UK's Thatcher, rot in hell . . .

What's funny is that I have the precisely opposite sense.I suspect that it's simply a matter of extreme opinions attracting attention, particularly in the media. The conservatives I know in person are by a vast majority not the mouth-frothing extremist types, but I see a lot of extreme right BS in the media and on the web.I expect you see extreme left views in the media and on the web, and yet the large majority of liberals you know in person are not hate-spewing assholes.Extreme opinions get ratings on TV, between the people who agree and the people who disagree, much like Howard Stern attracts listeners who both love and despise him. And extreme words are more memorable. Hell, those with extreme views are the most likely ones to say anything at all where anyone else would hear, because the more moderate majority usually just won't say anything at all.

...and that's a sentiment certainly cut from good Republican cloth. While I draw a line at advocating violence, I have considerable tolerance for intemperate speech: it reveals the nature of my foes and the passion of my allies.I suspect that dronester does not consider himself a liberal, even though conservatives use the label "liberal" for anyone to the left of Genghis Khan. While the Democratic congressional caucus contains a spectrum that ranges from near-Republicans to nearly-frank socialists, moderate Republicans have been hounded from the GOP by other Republicans.It is true that the right periodically offers up a black figure who speaks of the "liberal plantation" and "blacks...who slavishly follow the liberal line." Apparently, they have no idea how deeply offensive this rhetoric is. These transient figures gain considerable traction with a GOP base which feels that slavery has gotten a bum rap, but invariably implode because they simply do not represent the views of most Americans.They are certainly harshly criticized and quickly become electorally irrelevant because of their views: is that what you mean by "destroyed"?While elevating Reagan to political sainthood, the GOP has fallen far from one of his shrewdest political ideas: that the GOP should be a "big tent." He first espoused this in the 60s--just as the GOP began to implement the Southern strategy, using southern resentment of the civil rights movement to flip Democratic voters.The lack of tolerance on the right has become so extreme that the GOP now commands a single demographic: aging white men, generally of southern birth. Liberals didn't do this to conservatives; it is a self-inflicted wound.Given your claims, you should have no difficulty providing a list of conservative political leaders who have opposed hateful right wing rhetoric. For example, there must have been a clamorous chorus on the right denouncing the rabid birthers and their racial animus from the beginning. Conservative outrage over sly insinuations of a "2nd Amendment solution" to the Obama presidency was doubtlessly full throated.I missed all that. Perhaps you can help.NB: Dick Gregory's remarks on "a liberal scorned" were made from a perspective that, like dronester's, is well to the left of liberalism. He's also a nutrition kook and conspiracy monger (moon landings faked, 9/11 Truther), but those particular follies do seem to cross party lines.Full Disclosure: I worked as a volunteer during his 1968 campaign.

Most of us on the liberal left are capable of a more nuanced approach than simply hating a democratically elected political leader and behaving like a badly bought up child when she dies. That sort of thing is reserved for the extremes of all parties.

I agree Tangle. The time to 'drink champagne in the streets' was actually 28 November 1990 when Thatcher left office and was no more in charge of UK politics.To celebrate by 'drinking champagne' at the actual death of a person who had recently undergone very poor health and for a number of years suffered mental degradation, is frankly socially disgusting.It amazed and appalled me to read that two of the main instigators of the 'champagne celebrations' are in fact UK school teachers (one of who was so young in 1990 that I doubt she had been weaned!). Teachers are the (so-called) guardian of our children's spiritual and moral well-being - when teachers start playing this hate game we are utterly doomed............Post of the month has to go to Rahvin for the perfect example of harmonious give and take.......and it's by no means easy.....

"Attacked and destroyed"? Are we talking lynching here?Oh, no wait, what you mean is that if a black conservative says something dumb, he's called on it just the same as he would be if he was white.That is free and open debate. Really, this is such a stupid shibboleth of the right that I'm mildly surprised to see you touting it: "Disagreeing with me takes away my freedom of speech, so if you believed in free and open debate you'd shut up."Meanwhile, it does not take away liberals' freedom of speech for conservatives to disagree with them, because stupidity is never so delicious as when it comes served with a side-order of hypocrisy.

Your interests give you the right to an opinion, nothing else. You can try to convince others of what their own best interests are but it's futile to tell them that their choice is wrong or their choice should "rot in hell". You may have to run for office yourself.

None the less, that is the democratic process. It's intended to satisfy the maximum number of people. The magic number "fifty per cent plus one" is arbitrary and meaningless. I don't know about the UK but in Canada a minority government is often considered by the "winning" party to be a crushing defeat. It often makes for better government, though. It encourages radical practices such as "cooperation between parties".

Well, it didn't. Well it wasn't a "minority government" 'cos of the stupid electoral system, and so it was considered a triumphant victory and a good reason to impose an ideology that most people didn't actually agree with enough to vote for it.

Personal satisfaction is a volatile and fickle thing. Unfortunately, most ballots don't have an option for "reverse the result of the election if I change my mind later on".

Well, they did vote her in 3 times and is the longest serving Prime Minister in the 20th century. That takes some explaining.

Who voted her in?Oh, right, a minority. This should have made her feel a little humility if that was an emotion of which she was capable.

Sour grapes make good whine.

But this is irrelevant to my point. My point is that her election did not satisfy the majority of voters at the point when they went into the voting booths and voted. The last time she was elected (and she wasn't, her party was) it was by a thumping great 42% of the electorate. If an American Presidential candidate got that proportion of the vote, would he claim a mandate for sweeping reform? No, he wouldn't, because for one thing he'd have lost the election.

You should look up the meaning of the term "sour grapes" before using it again. It does not mean what you think it means.

It's a democracy; it appears that those that wanted her out couldn't persuade enough others to do anything about it.If she really was that awful, it's odd that so many didn't care enough to vote her out.The first time may have been put down to a mistake, the second absentmindedness, but a third? A simpler conclusion is that she was what the country wanted - regardless of our opinions, the war and the voting system. People rarely elect leaders for their humility and certainly not Thatcher, you can't claim she was falsely representing herself - not three times and not her - she was wiziwig.