|
Post by iwantmore on Apr 8, 2013 7:36:26 GMT -5
Do you think this may delay the single/album at all?
|
|
crash
Oasis Roadie
Posts: 238
|
Post by crash on Apr 8, 2013 7:37:15 GMT -5
No.
|
|
|
Post by iwantmore on Apr 8, 2013 7:40:19 GMT -5
She was keen as fuck to hear the new single I bet. RIP.
|
|
|
Post by Bellboy on Apr 8, 2013 7:54:43 GMT -5
They will have to bury her because witches don't burn!
|
|
|
Post by RocketMan on Apr 8, 2013 7:59:10 GMT -5
yeah i think so. just to show the respect. the gallaghers still love her
|
|
|
Post by globe on Apr 8, 2013 7:59:32 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2013 8:01:51 GMT -5
Mods: Move this to the relevant forum please.
OP: Don't make irrelevant topics on this board.
|
|
|
Post by eva on Apr 8, 2013 9:23:11 GMT -5
wow it's getting crowded down there
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2013 10:10:15 GMT -5
Godlike...
|
|
|
Post by RocketMan on Apr 8, 2013 10:37:54 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2013 10:54:56 GMT -5
@frankieboyle.... What terrible news about Thatcher … Before Thatcher: Scotland quite good at football; proper summers; near full employment; optimismAfter Thatcher: AIDS; Raoul MoatFinally, I get to wear my black suit and tap shoes together#Thatcher
Looking forward to hearing about who found all the horcruxes
Don't think Frankie Boyle is too keen on Thatcher...
|
|
downer
Oasis Roadie
Posts: 341
|
Post by downer on Apr 9, 2013 7:28:09 GMT -5
Bet that Noel will show up at the funeral to lick some other asses. Either way, with that knighthood comment he lost all the respect that was left.
|
|
|
Post by Teotihuacan on Apr 9, 2013 8:40:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nahuel89p on Apr 9, 2013 22:15:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by yearzero on Apr 9, 2013 23:42:21 GMT -5
There was also another interview in Australia on Triple J radio last year, where Noel was asked who he would punch if he could get away with it. His answer was Thatcher. "She's the devil." It's at 8:24 minutes: Interesting that this article here though paints Oasis as the opposite (I disagree with how it simplifies Oasis, by the way):
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tony-parsons-margaret-thatcher-hate-1821684Margaret Thatcher was hate figure for young in the 1980s as popular culture raged and ranted against her
"She was terrific for popular culture. When she was gone the idealism quickly withered, descending into the knuckle-dragging hedonism of Oasis" And also this (although this interview occurred before Thatcher's death, having been printed March 23): www.spectator.co.uk/features/8867951/anthems-for-essex/Gary Kemp on David Bowie, Margaret Thatcher, and joining the establishment Spandau Ballet’s Gary Kemp still thinks of himself as an aspirational kid – but don’t call him a Thatcherite
"...Yet even though he is surrounded by exquisite trophies, and admits he has invented a ‘middle-class environment’ for himself, he declines to call himself a self-made man in, shall we say, the Thatcherite mould.
‘I certainly wasn’t a fan of Thatcher’s politics. People liked to label us as children of Thatcher. What nonsense,’ he says. ‘The real children of Thatcher came in the 1990s, and had no interest in politics. The Oasis, Britpop scene,’ he says disdainfully."
|
|
|
Post by yearzero on Apr 9, 2013 23:52:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by globe on Apr 10, 2013 14:01:51 GMT -5
18 million quid for her funeral apparently. Smert.
|
|
|
Post by MacaRonic on Apr 10, 2013 14:20:33 GMT -5
The woman's voice always went through me, like a fuckin' android with egg up it's arse. A lot of people are happy, not as many people are sad. RIP.
