Should I hate Margaret Thatcher?

Move on to what ?
(I thawt that the etymological history was interesting.)

why not google before posting?

tsar (online etymology dictionary)
1670, the more correct Latinization of Rus. czar, from prehistoric Slavic *tsesar, from a Gmc. source, ultimately from L. Caesar. See czar.

i was commenting more on phonetics, though -- which was just wrong.

Maggie came to the stage at the right time as the unions were strangling the nation and privatized the various public services to British citizens and standing up to Breshnev. But she was very abrasive and quite devious. She is a sort of love-hate model just like an uncle/aunt who gets drunk on family occasions and creates problems. She was brilliant but rather callous thus the miniker 'Atilla the Hen'.

She is pro-Individualist & pro-personal freedom
(to some extent; I doubt that she favors restoring the status quo ante qua personal defense from violence as of 1919).

It's worth knowing the facts. This article on Thatcher is well worth a read:
http://bit.ly/zhHbz2
It talks about what she done whilst in power, and her lasting legacy.
Personally, i think 'hating' is a waste of anyone's time. Analysing and realising how things can be done better is more constructive. i know what yo mean though

Thatcher made Britain a far more selfish place. She destroyed whole communities, and she sold off the family silver to her chums in the City. She is deserves to be despised.

during the hype leading up to Will & Kate's wedding, there was some discussion as to whether or not Maggie would attend the event, i was saddened to realize she was still alive

There's still talk about giving her a state funeral, that will be a riot (literally).

Can't remember where I heard this - may have been Frankie Boyle on Mock the Week.
It seems a state Funeral could cost anything up to £10m. Why spend that kind of money when they could just give me a shovel and I'd dig a hole so deep, we could deliver her to Satan personally.

I do like Frankie Boyle. I particularly liked his Nightrider skit on Tramadol Nights.

Wouldn't a state (publicly paid-for) funeral be against her principles?



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/22/privatising-thatchers-funeral-fitting-tribute-legacy

Remember this famous poster?

I remember it well.

College age people frequently believe that politicians on the right are somehow "evil".

Once they get older, however, many people come to realize that it is not nearly so simple. Sometimes the left are the ones who have the best ideas, and sometimes the right are the ones who have the best ideas.

And even then, it isn't a black-and-white issue of "bad ideas verses good ideas". Even when one side's ideas aren't quite as good as the other side's, there is often still merit to the losing side's views.


My recommendation is that you don't hate her. She had her good points and her bad points, just like everyone else does.

But since most people at a college or university will think that prominent conservatives are pure evil, I'd also recommend that you keep it to yourself if you choose not to hate her.

Acknowledging that this thread is more than three years old, PQ, my comment is this: Hating her now of course is futile as she's dead. However, even while she was still alive, hating her would have been futile, because you could not have affected her. It is useful, however, to look at what she stood for, and what she accomplished, and at what cost. A commentator i heard yesterday made a cogent remark to the effect that the primary struggle in society is not between political parties, but between the rich and the poor (i'd have said the rich and the not-rich), and that Thatcher came down firmly on the side of the rich.

Thatcher was a polarizing figure, a divisive figure, who ruled, a much as possible by fiat and not by consensus. She made no effort to bring people together or to bring everyone along on the wild ride which characterized first Reagan's policies and then hers. The economic "boom" (alleged) of Thatcher was just like the economic "boom" of reagan. At the expense of leaving millions and millions behind, a privileged few were given economic license to enrich themselves, and to create the illusion of economic success. During the 1984 miners' strike, she called the NUM as "the enemy within." For whatever one may allege about the NUM in particular and trades unionism in general, referring to one's fellow citizens as the enemy is hardly the mark of someone who cares about all the people of the nation. While it is true that she broke the power of the union, she also largely destroyed the domestic coal industry which permanently lost customers. Thereafter, one would have to argue the value of burning coal to generate electricity versus burning gas or oil. I believe i am correct in stating the coal was imported from the U.S. and Australia. No problem for an internationalist investor who has that kind of money to invest and gets the nod and wink in time to profit--not much good for the domestic economy and all those who solely rely on it.

I think that Thatcher should be consigned to the dust bin of political history along with Ronald Reagan. In the future--likely far in the future--i believe that it will be recognized that the Reagan-Thatcher era was a net loss for the people of both nations.

Which conveniently ignored those members who fought for their country during WW2, and those who died as a result of the appalling conditions in mines.

I will remember Margaret Thatcher as one of the great leaders of my lifetime.

I will also remember Barack Obama as one of the worst leaders of my lifetime.

One of the best attributes of Margaret Thatcher is that she busted up the special interest groups.

This is something that desperately needs to happen in the USA.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is a Marmite?