Obama Ditches Thatcher Funeral

[Pop23]

Yeah, but we "won" the Cold War? So why does China have all the money now?

Ping Pong Diplomacy?

 

[Meathead]

You really think there are Brits who still care about Milk Snatcher Thatcher?

Synthaholic actually asked me to prove my point that assholes who are out there never ever thought she did well



thank you

Not really. The fact is, people are realizing that in our anxiousness to win the Cold War, we eleceted a bunch of assholes who dismantled the middle class. Thatcher, Reagan, the Bushes, etc.

Yeah, but we "won" the Cold War? So why does China have all the money now?

China has all the money because they're not shiftless workers who sit on their fat asses complaining all the time. It like to see you fat ass living and working like the average Chinese. They don't suffer whining as well as we do in the west.

 

[Synthaholic]

Apparently you have a phobia for actual news.

They loved her!

They estimated 250,000 supporters lined the initial route.

Why can't you just give it up? This makes no sense.

In a country of 63,000,000 people.


Feel the love!

 

[Synthaholic]

Well, they HAD to be there!

 

[Trajan]

Reagans, along with others leadership did lead to the end of the cold war. Fact

thats great, really......

The Soviets did not increase military spending to match Reagan's buildup, so Reagan did nothing to create the Soviet economic crash. Just what did he supposedly do to destroy the Soviets?

the soviets were a spent force, salinger and tuchman and all of the other progressive historians that the left & academia and detente peddlers loved so much, urged just more detente and, actually spptiing the USSR economically and technically. Others thought that after Afghanistan etc,. they were at a tipping point and Gorbachav as Thatcher said was someone they could do biz with, but he needed several shoves.

They had zero specie, money or know how to compete with Reagan build up militarily, to include the promise of star wars, stealth aircraft research and rhetorically, from the Poles stirring, the new pope etc etc etc .. etc...it all reached a crescendo capped by Mathias Rust landing his plane on red square, a greatly underestimated event, Gorbachev knew then and there, it was over. They would have to rebuild the entire soviet air defense command (PVO), and their economy and manufacturing sect just could not make that push.........and Gorbachev was the right man at the right time as well, he deserves a lot of credit for realizing it and ding what he did at great risk.

Don't you mean "Democrat House's buildup?

don't even try that shit on me, go play in traffic..

 

[Trajan]

So who told you of these mysterious Democrats that said tax cuts would defeat the Soviets?

I lived through the era, and I don't recall any such thing. That's why I'm wondering where you got such a bizarre idea.

Nobody did.

You'll have to go back to post 565 or so where thruthseeker said that the only people who got tax breaks during the Reagan years were the Rich.

Then on a post not much later, synth stated that the arms buildup that brought down the Soviet Union was thanks to the appropriations of the Democratic house.

Knowing that the House is responsible for both, and giving credit where credit is due, then the House Democrats appropriated the needed funds to bring down the Soviet Union while also giving the Rich a tax break.

I too don't remember it that way.

And the entire time Reagan was simply taking a nap.

The question is, if we can bring down a superpower while cutting taxes the, why can't we stimulate the economy while cutting taxes now?

If you go back and look, I said "may or may not have".

I've never seen any evidence at all that anything Reagan or the House Democrats did had any effect on the USSR. I've seen a lot of speculation, though!

But if it's your contention that US defense spending did it, you must credit the ones who control expenditures.

you should join Aristotle in the no integrity zone......get some help dude.

 

[boedicca]

Peggy Noonan's recent column nails it. The leftwing media tried to scare decent people away from attending Thatcher's funeral and refused to acknowledge her leadership and contributions. But they didn't fool the people.

All this—the media, the left—had the effect of telling people: you'll look stupid if you speak in support of Thatcher, you'll look sentimental, old. And it may be dangerous to attend the funeral—there could be riots!

I wonder if certain people pushed this line so hard so that the day after the funeral they could report no one came.

So then, the surprise that was a metaphor.

At the end of the funeral they all marched down the aisle in great procession—the family, the queen, the military pallbearers carrying the casket bearing the Union Jack. The great doors flung open, the pallbearers marched forward, and suddenly from the crowd a great roar. We looked at each other. Demonstrators? No. Listen. They were cheering. They were calling out three great hurrahs as the pallbearers went down the steps. Then long cheers and applause. It was electric.

England came. The people came. Later we would learn they'd stood 30 deep on the sidewalk, that quiet crowds had massed on the Strand and Fleet Street and Ludgate Hill. A man had held up a sign: "But We Loved Her."

"The end is where we start from." That is T.S. Eliot, whose "Little Gidding" she loved. When they died, Ronald Reagan, John Paul II, and Margaret Thatcher were old and long past their height of power. Everyone was surprised when Reagan died that crowds engulfed the Capitol; people slept on sidewalks to view him in state. When John Paul died the Vatican was astonished to see millions converge. "Santo Subito."

And now at the end some came for Thatcher, too.

What all three had in common: No one was with them but the people.

Britain Remembers a Great Briton - WSJ.com