KO is going to have to come up with a never to be awarded again Speshul Reprehensible Worsted Person in the History of Mankind Gold Medal for that sacrilege by BOR.

I might watch that myself.

Grammie

What ever happened to the vets that were supposed to "storm" Fox News as claimed by 'why' and his fav blog, huffpo? Just curious.

You must have missed it. A "swarm" of six of them showed up!

The beauty of O'Reilly's pushback is that it's going to drive the Orange maniac even deeper into derangement.

Yep.....just like the demagoguery last night over responsible intelligence gathering using the great privatly run telecommunications infrastructure we have been blessed with in this country, the far left can't seem to get it right.....

Overheated rhetoric backed up with no action.....

Only six vets out of 200,000 showed up?

I live in the New York Metro Area and there are thousands of bridges (and multiple thousands grates) that these fine, compassionate and loving people could go to to farm for warm bodies.....

The manipulation and political use and abuse of people is the left's bread and butter.....

They came up alittle short last night AND NBC News was caught covering the silliness.....A twofer.....

What a joke!

Keith and NBC is now Captain Ahab chasing O'Reilly around the world. I wonder if Keith and NBC have figured out that by making Bill O'Reilly and Fox News the lefts #1 straw man, than have only help O'Reilly and the Network. Now even David Letterman is in on the Ahab journey. I will enjoy watch O'Reilly's ratings go up as Letterman, NBC News, and Olbermann's credibility sink.

Here is a new funny site called Dickipedia. They have entries for Tom Brady, Bill O'Reilly, Hillary Clinton, Michael Moore, Mitt Romney, Barry Bonds, etc. Perhaps Robert, Brandon, or J$ will use their creative writing talents to post and entry for 'ole Keify. Great Thanks and have fun.

http://www.dickipedia.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

Factor, I love the analogy and it works on many levels.

Kudos!

Grammie

Johnny, the other day when I was logging off my pc, I got a strange security warning from my security provider. It said "low risk" and I didn't think anything of it. Later on wen I logged back on and tried to access OW I kept getting "gateway timeouts." I figured it was down for updating. Then you told me about the "dos attack" and I suddenly remembered that the security warning I got was possibly simultaneously when the site was being attacked, unbeknownst to me at the time. I just pulled up the details of the warning and it said "local host, 1046.....VDP Packet....and it listed an isp # that doesn't match mine. I was just wondering if my security warning could be tied to the dos attack.

WOW! Wow.

I scanned the entries for Santa Claus and Sean Penn. They are equally scathing, irreverent and very funny.

Good find and thanks for sharing.

Grammie

I think Bill O'Reilly ought to make a donation to Robert Greenwald.

Getting NBC News to show up with a camera crew in order to cover what turns out to be six vets criticizing Bill O'Reilly, is the sort of sting operation that would have cost Bill O. and Roger Ailes thousands of dollars to set up!

NBC has gotten so nutso in their hatred of all things FNC, they're shooting off their own kneecaps... :D

To use an ESPN analogy, what is the over/under on Limpy Banfield's blood pressure after he reads O`Reilly's talking points?

I'd says 200/110

Man, I wish i could see his reaction.

Don't know about that RK. That's way above my pay (and expertise) grade.

http://www.dickipedia.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

Posted by: wow at February 1, 2008 3:02 PM

How can Olbermann AND Alec Baldwin not have an entry?? :D

FYI, I emailed a link to this post to Keith so he will be "ready" tonight - if KO shows up for work today.

Despite having not completed college, Penn is nonetheless, a Ph.D: pretty huge dick.

Mr. Cox, how were you able to get a hold of tonight's TPM? I would think the O'Reilly staff keeps that top secret.

And I look forward to what Keef has to say.

Keith and NBC is now Captain Ahab chasing O'Reilly around the world.
Posted by: The Factor at February 1, 2008 2:57 PM

Damm, just handed out "Comment of the month"---oh well. Spot on!

It seems that O'Reilly's position has evolved in regards to homeless veterans. He first claimed there were no homeless veterans under bridges. Then he claimed there were, just not many. Then he claimed that his objection was about the economy being blamed and not mental illness and substance abuse. Come on Bill. Just admit your screwed up the first time.

