Trump humor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

LOLOLOL...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

11 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Whose tears?

Bob,

The person tweeting meant tears of laughter. You have habitually expressed this same sentiment on OL by saying something was so funny, you peed on yourself.

Michael

[Peter]

I like the guy. I wish I could come up with a slogan like, "I like Ike." Maybe Hans and Franz saying, "Let me Trump you up!"

[BaalChatzaf]

7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

The person tweeting meant tears of laughter. You have habitually expressed this same sentiment on OL by saying something was so funny, you peed on yourself.

Michael

Yes I have. Literally true.  At my age  I have to where my June Alyson Diapers  if  I go to a comedy show.

[merjet]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

  At my age  I have to where my June Alyson Diapers  if  I go to a comedy show.

Wear due ewe where them?   Whose June Alyson? 

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, merjet said:

Wear due ewe where them?   Whose June Alyson? 

 

2 hours ago, merjet said:

Wear due ewe where them?   Whose June Alyson? 

The famous actress June Allyson used to do the commercial for adult diapers.   Its humiliating to have to wear these things, but necessary.  My bladder muscles are not what they used to be. 

[Peter]

June Allyson was the best "tom girl" ever. Look her up on Wikipedia. In the 70's until her death she guest spotted on a slew of shows like "The Love Boat." Before that she starred in a lot of movies and had her own TV shows. 

[merjet]

14 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The famous actress June Allyson used to do the commercial for adult diapers.   

I knew June Allyson was a famous actress. I didn't know who June Alyson (your spelling) was and was joshing.

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, merjet said:

I knew June Allyson was a famous actress. I didn't know who June Alyson (your spelling) was and was joshing.

 

2 hours ago, merjet said:

I knew June Allyson was a famous actress. I didn't know who June Alyson (your spelling) was and was joshing.

Mistype

[Peter]

I know President Trump doesn’t drink alcohol but it would be a better meeting if the rest of the allies were drinking wine during the meeting.

Peter

“History makes more sense when you’re drunk” by Natalie Haynes: Even the title, Drunk History, feels like something Alan Partridge would offer up in an increasingly desperate attempt to retain the interest of a channel controller with ADHD. The idea is simple: take a comedian, give them a drink, get them to explain – with that combination of earnestness and levity that is the preserve of the truly shit-faced – a chunk of history, and have other comedians act out the resultant quasi-historical mess as a sort of dadaist costume drama. Coincidentally, with only a minor difference in budget, this is also a reasonably accurate description of my A-level Ancient History revision.

It’s probably fair to say that few people would have bet on this idea turning into a hit TV show, let alone on both sides of the Atlantic. In fact, it has done so well that it has now returned to our screens starring the only people who fulfil the role of court jesters more successfully than comedians: the cast of Geordie Shore. Anne Boleyn may have been called “the biggest cock tease in history” by a woman nursing a large glass of red before, but only if Hilary Mantel was having a long and especially difficult day.

The unpredictable quality of the original web series worked better than Comedy Central’s current production sometimes does.

For all the raised eyebrows this show will doubtless provoke, there’s something to be said for mixing history with alcohol and a lack of reverence. Firstly, there are some periods of history that make more sense when you’re drunk. Read Book XXI of Livy (the passage of Hannibal through the Alps) without a sizeable merlot and you’ll miss out on the sheer molten lunacy of herding elephants across a mountain range. The moment where the nervous elephants have to be coaxed into rafts to cross a river, one tiny footstep at a time, just is funny. And the bit where the intonsi inculti – the shaggy, shabby mountain men – choose whose side they’d rather be on is good too.

Besides, Hannibal himself was drinking wine, so you’d feel left out if you didn’t join in. Not only that, wine saved the day. When Hannibal reached an impassable point on his Alpine journey, he had the kind of idea which only comes to the brilliant drinker. He demanded some leftover flasks of wine and poured them over the rocks that blocked his path, then he lit a fire. The combination of heat and vinegary acid weakened the rocks and they crumbled before him. Hannibal and his men – far from being stuck in a hostile environment with no escape – were soon on their way with one of history’s finer booze-related experiments under their Carthaginian belts.

Then there is Herodotus, whose breezy anthropological history is best read with good whisky. The Battle of Thermopylae – where the 300 Spartans fight to the death against a vastly larger force of Persians – is frankly bizarre if you think about it sober. But whisky-drunks can pick a fight in an empty room, much like the average 5th century BCE Spartan. I once watched the film, 300 (based on Frank Miller’s graphic novel version of the Herodotean story), drinking every time anyone bellowed, “Sparta”. I sobered up a couple of months later, and I still had an easier time of things than the Spartans.

Besides, Drunk History is continuing a tradition that dates back almost two and a half millennia before television was even invented. In Plato’s Symposium, the attendees of a drinking-party take turns to explain the nature of love. One of the guests is the comic playwright Aristophanes, still nursing a hangover from the night before (not untypical behaviour for a comedian). When it is his turn to speak, he is overcome by a bout of hiccups, and has to let someone else go ahead of him. When he finally gets himself under control, he delivers a quirky, funny “history” of humanity and love, suggesting that we were once all double-creatures, with four arms and legs each. We were separated, and each spend our mortal lives trying to find our missing other halves. This is the kind of story that only occurs to a comic genius with a hangover, as told to us by one of the world’s greatest philosophers.

The past may be another country, but that doesn’t mean it must be reserved for sober and sensible academics. After all, there are sober, sensible historians who have talked as much nonsense as any drunk and more: Holocaust-deniers, for a start. And why should history be the preserve of those who sit quietly in front of large books with small print? There’s room for the garrulous enthusiast as well as the expert to share their versions of well-known history on television. In the words of Max Beerbohm: “History,” it has been said, “does not repeat itself. The historians repeat one another.” Just like drunks, as it happens.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

LOL...

This is satire, the lady is acting, but it is so spot on, we have all seen some form of it in real life.

Snowflakes of the world, unite!

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

10 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

LOL...

This is satire, the lady is acting, but it is so spot on, we have all seen some form of it in real life.

Snowflakes of the world, unite!

Michael

Almost sounds real...  How are you sure she is acting?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 minute ago, BaalChatzaf said:

How are you sure she is acting?

Bob,

It says so.

Right there on the Internet.

If the Internet says it, it has to be true.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

38 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Almost sounds real...  How are you sure she is acting?

Because it "almost sounds real", meaning it isn't?

The giveaway is how she regularly studs her comments with "Trump, not my President." It implies contrivance.

Also, it's a solo effort. I think the snowflakes get snowflaky when they're with each other and have to make their tribal noises.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

40 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Because it "almost sounds real", meaning it isn't?

The giveaway is how she regularly studs her comments with "Trump, not my President." It implies contrivance.

Also, it's a solo effort. I think the snowflakes get snowflaky when they're with each other and have to make their tribal noises.

--Brant

I think you are right about the contrivance.  That fact that there is a tag that says she is acting does not convince me.  But your observation sounds right.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In case anyone has forgotten:

There are volumes and volumes of this stuff out there.

The country is doing fine, but that stuff seems to be sticking around a bit. Fewer people, maybe, but those who are left are still just as nuts as before.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

On 7/9/2017 at 5:47 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

In case anyone has forgotten:

There are volumes and volumes of this stuff out there.

The country is doing fine, but that stuff seems to be sticking around a bit. Fewer people, maybe, but those who are left are still just as nuts as before.

Michael

I can see why the got upset election night,  but  jeezus it is  8 months later and they still are carrying on.  I admit I was surprised that Trump won, but then I had been misinformed by all the commentaries and polls.  I did have a bit of in inkling that Trump -could win- because of the way the Brexit Vote turned out in Britain.  It was a revolt worthy of Spartacus.  Any way,  everything turned out the way I wanted it to turn out. 

[Brant Gaede]

Bob: "Everything turned out the way I wanted it to turn out."

Now what?

--Brant

WWIII?

[jts]

Every year in England they have the world's biggest liar contest. That contest is pure bullshit. Everyone knows the competitors are lying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_Biggest_Liar

The real world's biggest liar contest happens in the USA every 4 years. The contest is judged by the voters. To win the contest it is not enough to tell a big lie. The lie must also be believed by enough people. A lie is no good if nobody believes it. The winner of this contest last time was Donald Trump. His main lie was he is going to make America great again. That is one hell of a whopper. But enough people were gullible enough to believe it that he won the lying contest.

His Messiahship, Obama, promised change. Nobody knew what the hell Obama meant by 'change' but enough people believed it that he got elected. His Messiahship didn't change a damn thing.

Does anyone know what Trump means by 'make America great'? Does he himself know? Don't matter. All that matters is people believed it long enough to select him as the winner of the lying contest.

Every elected politician is a liar. How do I know? Because he told a lie to get elected. I don't know if Ron Paul was an exception. We probably will never see the like of Ron Paul again. Perhaps he did not qualify as a politician but as an anti-politician.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, jts said:

We probably will never see the like of Ron Paul again. Perhaps he did not qualify as a politician but as an anti-politician.

Now that part is funny.

Michael

[jts]

The difference between a politician and an anti-politician, as I understand, is a politician wants to run your life, and an anti-politician wants you to run your life. Ron Paul want you to run your life.

Political office is a magnet that attracts people who want to run your life, the wrong kind of people. Ron Paul was an anomaly, an exception, a white crow, something you don't often see.

 

[Brant Gaede]

Run, run, run . . .

--Brant

away!

[BaalChatzaf]

11 hours ago, jts said:

The difference between a politician and an anti-politician, as I understand, is a politician wants to run your life, and an anti-politician wants you to run your life. Ron Paul want you to run your life.

Political office is a magnet that attracts people who want to run your life, the wrong kind of people. Ron Paul was an anomaly, an exception, a white crow, something you don't often see.

 

I have met Ron Paul  (aournd 8 years ago)  and I agree with your characterization.  He is a very solid  upright man.  he has good character.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I was going to put this comment in the Fake News thread, but after trying to read and watch news about the Donald Trump Jr. "muh Russians" thing all day, I noticed I can't get to the end of an article or the end of a video.

I just can't do it.

The NYT put out accusations--of fact--and the source was "three people with knowledge of the email." That's a direct quote, so in other words, fake news again. And the reaction? The entire mainstream media exploded in an orgy of crowing against Trump. That's not an exaggeration. People have been writing and yacking about this all day.

When I see pundits on TV analyzing--in depth with panels of experts--every nit of this story as if there were something to discuss other than wishful thinking, the only phrase that comes to mind is: retards talking to idiots.

And I feel like an even bigger one for listening to them.

Michae

[Brant Gaede]

32 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I was going to put this comment in the Fake News thread, but after trying to read and watch news about the Donald Trump Jr. "muh Russians" thing all day, I noticed I can't get to the end of an article or the end of a video.

I just can't do it.

The NYT put out accusations--of fact--and the source was "three people with knowledge of the email." That's a direct quote, so in other words, fake news again. And the reaction? The entire mainstream media exploded in an orgy of crowing against Trump. That's not an exaggeration. People have been writing and yacking about this all day.

When I see pundits on TV analyzing--in depth with panels of experts--every nit of this story as if there were something to discuss other than wishful thinking, the only phrase that comes to mind is: retards talking to idiots.

And I feel like an even bigger one for listening to them.

Michae

Yeh--nd yoo get you're nmane wron to!

--Rant

Mrs. Correctoo!