Posts by Es99

1) Message boards : Politics : Last Gasp Saloon (Message 1355156)
Posted 70 days ago by

Es99

Thatcherism was a national catastrophe that still poisons us

Also, speaking of the company people keep, check out some of the unsavoury characters that Thatcher hung around with.

If you need a list I will supply one later on.

Thank you Hev, but no, I don't actually require a list - from you.

Well, you can have one from me then, here is one someone else compiled. Sadly it is not comprehensive. She really was the worst thing that happened to the UK.

I am sorry to see so many apologists here. I had hoped you had more sense.

"

Margaret Thatcher was the most divisive and polarising politic leader of the last century. This is an incomplete list of why many of us fall on the side that does not regard her with anything other than odium…

1. She supported the retention of capital punishment
2. She destroyed the country's manufacturing industry
3. She voted against the relaxation of divorce laws
4. She abolished free milk for schoolchildren ("Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher")
5. She supported more freedom for business (and look how that turned out)
6. She gained support from the National Front in the 1979 election by pandering to the fears of immigration
7. She gerrymandered local authorities by forcing through council house sales, at the same time preventing councils from spending the money they got for selling houses on building new houses (spending on social housing dropped by 67% in her premiership)
8. She was responsible for 3.6 million unemployed - the highest figure and the highest proportion of the workforce in history and three times the previous government. Massaging of the figures means that the figure was closer to 5 million
9. She ignored intelligence about Argentinian preparations for the invasion of the Falkland Islands and scrapped the only Royal Navy presence in the islands
10. The poll tax
11. She presided over the closure of 150 coal mines; we are now crippled by the cost of energy, having to import expensive coal from abroad
12. She compared her "fight" against the miners to the Falklands War
13. She privatised state monopolies and created the corporate greed culture that we've been railing against for the last 5 years
14. She introduced the gradual privatisation of the NHS
15. She introduced financial deregulation in a way that turned city institutions into avaricious money pits
16. She pioneered the unfailing adoration and unquestioning support of the USA
17. She allowed the US to place nuclear missiles on UK soil, under US control
18. Section 28
19. She opposed anti-apartheid sanctions against South Africa and described Nelson Mandela as "that grubby little terrorist"
20. She support the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and sent the SAS to train their soldiers
21. She allowed the US to bomb Libya in 1986, against the wishes of more than 2/3 of the population
22. She opposed the reunification of Germany
23. She invented Quangos
24. She increased VAT from 8% to 17.5%
25. She had the lowest approval rating of any post-war Prime Minister
26. Her post-PM job? Consultant to Philip Morris tobacco at $250,000 a year, plus $50,000 per speech
27. The Al Yamamah contract
28. She opposed the indictment of Chile's General Pinochet
29. Social unrest under her leadership was higher than at any time since the General Strike
30. She presided over interest rates increasing to 15%
31. BSE
32. She presided over 2 million manufacturing job losses in the 79-81 recession
33. She opposed the inclusion of Eire in the Northern Ireland peace process
34. She supported sanctions-busting arms deals with South Africa
35. Cecil Parkinson, Alan Clark, David Mellor, Jeffrey Archer, Jonathan Aitkin
36. Crime rates doubled under Thatcher
37. Black Wednesday – Britain withdraws from the ERM and the pound is devalued. Cost to Britain - £3.5 billion; profit for George Soros - £1 billion
38. Poverty doubled while she opposed a minimum wage
39. She privatised public services, claiming at the time it would increase public ownership. Most are now owned either by foreign governments (EDF) or major investment houses. The profits don’t now accrue to the taxpayer, but to foreign or institutional shareholders.
40. She cut 75% of funding to museums, galleries and other sources of education
41. In the Thatcher years the top 10% of earners received almost 50% of the tax remissions
42. 21.9% inflation"

2) Message boards : Politics : Last Gasp Saloon (Message 1354885)
Posted 71 days ago by

Es99

Baroness Thatcher dies today. For many, her philosophy was summed up in a magazine interview she gave in 1987.

"I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand 'I have a problem, it is the government's job to cope with it!' or 'I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!'; 'I am homeless, the government must house me!' and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society?

"There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families, and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first.

"It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations."

Not much has changed, she was right then, she is right now. We need another Maggie.

She was an evil witch who destroyed the UK. I'm celebrating her death now with a glass of champagne.

Ding Dong the witch is dead!

3) Message boards : Politics : Sandy Hook (Message 1352036)
Posted 81 days ago by

Es99

Don't worry Es, we wouldn't let him in the country. The UK Border Agency might be pretty incompetent, but even they would refuse entry to known psychotics.