Johnny, here is the isp #.....66.53.120.224,3818 if it helps.

"It seems that O'Reilly's position has evolved in regards to homeless veterans. He first claimed there were no homeless veterans under bridges."

James, I don't think he ever made that claim.

" Just admit your screwed up the first time."

When did O'Reilly ever state that in the entire US there isn't a single homeless veteran living under bridges?

The bridges aspect just came up very recently - and AFTER the controversy first started - when Edwards mentioned about a bridge he drove over where homeless people lived.

The issue on the table is whether the majority of homeless veterans are in that situation due to, as Edwards charges, the economy or whether it's due to personal problems (drug/alcohol abuse, mental problems).

Obviously, I'm sure there are veterans who are homeless due to being laid off by their employee.

But we're talking about the general situation among homeless veterans.

This looks like another example of leftwing websites misquoting O'Reilly and then Olbermann grabbing it and running wild. Without adequately checking the accuracy of the allegations.

In other words, the usual stuff from Olbermann.

What left wing blog did you get your facts from James? If you ever watch BOR, my guess is you don't, because then you would know that BOR objection never evolved like you stated. I watched the show that started this whole thing and BOR stated from the start that the economy was not to blame for them being homeless, it was substance abuse and mental illness.

'why,' that's weak, at best.

Your giving him too much credit RK.

yes \"Why\" it is really weak to show that Bill Oreilly was dead wrong about the numbers. Just ask RK, he ignored your facts, provided no logical flaw with them and never posted facts from a different source.

Still they must be weak.

Nice cut and paste job on making that video. They only show out of context remarks. Why don't they show the whole conversation?

Notice RK or no one else came up with any evidence at all.

Shocker, right ?

The right wing and RK has major egg on their faces.

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at February 1, 2008 5:20 PM

You have no evidence that Bill said "there are no homeless vets living under bridges," because he never said that.

I think someone forgot to take their meds. What are you two years old? Do you have any concept as to what BOR is objecting to?

So to sum up.

1) Edwards Claims 200,000 homless vets.

2) O'reilly says that number is stupid. (there are sources that prove this and RK has no counter source)

3) The people qualified to figure out how man homless vets there are say Edwards was right.

4) RK says that was weak, but prevents no counter evidence, shows no logical fallacies with conclusions or makes no other argument agaist 'Why's' claim other than he thinks it was weak.

Well, no shocker here, 'why' wins the debate by any rational criteria easily.

Luckily for RK he hates rationality.

1.Edwards claims there are 200,000 homeless vets due to the bad economy.

2. O'reilly says that their homeless because of subatance abuse and mental illness, NOT THE ECONOMY!

'http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/25375/1/tof-schultz-011508.wmv/','370','290')

A link to video of Bill O saying what Rk says he didn't say.

ES: I think (Edwards’) message is strong and he has tremendous conviction, but I think he needs a little bit more material than just the “Two Americas” talk, he got to get a little bit deeper…

BO: Well, we’re still looking for all the veterans sleeping under the bridges, Ed, so if you find anybody, let us know, because that’s all the guy said for the last three nights…

ES: Well they’re out there, Bill. Don’t kid yourself.

BO: They may be out there, but there’s not many of them out there. Okay? So if you know where one is, Ed…

ES: Well, actually…Now, wait a minute…one in ..

BO: Ed, Ed. If you know where’s a veteran, sleeping under a bridge, you call me immediately, and we will make sure that man does not do it. Is not there.

Wrong, again, 'why.' You are the one "mincing" words and using semantics. Let me show you.

"There are no homeless veterans sleeping under bridges."

"The only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy's brain."

See the difference? Now, get back under your bed. We could be attacked any minute and we aren't prepared, remember?

Let's see, this is has been going on for about two weeks?

And the best fox hater Greenwald could storm the gates of FNC was 6 vets out of two thousand?

No WDYT, I think the major egg is on you're face and it's from you doing first shift at 'Burger Joint'.

Oh, and as I see you and Greenwald are just using vets to promote your agenda. I don't see either of you helping.

So a**hole. Why don't you shut the F**k up.

