How did Boris even get in? Is this a joke? Who voted for that fool?

Written by Tik-Tok, 26.07.2019 at 03:45

I strongly doubt he intends to leave on the set date. If he calls a General Election after the deadline without leaving, he is fucked.

I'd just like to point out that I was right. I knew he wouldn't leave, and this will fuck him in the General Election in December. Fuck Boris.

But don't think this will mean Corbyn will win. He's straggling too. Britain will have the worst hung parliament in its history. Big Tory losses, a minor hit to Labour and a huge swell in Lib Dems. I really hope they wont even be able to form a government. It will be the greatest 'fuck you' in British political history.

-NONE OF THE ABOVE-

This will set the foundation of a new political paradigm and the age of revolutionary politics. The age of 'Despair'.

Written by Tik-Tok, 30.10.2019 at 15:17

Written by Tik-Tok, 26.07.2019 at 03:45

I strongly doubt he intends to leave on the set date. If he calls a General Election after the deadline without leaving, he is fucked.

I'd just like to point out that I was right. I knew he wouldn't leave, and this will fuck him in the General Election in December. Fuck Boris.

But don't think this will mean Corbyn will win. He's straggling too. Britain will have the worst hung parliament in its history. Big Tory losses, a minor hit to Labour and a huge swell in Lib Dems. I really hope they wont even be able to form a government. It will be the greatest 'fuck you' in British political history.

-NONE OF THE ABOVE-

This will set the foundation of a new political paradigm and the age of revolutionary politics. The age of 'Despair'.

I expect Boris to win
He looks like Harry Dunne from Dumb and Dumber but he is very intelligent politician
don't underestimate him. xD

Man when Tik-Tok speak about Britain, i wish to live there. When others talk about UK they make it so boring. muh queen, muh birm. palace, muh bridge, muh black cabs and double-deckers.

Written by avatar, 30.10.2019 at 15:35

he is very intelligent politician
don't underestimate him. xD

"I'd rather be dead in a ditch"

oh...derp

I don't think he's that smart, he looks like a cheaper version of trump too, that's really insane desu

Written by DeepFriedUnicorn, 30.10.2019 at 22:29

Written by avatar, 30.10.2019 at 15:35

he is very intelligent politician
don't underestimate him. xD

"I'd rather be dead in a ditch"

oh...derp

I don't think he's that smart, he looks like a cheaper version of trump too, that's really insane desu

Boris Johnson
@BorisJohnson
Thank you to everyone across our great country who voted, who volunteered, who stood as candidates. We live in the greatest democracy in the world.

Go boris go! Make the uk great again!

Written by Helly, 13.12.2019 at 11:25

Go boris go! Make the uk great again!

People need to realise, especially the Americans, that just because Boris is leader of the 'Conservative' party, doesn't necessarily mean he is as conservative as you think. In fact, in Germany Merkel herself is considered a conservative. European politics is different to American politics.

Written by Crow, 13.12.2019 at 12:32

People need to realise, especially the Americans, that just because Boris is leader of the 'Conservative' party, doesn't necessarily mean he is as conservative as you think. In fact, in Germany Merkel herself is considered a conservative. European politics is different to American politics.

Merkel a conservative xD

Written by Tik-Tok, 30.10.2019 at 15:17

Britain will have the worst hung parliament in its history. Big Tory losses, a minor hit to Labour and a huge swell in Lib Dems. I really hope they wont even be able to form a government. It will be the greatest 'fuck you' in British political history.

Worst prediction I ever made. I severely underestimated how pissed off people were over Brexit. Polls after Halloween showed that people felt no blame could be attributed to Boris or the Conservatives for failing to put Brexit through. Blame was put squarely on Parliament and Remainer camps. Tory strategists used this up swell of anger in the most perfect manner to focus on the Brexit and Leave issue, and annihilated all other parties in the process. Traditional labour voters punished their party in the North by simply not voting at all, and the Tories cleaned house. This was in response to the cosmopolitan attitude of Corbynista's and their committal to a second referendum that was only desired by a minority of the middle class.

