Olbermann gave "Worst Person" bronze to "webmasters at BillOReilly.com" for "Those weren't veterans John Edwards, they were sex offenders" headline
On the February 8 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann awarded the "bronze" in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment to "the webmasters at BillOReilly.com," the website of Fox News host Bill O'Reilly. Olbermann stated:
OLBERMANN: The bronze to the webmasters at BillOReilly.com. A list of headlines linking visitors to various news stories, including one about efforts to disperse a group of men convicted of sexual offenses who have been camped under a bridge in Miami. The headline the website composed for that story, quote: "Those weren't veterans John Edwards, they were sex offenders." It is safe to assume Bill-O does not write nor approve the link language at his website. The culprits here more likely his minions trying to brown-nose him, which is disgusting in several different levels. Instead, they've just created a sixth apology Bill-O owes homeless vets and Senator Edwards.
As Media Matters for America documented, on February 7, the "O'Round the World: Stories from the 'No-Spin' News Desk" section of BillOReilly.com 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."
But he did not name David Schuster for smearing Chelsea Clinton or himself for saying the "pass the guacamole " which some Hispanic groups have come out and said was racially offensive. Another freepass for Olbermann. Disgraceful.
http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/185
My guess is the Schuster story, an offensive comment uttered by a news commentator that results in his suspension and garnered national attention, is slightly more "worst person-ish" than a website headline seen by a handful of people by comparison, most probably.
But considering it's one of Olbermann's co-workers, and O'Reilly is his chief competitor, come on Sue, it makes perfect logical sense.
"the Schuster story, an offensive comment uttered by a news commentator that results in his suspension and garnered national attention"
AND an apology from Schuster.
Before you go there, NO, apologies do not make everything OK, only a resulting change in behavior can come close to doing that.
You lost me there.
Fried, I think a more accurate title would be "Worst Person in the World Award to a rightwinger/conservative media person or enterprise, most notably working for one of our competitors".
But it'd never fit on a business card.
Nor would it fit on a bumper sticker ;). Happy Cheney Day (for your amusement, click the link)
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/11/tds-cheney%e2%80%99s-got-a-gun-redux/
Come on Tommy you gotta feel kinda bad for St. Keith...most of the Worst Persons In The World lately have been his co-workers ;-)
Olbermann has never called any of the out.
You're incorrect, of course. He is restricted, by his own admission, from slamming his network colleagues. However, when the situation was such that he was allowed to speak, he dumped on Imus, and apologized unconditionally for the network for Shuster's stupid comment.
Further, Olbermann has shown far more integrity than many others (probably all, but I don't watch all) on his and other networks. His show makes a mistake and Olbermann himself owns that mistake, even when he wasn't on the air when the mistake occurred. I wish that Olbermann wasn't hamstrung by network rules in reporting on things of this sort. But given the choice between a hamstrung Olbermann and no Olbermann, I'll take the former -- particularly given that Olbermann has made it clear what the situation is.
MSNBC dumped Imus and suspended Shuster. What have other networks done in response to similar incidents on the programs they produce?
Well tommy, you can take consolation knowing fox will make a big stink out of Olbermann.
But you will note that apparently it's ok to slander a lefty with such an unflattering comparison. Cindy Sheehan can tell you all about it...
Anybody who can't see the difference between the way NBC handled this and the way Fox handles their hate mongers is simply blind to the facts.
Sue,
Can we use this reverse line of reasoning (What does Keith Olbermann have to do with_________?) the next time you bring KO into an unrelated thread ;)?
Yes you can, and that is why I am now bringing this up. either its not ok for me or it is? Which one is it? I just want to know the rules. It seems everyone here wants to turn MSNBC disgusting behavior into "well FOX is worse so its ok to call Chelsea Clinton names because FOX is worse".
Sueeld
Olbermann is a double standard, yes but the "pass the guacamole " remark was no way offensive. IMO.
No! No! No! He must be fired at once!
I agree Doris, nothing wrong with "pass the guacamole "...unless Bill O'Reilly or someone on the Right had said it ;-)
Actually, if Dobbs or perhaps Buchanan said "pass the guacamole " it would be cause for a parade.
Can you imagine the threads if OReilly said that? It would be plastered all over MMFA. yet Olbermann is allowed to say these things without being held accountable. Free pass for Saint Keith.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AUCCrY1RALM
Pass the stupid.
can you imagine the conservatives on this thread tripping all over themselves defending a conservative for saying that?
In an interview with Lesley Stahl, Dobbs spoke about his meeting with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus saying they implied that he was anti-Hispanic by asking him, "if I'd ever eaten a taco before, for God's sake".[19] Representative Joe Baca, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, later wrote to CBS insisting that the group did not meet with Dobbs to discuss whether he'd eaten Hispanic food, "but to respectfully recommend that he cease the negative portrayal of Hispanics...and treat the issue of immigration in a responsible manner." [20]
Lou Dobbs is nearly the only one who has the cajones to put these people on the air and talk about this issue and he is slammed with the hate label.
Ridiculous.
Newsbusters thought there was something wrong with it, claiming it as another example of "liberal media bias". I guess sensitive Hispanics are now officially under the protection of the right wing.
Strangely, sensitive blacks were not brought under the same wing when "M-F'er ice tea" was abuzz. Newsbusters opted to defend O'Reilly from the liberal media instead.
It was not missed, but where was the apology from Olbermann for using the "pimp" word regarding Gen Petraus? Or the waffles and Chicken remark? Or the Tucker Carlson gay bashing statement? Or the Chris Matthews smear of Hillary Clinton?
OK.
That's definitely a point of view.
No apology, no WPITW?
However, the way some people are harping on WPITW and ignoring the apology is disingenuous.
You can be sure the decision to comment, and the form that comment should take, beyond Shuster's original apologies was made at the highest levels of NBC News.
Olbermann was the messenger.
The only people "harping" on the WPIW is this website.
Oh, come on, give yourself a little credit.
"My guess is the Schuster story, an offensive comment uttered by a news commentator that results in his suspension and garnered national attention, is slightly more "worst person-ish" than a website headline seen by a handful of people by comparison, most probably."
- TOMMY / Monday February 11, 2008 2:32:51 PM EST
"Fried, I think a more accurate title would be "Worst Person in the World Award to a rightwinger/conservative media person or enterprise, most notably working for one of our competitors".
- TOMMY / Monday February 11, 2008 3:09:28 PM EST
"I believe the apology was enough. However, if a Fox-er would have said the same thing, Olbermann would be featuring it front and center and sideways......which just proves his WPIW awards are not about the worst person at all, but rather needling his competitors under the quise of some lofty moral "eye on the media"
baloney.
- TOMMY / Monday February 11, 2008 3:00:40 PM EST
Is Olbermann the head of MSNBC, why would he apologize for something he never said? And why would that have anything to do with his WPIW schtick?
- TOMMY / Monday February 11, 2008 3:40:18 PM EST
Yes!
And then he should fire himself!
They are more nugacious than usual.
Geez Johnny you ask a question, Tommy answers you, then you ask him why he answered you...or in this case ask him why he's asking you, when in fact he was answering you.
Are you attempting to do an Abbot & Costello skit here?
It's important to know the difference.
Sue, The point for me is these Olbermann WPIW threads are nothing more than a regurgitation of a previously posted item. So, what is their point, except apparently MMFA is giving said "misinformation" some sort of credibility and preaching it's validity by essentially saying "see, Keith even says so, he agrees with us".
When in fact Olbermann's awards are even more partisan hackery than anything put up here, for at least this website operates under their mission of exposing only "conservative" foibles out there, unlike Olbermann who should put a disclaimer at the beginning of his daily program that it is as highly slanted against the right, and suckup to the left, as anything on television.
Once again, let me point out there is no moral equivalence between telling the truth and lying. The person telling the truth is not "just as bad" as the person lying.
That's the difference between Countdown and The Factor.
That's your opinion. Both shows you mention operate within their own "truths". They present slanted stories which on their face may be accurate and truthful, but when challenged for contextual fairness, they usually cannot meet that standard.