Besides, ding! Fries are done boy!

Here is O'Reilly claiming that the vets aren't homeless. It is clear that he rejects Edwards claim. Also, I see nothing devastating in O'Reilly's TPM. O'Reilly didn't want to talk to the vets. His producer, Jessie "Stalker" Waters didn't like them being there, even though he follows people around and demands answers. Also, they had a petition of 17,000 signatures. So just because they all weren't there doesn't mean there isn't outrage from O'Reilly's right-wing propaganda to only use the troops to bash his opponents. However, he said three sentences about Walter Reed. He didn't care about that scandal. He didn't care about Republicans denying the troops a pay increase. He didn't care about legislation to keep the troops home for as long as they were at war. This guy doesn't care about the troops, only to use them for public relations.

O’Reilly: As for John Edwards, Good grief! this guy has no clue. (plays clip)

Edwards: … and tonight, 200,000 men and women who wore our uniform proudly and served this country courageously as veterans will go to sleep under bridges and on grates. We are better than this. (see Edward’s speech here)

O’Reilly: That was Edwards’ concession speech last night. I mean, come on. The only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy’s brain. 10 million illegal alien workers are sending billions of dollars back home and Edwards is running around saying nobody has any money. Hard to believe.

BO: Ed, Ed. If you know where’s a veteran, sleeping under a bridge, you call me immediately, and we will make sure that man does not do it. Is not there.

Posted by: at February 1, 2008 5:44 PM

ED: Okay Bill

Well it has been two weeks?

And the best foxhater Greenwald could do was get 6 homeless vets?

What? are they not looking under the right bridges?

See the post above you RK,

Puck you are incoherent in your ravings and the amount stroming the gates is irrelevent. Most people living under bridges don't get cable and are therefore probably not that outraged By Bill Oreilly.

More proof that the right hates our vets. though.

BO: Ed, Ed. If you know where’s a veteran, sleeping under a bridge, you call me immediately, and we will make sure that man does not do it. Is not there.

Posted by:banned loser at February 1, 2008 5:44 PM

This right here is more support than the orange faced hack has ever offered a vet, homeless or not. Thanks for posting that. I'm surprised you didn't cut that piece off.

'More proof that the right hates our vets. though."

cause I don't buy them cable?

Jack**s they show up at the VA, I'm sure they can watch all the cable they want.

150,000 beds in VA Hospitals are avalible everynight for homeless vets- Col. David Hunt said that on O'Reilly's show.

I thought you watch EVERYTHING Bill does?

Or is it just what you 'VET HATERS' want to see?

You better put down that crack pipe kid!
That shit will f**k your mind!

Why Would I it has nothing to do with the argument RK?

Although thanks for conceding that you were wrong all along about what Bill said about the homless. Of course by minimizing the problem Bill assures that people who served our country get no support. Thanks for showing your hatreed of the troops RK. It demonstrates why we so need a Democrat in office.

Oh and one last thing

Col. Hunt also said, he thinks the number might be higher than 200,000.

But you missed that moron, because you get lead around by the nose from your master organ grinder Olby.

Hey I think you should get, the drive through is backing up.

So Democrats care? Then why would they not give Bill the location of all the homeless people Edwards saw and talked about living under a bridge in his New Orleans speech.

"cause I don't buy them cable?

Jack**s they show up at the VA, I'm sure they can watch all the cable they want.

150,000 beds in VA Hospitals are avalible everynight for homeless vets- Col. David Hunt said that on O'Reilly's show.

I thought you watch EVERYTHING Bill does?

Or is it just what you 'VET HATERS' want to see?

You better put down that crack pipe kid!
That shit will f**k your mind!"

Puck you are not very bright so follow along carefully here. I will go real slow.

1) People sleeping under bridges don't have televisions.

2) Bill Orelly is on Television.

3) people who don't own Televison's might not get outraged about what people say on T.V. because they can't see it. Clear now?

btw: What college did you go to puck. or did you? I want to show them your last post if you did. I think even oral Roberts would take your degree back for that.

"So Democrats care? Then why would they not give Bill the location of all the homeless people Edwards saw and talked about living under a bridge in his New Orleans speech. "

I wrote in the location of some. Bill seems to have ignored that.

