Piers Morgan's final words (This is a great way to end a show)

[Playinghardball]

[etherealtruth]

1. Courage to speak out is sadly lacking

It is very refreshing to hear this spoken

[NuclearDem]

2. May be right about guns, but not sorry to see him go.

[Cha]

73. Piers Morgan is Absolutely RIght about the "guns".

[UTUSN]

3. R#12 & K for, the gunnutters are itching for bloodshed, just a matter of when and where. n/t

[CincyDem]

4. Nothing will change until we value our future more than our guns. n/t

[merrily]

8. Be it guns or warming, the future is in dire need of good lobbyists.

Or courageous politicians.

[CincyDem]

20. Courageous Politicians = oxymoron.

Today's monied class learned well from nico machievelli. Something along the lines of "any idea that threatens a desired status quo must be killed in its crib before it can walk on its own". Not the exact quote but something like that.

Any politician with courage needs to weeded out early in the process - starved out of office at the local, county, and/or state level.

Allowing a true leader into the political process is an unacceptable risk for the monied class.

[merrily]

22. Agreed. Hence the "dire need."

[CincyDem]

45. Yep - should have acknowledged our agreement. Oops. :-) n/t

[merrily]

132. No "should" about it.

You are perfectly entitled to post what you want and only what you want. I was not trying to "should" on you.

[merrily]

28. P.S. Saw a bit about this on the Daily Show a while back.

Defeat at the polls is too often what happens to courage politicians.

http://crookedtimber.org/2012/12/29/banning-guns-the-australian-experience/

Meanwhile, back in the US, Poppy Bush was recently named as a JFK Profiles in Courage recipient. Go figure.

[AAO]

50. "Poppy Bush was recently named as a JFK Profiles in Courage recipient"

OMG. That is truly revolting.

[Samantha]

107. That is revolting but here is something I find equally disturbing

Do you know what the CIA headquarters in Langley has been named?

"The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999* was signed into law by the President on October 20, 1998. Among its provisions, the Act directed that the Headquarters compound of the Central Intelligence Agency located in Langley, Virginia, shall be known and designated as the "George Bush Center for Intelligence.""

https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/todays-cia/george-bush-center-for-intelligence

Other places refer to it as The George HW Bush Center for Central Intelligence. Either way, it is disturbing.

Sam

[AAO]

123. Probably accurate. I think Poppy has a bit of intelligence in is brain stem.

His heart is still beating, so the brain stem must be OK. Then again his wife did give birth to a chimpanzee.

[merrily]

135. Intelligence is not a good thing when used for ill.

If forced to choose between a smart evil person and a dumb evil person, I'd probably choose the latter.

Yes, Dimson did a lot of damage, but remember who his advisors were: Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Condi. Don't know about Condi, but Poppy was the reason that the first three had the positions in Dimson's administration that they had. And, George H.W. was also one of Dimson's advisors, despite news stories trying to imply that Dimson loved his Poppy, but did not think much of his advice.

[MADem]

127. He was a CIA Director--it's not like they named the place after that Dim Son of his.

He also wasn't a stupid man, not by a long shot. I didn't care for his willingness to be politically expedient (Most Obvious Example: witness his flip flop from pro to anti-choice when the vice presidency was dangled before him by Reagan) and some of his POVs were unsavory, but there's a difference between being an idiot and holding views that those of us under the "D" tent feel are important.

From all accounts, he was -- from the CIA perspective -- VERY good for their business. He got them money, he got them clout, he did what needed doing, from the perspective of the agency, to strengthen it.

Makes sense that they'd name the thing after him--they aren't going to name it after someone who opposes the mission of the place, or is a whistleblower.

[Samantha]

129. I knew it was the father but I think in his day he was a very unsavory character

I think it should not have been named after a politician because regardless of who they chose, half the Country would be ticked. Everyone calls it Langley; why couldn't it simply be referred to as that. Many intelligence offices don't have a name posted out front anyway - just an address. Incredible as that seems, it is true.

Sam

[MADem]

130. Personally, I don't think he was much of a politician--I honestly think that was his

cover story and over time it just happened to work out for him.

He did more "business" as the "envoy" to China, at the UN, and at CIA than we could shake a stick at. As RNC chair, he got entree to half the political salons in the nation. None of those jobs required he run a campaign or be elected.

Politics was a means to acquire power, certainly, but I think he felt most at home in the clandestine world.

Everyone I know calls Reagan National Airport "National," except for wingnuts. Yet they call Dulles Airport "Dulles," and not "The inconvenient one that's hard to get to..."

[merrily]

134. Yes, he was, but that doesn't mean they had to name the Center after him.

Or award him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Or invite him to the White House to chat about policy.

[MADem]

137. He's the oldest living President.

He does have experience, having been in the executive branch in elective office for 12 years (eight as veep to a guy with Alzheimer's), and he knows his way around the clandestine services. As I said elsewhere, he got them much more clout and much more budget money--from their perspective, if not those on the outside looking in, he was a top shelf boss--who better to name the nest after, than someone who did such a great job feathering it? Look at the Russell Senate Office Building (SOB) as another example--there was a guy who was a real "SOB," to snark on the theme, and a virulent racist, too, but he was a very strong and forceful leader who left his mark on the Senate during his tenure and well beyond.