Now if you want to talk about which of the two, O'Reilly or Olbermann, make more inflammatory or hyperbolic statements originating from their own biased opinions, then O'Reilly wins. But those can't be evaluated under the same standard either.
This is amazing, a conservative is arguing truth is objective.
Exactly how many "truths" do you believe exist.
When O'Reilly said there aren't 200,000 homeless vets it was a lie, a lie that was easily disproven.
When O'Reilly then said they aren't homeless because of "economic" reasons he was lying about Edwards statement.
You may not like the tone of Countdown but you cannot dispute the truth of what is reported, and if a mistake is made how quickly its corrected.
No, the problem is you have a difficult time distinguishing fact from opinion....or like others here when you disagree with an opinion, you label it a lie.
Olbermann's program is far more "truthful" to you because you probably agree with 99.99999% of its content, and you most likely disagree with 99.999999% of O'Reillys. Which is all we need to know.
Lol. Nail meet head. Nicely done Johnny. Note how Tommy doesn't directly dispute your point about the demonstrable lies on The Factor, nor can he provide evidence of equivalent content on Olbermann, but responds with -
''Olbermann's program is far more "truthful" to you because you probably agree with 99.99999% of its content, and you most likely disagree with 99.999999% of O'Reillys. Which is all we need to know.''
Provide evidence of the lies within Olbermann's show and you might have a vaguely tangential point, Tommy...
This is amazing, a conservative is arguing truth is subjective.
I'm still stunned a "conservative" is making this argument.
some of us want MSNBC to be held accountable for racist and insensitive statements by all of its anchors....
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802080011?f=h_top
He needs no help from me.
Hold on, Sue. The story to which you linked said nothing about anyone raising protest against Olbermann besides NewsBusters. Second, exactly what is offensive about saying "pass the guacamole" when discussing two people watching the Superbowl?
This is a desperate attempt to stir up controversy, even by NewsBusters' standards.
Instead, they've just created a sixth apology Bill-O owes homeless vets and Senator Edwards
I do not know why O'Reilly is pushing this, to suggest that America does not treat its vets with respect to him must be Un-American?
Even Lou Dobbs retracted his statement about half the Culinary Worker's Union being illegal immigrants.
When did he say, "There may be 200,000 homeless vets but they aren't all under bridges or on grates"?
Also, Edwards never said homelessness is due to the economy.
He pointed out the national disgrace of 200,000 vets being out on the streets.
"Those weren't veterans John Edwards, they were sex offenders."
O'Reilly's website didn't even have the city correct.
You really need to re-evaluate the schtick of the Edwards campaign. when he brought forth the 200,000 stat was it to address substance abuse and mental illness with our veterans? NO!! His point was that because of the disparity in "Two America's" we have 200,000 veterans sleeping under bridges and on grates. It's that simple. Therefore his point was that because of a unfair economic system our veterans were homeless. The fact is that the primary cause is mental illness and substance abuse. Are you arguing different? It appears so.
As for O'Reilly admitting that there are homeless vets and accepting the numbers that is documented right here at this site. He changed the goalposts for sure, once he found that there were that many but the fact remains that his analysis of Edwards' assertion of causation is fair. There are not in any way 200,000 vets sleeping under bridges and on grates on any given night. You know it.
All 200,o00 vets aren't sleeping under bridges and grates. Edwards would have been more accurate saying "bridges, grates, in shelters, in cars" etc.
Or he should have said "on bridges and grates though not exclusively bridges and grates."
We can disagree about exactly where they are and in what percentages and we can disagree about what the solution is to this problem.
But is that really the point?
All reasonable people should deplore the national disgrace that homelessness is.
Clearly this is what Edwards was doing while O'Reilly was questioning his accuracy and misrepresenting his motives.
And once again, how do you square the posting on O'Reilly's website about the people under bridges being sex offenders rather than homeless vets?
You are really stretching to make the interpretation you're trying to make since O'Reilly didn't claim some vets are indeed sleeping under bridges and on grates but rather "The only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy's brain" :
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.
However it does not rise to the to the outright denial and lie of O'Reilly's: "The only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy's brain."