That part might be true But I seem to recall some terroists were let in.

We let a few out. The shoe bomber was from Brixton,he used to sell incense outside of Iceland.

4) Message boards : Politics : Sandy Hook (Message 1351824)
Posted 82 days ago by

Es99

Never Defended A House Before, have YOu? Or A Neighborhood? Town? Anything?

From Destruction?

What sort of country do you live in??? I didn't realise I was taking my life into my own hands everytime I crossed the border.

If its that bad you should consider moving to Brixton, one of the roughest parts of the UK where I lived for nearly 20 years. Never needed a gun to protect myself though. If where you live is so bad, you should move there. Its clearly safer.

5) Message boards : Politics : Against ALL women - Infanticide, Slavery, Rape, Trafficking... (Message 1351823)
Posted 82 days ago by

Es99

Surely the Americans here are aware just how tough the pioneer women were who came the New World. Those women did everything with the men and were tough as nails. If they didn't, the families wouldn't have survived.

Why yes, but the Royal Academy of Sciences didn't. Those rarefied circles just saw their wives who were required by the fashion of over restrictive corsets to have vapors almost on cue. It is from those observations and not field studies that the BS theory springs from.

Fortunately more progress has been made since then. One hopes.

6) Message boards : Politics : Against ALL women - Infanticide, Slavery, Rape, Trafficking... (Message 1351822)
Posted 82 days ago by

Es99

...WOman. As my pic below shows. Headless and Full-Bodied. With A Book and Not A Smart Phone...

Bound For It.

but no brain apparently. I guess you just included the bits you thought were important.

7) Message boards : Politics : Against ALL women - Infanticide, Slavery, Rape, Trafficking... (Message 1351641)
Posted 83 days ago by

Es99

Hi Janice,

just how strong do we need to be?

Apparently stronger than you should have to be ...

The BS that men went hunting and women tended kids because men are stronger is BS. Men were ordered to hunt because they are expendable. Men retaliated with religion.

I think there are still some misconceptions about what life was like in the stone age. Hunting wouldn't have even been the main source of food.

In hunter and gatherer societies everyone would have pitched in who was able.

The same one farming started. Surely the Americans here are aware just how tough the pioneer women were who came the New World. Those women did everything with the men and were tough as nails. If they didn't, the families wouldn't have survived.

8) Message boards : Politics : LOL--The good Ol health care system of England. ;-) (Message 1351638)
Posted 83 days ago by

Es99

Its "The Sun" . You might as well post an article from the National Enquirer and call it news.

9) Message boards : Politics : Prez is Good, Real Good. You've Won. Time to Get 'er Done. (Message 1343810)
Posted 104 days ago by

Es99

The graph on US LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE is a "Gee Whiz" Graph. Which is dishonest as we teach in our Statistics classes. Start the graph from zero and those whom are ignorant will get a different visual impression from the one presented here.

It also doesn't show how much is due to retirement of baby boomers. They are going to skew any data.

10) Message boards : Politics : Prez is Good, Real Good. You've Won. Time to Get 'er Done. (Message 1343781)
Posted 104 days ago by

Es99

I think they are considered disastrous because of the nature of the cuts and not the amount.

11) Message boards : Politics : Speaker Boehner is good: time to get 'er done. (Message 1342740)
Posted 108 days ago by

Es99

The Sequester and the Tea Party Plot
"To avoid default on the public debt, the White House and House Republicans agreed to harsh and arbitrary “sequestered” spending cuts if they couldn’t come up with a more reasonable deal in the interim. But the Tea Partiers had no intention of agreeing to anything more reasonable. They knew the only way to dismember the federal government was through large spending cuts without tax increases."

From the outside, it looks like treason. I'm not sure what else you would call it. These people are a danger to America.

12) Message boards : Politics : Religion in schools: All or none? (Message 1342737)
Posted 108 days ago by

Es99

WK is correct.

In the UK 1880's in the Welsh valleys, if you didn't go to chapel on a Sunday, you were literally kicked out of your village. Elsewhere in Victorian England, if you didn't get seen at Church you were ostracised by society. In the early 1950's I was nearly chucked out of my local Wolf Cub pack because we were affiliated to a local church, and I didn't go to their Sunday School. In the mid 1950's every school had Religious Instruction lessons (RI), that got changed to Religious Education (RE) because it seemed too dictatorial. You had no choice, you had to go to those lessons, both C of E, and Catholics alike. That was how it was back then, you just accepted it as the way it was. These days the school would get sued!

My local College where I taught had a staff calendar listing all the various religious days from every known religion. Virtually every other day there was some celebration or festival somewhere, where the students said they were unable to attend class because of their religious duties. We had to have a special private room where they could face Mecca umpteen times a day. How the hell can you run a teaching establishment on that basis with 10% of your class missing at any one time?

