Politics : Piers Morgan told to f-ck off after equivocating on Muslim ban

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/current-affairs/aussie-comedian-jim-jefferies-blasts-piers-morgan-in-expletiveladen-tv-tirade/news-story/66094749e9858a5730c32fc52ccffcbf

I saw the episode in question, and it was a pretty hilarious exchange. Piers Morgan is one of those guys you just want to punch in the face.

Tell the facts. Name the names.

Does anyone have any respect for that nutjob?

The Original 'The Trashcan Man' since 2001

No one. They shipped him over from the UK because they couldn't stand him either.

Tell the facts. Name the names.

He's a complete out-of-touch-with-reality dick

The Original 'The Trashcan Man' since 2001

no most people agreed that Piers is the right one here. Who the f is Jeffries anyway?

The best part is when Jeffries blasted him for sticking up for Trump just because he won The Apprentice and he doesn't want to offend his most famous friend in the world.



"I was cured all right!"

He should argue the issue rather than use ad hominems, but if he did that he'd lose the argument.

Ex IMDb users forum here: http://area51.boardhost.com/index.php

Why would he lose the argument?

Piers Morgan said it wasn't a Muslim ban yet forgot that a week earlier he had called it a Muslim Ban

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4Y0giKW8AEdQ68.jpg

I don't agree with the way that Jim Jeffries phrased his rebuke but his point was pretty correct - that Trump has said before he was going to ban Muslims and that this certainly seemed a step towards that so is calling it a Muslim ban really so ludicrous.

Morgan is kind of douche bag, for sure, but Jeffries didn't have an argument at all. He just kept screaming "eff off, it's a muslim ban". That's not a point, or counterpoint, or refutation of anything Morgan was saying

So while Morgan may well be wrong, Jeffries proved nothing but that he can swear really loud.


"the absence of evidence is the actual evidence." Tcob44

Kind of a douchebag? You American right wingers should absolutely hate him. He quit his position as an editor of a British newspaper after they printed faked photos of British troops abusing Iraqi prisoners. The man's a cnt, there are very few people in the U.K. who would disagree with that.

"Whether homosexuality causes less harm (than slavery) is debatable" - Hada

Bill Mahr's show always has at least one cnt as a guest for the week. This week it was Morgan.




"I was cured all right!"

Not a right-winger. Perhaps you shouldn't make assumptions?

Nice to have your opinion, but I am not going to personally attack him, or anyone, in place of addressing the point they make.

This isn't about Morgan, as a person, it was about the points he made. Again, Morgan may be wrong, but Jeffries looks like a child as most people do when they just yell and scream and swear, and can't actually refute a point.


"the absence of evidence is the actual evidence." Tcob44

if only he'd have died when that other Brutish moron Clarkson punched him. Probably why he fled to the jew.S

Heil Me!

Jeffries point was that Trump has stated he is going to ban Muslims - so when he starts doing that you can hardly berate people for referring to it as such merely because he hasn't achieved the ban in its entirity - especially when Piers Morgan himself called it a Muslim Ban - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4Y0giKW8AEdQ68.jpg

What trump said doesn't matter. What was in the EO does.

Morgan could very well have changed his mind, who knows. It's still not the point. Screaming back at someone, is not an argument. If Jeffries wanted to make an argument, he should have. As of right now, based on that exchange, Jeffries looks like a cry baby.


"the absence of evidence is the actual evidence." Tcob44

---

What trump said doesn't matter.

---

Are you joking? Genuine question.
Trump states he is going to create a travel ban on Muslims - Trump introduces an Executive Order that is a step towards that outcome, and everyone is supposed to ignore what Trump said he'd do?

---

Screaming back at someone, is not an argument. If Jeffries wanted to make an argument, he should have. As of right now, based on that exchange, Jeffries is a cry baby.

---

Which is a fair point - Jefferies response should have been better measured - however, when you consider the fact that Morgan has been going on about it incessantly since, it appears there is one true cry baby in this.

Here is the whole point, the latter part being fundamental.

What trump said doesn't matter. What was in the EO does.

What was in the EO that directly addressed muslims? How many muslim countries were not on the list? Exactly how many muslims were banned, versus non-muslims? What percentage of the muslim world has been banned?


"Which is a fair point - Jefferies response should have been better measured - however, when you consider the fact that Morgan has been going on about it incessantly since, it appears there is one true cry baby in this.

You're welcome to that opinion, but just based on this exchange



"the absence of evidence is the actual evidence." Tcob44

---

What was in the EO that directly addressed muslims?

