monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

You are taking the piss. And you're showing incredible ignorance. The TV series is called Police Squad, the films are called Naked Gun.

If you'd bothered to check my profile you would have seen I've started a thread on British Comedy with Monty Python in the title.

I wouldn't normally take the piss out of someone based on that alone, but you're a total gobshite. You name drop British publications like it means something, you're always about to watch a game of "soccer" or read a novel.

And you're a racist.

And it's football not soccer.

And I'm working class.

You just call people refusing to support BLM racists. That's your stock-in-trade. And a chav or ponce like you loves to use toe-curling words like gobshite. You only speak English, not me.

What's wrong with using the word soccer? I'd prefer to use it. You are just a nit-picker.

It's so funny that you claim that your son once lived in China for one year. You and your son don't even speak Chinese. I don't care about your blinkered views at all.

My son speaks fluent Mandarin, Spanish, German, Japanese, BSL and Portuguese. He can also get by in Cantonese.

As usual you're talking out of your arse. I was on A2K the whole time my son was in China, and I spoke about it a lot.

You're some johnny come lately who knows nothing about the posters here and thinks they can make an impression with name dropping, bullshit and thinly disguised racism.

You have made an impression, just not the one you intended.

You hate cold for the same reason. You just take offence at him for rooting for Trump, not Biden. I'd argue that it would be wrong to savage someone for having different views. I wish I hadn't roasted people here for thinking differently.

Then why don't you ask your son to debate with me in Chinese? He doesn't have the guts to do that, innit?

Cantonese? Does he watch TVB? LOL.

You are a racist. If one were to remove all references to BLM from your posts there'd still be more than enough to call you a racist.

He's got better things to do, you're a very dull unintelligent numpty.

Thanks for teaching me a lesson. I think you are much older than me, so I can't bring myself to trade barbs with you. That's uncalled-for.

Take care.

He calls you racist because of the ignorant, tone deaf, sneeringly condescending ways you talk about non-white people. You talk about black people as if they are mindless waifs to be herded and led about, and not sentient individuals with agency and bodies of experience that inform their decisions, political and otherwise. He calls you racist because you go cluelessly on and on about what’s right or wrong about what BLM does and what black people should or shouldn’t do, when it’s painfully obvious you have no earthly idea. But you go on and on anyway, dropping your paternalistic whitesplaining cow patties of faux wisdom. You can’t help yourself. It’s what racists do.

Pretty much.

Being a member of BLM doesn't mean you are allowed to burn down non-black people's shops and even rob them. That's against the law.

For good measure, you can't deny the fact that lots of Chinese and Asian Americans have been bullied and scorned by African Americans or even African students studying in China.

I have had a chance to talk to some of them.

It's understandable for you to cast your lot with BLM if you are black. Yet you just can't try to jawbone non-black people into plumping for BLM movement. That's beyond the pale.

I'm not black, so I don't have to. You just can't call someone a racist for jibbing at doing this. Plus, I have never treated black people badly. Some of my idols happen to be black, say, Michael Jordan and Bernardine Evaristo.

Wipe the smirk off your face. I thought he was asking me if they still do comedy in the UK. The answer is nope.

Written by Steerpike

"Last month, the New York Times published an opinion piece by the US senator, Tom Cotton, calling for the army to be used to quell rioters during the Black Lives Matter protests. Despite this proposition being supported by 52 per cent of Americans, the paper’s staff were not happy about its publication, and many publicly said the piece’s mere existence put their lives in danger.

Shortly afterwards, an ‘Editors’ Note’ was added to the piece and James Bennett, who had defended publishing the article, resigned from his position as editorial page editor. At the slightest sign of pressure from its staff, the Times completely buckled.

Over at the Wall Street Journal, it appeared that a similar dynamic might be playing out this week, after 280 of its journalists signed a letter to their publisher, complaining about the spread of ‘misinformation’ in the paper’s opinion section. The letter argued that recent pieces in the section, including a piece by Vice President Mike Pence, were unacceptable.

It appears though that the opinion section of the paper aren’t taking the attack lying down. This morning, its editorial board published a response, and promised to continue to ‘offer an alternative to the uniform progressive views that dominate nearly all of today’s media.’

The response is worth a read in full:


“
We’ve been gratified this week by the outpouring of support from readers after some 280 of our Wall Street Journal colleagues signed (and someone leaked) a letter to our publisher criticising the opinion pages. But the support has often been mixed with concern that perhaps the letter will cause us to change our principles and content. On that point, reassurance is in order.

In the spirit of collegiality, we won’t respond in kind to the letter signers. Their anxieties aren’t our responsibility in any case. The signers report to the News editors or other parts of the business, and the News and Opinion departments operate with separate staffs and editors. Both report to Publisher Almar Latour. This separation allows us to pursue stories and inform readers with independent judgment.
It was probably inevitable that the wave of progressive cancel culture would arrive at the Journal, as it has at nearly every other cultural, business, academic and journalistic institution. But we are not the New York Times. Most Journal reporters attempt to cover the news fairly and down the middle, and our opinion pages offer an alternative to the uniform progressive views that dominate nearly all of today’s media.

As long as our proprietors allow us the privilege to do so, the opinion pages will continue to publish contributors who speak their minds within the tradition of vigorous, reasoned discourse. And these columns will continue to promote the principles of free people and free markets, which are more important than ever in what is a culture of growing progressive conformity and intolerance."

Way to go, the Wall Street Journal.

The problem that Trump and his gang is facing is that it is highly unlikely that the US military would obey his orders to do large scale attacks on US citizens.

That is one reason that Trump is trying to set up a brown shirt force of random law enforcement people to do his bidding. The problem being that the number of such people is fairly small not the hundred of thousands he claim to be able to employ to the cities.

He might get a small scale civil war going if states and local governments decide to act against these brown shirts to protect their citizens.

That’s what I believe he wants. So he can declare a national emergency and grind all government to a halt - including the upcoming election.