BillOReilly.com link to story of "sex offenders living under a bridge": "Those weren't veterans John Edwards, they were sex offenders"
SUMMARY: A link on BillOReilly.com, the website of Fox News and conservative radio talk-show host Bill O'Reilly, was titled "Those weren't veterans John Edwards, they were sex offenders," and linked to an Associated Press article about Florida's efforts "to dissolve a community of sex offenders living under a bridge." Media Matters for America has documented the back-and-forth between O'Reilly and former Sen. John Edwards over homelessness and homeless veterans.
On February 7, the "O'Round the World: Stories from the 'No-Spin' News Desk" section of BillOReilly.com, Fox News anchor and conservative radio talk-show host Bill O'Reilly's website, featured a link titled "Those weren't veterans John Edwards, they were sex offenders." The phrase referred to a recent back-and-forth between O'Reilly and former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) over homelessness and homeless veterans, which began when O'Reilly responded to Edwards' January 3 remark 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," by stating in part: "The only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy's brain."
The BillOReilly.com link directed visitors to a February 6 Associated Press article on Florida's attempts "to dissolve a community of sex offenders living under a bridge" in Miami "that includes a gym, kitchen, living room and two dogs."
From BillOReilly.com:
In a January 30 speech in which Edwards announced the suspension of his presidential campaign, he discussed visiting a New Orleans homeless encampment "under a bridge that carried the interstate where 100 to 200 homeless Americans sleep every night." Responding to Edwards' remarks, O'Reilly repeatedly suggested on the January 30 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor that this homeless community did not exist, saying: "[W]e called the Edwards campaign and asked where exactly is that bridge so we could help those people. Apparently, they don't know or they wouldn't tell us. The Edwards campaign can't pinpoint the bridge." However, several media outlets had reported that a large encampment of homeless people has formed under an Interstate 10 overpass in downtown New Orleans.
O'Reilly has also repeatedly minimized the number of homeless veterans not in shelters. Discussing Edwards' January 3 statement 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," O'Reilly declared on the January 4 edition of The O'Reilly Factor that Edwards "has no clue" and added: "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." O'Reilly returned to the subject during a January 15 O'Reilly Factor discussion with radio host Ed Schultz, in which O'Reilly stated: "[W]e're still looking for all the veterans sleeping under the bridges, Ed. ... 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."
According to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, "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." The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reported on October 15, 2007, that according to information reported by applicants to the department's Continuums of Care (CoCs) Homeless Assistance Programs, the local CoCs reported a "point-in-time count" of 29,785 "unsheltered" homeless veterans. The "point-in-time count" occurred in January 2006. HUD currently defines "an unsheltered homeless person" as a person who "resides in: A place not meant for human habitation, such as cars, parks, sidewalks, abandoned buildings, or on the street."
HUD's 2006 homeless population data is accompanied by the following "Important Notes About This Data":
This report is based on point-in-time information provided to HUD by Continuums of Care (CoCs) in the 2006 Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs application and has not been independently verified by HUD. The user is cautioned that although CoCs are required to provide an unduplicated count of homeless persons, a standardized methodology to determine unduplicated counts of homeless persons within CoCs has not yet been implemented and the reliability of different street count methodologies can vary. Furthermore any data within this report that aggregates information above the CoC level is not unduplicated for homeless persons that may have been counted in more than one CoC.
The Miami/Dade County CoC reported 117 unsheltered homeless veterans in its January 24, 2006, point-in-time count.
This man is so disgusting he clearly has no shame whatsoever
That's for sure. This nasty little rip at Edwards by way of his site's headline wasn't necessary at all. How tacky.
Also has everyone heard about what O'Reilly is doing on the new GI bill? There's a new bill being written and from what I read online, it's been in the works since last November. Now O'Reilly is climbing on board claiming that he's working with Kerry, King and Webb to get the new legislation through. In reality the only thing O'Reilly is doing is reporting to his viewers on the status of the bill. The Senators don't need him to work on the legislation. Remember a couple of weeks ago when O'Reilly hinted that he and Colonel Hunt had something big in the works for the good of the vets? Well this is it. He's taking advantage of the work the Senators are doing in order to make himself look good.
Go to Newshounds.us for all the details.
I didn't see the story but I did nominate bill o'reilly as #1 pinhead and john edwards as the #1 patriot :)
think he'll send the fox police out to get me?
So now O'Reilley is claiming that every homeless vet is a sex offender?
Well, they say it takes one to know one, but I think he may be wrong on this occasion. Maybe the whole "rich coward sneering at poor heroes" angle has confused him into believing that they are perverts like him.
.
It's official. O'Reilly is the biggest jackass in all media.
New Orleans is in Florida?