---

Who said it directly addressed Muslims? It did however directly relate to a claim that Trump had made - namely that he would ban Muslims from entering the US - so either you thnk Trump was lying about that, or this was a clear step inorder to achieve that goal - so which is it? Is Trump a liar or is this a step towards the Muslim ban?

---

You're welcome to that opinion, but just based on this exchange

---

The exchange does not exist within a vacuum though and Morgan has gone on about this continually since.

"Who said it directly addressed Muslims?"

If it doesn't directly address muslims, how can it be a muslim ban?


"The exchange does not exist within a vacuum though and Morgan has gone on about this continually since."

That may well be true, but the point of the OP was this exchange, which Jeffries lost.


"the absence of evidence is the actual evidence." Tcob44

Because it comes in the context of Trump saying he wants to ban all Muslims from entering and the ban disproportionately affects Muslims. This isn't rocket science it's just looking at what Trump stated as his intentions and his actions. That's was Jefferys point - that just because he hasn't banned every Muslim doesn't mean that he won't attempt to, especially when that is exactly his stated intent. Are we meant to pretend he didn't call for a Muslim ban?

You're going in circles

He said muslims, but it's not in the EO, so we go back to the beginning, what matters is what's in the EO, not what he said.

If you like your dr, you can keep your doctor. What matters, what Obama said, or what was actually in the law?


Jeffries has no point, at least, not in this exchange


"the absence of evidence is the actual evidence." Tcob44

---

He said muslims, but it's not in the EO

---

So what? What part of that aren't you getting? If I said as a presidential candidate that I am going to ban all guns, and then on getting to power issued an executive order that said I am going to ban all shops that sell products that utilise explosive propellants would the gun lobby sit back and say 'well that's OK because the executive order does not mention guns, nor does it restrict every single outlet for guns as we still have gun shows and private sales and it clearly isn't targeted specifically at guns because it also affects a tiny number of firework outlets so its clearly not in any way shape or form a movement towards a gun ban'?
The Democrats only have to say 'increased background checks' and that is interpreted by the NRA as 'they're coming to got your guns!!!'
What matters is the context in which the EO was created - and the context is that Trump said he wants to ban all Muslims from entering the US and the only countries his EO bans is predominantly Muslim countries.

You Obama example is false equivalence as well. But nice attempt.

Jefferys point was that Trump had stated he wants a Muslim ban - he has then gone on to ban seven countries, all of which are Muslim. Just because he hasn't managed to enact a complete and utter Muslim ban lets not pretend that this isn't a step towards it.

Actually, Obamacare is a perfect example.


Remember when they were going to fine everyone who didn't sign up?

That was illegal.

Then they said it wasn't a fine, its a tax now.

President can tax but he cant fine you for not buying something.



Same chit.




Trump couldn't ban all muslims, thatd be illegal so he banned travel to and from certain countrieswhich is legal.








Would you like me to tell you the little story of right hand/left hand?

"So what? What part of that aren't you getting?"

Which part aren't you getting? If the EO does not directly point to X, how is it an X ban? You can keep running away from the question, but it's not going anywhere.


"You Obama example is false equivalence as well. But nice attempt."

Sorry but you calling something X, without any example or explanation as to why is useless, because it doesn't refute my point. So as of right now, it's not what you're claiming it is. It is, in fact, a perfect example. We were told one thing, then the law said something else. It quite easily demonstrates (what are probably hundreds of examples) of politicians saying one thing, then doing another



"Jefferys point was that Trump had stated he wants a Muslim ban"

Which (yet again) was not conveyed in any way by yelling eff off.




"the absence of evidence is the actual evidence." Tcob44

That was not this.

The word muslim isn't even in the order.



Some lives matter.

---

The word muslim isn't even in the order.

---

No, but this was:

---

Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

---

All the countries on the list have a Muslim majority.

Tell the facts. Name the names.

And no functioning government.with the exception of Iran.


That's much more the common denominator, and would contextualize the religious minority refugees.



Some lives matter.

---

The word muslim isn't even in the order.

---

So what? Trump says he is going to implement a Muslim ban - Trump then bans seven countries that are almost exclusively Muslim. Are you suggesting those two things are unrelated?

Plus he included language to allow non-Muslims from those countries into the U. S. He gave the Department of Homeland Security discretion to allow religious minorities from the banned countries. Of course, since all the countries have Muslim majorities, he is effectively just banning Muslims from those countries.

Tell the facts. Name the names.

---

The word muslim isn't even in the order.

---

Because that would be illegal.

How do you attempt to ban Muslims within the law? Ban travel from the countries they come from.

That is so blindingly obvious you would have to bury your head in the ground not to see it



"I'll hit you with so many rights you'll be begging for a left."

