Tony Blair coming back?

[pErvinalia]

And you're wrong. I've shown you how you are wrong. It's a monarchy in terms of sovereignty but it's a republic (and therefore a democracy) in terms of public representation.

[Hermit]

I've shown you how you are wrong. It's a monarchy in terms of sovereignty but it's a republic (and therefore a democracy) in terms of public representation.

You have done nothing of the sort. Australia is a federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy (and therefore a democracy ). Perhaps it will become a federal parliamentary republic after the next referendum on the matter.

[pErvinalia]

Ok, 42.

[Seth]

Remeber, whenever Seth says 'Out Founding Fathers' we all have to repeat "Peace be upon them" in return.

His brand of constitutional fundamentalism is as bogus and impractical as any other form of political fundamentalism.

Actually, constitutional fundamentalism is what's kept America together and made it a superpower. That's the genius of the Founding Fathers.

Perhaps Seth rails against his marxists-under-the-bed because he fears that if he looks too deeply into that cramped, dark space he'll see his evil twin grinning back at him - or worse, his good twin? Who knows?

No, what I'll see is Marxists.

Blair is not a 'great man' even if he was a skilled and effective political operator.

Your opinion is noted...and dismissed.

Getting to the big chair is obviously a team effort, but he mistook authority for personal virtue and, ignoring that team (which also comprised the electorate), put his personal interests before all others. This is what happens when one gives narcissists executive power - history is clear on that point at least.

Well then what the hell are you bitching about? Do you have any examples of any politician that is or has been universally popular and has remained in office by the will of the people forever?

Politicians are human beings, you need to understand that. The whole point of regular elections is a recognition of that fact and an understanding that power corrupts and therefore it is best to change out politicians on a reasonably frequent basis to balance things out. So what the hell is the problem, exactly. Blair got elected, he governed, he got unelected. That's how it works.

The fact that he got elected however makes it clear that a majority of Brits thought he was a great enough man to govern the country for his term, regardless of what your 20/20 hindsight has to say about it.

The same is true of Obama and the same is true of Trump. They get their turn at it and if we like what they do we reelect them once again, and then we send them home and somebody else gets a shot at it. Works pretty well for us.

[Brian Peacock]

Remeber, whenever Seth says 'Out Founding Fathers' we all have to repeat "Peace be upon them" in return.

His brand of constitutional fundamentalism is as bogus and impractical as any other form of political fundamentalism.

Actually, constitutional fundamentalism is what's kept America together and made it a superpower. That's the genius of the Founding Fathers.

Perhaps Seth rails against his marxists-under-the-bed because he fears that if he looks too deeply into that cramped, dark space he'll see his evil twin grinning back at him - or worse, his good twin? Who knows?

No, what I'll see is Marxists.

Blair is not a 'great man' even if he was a skilled and effective political operator.

Your opinion is noted...and dismissed.

Getting to the big chair is obviously a team effort, but he mistook authority for personal virtue and, ignoring that team (which also comprised the electorate), put his personal interests before all others. This is what happens when one gives narcissists executive power - history is clear on that point at least.

Well then what the hell are you bitching about? Do you have any examples of any politician that is or has been universally popular and has remained in office by the will of the people forever?

Politicians are human beings, you need to understand that. The whole point of regular elections is a recognition of that fact and an understanding that power corrupts and therefore it is best to change out politicians on a reasonably frequent basis to balance things out. So what the hell is the problem, exactly. Blair got elected, he governed, he got unelected. That's how it works.

The fact that he got elected however makes it clear that a majority of Brits thought he was a great enough man to govern the country for his term, regardless of what your 20/20 hindsight has to say about it.

The same is true of Obama and the same is true of Trump. They get their turn at it and if we like what they do we reelect them once again, and then we send them home and somebody else gets a shot at it. Works pretty well for us.

You're still confusing (willfully, I presume) my view as to Blair's psychological unsuitability for high office with bitching. The fact that he thinks the time is ripe to wedge himself into British post-Brexit politics debate speaks to his essential opportunistic narcissistic nature and the blind spot he has as far as his public standing is concerned. Blair was found out for the warmongering liar and pocket lining back-stabber he really is (read the Chilcot report). The country needs to look forwards at this time, not back, and he needs to move on - right on, right over there, to the secluded Caribbean home which that nice Mr Murdoch gave him.

[Seth]

You're still confusing (willfully, I presume) my view as to Blair's psychological unsuitability for high office with bitching.

Sounds like bitching to me.

The fact that he thinks the time is ripe wedge himself into the political debate speaks to his essential narcissistic nature and the blind spot he has as far as his public standing is concerned.

And perhaps he's right. Time, presumably will tell whether he has properly gauged the sentiments of the majority or not. Your opinion of that standing is that of one, and only one person, whereas the last time around, millions of Brits disagreed with you and may well do so again.

Blair was found out for the warmongering liar and pocket lining back-stabber he really is (read the Chilcot report).

That, of course, is merely a matter of opinion, not fact.

The country needs to look forwards at this time, not back, and he needs to move on - right on, right over there, to the secluded Caribbean home which that nice Mr Murdoch gave him.

Or, he can run for public office again and potentially demonstrate that your opinions of his character are of no interest to anyone but you...again.

[Brian Peacock]

Cheers, but I don't need you to authorise or validate my opinions. I'm quite happy with the way I am thanks

[Seth]

Cheers, but I don't need you to authorise or validate my opinions. I'm quite happy with the way I am thanks

Right. But since you chose to comment on Blair I chose to comment on your comments, whether you like it or not. That is the nature of this forum after all.

[DaveDodo007]

Noooooooooooooo!

Christ, something me and Brian agree on and I even voted for the cunt.

[JimC]

"Brian and I", Dave. Let's not debase the language...

[pErvinalia]

Cheers, but I don't need you to authorise or validate my opinions. I'm quite happy with the way I am thanks

Right. But since you chose to comment on Blair I chose to comment on your comments, whether you like it or not. That is the nature of this forum after all.

And your comments are retardation of the highest order, as usual. That's the nature of your comments, after all.

[pErvinalia]

"Brian and I", Dave. Let's not debase the language...

Dave is university educated I'll have you know, JimC. As a respected biologist, he's not going to accept some upstart like you attempting to discredit his university level English skills.

[Seth]

Cheers, but I don't need you to authorise or validate my opinions. I'm quite happy with the way I am thanks

Right. But since you chose to comment on Blair I chose to comment on your comments, whether you like it or not. That is the nature of this forum after all.

And your comments are retardation of the highest order, as usual. That's the nature of your comments, after all.

It only seems that way to you because you don't understand them. No surprise there at all.

[pErvinalia]

I understand them fine (as far as a dog's breakfast can be understood). Pointing out that a majority of voters once voted someone in doesn't mean that a majority of voters support that person indefinitely. This is elementary school level stuff. Not surprised you can't get it.

[Seth]

I understand them fine

Clearly this is a lie.

(as far as a dog's breakfast can be understood).

Well, quit lapping up vomit and you won't have that problem.

Pointing out that a majority of voters once voted someone in doesn't mean that a majority of voters support that person indefinitely.

See, I told you that you didn't understand and you just proved me right again.

This is elementary school level stuff. Not surprised you can't get it.

Get what, your misdirection and failure to comprehend the discussion? I get that just fine.

FYE, nobody was talking about "indefinite support" until you tried to shoehorn it into the debate as if it was always there, which it wasn't. This is a typical tactic of yours when you don't have an actual rational argument. You context-shift, try to add stuff, try to change the issue, evade the debate and otherwise engage in exceedingly dishonest colloquy because you can't stand it when you are shown to be wrong.