• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Piers Morgan: unemployed

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Can't believe we allow in foreigners who campaign to take away our rights.

This country is seriously f'ed up.
Agree. The US doesn't need some foreigner coming in and attacking the Constitution. Many leftists on here will probably be upset that his show was cancelled but this is a big screw you to them.
 

Imp

Lifer
Feb 8, 2000
18,833
183
106
I'm sure he'll be fine (financially) and will find a job shortly.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,268
232
106
Doesn't the constitution put limits on what the FEDERAL government can do despite what the Heller decision said?
It limits the federal government, but that is not all. It's not just a document that says what only the federal government can or can't do. Or is that written somewhere next to where the word musket was written in the Constitution?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,068
18,808
136
Doesn't the constitution put limits on what the FEDERAL government can do despite what the Heller decision said?
The 14th amendment incorporated most of the Constitution's limitations to the states.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,033
64
91
Am I the only person in P&N that doesn't watch any of these shitty political opinion shows? Morgan, Hannity, Rush, that woman, the other guy, and all those other guys. I guess I prefer to form my own opinion based on things that are, to the best of knowledge, actual news. I don't understand the appeal of these types of shows, other than to feed people's rage quotas. If I had to guess, I'd say that these blowhards have more people of the opposite political leaning watching them than they do their own kind, just because people want to find the next thing to rage about on some web forum...
I don't watch any of them. I don't really see the appeal, as they tend to be nothing but windbags spouting off about the issues in a one-sided way, for the entertainment of viewers who either already share the same views, or will be predictably outraged by what they're saying. I don't care for any of it.

I have only ever seen a few short clips of the Piers Morgan show, particularly an Alex Jones appearance, and those made me think less of everybody involved (and I didn't have much of a favorable view of Jones to begin with). Morgan seems like a shrill, arrogant jerk.
 
Feb 4, 2009
27,863
8,349
136
Rachael Maddow would be a great upgrade.
Or Jay Leno, maybe?
Ignoring the fact that is blatantly partisan and because of that it is barely a news show. I have to give Ms. Maddow credit he show is well written and put together good. I love and hate the constant teasing on that show.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,099
586
126
Pure and simply, Piers Morgan was a pot stirrer. Period. Good or bad, like him or not, that was his reason for being on air.

You can make the argument that in some ways all television and interview personalities are now, but Piers was transparently so.

He was an act. Whether he really believed or cared about the positions he took is immaterial. He was a controversial personality groomed to stir discussion and elicit the exact reactions people in this thread have had, e.g. "Why the fuck should a Brit tell us what our laws should be?! Where does he get off ?! .........................I'm tuning in next week to see what asinine thing he says to a guest next!"

Clearly, that strategy didn't pan out, however, to the extent they had hoped.

Watch his interview with Howard Stern. In his interviewing, Stern firmly but gently calls him on his schtick, and that he (Stern) is aware he's trying to be provocative and elicit some kind of outburst from Stern and his guests, for which Stern is too shrewd to fall for.

It's all a stage production.
:thumbsup: Someone here gets it.

And Piers wasn't a bad interviewer. I think it was just an idea that was doomed to fail. How can you do an hour long interview of one person and keep it interesting? Well, Howard Stern can but he's unique and gifted in that way.
 

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,511
439
126
Pure and simply, Piers Morgan was a pot stirrer. Period. Good or bad, like him or not, that was his reason for being on air.

You can make the argument that in some ways all television and interview personalities are now, but Piers was transparently so.

He was an act. Whether he really believed or cared about the positions he took is immaterial. He was a controversial personality groomed to stir discussion and elicit the exact reactions people in this thread have had, e.g. "Why the fuck should a Brit tell us what our laws should be?! Where does he get off ?! .........................I'm tuning in next week to see what asinine thing he says to a guest next!"

Clearly, that strategy didn't pan out, however, to the extent they had hoped.

Watch his interview with Howard Stern. In his interviewing, Stern firmly but gently calls him on his schtick, and that he (Stern) is aware he's trying to be provocative and elicit some kind of outburst from Stern and his guests, for which Stern is too shrewd to fall for.

It's all a stage production.
Exactly. Personally I don't think he even gives a shit about gun control in the US. Why would he? He stirred the pot so he could make some money and make a name for himself, which he has done. All the redneck suckers fell for it hook line and sinker.
 

Stewox

Senior member
Dec 10, 2013
528
0
0
Last edited:

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,908
44
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Yes, I can't stand that stupid gecko from GEICO. Makes me want to punch an Aussie...but then I realize I will get my ass kicked. But I still don't like the gecko.
I don't see how that cartoon Aussie voiced over character lizard gains them any sales but then again Americans prove how dumb and gullible they are everyday and getting worse.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
76,577
9,703
126
Doesn't the constitution put limits on what the FEDERAL government can do despite what the Heller decision said?
Yeah but its like any other law, it needs to be enforced.
The executive branch is supposed to enforce the law.

Obama flat out stated he was not going to do anything about illegal aliens. So that should give you a little insight into his perception of the law.
 

Fayd

Diamond Member
Jun 28, 2001
7,979
2
76
www.manwhoring.com
It limits the federal government, but that is not all. It's not just a document that says what only the federal government can or can't do. Or is that written somewhere next to where the word musket was written in the Constitution?
amendment 9 or 10 (or both) state the limits of what the federal government can do.
 

Fayd

Diamond Member
Jun 28, 2001
7,979
2
76
www.manwhoring.com
I don't see how that cartoon Aussie voiced over character lizard gains them any sales but then again Americans prove how dumb and gullible they are everyday and getting worse.
not sure why they're having an aussie accent representing the US Government Employee's Insurance COrporation.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,596
7,665
136
Last edited:

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,018
4,763
126
Obama flat out stated he was not going to do anything about illegal aliens. So that should give you a little insight into his perception of the law.
considering that's he's on track to deport more in a bit over 6 years than any predecessor and more than the entire history of the US prior to 1997?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
considering that's he's on track to deport more in a bit over 6 years than any predecessor and more than the entire history of the US prior to 1997?
These people disagree:

The president of a union for ICE
An immigration expert testifying in federal court under oath
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee

Representative Lamar Smith (R., Texas), then chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said in a statement at the time, following a committee review of internal ICE documents:

Since 2011, the Obama administration has included in its year-end deportation statistics the numbers from a Border Patrol program that returns illegal immigrants to Mexico right after they cross the border. It is dishonest to count illegal immigrants apprehended by the Border Patrol along the border as ICE removals. And these “removals” from the Border Patrol program do not subject the illegal immigrant to any penalties or bars for returning to the U.S. This means a single illegal immigrant can show up at the border and be removed numerous times in a single year — and counted each time as a removal. When the numbers from this Border Patrol program are removed from this year’s deportation data, it shows that removals are actually down nearly 20 percent from 2009. Another 40,000 removals are also included in the final deportation count but it is unclear where these removals came from.

Immigration expert Jessica Vaughan made the same argument last year when she testified on behalf of ICE agents suing the Obama administration in federal court. Vaughan analyzed the administration’s enforcement statistics and found that the actual number of illegal-immigrant removals had dropped 40 percent since June 2011.

Chris Crane, president of the union representing more than 7,000 ICE agents and officers, has accused the Obama administration of “knowingly manipulating arrest and deportation data” to create a false impression of its enforcement record. “We just don’t see it in our offices,” he told National Review Online in April 2013. “Every year we supposedly break the record for deportation, and we can’t figure out what’s going on. We don’t believe these numbers.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/370784/obama-administration-inflating-deportation-numbers-andrew-stiles

Fern
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY