O'Reilly said he's "still looking" for the homeless veterans Edwards (and the VA) say are "out there"
SUMMARY: Bill O'Reilly again baselessly challenged John Edwards' claim that "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," telling radio host Ed Schultz, "[W]e're still looking for all the veterans sleeping under the bridges, Ed. So if you find anybody, let us know. ... They may be out there, but there are not many of them out there." Schultz replied: "Well, they're out there, Bill, don't kid yourself." According to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, they are, in the approximate numbers Edwards asserted.
On the January 15 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly again baselessly challenged Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards' January 3 claim that "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." As noted by the blogs Crooks and Liars and The Carpetbagger Report, O'Reilly was discussing Edwards with radio host Ed Schultz when he said, "[W]e'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 ... " When Schultz told O'Reilly, "Well, they're out there, Bill, don't kid yourself," O'Reilly replied, "They may be out there, but there are not many of them out there, OK? So if you know where one is, Ed ... if you know where there'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." Schultz then gave O'Reilly "his word" that he would "do that."
As Media Matters for America documented, O'Reilly said on the January 4 edition of The O'Reilly Factor that Edwards had "no clue" and then aired his claim about homeless veterans.
In fact, Edwards' claim that there are 200,000 homeless U.S. veterans is supported by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The VA website's "Overview of Homlessness" states, in part:
About one-third of the adult homeless population have served their country in the Armed Services. 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.
The Washington Post reported that it had confirmed the veracity of Edwards' claim, noting on January 7:
Several readers have asked us to check this surprising statistic, often used by Edwards. The language may be overly dramatic, but the figure is an official one, from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The department believes that one-third of the adult homeless population of the United States "have served their country in the Armed Services." A posting on the department Web site says that about 195,000 veterans are "homeless on any given night" and perhaps twice as many experience homelessness at some point during the course of a year.
From the January 15 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
SCHULTZ: As far as John Edwards is concerned, I think his message is strong and he's got tremendous conviction. But I think he needs a little bit more material than just the "two America" talk. He's got to get --
O'REILLY: 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 --
SCHULTZ: Well, they're out there, Bill. Don't kid yourself.
O'REILLY: They may be out there, but there are not many of them out there, OK? So if you know where one is, Ed--
SCHULTZ: Well, actually -- now, wait a minute -- two hundred and five --
O'REILLY: -- Ed -- Ed -- if you know one where -- if you know where there'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.
SCHULTZ: I will do that. I will do that. You have my word on that.
O'REILLY: OK. All right. Now, who do you loathe -- who do you loathe in the presidential race?
so all 200,000 of you head over to o'reilly's house.
January 13th, 2005.
Even ONE veteran that may find him/herself living anywhere but in his/her own bed in his/her own home is a disgrace on this nation that is just one more in a long line of disgraces created by this government (especially when it is being influenced by corporate greedy slimy bas**rds and then is moralized by the same jerk-weeds who hem and haw, then its on to dead white girls in Bermuda or Britney's breakdown or some other earth shattering 'news' that doesn't delve into their collective sickness of ignoring all that is screwed up!
How dare we, as a country allow a vet to live anywhere but in their own home! They should have it all for free, for defending our freedoms! I believe that they would all be worthy? Anyone disagree?
As for BillO, he is losing his grip on reality really fast. It's only a matter of time before he is put in a white padded room
"They should have it all for free, for defending our freedoms! I believe that they would all be worthy? Anyone disagree?"
I'm afraid I would disagree. I am a vet who defended your freedoms, yet I hardly think anyone on this site would like to see me get any freebies from your tax dollars. It seems that many would like only the vets with political ideals that agree with their own to recieve such gracious compensation as free housing/medical/food. Perhaps I am wrong, but I've never heard a liberal say "thank you for serving my country". However, while I was in, I noticed some vets did not serve their time 'defending our freedoms' but rather making profits in the drug world. Should they be allowed free housing also? How are you going to differentiate between the two?
As for the actual topic at hand, BOR may be a bit left in his ideals, but he is not wrong on this one. When those 200,000 [homeless/living under bridges] vets start grabbing their guns and seeking help and assistance for their situations then I'll believe they are out there. Until then, making false claims, such as Edwards has, won't float in my boat. He may as well be saying there are WMD's in Iraq... give me proof, not lies.