All 200,o00 vets aren't sleeping under bridges and grates. Edwards would have been more accurate saying "bridges, grates, in shelters, in cars" etc
Johnny-NYC
I can not beleive that anyone would even need to make this distinction. Anyone with a small degree of intellect could see the general point.O'Reilly or anybody defending him (I know that is not you Johnny, I'm referring to ACP) is nuts if they think we're buying that Edwards needed to be more specific for O'Reilly to understand. Sheesh.
More omnipotent insight from JuliaJayne who is obviously also an expert on veterans affairs as she feels it necessary to make personal indictments about someone else's intellect. I just wonder why you aren't running this country. You always have all the answers. I can't help but to visualize you as the little girl who always raised her hand for every question asked by her teacher.
What you fail to understand is that Edwards was in fact making this observation from an economic standpoint. When a man stands up and says that there are 200,000 veterans sleeping under bridges and on grates each night because of an unfair economic system then it is legitimate to at least ask for clarification on those stats. But then again, using the "JuliaJayne system of political intepretation" I guess we should take everything candidates tell us as hyperbole and forgive that to see the "general point". BTW who cares if O'Reilly understands, he would never support Edwards or a Democrat for that matter. Candidates have a responsibility to be more responsible with this kind of rhetoric. Sheesh!
"It's reasonable to assume that Edwards made this clarification to bring this issue back into focus on veterans issues. It's truly sad to see an argument about semantics on what he said when the general meaning was clear, our vets shouldn't be ignored when they come home and many of them need assistance. Unfortunately our national political discourse has petty people like BOR trying to divert the attention away from this issue to score political points. "
It is also reasonable to assume that Edwards made this clarification because he needed to since it was a response to O'Reilly and O'Reilly's argument. This isn't semantics. The point is that a candidate has a responsibility to not use hyperbole and expect everyone to look past it for the "real meaning". I just don't see how making a clarification with the addition of "sleeping in shelters and on the streets" brings the focus back to veterans issues when he continues to use the 200,000 stat without clarifying that most of this 200,000 is either mentally ill, substance abusers or both. Perhaps you see something there. We obviously differ. I do respect your point though and appreciate your candor without being infantile.
The fact he expanded on this later blows your argument all to hell and you know it. So you can continue with your juvenile remarks about me all you want, that is what really has no relevance. Your incessant attempt to cling to this argument that Edwards said one thing but we should all know what he really meant is laughable. It really is not an argument but only an assumption. You got nothin'.
Your statements are on record and Edwards statements directly contradict your argument. Deal with it. As for your continued argument that: "At a certain age most people do not take everything literally, they are able to extrapolate larger meanings from a specific example." is the one that is rather specious. It relies on pure speculation and while it may sound good and seem correct it still is pure speculation. I'm surprised the logical fallacy police are not admonishing you for that. But you tow the line in your ideological rhetoric so you get a pass. Proud of yourself?
I have no idea what the "economic argument" has to do with hyperbole. Even if he was actually saying that veterans were homeless just because they were poor, he could still say they were sleeping under bridges and on grates.
The other side of this is, do we really expect people to qualify obvious points like this? Is the speech supposed to sound like "42% on grates 38% under bridges, 11.6 percent in shelters..." Sort of loses its flow, don't you think?
Not that I'm comparing this speech to MLK, but should people have been criticizing him because he never literally went to the mountaintop? Did he have a dream as in when you sleep or more the general visionary sort of thing? We need these sorts of details!
Reagan made up a story to bolster an argument, and his press secretary said it was a good story and it made the point. Somehow he's "the great communicator". But Edwards uses a real statistic, and supposedly his brain is living under a bridge because he didn't speak in absolute literal terms.
That was in direct response to JuliaJayne. You will have to pardon me as I was under the impression that hyperbole was a rhetorical understatement or overstatement. She obviously indicated that this is what Edwards done with the supposition that everone should know that there aren't really 200,000 vets sleeping under bridges and on grates despite Edwards originally saying so. She in effect accepted those remarks as rhetorical overstatements which if somone with a small degree of intellect should be able to look past and see the general point. Pretty simple. I guess her argument is that a candidate can utilize hyperbole with no degree of responsibility because everyone should be able to see past that and grasp the general point. I assume you agree with that?
