You look ridiculous. What's hard to understand here? I don't have the exact number of homeless vets and neither do you and John Edwards. I have an idea of how many there might be, but it's nothing more than a reasoned guess. You lack critical thinking skills.
Bill O'Reilly
- Thread starter m_huber
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bill o'reilly
You look ridiculous. What's hard to understand here? I don't have the exact number of homeless vets and neither do you and John Edwards. I have an idea of how many there might be, but it's nothing more than a reasoned guess. You lack critical thinking skills.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Goldberg is, himself, an extremely biased source. Do you have any evidencethat it actually happened?
Evidence? Regardless, an article before Bush's inauguration does not prove that that stories about homeless reappeared after a complete absense of them.
Evidence?
But you know what? Nevermind. Experience has shown that you aren't going to back your claims. You are only going to reiterate them and that is just a waste of time. Also, it is off the topic of you shamelessly trying to defend Bill O'Reilly's lie about Edwards. You just aren't worth the time.
Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
Pomeroo:
I have no idea if the study in question is correct or not. If I were a politician, and needed statistics on a variety of issues but did not really have time to delve deeply into any of them, where would I go for a source on homeless veterans? Certainly you would agree that it would be reasonable to go a govt agency in charge of veterans affairs, right? Please answer if that would be a reasonable thing to do or not.
So, assuming you feel going to a govt agency to get a statistic is reasonable, then John Edward did nothing wrong. If the number is incorrect, it certainly was not John Edwards' responsibility to correct it or investigate it. Surely he has a million things on his plate right now and doing the job of the DVA is not one of them.
Like I said, you may be right that the number is not accurate. I really don't know. But I sure would not demonize someone for using it like BillO did. Nothing wrong with BillO questioning it but attempting to attack Edwards seems rather partisan. Perhaps BillO did not know the source and was assuming Edwards made the number up. I guess when you make sources up yourself you might assume others do the same.
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,270
So, we've established that Bill O'Reilly is lying about the homeless veterans, and pomeroo is refusing to face that fact with any sort of honesty or integrity. He keeps claiming that Edwards is wrong, but has produced ZERO evidence, which leads us to believe that he's making it all up, which counts as lying in my book.
So, yet another lie from Bill-O. We can move on to his next lie. He's sure to have a new one for us once he's ridden this current lie into the ground.
So, yet another lie from Bill-O. We can move on to his next lie. He's sure to have a new one for us once he's ridden this current lie into the ground.
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
I decided to look up some conservative sources (clearly harbingers of truthiness) for homeless populations.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv25n2/v25n2-11.pdf
over 2 million are likely to homeless at least once during a year
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg431.cfm
the homeless numbered from 192,000 to 586,000.
HUD considered the most reliable range to be from 250,000 to 350,000. (1984)
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Religion/bu44.cfm
on any given night, approximately 300,000 Americans are homeless (1987)
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg729.cfm
'First, the total number of America's homeless is between 250,000 and 600,000; most are single men (1989)
I presume Pomeroo would be more inclined to accept the Heritage Foundation or Cato Institute numbers.
Why am I doing Pomeroo's homework for him?
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv25n2/v25n2-11.pdf
over 2 million are likely to homeless at least once during a year
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg431.cfm
the homeless numbered from 192,000 to 586,000.
HUD considered the most reliable range to be from 250,000 to 350,000. (1984)
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Religion/bu44.cfm
on any given night, approximately 300,000 Americans are homeless (1987)
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg729.cfm
'First, the total number of America's homeless is between 250,000 and 600,000; most are single men (1989)
I presume Pomeroo would be more inclined to accept the Heritage Foundation or Cato Institute numbers.
Why am I doing Pomeroo's homework for him?
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Because no one else will?Why am I doing Pomeroo's homework for him?
Thanks, Lurker, but don't you realize those are real numbers? As Colbert said, "reality has a liberal bias" and is, therefore, not to be trusted.
m_huber
Muse
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Messages
- 828
I decided to look up some conservative sources (clearly harbingers of truthiness) for homeless populations.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv25n2/v25n2-11.pdf
over 2 million are likely to homeless at least once during a year
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg431.cfm
the homeless numbered from 192,000 to 586,000.
HUD considered the most reliable range to be from 250,000 to 350,000. (1984)
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Religion/bu44.cfm
on any given night, approximately 300,000 Americans are homeless (1987)
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg729.cfm
'First, the total number of America's homeless is between 250,000 and 600,000; most are single men (1989)
I presume Pomeroo would be more inclined to accept the Heritage Foundation or Cato Institute numbers.
Why am I doing Pomeroo's homework for him?
Those later sources are a bit dated. The homeless population has doubled or tripled in the last 20 years. I posted a link above.