Philib, thank you for your service. (I've heard many liberals say this, by the way. And there are many liberals who ARE vets. My dad was a WWII vet and my brother is a Vietnam vet)
As for the 200,000 homeless figure, there are a number of veterans' organizations that give that estimate. Here's one:
http://www.nchv.org/background.cfm
"the Department of Veterans Affairs (...) believes that one-third of the adult homeless population of the United States "have served their country in the Armed Services." A posting on the department Web site says that about 195,000 veterans are "homeless on any given night" and perhaps twice as many experience homelessness at some point during the course of a year."
I know what people 'guess' to be an accurate number, notice the key words: 'believes, about, perhaps' in the mmfa quote. The responsibility of the vet to seek assistance does not fall on my shoulders because he/she doesn't want to inconveniant themselves by actually seeking help. I believe help should be given, but not by chasing them down and forcing them to be 'helped'. They may be homeless, but they aren't stupid, they know where to find the help. If they want it, it should be given to them (where are the stats that say help is NOT available?) not forced upon them.
ALL the numbers given about vet homelessness are guesses! ALL! Which does not excuse Edwards from his stance that all the homeless vets are living under bridges, incapable of seeking help. BOR simply pointed out the absurdity of Edwards statement. Are you defending Edwards?
Of course they're all guesses. What else could they be? Think about it. But the "guesses" are not pulled out of someone's behind as you seem to imply. Homeless shelters and veteran's organizations complile stats based upon their numbers served and interviews.
No question not all vets are honorable people, but you are being deliberately obtuse about the homeless vet situation. I'm glad that you survived the military with your mind and emotions intact. Others did not. There is a fair amount of mental illness out there from traumatic experience in combat.
I'm glad that you survived the military with your mind and emotions intact.
Based on his posts here, the jury is still out on that. But I am glad he survived with his ability to type intact.
"I'm glad that you survived the military with your mind and emotions intact. Others did not. There is a fair amount of mental illness out there from traumatic experience in combat."
Thank you, mary. I didn't mean to sound harsh, but help IS available to ALL who seek it. That is true, isn't it? I agree that those who need help should get it, but my point is that it isn't MY responsibility to force those who don't want help to get it. I do volunteer work, just like everyone else does, but mine isn't to the veteran community, I help the blind community. Sorry that there is only one of me (fortunately according to many here) to do all the work for all the masses that need help.
I'm sure there are many posting on this thread who are actively volunteering to help the veterans who need it. If not, I'm sure they are busy doing other volunteer work. If not, then they should not be complaining about the poor assistance homeless vets get.
"And are you sure the funds are there to provide help for all the vets who need it?"
Are you saying that the democratic controlled house and senate cannot fund services for 195K men/women? That says a lot of the democratic party, doesn't it? If someone has to ask if services are funded enough to provide help to those who patriotically served their country then the current crop of senators/congressmen aren't doing the job THEY PROMISED to do and should be replaced with some that can get it done. All that funding should have been done (and was promised to be done) within 100 days of the last election cycle, wasn't it? What happened to that promise by the democrats?
Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."
Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.
Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds.
All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.
-------------------------------
What the new Congress did not prepare for was the was the bitter urge to retain power and the selfish resolve of the block and blame Republicans to shaft the American people over and over.
Way to utterly dodge the question though ,Phil. I'll take your silence as an admission that Republican governance is flawed by design.
"Way to utterly dodge the question though ,Phil. I'll take your silence as an admission that Republican governance is flawed by design."
Yeah, speaking of 'dodging' a question. I'll guess; yes-the money is there. At which point I'll have to thank the "Republican governance" for making sure veterans are supported after serving.
If the answer turns out to be 'no', then I will have to blame the current "Democratic governance" for dropping the ball (once again) and doing what democrats do -- nothing. Wait, they are good at blaming republicans when they can't get their own job done.
See, I can 'work' a problem into a democratic caused problem just like liberals 'work' a problem into a republican caused problem. No matter what the answer is. Kind of depressing, actually. It turns out I'm just like you. ;)
Before the Democrats swept away the do nothing 101st Republican Congress that Congress failed to fund VA programs to the tune of a 1 bilion dollar shortfall.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301888.html
http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-109-1-11
But now despite the best efforts of Republicans to block and blame the Dems for this malfeasance, the Dems have forced the President and his lackeys to fulfill their obligation to the service men and women they have betrayed.
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/01/17/01172008_wac_vabreaking.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=11
So, basically Phil you can see I'm not "working the problem" to fit my agenda as you suggest, I am simply seeing the problem and telling it like it is. Try it sometime.
$68 BILLION was approved, and the budget fell $1 BILLION short. If only ALL the budget allocations could come within 2% of expectations. I accept that is a lot of money to come up short, but you make it sound as if the shortfall was a major part of the alloted budget. Considering all the porkbarrel spending that happens each year within politicians, I'm surprised it was only 2% shortfall.
Was the approved $68 BILLION budget equal to or less than what Clinton had allocated during the previous administration. I ask that question blindly, so I do not know what the answer will be. But, am curious if Bush is doing more or less than the democrat leader did for our vets.
I did some checking during my lunch-hour:
http://www.factcheck.org/funding_for_veterans_up_27_but_democrats.html
Looks like Bush is doing MORE than Clinton. Even with the shortfall. So, thank you, Republicanism for providing more support to our vets than previous administrations.
Yeah, you're right. The Dept. of Veterans Affairs is making up numbers based on guesses, and even if the numbers were true, those vets are not stepping up to seek help, so screw 'em! I'm sure that all the help they need is just sitting around collecting dust waiting for someone to claim it. I'm sure that ll those vets are of sound mind to go on their own and get that help.
Here's a homework assignment: go research the correlation between mental illness and homelessness, particularly PTSS and homeless vets. On second thought, you don't want to face the hard facts about how our country treats those who need (and deserve) the most help, so just close your eyes and go back to sleep.
"Hard facts"?? You want to know how our country treats homelessness? Read worrierking's statement on how he passes up every oportunity to help those who "succumbed to the darkness". That is one hard fact.
Here's a homework assignment for you. Go out and give the NEXT homeless vet you see living under a bridge some new clothes and a home. Can't afford that? Give him a ride to the local VA. Since you think he is retarted and can't get there on his own, give him some help.
Gee, you're too busy to do that, too? There's the "hard facts" for ya. Want some more "hard facts"? Let's set up an assignment for everyone who reads this; give one homeless vet a ride to the VA so he/she can get help.
Gosh, every one of you are too busy to give a homeless vet (retarded according to jawill) a ride to the VA? There's your "hard facts"!!
FACT: the help is there for those who seek it.
FICTION: If they can't get there on their own you will give them a ride. Don't want them in your car? Give them a couple bucks for the bus and make sure that's what they spend it on. Don't have a spare couple bucks? Elect a democrat who will create a 'national program' that will help both you (don't have the money) and the vet (homeless retard). Unfortunately, they still won't come out and pick you up, you will have to go there to get the assistance they promise you.
Moral of the story: Electing a democrat = status quo. Edwards may tell you there are 195K homeless vets living under a bridge, but he will do nothing to fix the problem. Worse news is, neither will any of the other candidates. Hard fact is the homeless get ignored until they set up tent in your back yard.
Thank you, worrierking, for the patriotic service you performed for your country. I appreciate your sacrifices during a difficult time.
Did I forget anyone?
PHILIB says, “I am a vet who defended your freedoms, yet I hardly think anyone on this site would like to see me get any freebies from your tax dollars.”
RESPONSE: I am a Liberal, the spouse of a 20-year military veteran, and I wonder what you mean by “freebies.” Medical care, or care for mental illness? The ability to shop tax-free in commissaries? If a “work-related” disability has you unable to earn a living, would you consider it a “freebie” to provide food and shelter? See, I don’t consider such things “FREEBIES”, I consider them obligations of our government, PROMISES made that should be kept.
The vast majority of military vets fend just fine for themselves, were able to integrate back into civilian workplaces, and carry on “normal” lives. There is no question about that, but those are not the people we are talking about when it comes to needing special care or help.
PHILIB says, “It seems that many would like only the vets with political ideals that agree with their own to recieve such gracious compensation as free housing/medical/food.”
RESPONSE: Hell of a charge, what is your evidence? Are you saying CONSERVATIVE homeless are ignored by Liberals, while LIBERAL homeless are targeted for “gracious compensation”? Where have you seen ANY indication of this happening?