As for the rest of your post it is a fact that Edwards' himself felt compelled to make distinctions about this in a january 17th response to O'Reilly,"Tonight, 200,000 brave veterans will be homeless, and they will sleep in shelters, on the streets, under bridges, and on grates" This is not his orginal statement which was that "tonight 200,000 veterans will go to sleep under bridges and on grates". His addition of "sleep in shelters" why do you think that was added? I believe that he knew he needed to make such distinctions and he did. That kind of flushes your argument, Brab.
Your self-serving hypothesizing proves nothing. Isn't that two weeks after his original remarks? Obviously there was no great rush to clarify himself.
Just because he phrases something differently at a point in the future doesn't mean that his remarks were vague or in any way confusing. I've phrased things differently on different days without thinking the previous effort was lacking in any way. Besides, the argument was never that his original remarks were the perfect way to say it, or the only way to say it, just that his point was clear whether it was completely literal or not.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone else get this sort of criticism. If you don't like Edwards, fine, but let's hold him to the same standards as everyone else.
Take issue all you want, I'm just going by what you wrote:"I believe that he knew he needed to make such distinctions and he did. That kind of flushes your argument, Brab." Your belief doesn't prove anything. There are other perfectly logical and reasonable explanations, and to ignore them is blatantly self-serving. For instance, have you never seen someone preemptively counter a right-wing talking point on here? That doesn't mean that there's any credible basis to it. It just means you know what they're going to say and you don't want to hear it. Maybe Edwards just didn't want to give O'Reilly an opportunity to spout his nonsense. It can be "Fine, whatever, as if I was saying every single homeless veteran was sleeping in one of those two specific places". It doesn't lend any credibility to O'Reilly's complaint at all, in and of itself.
The two weeks is important because if O'Reilly really had some legitimate complaint here, like if people were really going to think that Edwards did something wrong, then why would he wait that long to correct it? It's not like his campaign was doing so well that he could afford bad press over it.
As for why Edwards hasn't talked about causation for homelessness, how does that change what he's saying? It's unacceptable no matter what the cause. Why would he go into something that has no relevance to his basic point?
I'm not claiming to make a factual argument, and there's no call for me to do so. If you are going to make assumptions, the onus is on you to show how it's the only reasonable conclusion. Otherwise you should give people the benefit of the doubt. Saying that Edwards literally meant what he said and saying that he didn't are not two sides of the same coin. There's nothing in his speech that supports the former conclusion whatsoever, and the latter conclusion is perfectly natural. That's why your argument is lacking.
You are becoming seriously unhinged here. Take some deep breaths and pull yourself together, please.
Candidates have a responsibility to be more responsible with this kind of rhetoric. Sheesh!
The Republic Party put forward these brilliant plans in their perfect rhetoric: double sized Gitmo, tax cut solutions for everything, more god in the government, 100 years in Iraq, bombing Iran balancing the budget by slashing the heck out of social services while cutting taxes for the highest of income brackets.
And you're pissed about Edward's rhetoric?
"Therefore his point was that because of a unfair economic system our veterans were homeless. The fact is that the primary cause is mental illness and substance abuse."
The assumption seems to be that Edwards was saying that veterans were homeless just because they're poor.
It is possible to say that not enough money or attention is being spent to veterans, which is why so many are homeless. The point of his speech seemed to be that we could be spending money on different things. That's not inconsistent with mental illness and substance abuse being the primary cause of homelessness.
Look, when have you ever heard Edwards talking about substance and mental illness as it relates to our veterans???? Seems to me you are the one doing the stretching here in defense of Edwards.
When has he come out and said that veterans are homeless just because they're poor? Nothing he said suggested that. Even being charitable O'Reilly made a wild assumption, and you seem to think that's just fine.
I've also never heard himexclude any reasons either.
O'Reilly's inference about Edwards believing the cause to be solely economic is just that, an inference to buttress his argument.
He's lying just as he's lying when he says, The only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy's brain.
The entire speech sounded like it was about misplaced priorities to me. CEOs getting millions upon millions of dollars is relevant to more than just the general economy, and so there's nothing restricting his other examples from being outside of that as well.
I appreciate that, I don't see how I'm stretching. I know most people are homeless because of substance abuse and mental illness, and I didn't see anything in Edwards' speech that suggested otherwise. I would disagree with him if I thought he was.
AChris, even if the homeless veterans are on the streets because of substance abuse or mental health issues, is it not our right, privilege, and duty as civilians to make sure they get the care and attention they need so that they have a roof over their heads and a hot meal? These people sacrificed their bodies, and probably their sanity, to keep us free. Are we not obligated to help these men and women in their time of need? They are national heroes, and do not deserve to be left out in the cold, even if they are drugged up or insane. I believe that was Edwards' point
First it is in no way a right to take care of these people. The fact is that there is an abundance of programs funded by the federal government aimed at doing just what you want. Do we need more? Yes. But to frame this discussion in terms that we should enable and give and give to these folks because all of them sacrificed their bodies for our freedom is ludicrous. That is almost like saying tht someone who was wounded in combat with minor wounds should be entitled to never work again. Are you serious? The Veterans administration spends over a half of a billion dollars each year addiction programs. When is enough enough for you? You do understand that an addict will never change unless they want to. You do understand that if lyou keep enabling an addict they will keep using? So then would it not be fair to ask for some results for the investment. How many times does the government have to come to the rescue of an addict? Wht's next, giving them heroin because they sacrifice their bodies for our freedom? Riiiiiight.
How bout effective treatments as opposed to eyewash and lip stiffener.
Blame the victim, I don't even like him/her anyway. If he/she can't come up to the values that I think he/she should have....then to hell with them! Is this sorta what your trying to say Archie. How easy a vetran's value can drop for you. I'm sure you call your self a patriot often.
How bout effective treatments as opposed to eyewash and lip stiffener.
Blame the victim, I don't even like him/her anyway. If he/she can't come up to the values that I think he/she should have....then to hell with them! Is this sorta what your trying to say Archie. How easy a vetran's value can drop for you. I'm sure you call your self a patriot often
Excuse me? Are you trying to make a point here Edith?
Come up with the values I think they should have?????? Are you trying to say that it is o.k. to continually enable a addict just because they wore the uniform?
I'm not saying to hell with them until they say so therselves. A veterans value means a hell of alot to me. Men didn't die to make it o.k. for people to abuse the system at your discrection. I consider myself a patriot, I bled for my country. I realize there are plenty of vets who need help, those with mental illness and substance abuse. But there comes a time when the spigot has to be turned off for those who just won't help themselves when they continually get high on my dime. I know or knew plenty of brave men who deserve better while "joe shmo" comes through the turnstiles with one thing in mind. Ever heard the song "Sam Stone" by John Prine??? That $h!t really happens. There comes a time when a person just has to be responsible and do the right thing. You can "help" people right into their graves.
Then the help isn't effective. This is a small population.
Your not helping by saying that they're hopeless. Your helping to put a label on all vetrans, of which I'm also one.
"Then the help isn't effective. This is a small population. "
"Your not helping by saying that they're hopeless. Your helping to put a label on all vetrans, of which I'm also one"
One more thing Eweston. I assume from you statements that you believe the number of homeless vets who suffer from mental illness and substance abuse is a small population. Despite the fact that you are seemingly indicating that it is a non issue because of the samll numbers you could be no more wrong. this is from the Veterans Administration Website: "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". and this: "about 45% of homeless veterans suffer from mental illness and (with considerable overlap) slightly more than 70% suffer from alcohol or other drug abuse problems"
Wow, some small population!!!! How could you be so lacking in understanding and compassion?
Overview of Homelessness
Link to the post for context.
Yeah that is the site I extrapolated that infomation from. I suppose you can tell me how in the world, given the context I used them, How they were taken out of context. He is the one who indicated that it was a small population. Doe the parts I extrapolated not contradict that without destroying the integrity of the Overview?