And I'm typing this in amazment, also deep inside a black hole (its quiet here), transmitting back to Mirth with the help of a small wormhole, that insists his name is Mr. Earl. Bounching the signal off one of the Venusion Moons,I ferget which one. To irradiate Reagon's brain, which acts to bring the the frequency down to readable levels for a gamma spectrum anaylser hidden in a nearby rectomrey, er relicery. I'm thinking of a new location for the G.S.A. Bill. It might be a new kink for you. Or you might come clean on this garbage. I can see tomorrow's head line "Pigs Fly!"
I should be back to normal tomorrow, for a given value of normal.
Dear BillO's production crew,
I realize that the job market is weak at this time but are you all sure that you want to be associated with this sleazeball?
Andrea Makris was bad enough, so was his threatening Jeremy Glicks kid with violence but this has to be a final straw for those of you that work with this jerk? Isn't it?
If the point of this was for ratings ya;ll went the wrong direction......
If BillO would have accepted the challenge of getting the homeless vets out from under bridges he could have had a ratings bonanza.....
Instead, this will, as people that watch begin to realize the sickness that is BillO will begin to stop bothering to tune in?
Of course, Bill O'Reilly is a blatant liar. Although the word "idiot" comes to mind he really isn't stupid, just a lying POS!
After MMA previously noted O'Reilly's attempts to discredit Edwards on the homeless living under a bridge in New Orleans I was forced to go the bridge, I-10 overpass at Canal St and Claiborne Ave, and get video of the people living under it. Ironically, the man who asked me for the time was a homeless veteran who showed me his VA card.
The video, along with a link to the blog, TellWhereTheBridgeIs.com, I started about "those people" was emailed to O'Liar. YouTube is full of videos of him lying about the homeless, veterans in particular.
Everyone should email TellWhereTheBridgeIs.com to O'Reilly so he and Juan Williams can go there to help, as Bill said he would.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that Edward's claim that 200,000 vets are sleeping under bridges or on grates isn't subsrantiated by the aforementioned statistics. Someone being homeless for a night or at some point during the year isn't the same as "living under a bridge." And why would anyone be surprised that some percentage of the homeless would be comprised of vets?
My question is, why are they homeless? Choice? Bad luck? Mental or drug issues? Maybe this is an unfair generalization but I see the left as being completely unintersted in the "why" of many things. Why ae the homeless homeless? Why are so many uninsured? Why are most poor people poor?
And, by the way, the left is VERY concerned with the "why" of things happening: why are veterans homeless? Is there something more we should be doing in terms of adjustment to civilian life? Is the military culture not doing enough to tackle the problems of drugs and alcohol? Is PTSD having an effect on their difficulties returning from war? Is the VA providing enough mental health services? Are veterans groups doing enough to find employment for veterans? Are veterans aware of or having trouble accessing the resources available to them? Should insurance be made available to veterans as a term of service? Are private insurers keeping veterans (or anyone else) who may have significant physical or mental health problems off the rolls for profit motives? How can we streamline the process of getting subsidized insurance for low-income people so that it is cost-effective and reaches the people it needs to? Is the education level of the returning troops a factor in their future ability to find employment or adjust to civilian life? Is education a major factor in poverty for both veterans and the populace and general? Are veterans and the populace in general getting the information they need about how to manage their money wisely? Are lending institutions being given too much latitude to go after high-risk customers, trap them with deals they don't understand, and then foreclose on their house, leaving them in even more desperate financial straits? How do you effectively combat drug problems that are leaving so many helpless and impoverished without simply locking up thousands of people in overcrowded jails and providing a huge influx of money to organized crime?
THAT, my friend, is the way you go about solving real problems, instead of hiding behind "Support the Troops!" and let real troops go hungry, go crazy, or go without a roof over their heads. Even if many of them DO have alcohol/drug problems, or are choosing not to find work (p.s.: no one CHOOSES to live under a bridge or in a homeless shelter--you have to fall into pretty desperate circumstances for that to happen to you), we owe it to them and to ourselves as a nation to address the root problems that are leading to these self-destructive behaviors in those who have defended our country and deserve our support.
"Someone being homeless for a night or at some point during the year isn't the same as "living under a bridge." And why would anyone be surprised that some percentage of the homeless would be comprised of vets?"
I'm not sure that being homeless "for a night" would qualify. How would that happen anyway, by locking your house keys in your car? I'm not surprised that some percentage of the homeless are vets, but I am disgusted by it. When you put your life at risk for your country you deserve better.
"My question is, why are they homeless? Choice? Bad luck? Mental or drug issues? Maybe this is an unfair generalization but I see the left as being completely unintersted in the "why" of many things. Why ae the homeless homeless? Why are so many uninsured? Why are most poor people poor?"
