UK's Thatcher, rot in hell . . .

I think it means, for example, when somebody points out that X won the election and the sour-grapesman replies that it was only because the system is flawed. The fact remains that X won the election - i.e. you didn't get the grapes you wanted.

Apart from voting against her in every single election when she was candidate for Prime Minister. But apart from that, no.She wasn't doing the will of the British people. She found herself in a position where she could do anything she liked, and being an ideologue she did. To be more precise, 42.2% of the country. Which is a minority. And again I would remind you that they didn't elect her, but her party. The same party that showed her the door 'cos even they couldn't put up with her.

Then you are wrong.The phrase "sour grapes" refers to a situation where you fail to get what you want, and then console yourself by convincing yourself that it wasn't worth getting and you didn't really want it. "They didn't hire me? Well, that company sucks anyway, I'd have hated working there. I'm lucky I didn't get the job." That's sour grapes. That's what it means.ETA: It originates from one of Aesop's fables, as follows: Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

That's a rather difficult point argue, given that they voted her in three times. She found herself in that position three times. People knew what she was but they either liked it or didn't care enough to vote the other way. Careless of the electorate but surely no surprise?

Yes, I did miss that distinction when I responded.Yet the important thing is that Reagan's (and Thatcher's) own actions are what people justifiably find contemptuous. Unless your argument is that people are going beyond that to blame them for everything, and that is certainly not what I do, your comment still misses the mark.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

But they didn't. She won three elections. That's different, 'cos of the silly way the British electoral system works.

That's close enough for anything but an argumentum ad dictionarium.

It's not remotely close. You mean, using words to mean what they say?C'mon, the phrase "sour grapes" has an actual meaning, you can't just randomly say that what someone is saying is "sour grapes" just because you disagree with them any more than you can randomly accuse them of "flip-flopping". The phrases have a specific meaning, they don't just mean "words I can use to describe anyone who disagrees with me". If you don't want words to mean what they mean, then all I have to say to you is that you are an avuncular watermelon who frequently macerates contrapuntal anteaters while you perversely interpret inconsequential conurbations.

First of all, what a great thread! Thanks for ALL who responded. Especially Omnivorous, whose supportive responses were much more eloquent and reasoned than mine. I find very rare kinship in passion for truth and justice in today's society. To know there ARE other people of conscience out there makes all the barbs (including being hyperbolically called a nazi) I receive worthwhile.AND, it also caused me to (gasp) re-assess my 'emotions' . . .I think I am actually more sad/angry that Thatcher died than happy. She was a revolting creature, surely a war criminal, surely one who made the world a worse place. But most affecting me, . . . she got away with murder. Literally. What is happy about that? Unlike her victims, she died an old lady without any consequences from her criminal actions. I am passionate about truth and justice. However, the multi-million-dollar ticker-tape parade of a funeral given to her will forever stamp a good spin on her life. I can't stand it. This is a second vicious attack on every victim she has done wrong. Let my lone voice scream for the silent victims oppressed from sociopaths that Thatcher enthusiastically supported like Pinochet in Chile, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and many more places I do not know. To the victims who will forever remain silent in places that Thatcher gleefully sold weapons for profit for the 1%ers. I am sorry that my lone voice was not much comfort then, or that it is not much comfort for you now. I am sorry that my words from your POV were dismissed then, and especially are continued to be wholly dismissed now.Yes, I continue to fully believe any one of Thacther's victims is more valuable than a sociopath's like Thatcher's. By default.And I do continue to stand by my original wish . . . 'Rot in hell bitch!'Edited by dronester, : thatcher/bitch, tomato/tomahto

An UNEQUAL sentiment. Yet Brilliant.Cheers!

To paraphrase the inimitable Dr Adequate, if you had nothing to say, you could have said it much more concisely. Are you ducking the issue intentionally? The point is that Margaret Thatcher was elected democratically. Whether she was chosen by a "minority" or a "majority" is irrelevant. The fact is that she was the best choice for the greatest number of people. That fact was reaffirmed twice. If you don't like the process that was used to choose her, boo-hoo, but facts is facts.

Futile. Agreed. When Bush Jr, the immoral retard, wanted to invade Afghanistan/Iraq, he had about 90% support from americans.I was not part of that 90%. It would seem my stance on things are very different from most americans. I'd certainly be crushed in a landslide if I tried to run for office.Edited by dronester, : No reason given.

Democracy may not be a perfect system but it's the best one we have. And it shouldn't be blamed for people's everyday opinions, just the elections.

It seems you think they are FULLY separate?When I travel, I often hear, it's not the american people who are bad, it is the american government. I cringe. Who is the government if not the people. Where does the government get its authority and morals from if not from the people?Democracy is only as good as the quality of people who bother to vote. Is it not POSSIBLE for a benevolent king to do better?

An actual benevolent and competent absolute monarchy would be better.In the short term.Unfortunately, history has consistently and frequently shown us that totalitarian governments, from monarchies to dictatorships, do not tend to be ruled by the benevolent and competent. What happens when the "good" king dies?Not to mention the problem of public discontent. Even if a ruler is doing well at being benevolent and competent, you can never please all the people. Revolutions happen when people are sufficiently upset, even if their reasons are foolish. Democracy allows for a systematic and interactive approach to regime change rather than waiting for a ruler to die and then hoping for the best in the heir.How a government works in effecting good policy is only one part of what makes a system of government effective and desirable. One could even say the smallest part.