate society, a society where people are free to make choices, where kids were able to drink free milk at school until the Mrs Milk Snatcher tipped that all out? User pays even for kids. Compassion!

You're such a fan and acolyte of Thatcher that I can see why you would say her Yorkshire critic is "quite likely...a disgruntled old commie...the bludging old pinko scumbag" Why argue with substance when you can chuck a mindless insult? Thatcher's style.

'The New Economist' October, 2005, "Thatcher was a class warrior, not an economic libertarian. Where market reforms benefited the rich (exchange controls) or bribed floating voters (council house sales), she supported them. Where market reforms could have helped the poor (school vouchers, macro markets), she did nothing...her influence was wholly pernicious."

I'm so glad you told us which of the two - Thatcher and Scargill - had the comb-over. At least Scargill had some humanity between his toupe and his jaw.