As much as I hate the Tories and still believe this is the worst possible outcome, I can't help but feel pride that my nation isn't entirely dead yet. This was still one the greatest 'fuck yous' in British political history, but it was aimed squarely at internationalists and bourgeois elitists who rejected our collective mandate demanding sovereignty and independence. Despite the vote being so close, the nation came together and enforced the initial referendum vote that all the remain/second ref parties rejected, and they all paid dearly for it. Remain was utterly crushed.

Sadly, this nationalist fervor is in jingoist hands who will circumvent this desire for homogeneity into an aristocratic-Zionist government that will reduce taxes on the wealthy, deregulate workers rights, continue privatisation on the NHS, double our immigration, expand Zionist wars for Israel, and we probably wont even get the Brexit we want. We will get the worst social policies of Labour, and the worst policies of economic capitalism. I even expect Boris to give an amnesty to illegals.

I have hope and faith in my people. They may have been tricked, but this is strong evidence of a deeply bubbling rage and desire for Order and Nationhood. We collectivised on this issue and we can do so again. The Tories will grow fat on this majority, and they will grow arrogant. With the North turned blue, they will mistakenly believe that the working class that delivered them a majority, are too stupid and jingoistic to see them for what they are. If the Tories dare touch the NHS in a deal with Trump and make any sizable deals to sell it off, the Tories will be reminded why it was the English who first killed their King centuries before anyone else.

Nationalists, Communists and Liberals alike will make the Poll Tax riots look like an Alice in Wonderland picnic if they are stupid enough to touch our NHS.

Written by Tik-Tok, 14.12.2019 at 08:48

Personally I would like if the union fell. Not because "Oh fuck the Brits", but because of a united Ireland and Scotland and Wales do seem confident in their separatist ideas. Which is a beautiful sight to see.

Written by Tik-Tok, 14.12.2019 at 08:48

While you've been sitting on your high horse, while you've been defending socialized medicine, and while you've been condemning Israel, the British people have had enough. Jeremy Corbyn was backed by the politico-media-complex, he was backed by the British elites, by the European elites, by Alexandria Cortez, by the Palestinian National Authority, by Iran, and by a bevy of others. Together, they sent Labour into ash heap of history where it belongs.

Of course, the Tories are no better. The only difference between them and Labour is that they aren't flagrantly antisemitic. Every party in Britain supports the NHS, and I find that revolting. I was taken aback when you referred to the NHS in such a protective way, as though you are "entitled" to it. The NHS is only supported by the uneducated. The rich only support the NHS because they are uneducated in matters of policy and prefer simple solutions to complex problems. The poor only support the NHS because they, like the rich, are uneducated and have no conception about what's best for themselves.

If a slave does not know he is a slave, slavery still exists. The British people are enslaved, you among them—they know no other way of life. The NHS is the system. It's a predefined virtue or moral—the government says that the people cannot know what's best for themselves, they cannot know what is moral, so what is moral is established for them.

Healthcare is a basic need that everyone—barring those with certain genetic endowments—is free to pursue. The government cannot infringe on our right to pursue the need of healthcare, but like food and housing, we are not entitled to healthcare. Positive rights ought not exist as they apply to the population at large, only negative rights—those that are founded in natural law. Theft is seen as immoral in practically every society on Earth. Most of us would never dream of stealing money from a neighbor to give to someone less fortunate. Why, then, do some people demand that the government do so? Private charities that run on voluntary donations are the best way of helping the poor obtain healthcare, not the government. Notwithstanding those with certain genetic endowments, the government must ensure that the people are free to pursue their own definition of the good life. Poverty is a state of mind unbound by the the conditions of birth in a free society, but genetic endowments are not—that's the difference.