I will say that, despite GHWB's shortcomings--and there were many of them throughout his career-- his forcing/foisting Gates as SecDef off on dim son was probably one of his greatest acts of behind-the-scenes pure, unbridled patriotism that the nation didn't see during that horrific era that was the Cowboy Caper Regime. While Gates was by no means sublime, he was an improvement over Rummy The Megalomaniac by a factor of a thousand.

And who's to say you can't learn something from someone with an opposing POV? Listen to his advice....and then do the opposite. Just because someone has an opinion doesn't mean one has to follow along--I doubt POTUS got where he is today by uncoupling his critical thinking skills when he talks to elder statemen.

As for the Presidential Medal of Freedom, every President except Nixon has gotten the thing since it was established by JFK. JFK and LBJ got theirs after they died, but everyone else has been alive for the honor. Many cabinet officials, some clearly undeserving, have gotten the thing as well.

You know, in the military we used to say "Can't give 'em a raise? Give 'em an award." The award could be anything from a letter that said "Yes, you did a good job" to a piece of metal attached to a bit of ribbon.

The medal, in the case of this particular rarified one, can sometimes serve as an inoculation against treating the POTUS awarding it too harshly in any future autobiographies or memoirs...or even TV interviews. That's a not-surprising use of the thing, as well.

[Samantha]

141. Up there with the greatest thing George HW Bush did for George W. Bush* was

convincing him to let Harriet Miers go and replace her with Fred Fielding as White House Counsel. I do believe that was the saving grace that got the son through the last couple of years.

It is true that many Presidents must do certain things out of a commitment to diplomacy, including some things which violate their own personal preferences. I do believe President Obama has often found himself in this very situation and he always appears to simply make the most of it.

I can't wait until he writes his book after he leaves office. And if there is a book signing in DC, I will be there elbowing you for the first spot in line!

Sam

[MADem]

142. I think Obama has plenty to say, and I agree, his book will be a barn burner.

I wonder if he'll make note of some of the most egregiously offensive crap he took, or he'll just brush it off. It'll be a good read, in any event.

[merrily]

143. Oh, please.

[MADem]

144. Please and thank you...

What did I say that was untrue? Oh please as a response is laziness. If you've got objections, articulate them.

Or not.

[merrily]

145. Not laziness, but self-restraint and wisdom.

[MADem]

147. From where I sit, it's more like "non - responsive" and "snarky." nt

[merrily]

136. That was Clinton. Obama has done his

bit in trying to rehabilitate both the Presidents Bush, especially Poppy.

Having run against Dimson as he did in 2008 (in campaign verbiage, if not in historical fact), it would mbe hard for him to do a lot to rehab Dimson, though there have been some gestures, such as sending him off to Haiti with Bubba and a lot of media fanfare; calling him first after Osama swam with the fishes (and making sure the media got that tidbit); a joint visit to Fort Hood, a lot of warm photo ops. And, of course, joining Pelosi in cleaning tables. I guess fully rehabbing Dimson will fall to a future President, though.

As to Poppy, though, Obama awarded him the Presidential medal of freedom and word is that Poppy Bush and Obama visit with each other fom time to time for private discussions.

http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1930673,00.html

Meanwhile, Carter has claimed in TV interviews that Obama has never contacted him for that kind of advice. (I wonder if Obama contacted Carter after Carter's grandson's involvement in that speech about takers that Romney made to his fundraisers, not knowing the bartender was recording it on his phone? That seemed to me like an important event in the 2012 Obama Romney campaign, but, that is neither here nor there, of course

[whathehell]

117. Ewww...That is revolting..

especially given the speculation of his involvement with his death. Sickening.

[merrily]

133. The Presidential Medal of Freedom was more revolting, IMO.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/15/AR2011021501479.html

Even though it is named after a former President's book (with help from Ted Sorensen), the Kennedy award is only the opinion of what is now a privately run organization The Presidential Medal of Freedom, on the other hand, is awarded on behalf of the nation.

[MADem]

146. You are mistaken.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Medal_of_Freedom

It is awarded by the President. The President picks the winners. The President nominates people for the award. A board chaired by the OPM director also nominates people for the President's consideration; the President can yea or nay them as he or she sees fit.

This isn't "The People's Choice" poll--the Congressional medal would probably be closer to that, as award of that medal requires a vote of elected representatives. The people on that board aren't elected; they're using their best judgment. So's the POTUS. It's entirely personal, and a perk of the office of POTUS.

As I said elsewhere, GHWB talking to Sonny Boy and twisting his arm to persuade him to dump Rummy and put Gates (the only alternative that would have passed GOP muster) in the SECDEF job was, in and of itself, a supremely patriotic act that may have kept us from WW3. It certainly saved the lives of many servicemembers, of that I have no doubt.

For that alone, give him the bit of ribbon and tin.

[merrily]

150. The fact that you misrepresent my post does not = my being mistaken.

No one said it was a poll or a people's choice award, least of all me.

[MADem]

151. I didn't misrepresent your post--you have been non-responsive at best in this exchange.

Snark-and-run doesn't cut it, and I'll point it out.

You said:

The Presidential Medal of Freedom, on the other hand, is awarded on behalf of the nation.

It's not--it is awarded on behalf of the PRESIDENT. It is his/her award; his/her opinion on who is deserving, and who is not. Director OPM (who is not elected by anyone in "the nation&quot makes recommendations with the help of a board, but the decision as to who gets the prize rests with POTUS and POTUS alone.

It's a "Presidential" -- not a "behalf of the nation" award.

[merrily]

154. I did not snark. You have. I've said what I said without a trace of sarcasm.

I have been brief for the reasons I said before. Also because, like everyone, I make choices about how I prefer to spend my posting time.

It's you who is mistaken. It's not the Barack Obama award. The President, when acting as President, i.e., in his official capacity, acts on behalf of the nation. He does not do anything in his official capacity as an individual, but as head of the nation, be it sending a drone or holding an awards ceremony in his official capacity in the White House with a medal we paid for, all on our dime, except as the head of, and on behalf of, the nation, as the agent of the nation, the human through which the nation is acting. It doesn't mean we all have to agree.

Moreover, my saying he did something on behalf of the nation does not equal my implying that a poll was taken or that a people's choice award was being given, as in voting for one's favorite TV or film actor. That was you snarking in an attempt to diminish what I said. And, yes, that was a mischaracterization of my post.

Beyond all the above, the only point of my having said any of that at all was that the President's giving an award says more than some private foundation doing that. If you disagree with the actual point, as opposed to attempting, albeing incorrectly, nitpicking my wording, I will have no words.

[MADem]

155. Again, you are mistaken. The POTUS has absolute discretion to award that prize to

the persons of HIS choosing. His total, absolute, line-item discretion makes that HIS award. He can award it to people for whom the nation harbors a strong dislike, and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it. There's no "take-backsies," and no "do-overs," and there's no overruling oversight, either.

See, that's why Kissinger and Rummy got awards from Gerald Ford. Unlikely a Democratic President would have included those two on their lists; it's also why no Republican President ever thought it was worthwhile to include someone like Ted Kennedy or John Lewis on their lists.

It is the "Presidential" award, and for now, anyway, "Barack Obama" is the President.

He makes the picks.

He's "the decider."

Not you.

Not me.

"...the President's giving an award..." means that this particular President --the person of Barack H. Obama, specifically -- thought that the person receiving the medal had done something meriting the parameters of the award.

You can try to make this about me all you want, but that's just a distraction. I've told you what the process is for choosing the recipients--that's not 'nitpicking,' that's the established procedure. The President chooses his picks, and, additionally, a board (chaired by the appointed director at OPM) provides him with a list of recommendations, that POTUS can accept or reject at his pure and unadulterated discretion. Indeed, for a brief period of time, Jimmy Carter abolished the "board" entirely and went with his own gut; JC's one fault was a tendency to micromanage--he eventually corrected that and placed the "making suggestions" job at OPM (not with Congress or any elected officials, for that matter).

It's a perk of office, much like the ability to pardon people (which isn't put to a vote, either). It's one of the few "regal" vestiges of our republic.

[merrily]

156. Again, I never said he did not have discretion to make the choice.

Please stop refuting things I never said.

You can try to make this about me all you want, but that's just a distraction.

LOL, you are the one who made it about me.

[MADem]

157. You asserted the award was given "on behalf of the nation."

"The nation" has no input into the recipients of the award. It's the POTUS's decision. It is an award "bestowed by the President of the United States."

It is, as I will say again, a "perk" of office.

Your words:

The Presidential Medal of Freedom, on the other hand, is awarded on behalf of the nation.


LOL all you want; that it is awarded by the President (not the nation) is the bottom line.

[merrily]

158. Sigh. The nation has no input into most of the things that elected representatives do

on behalf of the nation. Is this news to anyone? It is the essence of, well, representative government.

Obama has no right to cause taxpayers to incur expense to pay for things that he does unless he is doing them on behalf of the nation. He represents the nation whenever he acts in his official capacity, which is as President.

I am sorry, but this is so basic it does not even warrant discussion. I also note you continue to ignore the basic point that his doing something as President make more of a statement than the Profiles in Courage awarders doing something via the Library, or whichever vehicle they use. Exactly that kind of posting tactic is an example of why I don't prefer to engage in long discussions with you.

Here's another example, a twofer in fact:

LOL all you want; that it is awarded by the President (not the nation) is the bottom line.

As you well know, I LOL'd at your claim that I had tried to make the discussion about you when it was you who went ad hom in your very first reply to me. Also, for the third time you are refuting something I never said.

I never said the nation made the award. We don't make any of them, not the Presidential Medal, nor the Congressional Medal. Among other things, the nation can't fit into the White House and the medal is far too small for 350 million pairs of hands to fumble with. Nor are we ever polled as to who should receive the medals. (Where you even got that concept is beyond me. They don't even poll us before they send our kids and money to war, let alone as to who should receive a medal.)

However, those awards are made on behalf of the nation. Our representatives, when acting in their official capacity as our representatives, are supposedly representing us. They have no right to do otherwise or to spend our money on anything else. So, unless you have a receipt showing Barack Obama paid for everything connected with the award, including use of the white house and striking of the medal, he used the money of the nation on behalf of the nation, as he has a right to only when acting on behalf of the nation. I have no idea why you are denying that truism, let alone why you distort what I post in order to deny it. What do you think you are winning or accomplishing anyway?

And now, maybe you understand why I deemed briefer replies to your first few posts were the better part of wisdom. I don't see a lot of good faith discussion tactics. And, since you prefer to refute the straw men of your creation to responding to my actual comments, acknowledging my actual point, or admitting to what is patently and fundamentally true about public officials, my attempted involvement in this colloquy seems superfluous. In any event, I am out.

ETA: How I wish that I had stuck to my initial resolve not to get sucked into this kind of "discussion."

[MADem]

159. What? We petition our representatives to create laws that benefit us. That IS how the system works.

Maybe you don't use that system, but I sure do. That's what the whole "lobbying" system is about as well, and why we can't get lobbyists out of government.

We have a right to petition our legislators for redress, for legislative relief.

It's up to us to use that right.

Or not.

Those awards, though, are made solely because the President feels those people deserve them. Not because "the nation" feels the same way.

That's the aspect you gloss over, while you try to insist that there's a national element of consensus or approval or "In Our Name" action behind these things. One more time, since you keep skipping the point--they are a perk of office, a prerogative. That's why they are called "Presidential" and not "National" medals. They do not express any will or sense of the nation, no more than a Presidential pardon does (we pay for the paper, the legal research, the salaries of those who work up those pardons, too--so not sure why you find it salient that the government pays for the medals, as though that means we impart our national stamp of approval on the selections by shelling out for them). They are, in every respect, a "personal" award.

I doubt Cap "Iran Contra/I'll take you all down with me" Weinberger would have gotten an award if it had been left up to "We, The People." He probably wouldn't have gotten a Presidential pardon, either, if "We, The People" had any say. Dick Myers, W's JCS Chair, was widely regarded as incompetent and a rubber stamp, yet he waddled away with one in his pointless re-designed uniform, courtesy of the Shrub.

FWIW, those aren't "straw men," they're called "examples."

This isn't about "good faith" or "straw men" or any of those discussion-derailing distractions. This is about a quirky thing that is what it is--a Presidential perk, a vestige from the former motherland, a bit of kingly (or queenly) power of decree.

Nothing less ... but nothing more, either.

[irisblue]

63. What the heck?

I can and do respect his service in WW2, getting shot down and bobbing in the Pacific counts for a lot by me. Otherwise, no

[burrowowl]

69. Revolting!

[AndyTiedye]

40. Courageous Politician = Former Politician or Late Politician

They either run them out of office with a flood of corporate cash, or...

or

[valerief]

43. ^^^THIS^^^. nt

[CincyDem]

44. Bingo. n/t

[Duppers]

47. Truth!

Armed militia even backed down the BLM feds!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024816638

[BlueStreak]

17. Who is the "we". The real "we" needs to understand how we are being manipulated

There are relatively few real gun crazies. Sure, a lot of Americans own guns, and do so responsibly. They aren't the ones blocking the gun law modernization.

There is a small number of aristocrats that are in control here, and that is no different from any other period in American history. What may be a little different is the evolution of political science. While advances in communication have allowed the the public to get an occasional glimpse behind the curtain, the oligarchs have refined their manipulation tactics to retain power even when we actually come somewhat close to the electoral ideals in the Constitution (ignoring that male-only 3/5 person stuff.)

What we have seen for 50 years now is a highly optimized machine to divide the public into splinters, creating enough noise that there is never sufficient focus on the really important issues. Of course, it helps that they have bought virtually all of the "major media" in the past 15 years. They splinter the public with fears about guns, with threats that religion is under attack, with false propositions that zygotes should have the same rights as people and so on. And they prey upon the stupidest among us with their self-serving (and highly profitable) nonsense about climate change, health care, and economics.

Even with all these efforts, they have been able to cling to only a 50.5% or 51% electoral majority at the national level at best. Not even that, actually. Despite massive election rigging, they won a Presidential majority only one time int he past 6 elections, and they lost the House popular vote by 1,000,000. So we are actually way past the 50% point that should have put these people out of business.

It is not smart to allow ourselves to be distracted by the wedge issues. We need to go after the oligarchs directly for the crimes they commit, the unearned wealth they extract from the system THEY have imposed on us, and the pain and suffering they have visited on the 99%. If we do that, the wedge issues will take care of themselves. If the oligarchs were not in a position to gin up dissent about guns, we would pass sensible gun legislation and everybody would see that the world doesn't end because we have an effective screening process, for example.

So I wish that Mr. Morgan, rather than reinforcing the wedge, would have used his moment to address the real issue. But maybe he is actually on the same team as the oligarchs. Ya think?

[dreamnightwind]

68. Excellent

Pretty much says it, well done.

From what I've seen, getting to the heart of the matter rather than the wedge issues is the line a corporate media person is not allowed to cross. On MS-NBC they had people like Olbermann (debatable as to which side of that line he was on), Cenk and Dylan, all gone. The people who focus on wedge issues are still there.

The 2-party horse race stuff is all good as far as the powers that be are concerned, a spirited debate within acceptable parameters is a good way to draw in viewers and deliver them to advertisers, which is what it's all about. Those that value their careers know better than to get too close to issues that address the real problems we face.

So it's up to us to recognize this and focus on the men behind the curtain.

[BlueStreak]

95. "a spirited debate within acceptable parameters"

In other words, kabuki theater - a bit of theater to try to convince the public that they actually have a voice in the process.

