Londonia seizes all the motorways, train lines and infrastructure early doors (and the Lake District), so everyone else ends up rolling around in clapped out Rovers and on horseback.
Theresa May's Conservatives
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour
Tim Farron's Liberal Democrats
Paul Nuttall's UKIP
2 people's Greens
Nicholas Durgeon's Scottish Nationalists
Satan's Sinn Fein
Dr Ian Paisley's DUP
Some other bunch of nonces
I'm foreign, but I wish I were an Englishman
Londonia seizes all the motorways, train lines and infrastructure early doors (and the Lake District), so everyone else ends up rolling around in clapped out Rovers and on horseback.
Durham holds all the Chinese hostage.
It's already a genre at this point written by the dumbest people alive and sold to them. Don't bother.Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
I can't find the original one I'm thinking of where California secedes but our rugged, butch, super sexy, super alpha male has to cross the lib lines to rescue the President of REAL AMERICA's daughter because she's been brainwashed by the ideas of universal basic income and modern feminism.
This one will have to do
America is coming apart. An illegal immigration crisis has broken out along America's Southern border—there are race riots in Detroit—a fiery female rancher-turned-militia leader has vowed revenge on the president for his arrogant policies—and the world's most notorious terrorist is planning a massive attack that could destroy the United States as we know it. Meanwhile the President is too consumed by legacy-seeking to see our country’s deep peril.
Brett Hawthorne is the youngest general in the United States Army—and he’s stuck, alone, behind enemy lines in Afghanistan. He’s the last lost soldier of a failed war, fighting to stay alive and make it back home—but will he be able to stop the collapse of America in time?
What have I missed? I reckon we would wear them down by depriving their restaurants of all things 'locally sourced' as they burn money on moderate rebels who never leave campus, and wait around for Manchester to throw its weight into the fight properly instead of pretending to be cool and aloof.
Sam Allardyce you say? I'm in.
Those both sound hellish.
If I could make pictures/maps I would make a Twitter account live tweeting this fictional civil war like that Second World War one.
I'm sure you can find someone to collaborate with. Do we have any graphic designers in here?
Put the call out for 'graphic design engineers' and we'll be swamped.
Btw, someone should have made one of those Hitler videos about GS after Corbyn's 'victory.' I'm sure good lols would have happened. What a missed opportunity.
That would work.
Ulster Christians basically control the government and assuming the parliament doesn't collapse Corbyn won't be prime minister. The DUP are never voting for anything that puts him any closer, so they'll prop up the Tories for five years if that's what it takes.
I'll take that if it means infrastructure investment in NI.
Didn't Big Sam vote Remain? I'm sure I recall him saying something about it all being a mess post Brexit but maybe I dreamt it because it's so off brand for him.
I'm amazed that May has managed to find that magic money tree she said didn't exist and it's spending for everyone. Yay. Such cynicism.
It's a nonsense. If you can only get elected through promising economic mismanagement then we're all fucked.
President May with no mandate breaking every manifesto promise in the book. lol.
Remember when you said Labour wouldn't get into power again for 30 years after this election?
edit: Now even Gove is saying 'We have to listen to the remainers'
lol. What a bunch of absolute losers.
She'd have won a majority if her manifesto hadn't been absolutely dreadful. That's the key swing point.
She'd have won if she had a different manifesto, a different campaign and wasn't Theresa May. Give me that Jim Messina money.
She'd have survived being the Maybot if it hadn't been for the manifesto.
If they turn their back on the failed policies of deficit fetishism even for cynical reasons, I'm still happy with it.
Crosby and his team were predicting a majority of 60+ on the day. Obama's Mate had a majority of 92.
Wankers.
lol Tim Farron has quit as leader.
I feel a bit sorry for him. It's a bit sad that you can't be a Christian (but you can be a Muslim, presumably?) without being washed away by the tide of liberal fascism.
Forced out of his job by the gays. That'll change his opinion of them.
Yeah, I think it was more the 'I hate queers' stuff than the 'I love Jesus' stuff that did it.
I have a Lib Dem friend who said his personal views didn't affect his voting record and so my friend wasn't too concerned (this coming from a guy who's pretty vocal on equality, same sex marriage, ex-Amnesty etc).
I guess. And I thought the Lib Dems had already done every gay related resignation in the book.
It's an incredibly depressing state of affairs. It's never going to change, either. It's grim that somebody isn't allowed to separate their personal views from what they'd actually legislate for, but understanding that would require nuanced thinking and most of the liberal outrage crowd don't go in for that sort of thing.
A bit like Corbyn and the IRA shit init?
No, because Jez supported coercion not self-determination. So they're nothing alike, in fact.
So what he supported back in the day cannot be separated from what he will legislate for?
Are there gay churches over there?
Are we going to pretend that a Muslim who had "personal views" in favour of Sharia or something, but who promised not to legislate that way wouldn't get into trouble?
Having differing personal and political views is just hypocrisy. Why is he in the Liberal Democrats in the first place?
I support throwing gypsies into the sea, but I wouldn't vote for a law to legalise that. Personal and political are two separate things.
"The Klansman were on the right track. Did I mention I'm pro free school lunches?"
Nuance.
My guess is that he's torn between being a Bible man (so believing he should follow its word) and actually believing that gay people are just like the rest of us.
The same reason Dela was, I assume. They attract them for some reason.
Fuck separating personal views from policy.
Farron's been banging on about tolerance, understanding and embracing those that are different/in a minority to us for the whole campaign.
Which is absolutely fine, until he turns round and says he believes in a man in the sky and gays are bad as a result.
I mean, how the fuck do those views go hand in hand and what sort of deviant would hold both? It's lunacy.
That so many people insisted on conflating personal and policy preferences does at least explain why FREEDOM is in such a shitty state. His bumming views are a bit like wanting to legalise drugs, because you believe in freedom of choice, but still thinking that you would be a bit of a knobhead to use them.
It's not the most honourable or clear way of thinking but you can see why people are conflicted when their upbringing tells them one thing and their heart/brain/gut tells them another.
Is it really so hard to imagine that someone can separate personal standards of morality from public ones? Elected officials uphold laws they don't agree with all the time.
Not allowing a separation simply means politicians are going to lie to you about what they believe.
Why would I want someone who doesn't share my values to be responsible for maintaining them? If it was Jews instead of Gays we wouldn't be having this discussion.
If it was Jews instead of gays he could just join Labour.
Believing in nonsense is going to, at some point, conflict with reality.
Real nonsense has never been tried.
We've a ghey running the show now.
I hate to say this, but my opinion comes from being an observant Jew of the Reform variant. The idea of holding other Jews to my own mitzvah standards is distinctly odd. Non-Jews, an utter perversion. Marriage equality may be less of an issue in Reform Judaism than in mainstream secular society (I'm all for suing the bakers) but the public / private thing is odd.
This is genuinely mystifying. This isn't the nineteenth century any more. If we take your view to its logical conclusion, only atheists and secularists can hold elected positions because anybody else is liable to start advocating electric shock therapy for gays (or whatever stereotypical religious policy you can think of).
You can hold views on personal matters of faith without demanding everybody else agrees with you. You can be personally against abortion, as an example, without voting against it. You can be against same sex marriage, as an example, but consider that the gender of two participants in a legal marriage is none of the state's business.
The liberal fascist league are distinctly anti-liberal, unfortunately. Presumably they're not going to stop until they've run every Christian out of public life.
That's not Yev's argument. Read his last sentence again.
It's the crux of his argument.
I'd suggest that many of those commenting don't grasp Christianity, frankly.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