Who the hell is homeless by choice? That's one of my favorite bits of Reagan idiocy, that people choose to live like that. Along with leftside I'd like answers about the homeless vets. Many of the general homeless population is due to addiction and untreated mental illness. More people should be insured, the reason they aren't is because it's expensive to insure yourself, and many businesses don't do it anymore because it's expensive for them. The real root of the problem is that insurance is viewed as a business, where profit is the bottom line. That's a conflict of interest with people's health. Either you want to make money, or you want to keep people healthy. One cause is at odds with the other.
As for why most poor people are poor, that's mostly the circumstances you're born into. But ultimately there's no alternative outside of utopian communism. Even if everyone was born with exactly the same intelligence and work ethic, capitalism dictates that some people will be poor. Under those conditions it would be determined by physical appearance, personality and connections.
Brab,
I have to take issue with your claim that "homeless by choice" is nothing but Reagan idiocy. Granted, some use that as an excuse to look away and deny the reality altogether, but that fact is is that some people do choose to live that way. They have come to their own realization that the responsibilities of maintaining a home and the expenses and obligations that come with that are just too great. Rather than blend in the fabric of society they choose shelters, or living on the streets - I have seen it first hand, as I am sure many have. I have no idea the percentage here, and it may be small - but it does exist.
Obviously, O'Reilly has chosen to make a mockery out of this whole situation for his own egotistical agenda, and to make Edwards appear phony. It isn't going to be solved either way by these two going at it, and maybe the publicity and attention given will do some good, for some veterans who truly are victims of an unfair and ungrateful society. That would be a positive consequence.
You obviously don't get it. Some people don't want your intervention, or your help, or your support groups, or your health screenings, or anything else from you - so yes, you are patronizing them through your condescending attitude that you know what's best for them.
Focus your efforts on those that do want all the help you can give them, and leave the ones that choose their own life alone.
No, as usual, YOU'RE the one that "doesn't get it".
Like always.
ACTUALLY, Mr. pyschic network, NOBODY has 'refused' MY HELP in trying to get them out of homelessness. I don't know ANY homeless person that has said 'You know, I like living under bridges and on steam vents, and getting hassled by the cops, getting beaten up on the streets, getting diseases, having no job, having mental health and physical health issues, and just being poor as dirt for the rest of my life!'
You might see people ALREADY desparate and homeless, and INFER that because there are homeless, because you read about them in the LA Times (just guessing, because I'm not THAT pyschic), that some people refuse care because they are 'choosing' to. YOU don't know because YOU haven't worked among them and figured out WHY they 'choose' to live homeless. If you do, give me a name, and I'll contact BO so he can help them out.
By the way, patronizing is more akin to a person telling another person of equal ability what to do. Like, an adult telling another adult, who just crashed his car, 'Hey, Man! You should have stopped at the light!'. The second man would have the right to say 'No crap, sherlock- I know what's best for me'. But, it's NOT patronizing when an adult tells a child 'You shouldn't touch the hot stove.' In the same manner, it's not patronizing for an informed adult to tell a person experiencing mental and physical issues what may benefit them.
Obviously you don't even know what patronizing is, because for you to even suggest that people who choose to be homeless must be mentally impaired - how incredibly insulting, and patronizing that is.
Not everyone chooses to live the way you or I do, it doesn't mean they are any less smart or capable than we are. It is their choice, and even if you can't respect that, I can.
Also, just to be clear- are you saying people 'choosing' out of fear (you said some are too afraid of something to change their situation- I agree) are really CHOOSING? When you 'choose' to cut off your foot out of fear of dying, was that a REAL choice?
There is a VERY high correlation between mental health issues (esp. schizophrenia) and homelessness.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050201101738.htm
http://www.nrchmi.samhsa.gov/Default.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE7DF1E3AF933A2575AC0A96F948260
Stop using the term "patronizing" to give yourself and your political representatives an excuse not to address real and very serious problems.
Actually Mr. L, Tommy is sort of correct. (speaking of which, at this moment I'm listening to "Tommy can you hear me?" I thought it was appropriate.)
There are a few, not many by any means, but a few who actually do choose to live a life of homelessness. They are usually crazy, and think the government is out to get them, but they are there nonetheless. And there are even a few who had a home and voluntarily gave it up to live in the woods or, in one case I saw on the news recently, in a hole in the ground.
However, those people are few and far between, and are not the ones you see begging for help every day.
There's a guy I try to give money to when I see him. He's missing a leg and is a Vietnam vet, and he lives in the woods with his wife who has cancer. Those are the people who need help. And they didn't get there by choice.
That's why Mr. L was talking about mental health in the context of why people aren't "choosing" to live on the street.
maybe the publicity and attention given will do some good, for some veterans who truly are victims of an unfair and ungrateful society. That would be a positive consequence.
If word gets out to homeless vets that O'Reilly's mentioning them in the same sentence as sex offenders, he may need to move to Canada to avoid the war.
This has to be a new record for antagonistic nonsense.
