|
LadyConstanze -> RE: Obama's snubbed (1/26/2011 11:57:25 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MalcolmNathaniel
Actually, I didn't even notice what site it was on. I simply remembered that rather tasteless gift and pulled the first Google hit. I first heard about it, at the time it occurred, on another site where about 5% of the participants are British and were a bit miffed. The Canadians (20%) and non-British Europeans (5%) on the site mostly laughed. Me? I was just embarrassed.
That's nice, you never check who you quote? Good research...
Funny, nobody here seemed miffled, most people didn't even notice or care....
quote:
ORIGINAL: MalcolmNathaniel
So if you don't like the link I picked at random, how about some UK links: Daily Mail, The Guardian. There are many on the BBC website, but all under blogs, so I have ignored them.
Wow, 2 newspapers are "The whole British press up in arms..." And in case you didn't read the Guardian link, they poked a bit of fun at the present, up in arms is something completely different... You might also have noticed that this was a while ago and we have a different PM, funny how things change if you don't pay attention...
quote:
ORIGINAL: MalcolmNathaniel
There was also a wonderful gift for the Queen (Telegraph)
I have no idea whether these are reputable news outlets or not. I am merely pointing out that it was, indeed, reported in the UK.
Uhm, yeah, so you think the general population actually does give a damn if Obama gives the queen an iPod or another present? Welcome to the real world, but most people couldn't care less, I am pretty sure some newspapers had to fill pages and possibly reported, must have been a slow day.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MalcolmNathaniel
As for my "little right wing site.....blah, blah, blah" - that site had nothing to do with the marriage, it had to do with Obama's gift. However, if you believe that the wedding of a prince is not a political affair you are sadly mistaken.
No it means that again you haven't done your research or you're not quite capable of understanding... The Queen is only formally the head of state, she doesn't rule, now after the Queen there is Prince Charles, his wedding was not a political affair, now Prince William comes AFTER Prince Charles in his claim to the throne, and he decided that apart from family (which means the rest of the aristocratic families of Europe) friends and people involved in his charities should be invited instead of heads of state, VIPs and celebs...
The fact that the Royals are not political figures is pretty easy to understand, you know she doesn't really rule the country, she's not elected, just look it up, seriously not that difficult... And nope, the iPod won't really cause a friction in diplomatic relations between the UK and US, ffs, not even the lewd wink GW gave the Queen during a state visit did. If politics are to be discussed, politicians do that, the Queen does NOT, in fact the Queen or the Royals don't even talk about politics...
quote:
ORIGINAL: MalcolmNathaniel
Your response to me shows both ad-hominem and argument from repitition. You can find definitions of those here. The ad-hominem is especially humorous as you have no idea of my politics whatsoever, seeing as I have never posted anything remotely political here in the past and the one thing I did post was merely a snarky comment. So, out of curiosity, precisely what history lessons are you alluding to?
Aren't those pretty big words for somebody who doesn't even check which website he quotes, who has no idea what's going on in Britain but found 2 websites (one of them being quite amused about the DVDs)....
As for the history lessons, there was a link in my post, if it is not too difficult, clicking on that might help you to understand.
|
|
|
|
