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 believe it then it's not a lie since I am not purposely telling a falsehood.

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

If you mean finished it by lying, he did do that.

> Well, if I believe it then it's not a lie since I am not purposely telling a falsehood.

OK. You didn't lie. You are delusional. I can go with that.

"OK. You didn't lie. You are delusional. I can go with that."

Well if proof makes ou delusional then he must be because he proved his point and you never countered it. Weak Johnny ver weak.

Well, if you want to call me names, then go ahead. Also, no surprise that O'Reilly didn't mention Olbermann's name. Furthermore, why didn't O'Reilly mention that Waters chased the vets away? Was it in order to come back later to interview them because O'Reilly knew it was handled badly? And yes, the vets looked bad by not being able to say what O'Reilly said. But the truth is that O'Reilly did say that there weren't any homeless vets and then he changed his statement with Schultz after being told the numbers were from the Bush administration.

If Johnny had any integrity he would just admit that Bill was wrong about the significance of the homeless vet problem.

He would acknolwedge that Bill either was lying about the problem being small, or was in error and continues to be error making himself look like a sloppy reporter.

He won't do that though. Instead he will say well Olbermann was wrong about this and about that. (which may be true) but he was right about Bill Oreilly in this instance. Let's see if Johnny is man enough to admit it.

By the way, Olbermann just criticized Clinton and her Iraq war. In fact, he contradicted her about her rationalization (here I am propping up Olbermann since that is what should be done).

Apparently, there are stories done in newspapers that give the name of the bridge (I-10) that Edwards supposedly didn't give to O'Reilly. Lets see how fast O'Reilly can get there to give them money and shelter.

Well, if I believe it then it's not a lie since I am not purposely telling a falsehood.

Posted by: Brian at February 1, 2008 8:11 PM

When you make comments like this, yooooooou might be an olbyloon.

>

But what I loved about your comment was that I lie and I believe it. Well, if I believe it then it's not a lie since I am not purposely telling a falsehood.

Posted by: Brian at February 1, 2008 8:11 PM

"OK. You didn't lie. You are delusional. I can go with that."

Well if proof makes ou delusional then he must be because he proved his point and you never countered it. Weak Johnny ver weak.

Posted by: at February 1, 2008 8:16 PM

Royal,

A lie is defined as something that you say even though you know it is false. If I believe what I am saying (meaning, I don't think it is false), then it is not a lie, but rather wrong (wrong to you). Just like you aren't lying because you think that O'Reilly actually said there aren't any homeless vets, even though it is hard to believe someone could make that argument.

IMO, this is another case of O'Reilly speaking before thinking. The other example is what he said about Shawn Hornbeck. He attempted to justify his comment by stating that he did not buy into the Stockholm Syndrome. He came across as a callous jerk and the next day, after immediately getting hammered, said that he was not aware of a syndrome where kids will cooperate out of complete fear, a different syndrome than Stockholm. He should have made a heartfelt public apology with a generous donation to the charity started by Hornebck's parents. If I were his PR person, that is what I would have advised. That example made him into a monster, even though prior to that (and continuing), he had utilized air time to promote laws protecting children and punishing pedophiles.

Back to the topic at hand. His arrogance is what gets him into trouble. I saw the segment with Col. Hunt, and he argued with the colonel a little also. O'Reilly hates to look foolish. He should have focused on the argument that homeless vets in general are homeless not because of the economy, but because of substance abuse and/or mental health issues. He made a comment without thinking of the impact. The point is that there are homeless vets, whether under bridges or not, generally for reasons outside of the state of the economy. He obviously believes there are homeless vets because he said that they have substance abuse issues. He downplayed the number first before obtaining information that there are approximately 150,000 beds available each night for the vets. He found that out after the comment was made that implied a low number of vets sleeping under bridges. He could make a public donation to the veterans without admitting anything, but he probably won't, not out of lack of compassion but stubbornness. I think members of the military still appreciate him for his visits to them in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Because those are prior good acts, I think that should weigh in his favor before condemning him as anti-veteran.

Brian, keep making posts like that. We'll have a field day with ya. A few of your co horts were recently banned for making malicious and disrupting comments so we need some replacements.

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?
Posted by: at February 1, 2008 7:52 PM

Well, of course the subject comes up with advocacy, moron. However, I'd bet the farm if you did a Lexis search on the issue of homeless on the lips of any politician, of either party, you'd find it rarely happens outside an election year. If you did one on just a general discussion via media interest in advocacy outside of an election year, I'd bet you find even less of that.

Of course, my saying this isn't the same as saying that the issue is unimportant, but then you're not given to reason, are you. Goodness knows subtle concepts aren't your forte either...

Let me tell you something else that wouldn't happen unless it was an election year either. You wouldn't have an major network camera crew showing up at the studio of a rival network talk show host for a staged "protest" event composed of six people.

