Forums / Miscellaneous Discussions / tony blair good bye

lots of you may disagree BUT tony blair has been the best labour leader EVER and one of the best p.m's the country has ever had.

what has he done you may be thinking well:

1. Blair has significantly increased public spending on health and education
2. Blair's tenure has also seen the introduction of a National Minimum Wage
3. His contribution towards assisting the Northern Ireland Peace Process by helping to negotiate the Good Friday Agreement after 30 years of conflict.

BUT HE HAS HAD HIS DOWN FALLS.

in my veiw to close to bush! (nothing aginst the states only there leader)

war in iraq

war in afghanistan

these are pictures of a leader's mistakes but i belive that the organisations that are ment to help p.m's make decitions got it wrong not blair

so he leaves, leaveing war but not politics what will he do next

You also forget Blair has done a lot of poor things like:

the cash for honours scandel
Iraq
Repeared attempets to *beep* us over in europe ;)
Immigration is out of control.

ofc thier would be more but im lazy :P

Now it only gets worse with mr Brown.. maybe a good politician will appear someday.

oh shut up (loves monarchy)

Ummm... you brought this back up, why?

1. Blair has significantly increased public spending on health and education

 Tony Blair a *beep* during war against iraq.
only Chiraq was a man.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947

tony blaire was among the worst prime-ministers to rule the country, how you worked out he was the best i have no idea...

Threadlord, that video was a joke...:P

The introduction of minimum wages is stupid in every way. Only ignorant people support such ridiculous legislation, because to the extent that it actually works, you will have institutional unemployment and a dropping supply of goods and thus a lowered standard of living. To the extend that it doesn't change anything, it is completely unnecessary. Also, it tends to encourage credit expansion. Which, for your information, is a bad thing.

There is no justification what so ever for minimum wage laws.

And you've talked our ears off without telling us why having a portion of the population unemployed is such a bad thing. The classroom obviously hasn't shown you that in any system some people can't be made to survive without similar pitfalls to those you described. Do you not think that (communication and transportation) technology and better production methods will lead to unemployment for the working class?

 Seriously, quit spending your time in the basements of lame poetry lounges with a pack of poli-sci undergrads jerking off to the Manifesto; your little rant reads like the poorly-xeroxed liberalist pamphlets the first year college students try to pass around downtown. And ffs what are you trying to prove with your diction? Someone obviously once made the mistake of telling you you're smart and now we all have to pay for it with your haughty attitude... and your thesaurus.

"And you've talked our ears off without telling us why having a portion of the population unemployed is such a bad thing"-Mr. Clamps The Redeemed

I did mention the fact that chronic unemployment leads to a decrease in the output in goods and services. That means a lower standard of living for those who are not among the privileged.

"The classroom obviously hasn't shown you that in any system some people can't be made to survive without similar pitfalls to those you described."-Mr. Clamps The Redeemed

I never said that was the case. How does this justify worsening the situation?

"Do you not think that (communication and transportation) technology and better production methods will lead to unemployment for the working class?"-Mr. Clamps The Redeemed

Do you, really? This is one of the most shallow fallacies there is. Others have refuted it numerous times already, if you're too lazy to study the science of economics, that's your problem. But then, don't come here and act as if you have a clue what you are actually talking about; You obviously haven't.

Could you please substantiate your claim by means or rational arguments?

You have clearly demonstrated your lack of economic knowledge by asserting that technology and better methods of production leads to unemployment. In fact, this idea can not even be thought to it's ultimate logical consequences; Its unavoidable implication is that there is a static amount of work to be done and a static amount of wealth to be "distributed" (which merely indicates that your knowledge regarding most basic concepts of the market economy is close to zero) . Three centuries ago, the majority of the populace toiled in the agricultural sector. Of course, the output was not higher, or even remotely as high as it is today with the help of a larger supply of tools, better technology and fertilizer. Did this put 90% of the populace out of work and death by slow starvation? No, they moved to other industries, such as for example the mass production of textile, increasing the output of clothing for the masses as well as the output of food, with no loss in opportunity for work. In fact new industries unheard and unthought of before were born. Now, centuries later, it would be sheer madness to deny the fact that we have an incomparably higher standard of living and more than twice the life expectancy for a immensely large population while 90% of the populace is obviously not out of work.

Yes, I can say that you have no knowledge about economics. No one would venture to assert that 1+1 = 5 and that it is just a "disagreement of opinions of equal worth" and that it would be wrong to judge ones mathematical knowledge in accordance with this fact. That would be absurd. Yet that is exactly what you want me to do with regard to economics. This is in fact tantamount to a denial of the very existence of the science of economics; If there are no absolute truths regarding the laws describing the regularity of the occurence of market phenomena, there can be no such regularity. And, furthermore, if you think you are unique in your reasoning, you are utterly wrong. This is, in essence, what the "methodenstreit" of the late 19th century between the historicists and the Mengerian school was all about if one traces it back to the abstract principles.

Hell I saw a few posts and decided to skip the rest because I already knew what I was going to put.

Everyone against the war in Iraq should GTFO right now.

If the people were actually more "Yay" after he said that, then i guess there one of the most shittiest, greediest people on earth.

Id rather be lied to, and hundreds of thousands of lives be lost, then to be told  the truth and support/continue to let hundreds of thousands of lives be lost in a poory planned and excuted war.

aldoh i dont really find it funny

Thanx Wilber. You to =)

Well that sux for the army cuz im joining the MARINES!!!!

Hey this is a f-ed up world Osi. there will always be a war. and we will always be Fighting Alqieda or however you spell it. We kill a chief another members fills in his place.

but there is no pushing anything in iraq so who are you going to fight :) if they cant fix iraq or get iraq under control by 2011 then vietnam 2?

im sure there will be plenty of work left to do in the afgans or somewhere else :) maybe even iran by then

@osi
omg vietnam was a total succes.
they made like billions of dollars what are you taling about.

They kinda do. I mean they go with wat they have and sh*t and the army brings everything. Army dont know how to conserve what they have marines do. Especiall the special forces Recon Marines. No im crazy but you have to be an F-ed up person to want to even consider them. They go further into enemy lines then anyone wants to go.