| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Tannin wrote: |
Wow!
That is the unfunniest Colbert I have ever seen. What was there to laugh at? Nothing, repeat nothing at all.
Was it just a very off night, or has he lost his touch. I kept waiting for the funny bit, but there wasn't one. Very sad to see a great comic reduced to this. |
You've got stop eating raw lemons before you watch youtubes.
Then again humour is in the eye of the beer-holder
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
 |
Lazza
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | Tannin wrote: |
Wow!
That is the unfunniest Colbert I have ever seen. What was there to laugh at? Nothing, repeat nothing at all.
Was it just a very off night, or has he lost his touch. I kept waiting for the funny bit, but there wasn't one. Very sad to see a great comic reduced to this. |
You've got stop eating raw lemons before you watch youtubes.
Then again humour is in the eye of the beer-holder |
Anyone who didn't laugh at that one has definitely had a very succesful humour bypass operation... 
_________________
Don't confuse your current path with your final destination. Just because it's dark and stormy now doesn't meant that you aren't headed for glorious sunshine! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
|
|
|
|
Jezza 
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Trump started well, but really struggled after 30 minutes into the debate. Clinton wasn't exceptional by any means but she was more polished and prepared than Trump was and it was evident the longer the debate dragged on.
It was disappointing that she wasn't hit with the hard questions about Benghazi, the Clinton foundation, WikiLeaks revealing that Bernie Sanders' campaign was undermined by the DNC and the 33,000 emails she deleted but was barely acknowledged in the debate.
I agree with Ben Shapiro on most of his points here as he sums up the debate in the link below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpeV_UydwGw
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 |
Last edited by Jezza on Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| This is not news. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/27/debate-analysis-donald-trump-will-win-two-remaining-debates/
The Donald kept his powder dry in the first debate, took the narrow points loss but kept most of the ammunition he has against Clinton in reserve. The format, network and moderator all favoured Clinton and he knew it. |
You're linking / quoting Breitbart who have been employed by Trump. Prefer to try someone not so closely aligned if not welded with his campaign, someone neutral like say the Washington Post who have been Republican for more than 125 years?
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The Washington Post has been historically left-leaning, WPT (though I agree that they're a high quality news source). It's hard to find wholly non-partisan coverage of this election; I almost find myself drawn to historically right-leaning but establishment-oriented newspapers like the Wall Street Journal; at least they can honestly claim to hate both candidates equally.  Generally, the New York Times remains the gold standard, though obviously pro-Clinton.
Breitbart is just a cheer squad perhaps the predominant pro-Trump cheersquad but I'm honestly not sure if the Guardian, on the other side, is much better. The latter's US operation is eye-rollingly bad and has brought the website's quality down appallingly.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
Agreed.
The Clinton News Network (CNN) has good coverage, you just have to read it with your radar working.
In one way I actually hope Trump does get in. He'll only last 4 years and will royally shake the establishment up which it sadly needs.
If he doesn't get in, Hillary will be another Meh president, nothing much will happen except she'll feather her own nest a bit more, the establishment will draw a big sigh of relief (on both sides) and normal programming will resume to an extent. The people who have flocked to Trump may go back into their boxes or may just get more angry. Dunno.
Trump as POTUS is more likely to draw an un-establishment figure like the Colonel into the Democrat nomination at the next election.
Pass the popcorn.
 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Me either. |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | The Washington Post has been historically left-leaning, WPT (though I agree that they're a high quality news source). It's hard to find wholly non-partisan coverage of this election; I almost find myself drawn to historically right-leaning but establishment-oriented newspapers like the Wall Street Journal; at least they can honestly claim to hate both candidates equally. Generally, the New York Times remains the gold standard, though obviously pro-Clinton.
Breitbart is just a cheer squad perhaps the predominant pro-Trump cheersquad but I'm honestly not sure if the Guardian, on the other side, is much better. The latter's US operation is eye-rollingly bad and has brought the website's quality down appallingly. |
I know, I was making a joke out of it. My facts were like well say Trump's facts
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | David wrote: | The Washington Post has been historically left-leaning, WPT (though I agree that they're a high quality news source). It's hard to find wholly non-partisan coverage of this election; I almost find myself drawn to historically right-leaning but establishment-oriented newspapers like the Wall Street Journal; at least they can honestly claim to hate both candidates equally. Generally, the New York Times remains the gold standard, though obviously pro-Clinton.
Breitbart is just a cheer squad perhaps the predominant pro-Trump cheersquad but I'm honestly not sure if the Guardian, on the other side, is much better. The latter's US operation is eye-rollingly bad and has brought the website's quality down appallingly. |
I know, I was making a joke out of it. My facts were like well say Trump's facts |
Not to mention when you buy half a chicken, you refuse to get the one with the right wing.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | watt price tully wrote: | | David wrote: | The Washington Post has been historically left-leaning, WPT (though I agree that they're a high quality news source). It's hard to find wholly non-partisan coverage of this election; I almost find myself drawn to historically right-leaning but establishment-oriented newspapers like the Wall Street Journal; at least they can honestly claim to hate both candidates equally. Generally, the New York Times remains the gold standard, though obviously pro-Clinton.
Breitbart is just a cheer squad perhaps the predominant pro-Trump cheersquad but I'm honestly not sure if the Guardian, on the other side, is much better. The latter's US operation is eye-rollingly bad and has brought the website's quality down appallingly. |
I know, I was making a joke out of it. My facts were like well say Trump's facts |
Not to mention when you buy half a chicken, you refuse to get the one with the right wing. |
The reason I've got a few kg's to lose is that I buy the whole chook 
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
Buying the whole chook isn't the problem. Eating it all, with half a kilo of chips on the side, couple of fried dimmies, a chiko roll and a famly coleslaw, there's your problem.
Scuse me, now I'm hungry.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