If you are paying big bucks for your child's education, you get to say what they get taught!

Unfortunately this is true.

And damn right too!! Religion has caused more problems and wars in this world than anything else, and is continuing to do so. The last thing we need to do is to indoctrinate our schoolkids.

We had religious education at school, but it was about all religions. It means I'm not scared of Muslims and don't believe all the hysterical crap said about the general Muslim population (of course there are extremists). My kids learnt even more, so if I have any questions about Hindu gods I ask them. Learning about other religions is an excellent way to stop xenophobia. It would also stop tragic incidents such as the ones after 9/11 where Sikhs were attacked and even murdered in "retaliation". Ignorance is never a good thing.

13) Message boards : Politics : Religion in schools: All or none? (Message 1342531)
Posted 109 days ago by

Es99

It's all a question of degree isn't it. If I was asked would I agree to a proportion of my taxes going to fund an above average pupil going to a Private school if her parents could afford it, I would say no. If the pupil was exceptional and her parents couldn't afford it, then I think I would say yes.

Problem with private schools is that not all of them are good. Quite a few of them get their reputations because they cherry pick their students. I know for a fact that one top private school that charges 100k per year kicks out students if they get less than a grade b average.

Private does not necessarily mean better, and they don't get the rigorous inspections that state schools get.

I sent my son to a small local private church school for a because he had outgrown his daycare and couldn't start regular school yet. It was dreadful and i made a mistake sending him there. It really was a very bad school.

14) Message boards : Politics : Religion in schools: All or none? (Message 1342440)
Posted 109 days ago by

Es99

I really don't understand that response, Es.

He's saying he shouldn't have to pay for a system he never participated in. I was just surprised that he never used the education system.

Mark was talking about the diversion of funds from the public district schools to parochial and private schools. He was not complaining about his taxes supporting the public schools.

He wrote

As a portion of my property taxes every year, I am taxed for my school district.
To support the public school system in my back yard.
And now, I am being told that those funds can be siphoned off to support those who do not wish to believe in public schooling because they think their kids are above that???
(My emphasis)

From his post it is safe to assume that Mark attended a public school and has no problem with his tax dollars being used to support the public school system. His problem is with those tax dollars being used for purposes other than the reason they are collected. i.e. To fund Private schools.

T.A.

HMmm ok. I guess the paragraph is a little ambiguous, it took me several readings to get the mmeaning and i still got it wrong. My bad.

15) Message boards : Politics : Religion in schools: All or none? (Message 1342418)
Posted 109 days ago by

Es99

I really don't understand that response, Es.

He's saying he shouldn't have to pay for a system he never participated in. I was just surprised that he never used the education system.

16) Message boards : Politics : so·cial·ism (Message 1342296)
Posted 109 days ago by

Es99

Lots of people who work very hard are very poor.

Define what makes work "hard" or "easy"

How do you compare if a dishwasher's work is harder or easier than a bank CFO?

Gary, that is a fundamental question in micro economics. Each person has their own set of marginal utilities.

I would like to see ES's meaning and thoughts. I suspect she attaches a meaning to hard work more like I would expect to find in the physics department rather than the economics department.

I suspect she is thinking of women in Africa.

Yes, it is a interesting question but presumably market forces have valued an hours time somewhat close to correct.

Why should we presume this? This from the same system that believes "corporations are people, my friend"?

I don't need to think of women in Africa to point out the disconnect between hard work and pay. Nurses work very hard. I don't think hedge fund managers work 1,000,000 times harder than nurses, but apparently the supposed free market does. I don't know who put about this myth that somehow the free market pays people what they are worth. Its a myth, if it wasn't Beyonce wouldn't be earning more than a fireman. People who actually add value to society such as teachers, doctors,nurses, scientists, childcare workers would be earning the most. The free market has it wrong, and its certainly not free.

17) Message boards : Politics : Religion in schools: All or none? (Message 1342293)
Posted 109 days ago by

Es99

How about dissolving all government funds for education? Has anyone thought of that?

Duh!

Get your religion out of my gubmint and vice verse.

Of course, a sensible idea like that will never get any 'traction' since it pisses off everybody and the recipients of said idea are victims of 'gubmint' schools anyway.

Well.......here is a contradiction for ya.......
I am a Christian man that supports the recognition of his name and beliefs in this society.

However.....
I do have a problem with the efforts of my own Governor John Walker, who I happen to support in most everything else, to further the issuing of vouchers to send the kiddies off to private or parochial schools on my tax dollar.

