Thursday, September 16, 2010

Lefty Thinking Fail

Ok. So you're a certifiable GROLIE (but I repeat myself) and you've worked yourself up into a lather of righteous - oh the irony - indignation about the cost to the taxpayer of the Papal visit.

So what do you do?

Riot.

12 comments:

Recovering Libertarian said...

And your better suggestion is...?

Since we live in a 'democracy', that sort of protest is all that any of are allowed. It's not just lefties that think the man is a total cunt, you know.

Anonymous said...

Same as usual: fuck all. but we can write about it and we can have opinions even if nobody cares a fuck-and it brings people out of their fucking worm holes so that the rest of us can see what fucking cretins they really are

assegai mike said...

I hope these fucknuts aren't going to spoil my enjoyment of Open House London weekend.

If the Pope's visit makes the left-footers among our fellow citizens happy, great.

The cost is an irritation to be sure, but a fraction of the irritation caused by the Guardian Fifty, who are mostly twats of the first magnitude. Especially Dawkins, not because he is a professional athiest or a scientist, but because he's a self-regarding, pompous ass.

I'm going off Stephen Fry rapidly as well.

Roger Thornhill said...

If was not a "State visit", would they protest? I think so.

Funny how we get visits by other "religious leaders" spouting similar or worse and not a peep from the Lefties...

The Pedant-General said...

My better suggestion is - wait for it - don't riot.

As you say, this is a "democracy" - you would be surprised how powerful a properly - really properly, not angry-but-contained-so-not-actually-violent - peaceful protest in support of a really properly good cause can be.

It also helps not to be solely comprised of Trots with nothing more productive to do.

"It's not just lefties that think the man is a total cunt, you know."

Quite so, but the not lefties aren't the ones inflating the cost of his visit.

Trooper Thompson said...

It's a terrible waste. Imagine how many public sector job ads in the Guardian that could have been funded.

Ian E said...

Well, I'm most definitely a Rightie (a UKIPper as it happens) and I find the cost of his visit to taxpayers offensive [I agree with an earlier poster about Dawkins and Fry being offensive too!]. I don't care what Catholics do with their own money (as long as it doesn't involve children inappropriately!), but I really fail to see why I should subsidize their activities.

Anonymous said...

Oh dear. I am not catholic and not especially religious but I have so little time for anyone calling a figure revered by millions a c***.

Thank you to those whose feel able to make comments without resorting to foul language. It's not big and it's not clever.

The Pedant-General said...

Ian E;

"I find the cost of his visit to taxpayers offensive"

So do I, but I'm not blaming the Pope for that. This is a formal state visit. It is trad that we pick up for that, just as we expect other countries to protect our representatives.

I must admit, however, that the idea that other states might actually have done us all a favour if they had failed to protect either of the last two B prime ministers is a powerful counter to this line of thinking.

:-)

Anon,

Quite so. Like peaceful protests, comment without foul language is often more powerful...

Ian E said...

Well, Dear Pedant-General, I also am not blaming the Pope. Our useless social democrat government is clearly responsible : it did not have to be treated as a State visit!

I do however have my doubts about the current Pope in other respects, but those are irrelevant in the current context and do not affect my views on subsidising any papal visit.

Recovering Libertarian said...

"Thank you to those whose feel able to make comments without resorting to foul language. It's not big and it's not clever."

I take it you're not a regular here?

The conventions of this particular blog aside, how else ought I characterise a man -- and faith -- that has been (and continues to be) a huge source of suffering in the world? Maybe you'd be happier if I said that he was 'evil', as opposed to 'a cunt'. As both descriptions are equally valid (from a humanist, rather than sky-pixie perspective), I'm happy for you to take your pick.

Anonymous said...

When did we reach the point where protest = riot?

Given that this is meant to be a libertarian blog, wouldn't it be nice if the contributors respected the liberty to stage a protest?

You people need to put down your sticky copies of Atlas Shrugged and start embracing actual liberty.