PHILIB says, “ Perhaps I am wrong, but I've never heard a liberal say "thank you for serving my country".”
RESPONSE: You cannot be wrong about your own personal experience. You ARE wrong that Liberals do not thank veterans for their service. In fact, do you not see the contradiction in your own argument, that IN YOUR PREVIOUS SENTENCE, you accuse Liberals of lavishing “gracious compensation” on Veterans? Do you even THINK about what you are saying?
PHILIB says, “However, while I was in, I noticed some vets did not serve their time 'defending our freedoms' but rather making profits in the drug world.”
RESPONSE: You, of course, turned those criminals in to the proper authorities, where they were made to serve time for their criminal activities, didn’t you? And the other penalties, such as a dishonorable discharge and loss of pension and benefits, right?
PHILIB: “Should they be allowed free housing also? How are you going to differentiate between the two?”
RESPONSE: It’s basic. Innocent until proven guilty on crime, benefits and honorable discharge signal a veteran deserving every help a grateful nation can provide. (This is not to say that ANYONE in need, with a drug problem or a criminal background, should simply be ignored; there should be care for them as well, because it is the moral thing to do.)
PHILIB: “As for the actual topic at hand, BOR may be a bit left in his ideals, but he is not wrong on this one. When those 200,000 [homeless/living under bridges] vets start grabbing their guns and seeking help and assistance for their situations then I'll believe they are out there.”
RESPONSE: Just to be clear, you will DENY the existence of homeless veterans in need of help, until they form an armed insurrection/revolution and make war on the USA? That’ll be your “trigger” to reality, otherwise you will simply DISbelieve? Amazing.
PHILIB: “Until then, making false claims, such as Edwards has, won't float in my boat. He may as well be saying there are WMD's in Iraq... give me proof, not lies.”
RESPONSE:
http://www1.va.gov/homeless/page.cfm?pg=1
Your OWN boat seems adrift in a sea of bitterness. Seek help; it will be available from the VA. It may well be post-traumatic stress reaction in the form of paranoia, depression, and anger.
"RESPONSE: You cannot be wrong about your own personal experience. You ARE wrong that Liberals do not thank veterans for their service. In fact, do you not see the contradiction in your own argument, that IN YOUR PREVIOUS SENTENCE, you accuse Liberals of lavishing “gracious compensation” on Veterans? Do you even THINK about what you are saying?"
Did you even read what I said? I said 'it seems the left would only like those in agreement to recieve compensation'. I did NOT say the left "gives" compensation to ONLY those in agreement. If you have a reading comprehension problem and misquote statements that are right in front of your face, then I understand your problem.
"RESPONSE: You, of course, turned those criminals in to the proper authorities, where they were made to serve time for their criminal activities, didn’t you? And the other penalties, such as a dishonorable discharge and loss of pension and benefits, right?"
NO, I was busy buying from them. The army taught me many things, one was to be a druggie. I quit on my own, thank you. You got any more questions you don't want the answer to?
"And here I thought that would have been a personal choice, not one they teach in boot camp."
That "personal choice", as you call it, turns into a big 'government responsibility' when the soldier gets out of the service. Hmmm, how many others made that same "quaint" choice and now the government is expected to 'save them from themselves'?? At what point does the government's responsibility begin/end? Before or after that "quaint" choice is made?
"Seek help; it will be available from the VA."
Tell that to the 195K that apparently don't know that fact.
And most, on the left and the right, have always supported our veterans. To say otherwise is to denigrate the work of many vets and ordinary citizens.
You might be different than I am, but anytime anyone has thanked me for my service, I never questioned where they stood in the political spectrum. I just assumed that they were just grateful Americans.
I've seen many homeless vets on the streets of most cities that I've lived in and visited. Whenever I see one, I always think, that that homeless person could have been me. Had I not had the support of family and friends, I might have succumbed to the darkness.
We should thank God that we we're able to pick up the pieces and rebuild our lives. A lot of friends have never been able to carry the weight of their service. Some ended up on the streets. I'd never begrudge them a little help.
"You might be different than I am, but anytime anyone has thanked me for my service, I never questioned where they stood in the political spectrum."
When someone thanks me, I talk to them. Sorry, guilty as charged.