|
|
Lundblad
Oasis Roadie
Nothing ever lasts forever
Posts: 469
|
Post by Lundblad on Apr 10, 2013 17:10:41 GMT -5
For me, Margaret Thatcher is a great source of inspiration and I was sad to hear about the death of one of the most important politicians and champions for liberty of our time. However, regardless of if you agree with my views about her as a politician or not, I think it is extremely distasteful to celebrate a person's death. To wish to see a person dead because you don't share his or her political beliefs. Terrible. I also read this following post by nahuel89p. I don't know why I bother, but I will take a couple of minutes to comment on his statements. Morrisey and his friends should stick to music instead of writing naive pieces on politics based on feelings, even myths, rather than facts. But, let him write his articles, I don't really care what he thinks. OK. Yes, they promoted freer markets, lower taxes and less regulation. If that is what you mean by "neoliberalism". During their time in office, the socialist dictatorships in Eastern Europe were undermined and finally fell. The people of Eastern Europe has since then been granted their democratic rights. They have voted for freer markets, lower taxes and less regulation. False. This is incredibly false, and it is important to stress because it is a myth that many people believe in. Real wages have increased dramatically more or less all over the world since 1980. You point to "Thatcher and Reagan's reforms". Which reforms do you mean have lead to increased public debt globally? As president Reagan indeed ran budget deficits which increased national debt. Thatcher, however, realised the dangers of deficits and decreased public national debt during her time in office. Budget discipline doesn't lead to debts. That has been a lesson for many countries in Western Europe (and the US) during this present crisis. In what way? Since 1980, poverty has been reduced dramaticallyin the "Third World". (See this graph for example: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Extreme_poverty_1981%E2%80%932008.png ). The vast majority of people who have left extreme poverty have done so in countries who have implemented market-based reform. Some people doesn't seem to find it important, but child mortality, starvation, life expectancy has been reduced dramatically over the last 30 years. A random human born today has bigger chances to grow old, survive illness or avoid poverty, than any random human born in any other time. And the positive development in this regard has never been stronger than in the last 30 years. That is a fact. OK, that is an opinion that you have. But Reagan and Thatcher never lost any elections as head of governments and their parties won the subsequent elections after they left too. No other conservative candidates for presidency in the US or prime minister in the UK have had higher share of working class votes than those two in the, say, last 50 years. Probably.
|
|
|
Post by nahuel89p on Apr 10, 2013 18:32:04 GMT -5
For me, Margaret Thatcher is a great source of inspiration and I was sad to hear about the death of one of the most important politicians and champions for liberty of our time. However, regardless of if you agree with my views about her as a politician or not, I think it is extremely distasteful to celebrate a person's death. To wish to see a person dead because you don't share his or her political beliefs. Terrible. I also read this following post by nahuel89p. I don't know why I bother, but I will take a couple of minutes to comment on his statements. Morrisey and his friends should stick to music instead of writing naive pieces on politics based on feelings, even myths, rather than facts. But, let him write his articles, I don't really care what he thinks. OK. Yes, they promoted freer markets, lower taxes and less regulation. If that is what you mean by "neoliberalism". During their time in office, the socialist dictatorships in Eastern Europe were undermined and finally fell. The people of Eastern Europe has since then been granted their democratic rights. They have voted for freer markets, lower taxes and less regulation. False. This is incredibly false, and it is important to stress because it is a myth that many people believe in. Real wages have increased dramatically more or less all over the world since 1980. You point to "Thatcher and Reagan's reforms". Which reforms do you mean have lead to increased public debt globally? As president Reagan indeed ran budget deficits which increased national debt. Thatcher, however, realised the dangers of deficits and decreased public national debt during her time in office. Budget discipline doesn't lead to debts. That has been a lesson for many countries in Western Europe (and the US) during this present crisis. In what way? Since 1980, poverty has been reduced dramaticallyin the "Third World". (See this graph for example: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Extreme_poverty_1981%E2%80%932008.png ). The vast majority of people who have left extreme poverty have done so in countries who have implemented market-based reform. Some people doesn't seem to find it important, but child mortality, starvation, life expectancy has been reduced dramatically over the last 30 years. A random human born today has bigger chances to grow old, survive illness or avoid poverty, than any random human born in any other time. And the positive development in this regard has never been stronger than in the last 30 years. That is a fact. OK, that is an opinion that you have. But Reagan and Thatcher never lost any elections as head of governments and their parties won the subsequent elections after they left too. No other conservative candidates for presidency in the US or prime minister in the UK have had higher share of working class votes than those two in the, say, last 50 years. Probably. No, no no. Add this to your measures: 1) Household debt,2) Income inequality, 3) Total of hours worked (per worker). 4) Productivity
More: bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Australia_real_wages_productivity_1978_2010.jpgmedia.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/2012/11/articles/body/20121201_USC536.pngIt's a well known fact that until the 70s it was enough with a family guy with job to grow a family, have a car, house, and expect social progress for his children. Nowadays, it's quite harder. Here in Argentina, neoliberalism destroyed this country. We were in africa 10 years ago. Doing the opposite put us up again, in spite of all the external debt we still have to be paying for the 90s bullshit. Free flow of capitals free market bla bla bla 54% poverty in 2002. Now it's 25%. It was 10% before the first wave of neoliberal reforms in the late 70s. P.D: Im not saying old school keynes is 100% fine. But the world need seriously to move a few steps in that direction. The sooner, the better.
