Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Piers Morgan’

Bill Maher, Piers Morgan blast ‘pathetic’ ‘victim culture’: ‘You f***ing babies!’

Reported by SARAH TAYLOR | April 20, 2022


Broadcasters Bill Maher and Piers Morgan shredded what they described as “victim culture” and said that the necessity for trigger warnings ahead of films, videos, and more is nothing short of “pathetic.”

During Monday’s “Club Random with Bill Maher,” Maher spoke with Morgan and discussed what the two believe is the condition of today’s society. Approximately 30 minutes into the discussion, the legendary film “Gone with the Wind” came up during the conversation, prompting Maher to say, “By the way, that movie — entertaining as f***. And the people who need a disclaimer, this is the problem. You f***ing babies. It’s 1939. Can’t you just see by the film stock that things were very different?”

He continued, “Humans are like history in general, we evolve. Just celebrate we’re not racist any more and just be a grown-up.”

Morgan interjected, adding that constant disclaimers — including on comedy projects — are preposterous and noted that it’s apparent when jokes are clearly nothing more than jokes and “not intended to be remotely offensive to anybody.”

“And even that now needs a warning at the front in case anybody’s offended,” he continued. “What do they think is going to happen when you watch it? What happens to people? I mean do they sit there shaking?”

Maher added, “The fact this generation needs a trigger warning and a Klonopin to get through an episode of ‘Friends’ [is] pathetic.”

Morgan continued, noting that he believes the world places a “premium” on those who consider themselves victims.

“It is celebrated to be weak,” he reasoned.

Maher later added, “Well, it’s the end of the empire.”

Elsewhere during the discussion, Morgan said that gender identity is “all bulls**t.”

“I just find myself constantly feeling, what is going on with the world?” he said. “Like, I just saw in the U.K. today there was a thing about the fire service or something, they’re being ordered now to use him/her/them/their pronouns. Whatever. I said, ‘OK, well fine, let’s take this to the logical extension because pronouns are whatever you want to be, right? So, if I decide I want to identify myself as a d***head, which many people watching this might think is entirely —”

Maher interrupted, suggesting, “You know why they’re gonna think you’re a d***head? Because of the way you said those pronouns, you dismissed it. … It’s not my generation’s thing either, but I get it.”

Morgan then changed course and went on to recall a 2019 debate he had on “Good Morning Britain” in which he jokingly said he wanted to identify as a “two-spirit penguin” — a quip that prompted heavy criticism at the time.

“It’s all bulls**t,” he said.

Piers Morgan | Club Random w/ Bill

London Mayor Reveals Where His Priorities DON’T Lie!

On “Good Morning Britain,” Piers Morgan was relentless. He had London Mayor Sadiq Khan on and found out just where the leader’s priorities are.  What the Mayor said should not put his city at ease. In fact, it should do the opposite.

He admitted the police department is not following the 400 people who fought with terror groups in the Middle East. Worst news yet, “just over half” have returned to London.

After the horror that city has gone through, this is the last thing they want to hear. 

Time to get a new mayor!

REID: How many of those 400 have come back to London?

KHAN: The estimate is just over half. So when —

MORGAN: Where are they? No Seriously where are they?

REID: How are we letting people back into the UK who haven’t just been trained, they’ve actually fought, potentially against our troops, how are we letting them back in without knowing exactly where they are and what they’re up to? Because out of all the thousands of people that we’re concerned about, surely those who’ve actually gone to fight are the biggest risk.

KHAN: That’s one of the reasons why it doesn’t make sense for the government to be cutting resources from those—

REID: But where are they? You’re the mayor of this capital city. Where are they?”

KHAN: With respect, hold on. I can’t follow 400 people, what I can do is make sure –

MORGAN: Why can’t you?

KHAN: What we can do is make sure the resources —

MORGAN: Why can’t you? Why can’t you instruct police — why can’t you call Cressida Dick right now and say every one of those people who’ve come back from a war zone who’s in London, I want them followed?

KHAN: I’ll tell you why. Let me tell you why. Because the Met police budget roughly speaking 15% to 20% is funded by me the mayor the rest comes from central government. If the Met police budget is being shrunk and reduced, they’ve got to prioritize and use their resources in a sensible, savvy way.

MORGAN: What could be a bigger priority than people coming back from a Syrian battlefield with intent to harm British citizens? Why is it not the number one priority? Why are these people just allowed to come back in the first place and then, the London mayor doesn’t seem to have any clue where they are. No disrespect to you but where are they?