If Edwards cares so much about the poor, why would Edward's staff not tell Bill where Edwards saw all those homeless people, so Bill could help them?

Mabe because he was using estimates from Homless groups and not getting addresses where they are. This is an absurb argument. Experts in the field estimate the numbers are around 200k. Edwards is asking us to make policy for such people who served our country to help. If Bill wants those people wh not just call homless groups? It is absurd and it is just spin on Bill''s part.

Since O'Reilly's producer turned away, as the people are quick to note, the six homeless vets that showed up out front of News Corp, I don't think he would help the remaining 199,994 homeless vets. In other words, if he is unwilling to help 6, what makes you think he would help all the rest. They were right in front of his building and he sent his stalker goon after them. But they support the troops, right?

Your missing my point. In Edwards speech in New Orleans where he backed out of the Presidental race. He stated that while driving to the event there were some homeless people living under a bridge that he saw. When Bill contacted Edward's staff to find out where they were so Bill could offer help to them. They stated they did not know where the bridge location was. So if Edwards really care about the poor why not give their location?

Well that was his staff not Edwards they spoke with maybe they didn't know. maybe they hadn't spoken with Edwards all day. Mabe Edwards didn't see them that day. All are possabilities and neither ou or I know which, if any, are true.

Regardless of what happend though. Bill has been proven not only wrong but very wrong about the numbers of homless vets and Bill should apologize for minimizing problems among people who served our country..

But you are assuming that O'Reilly was really willing to help and that Edwards thought that O'Reilly would help. So my point is that O'Reilly had some vets at his office and he turned them away. Do you actually think O'Reilly was going to find a place to live for all of the vets? It takes a political solution, not some talk show host promising something he can't deliver. Instead of mocking Edwards, he should support governmental support to take care of the vets. Not distract people away from the real problem by calling Edwards names.

Also, how do you know O'Reilly called Edwards staff and that Edwards didn't give up the location? If there is no independent source, then we can't trust O'Reilly given the fact that he refused to talk to the vets the other day.

If we watched the same video I don't recall any of thoes six vets asking for help.

> refused to talk to the vets the other day.

Do you really believe that if someone complained about Keith Olbermann outside the NBC building, Keith Olbermann would go out there and talk to them? O'Reilly could make a clever little video, going out to NBC HQ and demanding to see Keith. Would you be sitting here and condemning Keith for not going out to talk to O'Reilly, or any other disgrunted citizen who happens to show up, willy nilly on the spur of the moment?

The whole thing is a phony publicity stunt. News channel anchors do not run out to the sidewalk every time somebody has a complaint. You wanna bet that if these were genuinely homeless vets and not just playing the role, that they couldn't get in to see O'Reilly's producers and maybe even O'Reilly himself if they called and made an appointment? But hey, that doesn't make "good tv", at least as defined on OlbyPlanet.

I didn't say that they asked his help. O'Reilly's comment was that he would do whatever he could do get them off the street. The point from the previous poster was why didn't Edwards point to where the vets were so O'Reilly could sweep in and make their lives better. However, the vets wanted to talk to O'Reilly and they were turned away. O'Reilly or Jessie "Stalker" Waters didn't ask if they needed help. They told them to go away and they couldn't talk to O'Reilly. So, how could they ask for help if O'Reilly wouldn't even talk to them? But, again, O'Reilly said that he would help them but he turned them away. If he cared about them maybe he would have talked to them so he would understand their circumstance better instead of using them so he could mock Edwards.

Face it, KO would not be discussing homeless vets if it were not a vehicle to criticize Bill O'Reilly.

I would pay to see BOR call out KO to the curb. I'm no O'Reilly fan but KO is like the school attention-seeking bully, what with his huge picture of BOR at his window, facing Fox News, hiding safely up 3 stories and with a street offering protection. What a loser.

I don't care if there are 312,265,149 homeless vets sleeping under the bridges. If they're vets, they're not active duty, they're not serving their country, and we owe them nothing, not a damn thing. At the end of the Civil War, CSA vets ere responsible for getting themselves home. At the end of WWI, German troops were left at the lines and had to make their own way home. At the end of WWII, Japanese soldiers on the remote islands had to arrange their own transport. Good enough for them, good enough for the Vietnam vets and the Iraq vets who lost the wars. We owe them nothing.

