Your video, She dies a little inside every time Piers Morgan speaks, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I think humanity's collective intelligence dies a bit everytime Morgan speaks.

Sometimes I can't tell if he is playing the character Tracy Morgan or if he really is just that way.

Anyone remember the scene from Shawshank Redemption where they are tarring the prison roof? and the "Red" character (Morgan Freeman) has a voice over about how it was just like being any group of men working on one of their roofs and they finish with a beer?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ44hTuRDP0

*doublepromote

I think that Morgan driver just didn't even take a glance at oncoming traffic. He didn't think, "well, I've got enough pickup to get in front of that car 2 seconds away"

Yeah, I was expecting Morgan Freeman.

Trump has been in office for less than a month ans has yet to do anything for blacks. YEA Fuck Donald Trump.


Obama had 8 years to help Black communities and his race and did shit. YEA Fuck Donald Trump.


That being said these great community leaders are gathering to promote positive role models that their youth can look up and emulate. To be the next MLK, Jackson, Sharpton Morgan Freeman, Will Smith, Sidney Potier 50 cent, Don king, JC Watts, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, ........ YEA Fuck Donald Trump.


Democrat policies have done more harm to the black community than another issue. Political slavery.

No, it wasn't. I said AN argument followed. If you want to be niggling, be correct. Arguments came before AND after. (Edit:ok, looking back, I did say "the argument followed" my mistake here, but not there, argument did follow. I did not intend that to mean the ONLY argument followed, just that one did.)

"He said it was a Muslim ban"is pretty understandable to me....as is "it is a Muslim ban". Is that somehow not coherent to you?

Whether you voted for him or not, whether you intend it or not, whether you like him or not, by defending this Trump (non) apologist and denying those statements are an argument against the claim that there's no Muslim ban, you are at least tacitly supporting Trump who's making the same argument in court, that argument being that his calling for and promising a Muslim ban in the campaign and now saying the travel ban is "keeping his campaign promises" in no way make it a Muslim ban (unless you are a room of far right leaners).

"Cogent" depends largely on the listener.

That's the claim, that he offered no argument.

I only addressed that point, when argument was offered, because you seemingly myopicly targeted what you thought was a mistake that made your point.

If I understood it and found it convincing, it's cogent....and I do.

I finally agree with something you said...in part....Jim Jefferies is a loud mouthed verbally aggressive comedian.
But, I think "He (Trump) called it a Muslim ban." is a cogent, coherent, and concise argument. Edit:so do the lawyers suing to stop the ban. ;-)

I watched it when it aired, the whole thing.
I'm not desperate, nor do I care a whit about Jim, I don't like him, he's as much an ass as Morgan, I care that a good argument against bullshit isn't discarded because you can't or won't grasp it. I never claimed he made the argument well, or that he didn't ramble, just that he offered an argument, it made sense, and it is applicable.

I don't recall who invoked Hitler first, but if I remember correctly, they both did in the full show. Since Jefferies came out later, it was probably Morgan before Jefferies made his appearance, but I can't be sure.

And PS- I hate Clinton almost as much as Trump. I supported Sanders, the only honest person that ran.

Lol. That's the funniest shit I've read all day.

Your and my definition of destroy must be very different.

It was YOUR contention that any argument "followed" rather than preceded. If you don't want to be held to a claim, don't make it. Funny, that's the same as any good atheist would argue.

I wrote "any coherent arguments". I was quite specific. His "arguments" are a rambling stream of consciousness with a few statements that don't support any ideas to form a coherent argument.

Now here's where you fucked up big time: "you Trump supporters". Get ready to eat a bag of dicks because you got that wrong. I'm not. Buy them here https://www.amazon.com/Bag-Of-Dicks-Sent-Anonymously/dp/B01GKEUY1Y

"when given a cogent argument" bwhahahahahaaha. Yeah, he's not cogent.

"against your claims" bwahahahaahahaa. What claims did I make (besides Jim Jefferies not presenting an argument)?

" you consistently ignore it to focus on some insignificant, off topic bullshit, like "That proceeded-not followed-"Fuck off"" Bwhahahahahaa. This doesn't cover your mistake. You made a claim. I held you to it and pointed out that even if I didn't hold you to it you'd still fail. You're the one focusing on that point.