Enough is enough when we meet out societal obligations. We dont seem to mind spending the money to DO the wars then the aftereffect we start asking when is enough enough? PTSD is a real thing. There ought to be programs to assure that Vets WHATEVER caused their severence from service are not suffering from the effects of their service. If a guy gets a drug addiction and is dishonerably discharged because of it the Veterens ad washes their hands of him. This administration has been particularly harsh toward the vets. A recent Nation magazine talked to a psychiatrist who had served from Reagan until a couple of years ago and it was quite a tragic article about how the system is being gamed to sever soldiers who will not be able to continue to serve from any benfits. The Feb 18 Nation magazine had an article on just this subject. Dr Katherine Schreiman who was chief of medical operations for the Air Force in Europe said " Reagan and Bush's dad they treated people really well. Clinton treated people really, really, well. Its really just this Administration that acts like the lieves of these soldiers are expendable.
A Marine Corps officer is quoted as saying "Look we dont want to diagnose marines with PTSD. We need them to get back into the fight, call it something else'. This is not right. IF their dibilitation is due to their service, and we ough to fairly look into whether it is, then it is societies obligation to care for them.
O'Reilly pushes it because he just isn't capable of admitting he was wrong or even that he was just mistaken. He has an ego bigger than Rush's arse.
So... O'Reilly is saying that homeless veterans are sex offenders. Real cute, Bill.
Does he also think that our troops fighting in Iraq are future sex offenders? The troops must be thrilled to have Bill O's support! No wonder the surge has been such a success!
Sue, you give us a link to newsbusters? really?
On that note, Had you watched the entire show, you would have realized that Olbermann mentioned Shuster's comments at the beginning of his show, and noted that they were deplorable. However, Shuster is also a colleague of Olbermann's, so all this back and forth "Well he doesn't go after people who work at MSNBC" mess is trite and pointless. Of course he's not going to go after his own colleagues, cable news is a business, and it would be shoddy business practice to denounce your own product. It would probably get anyone on any cable news network fired in a heart-beat.
And as for him going only after conservatives and Fox News employees, I've seen several instances where maybe one is on the worst person segment. Sure, usually all three are Fox News employees, but have you seen Fox News lately? I believe they deserve it.
And Sue, you still have not answered me on the "playing the al-qaeda card" question I keep posing to you. I'll give you the clip again,
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7BB4Vvgn_4k
And I just want you to explain to me how he was lying and smearing Hillary Clinton when she explicitly uses the buzzword "Al-Qaeda" as a catch-all for terrorism, and doing it in such a way as to imply Obama is soft on terrorism. That is definitely playing the "Al-Qaeda card."
"Playing the al-Qeida card"? Like she was pulling a George Bush, that is what is wrong with it, it was not what she was doing. Olbermann though hates Senator Clinton, just like the rest of his discusting network. Of course if she does get the nomination , the hate will disappear and it will turn into love becuase McCain is a evil Republican.
MSNBC is out of control from Tucker, Scarborugh , Olby, Matthews and that loon Abrams.
"Senator Clinton is far superior to Obama."
"Senator Clinton is far superior to Obama."
I said that as a joke, Obama is a great candidate. Obviously you missed that just like you missed "pass the guacomole"
From a syndicated column by Ruben Navarette Jr. titled "Super Tuesday about a lot more than guacamole and chips" written before the Olbermann guacamole remark:
Hillary Clinton got off to a rocky start. While chatting with Hispanic voters in a Mexican restaurant in Las Vegas, Nevada, last week, she stretched for an analogy to explain how all Americans are connected and their problems interconnected despite the fact that "we treat them as though one is guacamole and one is chips."
Navarette goes on to sum up the idea that speakers need to stop trying to take shortcuts in identifying with ethnic groups by using food references and that those references may be insulting to some listeners. He doesn't really say that using them is racist, more like lazy and not useful.
So is the woman who never ever tried to get cute with her AlQaeda mention now as repugnant in your mind as Olbermann? Or would you like to concede that the reference is more stupid than outright racist?
Yeah, why would you be thinking about guacamole and chips while speaking to people in a Mexican restaurant?
The "Clinton Rules" get more ridiculous with each passing day.