The petition had 17,000 names on it. Weren't any of the people who signed it vets with...tv sets... who were offended enough to show up and protest O'Reilly's statement on BEHALF of the homeless?

Guess not. You know why? Because even they know this is contrived silliness blown way out of proportion by political partisans and Bill O's bete noir. You know...meanies that they are...

I've worked with homeless folks for years, putz. How about I go find them more than six vets they can pose for a photo-op?

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." (Brian)

Do you have stats as to how many of these homeless vets served in war, particularly Operation Iraqi Freedom? Does your comment make an assumption that most of the homeless vets served in the current war?

Greenwald directed "Xanadu"? Yeeeccch! I actually saw that movie. 90 minutes of wasted time and money that I will never get back. Even having music from ELO coundln't save that bomb.

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.

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

Brian, it's not "blaming" Edwards to suggest that the way he approached the issue of homelessness was a calculated political move. THAT is a fact. One doesn't have to be a dyed in the wool Bill O. fan to suggest this little concept and in the midst of your framing it up that way, you should consider just who the partisan is here.

The point I was making was about NBC News. This may be a complete shocker to you here but it's quite off the beaten path for a news organization to fly to a makeshift protest rally outside the office of another media person because of one comment made about the content of a stump speech.

Media Matters recently got up a petition against Chris Matthews over his comments dissing poor Hillary. If they had also protested Matthews outside of the headquarters of MSNBC, how likely do you think it would be that CBS showed up with a camera?

The fact that the 99.9% of the people who signed the petition didn't show up in support ought to tell you that they are more aware of how insignificant this is and that O'Reilly might not have been right about the actual number of vets, but he caught Edward's political maneuver just fine.

O'Reilly's comments shouldn't have rated any more than yet another WPITW bit for Olberman, let alone his mention of them in his interview with Howard Kurtz.

He's and his friends at NBC are just going to have to work harder on this. Better luck next time. With a little mass mailing and a few diaries at Kos perhaps they can work this up into a Nov. referendum on Bill O'Reilly.

Good point, Sharon.

Another one. Certain types of schizophrenia show up in the mid twenties, which is the age that many get out the military. Many homeless suffer from this type of disorder, vet or not.

In any war only one out of 6-7 military are in combat. Are there stats to show the breakdown of vets who are homeless?

BOR was overbearing on this and did not help himself or his point, which I think has a lot of validity.

His point was it is not the economy nor is it the fact that they were vets that has caused the vast majority to homeless.

As an illustration I know a family that all the men are in and out of homelessness. The father and his two sons. They all developed the same schizophrenia ay about the same age. One is a peacetime stateside vet and the other two never served, even in the guard.

It is sad that these people are so vulnerable and difficult to help. The only way to prevent these poor souls from homelessness would be involuntary commitment.

Grammie

The only way to prevent these poor souls from homelessness would be involuntary commitment.

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at February 1, 2008 11:10 PM

And there are limitations on that.

Mental illness is not a crime. People who are not a danger to themselves or to others cannot be kept locked away in psychiatric hospitals.

Even more reason for Silky to take them in himself.

Even more reason for Silky to take them in himself.

Posted by: royal king at February 1, 2008 11:19 PM

How about Robert Greenwald just paying them scale?

Cecelia, you are absolutely right about that and most are not dangerous.

Rather than make political hay we should address the problem realistically. There have been many approaches and not much inroads on the problem.

Some things are probably not fixable.

Grammie

Grammie,

I wasn't lecturing or "correcting" you, I know that you understand that it's more difficult than an Edwards soundbite.

Obviously not everyone does. :D

Your comment about mentally ill vets not being dangerous is interesting because it reminds me how much Hollywood has fostered the image of the dangerous psychotic veteran.

Is there any other kind in recent movie history?

Is there any other kind in recent movie history?

Posted by: Cecelia at February 1, 2008 11:45 PM

Was Rambo considered 'psychotic?'

Cecelia,

I consider it blaming when he refused to think of it as an issue. When O'Reilly first mentioned that Edwards was talking about this, O'Reilly didn't state that he disagreed that it was the economy that caused the vets to be homeless, but rather it was addiction (he only stated this a day or two later). Instead, he just ridiculed him (which I think is a political move because Edwards doesn't want to appear on Fox so O'Reilly feels compelled to slam him every chance he gets. Don't forget that hatchet job of "journalism" when his producers went to N.C. to interview Edwards' neighbors without asking what political divide these people are on. So I think it is pretty funny that he went to that much effort to slam Edwards [meanwhile he gets upset and calls people Bush-bashers for calling Bush a liar, but he can call Edwards a phony and a liar]). So one main point of mine is that O'Reilly is politicizing this issue also to bash an enemy (NBC and Edwards).

