A couple of interesting articles http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/n...vagant-and-out-of-touch-with-ordinary-people/ http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/n...sons-why-the-obama-presidency-is-in-meltdown/
maybe they're right. While we're at it, we should forgive BP since about 1/3 of british citizens have money invested in it.
Note that I wrote "A view" not "The view". It's an opinion only. However, like de Toqueville, sometimes the best observations of America come from foreigners.
If I posted something from The Guardian, should I have made the thread title "A left-wing view from the UK"?
Well, if you posted something from a "left wing" point of view, we would have first had to check to see if someone hacked your account because we'd know it wouldn't be something from you. The next thing we'd do is complain about the lame article you posted. And after that, it would've dropped off the face of the forum because no one cares.
If your posting articles by someone with a rep like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nile_Gardiner Then I think you should let people know that the comments are extreemly biased (and yes, I think the same applies to someone who works for left organisations). To not do so is misleading. By the way, he doesn't even live in the UK.
Okey dokey. I think a person can read and article and arrive at their own conclusions. If I posted something by Kevin Rudd, do I need to mention he's an idiot? I'm pretty sure that's quite evident.
The KRuddler is plenty of things (full of himself, nerd, bureaucrat, governed by polls, etc), but an idiot isn't one of them. He's too smart for his own good; got way too far ahead of himself, and thought that his shit didn't stink. Yes, you were very calculated, and deliberately misleading with that.
It seems the fine people of your country disagree. There are many kinds of idiocy, and Rudd has one type in spades. It's being accurate, not misleading.
How is it misleading? Is it a view from the UK or now? I didn't say it was the way all Brits thought, just one viewpoint.