As a portion of my property taxes every year, I am taxed for my school district.
To support the public school system in my back yard.
And now, I am being told that those funds can be siphoned off to support those who do not wish to believe in public schooling because they think their kids are above that??? I call bullshit.

I am taxed and have payed moneys to support the local public school system, not your little brats that you think you want better for. If you truly think that your kids are above that, go for it. But do so on your own dollar. NOT mine.

I pay taxes for ALL of the school district, not to be taken by those that believe they should have special privileges.

Otherwise, if you want to take it another step, there would have to be a checkbox on the tax form. 'Do you wish your tax dollars to go to...

A. Public Schooling available to all. Even if it may not be the ultimate.
B. Parochial schooling available to only the devout.
Ba. And if so which, religion would you desire to support?
C. Private schooling. Which means you don't give a rat's petoot what your child learns. Or any oversight.

EDIT...
And let me say that I damned well have a say in this, even though I have no offspring.
I have been a property owner since 1980, and have paid my taxes on such every single year since. Every year, I have to check off on what school district my taxes are going to. I don't believe it is right to take that money and redirect it to others who do not wish to participate in the public school system.

You never went to school yourself???

18) Message boards : Politics : so·cial·ism (Message 1341133)
Posted 112 days ago by

Es99

http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp.

Somebody got it right. Anyone that has actually read Marx would know this.
Hint: you do not need to be socialist to read Marx. And for those 100% opposed to it, shouldn't you actually read his work, instead of taking someone else's definition, so that you really "know your enemy"?

Many critics have maintained that if anyone in the original scenario were to receive a failing grade, it should have been the economics professor who clearly didn't understand the difference between socialism and communism. Socialism is a system that advocates social ownership of production and distribution, not an equal distribution of resources. (The socialist motto "To each according to his contribution" reflects the principle that members of a socialist society are still rewarded based on how much they contribute to society, not on some more egalitarian basis.) Communism, not socialism, advocates the principle of distributing resources based on an individual's needs rather than the level of his contribution to society ... ."

This is directly the opposite of IDs claim in the opening post.
Now, why in the WORLD would Marx have EVER suggested this. Hmmm?
We like to think in our society that we'll be rewarded for our hard work and good contributions, right? Well, how well have you REALLY contributed? Do your rewards REALLY match YOUR contributions?

Thanks for posting that here, Sarge. When I saw that going around facebook my first thought was "well that's a load of bollox", just from my own experience of how a class of pupils actually behave. You've pointed out that the allegory doesn't represent socialism or even Communism and shows a basic lack of understanding of those ideologies.

I would however love to perform this "experiment" myself, however it would be unethical (something that clearly didn't cross the mind of the original "Professor.")

I suspect the actual results would show an over improvement on the average grade for several reasons. Firstly those students who wanted a higher grade would have to help those who were underperforming. This might take the form of collaborative study sessions which would actually help the top students as well as lower achieving students. Also, there are plenty of students who don't try because there is no accountability. The enormous peer pressure would ensure that those students who couldn't be bothered to hand in assignments or turn up to class would have to alter their behaviour or face the wrath of the other students. So that is why it was obvious to me that this wasn't a real experiment, because it predicted an overall lowering of achievement rather than an average improvement in grades over the whole class. Not fair on the highest achievers, but an improvement for everyone else, including the middle achievers.

However, the premise of socialism is that there is a collaborative effort to improve access for everyone of the basic necessities of life. Food, shelter and healthcare. The comparison and worth of a pass grade or an A grade simply do not apply in this context. If a person gets a fail grade in life they end up starving and homeless and in real life this is not based on merit or hard work. Lots of people who work very hard are very poor.

A closer comparison of Communism would be that instead of there being a lecturer who controls the grades and bestows them as he or she sees fit, the whole class would be responsible for assigning grades. They would come to an agreement as a collective about how grades should be assigned.

19) Message boards : Politics : Religion in schools: All or none? (Message 1339616)
Posted 119 days ago by

Es99

I am not for the outright teaching of any religion in public K through 12 schools, but an explanation of religious issues would be critical in most history courses. I cannot think of any cultural group, past or present, in which an understanding of that culture's religious beliefs does not help one better understand that culture's history. In addition, a student's understanding of western art or music would be terribly compromised without at least a passing understanding of the religious themes that come up so often in these areas of study. I imagine the same is true for non-western art and music.

20) Message boards : Politics : Pope resigns (Message 1339195)
Posted 122 days ago by

Es99

How much legal status does the ITCCS have?

A creation of Kevin Annett. Legal significance: none.

Sadly true, but its the thought that counts.

The Pope should be held accountable.

Next 20