4:14 The screeching hawk cliche sound effect.

Similar to the Wilhelm Scream cliche.

1:31 The screeching hawk cliche sound effect.

Similar to the Wilhelm Scream cliche.

He's just the epitome of cliche 80s jock villain douchebag. Except the crying. That was weird.

"empowered"? Did the rules of English change, where every sentence now needs a verb, a noun and a cliché?

No, it wouldn’t. That’s the joke here. It’s pointing out how cliched and boring that would have been.

Don’t get me wrong, TLJ had its problems, but the obvious fan boy criticisms (Holdo, Luke, etc) are not the right ones.

Granted, this is all subjective.

So... as far as I can see it, every clip from, The Orville, is essentially <insert comedy cliche here> but in SPACE!

WTF is the point in this show? I mean, I think some of what Seth McFarlane does is funny, but this is so hackneyed it's not even remotely interesting, never mind funny.

Makes me think of the guy who videotaped the woman at the Chick-Fil-A drive thru, figuring he would be lauded as a hero for challenging someone who worked for that company. And it backfired and he became unemployed because of his "principles", which was pretty much what he expected of that woman. And then he played the victim. But he brought it on himself, the woman who tweeted about AIDS in Africa is a whole other story.

Now that everyone has the power to self-publish and broadcast just about anything to the entire world I'm seeing the power that it unleashes in others. I posted a comment on an unsolicited news posting in my FB feed, regarding the Pulitzer Prize picture of the black woman holding out her hands to be handcuffed by the police in riot gear. And everyone in the comment section is going predictably teary-eyed and goose pimply over it, with the usual cliches of iconic, defining, inspiring, uplifting, etc.

And I wrote "don't be so easily manipulated, it's stagey and predictable and Kardashians use this shit to sell sugar water." or something like that. My point being that we have gone from prize-winning pictures of the Viet Nam war (e.g.) to the whole process being co-opted by pop culture, like everything and anything else. Of course I got bombarded with claims of racism and people who pitied my soul. And some were musing on whether to try to track down my employer. I deleted my comment, this world has gotten too fucking weird for me.

I am .... they're awful. I'm not sure if it's the writing or Jason Momoa's delivery. Maybe he should stick to speaking Dothraki?

This whole thing seems utterly devoid of any kind of original thought, even down to the "slow cover of 80s pop song" cliche.

Hopefully, it's better than it looks.

I never talked about the nomination, only about liberals pointing out that Sanders would stand a much better shot at winning against Trump.

Yet Sanders not winning the Democratic nomination is sort of the point. The DNC and the talking heads had their mind set on a candidate from amongst their midst, and put their combined weight behind her. They went with a candidate who was vulnerable on just about every angle to attacks from Trump, due to her being a continuation of previous policies. That's not picking the candidate who stands the highest chance of winning the Presidential Election, that's picking someone who represents their own interests. Which is fair enough. But then don't blame the purist liberals for pointing out the dangers of this strategy.

Thing is, we know the DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign. Even more details of this are coming in bit by bit through discovery during the class-action lawsuit filed against the DNC. To call the Hillary Victory Fund a money-laundering operation for the Clinton campaign might even be too kind by now.

We also know that they actively pushed for Trump to be the nominee, thinking the election would be a cakewalk then. Brilliant strategists, the lot of them.

And the same people are running „the Resistence“ now, doubling down on what they did before. How is that for learning a lesson. Instead, they play the blame game. And Maher, in this clip, jumped in and blamed „purist liberals“. Not the DNC, not Clinton for running a campaign based on platitudes, clichés, and everything except policy substance.

If you want to blame the purist liberals for anything, blame them for not having campaigned hard enough, for not having put enough pressure to either get their candidate nominated or to get Clinton to at least pretend to be willing to do something about the suffering of the lower class. Blame the liberals for being content with a few improvements in social policies while swallowing economic policies that cause a continuous degredation of the standard of living of the lower class.

Still, purist liberals kept saying that the antidote against right-wing populism is left-wing populism. Sanders was not vulnerable on policy issues. In fact, this 187 year old bloke with bad posture is nigh untouchable on policy issues. When even Trump voters in West Virginia admit that a guy from the Northeast is a better advocate of theirs than local Republicans, you know his policies are not open to attack from right-wing populists.

As for purity vs pragmatism: pragmatism is a label for the policies that led to the current state of affairs. It's the policies that led to large-scale devastation across the country. It's not pragmatic to vote for more of the same if it means a continuation of policies that led you into despair. Purity is the label talking heads apply to a principled stance when they don't agree with it, plain and simple. Both labels allow them to distract from discussions about policy substance.

Piano key intro cliche. sigh.

Just missing the cliche alien "BWAAANG"!

The whole movie looks cliche as F

What he's talking about here is "cliche", but cliche's have themselves become so cliche, it's no longer effective to use that term to describe them.
This same phenomenon is found extremely widely in literature and music. I stumbled onto this following college, after being trained to have a critical eye for creative work, when I found myself hating everything that humans produced but not understanding why.
My personal theory is that 1) we've not yet learned to teach creators how to identify and cultivate truly unique ideas, and 2) the structure of our current systems for fostering creative work require said work to appeal fundamentally to the largest possible audience, which is easiest when a universal language (visual, auditory or written) exists.
We're trained to build on existing ideas, which is critical for success, but not how to reject established ideas and instead find new ones that are capable of maintaining familiarity, or communicating their core concepts without need of educating the audience.
It's an interesting evolution of process that I'm sure we can find in other areas of the human experience, beyond the field of creative media.

I know it's a bit of a cliche to say it, but this whole video is just so much Russian propaganda. Right from the very first story 'ignored' by the MSM, you have the very same day coverage by the BBC here:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36835678

The only difference is that the BBC coverage has some details that the video's source leaves out, like that the Free Syrian Army condemned the beheading and was seeking to punish those responsible.

There is absolutely zero question that Syria is currently a war zone, with Russian jets dropping Russian made bombs on Syrian civilians. There is overwhelming evidence that chemical weapons have been deployed by BOTH ISIL and the Syrian government.

I'm not really sorry if it seems like the MSM is drawing a picture that makes the Assad regime look like bad guys. The reality is that the FACTS make the Assad regime bad guys. That doesn't make ISIL good guys because they are fighting Assad, criminals try and kill each other all the time and that's what's happening. The really troubling aspect is there exist plenty of Syrian people in the region who legitimately wanted an end to Assad's dictatorship and started a legitimated rebellion and have been almost completely cut out and killed off by both Assad and ISIL. If you've been paying attention, Russian bombing strikes focus heavily on the NON-ISIS rebels because they have legitimacy and thus need to die first.