Here is some facts about the brain trauma: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/28/sotu-veterans-health-care-has-gotten-worse-under-bush/

I am not claiming that all the homeless vets are from Iraq, but the point is that O'Reilly doesn't know that they are all addicted or not. As a poster noted, its like his insane comment that Hornbeck might have liked his situation. He bashed the press for saying it was Stockholm syndrome and that they were idiots for jumping on that idea. So the better alternative was to say the kid liked his situation? At least the former has scientific validity. So once again, O'Reilly is just stating things without getting the facts. I don't know how many have brain trauma, but we should find out. Also, we should find out why they are turning to drugs. Is it because of the war flashbacks? Political or not, at least Edwards is trying to get the dialogue going. If Edwards didn't talk about these issues outside of the political season, then I wish he did and I am disappointed. But I don't think you know if he did or not so I think it is unfair to claim that (just because its not in the papers doesn't mean he wasn't out there). The papers should be more pro-active about reporting it if he is out there.

And the Media Matters deal was that Matthews was being sexist in his comments. I think people not having a home is more important than sexist language so I don't think a protest is necessary. Some people may think differently and if they wanted to protest, I have no problem with that.

And I'm not sure how you can extract the idea that with so many signatures and not that many showed up implies they didn't think the issue was important. It is a psychological factor and we don't know why they didn't show up.

And its not that O'Reilly got the numbers wrong, but he first denied it and then said whatever the number is it's not that many. The insensitivity is beaming from him. You would think that how much he supports the troops he would care more about this instead of promising next week to, possibly, do public relations to repair the damage this has caused him in the eyes of the troops (though he could do it out of the goodness of his heart, but we must keep his attitude of Walter Reed, Bush refusing to give a pay increase, not giving the troops time home for as long as they were at war, etc. in mind).

A pawn is a pawn......Silky used the vets to try to further his political career and O'Reilly called him on it....The funny thing is that the exageration and emotionalism does not tip the rational off here....Saying things like "shame," etc shows where Silky is coming from....especially as he is disgustingly showy with his wealth.....he is a hypocrite.

Like I say, when Silky sells all he has and lives the talk, I will listen to him....he never will and so I am not worried....he is just another flim-flam politican willing to use the downtrodden to further his ploy for power....

A house the size of his is a stunning example of the hypocrisy of the radical left and the games they play with people's lives to obtain power....

Join their manipulation groups.....

Homeless vets
The Iraqi people
The armed forces deployed around the world
African-Americans
Sick Children
Gays and Lesbians
The poor
The middle-class

Yep....the wanna-be king Silky ready to use any of his pawns to get what he wants in his silly political chess game.....

What a message! What a shame.

Cee you forgot:

Dead Soldiers
Bill O'Reilly Haters
Fox News Haters

Let's see O'Reilly has been to IraQ & Afghanistan.

All proceeds from billoreilly.com gos to different Veterans groups.

Just about everyday on 'The Radio Factor' Bill has made mention that if any homeless vet needs help to get in touch with the show.

Oh, wait! I'm sure some know-it-all lib is going to come on and say they don't have radios under bridges.

Meanwhile:

John Edwards has done what for veterans? (homeless or other)?

Keith Olbermann has done what?

David Lettermann has done what?

'Fox Hater' Greenwald has done what?

That piece of 'Human debris' that was on here last night that called me a troop hater because I don't buy cable for homeless vets.

HAS DONE WHAT?

In 1986 when I was a good little leftist, commie, union payin', mindless, flip the dem lever every Nov., mind numb robot.

I gave my time to working in a soup kitchen in Dover, NJ

Homeless people were offered:

Free Meals

Free beds

Free Medical (from Dover General)

And for whatever reason, some wanted to live under a bridge, under Rt. 46.

Cecelia, how many homeless people that you helped went right back under the bridge?

Or, how many did you find dead because they wanted to guzzle a fifth of Vodka in one shot?

But some sanctimonius scumbag wants to come on here and talk about how Bill O'Reilly might have lied?

But you know I shouldn't be so hard on Mr. Edwards and other politicos. They use to show up.

Every Thanksgiving

And they would stay.

As long as the cameras's from the t.v. station was there.

Sometimes, and Cecelia you know this. You know you ain't gona be able to help some so you just gotta say.

If you need me, you know I'm there for ya brother.

O'Reilly, yeah he might run at the mouth. but you know he's gona be there.

Olbermann and Edwards? If they can't use you? They are just gona spit on you!

And mental midgits who would'nt be caught anywhere near the crappy part of town are going to come on here and run their mouths.

Puck,

I saw the list of Bill's charities from his site that you linked. I'm interested in knowing what percentage of the money that he collects actually gets to the charity and whether it is on par with the average. Do you have a link to that information?

As to his contributing to charities for veterans, it doesn't matter.

The singular symbol for "goodness" in the eyes of liberals is the extent to which one supports govt solutions for these problems via Democratic pols.

You could give all your earthy possessions to the poor, and expend yourself to the point of exhaustion on their behalf, and still one vote against a Democrat putting forth a public policy initiative would negate all that completely.

Conversely, one vote for that candidate trumps personal action and sacrifice completely.

It's just the way it is.

Cecelia, isn't there a watchdog type organization that tracks charities and have breakdowns on operating expenses vs actual donations.

I seem to remember Sharon mentioning having checked on a group she supports to make sure it went to those who needed it.

Grammie

PS You misunderstood me. My comment referred to THE BAD GUYS not WE GOOD GUYS. :)

Thanks, Grammy, I'll have to research it.

I assumed that Bill O'Reilly's organization wasn't a nonprofit and that the information might be something Puck had found out from another site.

I'll try the charity watchdog sites.

There are way too many assumptions going on. How do you know that Olbermann doesn't give to charity? Just because he doesn't speak of it every three seconds like O'Reilly doesn't mean he doesn't donate. One could just as easily say that O'Reilly brags how much charity he gives just for the public relations (he seems to be an ego maniac in that regard). If O'Reilly gives, that's great, but there is such a thing as humility.

People keep saying that O'Reilly called Edwards on a political ploy, but, once again, one could just as easily say that O'Reilly is using this to bash Edwards. I'll say it again since no one seems to defend O'Reilly about this: He ignored the horrible scandal on Walter Reed. He said he did an investigation and all that he said about that "investigation" was that there was beurocracy. He didn't show his report like the dog-and-pony show O'Reilly put on tracking down Edwards neighbors.

Look, I don't believe a word O'Reilly says. He has lied too many times for me to take him at his word. Perhaps Olbermann has lied. But I don't get my news from him. If he says something, I look for the source of it.

Examples of O'Reilly lying. (1) He bashed a school in Wisconsin for changing the lyrics of Silent Night but kept the music and inferred that they were bashing Christmas. The only problem was that one of the songs the kids sang was "We Wish You a Merry Christmas." The play was something that was written in 1988 and the writer used the same music of certain songs so it would be easier for them to remember. (2) In "Who's Looking Out for You?" O'Reilly gave a bogus quote of Madison claiming that Madison thought the government was based on the 10 Commandments. O'Reilly never a gave a source for this quote. The problem is that no Madison historian has ever seen that quote. The quote is circulated by Christian right-wing fundamentalists (i.e. David Barton wrote about it, Gingrich picked up on it and so did Limbaugh). Thus, O'Reilly is getting his information from right wing fanatics, just like how he says the left does from blogs. (3) In the same book he says that Franklin wanted prayer at the Constitutional Convention. This is true, but O'Reilly left out the fact that only 4 or 5 people agreed to it and the recommendation was rejected. (4) In "Culture Warrior" O'Reilly gives a Madison "quote" about toleration of religion and the government. However, the problem is that, anyone who is a REAL historian knows, Madison rejected the idea of toleration (as did Jefferson) because toleration implies there is one established religion/morality and they just tolerate others. In fact, the quote given by O'Reilly was George Mason's rough draft of the VA Bill of Rights and Madison edited out toleration and other things as well. (5) The next few aren't so much lies, but hypocrisy. O'Reilly complains that blogs and politicians on the left communicate. However, he didn't report that Hannity, Beck, Ingraham, (Limbaugh was invited), and others were invited to a closed door meeting with the President. Also, Dobson had a meeting with Bush to talk about Iran foreign policy. (6) O'Reilly complained about Jay Bennish and the bashing he gave to Bush (and I think he bashed Christians too). However, O'Reilly never reported on the the story in New Jersey where a teacher told his students that if they don't accept Jesus they will go to hell. (7) O'Reilly complains about liberal papers and Bush-bashing. However, at the country's founding, the papers were divided into Federalist and Republican. Jefferson founded some Republican papers and one was written by Franklin's grand kid (there is an excellent book that is over 900 pages long and there are excerpts of these newspapers). The Republican papers called Washington a monarch (i.e. dictator, fascist) as well as Adams. I'm pretty sure that Washington is a more important figure than Bush, so it's not that bad calling Bush a fascist (Bush and Adams are very much alike and Adams was ripped).

O'Reilly has no clue what this country was founded on or the traditions of this country. He misleads on too many things. Most of this entire blog and I disagree on the issue of the homeless vets. I think O'Reilly uses the troops for PR effects, but when it comes down to helping them in dire need caused by Bush, he ignores them b/c he doesn't want a bad image for Bush. Now he has to react due to the publicity. His political bashing of Edwards blew up in his face. Yes, I am disappointed that Olbermann has not gone to Afghanistan or Iraq (he hasn't to my knowledge). But Olbermann doesn't, I don't think, use the troops for political advantage. He is only bashing O'Reilly because of the stupid thing he said in replying to Edwards. Look, if O'Reilly from the get-go said, "Yes, there is a problem, but Edwards is wrong in his analysis." Instead, he claimed there isn't a problem (I already pointed this out, but if you disagree, fine. It's pretty clear he denied it). Then he said there isn't that many. Then he gave the right figure, but then said Edwards was wrong in his analysis. If he did this from the beginning, there could be a debate about it (the debate could be why the vets are addicted. Is it b/c of the effects of war and that they used alcohol and drugs to ease the pain?). But O'Reilly got his facts wrong and HE was called on it, now he is trying to repair the damage. His story changed as many times as his and the conservative talking points on why we went to war. It's quite amazing to see these people at work.

Thanks for showing your hatreed of the troops RK. It demonstrates why we so need a Democrat in office.

Posted by:why at February 1, 2008 6:01 PM

The demonstrators promptly said they will keep protesting outside the recruiting station at 64 Shattuck Square until the Marines leave Berkeley - which is what the City Council (ALL DEMOCRATS) advised the service to do in a vote Tuesday night that called the Marines "unwelcome intruders."

The council also voted to allow members of Code Pink, the protest group that helped organize Friday's blockade, to park at a designated space in front of the recruiting office every Wednesday afternoon and operate a loudspeaker.

The council's action apparently made Berkeley the first city in the nation to call for the ouster of a military recruiting station from its borders.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/02/BALTUQKOE.DTL

There are at least a half-dozen falsehoods in your latest diatribe (including most everything using the "O'Reilly never reported" construction) but I'd like you to explain this one:

> But Olbermann doesn't, I don't think, use the troops for political advantage.

Oh? Like when Kerry made his alleged "botched joke" about being stuck in Iraq, and hundreds of our troops over there protested that comment, and Olby said anyone who woudl protest the comment is stupid?

Like when he AGREED with William Arkin that our troops are no better than mercenaries, and that they should feel lucky if they DON'T get people spitting on them when they return? And that they are being treated TOO well because they are being given "obscene amenities" in Iraq?

Tell me again how Olbermann doesn't use (or abuse) the troops to suit his purposes.

Brian,

Could you sum up your point in all that, please.

> Could you sum up your point in all that, please.

Hang on Cecelia. Give him time to look up what his answer should be. (I mean, do you really believe he read O'Reilly's book?) Besides, I was first. ;) I want him to explain how Keith never uses our troops for political purposes. He just thinks they are rapist mercenaries who deserve to be spat on.

Johnny,

Or how about Brian being unable to distinguish a media organization interviewing the neighbors of a political candidate running for president, from a media organization sending a crew out to film a petition being delivered to another media personality....

Oh Cecelia, you're being such a nitpicker! Don't you know? O'Reilly is a LIAR because he has a quote in his book that is disputed or incorrect. But Keith's Top Ten Lies of 2006 or 2007? Well, that's different. It's Keith. O'Reilly is a LIAR but Keith? Well, we just won't talk about HIS lies.

I use the "O'Reilly never reported" because he bashed MSNBC for not reporting the medal of honor ceremony during primetime (even though they reported it during the day) and Fox always says (including O'Reilly) that bias also comes in the form of what you don't report. So I am holding him to his own standards.

Will you please elaborate on the many falsehoods? Just because you mention that I am wrong doesn't exactly make it so. You need to back up your assertions to have any credibility. This is an O'Reilly tactic. When challenged on his silly Soros-chart by an emailer, he told them to look up the facts on their own. However, O'Reilly is making the argument so he needs to show how the facts fit together. Just pointing to a source where the information isn't coherently laid out doesn't do any good because if the person says there is something missing (I in fact looked at the site and I found no information that O'Reilly "found") O'Reilly can just say you didn't look in the right place. He must give a page number and the EXACT information that he found so someone can find it. He shouldn't leave the reader to search an entire document just to collaborate what he says. That is not the reader's job. It is the one who is making the argument.

About Kerry's botched joke, I do think he made a mistake. He apologized for it. O'Reilly doesn't apologize. He just keeps trying to spin himself out of it. He never has apologized for his comments about Hornbeck. What really gets me about his comments on that is that he mocked the press for saying that it was Stockholm syndrome. He said afterwards that he knew it wasn't that. However, his alternative was that the kid liked it. So he knew it wasn't Stockholm, but he was wrong about what it was. He never apologized about that.

As for the Arkin article there are two ways to look at it. When the country was formed Jefferson feared that the army would (and was) filled with Federalists. That is why he didn't want a standing army because of that. However, when he became President he knew that an army was needed to protect us so he set up the school at West Point. This school was used to develop morals and what kind of principles they are defending, Republican (now Democratic) values. In this light he was arguing against the soldiers who were in the army. This is not unlike the criticism that Arkin gave.

Now, I wouldn't have used the term mercenary because we don't know if some join so they can kill people. That is Blackwater's job. In fact, there are more Blackwater employees than regular armed forces. Second, I have no problem with people criticizing the soldiers as Jefferson did. If they are defending the country based on far-right values, I don't consider that protecting my values just as Jefferson didn't see the Federalist army protecting the true principles of the country that was present during the revolution.

What I do object to is ANY government (democratic [as Clinton did] or republican) using the troops and then not take care of them when they come home.

So yes, Olbermann was in the wrong for just using a blanket term as "mercenary" and not explain what he meant AT THE TIME. Because any explanation of the fact is ad hoc and is usually PR work, much like what O'Reilly is doing now. So is disrespect Olbermann for that point. But the point now is the moral obligation of the government. Olbermann is attacking the O'Reilly on a factual point (if there were homeless vets).

So, as you can see, I am critiquing Olbermann as well. I have not seen that with many people here about O'Reilly. Will you do the same?

Oh Cecelia, you're being such a nitpicker! Don't you know? O'Reilly is a LIAR because he has a quote in his book that is disputed or incorrect. But Keith's Top Ten Lies of 2006 or 2007? Well, that's different. It's Keith. O'Reilly is a LIAR but Keith? Well, we just won't talk about HIS lies.

Posted by: johnny dollar at February 2, 2008 3:44 PM

Johnny, I'm fascinated too that there's no difference between a monarch and a fascist dictator.

Specifically there's no difference between King George (and the then British Parliament) and Mussolini.

> Just because you mention that I am wrong doesn't exactly make it so. You need to back up your assertions to have any credibility.

Just because you claim "O'Reilly never reported" this or that doesn't make it so. You need to back up your assertions to have any credibility. You made the charge, so the burden of proof is on you. Can you give us your proof that O'Reilly "never reported" any of that stuff?

> he told them to look up the facts on their own.

My my, not a good tactic. You have a point there. So don't tell me or anyone else to look up where O'Reilly "never reported" that stuff. You made the argument, you made the claim, so it's up to you to show how the facts fit together. Go for it.

> So, as you can see, I am critiquing Olbermann as well. I have not seen that with many people here about O'Reilly.

Well I'm not sure about this, I might be wrong, but I have a feeling that possibly, maybe it just might be because this site is not O'Reilly Watch. It's Olbermann Watch. But I could be mistaken on that.

Meanwhile, since you made the claim several times that O'Reilly "never reported" something, we await your proof of that claim. And don't try to tell someone else to look up the facts. As you yourself noted, that's not the reader's job, it's the job of the one making the argument.

I'm not here to defend Olbermann. I don't watch his show all that often. I watch O'Reilly more. I did watch the video of Olbermann's "lies" on CNN and I did think it was funny some of the lies. So I think it is pretty funny that you are accusing me of defending Olbermann and that he can't do no wrong (although I just critiqued him), but you buy into O'Reilly's propaganda that he is looking out for you. You guys say I can't see my bias, but doesn't that apply to you as well? Would you like me to supply the quotes (I can't on Culture Warrior b/c I don't have the library book with me, but if you have the book I can provide the two quotes of Mason and Madison and you can find what O'Reilly wrote on page 70-something. But I understand if you don't want to find it, but it can be found by looking up Madison in the index. There are only a few pages about him). But just remember, you guys accuse me of bias, but you may want to look at those criticisms and apply them to yourself.

But lets suppose I am here to defend Olbermann and I will defend any left-wing talking point. No one here is critiquing O'Reilly. This statement here proves my point, "O'Reilly is a LIAR because he has a quote in his book that is disputed or incorrect." So it doesn't matter that he is pushing a quote in order to push the agenda that this government is supposed to support Christianity?

And yes, I do read his books. I haven't read all of Culture Warrior so I can't comment too much on that except for the quote that can't even get the author right on.

And I do not consider Jessie "Stalker" Waters a journalist. We don't know who these people are or if Waters interviewed all of Edwards' neighbors.

Ummm, dictators don't all have to be ruthless killers.

> but you buy into O'Reilly's propaganda

Huh? Are you now making up stuff about me? Please quote me back on that. Just what did I say?

> Would you like me to supply the quotes

Um, that's not what I asked you about. I asked you to back up your claim that "O'Reilly never reported" the stuff you claim. It's noteworthy that your response first goes personal against me (I DO want you to quote me back about believing O'Reilly's looking out for you), then goes on to quotes that I didn't ask about, and totally avoids the "never reported" stuff, which is the one thing I DID ask you to supply your proof of.

Why am I not surprised?

So, as you can see, I am critiquing Olbermann as well. I have not seen that with many people here about O'Reilly. Will you do the same?

Posted by: Brian at February 2, 2008 3:48 PM

Absolutely, Brian

O'Reilly erred on the side of his high opinion of the troops as concerns a statistic. He was utterly correct as concerns Edward's use of that stat as a tool for defending his own leftist goals.

Ummm, dictators don't all have to be ruthless killers.

Posted by: Brian at February 2, 2008 4:05 PM

What kind of a dictator was the fascist, Brian?

No one here is critiquing O'Reilly.

posted by brian

First off, read the headline on the home page. It's in big red letters. That being said, can you not read? There is O'Reilly hate spread like hot butter all over this blog, some of which has been spread by yourself. Sheesh.......

Brian, this statement raises red flags for me:

"Now, I wouldn't have used the term mercenary because we don't know if some join so they can kill people. That is Blackwater's job. In fact, there are more Blackwater employees than regular armed forces."

I will cede the point that some murderous psychopaths enlist so they can get paid to do what they love and live, carnage and death. But to defend against the reprehensible claim of Mercenary for our troops by asserting that any untold number are in the military b/c they are naturally vicious killers. With defense like you give we can skip the trial and go right to the execution.

As to the number of Blackwater employees as opposed to number of military members I would like to see a citation for that one.

Grammie

As to the number of Blackwater employees as opposed to number of military members I would like to see a citation for that one.

Grammie
Posted by: Janet Hawkins at February 2, 2008 4:15 PM

And here I thought Arkin was insulting the troops!

I'd like to see where "mercenary" is defined as those who join the armed services in order to "kill people"....

In fact, there are more Blackwater employees than regular armed forces."

posted by brian

I can see I was right in my hypothesis of having a field day with brian. The only way he could be right if he is referring to, say, maybe Poland. So, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt since I am such a nice guy.

I know that he hasn't reported it because I've watched his show and I also did a Lexis-Nexis search. O'Reilly wanted people to search an entire document for numerous so-called facts and then extrapolate that data to infer something. That is totally different. Anyone who has done scholarly work for school knows that. Doing a search is not extrapolating information.

But I just did a Lexis-Nexis search. The search was O'Reilly and David Paszkiewicz. No results. I searched O'Reilly and Kearny High School. No results. That is positive evidence that he didn't talk about those topics. So it is something. It is impossible to prove a negative, but you can eliminate possibilities and make the case that the probability is low that he talked about this topic. No one can make a 100% certain claim (something O'Reilly misunderstands about science and his rant against evolution).

"In fact, there are more Blackwater employees than regular armed forces."

Ahem:

Of the more than 130,000 contractors in Iraq, Blackwater's employees number only around 1,000.

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010693

So now, since O'Reilly's wrong quote made O'Reilly a LIAR, is Brian now admitting that HE is a LIAR too?

LOL!

Your Lexis/Nexis search is not proof. Lexis databases are notoriously incomplete and are missing all kinds of things that actually were broadcast. Besides, do they cover his two hours of radio a day? I didn't think so. So you have supplied evidence, but not proof.

> It is impossible to prove a negative...

Yes it is. Which is why it is demagogic to allege a negative. Because you are alleging something you know you cannot prove.

Sorry, I was mistaken. I took it from memory, but here is what Jeremy Scahill said on Countdown:

"Or the Wild West. The Bush administration failed to build the coalition of willing nations, so instead it builds a coalition of billing corporations. In Iraq, there are 180,000 so-called private contractors operating alongside 170,000 U.S. troops. The military is the junior partner in the coalition that`s occupying Iraq. And of these 180,000 contractors, perhaps the most prominent and dangerous are the heavily armed mercenaries of Blackwater USA."

From memory I thought the quote was that the 180,000 were Blackwater employees.

See, I'm not too proud to recognize if I am wrong on something.

Brian,

This is my own opinion here, and I'm going to assume that you mean well.

However, I will that my guess is anyone in the military would suspect of someone who argues that it's not important what one believes about the individual characters of our soldiers, as much as it's important that we "give them what they need".

Especially when coincidentally.... Edward is arguing that what they need is to do less time and in fact to be brought home from a war he doesn't think we should be waging. And this in response to the overall problem of homelessness...

Now somehow I think Edwards would not especially want you as his spokesman based on your arguments above. However, Olbermann might certainly agree with you and have no issue with your take on the justifications on criticising the character of those who fight a war if they do so for "rightwing principles".

Since we're talking about a media personality--- O'Reilly .... let me just add this, I'm not a fan of O'Reilly and I'm not in the military, and I do think it's up to the vets and the current soldiers to decide who is their corner. Some may feel Olbermann is there for them. Some may feel O'Reilly is that.

We seen some who feel that O'Reilly is not.

All six of them.

> See, I'm not too proud to recognize if I am wrong on something.

you deserve congratulations. But since you got a quote wrong, does that make you a LIAR, like you claimed for O'Reilly?

(By the way, it's amazing that you'd consider Countdown a reliable source for anything, given that you insist you're not an Olbypologist and given the hundreds of Olbermann lies we've documented right here on this site. But we'll leave that aside.)

'However, I will that my guess is anyone in"

However, my guess is anyone in the military would be suspect..

sorry.

I've never gotten how Blackwater security personnel has any relation to what Arkin said about the troops in the first place.

Wait a minute. Yes, this is an Olbermann watch group, but since the discussion was about O'Reilly as well. That premise assumes O'Reilly is correct. The thread of this page was O'Reilly's TPM. Thus, this thread invited the discussion if O'Reilly is correct or not.

