18
APDSmith 18 points ago +18 / -0

Remember, they don't actually have any principles or standards.

Every rule they promulgate is subservient to the objective: gaining themselves uncontested, unaccountable power, because they're so narcissistic that they think that they alone are a good enough person to do the right thing if they get it.

28
APDSmith 28 points ago +28 / -0

I think Christys' flaw here is assuming that the Home Office has the preservation of the British people as any part of it's overall objectives. We're pretty difficult to lord over, after all, with our civil liberties and our rights.

It would be much, much simpler for the government, over all, if we just all died out and were replaced with a more tractable population.

13
APDSmith 13 points ago +13 / -0

I await the DNC finally introducing border checks ... no entry without your Democrat Party card!

12
APDSmith 12 points ago +12 / -0

Ah, also, a point to note. The judge in question is a district court judge for the district of colombia - it would be difficult to find a place where the swamp is deeper.

22
APDSmith 22 points ago +22 / -0

"One might conclude"

"Context implies"

"Perhaps"

It's insulting that they're not making a better attempt here. Why not just fabricate something better than this mealy-mouthed trash? It's not like the media (or the Biden administration) is above that...

10
APDSmith 10 points ago +11 / -1

Yes, because everybody knows "peacefully and patriotically" actually means "burn down all of the courthouses and \ or invade secure areas of the Capitol"

3
APDSmith 3 points ago +3 / -0

Cues David Attenborough voice

"And here we see two grifters challenging for dominance of the simp herd..."

1
APDSmith 1 point ago +1 / -0

They could just save time and go straight to "Look, you weren't using your civil liberties anyway, and it's far more efficient for local government if you don't have any, so we're going to repeal them..."

5
APDSmith 5 points ago +5 / -0

Honestly, you could just run down the Wiki list of Netflix | Amazon | Disney productions for 2022 and take your pick...

Not that there's a lot of point. It's all the same programme, just with different faces.

3
APDSmith 3 points ago +3 / -0

Doubtful.

I suspect it's more simply this: The police can persecute Twitter users from the comfort of their office. They have to go and talk to us proles for the crime scene stuff.

Which do you think they'd rather do?

1
APDSmith 1 point ago +1 / -0

Come on, now, you'd feel guilty if they were doing this to animals.

Animals have feelings...

9
APDSmith 9 points ago +9 / -0

The only real question is how much longer before she literally looks like Buscemi going "How do you do fellow kids"?

2
APDSmith 2 points ago +2 / -0

... because the EU hasn't quite managed to kill free enterprise in Europe yet, so they're coming back around again?

1
APDSmith 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hate to break it to you, but if it's the one I'm thinking of, she's just about fifty now and so probably doesn't pass the "hasn't hit menopause" requirement...

5
APDSmith 5 points ago +5 / -0

Bear in mind that the 18 months is flexible, too. If big business makes enough noise about a specific bit of legislation making their lives difficult, the EU will consider a delay in implementation.

Not for you, though. You're only a peasant, you will comply on time or be fined.

by folx
15
APDSmith 15 points ago +15 / -0

Yup, they slip that in through the back door with "hate speech", which the US specifically declines to criminalise because it's only use is as a tool of censorship - but, seeing as this is what this group want, unsurprisingly, they're all for it.

13
APDSmith 13 points ago +13 / -0

Exactly! Let's be honest, don't we all wish we looked as good as Lorenz does in her seventies?

10
APDSmith 10 points ago +10 / -0

Whoopi, StormfrontOrSJW isn't a game you can "win", you know...

5
APDSmith 5 points ago +5 / -0

Insurance - or, at least, state-mandated insurance, is also a great way for the government to regulate private industry. The government just insists that citizens obtain insurance for risky activities that may affect others. Valid insurance, of course, where the government itself defines "valid", to mean "Complies with regulatory dictates".

Potentially, it's a great way to force people to use state digital currencies, as these would be the only ones that government-approved insurers would touch, by arrangement.

7
APDSmith 7 points ago +7 / -0

Did you know that Western countries are so anti-Muslim they don't even enforce Sharia law?

3
APDSmith 3 points ago +3 / -0

I always preferred the Early Republic and then the Wonder victory. Because who doesn't like engaging Napoleonic-era line infantry with tanks?

6
APDSmith 6 points ago +6 / -0

Judicial independence from accountability to nation state. Judges in the EU must serve the EU, it seems.

2
APDSmith 2 points ago +2 / -0

While I find it difficult to properly explain my lack of concern over the prospect of Biden not showing up, I do honestly worry that Blue Labour will find it in their heart to sell us all down the river ... bear in mind the UK's allegedly popular Prime Minister (there's a lot of that going around lately, isn't there?) Rishi Sunak, works for Klaus Schwab. All he needs is an excuse.

1
APDSmith 1 point ago +1 / -0

... and you seriously think the people in government aren't going to make sure that "random" selection starts with Trump and works it's way onwards from there?

15
APDSmith 15 points ago +15 / -0

There's a solution that's simpler still:

Don't pass the bill.

This was supposed to be done in September but it was delayed specifically to be able to do this. The plan, all along, was to present a disaster of a bill so late in the day that it gets passed anyway, and I'm curious why the Senate at large hasn't taken umbrage at the level of disrespect that implies.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›