I'm not here to defend Olbermann. I don't know what he would do. If he said that there were no homeless vets in order to use that idea to bash someone, yes I would criticize him. If you have an example that he does so then lets hear it and I would be happy to say he is in the wrong. But I doubt O'Reilly would go to Olbermann since O'Reilly has only called him by name once in the past year or two (if the above TPM is correct, it will be the second time). But O'Reilly is all talk behind his desk. He sends Jessie "Stalker" Waters to be his little goon, or Fox security after people who call his show.

Where in that video did the vets state they were homeless? They just wanted to tell BOR he was wrong. I'll bet you'll see one of them on his show in the near future.

> If he said that there were no homeless vets in order to use that idea to bash someone

Oh you're not here to defend Olbermann. Instead you're here to lie about what O'Reilly said. That sentence of yours alone makes your opinion intellectually dishonest and not worth the bandwidth it's using up.

Phony: So you think its ok for government's to take advantage of people who want to protect their country, but use them for their own political purpose and not help them? You don't care that the government knows that troops have brain trauma and send them back into combat and then say, "You're on your own"? I sure hope that you are joking because your type of attitude is exactly what this administration's is, but too afraid to admit it. Since you owe them nothing, I guess they should be able to take your right away to say what you did. However, I am thinking they are too big for that.

You guys crack me up! I’ve been reading some of the entries and posts on this site and they are great! I almost thought that this was a for real site a few times. But I know that no one could be able to actually believe any of this stuff. It’s like the Onion. I get it now. Thanks for the yuks! You guys should think about doing this professionally. Really! Thanks!

Johnny, I'll repost my post from above where I made the argument. Also, this has nothing to do with Olbermann. When I watched the episode that O'Reilly made these claims I was appalled. It was before Olbermann made any comments about it so I would appreciate it if you stop manipulating my argument. However, I think it is obvious that you and others are doing everything you can to defend O'Reilly, no matter how horrible his comments are. That isn't something to be proud of.

Here is O'Reilly claiming that the vets aren't homeless. It is clear that he rejects Edwards claim. Also, I see nothing devastating in O'Reilly's TPM. O'Reilly didn't want to talk to the vets. His producer, Jessie "Stalker" Waters didn't like them being there, even though he follows people around and demands answers. Also, they had a petition of 17,000 signatures. So just because they all weren't there doesn't mean there isn't outrage from O'Reilly's right-wing propaganda to only use the troops to bash his opponents. However, he said three sentences about Walter Reed. He didn't care about that scandal. He didn't care about Republicans denying the troops a pay increase. He didn't care about legislation to keep the troops home for as long as they were at war. This guy doesn't care about the troops, only to use them for public relations.

O’Reilly: As for John Edwards, Good grief! this guy has no clue. (plays clip)

Edwards: … and tonight, 200,000 men and women who wore our uniform proudly and served this country courageously as veterans will go to sleep under bridges and on grates. We are better than this. (see Edward’s speech here)

O’Reilly: That was Edwards’ concession speech last night. I mean, come on. The only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy’s brain. 10 million illegal alien workers are sending billions of dollars back home and Edwards is running around saying nobody has any money. Hard to believe.

You mean after reading Cecelia, Cee, Grammie, Royal King and Sharon you thought this site was real? It does a veneer of reality, doesn't it, then you read all of this crap, over and over ....

My guess Johnny is that they hope if they repeat the lie enough, it will some how become the truth.

Or, kbass, maybe if they keep telling the truth, someone will be drawn to the light? Far-fetched, I know, but I like to remain positive.

You mean after reading Cecelia, Cee, Grammie, Royal King and Sharon you thought this site was real? It does a veneer of reality, doesn't it, then you read all of this crap, over and over ....

Posted by: at February 1, 2008 7:29 PM

Royal King, Grammy, Sharon, Cee.... would you folks please untie this poor person so they can leave...