"I've seen many homeless vets on the streets of most cities that I've lived in and visited. Whenever I see one, I always think, that that homeless person could have been me. Had I not had the support of family and friends, I might have succumbed to the darkness."
Using the guilt-giving process that tex uses, why don't you offer help to these "many homeless vets" you see on the street? Do you offer ANY help to them? Do you point them in the right direction? It's also nice to hear you say there is no hope for them... that they have "succumbed to the darkness".
The hopeless bit was your words not mine. No one is beyond hope. No one.
You're trying to make this political. It's not about politics, it's about Americans helping Americans.
If you have a problem with that, so be it.
I'm done.
"The hopeless bit was your words not mine. No one is beyond hope. No one."
Explain yourself, then. What did you mean by "succumbed to the darkness"?
PHILIB says, “ Perhaps I am wrong, but I've never heard a liberal say "thank you for serving my country".”
Well Phil, I'm a vet and a liberal. I've never heard a conservative vet say anything nice about me or respect my service once they found out I was too liberal for them.
Here, let me intorduce you to one...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-rieckhoff/oreilly-downplays-number_b_81900.html
On the contrary, we are all in this together. Just as the deregulation and privatization scams that leave us all more vulnerable, any public benefit that uplifts and empowers you is a net plus for all of us.
"Just as the deregulation and privatization scams that leave us all more vulnerable" + "volunteer work is no substitute for the work our government has the obligation to undertake."
You totally ignored my earlier questions, so let's bring one right to you. Obviously, you are in favor of total government intrusion into the everyday lives of Joe Q Public, so let me ask you; in your opinion, is the government responsible for driving around in vans picking up and forcing the homeless vets into shelters and having medical treatment for whatever ails them?
You callously implied a with us or against us type motivation on the part of lefties here.
"I am a vet who defended your freedoms, yet I hardly think anyone on this site would like to see me get any freebies from your tax dollars."
That's ridiculous and your subsequent mealy mouthed accusations of liberty infringement is the stuff of one who eschews the greater good in favor of their own blind hatred of liberalism.
Done.
Done?? Come on, what are you afraid of? Don't dodge this simple question...
in your opinion, is the government responsible for driving around in vans picking up and forcing the homeless vets into shelters and having medical treatment for whatever ails them?
The money is there for vets to get help. Show me an article that shows the VA refuses to assist a needy vet because the money isn't there!! My insinuation is that help is available for anyone who needs it. Don't try to change what I'm asking by denying that I'm asking it.
I mean what is the answer? Do you believe that the majority of homeless vets who suffer from mental illness and addicton, which is a mental illness in it's own right, have the wherewithall to simply help themselves? Do you thank God every day that Reagan kicked the mentally ill out onto the streets way back in the 80's?
Your broad strokes of big brother interventions are yet another effort to undermine the rightful government role of public service.
I think there can be federally backed community efforts on the part of the VA to bring help to the homeless.
Which begs the question of what exactly Mr. O'Reilly's intentions are vis-a-vis his viewers encountering a homeless veteran.
How do we know such doesn't include the likes of violent intimidation, fear or other questionable actions?
As if that weren't enough, state veterans' homes have very strict qualification tests for residency, particularly when it comes to income and resources; in some instances, said homes are now on waitlists.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Big Eddy is a pretender, though he a good radio personality, he is shallow in his views, poorly read, and with no political or historical content in his opinions.
He is the kind of inexperienced, naive thinker that would be easy for a Bill O'Rielley to manipulate. Big Eddy is first, and primarilly interested in having a successfull show, and his political beliefs are way down on his list of considerations.
Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes, Rachel Maddow, or any of the AirAmerica line-up would have inserted themselves into that remark questioning the homeless numbers, Big Eddy wants another call back to the show.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
It's already a known fact that reich-wingers do not require facts or reality. The most biased and extreme reich-wing entertainers in this country, Weiner-savage, Rush, and BOR, attract the largest audiences for one simple reason....reich-winged NEED their biased, opinionated, non-factual Kool-Aide.
I used to listen to Ed Schultz when he was in a reasonable time slot over here... He's a 'middle-of-the-road' sort of blue collar Democrat. I do believe Schultz believes that going on a show like O'Reilly's is helping to get his message out there ... Not sure that's right. O'Reilly is an idiot. I'm sure BO is looking... what a joke.