And as long as the acceptable parameters are observed, the oligarchs win either way. People like Rachael might push the limits of these acceptable parameters, and I think we have to respect her for doing that, because she is surely under great pressure to draw back.

But when it really hit close to home -- with the Occupy Movement -- we saw very clearly where those acceptable parameters were. Anything remotely in support of OWS was strictly taboo on every major media outlet.

[Demo_Chris]

116. Great post. nt

[pragmatic_dem]

99. You are right about this - people have so little faith in the integrity of government...

that they want their guns in case they have to take matters into their own hands. You know, the shoot yourself by your own bootstraps mentality.

To be fair, neither party has proven to be honest enough to win the trust of the American people. Politics has become a dirty corrupt game of lies protecting the lies protecting the lies.

The people who are the most successful have become that way by breaking the law or behaving in unethical and immoral ways to gain advantage over people.

Our role models are Bill Gates - billions in anti-trust fines, ruthlessly struck deals with distributors to put smaller competitors out of business, stiffing innovation for a generation.

The list goes on from Wall Street crooks to corrupt police, Congressmen and Senators, corporate CEOs and university Presidents, from CIA to NSA.

Guns are a problem because our government has failed to earn the trust of its citizens. And in fact, it's getting harder and harder to argue with the gun nuts because, who can you really trust in local or federal government?

I argued when NSA spying scandal broke out, it would set back serious gun control for another decade.

It was a serious violation of trust.

[grahamhgreen]

5. Kick

[billh58]

9. The Google is

your friend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Morgan

[2banon]

14. yes. it is. Apparently he was hired by the "Liberal Democrats" in March 2014. as a Media Consultant.

Which would be last month according my Google Calendar. That would be in the U.K.

Thanks for the snarky response. I'll try and remember your addy for future reference.

[billh58]

16. Meh n/t

[ChisolmTrailDem]

10. You purposely ignored him and everyone else on TV and then you want SOMEONE ELSE

to write up a summation for you?

Check Wikipedia or the British tabloid phone-tapping scandal and do your own homework.

[2banon]

19. I just said, I don't HAVE CABLE. Unbelievably nasty responses for simple question

Unbelievably nasty responses for a simple question. I get that people hate him, I just didn't know why. But nevermind, I'm sure Wiki will explain to me why DU members hate this guy.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

27. Fair enough. My apologies for sounding snarky, I was really just going for matter-of-fact. Many

people here brag haughtily how they don't have cable, as if they are better for it.

Seems I may have misinterpreted the "I don't have cable" part of your comment. If you don't have cable and think you're better than everybody because of it, that's one thing. Not having it because it's financially prohibitive is quite another. I assumed the former and commented before considering the latter.

Again, my apologies.

[2banon]

32. apology accepted.

Wiki tells me, he's not really an important figure.. I needn't have clicked the OP in the first place.. Just thought his commentary regarding the Gun Culture here was something I agree with, wondered why everyone here hates him. Wikipedia doesn't shed much light there as it turns out. I checked wiki after posting my initial query. My Bad.

[2banon]

26. I see.. the guy's a POS, and really not worth a single keystroke. Got it.

[IDemo]

11. I don't know who Pierce Morgan is, either

Maybe he's a tattoo artist?

[MADem]

138. Piers has had a varied career--he worked as a newspaper editor for Murdoch for years.

He was a judge for Britain's Got Talent, and he took Larry King's gig too. I don't think 'integrity' is his middle name.

A bit of background: http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2012/11/piers-morgan-criticized-hated-than-ignored

[IDemo]

139. I know all about him

My reply was in jest to the "Pierce" misspelling by the previous poster.

[MADem]

140. Ah, I see--the other post went poof, so I had no frame of reference..! nt

[billh58]

7. K&R

Piers is only saying what most civilized people already know and agree with. The right-wing gun lobby uses the Second Amendment as a marketing tool to sell more guns, and has absolutely no concerns about where they end up.

[oneofthe99]

12. So they finally canceled his show?

His viewer ratings were always low .
The only time they spiked up when he started talking about gun control after Newtown.

The guy was pretty much a one trick pony.

I'm not disagreeing with his statement mind you just that I never thought he was a good interviewer
They can find someone more deserving to host a show at that time slot.

He should stick to American idol or some other such nonsense show.

[Kingofalldems]

13. Are you a gun fancier?

[oneofthe99]

15. What does that mean?

[Kingofalldems]

18. Do you own and enjoy guns?

[oneofthe99]

29. No I don't have any

[Hip_Flask]

92. Seems to have shut him right up...

[AtheistCrusader]

100. I do, and Piers Morgan is a huge piece of shit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/14/piers-morgan-police-phone-hacking_n_4787776.html

[NuclearDem]

25. You don't have to be a 2A supporter to take issue with Piers Morgan.

His treatment of Janet Mock is enough for me.

[2banon]

21. Thank you, your comments help shed some light on a trivial curiosity.

[oneofthe99]

31. No problem , I was a little surprised that right away someone asked me

if I was a gun fancier because I didn't like his style of interviewing .

Now I know what is meant when asked what a gun fancier is on DU.