|
|
|
Post by nahuel89p on Apr 10, 2013 18:51:28 GMT -5
1) Some people doesn't seem to find it important, but child mortality, starvation, life expectancy has been reduced dramatically over the last 30 years. A random human born today has bigger chances to grow old, survive illness or avoid poverty, than any random human born in any other time. And the positive development in this regard has never been stronger than in the last 30 years. That is a fact. 2) OK, that is an opinion that you have. But Reagan and Thatcher never lost any elections as head of governments and their parties won the subsequent elections after they left too. No other conservative candidates for presidency in the US or prime minister in the UK have had higher share of working class votes than those two in the, say, last 50 years. 1) Technology. 2) Mass media. I don't want to sound arrogant, but... I can write a lot about it, really. But it's it... technology and mass media. That sums it up. For god's sake, bush was voted twice. And regardless neoliberalism or not, technology and medical sciences are always under development. If there has been progress in the last decades is because there's millions of people worlwide walking up early every day and heading for work. Things could be much better right now if a different path was taken in the late 70's. PD: The extreme poverty graphic of the 3rd world country is painfully wrong. Agriculture communities with very little income, but life in community, far away from global market, were tagged as extremely poor. Now they've been replaced with inhuman mass of million of workers with a misery wage living in little cages in monoblocks. Latin American wage, in terms of food purchase power, is worse today than 35 years ago. What's more, this continent has less wealth, because of all the natural resources drained abroad in these decades, plus migration of qualified people, etc. In china, these "no longer poor" work in factories with nets placed by their side so they can't jump and commit suicide. Seriously, im not a commie, but things aren't right at all.
|
|
|
Post by globe on Apr 11, 2013 2:28:25 GMT -5
For me, Margaret Thatcher is a great source of inspiration and I was sad to hear about the death of one of the most important politicians and champions for liberty of our time. However, regardless of if you agree with my views about her as a politician or not, I think it is extremely distasteful to celebrate a person's death. To wish to see a person dead because you don't share his or her political beliefs. Terrible. I also read this following post by nahuel89p. I don't know why I bother, but I will take a couple of minutes to comment on his statements. Morrisey and his friends should stick to music instead of writing naive pieces on politics based on feelings, even myths, rather than facts. But, let him write his articles, I don't really care what he thinks. OK. Yes, they promoted freer markets, lower taxes and less regulation. If that is what you mean by "neoliberalism". During their time in office, the socialist dictatorships in Eastern Europe were undermined and finally fell. The people of Eastern Europe has since then been granted their democratic rights. They have voted for freer markets, lower taxes and less regulation. False. This is incredibly false, and it is important to stress because it is a myth that many people believe in. Real wages have increased dramatically more or less all over the world since 1980. You point to "Thatcher and Reagan's reforms". Which reforms do you mean have lead to increased public debt globally? As president Reagan indeed ran budget deficits which increased national debt. Thatcher, however, realised the dangers of deficits and decreased public national debt during her time in office. Budget discipline doesn't lead to debts. That has been a lesson for many countries in Western Europe (and the US) during this present crisis. In what way? Since 1980, poverty has been reduced dramaticallyin the "Third World". (See this graph for example: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Extreme_poverty_1981%E2%80%932008.png ). The vast majority of people who have left extreme poverty have done so in countries who have implemented market-based reform. Some people doesn't seem to find it important, but child mortality, starvation, life expectancy has been reduced dramatically over the last 30 years. A random human born today has bigger chances to grow old, survive illness or avoid poverty, than any random human born in any other time. And the positive development in this regard has never been stronger than in the last 30 years. That is a fact. OK, that is an opinion that you have. But Reagan and Thatcher never lost any elections as head of governments and their parties won the subsequent elections after they left too. No other conservative candidates for presidency in the US or prime minister in the UK have had higher share of working class votes than those two in the, say, last 50 years. Probably. Prick