In life, whoever controls the money makes the call. With respect to healthcare, if you control the money, you make the call; if the government controls the money, the government makes the call. Healthcare is not a right, it's a commodity bound by the forces of economics. If the quantity increases, the price goes down. If the quantity decreases, the price goes up. The demand curve works in the opposite direction. If the demand increases, the price goes up. If the demand decreases, the price goes down. Where those two lines meet is called equilibrium, where you're producing exactly as much as is being consumed. Competition drives you towards equilibrium, which ensures that there is no surplus.

By the way, when you apply a double standard to Israel, that's called antisemitism. And it's disgusting.

Written by Tribune Aquila, 14.12.2019 at 13:57

I was taken aback when you referred to the NHS in such a protective way, as though you are "entitled" to it. The NHS is only supported by the uneducated. The rich only support the NHS because they are uneducated in matters of policy and prefer simple solutions to complex problems. The poor only support the NHS because they have no conception about what's best for themselves.

If a slave does not know he is a slave, slavery still exists. The British people are enslaved

Healthcare is a basic need that everyone—barring those with certain genetic endowments—is free to pursue. The government cannot infringe on our right to pursue the need of healthcare, but like food and housing, we are not entitled to healthcare. Why, then, do some people demand that the government do so? Private charities that run on voluntary donations are the best way of helping the poor obtain healthcare, not the government.

In life, whoever controls the money makes the call. With respect to healthcare, if you control the money, you make the call; if the government controls the money, the government makes the call. Healthcare is not a right

You wrote an entire essay just to say that people will be "more free" from not getting healthcare, and that they are "slaves" for getting healthcare. What even is this? Do you think people should be allowed to simply die because they are poor? Not everyone can afford healthcare in the US in the current system. A new system with a government backbone would reduce costs while also saving lives. "Socialized" healthcare (by the way: roads, schools, military, polce/fire, emergency services, and basically every other basic service a government provides is also "socialized". We live in a mixed economy) in other countries is actually cheaper than it is in the US, and also leads to higher life expectancies and health outcomes. Why should a few insurance companies benefit, instead of the actual citizens of the United States? Do you have any empathy for the millions of people in the US who are poor and would be devastated financially and healthwise by having a sudden illness?

Written by Player 999, 15.12.2019 at 08:28

You wrote an entire essay just to say that people will be "more free" from not getting healthcare, and that they are "slaves" for getting healthcare. What even is this? Do you think people should be allowed to simply die because they are poor? Not everyone can afford healthcare in the US in the current system. A new system with a government backbone would reduce costs while also saving lives. "Socialized" healthcare (by the way: roads, schools, military, polce/fire, emergency services, and basically every other basic service a government provides is also "socialized". We live in a mixed economy) in other countries is actually cheaper than it is in the US, and also leads to higher life expectancies and health outcomes. Why should a few insurance companies benefit, instead of the actual citizens of the United States? Do you have any empathy for the millions of people in the US who are poor and would be devastated financially and healthwise by having a sudden illness?

Bear with me, I'll explain everything (also I'm pissed because my computer crashed and I had to write this twice).

When Trump was elected in 2016, he did not win the popular vote but rather the Electoral College. Some Democrats claim that had a different system been in place, Trump would have lost. However, under such a system, nobody knows whether Trump would have lost or not because he would have operated his campaign in an entirely new way with an entirely new objective. Similarly, nobody knows how the population of the United States would function under a system of healthcare with no government involvement.

When you mentioned the "poor" and "death," that was merely a rhetorical exercise that oversimplifies my philosophy. Problems exist, among which includes the fact that when someone goes to purchase healthcare, he generally does not engage in a fully free market transaction because he does not compare other healthcare services to determine an optimal price. A remedy includes encouraging people to use financial healthcare products like Health Savings Accounts, which give people incentives to be wise healthcare consumers, and to save resources for future healthcare needs and to invest in preventive measures. One reason why costs are high in the United States is because of government intervention. Remove barriers to competition such as professional licensing, certificates of need, and other regulations that hike costs and limit access, and the poor will have greater access. Under my plan, and in order to establish a free market, state and federal government mandates that price the poor out of their access to healthcare must be abolished, and consumers must engage in transactions across state lines. Nobody wants the poor to be without access to healthcare, and we merely disagree on the solution; you cannot claim that your solution is the only viable one when it is about as practical as providing access to free grapes to every citizen of the United States.