As for the Lexis-Nexis search, I said that it was evidence and it lowers the probability that he talked about it. However, I easily found his stories on Bennish through Lexis-Nexis. The two main topics of the teacher's name and the school should make it extremely unlikely that he talked about it.

Let me give you a science lesson. When scientists call something a fact (i.e. evolution, big bang, etc.) the fact refers to something that is so probabilistically low for it to be false. Thus, they would claim that there has never been an instance that a life form occurred outside of the evolutionary process. The 'never' refers the the amount of evidence against something that it is unlikely that it has occurred.

I guess I should have noted that I was only talking about his TV show because I don't listen to his radio show (it bores me). But if he thought it was such a big deal like his absurd War on Christmas crusade to protect those who aren't Christian, he would have reported it on TV as well. But I don't think I said prove (in fact, I just checked).

Cecelia,

There are many organizations "VoteVets" who don't buy into the conservative (and O'Reilly's ideas) justification for the war. But to assume that only the vets who showed up are the one's who cared is misleading. That is like saying that since no one protested Olbermann for supporting Arkin, then no one cared about that. And yes, some vets may dislike Olbermann (there is no doubt about that), but to state that there may not be as many against O'Reilly is silly. Here is an email sent to O'Reilly about his trip to Iraq:

"Greg Porter, Deltona, Florida: "Bill, you didn't show dissenting troops in Iraq."

I didn't find any, sir. Maybe they were afraid of getting into trouble. We allowed the troops to say whatever they wanted, uncensored."

I think that is completely absurd to think that no one dissented. It's possible, but unlikely.

Johnny,

The difference between O'Reilly and I is that I admitted that I was wrong. O'Reilly has failed to apologize for his comments about Hornbeck and he is trying to spin himself out of not saying that there is a homeless vet problem. He kept changing his story WITHOUT saying that he was wrong.

Well, it has been fun, but I'm wasting too much time. I know you won't change your mind. You will think I a crazy leftist and I'll think you are a crazy rightist. Nothing will change that. The only thing that I will post is if someone wants those quotes in Who's Looking Out for You?. Other than that I'm done. I have too much work to do. Good knowing you guys and good luck.

Cecelia,

There are many organizations "VoteVets" who don't buy into the conservative (and O'Reilly's ideas) justification for the war. But to assume that only the vets who showed up are the one's who cared is misleading.

Posted by: Brian at February 2, 2008 5:21 PM

Well, Brian, you've certainly made quite a revealing statement here. I had thought that the "protest" was about O'Reilly's statement contesting the number of homeless vets, not his sentiments about the Iraq War.

However, if you feel that this is what the tempest in a latte cup is really about, I'll certainly say that it's very likely you're right. Very likely, indeed.

Wtf is wrong with you people. Filthbag Billo implied that there were few homeless veterans and that those who were homeless were drunks and psychotic (and therefore don't deserve to be taken care of by the country they served_). The guy is a scumbag and Olbermann called him out.
Bottom line and end of story. Now, quit parsing Billos transcripts and get your fat, right-wing asses out of your cush office chairs and go help the troops instead of bashing them.

Are you people evil or just stupid?

MIKE, I'll cop to both STUPID and EVIL!

Grammie

Bottom line and end of story. Now, quit parsing Billos transcripts and get your fat, right-wing asses out of your cush office chairs and go help the troops instead of bashing them.

Are you people evil or just stupid?

Posted by: Mike at February 4, 2008 11:58 PM

How many are living in your house? Served in any soup lines, lately? Edwards got his ass handed to him by Bill O'Reilly. Notice how silky hasn't made a peep? Or Orallmahn?

Tell me again how Olbermann doesn't use (or abuse) the troops to suit his purposes.

Posted by: johnny dollar at February 2, 2008 3:11 PM

about 45% of homeless veterans suffer from mental illness and (with considerable overlap) slightly more than 70% suffer from alcohol or other drug abuse problems. Roughly 56% are African American or Hispanic.

http://www1.va.gov/homeless/page.cfm?pg=1

In case you are wondering Janet, the 'Mike' that you replied to at 11:58 PM is NOT the same 'Mike' (me) that has normally been using that very common name on this site.

"Posted by: Mike at February 5, 2008 5:12 AM "

Thanks for the headsup, Mike II.

Mike II, I'll cop to both EVIL and STUPID!

Grammie

http://www1.va.gov/homeless/page.cfm?pg=1

Posted by: royal king at February 5, 2008 12:27 AM

nothin but crickeys from you know who.....

When a poster starts a "rebuttal" with the word "but," it can't be good.

but the man( Bush) who put them in this untenable situation and now almost 4,000 are dead...hasn't abused the troops.
It's Keith Olbermann !
Only here at the OW !

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at February 5, 2008 7:54 PM

Bobo, this may be a first;

"Time for the GOP candidates to get out campaigning to extend the Bush tax cuts, right ?"

You actually made a sensible statement.

Congratulations and keep up the good work.

Grammie