|
|
Lundblad
Oasis Roadie
Nothing ever lasts forever
Posts: 469
|
Post by Lundblad on Apr 13, 2013 5:26:57 GMT -5
1) Some people doesn't seem to find it important, but child mortality, starvation, life expectancy has been reduced dramatically over the last 30 years. A random human born today has bigger chances to grow old, survive illness or avoid poverty, than any random human born in any other time. And the positive development in this regard has never been stronger than in the last 30 years. That is a fact. 2) OK, that is an opinion that you have. But Reagan and Thatcher never lost any elections as head of governments and their parties won the subsequent elections after they left too. No other conservative candidates for presidency in the US or prime minister in the UK have had higher share of working class votes than those two in the, say, last 50 years. 1) Technology. 2) Mass media. I don't want to sound arrogant, but... I can write a lot about it, really. But it's it... technology and mass media. That sums it up. For god's sake, bush was voted twice. And regardless neoliberalism or not, technology and medical sciences are always under development. If there has been progress in the last decades is because there's millions of people worlwide walking up early every day and heading for work. Things could be much better right now if a different path was taken in the late 70's. PD: The extreme poverty graphic of the 3rd world country is painfully wrong. Agriculture communities with very little income, but life in community, far away from global market, were tagged as extremely poor. Now they've been replaced with inhuman mass of million of workers with a misery wage living in little cages in monoblocks. Latin American wage, in terms of food purchase power, is worse today than 35 years ago. What's more, this continent has less wealth, because of all the natural resources drained abroad in these decades, plus migration of qualified people, etc. In china, these "no longer poor" work in factories with nets placed by their side so they can't jump and commit suicide. Seriously, im not a commie, but things aren't right at all. I don't make any illusions that life in a Chinese factory is heaven. I live in a developed Western country and can't make any deeper imagination about how working for years in one is. I don't make any illusions about life in subsistence farming either. Industralization is required to lift societies out of poverty, starvation and poor health. Chinese people are better off today than they were in an economy that was heavily based on low-productivity agriculture. You say that technology is important. Yes, of course it is. But development doesn't fall from the heavens. Development of technology and medical science happens when the institutions are right. There is a reason that market-based economies such as West Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, Austria, Finland and Costa Rica experienced and experience so much better quality of living than their socialist neighbors East Germany, North Korea, Mao China, Eastern bloc Hungary, Soviet Estonia och Nicaragua. Without industrialization process and market based reforms in India and China this fantastic human development wouldn't have occured during the last three decades. This is a whole other debate, but it is hard to claim that media is the reason that Thatcher, Reagan and Bush was elected. The fact is that the UK in 1979 was in a terrible state. Mass strikes and street violence created a malfunctioning society. There were even fears about a coup d'etat. Paramilitary groups were organized. The economy was in shambles and had lagged behind the rest of Europe for 30 years, as well as living standards. The IMF had to step in in 1976 to save the economy. That was the circumstances that made way for a non-status quo politician. I'm not an expert on this, but I believe that a wave of nationalism after the Falklands War played a big part in her re-election 1983, though. But after that the Tories won two more elections. The voters accepted and gave a mandate for Thatcherism. And not until Tony Blair and New Labour came about, having largely accepted Thatcherism, could Labour win an election again. Short comment on the elections of Reagan and Bush the younger: They were elected in a liberal media landscape, especially Reagan. There is a reason that conservative Fox News became such a success in the US when it was created - it filled a void in the media landscape. The reason for Reagan's election in 1980 is in a way similar to Thatcher's in 1979: The very bad state of the economy. And when things had turned around in 1984, he was re-elected.
|
|
Lundblad
Oasis Roadie
Nothing ever lasts forever
Posts: 469
|
Post by Lundblad on Apr 13, 2013 5:37:49 GMT -5
For me, Margaret Thatcher is a great source of inspiration and I was sad to hear about the death of one of the most important politicians and champions for liberty of our time. However, regardless of if you agree with my views about her as a politician or not, I think it is extremely distasteful to celebrate a person's death. To wish to see a person dead because you don't share his or her political beliefs. Terrible. I also read this following post by nahuel89p. I don't know why I bother, but I will take a couple of minutes to comment on his statements. Morrisey and his friends should stick to music instead of writing naive pieces on politics based on feelings, even myths, rather than facts. But, let him write his articles, I don't really care what he thinks. OK. Yes, they promoted freer markets, lower taxes and less regulation. If that is what you mean by "neoliberalism". During their time in office, the socialist dictatorships in Eastern Europe were undermined and finally fell. The people of Eastern Europe has since then been granted their democratic rights. They have voted for freer markets, lower taxes and less regulation. False. This is incredibly false, and it is important to stress because it is a myth that many people believe in. Real wages have increased dramatically more or less all over the world since 1980. You point to "Thatcher and Reagan's reforms". Which reforms do you mean have lead to increased public debt globally? As president Reagan indeed ran budget deficits which increased national debt. Thatcher, however, realised the dangers of deficits and decreased public national debt during her time in office. Budget discipline doesn't lead to debts. That has been a lesson for many countries in Western Europe (and the US) during this present crisis. In what way? Since 1980, poverty has been reduced dramaticallyin the "Third World". (See this graph for example: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Extreme_poverty_1981%E2%80%932008.png ). The vast majority of people who have left extreme poverty have done so in countries who have implemented market-based reform. Some people doesn't seem to find it important, but child mortality, starvation, life expectancy has been reduced dramatically over the last 30 years. A random human born today has bigger chances to grow old, survive illness or avoid poverty, than any random human born in any other time. And the positive development in this regard has never been stronger than in the last 30 years. That is a fact. OK, that is an opinion that you have. But Reagan and Thatcher never lost any elections as head of governments and their parties won the subsequent elections after they left too. No other conservative candidates for presidency in the US or prime minister in the UK have had higher share of working class votes than those two in the, say, last 50 years. Probably. No, no no. Add this to your measures: 1) Household debt,2) Income inequality, 3) Total of hours worked (per worker). 4) Productivity
More: bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Australia_real_wages_productivity_1978_2010.jpgmedia.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/2012/11/articles/body/20121201_USC536.pngIt's a well known fact that until the 70s it was enough with a family guy with job to grow a family, have a car, house, and expect social progress for his children. Nowadays, it's quite harder. Here in Argentina, neoliberalism destroyed this country. We were in africa 10 years ago. Doing the opposite put us up again, in spite of all the external debt we still have to be paying for the 90s bullshit. Free flow of capitals free market bla bla bla 54% poverty in 2002. Now it's 25%. It was 10% before the first wave of neoliberal reforms in the late 70s. P.D: Im not saying old school keynes is 100% fine. But the world need seriously to move a few steps in that direction. The sooner, the better. I understand that things went horribly wrong in Argentina in the last decades. I'm not an expert on that country and why it happened, but Argentina is also an out-lier when it comes to Latin America. Poverty has been dramatically reduced in South America as well, during those last couple of decades. I wasn't discussing income inequality above. I simply stated that real wages have increased during those decades. Your graphs on the US economy are relevant, though. The middle class of the US has not experienced substantial increases in living standard during those last decades and that is not good. When capitalism doesn't deliver better living standards it will be questioned, and that is a danger in the US today. But I wasn't specifically discussing the US. Sure, in most countries income inequality has increased highly during those decades. Also in my country, Sweden. But for me, that is not a problem, as long as the whole society's incomes increase (Side note: Thatcher actually makes a brilliant case for that here: ). And that has been the case in most of the Western world and the developing world during those three decades. Also in Sweden, where the social democratic welfare state and high taxes have been reduced, state monopolies have been decreased and the regulatory burden has been reduced. With more growth and more prosperity as the result.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2013 6:24:41 GMT -5
|
|