I've been paying attention to the gun control debate for some time now, as I've wanted to see the points on both sides of the argument so that I could at least try and understand where those who oppose my stance are coming from. One thing I've had a little problem with is the TV host Piers Morgan. From what I can tell, he is most certainly staunchly pro-gun control, and is always in an uproar against guests who are on his show that don't agree with him. If it's supposed to be a debate, it soon descends into a shouting match mostly from Morgan, and his guest(s) can never get the opportunity to put forth a developed answer without him constantly interjecting, proposing a new question, or simply shouting things like "That's completely and utterly false!", etc. He also tends to equate his passion and volume level for being more correct, as well as constantly saying things like "How many dead children will it take before you gun nuts allow the government to make us safer?", "So you suggest we do nothing while innocent people are being slaughtered by these maniacs?" and so much more. My question is, is Piers Morgan in any way constructive to the gun control debate? If it's supposed to be a debate, somehow I think he missed the part where people are allowed to actually to speak without being interrupted and being shouted over and not being allowed to give a coherent answer to a question. Your thoughts?
I've been paying attention to the gun control debate for some time now, as I've wanted to see the points on both sides of the argument so that I could at least try and understand where those who oppose my stance are coming from. One thing I've had a little problem with is the TV host Piers Morgan. From what I can tell, he is most certainly staunchly pro-gun control, and is always in an uproar against guests who are on his show that don't agree with him. If it's supposed to be a debate, it soon descends into a shouting match mostly from Morgan, and his guest(s) can never get the opportunity to put forth a developed answer without him constantly interjecting, proposing a new question, or simply shouting things like "That's completely and utterly false!", etc. He also tends to equate his passion and volume level for being more correct, as well as constantly saying things like "How many dead children will it take before you gun nuts allow the government to make us safer?", "So you suggest we do nothing while innocent people are being slaughtered by these maniacs?" and so much more. My question is, is Piers Morgan in any way constructive to the gun control debate? If it's supposed to be a debate, somehow I think he missed the part where people are allowed to actually to speak without being interrupted and being shouted over and not being allowed to give a coherent answer to a question. Your thoughts?
You're pissed because he runs rings around the selected guns nuts who face him, showing them for the dolts they are.
You're pissed because he runs rings around the selected guns nuts who face him, showing them for the dolts they are.
:lamo
Penn Jilette and Ted Nugent schooled him, yelling emotional tripe isn't "running rings" actually having logical and legal responses is.
I'll bet you think Bill O'Reilly always has the upper hand on whoever he is yelling it.
Penn is a smart guy.
*Our* problem is that England won't take him back.
Petition: British don't want Piers Morgan back | The Daily Caller
Without a doubt.Penn is a smart guy.
You're pissed because he runs rings around the selected guns nuts who face him, showing them for the dolts they are.
I've been paying attention to the gun control debate for some time now, as I've wanted to see the points on both sides of the argument so that I could at least try and understand where those who oppose my stance are coming from. One thing I've had a little problem with is the TV host Piers Morgan. From what I can tell, he is most certainly staunchly pro-gun control, and is always in an uproar against guests who are on his show that don't agree with him. If it's supposed to be a debate, it soon descends into a shouting match mostly from Morgan, and his guest(s) can never get the opportunity to put forth a developed answer without him constantly interjecting, proposing a new question, or simply shouting things like "That's completely and utterly false!", etc. He also tends to equate his passion and volume level for being more correct, as well as constantly saying things like "How many dead children will it take before you gun nuts allow the government to make us safer?", "So you suggest we do nothing while innocent people are being slaughtered by these maniacs?" and so much more. My question is, is Piers Morgan in any way constructive to the gun control debate? If it's supposed to be a debate, somehow I think he missed the part where people are allowed to actually to speak without being interrupted and being shouted over and not being allowed to give a coherent answer to a question. Your thoughts?
I've been paying attention to the gun control debate for some time now, as I've wanted to see the points on both sides of the argument so that I could at least try and understand where those who oppose my stance are coming from. One thing I've had a little problem with is the TV host Piers Morgan. From what I can tell, he is most certainly staunchly pro-gun control, and is always in an uproar against guests who are on his show that don't agree with him. If it's supposed to be a debate, it soon descends into a shouting match mostly from Morgan, and his guest(s) can never get the opportunity to put forth a developed answer without him constantly interjecting, proposing a new question, or simply shouting things like "That's completely and utterly false!", etc. He also tends to equate his passion and volume level for being more correct, as well as constantly saying things like "How many dead children will it take before you gun nuts allow the government to make us safer?", "So you suggest we do nothing while innocent people are being slaughtered by these maniacs?" and so much more. My question is, is Piers Morgan in any way constructive to the gun control debate? If it's supposed to be a debate, somehow I think he missed the part where people are allowed to actually to speak without being interrupted and being shouted over and not being allowed to give a coherent answer to a question. Your thoughts?
The fact that this is how you see it says a lot more about you than it does him. I've know since the first time I saw Morgan that he was an idiot. Too bad he won't go back to England, we really don't want him here.
You merely point up ow cretinous they are, having been bested by an idiot.
You merely point up ow cretinous they are, having been bested by an idiot.
well the Brits claim they didn't get beat that bad since the monumental ass kicking at NO took place right after the truce was signedRight, and the British won the war of 1812 too.
well the Brits claim they didn't get beat that bad since the monumental ass kicking at NO took place right after the truce was signed
I've been paying attention to the gun control debate for some time now, as I've wanted to see the points on both sides of the argument so that I could at least try and understand where those who oppose my stance are coming from. One thing I've had a little problem with is the TV host Piers Morgan. From what I can tell, he is most certainly staunchly pro-gun control, and is always in an uproar against guests who are on his show that don't agree with him. If it's supposed to be a debate, it soon descends into a shouting match mostly from Morgan, and his guest(s) can never get the opportunity to put forth a developed answer without him constantly interjecting, proposing a new question, or simply shouting things like "That's completely and utterly false!", etc. He also tends to equate his passion and volume level for being more correct, as well as constantly saying things like "How many dead children will it take before you gun nuts allow the government to make us safer?", "So you suggest we do nothing while innocent people are being slaughtered by these maniacs?" and so much more. My question is, is Piers Morgan in any way constructive to the gun control debate? If it's supposed to be a debate, somehow I think he missed the part where people are allowed to actually to speak without being interrupted and being shouted over and not being allowed to give a coherent answer to a question. Your thoughts?
Piers Morgan makes me embarrassed to be English. I find myself apologizing for him to every American I meet.
Piers Morgan makes me embarrassed to be English. I find myself apologizing for him to every American I meet.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?