Piers Morgan debates state senator who created gun bill in his name (VIDEO)

1/29/14 | by

Piers Morgan hosted the state senator who created a new bill called the “Piers Morgan Act.” (See Video below)

Oklahoma State Sen. Nathan Dahm recently filed a new bill that, if passed, would allow law-abiding Oklahomans to carry openly or concealed without a license.

Morgan was quick to tweet a challenge to Dahm and invited him to debate the issue on his show, “if you have the guts.” Dahm accepted and coolly listed off the many reasons why his new bill is not only a great idea, but also completely legal.

After confirming that Morgan does indeed agree the military should have “assault rifles,” Dahm goes on to explain that according to Title 44 of the Oklahoma statute, every able-bodied citizen between the ages of 18-69 falls under the umbrella of the state’s three-part militia, which includes the Oklahoma National Guard, Oklahoma State Guard and the unorganized militia.

Therefore, logic would dictate anyone who consents to the military having “assault rifles,” should also agree Oklahoma state residents that are able-bodied and between the ages of 18-69 should also be permitted to carry the same weapons.

However, Morgan doesn’t seem to agree.


Biblical Scholar Smacks Down Piers Morgan When Asked To Explain How Jesus Condemned Homosexuality

By on December 20, 2013

Piers Morgan is clearly a glutton for punishment. We saw that repeatedly during the gun control debates in the wake of the Newtown shooting.

A couple of nights ago on his program, Morgan criticized Phil Robertson’s recent anti-gay remarks as “repulsive” and claimed that he should be fired. Apparently, that’s Morgan’s way of handling opposing viewpoints from major celebrity figures.

On his program last night, he decided to invite a Biblical scholar, Dr. Michael Brown, on the show so that he could trap him into admitting that Jesus did not, in fact, condemn homosexuality.

That trap was not set properly.

When Morgan asked Brown to cite just one instance of Jesus condemning homosexuality, he probably thought that he had already won the debate. But alas, he was hoisted on his own petard.

Brown cited not one, but three instances of Jesus condemning homosexuality.

First, Jesus said that He came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. In other words, the Old Testament law, even in Jesus’ day, was still in force and Jesus accepted it. That is the same law that condemns homosexuality in the Book of Leviticus.

Next, Brown cited Matthew 15 in which Jesus states that all sexual acts committed outside of marriage defile a human being.

Finally, Brown cited Matthew 19 in which Jesus said that marriage, as God intended it, is the union of one man and one woman.

Game, set, and match. Brown.

Have a look at the video below.


Pastor Rick Warren Makes Piers Morgan Look Foolish

By / 17 December  2013

Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in California is a frequent guest on  the Piers Morgan show. While some conservative evangelicals may fear being  cornered on a shoe like Piers Morgan Live, Pastor Warren seems to relish the  opportunities, as the conversation often turns to Spiritual things. In their  most recent conversation, the liberal Brit tries to corner Pastor Warren on gay  marriage, only to hear Pastor Warren patiently  refute his every argument.

Bravo, Pastor Warren! Continue to speak the truth in love and you’ll  definitely reap the rewards.


MORGAN: You and I, we’ve debated this before about gay rights, gay  marriage. Clearly, it’s a movement in America as it is around the  world…

WARREN: Right.

MORGAN: … towards to a much more tolerant attitude to this. Have you in  the last two years since I last I think debated this particular point with you — have you moved at all now? Are you recognizing that there is this seemingly  unstoppable movement?

WARREN: Well, I don’t get to change what God says is right and what  God says is wrong. And I think God is real clear that all sex outside of  marriage is wrong. But the issue here is the issue of respect. While I may  disagree with you on your views on sexuality, it does not give me a right to  demean you, to demoralize you, to defame you, to turn you into a  demon.

See tolerance, Piers, it used to mean we treat each other with mutual  respect even if we have major disagreements. Today, tolerance has been changed  to mean, all ideas are equally valid. Well, that’s none sense. OK? All ideas are  not equally valid.

 I mean, you could say the moon is made of cheese or I could say the moon  is made of beans and so many ask me it mean wrong.

RickandPiersMORGAN: But do you believe in equality for all as  your heart right? This is where I think I took issue with you before and I will  again — how can you really as a Christian man…


MORGAN: … a great man — how can you espouse genuine  equality…


MORGAN: … if you don’t allow gay people the same rights to get  married…


MORGAN: … as straight people? That’s a question that many I think would  love to hear the answer.

WARREN: I’d like to reposition it this way. I’m more against the  redefinition of the term marriage than anything else. I don’t think other groups  get an opportunity to redefine a term. For instance, if a Muslim says this is a  term we use and also I’ll take that term and mean it for me. What? That’s not  right.

