Piers Morgan Interviews Dr K
Brendan Kavanagh Reveals Comeback Gig!

Your video, Rachel Parris' take on Piers Morgan's interview with Trump, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 39 Badge!

Congratulations! Your video, She dies a little inside every time Piers Morgan speaks, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 116 Badge!

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah blah blah. His social commentary works much better than his comedy schtick and this interviewer is a scripted, sell-out cunt. Listen to the fucking words being said, A-ten anis and the opinion not unlike the asshole common to all is but another rusty pore at the end of a shit-snake.

Finally, another interviewer who has attended the Piers Morgan institute of wanking cunts. He's a fucking tool with an agenda designed to keep slave-robots in their stupor. Period.

If anything made me believe in god it was that piers morgan is finally going away.

His anti-gun attitude was WAY too extreme and just nonsensical.

Piers Morgan is just a complete tool. -end of rant

Russia Today's Kick Ass News Anchor Talks With Piers Morgan has been added as a related post - related requested by alien_concept on that post.

I really wouldn't be able to pick Piers Morgan out of a line up. I wrote that first comment over a year ago in the immediate aftermath of the Newtown shooting and it was largely a response to the rhetoric pro-gun advocates were displaying all over my Facebook feed.

What I wrote is not at all an over-reaction to what I saw during that time.

Totally normal and sane friends of mine applauded a ten year old girl who shot and killed a home invader, enthusing that this is how America should be.

Totally normal and sane friends of mine waxed romantic about how concealing and carrying a weapon transforms a vanilla suburban dining experience into a potential battlefield. Whereas most people get lost in one of the many flat screen TVs at an Applebees, they spend their time sizing up potential adversaries and keep close tabs on every exit as they feel the reassuring bulge of their Glock at their side.

I totally agree that most of these guys will never end up needing to use their weapons in an adversarial situation, and I totally agree that these guys are responsible gun owners if responsible gun ownership is defined by a safe stewardship of the guns you acquire, but that is not the point that I'm trying to make.

The problem is that these sorts of people and the gun culture they have created has an enormous impact on the type of gun laws we pass. This wouldn't be a problem if they were coming from a place that wasn't obsessive and wasn't paranoid and wasn't delusional, but they are and this is unfortunate because it enables and accentuates much of the violence you lament in inner city culture.

shveddy, dude I think you're over-reacting. Perhaps you've been watching too many Piers Morgan shows.

Yes, the US has a gun culture. The problem with guns is not that people are hoarding them, the problem is that too many people who own them have no respect for other people's lives...that's the black youth culture, which is born out by the number of them who lose their lives every day.

Gun collectors keep their firearms locked up 99% of the time. But to a black youth, a gun is a great equalizer to defend his machismo. It's in their music but there are too many cowards who refuse to address it.