So when O'Reilly, after he plays the clip of Edwards talking about vets sleeping under bridges, says, "The ONLY thing sleeping under bridges is this guy's brain," the 'only' doesn't imply saying that vets aren't sleeping under bridges? I guess what's more important is to defend O'Reilly, not defend the troops that O'Reilly says he does so much. This is typical far-right propaganda. So I suppose you are self-projecting when you say it is me who is repeating a lie until it becomes true. Much like saying we went to war to create a democracy, right? Something O'Reilly constantly says instead of thinking that the WMD was a way to get us into war and they know we would have to stay longer, but lets not tell the public this. These people are real moral human beings that the framers would be so proud of.

Brian, negative insinuations about O'Reilly will likely get you banned from this site.

Brian, negative insinuations about O'Reilly will likely get you banned from this site.

Why does the issue of homelessness only come up during election season?

The only reason vets were singled out by Edwards is because we are in a war and it's a way to say that the Administration doesn't care about former military members.

The majority of vets are homeless for the same reasons that non-vets are homeless -- mental illness and addiction.

What special programs can keep them in shelters, or personal care facilities or group homes, any more than it keeps the rest of the homeless population in these facilities?

What special programs are going to keep them going to mental health care centers or the VA in order to get their meds, when it's hard as hell to get other mentally ill people (let alone homeless ones) to do the same.

I'm not saying that these issues aren't important, just that the reason Edwards specified homeless vets was a political maneuver.

In the context of all this, let's keep that straight, and lets wonder why NBC feels it so necessary to go after Bill O'Reilly by way of the political campaign stump speech.

I hope it does. Then it just shows how much the right loves free speech. I have never sworn, threatened him, etc. It will just show how the right whines about the left shouting down people is just political theater for the right since it isn't about free speech, but speech they don't like (i.e. they don't like evolution or political speeches about Bush being a horrible president, but they don't report on a teacher in New Jersey saying if you don't accept Jesus you will go to hell).

You're deaf, dumb and blind if you think the homeless issue comes up only during elections. Thousands of people work on this problem every day of every year. This is such a typical Republican attitude and behavior. "You only bring it up to embarass:

(a) Reagan
(b) Dole
(c) Bush
(d) Romney,

or whatever Republican is being justifiably tarred and feathered at the moment for HIS insensitivity to the less fortunate. Boy, you really take the cake. How mean can anyone be and still be allowed to breathe?

That's like saying Gay marriage only comes up during election season Cecelia.

Edwards is running on the issue of poverty. It was all he talked about-- two americas.

And the question is was Bill worng in attacking Edwards for pointing out a fact?

BO: Ed, Ed. If you know where’s a veteran, sleeping under a bridge, you call me immediately, and we will make sure that man does not do it. Is not there.

Posted by:banned loser at February 1, 2008 5:44 PM

This right here is more support than the orange faced hack has ever offered a vet, homeless or not. Thanks for posting that. I'm surprised you didn't cut that piece off.

Posted by: royal king at February 1, 2008 5:54 PM

Why Would I it has nothing to do with the argument RK?

posted by hack

I'm pretty sure this olbermannwatch.com. It has everything to do with the argument.

> The ONLY thing sleeping under bridges is this guy's brain," the 'only' doesn't imply saying that vets aren't sleeping under bridges?

I don't consider vets to be "things" and I suspect O'Reilly doesn't either. He has done several segments on this, with Homeless Vets advocates and others, and has NEVER said there are no homeless vets. That's your construction, and your lie, and you're stuck with it. Don't try to pin it on Mr Bill.

> Then it just shows how much the right loves free speech.

Oh look, the baby is already crying because a liar said he will likely be banned. Not only does he tell lies, he believes them as well. Tell me how much olbermann loves free speech. When was the last time he had a guest on who supported Bush? The last time he interviewed ANY Republican on Countdown? How about a guest who disagreed with him about Iraq? And you have the chutpah to complain about the RIGHT trying to shut down speech they don't like?

You're hear talking, man. And no Republicans can get on Countdown. Do the math.