The key words being "within the law".
Meaning, not illegal.

Ex IMDb users forum here: http://area51.boardhost.com/index.php

No the key word is 'attempt'.

A court decided it was unconstitutional. Try watching the news.


"I'll hit you with so many rights you'll be begging for a left."

The key words being "within the law".
Meaning, not illegal.

Ex IMDb users forum here: http://area51.boardhost.com/index.php

No the key word is 'attempt'.

A court decided it was unconstitutional. Try watching the news.


"I'll hit you with so many rights you'll be begging for a left."

---

Jeffries proved nothing but that he can swear really loud.

---

that's about all most smart-arsed Left-wing comedians ever prove.

I don't know this Jeffries dipshyt, but I know the type.

whatever that is worth.


They're all dead Dave

Yes he's annoying. I saw him at the Bill Maher show and the audience booed, that was enough for me. Just send him back to the UK, please.

Yeah, the cons on this board have been whining about it ever since. They're just mystified as to why people aren't quick to shower respect on jackasses like Piers and Dump.

Telling someone to *beep* off" during an open political discussion is extremely unprofessional. Besides that, I don't care for Morgan either but I'll have to agree with him. It's not a muslim ban. In fact, from what I understand, only about 100 people were actually affected by this EO. Seriously, we need to get out thinking caps on a little tighter. We have scum in this world that are chopping the heads off of their enemies, and we're worried about a few people being inconvenienced at the airport.

---

and we're worried about a few people being inconvenienced at the airport.

---

Seriously?!? Or rather, read up on the facts. Not alternative whatever, FACTS.

dextro so what are the REAL numbers?

Facts not numbers. I haven't got any exakt numbers. But to me personally, it's enough that the father of one of my closest friends with a dual citizenship, had to go through a "secondary screening", before he was able to get back to his family in the US, where he's been living the last 20 years.

This won't lead to find any "new" terrorists, it's just a huge humiliation of large dimensions for people who've been exposed to this. All this will accomplish is to trigger those 7 countries, he's trying to nail.

---

only about 100 people were actually affected by this EO.

---

You are joking, right?
Maybe only about 100 people who were already in transit, including permanent US residents returning from vacations with their families.
But you can't be serious that a ban on all citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen only inconveniences 100 people.

---

We have scum in this world that are chopping the heads off of their enemies,

---

And the US is supporting them, both by supporting the countries funding them, and by supplying weapons to groups allied to them, from whom they obtain weapons.



Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable

---

only inconveniences 100 people.

---

It would be good to see the actual numbers, can anyone post them? I am going by what our Chief of Staff said. However, that could be a limited number from a chosen day.

---

both by supporting the countries funding them, and by supplying weapons to groups allied to them, from whom they obtain weapons.

---

funds do fall into the wrong hands. Hopefully Trump will fix this problem.

That exemplifies the state of the debate among some nowadays. When you hear something you don't like -regardless of the facts- start screaming and swearing about it.

I have a library card. That makes me right.

---

When you hear something you don't like -regardless of the facts- start screaming and swearing about it.

---

Yep, that is politics today. React emotionally first, and if that doesn't work, try it again.

He was told that for something that never existed?

Food for thought.



"Every time I walk into my office I walk past 5 Lombardi Trophies not 5 rushing titles" .

The Brit & the Aussie were at each other instantly.

The gay dude (Waters)said what if Trump & his band of white guys fixes everything?
But go on & bitch away

Fascists decide that you are a criminal, then they find the crime

so in effect then one celebrity vocally dislikes another celebrity.

Wow.





P.S. No I'm not and have never been a fan of portly Piers, before I'm smugly accused otherwise.

P.P.S. I've never heard of this 'Jim Jeffries' character before but have a sneaking suspicion I'm none the poorer for it somehow


GladysOver: the (piss) artist formerly known as Chopper-Chang

Addendum: Having now read Piers account of what happened it would seem he went on the show to both dispute the child-like and offensive assertion that Trump is "literally Hitler" whilst arguing that some supposedly Liberal folks have behaved disproptionately, unciviliy and indeed most illiberally to Trump's electoral victory..

And for that some bloke who optimistically calls himself a "comedian" screamed expletives at him whilst giving him the finger.

It pains me to admit it but one can't help side with Piers on this quite honestly. This Jim Jeffries character appear to be a rather repellent individual incapable of civil discourse..or someone shrewdly aware of what makes for good publicity - especially in the virulently leftwing/anti-Trump entertainment industry.




GladysOver: the (piss) artist formerly known as Chopper-Chang