Bernie Goldberg was a liberal Democrat from the Bronx who wrote an article criticizing an example of extremely biased reporting. Instead of receiving gratitude from his colleagues for working to uphold the highest standards of his profession, he awoke to find himself a pariah. Bias names the liberal journalists who privately congratulated him on saying what needed to be said, but asked that their names be kept out of the controversy. Why don't you try reading the book and see if you find specific errors of fact that he makes? Tell us if Goldberg is wrong about Eric Engberg's shoddy journalism. Tell us what you think of Goldberg's appraisal of the way the AIDS crisis was covered. To dismiss a man who had never voted Republican in his life because his message is inconvenient to your prejudices is not terribly objective.
Admittedly, the liberal media did not run full-tilt reprising the "homeless crisis" after they had been busted.
Why do you act as though you care about evidence? You're not very scholarly. I don't know what evidence you're pretending to want. Did the liberal media accept uncritically Mitch Snyder's fabrication about three milllion homeless? Unquestionably. That figure appeared everywhere until it was refuted conclusively, and it continued to appear even after Snyder admitted that he had just made up a number to dramatize the "crisis."
Why is O'Reilly's criticism a "lie." It is nothing of the sort, you know. We don't know if Edwards's number is correct--it probably isn't. We can be reasonably sure that O'Reilly believes that Edwards is wrong. Again, your side's neurotic compulsion to brand as lies all opinions that make it uncomfortable continues to mystify.
I will take your uncomprehending laughter as a concession speech.
But, you really don't have "another" lie from Bill O'Reilly. There was no "lie" at all. O'Reilly obviously believes that Edwards is wrong. It is precisely this fundamental lack of intellectual integrity that discredited liberalism in the eyes of many voters.
This is an intelligent post. You're correct in thinking that O'Reilly has a personal bias against Edwards that taints his commentary. I don't watch The Factor every night, but I did see O'Reilly mocking the assertion that hordes of homeless vets are living under bridges. A reasonable question, of course, is why the other Democratic candidates haven't picked up this newest cudgel for bashing George Bush. Could it be that they are skeptical, having been burned by the ridiculous exaggerations of homeless advocates in the late eighties and early nineties? Time will tell.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
It's a lie because the premise of his criticism is not true given all available evidence.
You continue to reassert this claim despite the evidence to the contrary. Can you find any hard evidence that backs your assertion that Edwards' number is incorrect? Any at all?
That is certainly a possibility. If that is true, then we can also be reasonably sure that O'Reilly makes uninformed criticisms. He is untrustworthy either way.
Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
Isn't Goldberg's premise that the media is biased to the left?
Goldberg published a piece in the Wall Street Journal slamming Eric Engberg. Engberg had done a "Reality Check" on the CBS Evening News which trashed the Steve Forbes "flat tax" proposal; Goldberg denounced Engberg’s "Check" for its liberal bias. But Goldberg’s treatment of the Engberg piece is a perfect example of his larger method—the anecdotal approach which can feel so good, but is so worthless for those who aren’t spoutin’.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that Engberg’s report was unfair to Forbes. Does that show Engberg has "liberal bias?" Wouldn’t you want to review the gentleman’s other reports before making such a sweeping accusation? In fact, just a few weeks before he beat up on Forbes, Engberg did a "Check" trashing Hillary Clinton for Whitewater and the travel office firings. The report featured a few bits of bogus reporting which drove the coverage of those two matters. So what kind of "bias" did this report show? Did this piece show a conservative bias? And—reviewing Engberg’s work in the year before he slammed Forbes—what kind of bias was Engberg showing on April 6, 1995? On that day, the scribe reviewed the first 100 days of the new Gingrich Congress:
ENGBERG (4/6/95): They scoffed last fall when Newt Gingrich said a Republican House would slam-dunk the status quo…Time out! They did it. Politicians actually keeping a promise?
And what bias was he showing on May 24? Here’s how Engberg closed a "Reality Check" about GOP proposals to balance the budget:
ENGBERG (5/24/95): Fiscal fantasy number four is that a balanced budget cures all ills…It’s future generations that really benefit. But the fiscal discipline that might be imposed by the GOP plans could be a welcome step away from fiscal fantasyland. Eric Engberg, CBS News, Washington.
In that report, Engberg criticized past, failed efforts to balance the budget, saying, "Best sign that this year is different? The Republicans are going after big-dollar entitlement spending." And what was the bias on November 20, when Engberg said that "the Republicans’ call for $245 billions in tax cuts which the Democrats say are heavily weighted toward the wealthy" really weren’t that big a deal? "That’s because even with this cut, the IRS will still collect $13 trillion over the next seven years," Engberg said. "A $245 billion slice of that is just 2 percent, a drop in the bucket."
So Pomeroo, you seem to really enjoy the works of Goldberg, having brought his name up numerous times recently. Yet as a self-professed skeptic, look at his work obejctively. Does he do anything more than offer anecdotes? Does he perform any actual analysis? Any studies? Now, isn't anecdotal evidence just a shade above worthless?
