Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Glice
I just want to make this clear as both Ned and Nick seem to have mis-understood my point:
I am saying that leftist criticisms of the wedding in economic terms is misled. I do not care one way or another whether it did or didn't turn a profit. What I'm saying is that it's very easy to continue some sort of tussle over whether it was or wasn't profitable and ignore some of the ideologically iffy aspects of it, which have mostly been covered so far. The hard left will always lose on economic arguments, and we've had the 'discrete revenue streams' caveat [/bullshit] since at least Keynes to thank for attacking 'them' in 'their' own terms.
|
Yes.
I mean, British people need to stop thinking that offending someone/confrontation is the worst of all sins.
When did that start again or has it always been that way?
You can't have a relevant debate by being too 'polite' and insecure. They're never going to convince them with the money argument, every royalist knows it costs money and they're not bothered by it.
This whole thing of finding excuses to arrest people as 'prevention' is something that used to happen here during the worst phase of dictatorship. Anyone who doesn't agree with it is automatically called an 'anarchist'.
By the way, i
t makes me feel warm and fuzzy/
they're harmless/
the tourists are not valid arguments either.