Blair, any questions

31 Jan 2010

Ya know what Max IF Churchill would have given everyone a million quid to every person, some would have still thought he was a tight arse, as they would say he should have given away two million.
There are just no pleasing some people.
The facts are very clear....he instilled a belief in World War 2 into the people, he was a man for the times, where historians have openly said this.
If people have personnel opinions over FACTS then that ain't no problem. The facts are there to see yet some are just so blinkered that they only see what is just past their noses. wink

I provide links then people scoff...I supply no links and people scoff.
As I say..." you cannot please all of the people ".
Going by zillions of polls over the years he consistently is voted the most important Briton, and also the only PM EVER to be given a State funeral....I wonder why that is ?
The only other person who will get that honour will be Maggie....once again I wonder why?
Watch the same people say untrue things about her now too...( obviously not Labour supporters then lol

)?
Jeeze how this country could do with her now.

31 Jan 2010

Quote by Max777
" although he won the election because of the quirks of the electoral system " .
In other words....he was re-elected!

Keep clinging onto that simple mis-statement. He lost twice, didn't win the popular vote the third time, but got in anyway. As an assertion of his popularity it's hardly convincing.
So what does winning 35% of the popular vote, equating to 22% of the electorate say about Tony Blair's popularity in the 2005 election? What relevancy does the popular vote have anyway, seeing as how 65% of the voting electorate voted against Labour at the last election, yet a Labour Government was returned? dunno

Ummm, good rant. Good making of the case for proportional representation, which I have gradually come to be in favour of.
I was specifically rebutting a point about Churchill's purported popularity, which was wrong as a matter of fact (about his being re-elected at the first opportunity). I was using the fact that Attlee,a s a party leader gained more votes at three successive elections, against Churchill, to make the point that far from being a unifying national force Churchill was uniquely divisive.

31 Jan 2010

no, i dont have any.

31 Jan 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Ya know what Max IF Churchill would have given everyone a million quid to every person, some would have still thought he was a tight arse, as they would say he should have given away two million.
There are just no pleasing some people.
The facts are very clear....he instilled a belief in World War 2 into the people, he was a man for the times, where historians have openly said this.
If people have personnel opinions over FACTS then that ain't no problem. The facts are there to see yet some are just so blinkered that they only see what is just past their noses.
I provide links then people scoff...I supply no links and people scoff.
As I say..." you cannot please all of the people ".
Going by zillions of polls over the years he consistently is voted the most important Briton, and also the only PM EVER to be given a State funeral....I wonder why that is ?
The only other person who will get that honour will be Maggie....once again I wonder why?
Watch the same people say untrue things about her now too...( obviously not Labour supporters then )?
Jeeze how this country could do with her now.

When your links are to a primary school website reporting the results of a poll in which I personally voted 37 times, yep, pointing and scoffing is reasonable. (In case you're wondering, I was voting for Alan Turing, a brilliant scientist driven to suicide because of his sexuality by a government headed by Winston Churchill.)
WHat's funny is that you're the one who doesn't like the facts.

31 Jan 2010

Quote by awayman
Ya know what Max IF Churchill would have given everyone a million quid to every person, some would have still thought he was a tight arse, as they would say he should have given away two million.
There are just no pleasing some people.
The facts are very clear....he instilled a belief in World War 2 into the people, he was a man for the times, where historians have openly said this.
If people have personnel opinions over FACTS then that ain't no problem. The facts are there to see yet some are just so blinkered that they only see what is just past their noses.
I provide links then people scoff...I supply no links and people scoff.
As I say..." you cannot please all of the people ".
Going by zillions of polls over the years he consistently is voted the most important Briton, and also the only PM EVER to be given a State funeral....I wonder why that is ?
The only other person who will get that honour will be Maggie....once again I wonder why?
Watch the same people say untrue things about her now too...( obviously not Labour supporters then )?
Jeeze how this country could do with her now.