We know Loofah Man reads MMFA, so let's just direct him to the source of the info ...
HEY BILL, SEE THAT LINK ABOVE TITLED "OVERVIEW OF HOMELESSNESS" ?? CLICK ON IT.
How is it he knows more about homeless vets than the Veterans Administration?
Bill, if you're monitoring, we love you, but you're Scum, with a capital S.
It's too early to criticize O'Reilly, yet.
Is it really TRUE that there are homeless vets out there, sleeping under bridges and on grates? If so, this is simple enough ... the information on, say, a couple hundred of them should be gathered, documented (names, service record, and current situation), and deliver that information to O'Reilly.
Until that is done, we don't KNOW what O'Reilly will do. As of now, he simply denies that any such thing is occurring. Once he has documented PROOF, and real flesh-and-blood VETERANS presented to him as cases-in-point, that denial will no longer be possible.
What WILL the great Bill O'Reilly do? Will anyone dig up that information, and make the presentation? Could MMFA, for example, do this service, and challenge O'Reilly to respond in some way? Does the VA in New York City have a list of homeless, where they could be bussed to in front of the FOX NEWS building, awaiting O'Reilly's acknowledgment of their plight?
Once the PROOF is there, contradicting O'Reilly's notions, and posing the challenge to him to do something ABOUT it ... that is when he can be criticized -- or praised. He may surprise everyone and take the challenge seriously, finding out what help these men (and women) need, and taking it on himself to pitch in and be their champion.
We won't know, until the confrontation takes place. Any ideas when this assembly will be arranged?
Nah its a viaduct.
Not to sure where Bill wants to go with this. I'll assume it'll turn out to be the fault of the "radical", "extreme", "transorbital" left that controls everything! WAAAAAAH!
Ok, I shouldn't do this so early in the morning!
He'll say they AREN'T "real" Vets
O'Reilly will say that Edwards meant LITERALLY
Yeah, that's what I've been thinking: He's focusing on the "bridges and grates" bit as a means of dismissing the whole issue while leaving himself a convenient out if/when he gets cornered. "Hey, I never said there weren't a lot of homeless veterans, I just said they weren't all sleeping under bridges!"
Edwards' statement is, to be honest, hyperbole ("a dramatic overstatement not meant to be taken literally") of a sort we all engage in at times for the purpose of making a point. That is, he doesn't literally mean that every single one of those 200,000 homeless vets is sleeping under a bridge or on a grate - and it's quite obvious he doesn't mean it literally.
Thus, to address it as if it were intended as an exact statement of precise truth is fundamentally dishonest. Then again, that's no problem for Bill the O.
what strikes me about this argument is this ; exactly how many homeless veterans constitute an acceptable number? Even if we pretended for a second that O'Reilly was right, and the number was 100,000....or 10,000, or 1000, what's the difference? It's still an appalling, disgraceful, unacceptable indictment on the system and politicians that utilise the men and women of the armed services, and then discards them when they return home broken.
O'Reilly's outrage is misplaced, to say the least. Its equivalent to the argument over the Lancet Report of civilian deaths in Iraq. How is 150,000 deaths any more acceptable than 600,000? These people are all still people. For shame.
Edwards has responded in NEvada by saying BOR doesn't know what he's talking about. Expect an interesting BOR this evening.
"So if you know where one is, Ed ... if you know where there'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."
I am absolutely positive that the city and county governments of the greater Spokane region would like nothing better than to receive direct funds from O'Reilly today, no later than 3PM PST, so that the homeless veterans sleeping under the bridges (of which there are lots: bridges and homeless) and in the shrubbery, can get inside over the next few nights during our deep-freeze weather cycle. The funds simply aren't available to open the warm shelters at this time: however if Bill is a man of his word, he will man-up today and provide some much needed dollars to protect the homeless vets from single digit temperatures (btw: that Fahrenheit, Bill).
"The funds simply aren't available to open the warm shelters at this time: however if Bill is a man of his word, he will man-up today and provide some much needed dollars to protect the homeless vets from single digit temperatures (btw: that Fahrenheit, Bill)."
Who funds the abortion clinics in your area?? Perhaps they would be willing to share the wealth and help out a veteran? Perhaps not, many claim it is more important to kill humans than to save them.