UK's Thatcher, rot in hell . . .

Yes ... but you could say that about anyone who made a decision, couldn't you? It's such a vague exculpation that it covers pretty much anything.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

She was a bad person, and I've often said so. It is tasteless to bring it up right now, though. Why didn't he mention it last month?But by the same token this would also be a silly time to start singing the praises she doesn't deserve. I guess certain politicians are obliged to mouth a few conventional platitudes, everyone else can just shrug and get on with whatever they're doing.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

How familiar are you with the British electoral system?

Excuse me, did you quote infowars? Why not AnswersInGenesis while you're at it?

Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy. It's a legitimate form of argument, and a very valuable one.If your very vague argument would do as an excuse for people whom you do not wish to excuse (Hitler, Stalin, Vlad The Impaler) then you yourself should see that it's worthless as an excuse for people whom you do wish to excuse.

My point would be that no-one (strictly speaking) voted for Thatcher at all, and only a minority voted for her party. Indeed, if one of the American parties got as small a proportion of the vote as the Conservatives did, it would be considered a crushing defeat.

Quite. But that would have to be argued, you can't just produce a general argument that we can't judge decision-makers. Well, that depends. Some people said that I exhibited poor taste by rejoicing in the death of Osama bin Laden.I do think it was poor taste in the case of Thatcher, and I believe I have said as much. It's not like she died in office, it doesn't make any difference that she's dead.

I have so far avoided such a situation, and plan to do so in the future.But if I was obliged to do so, I would think it my duty to weigh, to judge, and to listen. What made Thatcher different from all other major British politicians that I can think of is that she was a fanatical ideologue who genuinely despised anyone who dared suggest that maybe she wasn't doing exactly the right thing. One is used to this from the American right, but to have a loony like that as a British Prime Minister was disturbing.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.