When your links are to a primary school website reporting the results of a poll in which I personally voted 37 times, yep, pointing and scoffing is reasonable. (In case you're wondering, I was voting for Alan Turing, a brilliant scientist driven to suicide because of his sexuality by a government headed by Winston Churchill.)
WHat's funny is that you're the one who doesn't like the facts.
Now whilst I agree that your posting is rude... (believe me I can leave you at the starting blocks for rude), Facts seems to elude you!
I am not going enter into anything with you as quite simply you always argue without logic or reason.
But.....As you did not obviously like my other links, maybe this one will do the trick? Though seeing as you do not want to see past your left nostril, you probably will rebuff this one as well. Oh well.... I tried to educate you, but obviously some cannot learn even when they are given a great teacher.

Now do not just read the first paragraph...I am sure you can read a whole artical?

31 Jan 2010

I have felt that many of Awaymans post's have an aggressive feel to them, but maybe it is the way I read them so, for the record, I would like to apologise fro that comment and withdraw it

31 Jan 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
Again things seem to be descending into rancour,
Quite what relevance a tv show that placed Princess Diana higher than captain cook is beyond me.
For the record i find nothing aggresive in someone disagreeing,particually if they seem well informed on their subject

Think your being a tad melodramatic there.
Sometimes things are not always what they seem.
The poll was simply asking people who their choices were...
They were not asking for any preferences....just their opinions.
If people were being asked who was their favorite historian and then they answered Princess Di, then I would see your point.
The point here is not about one persons opinions, it is about polls done over the years, asking the public who THEY thought was the greatest Britain. To me it seems spot on how in nearly every one Churchill comes out on top.
Of course Churchill is not everyones favorite but my point was what people in polls say. I do not care who is or not the greatest as it is only an opinion, but you cannot ignore what most of them say.
BTW Churchill in my opinion is NOT the greatest Briton, so I have no agenda here at all.
Anyways....back to the topic....
Did Blair answer any persons questions on that panel, or did he cleverly elude answering anything with his usual clever lawyers talk?

31 Jan 2010

Yes a very clever man of which nobody could argue against that.

31 Jan 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Ya know what Max IF Churchill would have given everyone a million quid to every person, some would have still thought he was a tight arse, as they would say he should have given away two million.
There are just no pleasing some people.
The facts are very clear....he instilled a belief in World War 2 into the people, he was a man for the times, where historians have openly said this.
If people have personnel opinions over FACTS then that ain't no problem. The facts are there to see yet some are just so blinkered that they only see what is just past their noses.
I provide links then people scoff...I supply no links and people scoff.
As I say..." you cannot please all of the people ".
Going by zillions of polls over the years he consistently is voted the most important Briton, and also the only PM EVER to be given a State funeral....I wonder why that is ?
The only other person who will get that honour will be Maggie....once again I wonder why?
Watch the same people say untrue things about her now too...( obviously not Labour supporters then )?
Jeeze how this country could do with her now.

When your links are to a primary school website reporting the results of a poll in which I personally voted 37 times, yep, pointing and scoffing is reasonable. (In case you're wondering, I was voting for Alan Turing, a brilliant scientist driven to suicide because of his sexuality by a government headed by Winston Churchill.)
WHat's funny is that you're the one who doesn't like the facts.
Now whilst I agree that your posting is rude... (believe me I can leave you at the starting blocks for rude), Facts seems to elude you!
I am not going enter into anything with you as quite simply you always argue without logic or reason.
But.....As you did not obviously like my other links, maybe this one will do the trick? Though seeing as you do not want to see past your left nostril, you probably will rebuff this one as well. Oh well.... I tried to educate you, but obviously some cannot learn even when they are given a great teacher.

Now do not just read the first paragraph...I am sure you can read a whole artical?
I can; once I got to the bit that said "Due to the nature of the poll used to select and rank the Britons, the results do not pretend to be an objective assessment." I nearly pissed myself... Did you read that bit? And understand it?

31 Jan 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
I have felt that many of Awaymans post's have an aggressive feel to them, but maybe it is the way I read them so, for the record, I would like to apologise fro that comment and withdraw it

There's no need to apologise. Sometimes strong arguments can have that feel.