The purpose of my previous post was to demonstrate that healthcare is not a right but rather a commodity bound by the forces of free market economics. A "right" confers an obligation onto one to provide a good or service for another, which is not right at all, but rather a violent transaction between two men.

The people of Britain are enslaved. Slavery is the denial of freedom by some entity, which in their case is the NHS. The British people are free in a collective sense; they are able to participate in the electoral process and may walk freely. But a free people is not necessarily a people of free men. The British people are not free individually, but collectively. Their individual freedom does not exist under the auspices of the NHS. Although at this level a denial of one's freedom is trivial, it is enslavement nonetheless. The great challenge facing modern man is his slow descent into bondage, and in 100 years time, it may finally strangle him to death, but it is wrapped only by the acceptance of one incursion after another into his capacity to do and think freely.

Boris for king



All hail the new king of The British Empire

Written by avatar, 16.12.2019 at 03:46

Boris for king



All hail the new king of The British Empire

Long may he live!

Written by Tik-Tok, 14.12.2019 at 08:48

I have hope and faith in my people. They may have been tricked, but this is strong evidence of a deeply bubbling rage and desire for Order and Nationhood. We collectivised on this issue and we can do so again. The Tories will grow fat on this majority, and they will grow arrogant. With the North turned blue, they will mistakenly believe that the working class that delivered them a majority, are too stupid and jingoistic to see them for what they are. If the Tories dare touch the NHS in a deal with Trump and make any sizable deals to sell it off, the Tories will be reminded why it was the English who first killed their King centuries before anyone else.

Nationalists, Communists and Liberals alike will make the Poll Tax riots look like an Alice in Wonderland picnic if they are stupid enough to touch our NHS.

For all their differences, all three of the political groups you've mentioned seems to agree on one thing quite well: "individual" rights and freedoms exist only in the context of the society in which it exists. Rights and freedoms are not things that inherently exist in individuals and are "taken away" by society, they are things that are inherently absent in individuals and are given by society.

I'm sure you can already guess my opinion, having discussed with me in the past, but that statement to me seems quite obviously self-evident. I don't see what's "inherent" about individual rights or individual freedoms - if a certain right or freedom no longer helps promote the concrete interests of real human beings, they should be revised so they do.

People who argue on the basis of natural rights should demonstrate first that the rights that they seek to defend are, in fact, natural, and second, that something being natural is in fact valid evidence that something is good.

Written by International, 18.12.2019 at 10:51

...
For all their differences, all three of the political groups you've mentioned seems to agree on one thing quite well: "individual" rights and freedoms exist only in the context of the society in which it exists. Rights and freedoms are not things that inherently exist in individuals and are "taken away" by society, they are things that are inherently absent in individuals and are given by society.

I'm sure you can already guess my opinion, having discussed with me in the past, but that statement to me seems quite obviously self-evident. I don't see what's "inherent" about individual rights or individual freedoms - if a certain right or freedom no longer helps promote the concrete interests of real human beings, they should be revised so they do.

People who argue on the basis of natural rights should demonstrate first that the rights that they seek to defend are, in fact, natural, and second, that something being natural is in fact valid evidence that something is good.

Agree.

Rights can't be natural. They are fictions. They simply don't exist in nature (and can't be inherent). Choice exists. An individual can choose to murder, and deal with the social consequences of his actions. But the victim finds out fairly quickly they have no right to life, or any other right, as evidenced by the murder.

It's generally not until 'natural rights' are stripped away do the people who argue on the basis of natural rights even become aware they are fictions. So it's generally pointless to have the discussion with 'believers'.

God defend Boris & God save the Empire!