HastySnack (@HastySnack) header
HastySnack (@HastySnack) profile picture

poison deliciousness ☠️

Everywhere.
Joined November 2018
Photo by HastySnack (@HastySnack)Photo by HastySnack (@HastySnack)Photo by HastySnack (@HastySnack)Photo by HastySnack (@HastySnack)Photo by HastySnack (@HastySnack)Photo by HastySnack (@HastySnack)Photo by HastySnack (@HastySnack)Photo by HastySnack (@HastySnack)Photo by HastySnack (@HastySnack)Photo by HastySnack (@HastySnack)
2060, your air permit has expired and you have 24 hours to renew it or drones will be sent to your home to put a plastic bag over your head… for your safety.
9
25
1
917
25,177
Sorry, what?!!
1
266
- You: "Who does the government borrow from?" - Government: "The central bank." - You: "Where does the central bank get money?" - Government: "It creates it." - You: "And the government pays interest on that?" - Government: "Of course. Debt is debt." - You: "Interest... on money created from nothing... paid by my taxes?" - Government: "You're not an economist."
77
793
25
4,856
70,262
HastySnack retweeted
Argentina are the only team out of all 48 participants not to have a single VAR intervention against them, despite committing the most fouls in the tournament. Do you even realize how insane that is?
3,726
49,656
1,083
357,176
10,736,732
Sorry, can someone explain to me how Andy Burnham has any mandate whatsoever? In my opinion, Keir Starmer didn’t even have a mandate with only 9m out of ~70m people actually voting for him. The fact he tried to implement and did implement certain policies that weren’t included in the manifesto is criminal. Imagine using that technique in contract law. You sign a contract and the other party just does whatever they like regardless of what’s actually in the contract, and because the courts are on their side, all of it is deemed “legitimate”. This doesn’t remotely resemble anything that can be called “democracy”. The entire system is theatre. It is criminal. The social contract is being ignored by the establishment and that is a breach of contract. We don’t need new politicians, we need to overhaul this system entirely.
2
3
71
Dear The World, We have a new Prime Minister, 24,927 people voted for him. That is 0.036% of the population. He’s also a communist. Please save us. Peter
1,192
2,503
129
19,939
424,562
HastySnack retweeted
It is genuinely outrageous that Britain is about to get a new Prime Minister who wasn’t even an MP four weeks ago. A man still fighting Margaret Thatcher, determined to drag us back to the 1970s with radical Left-wing policies. The country never voted for this. It’s a stitch-up.
154
401
9
3,104
33,962
And so it came to pass. The self-styled King of the North has become the unelected King of the Labour Party and soon to be the unelected Prime Minister. Democracy wept.
500
1,367
56
7,417
78,940
HastySnack retweeted
So hang on, when Theresa May, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak proposed anything which wasn’t in the previous GE manifesto, Andy Burnham said that they had no mandate. Today, Andy has promised the most significant change in the last 40 years, all without a mandate. The brass neck.
118
1,876
22
11,254
88,753
HastySnack retweeted
A timely reminder that Andy Burnham used to refer to Theresa May as an “unelected PM” after she was crowned leader. We should refer to Andy as an unelected PM from next Monday.
246
4,929
160
19,597
300,245
LinkedIn realising it might better to retire at 57 than work for diminishing returns.
192
953
62
9,081
437,077
Wealth tax explained: 1. Laura loves to cook, she risks all her life savings and opens a small restaurant: Laura‘s Kitchen 2. Laura works really hard, evenings, weekends, no vacations 3. The local community loves Laura‘s Kitchen, it’s a success, the restaurant gets larger, Laura hires 30 people from the neighborhood 4. Laura makes 1,5 Million € in profit, she pays 40% in income tax: 600,000€ 5. The left „tax the rich“ party wins the elections, and introduces a wealth tax 6. Laura‘s Kitchen gets valued by the tax authorities at 25 Million €. Laura must pay 5% wealth tax: 1,25 Million € 7. The income tax of 600,000€ plus 1,25 Million € in wealth tax is more than the 1,5 Million € Laura makes 8. Laura cannot afford to pay more taxes than she makes, she closes Laura’s Kitchen 9. Laura loses her life savings despite years of hard work, 30 people lose their jobs, the state receives zero taxes 10. The local community goes to McDonalds again 11. The local left “tax the rich“ party members blame „capitalism“ for that on social media 12. Everyone gets poorer due to higher unemployment and lower tax revenues Why is this so difficult for the left to understand?
607
3,090
208
9,032
340,449
🚨🇬🇧 Keir Starmer says he’ll “carry on with what he was elected to do” Britain NEVER voted for mass surveillance, open borders, or two-tier policing. No wonder his approval is at 20%. The entire country HATES him.
1,303
4,639
198
33,739
395,316
ARTICLE 19 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Keir Starmer has no legal authority to implement a social media ban. Where are the human rights lawyers? Oh wait… Starmer is one.
66
794
19
1,749
22,538
HastySnack retweeted
Those pushing censorship are never the good guys. Never.
41
565
13
4,424
30,726
Everyone is saying that 90% of parents support a ban on under-16s from accessing social media in the UK. It’s actually just 90% of parents who decided to respond to the consultation (not a representative sample). And they weren’t given an option to say no! Insanity!
Public consultation survey had no clickable 'No' option to disagree with the social media ban, Labour then used this to claim public support.
49
240
11
885
29,046
HastySnack retweeted
RFK Jr: “People are going to jail for Twitter posts in England.” Joe Rogan: “12,000 people in the last year.” RFK Jr: “It is a dictatorship.”
895
8,324
156
43,397
366,158
The social ban on under 16s is the diametric opposite of concern for kids welfare. So many teenagers rely on social media to communicate with their friends in the evenings. To take this away from them is vindictive. If Starmer wants to effectively clean up inappropriate content on social media then he should discuss this with the social media companies rather than punish teenagers from communicating with their friends. Starmer is once again using a virtue smokescreen to try and get what he really wants - a pathway to digital ID on social media - including adult verification. He is being horrendously manipulative here. And how dare he use the safety of children as the bait towards government controlled digital ID. Absolutely shameful.
144
262
9
932
16,163
HastySnack retweeted
"We've decided that you plebs being online, sharing news and exchanging your thoughts is a threat to our stranglehold on power, so we're going to close down your access to information and take away your right to anonymity in the name of protecting children, while also assuming total control over what your children are subjected to" You cannot hate these people enough.
Parents have been crying out for support when it comes to their children being on social media. So that’s why we’ve made this big decision – to put power back in to parents’ hands, and to give children their childhood back.
75
724
16
2,865
35,790
Then don’t give your kids a smartphone. Done. Im not giving corporations my ID online just so you can feel better.
Kids should not spend hours on their phones every day, exposed to self-harm content, pornography, violence, and extremist or hateful material. Yet that is the reality today. Parents alone cannot solve this, so governments should enforce age limits. Let kids be kids.
18
1,149
5
9,704
93,903