Some thoughts from me...

I agree that's it's not right to base an opinion solely on hearsay or to claim an opinion as your own just because it's popular...but isn't this what we all do? Okay, our sources may differ from those of 'the masses' - if we seriously research something using credible sources then our opinion should be closer to the truth(?), but who of us can ever claim to have formed a totally original opinion on a particular topic? Even if we think it is now, it's almost certain that someone has been there before...

I wouldn't say that I agree with the statement 'Bush is an idiot'. I'm not a student of politics, and I don't follow it in great depth as a hobby or interest. All I 'know' is what I have been fed by the media - so I know that GWB says silly things in speeches which are funny to read, and that the vast majority of people in Britain, and 50% of Americans disagree with his politics. This is all I am basing my opinion on - so do I have a right to an opinion?

I think I do, but it's not of the same standing as someone who has seriously thought out the issue. I guess on some small level I disagreed with the invasion of Iraq and something I heard recently about GWB China - nuclear maybe? But I can't even remember what! So this leads me to MistaG's last post - does it really matter what my opinions are? I'm not even American - it seems that we do waste a lot of time discussing things that don't really concern us.I think Damon Albarn said that it's interesting to think how many things we wouldn't know about if it weren't for the media, that aren't really important for us. The media really is shaping the world we live in. I'm not saying that we should ignore all the world issues that we're presented with, but that we should realise the uniqueness of our situation in history?

And isn't it true that because GWB is SO powerful, the amount of criticism that is directed at him will be in proportion to this?

Finally, this topic got me thinking about the way our country is governed. I used to have a problem with it (again, remember I'm not a politics student so my opinions are probably very simplistic, ignorant...) - I thought that the wide range of opinions in society weren't represented by the few parties in power. But then I read that the purpose of the opposition is to oppose - that it's not 'right' for just only party to rule a country. So, that helped me understand the difference between a dictatorship and our election system (sometimes I used to think, 'if I'm not getting what I want, what's the difference between the two?') Yesterday I started to think that it would be useful if the opposition was completely fluid, flexible, looking at public opinions and always taking the side of those most opposed to the view of the ruling party? Is that daft?

@ Stu. Yes you are probably right. It is very funny when you've been drinking pimms & on the sniff in the sun for 72 hours.
Love you man

Apologies to one & all for dimwit remarks. xx

@ Mia, this is the website http://www.sorryeverybody.com/

@pea, love you too man!!! peace out