I don't think his column was really aimed at Clinton so much as she was the most recent example he had in mind. All public speakers should be careful of taking stupid verbal shortcuts that can be easily misconstrued. Both guacamole references, KO's and Hillary's, are pretty harmless and not really a sign of anything other than not thinking as fast as one talks.
Neither measures down to such low standards as "iced tea MFer" or "taco shaped radioactive waste parachutes," for example.
There's no disagreeing with that but it's a double edged sword.
One of the reasons a politician stays "on message" is to avoid saying something stupid that's easily misconstrued.
Then we criticize them for being boring or robotic or unresponsive to questions.
And btw, that Newsbusters site looks like a hack site. That you compare THAT to MMFA is laughable and tells me you have no sense of proportion.
Of course it is a hacksite, that is why I posted it.
And I do not know what the hell you are talking about when you said this? Are you lost? Hillary was evil , is that what you are saying?
Not everything a woman or women in general do is okay. Women even say stupid stuff and do evil things.
Here's "one biased site"'s take on it:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802080011?f=h_top
And it's "march of the bimbo's - almost none of which have any prior journalistic experience." Get it right ;)
And yes, is everyone claiming Mika Brzezinski is not a woman now? Or Rachel Maddow? Or the woman who takes over for KO when he's not there?
Taking that in, it seems the gender argument against MSNBC kinda falls flat.
I'm not apologizing for MSNBC, but there are a lot of unreasonable accusations thrown against them around here.
Rachel has her own show?
Rita Cosby was fired. Unless Tucker Carlson or Matthews or Scarborugh or Abrams are females am I missing something?
Did I say that? no. She's a regular feature on Countdown. I, for one, believe she deserves her own show.
Sure, their sexist remarks are a terrible mis-use of journalism, but to say they don't employ women is ludicrous.
Sure, their sexist remarks are a terrible mis-use of journalism, but to say they don't employ women is ludicrous.
Who said they do not employee women? I read someone say that no women have any of their own shows. Big difference.
actually "The attack on women at that network is deplorable. No women have shows." -DorrisRussell
That's a fine line to walk, but it could be argued that as a tag team, Mika and Joe constitute a woman having a show. So I wasn't totally making it up.
That's a fine line to walk, but it could be argued that as a tag team, Mika and Joe constitute a woman having a show.
Until they call the show "Morning Mika," she doesn't have a show.
I've been thinking about this since O'Lielly made his first comment and I will try to not make this comment into a novella.
As a veteran and aveteran who has been homeless I don't need any other interpretation of what John Edwards said. To me it was clear and to the point. He was not stating that veterans were homeless because of the economy, he was stating that they are homeless because of the shoddy downright inhuman treatment they have gotten since they returned from Iraq or Afghanistan. They are not told about what services are offered to them or how to go about obtaining those services. For the most part unless they are injured and are staying at a VA hospital they are just shoved out of military life and basically told "Thanks so much for your service, but your on your own now".
Even at a VA hospital they are not given the services they need to cope with the transition to civilian life injured or not injured. The only person who understand what a rough transition it is back to civilian life after having been in the military is a vet. I had a really tough time transitioning back to civilian life after my discharge.
But let me make this very clear I am not blaming my homelessness on being a vet. In my life I've found that no person makes it through life without making some bad choices. Granted some people make worse choices than other people, but my point remains the same. We've all made bad choices in life.
If you recall after Vietnam we had thousands of homeless Vietnam vets and some are still homeless after all these decades. Yes some are mentally ill and some are alcoholics but (this is my opinion only) they are ill because the government didn't take care of them and get them the help they needed when they returned. Sound familiar?
To me the most abhorrent things are the terrible way our government has continued to treat those of us who decided to "support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic" and the lack of help they give us after we are done serving our country. The other abhorrent thing is for O'Lielly, who never served a day in his life, having the audacity to say that there are no homeless vets in this country. His contiuing parsing of Edwards' words is getting pathetic.
Only a moron with a serious lack of critical thinking skills and no listening comprehension could misinterpret what John Edwards said and try to make it a literal thing.
Missouridemocrat USMC and former USNR.
The reason I put the former by the USNR is "Once a marine always a marine".