[MADem]

131. He most assuredly had more than one trick.

He was up to his ass in the News of the World Murdoch phone hacking scandal. He got out of town in the nick o'time. Here's a few articles that elucidate at this link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/piers-morgan-phone-hacking-scandal

[Jenoch]

23. I don't think this makes me

a xenophobe, but I did not care enough about Morgan to watch his show too often.

He got fired from his newspaper positions for ethical violations. He bought a newspaper and went bankrupt. He had a political show in Britain and was fired/cancelled because of low ratings. He was fired/cancelled by CNN for low ratings.

[Ron Obvious]

24. And yet he proudly calls himself a Gunner

And was almost certainly cheering when those Gunners overcame Wigan yesterday to book a place in the FA cup final!

Bloody hypocrite!

[Nye Bevan]

30. I don't especially like him, but he absolutely nailed it here (nt)

[tooeyeten]

33. Piers nailed it about the USA

The House is under GOP control, risking an increase in 2014, and possible takeover in the Senate, and woe to us a d democracy if it happens. The crazies are in charge from the aristocracy to the guy with the sign at a tea party gathering, "Hans off my guns" and "don't mess with my Social Security and Medicare." The drama and the risk to public health through gun violence will therefore continue because the white GOP will continue to claim gun massacres are few and far between and all those "other" people are shooting and killing each other because of "drugs"-- or in other words "not my problem."

[ErikJ]

34. Shows how little we've advanced culturally since colonial days.

[tolkien90]

39. Since when...

Is making certain segments of the population more vulnerable to bigger and stronger men considered a cultural advancement?

[cui bono]

106. What the hell does that mean? n/t

[moondust]

35. British common sense on guns

was too much for a gun-crazed American TV audience. I'd bet he got lots of death threats from the gun wackos.

[tooeyeten]

36. Extremely likely n/t

[tolkien90]

37. New Hampshire has a lower homicide rate than the UK

[img][/img]

[moondust]

38. Got a link?

Or did you pull that out of your ass?

[Go Vols]

41. libertarian site

http://libertarianhome.co.uk/2012/12/uk-murder-rate-higher-than-some-us-states/

[moondust]

53. The comments at that site

pretty well discredit the graph.

[joeglow3]

120. The root source is FBI statistics

[MADem]

149. Why am I not surprised? nt

[Duppers]

46. was curious too

Poster could have found it here, according to Google:
http://libertarianhome.co.uk/2012/12/uk-murder-rate-higher-than-some-us-states/

[passiveporcupine]

56. Don't you know how to

check the source of an image from it's address?

Perhaps you could do that before jumping all over someone who forgets to post a link.

[moondust]

58. Don't you know

the rules of the road on the Internet? New to this stuff are ya?

When posting graphs or statistics it is obligatory to post a link to the source. Often it is propagandists who don't.

[passiveporcupine]

60. In this case you could be right

As s/he seems to be advocating for guns, however, I'm not sure you should assume a forgotten link is deliberate.

I know you are "supposed" to provide links, but we are human, not machines. I've forgotten a link a time or two.

[irisblue]

64. tolkien, I missed the connection

of Piers Morgan and New Hampshire in this thread, would you explain it to me? and welcome to DU.

[MADem]

148. New Hampshire doesn't have "urban" areas. Even Concord and Manchester

could pass for what are called "towns" in more populated places.

There are 63 million+ people living in UK. There's 1.3 million in NH.

UK: 94,058 sq miles

NH: 9,350 sq miles

Acre for acre, the people in NH are far less compressed than those in UK. That could well be a factor, too.

[Arugula Latte]

42. It's not just the NRA, though.

It's the millions of gun humpers in this country who don't care at all about untold carnage and dead children.

[tolkien90]

48. Children are significantly more likely to die in a swimming pool as opposed to by a gun

Where's your advocacy for banning swimming pools?

[moondust]

49. Got a link?

Or did you pull that one out of your ass, too?

[4lbs]

96. The fact that you linked the National Review, a Conservative Right Wing Pro NRA magazine

says a lot.

[Arugula Latte]

52. Shouldn't you be fondling your gun now? I think it's lonely.

[NYC Liberal]

55. Is the primary purpose of swimming pools to

injure or kill, or threaten people with such? No? Then that's an absurd comparison.

[moondust]

57. Exactly.

Lots of bad things can happen to kids without proper supervision. How many kids die falling out of trees and hit by cars? That's why they put childproof caps on household chemicals. I wonder why they don't put childproof and "thiefproof" locks on guns (i.e. owner recognition technology)?

[Hip_Flask]

93. I've never understood this point...

Is someone more or less dead if the instrument that led to their demise was intended for such a purpose?

[NYC Liberal]

94. No but the issue is regulation and/or banning.

And somehow there is much less debate over regulation of things like swimming pools. Most people accept that potentially dangerous things like cars, prescription drugs, etc should be strictly regulated. Yet a good number of people think that guns -- the PRIMARY purpose of which is to injure or kill -- should not be regulated as strictly.

[The Straight Story]

124. A few things

Pools/knives/power tools/etc all have about the same rate of death/injuries associated with them - less than one percent (the # of people that own them and how many accidents/deaths relating to them), same as guns.

Regulations relating to cars covers driving them on public roads. You can own a car, even a not-street-legal one, and have it on your property if you like.

