You know you're a liberal if... you're more enraged by a lone banana being thrown on a football pitch than you are by hundreds of bottles being thrown at police officers.
Apparently, while BananaGate demands we look into the dark heart of British football, riots breaking out at a leftist demonstration are just one of them things. In fact, Libs are enraged that anyone could accuse them of supporting mayhem.
See, that's the thing right there: if liberals spent half as much energy condeming the rioters as they do condemning people who condemn their failure to condemn them their condemnations of the ConDems that condemn them wouldn't be so plain contempable.
As it is, they're so angry about the 'slur' that the Labour Party is thinking of convening a special committee to investigate the option of moving towards the possibity of potenial disciplary action for any party members found to have taken part in the violence. Meanwhile, the liberal side of the MSM has started featuring tear-jerking articles about leftists who were at the riot but not with the riot.
In other words, the people who endlessly jibber-jabber about hate speech and 'unconcious discrimination' are now arguing that mentioning their public expressions of support for thuggery is some kind of underhand trick.
It's not as if the thuggery is some kind of wacky byproduct of an otherwise good cause. Labour lost the election, but they still think they should be allowed to implement their agenda anyway. What was noticable about the demonstration was that it didn't seek to advance any coherent cause or point of view, merely to demand that everyone else continue to fork over the cash to Labour's payroll vote or else. If it wasn't any attempt to subvert the democratically-expressed will of the people by intimidation, what was it?
Apparently, while BananaGate demands we look into the dark heart of British football, riots breaking out at a leftist demonstration are just one of them things. In fact, Libs are enraged that anyone could accuse them of supporting mayhem.
See, that's the thing right there: if liberals spent half as much energy condeming the rioters as they do condemning people who condemn their failure to condemn them their condemnations of the ConDems that condemn them wouldn't be so plain contempable.
As it is, they're so angry about the 'slur' that the Labour Party is thinking of convening a special committee to investigate the option of moving towards the possibity of potenial disciplary action for any party members found to have taken part in the violence. Meanwhile, the liberal side of the MSM has started featuring tear-jerking articles about leftists who were at the riot but not with the riot.
In other words, the people who endlessly jibber-jabber about hate speech and 'unconcious discrimination' are now arguing that mentioning their public expressions of support for thuggery is some kind of underhand trick.
It's not as if the thuggery is some kind of wacky byproduct of an otherwise good cause. Labour lost the election, but they still think they should be allowed to implement their agenda anyway. What was noticable about the demonstration was that it didn't seek to advance any coherent cause or point of view, merely to demand that everyone else continue to fork over the cash to Labour's payroll vote or else. If it wasn't any attempt to subvert the democratically-expressed will of the people by intimidation, what was it?