Nobody chooses to be homeless. Reagan said that people do, like I believe he also said that people who go hungry are all on a diet. Just from glancing below I see people have pointed out what should be glaringly obvious, that anyone who actually chooses to be homeless is mentally ill in some way. That doesn't really constitute "choice". It's not like "do I want the three-bedroom, two-bathroom house, or do I want to live on the street defecating in a bucket? Decisions, decisions..."
Seriously, are you upset because I pointed out something absurd that the patron saint of conservatism said, or what? I can't believe this is supposed to be a genuine argument on your part.
Maybe this is an unfair generalization but I see the left as being completely unintersted in the "why" of many things.
My, but you're confused. Yes, that generalization is unfair, AND totally inaccurate.
Critical thinking (the whys of things) is what the right doesn't do, and what the left does very well.
I think you need to do a lot more investigation into the right and the left- you're very confused about who does what.
southern, here's something else for you to add. Returning veterans are having difficulty finding a job. Perhaps Bill can ignore them too?
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/07/new-war-vets-likely-to-face-job-hurdles/#comments
What a coward!
I believe this was done intentionally to give him deniability. After all, he probably has way less to do with his website than he does with his radio and television shows.
My question is what purpose does a blatantly misleading item like this serve?
There's absolutely none I can think of except showing the depths O'Reilly will sink to to win an argument and the lack of regard he has for his audience.
O'Reilly has shown he has no understanding of his duty to serve the public interest. He will lie when it serves his interests and being willing to lie is a totally different matter than having opinions some people disagree with.
This is a serious matter.
O'Reilly has to go.
Kudos to TT for finding and reporting this item.
I actually have met homeless veterans, two of which were missing limbs. One of them I found on a freeway overpass. If you remember Leuitenant Dan from Forrest Gump, that's exactly how I found this particular veteran. He was in a wheelchair, missing his shins and held up a begging sign. It just sickens me that conservatives in general believe that we are exagerating about the seriousness of the homeless veteran epedemic. It also sickens me when conservatives keep using this sex-offender generalization just tso they can hawk their shawdy security wares to the government.
Wow. 1st he claims edwards is a liar, then he blows off a VA group that delivers 17,000 signatures from homeless vets demanding an apology, then he calls that group a bunch of disallusioned idiots on air, and now he says the vets are sex offenders. I really hope this is playing on armed forces radio.
Well cons, your spokespeople blew off the vet vote, the gay vote, the hispanic vote, the black vote, the New Orleans vote, the christian moderates vote, the other religions vote, the middle class vote, the poor vote, and the small business vote. Better get those diebold machines up and running because I don't think there's enough Hell's Angels and Neo Nazi's to join with the right wing extremists and put McLame over the top...
Maybe BilldO is confused by the recent case involving Marine Cesar Laurean, as well as events like Abu Ghraib. Is he saying that he thinks that all military people are sex offenders, and they should be addresses as such?
I think BO needs to make himself more clear.
You know, I will visit O'Reilly's website on occasion to just see what crazy stuff they put on it. It just so happened that I clicked on one of the links one time...something about Kathy Griffin saying something heretical, and it took me to a blog from a porn site. There was actual porn ON THE PAGE. I e-mailed their sorry a$$es and went off on them for it, and 10 minutes later it was gone.
The point is, I think, that BillOreilly.com will put up anything that they think will make a case, no matter how un-credible the source is.
I agree, I was just saying that they will go to any depths to make a point.
I think he should have been taken off the air a long time ago.
Since old Bill doesn't allow lying in the "No Spin Zone" shouldn't he have to kick himself out of the box now?
Oh Billy...
You're such a joke. Give it up man.
I swear the guy argues just for the sake of arguing.
And you would be correct. It loses its charm real fast...
I see a lot of people finding this topic as a standard excuse to rant about Bill and rave about liberal policies, but I doubt if any of you have actually listened, read, or watched what O'Reilly said. This may come as a shock to you, but reading it on MMFA means you will only get part of the story.
His major contention is that veteran homelessness is not because of the Iraq war and the economy, the connection that Edwards was making: Iraq war hurts the economy, puts pressure on Vets, Vets can't afford to live in a house and become homeless. O'Reilly's contention is that the homeless Vet population is due mostly to mental illness and substance abuse, not the economy. The VA has stated on his show that they have mechanisms to get Vets the help they need and short-term beds while placement is considered.
No one is simple, and the problems that have lead to someone being homeless are not easily painted with a brush stroke, both Edwards and O'Reilly should listen there. But the undeniable fact is that veterans have more resources than almost every other homeless demographic--they have healthcare. We can argue how good it is, but the only healthcare non-vet homeless get is the local county emergency room.
So get your facts straight. O'Reilly isn't saying there are no homeless vets. He is berating Edwards for making a cynical political pawn out of the homeless issue, something you guys will cheer about without ever looking for facts beyond your own echo chamber.