And I think, historically around the world, the vast majority of people  would say, “Marriage means one man and one woman in a commitment.” Don’t take a  term and make it something different.

Well, we’ll talk about double speak where words mean the exact opposite  of what they use to mean. I’m going — OK. In first place, it’s not against the  law for you to love anybody, a man or a woman OK? It’s not criminal — at least  shouldn’t be but when you start taking a term, then why are taking that  term?

MORGAN: Do you think you’ll change? I mean, can you see — you’re a man  on a — he has this incredible library, Rick Warren — literally, one of the  great libraries I’ve ever seen in my life, kept beautifully. You have all these  books by all these great scholars. Many, many of them would have  evolved their thought processes over things depending on how they see if the —  can you see a time, when not just you but other Christian preachers… … and indeed the Catholic church and others say, “You know, what actually  real equality means everyone has the same right to get married — gay or  right.”

WARREN: I cannot see that happening in my life. I fear the disapproval  of God more than I fear your disapproval or the disapproval of society. And so,  I can’t change what I think God has said. Now, I believe in the infallibility of  Scripture. I do not believe in the infallibility of my interpretations. So,  interpretations can be wrong — we know that that as true but I believe that  what Scripture says is that sex is for a man and a woman in  marriage.

Piers Morgan: 2nd Amendment “Clumsily Written” & Should Be “Rephrased”

Posted By 

We all know that the 2nd Amendment wasn’t at all clumsily written. In fact, it states quite unequivocally that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You can’t get much clearer than that.

Morgan was at the National Press Club plugging his own book, entitled Shooting Straight: Guns, Gays, God and George Clooney. During his spiel, he argued for a “rephrasing” of the 2nd Amendment:

 “That to me shows you how clumsily worded, and I say that with great respect for the Founding Fathers, the Second Amendment was… The comma in the middle is perhaps the most dangerous comma ever written because it can be interpreted in different ways.”

The “comma in the middle” separates the phrase “being necessary to the security of a free State.”

Piers added that as “very right-wing people took over,” they redefined the 2nd Amendment to mean a guarantee of an individual right rather than of the collective right of a well-regulated militia:

“They redefined it as an individual’s right to bear arms, no longer as part of a well-regulated militia… When you’ve got so many amendments anyway, you say it’s a sacred document, it’s fine but it’s a bit like saying the Bible is a sacred document. And I speak as a good Irish Catholic… I think you just have to look at it not so much as a sacred document but as an evolutionary document, hence the amendments that have already taken place. I think there is quite the argument to have a debate … a debate on whether the wording of the Second Amendment should be rephrased.”

It doesn’t need to be rephrased. It’s fine the way it is. It just needs to be understood the way the Founding Fathers understood it. It needs the proper historical context.

If you read the great political theorists and thinkers of the time, including the Founding Fathers, you’ll find that there is very little room (none, actually) for debate as to what was meant by “well regulated,” “Militia,” and “free State.”

Today, we might think of “well regulated” to mean subject to government regulations, controls, restrictions, inspections, etc. But that isn’t at all what was meant over two centuries ago. It simply meant well-trained. Self-regulated. Disciplined.

The Militia referred to anyone capable of serving in a “well regulated Militia.” In other words, anyone. The people. And it was this group of people who would be well-trained in the use of weapons and military tactics that would serve as the check on the government’s standing army. It didn’t even necessarily refer to defending one’s country from a foreign, invading enemy. That’s what the national military was for, and I’m sure the militia would gladly join in in that event. But the militia was that group of people who would band together and defend their liberties from a tyrannical government.

The “free State” didn’t refer to the individual states of the union, and it didn’t refer to the federal government either. It meant “free country.” Free from despotic rule.

So, to preserve a free country, well-trained and self-regulated militias, composed of law-abiding and capable individuals, should serve as the check and balance on a government that’s bent toward tyranny. Oh, and that right of the people shall not be infringed.

In order for this militia to be able to adequately defend liberty, it needs to possess at least the caliber of weaponry used by the government attempting to oppress its citizenry. The better weapons we have, the nicer our government becomes to us.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

I don’t think that Piers’s objection is that the Amendment wasn’t written clearly enough. It’s that it wasn’t written to his specifications. He doesn’t like it. If he were given the opportunity to “rephrase” the 2nd Amendment, I’m sure he’d amend it to include exceptions for semi-automatic weapons and magazines with more than a 10-round capacity. And he’d state in no uncertain terms that every gun buyer is to have a background check and mental health screening to make sure that no [legal] guns end up in the wrong hands. And no gun shows allowed. And no gun transfers without the government knowing about it. Actually, he’d probably find it a lot easier to just scrap the entire Amendment.


Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: