Bill O'Reilly

[Cleon]

What do you make of the sudden disappearance of stories about the homeless upon Bill Clinton's victory in 1992? Were you troubled by the reappearance in 2001 of the same tendentious stuff after an eight-year hiatus? Do you truly believe that the problem of homelessness in America vanishes when a Democrat occupies the White House?

After shamelessly peddling for years Mitch Snyder's absurd fabrication of 3 million homeless, the major networks never quite got around to admitting that the number was wildly inaccurate and they were behaving irresponsibly when they ran with it. Were you outraged? Why not?

None of which has anything to do with the subject at hand.

Do you, or do you not, have any substantiation for your dismissal of the figure supplied by the VA (and by extension, Edwards)?

 

[The Painter]

I'm going to guess that you aren't going to do the honorable thing and concede the point. Heck, I doubt you will even respond to it. Surprise me.

Surprise. So I got fooled by a parody of a parody? Does that mean there was a parody in the first place? I have e mailed the creator of the site and am waiting for an answer. Who knows if it will be truthful? Apparently I can’t trust the French. If I was duped, than mea culpa. You were wrong on this, I did respond.

 

[pomeroo]

Evidence?

That after running stories on the homeless "crisis" every night, the networks and liberal print media stopped immediatley upon Bubba's election. Bernie Goldberg discusses this phenomenon in Bias. That'syourcueforamindlessattackonabookyouhaven'tread.

Evidence?

That Rich Lowry and a bunch of other conservative columnists wrote right before Bush's inauguration in 2001 articles with the theme, "Expect a return of the homeless." The Washington Post, in a hilarious self-parody, really did run a story about the growing problem of homelessness.

Evidence?

A few papers actually did print the results of several studies showing the incidence of homelessness to be lower by roughly a factor of ten than Snyder's fabrication. The nonsense figure of three million continued to rattle around until Clinton's election, when the homeless crisis disappeared.

 

[pomeroo]

None of which has anything to do with the subject at hand.

Do you, or do you not, have any substantiation for your dismissal of the figure supplied by the VA (and by extension, Edwards)?

Why do you act so outraged over O'Reilly's skepticism toward a pol who plays fast and loose with facts? Neither one of them is an unimpeachable source. You have no idea of how many homeless vets there are. Why not wait for a serious study?
In the meantime, let's note that you ignored my questions.

 

[pomeroo]

Apprently he can't and has elected to take the time wasting option. Pomeroo, you mentioned you knew plenty of intelligent conservatives earlier. Please introduce one of them here so there can be an actual intresting discussion.

Yawn.

The response to my questions for Cleon has been predictable for its vacuity and evasiveness.

 

[pomeroo]

I'm still waiting for the number that matches his "gut"... or, less probably, an admission of what has been clear to everyone else from the start: Bill O'Reilly and pomeroo are both lying about John Edwards, and making a bunch of noise to cover up their dishonesty and ignorance.

Why on earth do you clowns have to pretend that everyone who rejects your propaganda is "lying" about something? I don't know the number of homeless vets and neither does John Edwards and neither do you. The left in general is spectacularly dishonest. Stop being such a hypocrite.

 

[Cleon]

Why do you act so outraged over O'Reilly's skepticism toward a pol who plays fast and loose with facts? Neither one of them is an unimpeachable source. You have no idea of how many homeless vets there are. Why not wait for a serious study?
In the meantime, let's note that you ignored my questions.

Because they're not remotely relevant.

You're trying to make the issue me. The issue is not me, my motives, or whether I'm a raging hypocrite or not.

The issue is this: Do you, or do you not, have any substantiation to your claim that the number is "obviously wrong?"

 

[JoeEllison]

I liked the "panties in a bunch" bit. Obviously just a metaphor, but while the "lefties" are coming up with evidence, he behaves like a schoolyard brat, for 18 pages no less. The pot-kettle thing in action...

Now, you'll notice, he claims that "nobody knows"... he lied, and he lied a again, and now that he knows we're not going to let him off the hook, he lies some more. Of course, the funny part is that if "no one knows how many homeless veterans there are", then that means that he is condemning John Edwards and Bill O'Reilly based on the fact that he's admittedly completely ignorant.

Not the angle I would have chosen, but I tend to base my viewpoints of logic and evidence and reality.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Surprise. So I got fooled by a parody of a parody? Does that mean there was a parody in the first place? I have e mailed the creator of the site and am waiting for an answer. Who knows if it will be truthful? Apparently I can’t trust the French. If I was duped, than mea culpa. You were wrong on this, I did respond.

"The French, the French, a treacherous race.
They fight with their feet and fout with their face."
C'est domage.

 

[pomeroo]

Because they're not remotely relevant.

You're trying to make the issue me. The issue is not me, my motives, or whether I'm a raging hypocrite or not.

The issue is this: Do you, or do you not, have any substantiation to your claim that the number is "obviously wrong?"

As I keep saying that I have no idea what the real number might be, are you quite sure that you don't already know the answer to your question?

 

[pomeroo]

Now, you'll notice, he claims that "nobody knows"... he lied, and he lied a again, and now that he knows we're not going to let him off the hook, he lies some more. Of course, the funny part is that if "no one knows how many homeless veterans there are", then that means that he is condemning John Edwards and Bill O'Reilly based on the fact that he's admittedly completely ignorant.

Not the angle I would have chosen, but I tend to base my viewpoints of logic and evidence and reality.

Is this your Dr. Adequate impersonation? Let's see: if I'm lying, then I'm making a statement which is a) untrue and b) understood by me to be untrue. Now, what statement of mine might that be?

Again, why the compulsion to pretend that everyone who doesn't march lockstep with you is lying about something? Let me spell it out so that even you have a chance of comprehending: John Edwards is suddenly passionate about an issue that he hadn't noticed in the past. Was there a sudden explosion of homeless vets? Do we detect a hint of cynicism here?

I'm saying that O'Reilly is correct to be skeptical of a discovery made by a guy whose campaign is foundering.

 

[pomeroo]

Because they're not remotely relevant.

Try looking up the word "relevant." Yes, it is relevant that the crowd that thundered about the plight of the homeless 24/7 until Clinton took office forgot all about them for eight years.

You're trying to make the issue me. The issue is not me, my motives, or whether I'm a raging hypocrite or not.

Edwards gives the impression that there are hordes of homeless vets living under bridges all over the country. O'Reilly thinks he's full of it. I'm siding with Bill.

The issue is this: Do you, or do you not, have any substantiation to your claim that the number is "obviously wrong?"

No--as I've repeatedly explained.

 

[Cleon]

As I keep saying that I have no idea what the real number might be,

Well, it sounds like you have some idea, since you're so willing to dismiss the VA number as some sort of liberal plot.

Unless you're admitting that you have no basis for doing so?

 

[pomeroo]

Well, it sounds like you have some idea, since you're so willing to dismiss the VA number as some sort of liberal plot.

Unless you're admitting that you have no basis for doing so?

Could it be that it sounds like I have some idea because I've already told you that I have some idea? Sheesh!

I appreciate the precise use of words: I don't dismiss the VA number; I question it.

 

[Oliver]

My brother and his fiance were talking to me this afternoon, and somehow O'Reilly came up. I mentioned that I don't hold the man in high regard, and they told me how they actually find him to be decent. We talked about it for a little while, but the conversation was cut short by my uncle thinking we were talking about Steven Colbert.

I would appreciate some links to clear demonstrations of O'Reilly's spinning, lying, and overt propaganda to send to my brother's fiance. She seemed open to consideration.

Alternately, if you think O'Reilly is a really great guy, I would be interested to see how he has done something positive for, well, anybody (besides himself and his agenda).

Much thanks!

Well, look at it this way:

"Once the war against Saddam Hussein begins,
we expect every American to support our military,
and if you can't do that, just shut up.
Americans, and indeed our foreign allies who actively work against
our military once the war is underway,
will be considered enemies of the state by me.
Just fair warning to you, Barbra Streisand and
others who see the world as you do.
I don't want to demonize anyone, but anyone
who hurts this country in a time like this, well.
Let's just say you will be spotlighted."

Source: http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428

 

[Cleon]

As I keep saying that I have no idea what the real number might be, are you quite sure that you don't already know the answer to your question?

Could it be that it sounds like I have some idea because I've already told you that I have some idea? Sheesh!

You have no idea, you have some idea...

You can't even keep your story straight.

I appreciate the precise use of words: I don't dismiss the VA number; I question it.

Bull-puckey:

Sorry, the tendentious estimate you've "shown" me doesn't cut it. The number is obviously too high. Eventually, someone will produce a serious study.

 

[JoeEllison]

You have no idea, you have some idea...

You can't even keep your story straight.



Bull-puckey:

And, unlike Bill-O, the inconsistencies don't just disappear into the ether... we can see them laid out, all in a row, and quote them as proof.

So, which story will it be next?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

For what it's worth. There are two homeless guys I pass every day on my way to work; one of them holds a sign reading: " USMC vet with dog, please help", and at night they sleep under the bridge.
Sorry, I know thats a red herring.

Next time ask him for a DD-214, he could be faking it!

I highly doubt this example is isolated...maybe someone with the tools (e.g., Lexis-Nexis) could confirm...

Brent Bozell is the source of this myth? Oh brother.

I'd echo Snide's request for anyone with Lexis-Nexis to run a check for us please.

 

[Upchurch]

Surprise.

Thank you.

So I got fooled by a parody of a parody? Does that mean there was a parody in the first place?

No, you were fooled by a parody. There was no parody before O'Reilly fabricated the publication.

I have e mailed the creator of the site and am waiting for an answer. Who knows if it will be truthful?

If the creator of the site supports what I have been telling you, will you conclude that s/he is lying?

Apparently I can’t trust the French.

Actually, they appear to be based in California. As with O'Reilly's "evidence", the French had nothing to do with it.

You were wrong on this, I did respond.

Congratulations. Now, will you concede the point or are you going to play the charade that there was some actual source that O'Reilly was basing his fabrication on?

 

[pomeroo]

And, unlike Bill-O, the inconsistencies don't just disappear into the ether... we can see them laid out, all in a row, and quote them as proof.

So, which story will it be next?

The reason you and your little pals look so silly here is that you're trying to play a gotcha game, but you don't have anything to work with except a disagreement between Edwards and O'Reilly. You blindly accept Edwards's word because he's on the left. You have no idea if he's right and you don't care. You're flailing wildly, making all sorts of erroneous assumptions, trying hard to foist on me positions I don't hold, and you're getting nowhere. The bottom line is that if 200,000 homeless vets represent roughly one-quarter of the total homeless population, then that population has somehow increased dramatically from the 175,000-330,000 that most researchers accepted as the actual number. I can't read minds, but I'd bet that this is what O'Reilly is complaining about. You're all straining so hard to sustain this bogus controversy and you just lack the necessary ammo. You have one tendentious study and you're treating it as though someone brought it down from Mt. Sinai on stone tablets. You keep trying to pin me down, but you have nothing to pin me to. Get over yourselves.