Why are we concerned with Piers Morgan? He's a talk show host. His job is to rile people up. If we let him rile us up, he wins and more people will watch his show to find out how it all turns out. Don't we as conservatives have something better to do? Like get anti-establishment conservatives in public office and institute Congressional term limits?
Mr. McNally is not the only Brit who cut Morgan down to size, literally:
who really cares where he came from, or what rock he crawled out from under.... just as long as he goes back.... OH WAIT !!! his own birth country doesnt want him ... its really pathetic that his birth country has to petition another country to not deport him back to their country...
I disagree. I could care less whether Morgan gets higher ratings and accomplishes his goal of integrating himself into the liberal elite media circle.
I've seen recently a new mantra of we can't just preach to the choir. CNN is watched by liberal viewers so any conservative or pro-gun advocate on the show at least gives some form of information to these viewers. We need to get the message out where ever possible. Of course it will be lied about and vilified but that hasn't stopped Hannity, Levin or Rush has it. Now is not the time to take our toys and go home because the liberal media is unfair. Of course they're trying to use us so we need to try and turn that to our advantage.
Embarrassing as it is to admit it, I watch this guys show on occasion. While surfing channels during commercials I find myself stopping at his show if he has a conservative political figure on.....they eat him up every time. I give him credit for the amount of right wing politicians/figures he interviews even though he takes a beating doing so, he keeps them coming. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to bust him in his sneering puss often but he is much more palatable than any of the mslsd hosts who haven't got the balls to interview conservatives with any regularity if at all. His interviews and stances taken provide his conservative guests many chances to blow holes in the progressive agenda. Another of his ilk is the ole hag Behar, nothing like an under informed ego maniac lib peppering a conservative with ill informed statements, only to be blown out of the water with solid facts and history. Morgan to me is a useful idiot.
That is not his real name:
Piers Stefan Pughe-Morgan as he calls himself nowadays, was born Piers Stefan O'Meara on 30 March 1965. You might know he'd be hyphenated...most leftist Brits are, and many progressivist Americans are also affecting hyphens.
He was a British Tabloid writer....a gossip-mongering hack.
"Morgan has written eight books, including three volumes of memoirs." How like a leftist, how Obamesque.
Not Pulitzer Prize material, but he might get a Nobel Peace Prize any day now, the way things stand with that group.
From the tabloids and gossip-mongering, he went on to the next stage of faux journalism propagandizing on television:
"In 2003, he presented a three-part television documentary series for the BBC titled The Importance of Being Famous, about fame and the manner in which celebrities are covered by modern media." [...] In 8 September 2008, a new series started, The Dark Side of Fame with Piers Morgan. Perfect bookends.
So why'd Piers O'Meara come to the US? He jumped from 'Britian's Got Talent' to 'America's Got Talent' to being named as the replacement for 'Larry King Live.'
How did he move up so fast...some say connections with Rupert Murdoch whom Piers 'Morgan' defended against phone-hacking charges.
Funny, but it seems that I've been seeing "Piers Morgan" and "wanker" in the same sentence a lot lately. Coincidence? I think not.
Quote: "Morgan is no liberal; he has no discernible political philosophy. He’s an unprincipled, relentlessly self-promoting opportunist, a disgraced tabloid hack who doesn’t care whom he offends or how foolish he looks as long as he’s the center of attention."
Everyone has a philosophy. It's just that they may not know it, and it may not be easily apparent.
Most people gain a philosophy by collecting philosophical detritus from the cultural atmosphere. Only a handful of people actually sit down and figure out what philosophy they want to follow.
This is why most people harbor philosophical contradictions, hypocrisies, bad logic and a mixed economy of some evil views and some good views.
I agree with everything Mike McNally has written - every word is true. He should've mentioned that P.Morgan was also 'friends' with cherie, the wife of Tony Blair, who surely was the role model for Moochelle, in every particular.
So I agree with his advice that conservatives should shun Morgan's show.
Isn't it interesting that he now chooses to have conservative young ladies on his show, because he thinks he can shout them down more easily - and because he thinks he can show them up as air heads.
Mind - if he really wants to have his viewer numbers shoot up (pun intended), he ought to invite Sarah Palin on his show. Sadly, I think he knows that she'd shred him into little pieces, and that he'd get an even worse battering than the one he received from Ben Shapiro and Newt ...
Morgan is a hack Scoop. When he was editor of the Daily Mirror he used the 'City Slickers' column which gave out stock tips to pump and dump. In one case that I remember he owned about $40k of stock in Viglen computers and they featured the company and sang its praises. Morgan sold soon after the surge booking a handsome profit. He was fired from the Mirror when he published on the front page a FAKE photograph of British troops torturing Iraqi's. He also knew about the phone hacking culture that was going on among the British press and his testimony to the judge led inquiry (via video link from NY) was condemned as 'utterly unpersuasive' by the judge. After being fired from the Mirror he found success as a talent show judge talking down to people and making little girls cry before some how landing an $8m contract at CNN to replace Larry.
Like it or not, Morgan is huge now. But it all depends on what comes after the word "huge". From all the interviews I have seen, Gingrich handled him best by politely giving way again and again instead of letting the sorry SOB talk over him.
Piers should go back and defend what's left of England where Muslims boys are raping their daughters and grand daughters and being let off.
If piers wants to make a name for himself then forget the guns and go back home because your daughters your grand daughters your sisters and your nieces are relying on your media talents to raise awareness and protect them.
Nothing else matters.
I'd say Mr. McNally has Piers pegged pretty well and he's right. We should ignore him because we've got too much to get done to pay attention to his self ordained egomaniacal rants.
Just ticks me off that he isn't even an American and there he is acting like he has the right to tell us what we should be doing with our guns. Schmuck!!
People like Morgan simply live by the old saying by Oscar Wilde, "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." Morgan wants to be "talked about" and will do anything for the attention. Don't give people like that the attention and they have a funny habit of disappearing. And the ratings of his show tend to prove that nobody seems to care what he has to say.
In a nutshell; He's a media whore.
My suggestion for dealing with 2 types of repulsive people. 1- the school yard bully 2- the blowhards.
1) punch in the mouth hard enough to loosen or knock out teeth
I think we should avoid the liberal hack shows to lessen their voice. Now that doesn't mean we don't confront their rhetoric, but we should do it in our own venue, using our terms, and then make it loud and clear.
What this British journalist states and what I agree with is that we have pumped up Morgan's credibility just by acknowledging his existence. His points must be refuted, but as so many politicians have proven by going on MSNBC, doing it in their own backyard doesn't do us any good.
There were two young beautiful ladies on the other night and he was kind and respectful. They were speaking specifically as to their preference for the AR-15. I think their perspectives may well have opened up some liberals' eyes to conservative approaches. I follow one on Twitter and she does a great job engaging liberals and you can see in the thread how their thinking is positively influenced.
I don't trust anything he does. When he had Alex Jones on, it was to equate Jones with us. When he had LaPierre on, he used Jones as a connection. When he had Shapiro on, he got him to say he agreed with universal background checks. When he had Dana Loesch and Scottie Hughes on, he used tanks as a wacko reasoning.
I'd be curious to see the video of him with those two ladies you mentioned to see what exactly he did and what he would use. I can't believe he would be kind and respectful when talking on his show about guns. It's not his MO.
Thanks for the link. Yes, I agree that the conversation was more civil, but Piers once again used intimidation on these two women. He had set questions that he wanted set answers for and wouldn't accept anything other than the answer that he wanted.
No host should be asking their guests questions if they don't want the guest to answer honestly. He talked over them incessantly and never really gave them a chance to respond to his questions with their own thoughts.
He must have been told to be calmer with guests, but it didn't look like they got their points across.
I loved the way the first woman at the beginning gave him a thorough answer as to why she needed an AR-15 and he came right back to ask her, "but why do you need one. I don't understand". That's what I'm talking about with him. It's all one-sided. And then with that question at the end about women in the military was used so that he could conclude to the audience that these two women finally agree with his point of view.
It's all dog and pony with Piers.
Absolutely, here you go! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2soSZOdzUE
P.S. Hope you like cute blondes :)
This says it all right here "Conservatives, unfortunately, have fallen for Morgan’s shtick. And the more they rise to his bait, the more coverage Morgan gets — allowing him to absurdly claim that he’s influencing the debate."
I have to wonder. Would the Alinsky rules work if no Conservative paid any attention and refused to continuously go on liberal "news" and interview shows? Do they really believe that by appearing on any of these shows that they will change anyone's mind?
Maybe as well as I've managed to change my sweet MIL's mind....NOT.
I fully expect dear MIL to be a full fledged member of CFP4US.org before you're done, duckie.
(see how I snuck that plug in without anybody noticing?)
I think there has been alot of benefit to Conservatives going on Morgan's show because a lot of Dems and Libtards also own guns and believe in the 2nd Amendment. If they start agreeing with Conservatives on the 2nd Amendment concerns they may well start to listen and agree with us on other issues and come back to our side of the voting booth in 2014.
"Where did Piers Morgan come from anyways"?...waiting for confirmation, but Mr. Morgan just may be the Planet's very first "Anal Canal Breach Birth"....
He certainly appears to be the most anal retentive Wanker to reach the shores of America....(Where the H*ll was TSA when you really needed them?)
TSA doesn't frisk folks entering the US, just leaving it. Better question, where was Homeland Security and Customs but then that's rhetorical isn't it.
The thing that makes Alinsky's tactics work is that it speaks to children, and regardless of what the adults in the room (us) do, the children (Liberals) will continue to rally behind that kind of tactic.
It's not so much about us as it is about them. We could say NOTHING, and their base would continue to grow due to the childishness of Alinskyism, and Liberals, in general.
For instance: The tactic regarding the repeating of the same falsehood over and over until people believe you and you are able to change the message. Well, we could deny the story 1 million times on EVERY TV station there is, as publicly as possible, but as long as the childish networks repeat the lie in a childish manner to the children, they will believe it since the children ALWAYS know more than the parents (WE are the parents)...