Guns are pretty much the same - you can own them. What people do with them in a public way is where regulation can come in to play (and does). How you transport them on a public road is an example of something to regulate. Too often we have people wanting to regulate and heavily restrict what people can do (or own) on their property/home. When less than one percent of people are a problem when it comes to guns the focus should be on why/what are the causes that causes such issues with that group.

The US has a higher rate of violent crime than other first world countries. Countries with the highest gun ownership rates and strict laws have lower crime rates than other countries - except in the US.

From another post of mine:

Country/guns per capita:

United States 89.0 1
Serbia 58.2 2 37.8
Yemen 54.8 3
Switzerland 45.7 4
Finland 45.3 5 32
Cyprus 36.1 6
Saudi Arabia 35 7
Iraq 34.2 8
Uruguay 31.8 9
Sweden 31.6 10
Norway 31.3 11
France 31.2 12
Canada 30.8 13
Austria 30.4 14
Germany 30.3 15
Iceland 30.3 15
Oman 25.5 17
Bahrain 24.8 18
Kuwait 24.8 18

Murder rate:

Country / rate / count / region
Honduras 91.6 7,104 Americas Central America
El Salvador 69.2 4,308 Americas Central America
Ivory Coast 56.9 10,801 Africa Western Africa
Venezuela 45.1 13,080 Americas South America
Belize 41.4 129 Americas Central America
Jamaica 40.9 1,125 Americas Caribbean
U.S. Virgin Islands 39.2 43 Americas Caribbean
Guatemala 38.5 5,681 Americas Central America
Saint Kitts and Nevis 38.2 20 Americas Caribbean
Zambia 38.0 4,710 Africa Eastern Africa
Bahamas 36.6 127 Americas Caribbean
Uganda 36.3 11,373 Africa Eastern Africa
Malawi 36.0 5,039 Africa Eastern Africa
Lesotho 35.2 764 Africa Southern Africa
Trinidad and Tobago 35.2 472 Americas Caribbean
South Africa 31.8 15,940 Africa Southern Africa
Colombia 31.4 14,746+ Americas South America
Congo 30.8 1,180 Africa Middle Africa
Central African Republic 29.3 1,240 Africa Middle Africa
Puerto Rico 26.2 983 Americas Caribbean

[tolkien90]

104. What difference does it make?

No really, what difference does it make?

As far as humans and the US goes, more than 99% of firearms will never hurt, injure, or threaten anyone.

[Blaukraut]

125. But killing something or someone is the ONLY purpose for a firearm

A pool, on the other hand, serves a few other purposes - like SWIMMING, for one.

[passiveporcupine]

59. Now you are starting to earn the snark

Straw man does not serve you well in debate.

[DanTex]

61. You're doing it all wrong.

You're supposed to go to the gungeon first and build up your post count before you start trolling in GD. Here, I'll help you out.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172

[irisblue]

67. A Bushmaster used on a little kid

leaves almost nothing recognizable. A pool isn't gonna do that.
I don't think your analogy is working

[savalez]

119. You could've stopped at "I'm confused". n/t

[LeftishBrit]

51. I agree with Morgan about guns, but that's about ALL I would say on his behalf

British tabloid journalists are not good people.

[hughee99]

62. A nice closing, but I'm a little surprised he didn't go into the dangers of the NSA

and other people listening in on your phone conversations and messages. It would seem to be more his area of expertise.

[Skittles]

65. it is indeed shameful

and F*** the gun humping cowards on DU - F*** THEM ALL

[aikoaiko]

74. Why be so subtle?

Multiple use of asterisks -- now that's telling them.

[Skittles]

76. I temper it for the more sensitive DUers

not for those f***ing cowards

[hack89]

78. I love good theater. Nt

[Skittles]

81. it's much better minus the hacks

[hack89]

82. Yours is still my favorite act

You are entertaining.

[Skittles]

83. glad you find calling out cowards entertaining

now off you go

[hack89]

84. Not that.

The cussing, the bluster, the tough person image - you have crafted a good internet persona.

[Skittles]

86. it's strange

I have work / home / internet personas that vary widely

[hack89]

88. That's the beauty of discussion boards

People are complex creatures - the internet allows one to cater to all their interest, dreams or desires.

[boston bean]

66. He's right, and it makes me ill. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

70. That seems an odd assumption for anyone with a passing familiarity with American history.

If the long sequence of mass shootings up to that point hadn't lead to any change, why would those ones?

He's right that it's shameful, though.

[Avalux]

71. When, in modern times, have 20 babies been gunned down in their school??

I thought surely, the crime was so fucking horrific that something would shift and people (no matter politics), would come together and work towards gun control.

NOPE.

I think Piers has captured the sentiment of many of us who are fed up. Don't particularly like him, but he speaks the truth.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

111. Columbine leaps to mind. N.T.

[Avalux]

118. BABIES.

Yes I know, it shouldn't make a difference what age, but when 5 and 6 year olds are slaughtered, the emotional outcry is more intense, which I thought would precipitate change.

[Cha]

72. JHC, Piers Morgan Said IT! Thank You, Sir!

Thanks Play~

[agbdf]

75. We Democrats shouldn't be seen as supporting Morgan

In 1993, when we controlled the House, Senate and White House, a simple, just and very reasonable ban on the importation and manufacture of assault rifles was passed through our Democratic Congress and signed by one of our great Presidents - Bill Clinton. A year later, the Republicans swept the House and Senate away from us (largely on this one issue) and therefore, substantially reduced the ability of President Clinton to get anything done.

All the polls show Piers Morgan is not popular with most Americans and has sky high negatives. This is why he lost his show - dismal ratings. We would be wise to distance ourselves from him while making our case to the American people for sensible gun controls.

[Hip_Flask]

115. Good intentions count now...

[Calista241]

77. watched his show once.

Last edited Sun Apr 13, 2014, 08:26 PM - Edit history (1)

The only time i ever watched his show was when he interviewed Rachel Jeantel.

And oftentimes, when people want a "courageous" politician, they want someone to do something that they want and that goes against the will of the majority. And "courageous" goes both ways. How would you like it if a group of "courageous" politicians got together and banned abortion? Or repealed health care, or fucked up any other useful gov't programs.

Me, I want my politicians to do exactly what I voted for them to do.

[cspanlovr]

79. The corrupting influence of money on our politicians is the reason for it all.

[Skip Intro]

80. No Piers, the PEOPLE rejected gutting the 2nd Amendment, just like they rejected you.

but don't let the door hitting you in the ass on your way out stop you from exploiting a tragedy one last time...

[BlancheSplanchnik]

85. very very serious kick and rec.

very.

[obxnacy]

89. missing piers

one of the few with the courage to take on the nra bastards, and cnn folded under the pressure. i will miss his strength and honesty most of all. best wishes piers!!!! good luck - this country just lost an honest person.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

90. Meh... Nothing more than a piece of shit used car salesman...

Seriously, though... Not but 2 weeks ago, this asshat was DERIDED on DU. Now, he makes anti-gun sentiment, and DU PRAISES him!

Because Democrats LOVE Republican ideals (ie, Brady Campaign). Except we don't. RKBA is a PART of the Democratic platform.

DISCLOSURE: I don't own guns (minus a couple old BB and pellet guns). They're too expensive, and the money spent on them I could easily spend on more guitars and amps and what now... Things I actually enjoy.

[alp227]

126. That was because Piers was being a transphobe.

http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/02/05/op-ed-janet-mock-slams-piers-morgan-transphobic-questions-tweets

[Dr Hobbitstein]

128. So, 3 cheers for transphobes

so long as they hate guns?

I wonder what would happen on DU if Woody Allen came out in favor of gun control...
Or if Olive Garden came out in favor of gun control...
Or pitbulls.

[Hip_Flask]

91. Don't let the door hit your untalented ass on the way out...

Lordy but that guy was physically uncomfortable to watch...

[VScott]

101. The coward isn't going anywhere soon.

He lacks the acumen, spine and common decency to leave this country for good...

In conclusion, I can spare those Americans who want me deported a lot of effort by saying this: If you don’t change your gun laws to at least try to stop this relentless tidal wave of murderous carnage, then you don’t have to worry about deporting me.

Although I love the country as a second home and one that has treated me incredibly well, I would, as a concerned parent first – and latterly, of a one-year-old daughter who may attend an American elementary school like Sandy Hook in three years’ time – seriously consider deporting myself.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2254758/Piers-Morgan-Deport-If-America-wont-change-crazy-gun-laws-I-deport-myself.html

I fear that, we might be stuck with him for awhile.

[Iggo]

98. He ain't wrong.

[Heidi]

108. Kick, kick, kick!

[Packerowner740]

109. Amen.

[Recursion]

110. Give up the "assault weapon" idiocy. Push for universal background checks, over and over

and over again, until the numbers finally line up. Next step, licensure. Next step, gun registration. It will take a while, but that's the way to go.

Or, focus on another issue. The gun death rate is down by 60% in the last 20 years (there's actually a lower absolute number of gun homicides today than in 1994, even, and an American was more likely to be shot by someone else in 1914 than 2014).

But if we want as a party to move forward on this issue rather than retreat, I can't stress how essential it is to stop writing stupid laws. Don't ban a gun based on the shape of its grip or its capacity to carry a bayonet. And, seriously, stop trying to ban brand names of guns. This is the only subject on which I see otherwise smart people support such an incredibly stupid idea.

Suicides with handguns. That's over 2/3rds of gun deaths right now. What part of our party platform addresses either component of that? Is there any other policy on which we'd accept our party only looking at 1/3rd of the problem (and, frankly, less than that -- we actually come across as only caring about random mass shootings, which are so small a part of the problem that you can't even do math about them).

[Recursion]

114. Well, tough shit. We're going to get background checks.

Yes, I know the potential horror stories. That means when you give your daughter or your nephew your old shotgun, they have to go through a background check. Tough shit. Treat it like a car.

In fact, this can become a rite of passage. At 13 or so, kids can go get (entirely optional, to start with) firearms licenses, which make gifts and purchases easy-peasy.

[LW1977]

121. Right on about the guns

[Initech]

122. Fuck the NRA!!!!!

[randys1]

152. Constitution requires guns be militia use only

Our country is broken as I have said, and one of the fixes has to be applying the constitution correctly, guns, all of them, are in locked up militia facilities, end of story.

This insanity must end but it will not, our interpretation of our laws or the application of them are based on what is good for Wall Street and little else.

[Jgarrick]

153. As you yourself point out, there isn't the slightest chance of your "fix" ever coming to pass, so...