31 Jan 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
Again things seem to be descending into rancour,
Quite what relevance a tv show that placed Princess Diana higher than captain cook is beyond me.
For the record i find nothing aggresive in someone disagreeing,particually if they seem well informed on their subject

Think your being a tad melodramatic there.
Sometimes things are not always what they seem.
The poll was simply asking people who their choices were...
They were not asking for any preferences....just their opinions.
If people were being asked who was their favorite historian and then they answered Princess Di, then I would see your point.
The point here is not about one persons opinions, it is about polls done over the years, asking the public who THEY thought was the greatest Britain. To me it seems spot on how in nearly every one Churchill comes out on top.
Of course Churchill is not everyones favorite but my point was what people in polls say. I do not care who is or not the greatest as it is only an opinion, but you cannot ignore what most of them say.
BTW Churchill in my opinion is NOT the greatest Briton, so I have no agenda here at all.
Anyways....back to the topic....
Did Blair answer any persons questions on that panel, or did he cleverly elude answering anything with his usual clever lawyers talk?
Back to topic too,kev pointed out thats listening to blair was like a pan galatic gargle blaster,pleasurable at the time but severly damaging in the long term.
He sounded so gd on the radio that i had to pinch myself to remember i marched against the war.
Funny, I never thought he did sound good, his voice grated on me, so struggled to listen to anything he had to say. I had a great dislike, and distrust of the man from day one.
I have always been of the opinion that in another time and place, he would have been an evil dictator.

31 Jan 2010

Quote by awayman
I have felt that many of Awaymans post's have an aggressive feel to them, but maybe it is the way I read them so, for the record, I would like to apologise fro that comment and withdraw it

There's no need to apologise. Sometimes strong arguments can have that feel.
:giveup:

31 Jan 2010

Quote by awayman
" although he won the election because of the quirks of the electoral system " .
In other words....he was re-elected!

Keep clinging onto that simple mis-statement. He lost twice, didn't win the popular vote the third time, but got in anyway. As an assertion of his popularity it's hardly convincing.
So what does winning 35% of the popular vote, equating to 22% of the electorate say about Tony Blair's popularity in the 2005 election? What relevancy does the popular vote have anyway, seeing as how 65% of the voting electorate voted against Labour at the last election, yet a Labour Government was returned? dunno

Ummm, good rant. Good making of the case for proportional representation, which I have gradually come to be in favour of.
I was specifically rebutting a point about Churchill's purported popularity, which was wrong as a matter of fact (about his being re-elected at the first opportunity). I was using the fact that Attlee,a s a party leader gained more votes at three successive elections, against Churchill, to make the point that far from being a unifying national force Churchill was uniquely divisive.
Hmmmm, so my asking a question is regarded as being a rant...........what does that make all your posts then?

31 Jan 2010

Quote by Max777
" although he won the election because of the quirks of the electoral system " .
In other words....he was re-elected!

Keep clinging onto that simple mis-statement. He lost twice, didn't win the popular vote the third time, but got in anyway. As an assertion of his popularity it's hardly convincing.
So what does winning 35% of the popular vote, equating to 22% of the electorate say about Tony Blair's popularity in the 2005 election? What relevancy does the popular vote have anyway, seeing as how 65% of the voting electorate voted against Labour at the last election, yet a Labour Government was returned? dunno

Ummm, good rant. Good making of the case for proportional representation, which I have gradually come to be in favour of.
I was specifically rebutting a point about Churchill's purported popularity, which was wrong as a matter of fact (about his being re-elected at the first opportunity). I was using the fact that Attlee,a s a party leader gained more votes at three successive elections, against Churchill, to make the point that far from being a unifying national force Churchill was uniquely divisive.
Hmmmm, so my asking a question is regarded as being a rant...........what does that make all your posts then?
Rants.
I would have been quite comfortable amongst the ranters.

31 Jan 2010

So, Churchill or Tony Blair,
only one way to find out

31 Jan 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
So, Churchill or Tony Blair,
only one way to find out

:laughabove:

1 Feb 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
So, Churchill or Tony Blair,
only one way to find out

:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:
That was so funny..................it was the comic timing
Dave_Notts

3 Feb 2010

I knew this would start something, but I was surprised to see it take of in the direction it went.

Quote by Kaznkev
..........
Back to topic too,kev pointed out thats listening to blair was like a pan galatic gargle blaster,pleasurable at the time but severly damaging in the long term.
He sounded so gd on the radio that i had to pinch myself to remember i marched against the war.

As for the pan-galactic gargle blaster, Blair would have kept the gold, it would have been lead the lemon was wrapped around.
Thanks everyone.