• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who Was In The Right?

Who was in the right?


  • Total voters
    23
I would almost garauntee that this began to happen after Oprah became OPRAH, and not early on.

Piers Morgan can't even SNIFF the reach, import, or advertising power that Oprah has. She has the clout to demand such things. I wouldn't suggest anyone on any of the 24/7 news stations really has close to her influence or power.

Well that may be true, but at the same time does an insigificant one time attempt politician have the clout to demand questions like those aren't asked of her?
 
Well that may be true, but at the same time does an insigificant one time attempt politician have the clout to demand questions like those aren't asked of her?

Absolutely not.

I'm just saying its unreasonable to assume Peirs has a policy similar to Oprah's where he refuses to have preconditions for his interviews.

O'Donnell's publicist setting down limits, to my understanding of how interview setup often works, would be rather par for the course. Morgan refusing an interview if he can't have carte blanche to ask anything I think would be more the abnormality.

The interview is a symbiotic relationship. I disagree with Tucker in the focus on them "providing a service". In reality, they're EXCHANGING services. The person being interviewed gets to promote their current project, the person doing the interview is hoping that the person in question generates entertainment or interest in regards to viewership.
 
I just watched the clip. Morgan asked her and she said "It's in the book," but refused to go into detail.

So she goes on to publicize the book. When asked a question about something that is apparently said "in the book," she won't answer. He didn't go off topic, she just didn't want to answer.

(For the record, I have not read the book. I am taking O'Donnell's word for it that it's in there.)
 
O’Donnell walks out of CNN interview – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs



Basically, Piers Morgan was asking her about her stance on gay issues and abstinence, about stuff she had said during her campaign for senate, and in her new book. She got upset and walked off. Was Morgan in the right to ask those questions, was O'Donnal right to think she should be able to control the topic?

These things are usually handled beforehand...seems there was some miscommunication.
 
O'Donnel is a petulant windbag with an overbearing voice only matched her girth.
A prime example of a 'I'm going to whine and cry to get my own way' brand of liberal.
 
Last edited:
O'Donnel is a petulant windbag with an overbearing voice only matched her girth.
A prime example of a 'I'm going to whine and cry to get my own way' brand of liberal.

You DO realize we're talking about Christine, not Rosie, right?
 
In reality, they're EXCHANGING services. The person being interviewed gets to promote their current project, the person doing the interview is hoping that the person in question generates entertainment or interest in regards to viewership.

It's only an exchange if the interviewer is able to benefit from it. Being required to ask softball questions would not provide benefit in this case. thus, her understanding of the arrangement was total benefit to herself with none for Morgan.
 
Last edited:
Meh ,the comment could be made perfectly accurate with only a few minor word changes. Christine's neither fat nor liberal. But change girth and liberal and it should work fine.
You're a socialist today?
 
I bet you anything that had this been a liberal politician who walked out, the poll numbers would have been reversed.
 
I bet you anything that had this been a liberal politician who walked out, the poll numbers would have been reversed.

Probably, but that's actually because someone is gaming the system not because of hypocricy.

25 votes for O'Donnell, but only one by an actual member of DP who was logged on at the time the vote was cast. It's a common occurrence whenever the issue relates in some way to gay rights that the poll gets abnormally skewed to the "right". Click the number of votes in the poll results in order to see if this is happening (Just count the number of names by each vote in order to see how many actual forum members voted).
 
A suitable alternative to anti-federalist would be "complete moron". I might even grab that one before I grabbed anti-federalist. :lol:
:lol:
According to some, you have to be a complete moron to be an AF.
Of course, those who believe such things are, knowngly or ignorantly, fans of Marx, Lenin, et al, so...
 
:lol:
According to some, you have to be a complete moron to be an AF.
Of course, those who believe such things are, knowngly or ignorantly, fans of Marx, Lenin, et al, so...

Which is weird because anti-federalism doesn't necessarily mean one cannot support socialism. It would only mean that it would be supported at the local or state level as opposed to the federal level. Granted, full on communism would mean a stateless society, and that is pretty much incompatible with the decentralized perspective of the anti-federalists.
 
Which is weird because anti-federalism doesn't necessarily mean one cannot support socialism. It would only mean that it would be supported at the local or state level as opposed to the federal level. Granted, full on communism would mean a stateless society, and that is pretty much incompatible with the decentralized perspective of the anti-federalists.
Those people are all about strong central governments tighly managing all aspects of society.
Never a good thing for liberty, at any level.
 
Which is weird because anti-federalism doesn't necessarily mean one cannot support socialism. It would only mean that it would be supported at the local or state level as opposed to the federal level. Granted, full on communism would mean a stateless society, and that is pretty much incompatible with the decentralized perspective of the anti-federalists.

It completely means that socialism is not to be accepted on any level.
 
It's only an exchange if the interviewer is able to benefit from it. Being required to ask softball questions would not provide benefit in this case. thus, her understanding of the arrangement was total benefit to herself with none for Morgan.

I disagree. The typical O'Donnell fan is hardly the typical Piers Morgan fan. By bringing O'Donnell on he has a benefit in hopefully generating new viewers that would previously not have watched his show that may continue to watch it. I disagree entirely that there was no way for Morgan to have any benefit regarding the interview without being able to ask probing questions.
 
I disagree. The typical O'Donnell fan is hardly the typical Piers Morgan fan. By bringing O'Donnell on he has a benefit in hopefully generating new viewers that would previously not have watched his show that may continue to watch it. I disagree entirely that there was no way for Morgan to have any benefit regarding the interview without being able to ask probing questions.

I think the typical Morgan fan is far more likely to be the typical O'Donnell hater. Who is most interested in reading and hearing about Palin, for example? I say it's liberals.

And I see very little chance of O'Donnell's fans ever becoming Piers Morgan fans. I'm sure he sees the same thing. Therefore, the people to target are those who do not like O'donnell, IMO, because I don't think that he has any chance to woo the peopel you are talking about.
 
Those people are all about strong central governments tighly managing all aspects of society.

My problem is that these kind of people are far too present in both political parties these days. Even most tea partiers I encounter don't particularly support decentralization.
 
My problem is that these kind of people are far too present in both political parties these days. Even most tea partiers I encounter don't particularly support decentralization.
This -is- true. Its what happens when people in government focus on their own, and then their party's, accumulation and retention of political power, above all else.
 
No fan of Morgan, but O'Donnell is clearly wrong. Look for conservative talkers trashing Morgan today.
 
Back
Top Bottom