The Left's Numbers Charade

The losses are catastrophic. Over fourteen times more Americans dead than we lost on 9/11, and almost fifty times as many as have died in Iraq since Saddam Hussein’s statue fell.

In 2003, 42,643 people died on America’s highways.

Looking at this number puts some of the outrageous claims made by the Left into perspective. To listen to their rhetoric, you’d believe that our efforts in Iraq are a bloody disaster with few parallels in history. But the fact is that more Americans are going to die on our roads this Labor Day weekend than we’ve lost in the occupation of Iraq.

http://frontpagemag.com/

Yes, Boon Me, and think of the quick casualties due to Hurricane Charlie. In fact, I recommend that we all bring the boys and girls home; from the Florida battleground.

Just think in one day over 100 dead and they were unable to defend themselves as our troops are. I'm sure that the Left will definately want to see immediate action. However, Gov. Bush will point out that everyone, short of children, were all volunteers to begin with, and thus must learn to live with their own actions.

What a Jerk! But then, you just know what these Bushes are really like.

This is a typical example of the twisted thinking due to damage caused by the drug culture back in the sixties and seventies. Have you noticed that you are unable to hold long conversations or concentrate on anything for longer than a few minutes ?

A doctor writes “The generation now coming into their late forties and fifties is showing all the signs of impairment due to the consumption of large amounts of illegal substances during their teens and early adult years.”

A government spokesmen said “Gov. Bush (sic) is making provision in the next budget for logic impaired neocons.”

Lamphun, how must it make you feel to know that a nation of drugged out pot smokers can build an economic and military superpower that you culturely rich Euro Trash could only dream about. Be very careful hun, or we will let you sink in the pit of your own self importance leading to your inevitable demise.

BTY, what nationality IS Lamphun? Is he Canadian, or what? I have a pretty good take on his politics, how he would enforce his beliefs, etc. I just need to lock in a geographic position to get him set in my Individualist mind.

He's #######. Lives in ####

At it again, huh, d2... Kindly illuminate me as to the reason for the censorship?

He just being a bit protective which is his job.

John L seems to be gathering information. His next question would have been. "Where can I buy a gun in #### ?"

It certainly appears to make D2 look like a closet dictator, doesn't it? Because, had he wished to be acting in the best interests of the forum, he would have showed the courtesy of explaining his actions, and suggesting that it end, whatever was being done wrongly. At any rate, that is my personal opinion. No offense intended D2.

Further, if D2 really wishes to protect the weak, he would also go to the Who Are You thread and slash all pertinent information there as well. Also, I was only interested in putting Lamphun's Scottish politics into perspective. And as usual, it was taken out of context.

Post saved for possible defense.

Boy, I just noticed that I have all kinds of D2 saves in my folder. It is going to take me hours to go through them and edit out the oldies.

Your father's generation built an economic superpower. Your generation has given itself over to hedonism and so to speak has "sold the farm". You're living in reflected glory.

Look around you. You'll find nearly everything is "Made in China".

What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China, Scotty?

Ignorance is bliss JohnL.

I'll take ignorance over stupitidy any day.

You sure ?

Seems you want the best of both worlds.

Old Bertrand was a major snob..

So, in other words, you do not disagree! Nice concession Scotty.

Are you sure ?

It appears to me that you are using Mr. Russell's statement to bolster your association of "fools and fanatics" with convictions, and "doubts" with moral relativism. You can certainly do better than this. Perhaps you are not one of the few who decided to don skivvys under that kilt.

I have been told that the shrinkage of one brain is indicative to shrinkage of the other.

Certainly a talent for the insult, kilts, brains, etc etc. There's been a tendency in your recent postings to move from the pompous to the out and out rude.

What a pity, that and the looney political views makes it almost humorous. Pity, you could have been a contender.

Pity you missed all those Tuesday "Questions and Answers" with the Lady Thatcher. She was more than able to respond in true Shakesperean tradition to her Labour collegues. Even the current PM is quite good, and he too uses colourful language to bolster his arguement.

So, I feel that I am in good company Scotty.

So you're likening yourself to Margaret Thatcher. Ha ha ha ha. Have it your own way. Keep digging yourself that big hole.

Humour aside it's always struck me as odd that Thatcher is hated in the UK but loved in America. Says a lot about the American media. Fox "News" strikes again.