Really, if Goldberg is going to excoriate Engberg and use him as an example of liberal bias, shouldn't he check to see if Engberg is (relatively) consistent in his liberal bias?
Pomeroo, go re-read Bias and pretend you are a scientist. Tell me what evidence he provides other than anecdotal (which I am not meaning to totally dismiss). Then we can discuss whether it is appropriate for you to keep citing it as some sort of definitive source for the claim of liberal bias.
Last edited:
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
Chapter 6—discusses the way the nets covered AIDS. According to Bernie, the nets kept pushing the notion that AIDS was threatening straights as much as gays; he says the nets kept pushing this idea long after they knew it was false. Why did they do that? At three different points, in substantial detail, Bernie says that they did it for ratings. That may (or may not) explain what they did, but it has nothing to do with "liberal bias," of course. Despite this, Bernie cites the theory in loving detail, all throughout the chapter.
Pomeroo, how does Bernie saying the networks pushed the AIDS stories for ratings translate into them pushing it due to liberal bias?
Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
And then, as you claim (from BIAS by Goldberg I assume) they started the drumbeat against Bush II. I suggest you read this, Pomeroo:
GOLDBERG: I also choose not to believe that when the Sunday edition of ABC World News Tonight rediscovered the homeless story just three weeks after George W. Bush was sworn in as president it was nothing more than coincidence. That when reporter Bob Jamieson said, "In New York City, the number of homeless in the shelter system has risen above 25,000 a night for the first time since the late 1980s," it was not an attempt to say, "Here we go again—a Republican is in the White House and the homeless are back." And on August 4, 2001, when CNN also rediscovered homelessness and quoted sources saying, "The number of homeless people is on the rise this summer," I choose to believe it was not CNN’s way of suggesting that now that a conservative Republican is president, Reagan-era misery will soon be back with us in full force.
Bernie had tongue in cheek, of course. As the context of his chapter made clear, he was suggesting that the two naughty nets were dumping the blame on poor Bush.
Needless to say, Bernie had us shaking our fists as we first read his great jeremiad. Imagine! Imagine that, three weeks after Bush is sworn in, ABC would try to blame him for "growing" the homelessness problem! All our analysts were plenty peeved at the perfidy the net had displayed. And then we did a crafty thing. We decided to look up the ABC screed on LEXIS, and—surprise!—we saw Bob Jamieson say this (he was reporting from Aurora, Illinois):
JAMIESON (2/11/01): The 175-bed shelter in this city of 130,000 has recorded a steady increase in homeless for the last year, particularly families with children. [emphasis added]
Say what? Jamieson never mentioned Bush’s name. But he did report that the rise in the homeless had been going on "for the last year!" Since Jamieson was reporting in February 2001—three weeks after Bush was sworn in—that of course meant that the rise in the problem had been happening under Bill Clinton. And when we looked at CNN’s nasty natter, they spelled it out even more clearly:
PALMER (8/4/01): It’s not just New York City. Many cities across the country report sharp increases in the number of people searching for places to live. Demand for emergency shelter in 25 surveyed cities increased an average of 15 percent in 1999, according to the U.S. Conference of Mayors. [emphasis added]
CNN didn’t mention Bush’s name either. They did interview New York mayor Giuliani, and they made it clear that the rise in this problem began in Clinton’s Year 7.
(from the dailyhowler)
The clues are right under your nose and you can't--or won't--notice them:
"Demand for emergency shelter in 25 surveyed cities increased an average of 15 percent in 1999, according to the U.S. Conference of Mayors. [emphasis added]"
Why is this story appearing in 2001, and not 2000? Seriously.
Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
Good question. Perhaps the increase was not noticed by the news agencies right away. Perhaps they wanted to see if it was more than a 1 year blip before expending resources on the story. Perhaps they were demonstrating a liberal bias by killing the story although if I were in chrge of writing the story, I would have easily excised the 1999 year to make it look more like Bush was the cause.
Anyway, do you think the American public is so stupid that they would not know that Clinton was President in 1999?
No, Goldberg presents the liberal media's hyping the threat of heterosexual AIDS as a clear instance of bias, of promoting a liberal agenda in reckless disregard of the available information.
(From Chapter 6 of Bias, pp.76-77)
"And homosexuals? The gay lobby was convinced that straight Americans didn't care what happened to them, either. But if the activists could somehow persuade America that gays and junkies were only the first wave, that heterosexuals were next, then the nation would surely demand that the government put all its efforts into finding a cure or a vaccine--anything!--to combat this deadly disease.
But to do this, the activists needed their compassionate friends in the media.
No problem!
It was the homeless story all over again. Tell the American people there were AIDS victims just like themselves--if not right now, soon--then maybe they would care enough to do something about the problem. The battle cry was as clear as can be: no one is safe anymore!
Once again, the media were more than willing to set aside their usual skepticism and go right along. While AIDS was devastating minority and gay communities in America, while it was leaving Middle America virtually untouched, the news stories conjured up some other reality."