• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bill O'Reilly

Lurker said:
Feel free to criticize Kerry's actions and policies. but make sure you criticize actual events like his protesting the war and so on.
Click to expand...
And, maybe it should be for the things he actually said, and not some bizarre/dishonest/nutty interpretation or spin on what he said.
 
Hey, look. Something that's on-topic!

pomeroo said:
Do you care that O'Reilly does not "deny the existence" of homeless veterans?
Click to expand...
In fact, he did.
O'REILLY: As for John Edwards, good grief, this guy has no clue.

EDWARDS [video clip]: 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're better than this.

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. Ten million illegal alien workers are sending billions of dollars back home, and Edwards is running around saying nobody has any money. Hard to believe.
Click to expand...
It was only after O'Reilly got called on his blatant misinformation that he shifted his position (what they call "spin" in the biz) to say that only veterans with alcohol and mental health problems are homeless. This, of course, does nothing to prove what Edwards said factually incorrect in any way.


pomeroo said:
He questions the canard about hordes of homeless vets living under bridges,
Click to expand...
He'd be wrong there, too. Edwards said there were 200,000 homeless vets. The Department of Veterans Affairs says:
Current population estimates suggest that about 195,000 veterans (male and female) are homeless on any given night and perhaps twice as many experience homelessness at some point during the course of a year. Many other veterans are considered near homeless or at risk because of their poverty, lack of support from family and friends, and dismal living conditions in cheap hotels or in overcrowded or substandard housing.​
Edwards rounded the number up about 0.025%. That's well within a respectable margin of error, especially for a non-scientific venue, and certainly not enough to support the claim that Edwards is overstating the situation.

To paraphrase: As for Bill O'Reilly, good grief, this guy has no clue.
 
Upchurch said:
Hey, look. Something that's on-topic!


In fact, he did.

It was only after O'Reilly got called on his blatant misinformation that he shifted his position (what they call "spin" in the biz) to say that only veterans with alcohol and mental health problems are homeless. This, of course, does nothing to prove what Edwards said factually incorrect in any way.



He'd be wrong there, too. Edwards said there were 200,000 homeless vets. The Department of Veterans Affairs says:
Current population estimates suggest that about 195,000 veterans (male and female) are homeless on any given night and perhaps twice as many experience homelessness at some point during the course of a year. Many other veterans are considered near homeless or at risk because of their poverty, lack of support from family and friends, and dismal living conditions in cheap hotels or in overcrowded or substandard housing.​
Edwards rounded the number up about 0.025%. That's well within a respectable margin of error, especially for a non-scientific venue, and certainly not enough to support the claim that Edwards is overstating the situation.

To paraphrase: As for Bill O'Reilly, good grief, this guy has no clue.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you missed the striking Laurie Dhue call Bill out on this very issue on The Factor. I wonder when Olbermann will ever read any critical email about his views, or have an ombudsman call attention to his grandiloquent comments.
 
Cicero said:
Perhaps you missed the striking Laurie Dhue call Bill out on this very issue on The Factor.
Click to expand...

Did you catch it? Here's the transcript I found:
DHUE: Question three, we have gotten a lot of emails on you-know-who, John Edwards, that not only are you too hard on him --

O'REILLY: Yeah.

DHUE: -- you're mean to him.

O'REILLY: I hope I'm not mean to him, but I mean, the guy is just distorting stuff like crazy. I don't know how else to handle it. How would you -- look, you saw what he did tonight. I mean, he's obviously distorting a very serious issue, and that's addiction and mental illness among veterans.

DHUE: OK, but --

O'REILLY: Trying to say America's economy is rigged, and it's not true what he's doing. So how would you handle it?

DHUE: Well, here's what you've called him, OK? I would not call him the following, which you have called him: phony; a liar; self-indulgent; a pinhead -- your favorite; a charlatan, which you did tonight --

O'REILLY: Yeah.

DHUE: -- a crazed ideologue and a loon, and then you said he doesn't have a clue.

O'REILLY: But that was over a 17-year period that I called him all that.

DHUE: No, it wasn't.

O'REILLY: Oh, it wasn't?

DHUE: It was, like, in the last five minutes. You know, you can make the argument that --

O'REILLY: That might be overstating it.

DHUE: Well, listen, I mean, you're over -- I mean, you can't call him this stuff.

O'REILLY: Edwards was on this program. He was at the network. He was treated well.

DHUE: He was on the program four years ago, and you were fair to him when he came on.

O'REILLY: Absolutely. And then all of a sudden, he's running around saying this absurd stuff. But my question to you is, Dhue, how would you treat him if he's exploiting these poor people, who have mental illness and addiction, veterans?

DHUE: I would hold him to it, but I wouldn't call him those names, 'cause it just doesn't make you --

O'REILLY: No? You don't think he's a charlatan?

DHUE: Charlatan? That's such an old-fashioned word.

O'REILLY: I'm an old-fashioned guy.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you point out where Dhue took O'Reilly to task on the fact that Edwards was correct on the number of homeless? Or perhaps you could point out where O'Reilly conceded that Edwards was correct?
 
Cicero said:
Have you acquainted yourself with the Moveon.Org Petreus ad? Or are you busy in the barn collecting more hay for phantom straw men?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I misrecollected the exact verbiage of the ad, but as I noted earlier I found it reprehensible regardless of whatever wording was used.

But if you want to go down that rabbit hole, how many :words: will you offer up explaining why, it took us* 4 years after "Mission Accomplished" to finally figure out a strategy that would work in conquering Mesopotamia when it took Alexander the Great - who didn't have uparmored Humvees and F-16s - months or less?

* By "us" I mean those who planned and forced the 'execution' of the occupation on the generals; or the apologists for the ****y 'execution of things since "Mission Accomplished" like Condie who claimed that the reason Iraq was a quagmire before the surge was due to thousands of "tactical" errors when it clearly was due to strategic errors on the part of Rummy, Chaney, Bremmer, etc.

Why the **** didn't anyone in the Bush admin understand that the surge wasn't needed in 2007, but in 2003? Why the **** didn't anyone in the Bush admin realize that dismantling an entire countries government would throw it into chaos? Why are 4 years of mismanagement and incompetance by the Bush administration being igored to focus on one single reprehensible ad by single liberal organization?
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
Why are 4 years of mismanagement and incompetance by the Bush administration being igored to focus on one single reprehensible ad by single liberal organization?
Click to expand...
Not even the ad, just the title. It isn't as though most of them addressed the body of the ad in any meaningful way. And, yeah, somehow the title of the ad, in their mind, wipes away all of the problems of the Bush administration. The thinking seems to go something like "some group said something mean, and therefore it discredits every single criticism about Iraq that anyone has ever made. The surge is working, dammit!"
 
JoeEllison said:
Not even the ad, just the title. It isn't as though most of them addressed the body of the ad in any meaningful way. And, yeah, somehow the title of the ad, in their mind, wipes away all of the problems of the Bush administration. The thinking seems to go something like "some group said something mean, and therefore it discredits every single criticism about Iraq that anyone has ever made. The surge is working, dammit!"
Click to expand...

1) Bush 43's Presidential problems are indelible. Nobody is "erasing" them. History will render its final verdict on Bush 43.

2) There are many valid criticisms about the Iraq War.

3) Criticising the surge just because you despise Bush/War/the US military is not one of them.

4) Moveon.Org's ad only confirmed the rap about them that they are all liberal sizzle and no steak, but perhaps rattlesnake meat.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
Did you catch it? Here's the transcript I found:

Perhaps you point out where Dhue took O'Reilly to task on the fact that Edwards was correct on the number of homeless? Or perhaps you could point out where O'Reilly conceded that Edwards was correct?
Click to expand...


So, in a nation where the homeless population numbers roughly 300,000, you believe that two-thirds are vets? Fine, let's assume that's true. Now, Edwards said that they are "sleeping under bridges." A truthful statement, or an grossly exaggerated spin? Why should anyone concede that Edwards is correct when he is not?
 
pomeroo said:
So, in a nation where the homeless population numbers roughly 300,000, you believe that two-thirds are vets?
Click to expand...

It's not a question of "belief." The VA Department says roughly 200,000 vets.

Do you have any evidence that they are incorrect?