Cecelia,

Yes, you are right that it should be an issue all the time, not just during political times. However, at least the issue is being talked about. Also, it wouldn't have been an issue if O'Reilly didn't mock Edwards at the expense of the vets. If he would have just said, "Look, there are homeless vets and it is an important issue that we should deal with. Some homelessness is due to alcoholism and drugs, but the effects of war sometimes lead to these things. Also, sending troops to war with brain trauma we shouldn't be surprised that alcoholism is a problem."

Instead, he just blames it on drugs and alcohol and also denied that there were homeless vets in the first place (again, saying that the ONLY thing under a bridge is Edwards' brain in context of talking about homeless vets where he didn't even discuss the issue at hand until he was criticized shows what O'Reilly's main interest is). Also, it is a little odd that you are blaming Edwards for political manipulation and leave out O'Reilly for doing the same thing since he doesn't like Edwards so he used the topic to bash Edwards.

To date, we have raised $27.43 to add George W. Bush to Mt. Rushmore, Tha makes us $186,798.54, short, so we will extend the contributiion period.

However, the Fleischer Bar Mitzvah on Saturday in Scarsdale will feature a bust of George W. Bush in chopped chicken liver. "We believe this is an important first step in taking our beloved President from chicken organs to stone," said the Fund Chairman.

> The ONLY thing sleeping under bridges is this guy's brain," the 'only' doesn't imply saying that vets aren't sleeping under bridges?

I don't consider vets to be "things" and I suspect O'Reilly doesn't either. He has done several segments on this, with Homeless Vets advocates and others, and has NEVER said there are no homeless vets. That's your construction, and your lie, and you're stuck with it. Don't try to pin it on Mr Bill.

He did say "They may be out there, but there’s not many of them out there. Okay? So if you know where one is, Ed" and he said: " That was Edwards’ concession speech last night. I mean, come on. The only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy’s brain. 10 million illegal alien workers are sending billions of dollars back home and Edwards is running around saying nobody has any money. Hard to believe."

That looks like he disagreeing with Edwards numbers of 200,000 vets.

"Oh look, the baby is already crying because a liar said he will likely be banned. Not only does he tell lies, he believes them as well."

Now there a mature argument from a first class idiot. Wht would bill say there are not many of them out there and attack Edwards for saing the were? Either he was woefully wrong and should apolgize or he is a LIAR.

"Tell me how much olbermann loves free speech. When was the last time he had a guest on who supported Bush?"

And know a logical fallacy: spare the Tu quoque please.

"The last time he interviewed ANY Republican on Countdown? How about a guest who disagreed with him about Iraq? And you have the chutpah to complain about the RIGHT trying to shut down speech they don't like?"

Well you guys seem to be doing it right and left these days don't you? So whether Olbermann does it really has nothing to do with our own deplorable actions.

"You're hear talking, man. And no Republicans can get on C"

Great who cares. Oreilly still either lied delibertly or is incapable of getting hs facts straight. All our cring doesn't change that.

patsy, the feds are knocking on your door, better go get it.........

O'Reilly for doing the same thing since he doesn't like Edwards so he used the topic to bash Edwards.

Posted by: Brian at February 1, 2008 7:57 PM

Wrong, brian. Silky started it. Bill finished it.

They just wanted to tell me they agree, warrentless wiretapping is wrong.

When was the last time he had a guest on who supported Bush?"
#
Where would we find such a person?

Johnny, I wasn't crying about being banned. I said I HOPED to be banned. Look, if you can't extract the meaning of what O'Reilly was saying, then that is your problem. But I guess it is your own construction that O'Reilly doesn't consider vets things, especially after his ignoring of Walter Reed. Let me break it down for you. When O'Reilly showed the clip of Edwards talking about vets sleeping under bridges, O'Reilly didn't say that is horrible, it is a disgrace, sad, a tragedy, etc. The 'only' and what it refers to (Edwards brain) is used to say that there aren't vets sleeping under bridges. If you want to keep defending O'Reilly's comment, then it is your conscience. You can keep calling me a liar, but your defense of O'Reilly is very perplexing. But if it helps you to sleep at night to have a hero who says disgusting things, then keep calling me a liar. At least you have a house to sleep in, unlike those veterans that O'Reilly disparages.

But what I loved about your comment was that I lie and I believe it. Well, if I beli