"when cogent arguments both preceded and followed the excellent retort to his utter bullshit." Bwhahahaahahaa. Except they didn't. You can say it's a cogent argument but that doesn't make it true. FFS I provided the transcript - it's right above - with no coherent/cogent arguments in it. I'll give the concession here that your standard for cogent/coherent may be lower than mine. "the excellent retort" is not excellent. It's a great example of someone with not much to say. It's verbal diarrhoea of someone who can't immediately think of a good retort.

Get over it mate. Jim Jefferies is a loud mouthed verbally aggressive comedian who doesn't present any good arguments in this discourse. He's great at shutting down his opponents by cutting them off with vitriol and bullshit but that's about it.

Oh, and Piers Morgan is a dick. Lol, how handy, you can add him to the bag your eating.

This segment is so short that unless you go and watch the whole thing (which I haven't) you're basically making an educated guess about what they're even arguing about.

I don't know why you're so desperate for Jim to be right. Every argument against Trump and his policies is not automatically cogent, coherent, correct, etc., even if one hates him.

Lastly, Godwin's law. He loses.

PS - This is getting boring. Unless you can assure me that you're non-partisan, and follow through with it in your arguments, I'm not willing to further discuss this with a proverbial pigeon.

It's the only argument Morgan warrants.

I'm with @Chairman_woo . YES, Hillary was the "lesser of two evils" option.

Maher and the rest are upset because they think that "lesser of two evils" is an overly simplistic take on the actual degree to which either of them would have actually been evil. Fair enough, sorta. Piers Morgan is essentially just arguing semantics while the big picture just sails over everyone's heads.

Trump is a buffoon. A bull in a china shop. YES, he's doing blatantly evil/stupid things. Subtlety is not his forte. When he does bad things, we're going to find out about them.

Hillary is a vastly more savvy politician. Machiavellian, one might say. I think there's a very real argument to be made that her track record of (barely) weaseling out of very questionable actions and generally getting away with stuff that has sunk lots of other politicians suggests that it might be reasonable to be quite afraid of what Hillary has done / could do that we wouldn't find out about.


I'm not pleased with either one of them being the President. But honestly, I think that it will likely be easier to overcome and repair the damage done by "big dumb animal" Trump than it would have been to track down and discover all the cunning little traps, pitfalls, and closed-door deals that a President Hillary could have got done.

"Hillary Clinton was the lesser of two evils...."

I beg your pardon Bill? What part of lesser of two evils was an endorsement for Trump?

If one were to describe Hillary as the lesser evil, would that not effectively be an endorsement? The underlying inference being that Trump was the greater of the two evils surely?

I think I'll just chalk that one up as a brain fart and assume he said it bass aackwards.

Though lets not forget Mrs Sandwitch would have given us TPP and the Syrian no fly zone.

Genuinely struggling to call it between who would have been most disastrous.

Trump was probably worse for America, I suspect Clinton might have been worse for the rest of the world. Not that it matters what any of us think in hindsight.

& yes @LiquidDrift it clearly isn't an actual Muslim ban! The fact that the majority of the worlds Muslim population is not affected by it should probably have been a big clue.

I guess though, given Trumps rhetoric, people can be forgiven for seeing it that way.

But yes it's a list of seven countries compiled by Obamas administration for being hotbeds of terrorism (if not before being bombed, certainly after). Not even close to banning all Muslims from entering the country.

Probably useless and needlessly divisive, but the man does need to at least appear to be fulfilling his campaign promises.

I certainly don't think the Nazi comparisons are at all helpful. There's no shortage of genuine things to attack the man on, hysterical fabrications just make him look right.

You know you're on shaky ground when Piers Morgan is the voice of reason

Your video, Jim Jefferies tells Piers Morgan to Fuck Off, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I can't stand Trump or pretty much any of his policies, and Morgan is a douche, but it's not technically a Muslim ban. It's dumb and won't make us any safer, but it's not a Muslim ban.

For people who are excited by the 9th circuit court victory, it's temporary. Like it or not he has the authority to stop immigration. Sucks but it's true.

Vote in 2018.