What have you got against Margaret Thatcher!

I can't stand people who ignore the great benefits she brought to bear on our country by smashing the ruinous democratic socialism that had blighted our country since 1945...

I can't stand nonsense.

You weren't around during the mass unemployment and the biggest social unrest (street riots) since the 19th century. Your lookalike John Major was made prime minister to try and undo the damage that "Maggie" had inflicted on Britain. Stick to what you know.

Can you remember the winter of discontent, when the IMF were brought in to bail out a British government? The 20% plus interst rates? The massive inflation? The constant strikes and pandering to unions, the failing nationalised industries...?

Thankfully sir, I was given the privilage of being born after the socialist concensus was smashed in this country... so my memory of these things comes from the many books I read on the subject...

Take a look at the tax levels prior to the Thatcher revolution, and think about the effect these had on our GDP growth:

34%-83% (Rising steeply) compared to 20%-40% (Rising steadily)

The reason Blair has been so succesful is because of the economic legacy of Thatcher, who privatised lots of industry and cut down the state. She cut taxes, and allowed people to buy their council houses; She cut back the rights of trade unions, and defeated the miners who brought us close to civil war.

These economic measures were her main achievenment, and you are right to suggest that her legacy was consolidated in fine fashion by Major, who started the economic upturn we are now enjoying.

In foreign affairs she strengthened NATO and the tran-atlantic alliance in those testing times prior to Soviet collapse, she ensured the sovreignty of the Fawkland Isles, she played her part in ending aparthied, she furthered the Northern Island Peace process and she negotioated the independance of Hong Kong from China.

The two recessions under Thatcher were caused by overheating the economy on the one hand and shadowing the Deutchmark on the other, for which her chancellors must take most of the blame... since both of these actions went against here instincts.

I do not wear rose tinted spectacles when I look at Thatchers Premiership, but her central thrust has brought us the prosperity we are currently enjoying.. In another forum I summed it up as follows:

'Thatcherism was a historical quirk, very much needed, but never to be repeated...'

I stand by this analysis! (I do try to stick to what I know, why don't you do the same!)

Gideon, Scotty seems to overlook the fact that it was the Labour/Democratic Socialists who had their foot stuck up his "bottom", and not the capitalists. Problem here is that he has come to believe all the misinformation spoon fed to him all these years. You will not change him.

After all can you think of anything more hard headed than a Scotsman? Well, maybe an Irishman then.

Give him heck Gideon, my man!

Gideon

Let me address your “points” one by one. It seems only fair and hopefully educational.

Can you remember the winter of discontent, when the IMF were brought in to bail out a British government? The 20% plus interst rates? The massive inflation? The constant strikes and pandering to unions, the failing nationalised industries...?
I can but I doubt if you can.

Thankfully sir, I was given the privilage of being born after the socialist concensus was smashed in this country... so my memory of these things comes from the many books I read on the subject...
You should get out more, or if you can’t, read a wider spectrum of views.

Take a look at the tax levels prior to the Thatcher revolution, and think about the effect these had on our GDP growth:
34%-83% (Rising steeply) compared to 20%-40% (Rising steadily)
This is a famous red herring. Direct taxation has been replaced by the indirect, VAT, National Insurance. The amount screwed out of the middle to working class is higher today than when income tax was nominally high. You’ll soon find out when you take your first job. How much is a litre of petrol ?? Oh I forgot you’re going to work with Daddy in the city.

The reason Blair has been so succesful is because of the economic legacy of Thatcher, who privatised lots of industry and cut down the state. She cut taxes, and allowed people to buy their council houses; She cut back the rights of trade unions, and defeated the miners who brought us close to civil war.
Tut tut, liar liar pants on fire. Yes Thatcher privatised the mines, water, electricity, phones. These nationalized companies have been replaced by private monopolies. Well done Maggie. The mines have shut, the railways are completely screwed up due to under investment, and the water, electricity and gas companies rip everyone off with their private monopolies. The reason Blair has been successful is that Gordon Brown has tried to balance the books. No credit to Thatcher. You forget that there was a John “Major” recession after she’d left office.

These economic measures were her main achievenment, and you are right to suggest that her legacy was consolidated in fine fashion by Major, who started the economic upturn we are now enjoying.
Major caused a recession due to poor management. Recovery came with the first Labour government.

In foreign affairs she strengthened NATO and the tran-atlantic alliance in those testing times prior to Soviet collapse, she ensured the sovreignty of the Fawkland Isles, she played her part in ending aparthied, she furthered the Northern Island Peace process and she negotioated the independance of Hong Kong from China.

Thatcher actually caused a lot of the trouble in Northern Ireland by allowing a shoot to kill policy. “Death on the Rock”. Because of this she was a major recruiter for the IRA. Your claim that she negotiated the independence of Hong Kong is a joke. The Chinese refused to negotiate so she caved in and gave all of Hong Kong back to China. Thatcher was also a supporter of South Africa and other regimes, General Pinochet.

The two recessions under Thatcher were caused by overheating the economy on the one hand and shadowing the Deutchmark on the other, for which her chancellors must take most of the blame... since both of these actions went against here instincts.
You mean somebody else was to blame for 3 million unemployed. A huge increase in crime, drug abuse and every other social ill you can think of. Also last but not least, riots in every city and even large towns of the type not seen since the 19th century. Thatcher’s policy of blaming her subordinates and getting rid of anybody in her conservative party who became too popular, resulted in a bunch of low brow non-entities running the country by the end of her reign. Brings up another point, her disrespect for the Queen, another rival, the end result being the low regard the royal family has been held in ever since.

I do not wear rose tinted spectacles when I look at Thatchers Premiership, Oh yes you do but her central thrust has brought us the prosperity No she brought poverty, despair, envy and the greed of lawyers, estate agents and second hand car dealers. we are currently enjoying. Your inflexible ideolology doesn’t let you give credit where it’s due. In another forum I summed it up as follows: Don’t tell me you been spreading this muck around !

'Thatcherism was a historical quirk, very much needed, but never to be repeated...'
Doesn’t seem to equate with your admiration for the old bag.

I stand by this analysis! (I do try to stick to what I know, why don't you do the same!) What can I say, maybe you’ll live and learn.

Take a look at the tax levels prior to the Thatcher revolution, and think about the effect these had on our GDP growth:
34%-83% (Rising steeply) compared to 20%-40% (Rising steadily)
This is a famous red herring. Direct taxation has been replaced by the indirect, VAT, National Insurance. The amount screwed out of the middle to working class is higher today than when income tax was nominally high. You’ll soon find out when you take your first job. How much is a litre of petrol ?? Oh I forgot you’re going to work with Daddy in the city.

Taxes on consumption rather than income helps to finance growth-creating investment, since any income that is not spent on goods and services is not taxed as heavily.

The income tax as it was was indefensible, and the high rates of taxation on the rich lead rich people to leave our country. In this globalised world, it is better to keep people paying a 40% high rate fo tax, than have people avoiding a 83% tax when they could just bugger off an spend their wealth in America.

My dad was born with a heart condition, failed his 11-plus and was dismissed as 'factory fodder' in the old secondary modern system. In his thirties he won a scholarship to Ruskin College Oxford through a trade union essay competition. His heart condition was finally cured in his summer break, and he went on to Durham, and picked up an MA from Warwick. I have learned a lot from my father.. and although I might end up working in the city, I know that this would not have been possible were it not for his hard work.


The reason Blair has been so succesful is because of the economic legacy of Thatcher, who privatised lots of industry and cut down the state. She cut taxes, and allowed people to buy their council houses; She cut back the rights of trade unions, and defeated the miners who brought us close to civil war.

Tut tut, liar liar pants on fire. Yes Thatcher privatised the mines, water, electricity, phones. These nationalized companies have been replaced by private monopolies. Well done Maggie.

They were at the time, but they brought in a lot of revenue and took a burden off the government, and since that time the monopoly has been split up.

The mines have shut, the railways are completely screwed up due to under investment, and the water, electricity and gas companies rip everyone off with their private monopolies.

These monopolies were broken up and the competive oligopolies are driving prices down, the mines suffered from declining demand, and the policy of nationalistion and investment followed by previous governments failed to allocate the governments scarce resources effectively (this means less money for schools and hospitals), and they actually made the problem worse by imposing higher costs which could not be met in the marketplace.

This delay caused the mess that was seen under Thatcher. The best thing to do, would have been to allow a steady decline, since 'the antiquated equipment in a declining industry is often the effect rather than the cause of an industries decline' (From Principles of Economics)

You seem to ignore the massive problems we had before Thatcher came along, and whilst I certainly accept that she could have done what she did a little nicer, it was absolutely neccesary!


The reason Blair has been successful is that Gordon Brown has tried to balance the books. No credit to Thatcher. You forget that there was a John “Major” recession after she’d left office.

[b]Have you ever heard of something called the business cycle? It is not possible to go without recessions, they are a natural economic counterbalance to an overheated economy, and it is also true that Major started the economic upturn we are now enjoying.

I also commend Gordon Brown as a good chancellor, however without the economic revolution which forced the Labour Party to change, I doubt I would be praising Gordon Brown as I am.
/b]

Editing other peoples posts is I believe called politely called misquoting. That I aside I can't quite figure what you're tring to prove. Defending the indefensible perhaps. Nice to hear about your father though.

All in all I suggest you leave Thatcher where she belongs. In the dustbin of history

I'm trying to prove that Thatcher consigned the poisonous docrine of Democratic Socialism to the intellectual dustbin once and for all.

I can see the bad side of her, but her policies in most areas were thoroughly sound, and her economic breakthrough has been followed by a period of Labour government which has done a pretty good job at consolidating this legacy and humanising it.

Without Thatcher we would still be suffering from so many economic ills, it pains me to think about it...

periodic high inflation, high taxes, low growth, massive union power, strikes, failing nationalised industries...

You need to stand back a bit and rethink this one. Don't get hungup on Thatcher. Those of us who were students and fairly young when she was in charge remember her as she was. Shrill, narrow minded, selfish and generally not a great intellect. Her attempts to "reform" the country actually caused a huge amount of damage. You might note that a very large number of people emigrated to get away from the unemployment and misery she caused.

Her underfunding of rail, road, hospitals and schools is only being rectified now. Her bankrupting of the industrial base has never been rectified.

All in all she was a disaster for Britain. However the US BS media seem to have made her into a hero because of her relationship with Reagan. This rewriting of history has fooled a lot of people who were'nt around when she was doing her thing.

and this is exactly the problem: short memory attention span

Only the ignorants or clueless could support her.

The episodic Enron started in Britain under Ms Tatcher supervision. That alone should give you a clue.

How exactly were we supposed to save our industrial base? Remember, it is an economic fact that delaying the collapse of failing industry wastes government resources, and causes more calamity when it finall happens...

..and just how effective is New Labours new spending spree?

She was certainly not a disaster for Britain! Her economic legacy is the bedrock upon which this countries prosperity rests...

Just imagine a country that continued along the lines of democratic socialism.. we would have low growth, periodicly high inflation... as it is we have a country with a sound enough economy to achieve great things.

Well everyone needs someone to look up to whether real or imagined. This reminds me of a remark by Boon Mee a while back stating a list of American heroes. His list included "John Wayne". A case of fantasy becoming reality.

History is a funny thing, you were either there or you read about it.

Gideon, who invented the telephone and then please state your source.

Bare with me on this.

what is this gibberish nonsence mean ?

every 15 seconds a murder occurs in the US.

every 5 seconds a child dies of starvation in Africa.

figures like these mean nothing to back up a claim on people dying in Iraq.

Well, who's your hero, lamphun? Boy George?

Boy George Bush

The real inventor of the telephone is under heavy debate, and some people would tell you that it was Elisha Gray, some will say Alaxander Graham Bell...

Still more people (including the US Congress) will tell you that it was Antonio Meucci... but many itallians dispute this claim, and suggest that Innocenzo Manzetti was the true inventor..

Still more people believe that 13 years before Bell a German called Philipp Reis was the true inventor...

I'm sure if I studied all of the relevent material I could come up with a more conclusive answer.. but I have better things do do...

This example actually shows that history has the ability to bring truth to the commonly believed but false asseritons of the time...

What point were you wanting to make?

Well, stop bashing your hero, then....BTW, you can't vote for him or Lurch, anyhow...

You answered my point - we do not know as we were not present

history is heresay! even with the new technology, unless we were there we are only guessing.

They were pretty sure that it has Bell at the time.. and another of our great heros - Alexander Fleming, didn't discover penecillin either, but these things only came to light afterwards.. through the prism of history.. and through that prism most people accept (even on the left) that Thatcher's economic legacy has been good for this country.