Fine, let's assume that's true. Now, Edwards said that they are "sleeping under bridges." A truthful statement, or an grossly exaggerated spin? Why should anyone concede that Edwards is correct when he is not?
Click to expand...
...I don't think Edwards' point is completely lost if some of those homeless vets are sleeping on a bench in Central Park rather than under your local overpass. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
pomeroo said:
So, in a nation where the homeless population numbers roughly 300,000, you believe that two-thirds are vets?
Click to expand...
No. I don't know where you got the 300,000 number, but the 195,000 comes from the Federal Government. Specifically, the US Department of Veterans Affairs.

pomeroo said:
Now, Edwards said that they are "sleeping under bridges." A truthful statement, or an grossly exaggerated spin? Why should anyone concede that Edwards is correct when he is not?
Click to expand...
Specifically, he said "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're better than this."

Edwards was not speaking literally when he said they would be sleeping under bridges and on grates. It was a metaphor for homelessness. Just like "sleeping on the street" does not mean literally sleeping on roads where cars are driving.

Only at this absurd level of literalism can you twist Edwards words into being incorrect.

eta: pomeroo, do you believe O'Reilly was literally meant that Edwards' brain was sleeping under a bridge? Was O'Reilly lying about that?
 
Last edited:
I have not read most of this thread and I do not know where most of you stand as I am very new here, but I want to quickly voice my support for O'Reilly. I am a huge skeptic. I practice it everywhere. But I am a huge O'Reilly fan. I know that 'lol Fox News is bias dem b an conspiracy' is a popular meme on the internet, and I used to subscribe to that as well, until I became a skeptic. I started watching the channel and found that they were not unlike other news networks, except that they had very popular conservative commentators, whom I personally frequently agree with today.

I'd love to debate anyone via msn or private message but I hate trying to take on a forum all by myself (which is what usually happens). So feel free to PM me.
 
I'd love to debate anyone via msn or private message but I hate trying to take on a forum all by myself (which is what usually happens). So feel free to PM me.
Click to expand...

Do what you like, but it seems to me it would be more efficient to post your views here, instead of engaging in (potentially) many different one on one exchanges that likely would be redundant. Besides, you wouldn't be taking the forum on all by yourself, because you're not the only defender of Bill here, I think.

Almisael, I'd be curious to hear your take on O'Reilly's Paris Business Review reference.
 
Almisael said:
I have not read most of this thread and I do not know where most of you stand as I am very new here, but I want to quickly voice my support for O'Reilly. I am a huge skeptic. I practice it everywhere. But I am a huge O'Reilly fan. I know that 'lol Fox News is bias dem b an conspiracy' is a popular meme on the internet,
Click to expand...

The criticisms of O'Reilly is not about whether Fox News is biased. It's about O'Reilly.

The guy has a long history of taking liberties with facts, refusing to admit error, and being an all-around blowhard.

Just ask the Paris Business Review.

and I used to subscribe to that as well, until I became a skeptic.
Click to expand...

So if someone doesn't agree with you, they're not a skeptic? :rolleyes:

Do you have any idea how many logical fallacies that entails?

I started watching the channel and found that they were not unlike other news networks, except that they had very popular conservative commentators, whom I personally frequently agree with today.
Click to expand...

You're saying this, but you don't think Fox News is biased? How does that work?
 
Upchurch said:
No. I don't know where you got the 300,000 number, but the 195,000 comes from the Federal Government. Specifically, the US Department of Veterans Affairs.


Specifically, he said "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're better than this."

Edwards was not speaking literally when he said they would be sleeping under bridges and on grates. It was a metaphor for homelessness. Just like "sleeping on the street" does not mean literally sleeping on roads where cars are driving.

Only at this absurd level of literalism can you twist Edwards words into being incorrect.
Click to expand...

If Edwards had given more specific numbers, he'd have had to deal with criticism that he's a boring policy wonk... :rolleyes:
 
Upchurch said:
Dare I ask why you don't seem to want to follow up on these issues that don't support your position?
Click to expand...

Actually, one wonders why you did not bring up Laurie Dhue's exchange with Bill yourself. If you were intellectually honest, you would not need me to compel you to post their exchange. I have no idea why Bill bothers with Edwards when this guy is dead in the water, politically. Perhaps there are a few doctors out there that he hasn't sued. Maybe that will keep him busy until the next election cycle.
 
I was wondering why O' Reilly is a hot topic. I hadn't heard anything on the news or radio and then it came to me. It's on Media-matters. Your Mecca. You need them to tell you what to think and what to be indignant about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom