Though I can't believe I'm saying this, but even though Bill O was wrong on Malmedy, he had a point. Americans have caused atrocities, and we shouldn't act like we haven't. Instances like Trail of Tears and the torture of Japanese soldiers pre-Geneva recognition. (Even though the Japanese treated Americans worse) Though Bill's example was incorrect and he should apologize, I think Keith over analysed this because Bill had a legitimate argument. His way of delivering it though, was offensive.
Ron Paul salivating at Rick Perry treason corruption scandal! Bobby Jindal nervously watches; "Mr RICK PERRY! I am hereby filing a lawsuit against you for treason, racketeering and conspiracy! You thought you could just sweep 6 billion dollars under the rug?? Newsflash MR PERRY..I'VE GOT THE DOCUMENT! Clown.I am indicting you on youtube for now while the Supreme Court reviews the paperwork for a showdown the likes of which the high courts have never seen!" Good Day Mr Perry. Steve Spell2
this is the typical tactic of the America hating left. Paul Rieckhoff and Olbermann are a disgrace to our military. The Marines at Haditha were found innocent of any crimes and found to have acted professionally and in accordance with the rules of engagement. Paul, Keith, Wessley Clark were all wrong about Haditha, Bill was right. Bill still has his show and his reputation, these other morons are relegated to the ash heap of history in disgrace.
@bluegsp you should listen more carefully, neither Olbermann nor Rieckhoff placed any blame on the Marines in Haditha. they acknowledged the charges, but did not proclaim innocence nor guilt. At 6:04 Rieckhoff says "we need to let the investigation run its course." Strange how you claim they were wrong. Were they wrong for waiting for a fair investigation? or for calling you, er, I mean Bill on the carpet for his lunacy?
@evillirish I have listened to it carefully and that is how I know Olbermann, Rieckhoff and Clark are full of shit. Olbermann has purposefully skewed the context of what Bill said and blind sycophants like yourself take his lies as gospel. Bill was making the point that isolated incidents like Abu Garahib or Haditha (if the charges were true) shouldn't be used to criticize the policy as Murtha and Clark had been doing. Again, Bill was right and these bozo's are yesterday's jokes.
@bluegsp really? um, wow. I'm not sure how to respond to blatantly ignoring the argument. 1st you said they were horrible people and wrong about Haditha. you ignored the fact that they made no predictions there, which I pointed out. so now your claim is that anything they say is wrong? how do you skew a direct statement? he straight up stated that it was Americans slaughtering unarmed nazis and failed to apologize for being wrong, unless you can direct me to something that shows different?
@evillirish I have not "blatantly' ignore the argument, I successfully defended it. Olbermann lied about what Bill said about Malmedy and his support of Abu Garahib and Fox news and their transcripts. His comparison to Joe McCarthy is blatant lying propaganda. Congressman John Murtha and Wesley Clark and other America hating liberals called the Marines at Haditha "cold blooded murderers" and used that incident to criticize Bush's Iraq policy.
@evillirish Rieckhoff's support of Kieth's lies makes him a liar as well. I have fact checked both Bill and Kieth and Bill is absolutely correct and Kieth, Clark, Rieckhoff, Murtha and the rest are not only wrong, but intentionally wrong to try to score cheap political points. Again you prove that you don't understand the context of Bill's statements (which Keith intentionally withheld) or you are trying perpetrate the same lies as Kieth
@bluegsp as i said, Show Me. I have watched the entire episode of online, independent of Kieth's commentary and I still don't see it. Please direct me to the quote of "cold blooded murders". please provide where you did your fact checking. anyone can say they checked the facts, just asking you to show me where I can find the same info. I am open minded enough to admit if I was wrong about something, but as yet all you have done is make claims with out backing.
@evillirish The conversation that Bill had with Clark about Git Mo was whether or not they should release more photos. Bill's position was the same as Obama's (they shouldn't for obvious reasons). His conversation with Clark about Haditha was that even if the Marines had done something wrong, (which they didn't and Bill was correctly giving them the benefit of the doubt) public officials like Murtha shouldn't use the incident for cheap political points against the president
@evillirish Just google "murtha...cold blooded killers...haditha.." or "Wes Clark defends Murtha" or any other combination's of key words like that and you will get thousands of examples. All of the segments that Keith did about Bill and Malmedy are complete and blatant slanderous lies. That is one example of why Keith was fired.
Anyone who believes Olby's spin is an idiot. But that is redundant - since all his fans are idiots.
Keith knows he is playing games with the facts. O'Reilly was speaking of the documented revenge killing of some German soldiers after the Malmedy massacre. Our soldiers committed a revenge killing. It wasn't right, but it was understandable ... and it happened many more times than was documented.
Partisans like Olbermann and Rieckhoff are fully aware of this reality, but they're liars.
I've learned from debating partisan droids on YouTube that you can't claim the sun sets in the West, or that water makes you wet, unless you link those claims with a study that supports the assertion.
I'm currently raising funds for a study to prove Olbermann fans are idiots. It's the first of a series of research studies called the Disproving Utopian Hypocrisy (or DUH) Program. But since his termination from MSNBC, enthusiasm for the study is drying up. Care to contribute?
@klrdotorg I sure do. PM me the research plan and we'll get some science going. This DUH business sounds like a hoot. I would volunteer my lab and subjects (ie students) here at the university of Amsterdam but I'm afraid very few of them watch American (talk?)shows. But I trust you'll make it work. Peace.
@klrdotorg Put those funds towards a study of Fox News supporters instead. You'll find shocking results: the demographic is dominated by simple-minded, low IQ, brainwashed right-wingers.
id like to know what this general said to bill o'reilly in response to what he said about malmandy.. this almighty msnbc seems to be conveniently leaving that out.
i dont trust any of these big information dealing corporations.
Yeah the americans never committed ONE WARCRIME IN WWII. Joseph McCarthy was right there were spies in the government. There were not as many as he said but he was right. The soviet archives confirmed they were afraid of him. This is vicious propaganda.
I'm ashamed I ever liked O'Reilly back in 03-04. He does wrap himself up in the flag even though he doesn't deserve any of the "patriotism points" he gives himself. Ignoring Malmedy for a second (not to belittle it) and going back to the original story on why he wanted more photos of Abu Ghraib released, why? Sure we know there's more photos, but you don't need to release them. Why would you want our troops in more danger than they already are? Despicable man.
Saying '...i wasn't clear enough...' isn't the same as saying you were utterly, and completely wrong. It is in fact quite the opposite. YOU WERE VERY WRONG! ADMIT IT FOR ONCE!
HAS ANYONE SEEN THE LONG LIST OF RULES AND STIPULATIONS
FOR AMNESTY. HAS ANYONE HEARD about how many jobs will be created to not enforce all these AMNESTY RULES. ALL THESE STIPULATIONS ,AND PRETEND THEY WILL BE ENFORCED AND THEY CANNOT ENFORCE THE MOST BASIC IMMIGRATION LAW. CLUSTERWHAT
because he is driving him into the ground. O'Reilly sucks. Wrong all the time, thinks he is right... high and mighty. When people like Olbermann pull out facts and show how it really is. Now there is a left side bias which is fine... there will always be bias. But the bias is laid in opinion. Fox News can't get their facts straight with their bias.
This is not about abortion but since the topic has been brought up if Republicans have trouble with abortion than why not make it a point to prevent unwanted pregnancies through common sense teachings? Also, as much as I hate abortion I would hate to see how many unwanted kids would be free in our country who come from broken homes. That is just more crimes and more children suffering. Cutting down on unwanted pregnancies is the only thing that makes sense. Early education people!!
I apologise for my ignorance on the subject i'm English i have one question how the hell does Bill O'Reilly still have a job? every video i've seen of him, his interviews are more like him telling people there wrong and not allowing people to respond
is there no obligation to have balanced discussion on US news broadcasts?
@d0nni39 unfortunately, news can be quite biased. However, look how much attention O'Reilly gets. you don't have to be reasonable to be successful. I'm no expert, but I'd say most people watch him to laugh at him and criticize him. People might not like, but they still watch him. That's probably why he's so successful. I agree with you though, there should be a balance and he does interupt a lot.
@d0nni39 Even if that's true, atleast he'll have a dem. on his show to have a discussion with... Keith Overbite NEVER has someone on his show who disagrees with his beliefs....
Abortion is murder, bottom line. If you dont want kids, DONT FUCK! If you think we should be allowed to do whatever we want with out OWN body, you would also think it should be okay to shoot up with heroine or meth, as long as its in my OWN body. Your argument defending the murder of innocent babies are just nuts. If you ever watch an ultrasound of an abortion, that "glob of cells" that oddly looks VERY human, is clearly moving on its own. Hmm independant thought? Sounds alive to me.
Oh, yet abortion is healthy for the baby inside the womb? I don't know how you can magically tell that the baby's movement is reactionary, since they don't do MRI's on baby's heads but I could care less about your guess work. A life, even an unborn baby, is still a life. Anyways, If you read the constitution, not only is there no mention of separation of church and state, but text which prohibits the making of any law that inhibits religion.
By that argument, you can't force someone who practices NO organized religion to follow someone ELSE'S religion. So by making a law on the basis of a religion, you're violating the rights of people to practice their own religion (and yes, that includes atheists).
"...you would also think it should be okay to shoot up with heroine or meth, as long as it's in my OWN body..."
Precisely. Personal drug USE should not be a matter of ethics or law, but a matter of personal freedom. Drug ABUSE should also not be an ethical issue, but a health issue. So, yes, you should be able to use such drugs safely, just as you can alcohol and caffeine (i.e., with similar regulations on behavior).
And thats why your fucking nuts. ^liberal *crazy* over here, thinks it should be okay to abuse drugs in a civil society. People these days, watching too much ball mahr, we should just send them all to europe so they can be with their progressive socialist friends to complete their pathetic utpoian worldview.
Abortion is not murder--that idea in itself is so naive. Do you think abortion is impulsively and cruelly committed? You cannot be everyone, so you cannot feel others' pain in the decisions they make. Before you limit others' free will, consider all the people in the world, and all the tough situations they might be in, and all the factors, and all the gray areas that make up such a decision. You cannot be so omniscient. The individual will choose, not just you
No, it worse than impulsive murder because it is planned and executed with a surgical coldness and detatchment from a respect for human life. Its funny, im guessing you're a liberal, you may not be but, you're all about free will when it comes to abortion, yet you all want to take away my guns, and force me to pay for other peoples health care.Dont say its her body her choice because its not. i dont think you understand the difference between liberty and freedom, thats clear to me.
Don't--as soon as you start "guessing" at what I "am," you'll start making baseless assumptions about my views, and using those assumptions to prove your points about my faulty character...
"you all want to take away my guns... you don't understand the difference between liberty and freedom.."
See, there you go...
You don't have to have an abortion. But don't take away others' choice when it's right for them. Sometimes it's necessary, however "cold" it sounds.
Heres the problem with your logic. Me owning guns will not hurt anyone. Having an abortion kills a baby and possibly the mother. What it really comes down to is if you feel the baby is alive just because its in the mothers womb or not. No one can defend killing babies, so you try to say its not really alive. No woman has the "right" to an abortion tho, if you dont want a kid, dont have sex, or go buy a 50 cent condom.
"What it really comes down to is if you feel the baby is alive just because its in the mothers womb or not."
And who are you to decide that for others?
Condoms (last I checked) aren't 100% effective, and less so when used improperly.
Birth control is only 99.9% effective (last I checked), but only about 85% if used improperly.
Problem is, conservative states like Texas promote "abstinence-only sex ed," which means kids would be less likely to know how to use condoms or birth control properly.
@Comicaze247 Bottom line here, those are all trademark liberal idea, and you are probably a social liberal if you support abortion. Call it a baseless assumption all you want, those are just the facts. If you didnt take what i said out of context, you will see that I used those arguments to compare them in terms of their possible impacts on society.
Granted, they're "typical," but it may or may not apply, and whether or not it does, your phrasing attempts to demonize your opposition, especially using the words "take away my" and "force me to." As if putting the so-called "pro-life" (as if pro-choice = anti-life, again demonizing opposition) agenda into law isn't forcing people to abide by YOUR moral code.
And I can't take things out of context if they, themselves are out of context, i.e.: unrelated to the issue at hand.
It's sad that you can be SHOWN how willing fox news is to rewrite history and still defend this guy. You really think it was just a co-incidence that the transcript was changed not once, but twice.
y comprehension is fine. It's your naivete that's the problem.
Just so happens that this neutral third party should change the script right after the Olbermann piece... and then revert it back when he criticizes the original alteration?
On an unrelated note, would you like to buy some authentic pieces of he true cross? $200 a pop, -real- bargain.
You still don't get it do you? The transcripts were changed only once, from Normandy to Malmedy. (after Olbermann presented this elaborate fictitious fairy tale)O'Reilly nor Fox could change them. I know you are too stupid to do any actual checking for yourself, but if you could you would find that the transcriber, who had probably never heard of Malmedy, mistakenly wrote Normandy instead and then corrected it after it was brought to his attention.
It was misposted the first time as Normandy in the wake of Olbermann running this segment, and then changed when he pointed out the mistake. Why don't you hang you around the fox news site, check the transcripts, and see how many instances of change there are post-news programs that don't involve being called out by another network. Also, way to ignore the point of this video in favor of petty gripes over unprovable specifics. The GOP can win any argument they have ensured they can't lose -_-.
It was misprinted as Normandy when it was written the first time. It was corrected after Keith fabricated his fictitious fable about Bill. Again I ask, Why would he change it and how does it help? Bill was right in his example of revenge killings of Malmedy and he was right to defend the Marines at Haditha who were all found Innocent of any wrong doing. Clark and Murtha and the other America hating liberals that called them "cold blooded killers" have yet to apologize to them, so they are suing
If fox news changed the original transcript from Malmedy to Normandy to disguise the error, when Olbermann pointing it out isn't it naural to switch back quickly to avoid the allegation of bias/revision?
Honestly I don' care so much that Bill was incorrect, more that a) he never apologised b) he talked down about the war to a four star general and c) he's convinced people like you that disagreeing with the GOP = America hating.
Fox didn't change it from Malmedy to Normandy. Morningside partners originally wrote Normandy and then changed it after Keith's big lie. (you still haven't answered "why" they would do it) Clark is a liberal politician that used to be a general. He was calling the Marines at Haditha "cold blooded killers" engaged in "revenge killing" before there was any evidence, Bill defended them. All the Marines were found innocent of any wrong doing. falsely condemning our military is "America hating"
Fox was wrong to try and contradict. Bill was wrong not to apologise for Malmedy. Clark was -very- wrong to falsely accuse troops.
I just think it's pretty damn sad that there's big chunks of society who only talk about politics in the language of Fox news. Dissenting voices are 'liberals'(?) who hate America. The only analogy relevent to 2010 America is 1939 Germany. Greatest threat to our freedom is not terror, it's the systematic dumbing down of our nation.
And what do you call Olbermann? He has devoted 3 shows to trying to smear O'Reilly and explointing the victims of Malmedy to do it.
I agree, lets privatise schools and get the federal gov. out of education. Quality education has drastically declined since Carter created the department of Education in 1977
Bill made no errors, he was correct. Olbermann is not pointing out errors, he is a pathological lying propagandist. These attacks on O'Reilly have nothing to do with what Bill said or his conversation with Clark. If you can't see that, you have a problem thinking for yourself. Olbermann attacks O"Reilly every night because he is jealous of his ratings.
He was wrong twice in referring to Malmedy as being a massacre of Nazi soldiers by US troops when it was the other way around. Have you watched the video? Maybe he got mixed up with a later retaliation killing, but does that mean he shouldn't apologise?
Olbermann is a lying propagandist but O'Reilly isn't? Olbermann has an agenda for sure, but at least he doesn't bs you "no spin zone" my ass.
I think he attacks Bill because he pisses all over the truh on a nightly basis.
Bill was right with his Malmedy example of revenge killing, and he was right about the Marines at Haditha, he was right about releasing more photos from Abu grab (even Obama agrees with him). And thats what you hate about him isn't it. You disagree with him, but he always turns out to be right. Olbermann is pathological and shouldn't be taken seriously. Bill defends the military, and you America hating libs are looking for any excuse you can to hang them. That is whats really going on here.
You're pretty brain-washed buddy. Watch the video again. That's one example of right in front of you of O'Reilly being wrong about something. There are many others. Unfortunately, you already seem to be long gone.
Thats what I thought. So filled with hate that you are delusional. This is not an example of Bill being wrong, it is an example of Olbermann's calculating and pathological lies. This is why Keiths audience is so small, only the far left retards take anything he says seriously. Normal people see what a lying jack ass he really is. Maybe someday you will grow up and learn to think for your self. You are a pathetic little man! XD
Sorry, I don't pledge allegiance to any party...and if indeed why WOULD Bill O'Reilly change it from "Malmedy to Normandy" in the transcripts?? Because he knew he was wrong!!
The problem is Bill will not admit when he made a glaring mistake which is the crux of his argument. *sigh*
I would encourage you to look up the facts for yourself instead of blindly following Bill O'Reilley 's words...Sure, there are things I agree with that he says but he's too arrogant to admit his mistakes. Example:
Bill, nor fox changed anything, and Olbermann knows it.(another lie from Keith) The conversations was about 'revenge killings" at Haditha and Bill gave an example of revenge killings in WWII. 60 unarmed SS prisoners were killed in revenge of Malmedy. If you could think for yourself you would have known that.
Because I refuse to allow myself to be influenced by archaic notions of morality from a 2000-year-old book that talks about some invisible all-powerful man in the sky that made everything in 7 days, I'M the gullible one?
Because I refuse to accept O'Reilly's ranting as fact, I'M the gullible one? LOL!
Okay, whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy.
P.S.: It's "Discern". Insults are more effective if you spell them right. L2English.
Yes you are the gullible one. You are too stupid to actually investigate the lies that Keith tells you. You are so anxious to attack religion, you do it even when it is irrelevant, and your attack of spelling shows you have no intellectual argument.
Typical brain dead liberal, to stupid to "discern" facts from propaganda. typical Olbermann fan. XD
Give me an example of one of these supposed lies, please. Your sources would help too.
And who said I was attacking religion? I'm criticizing O'Relliy for using it as a basis of his arguments on political issues when it should have no part in politics (separation of church and state, anyone?).
P.S.: I criticized your spelling in a "P.S." because it wasn't a part of any argument of mine.
First of all, Keith lies when he says that "fox news scrubbed clean" the transcripts. this is a lie, and Keith knows it. The company that does the transcripts for O'Reilly also does the transcripts for Countdown. They are called Morningside Partners and they own the copyrights to the transcripts and no body but them can change them. references to "George Orwell" and "Joesph McCarthy" is nothing but lying propaganda
Accuracy in Media for one...Once again, Olbermann had put the darkest interpretation of events on what Fox had done. But his claim made no sense. Why would using "Normandy" instead of "Malmédy" have made O'Reilly look any better? Clearly, it was an innocent mistake that Fox News and O'Reilly had no control over.
So are you saying that Fox was the one who told him to say it was Malmedy? Or are you saying that they did rewrite the transcripts? You're not being clear on this.
I checked out Accuracy in Media. Interesting site. Thank you.
I'm making a disclaimer right now: I don't watch either of these people regularly, just when it's on, or watching O'Reilly for laughs. That said, I don't condone blowing things out of proportion, but neither do I condone not acknowledging mistakes.
And your reference to a "2000 year old book that talks about some invisible all-powerful man in the sky that made everything in 7 days" is not the latest fashionable attack on religion among the hate filled idiotic atheist left? O'Reilly never said anything about religion. You are as disingenuous as Olbermann. Must be a liberal thing.
Did I say that was an original/new argument? No. Whether or not it is is irrelevant. The religious right has yet to prove any of it, thinking the need for proof lies on their opponents.
Besides, that's just my own opinion on religion after having been raised Catholic and then having thoughts. Believing that applies to the entirety of the left is asinine.
And did I say O'Reilly was using it in this argument? No. I'm speaking of his other arguments, such as the so-called "War on Christmas."
It is called faith, when you still believe in the absence of "proof" You must have been molested by a priest, to carry over such hatred that permeates every unrelated topic that you address.
*facepalm* I don't hate the religion. I just don't respect people who can't defend their beliefs. Blindly believe if you want, that's your choice. I see the function of religion, giving guidelines for conduct. I just think we've advanced to a point where we don't need it to know right from wrong.
And for a Christian, you seem to be quite critical of fellow Christians (yes, Catholics are Christians). And no, no such thing happened to me. Not all militant atheists need something like that to wake.
Also, as I stated before, I don't hate religion, but I do hate when it's used as a basis for political agendas, when the US was founded on separation of Church and State. It was to ensure everyone the right to practice religion. That means ANY religion (or even non-religion), not just Christianity. That includes freedom from ideals taken from a religious perspective ("Defense of Marriage," "Pro-life").
Who said I am a Christian? You make a lot of unwarranted assumptions (symptom of your colossal arrogance) I am agnostic, I am not so arrogant as to say definitively that there is no god and that people are idiots to believe. I think that it takes more "faith" to believe in evolution as a "random" process than one that may be guided by a divine creator.
So you would ("Attack Marriage"' and you are "Anti-life"). I gottcha! XD
*facepalm* Your statements have been typical of the religious right, born-again Christians. I made an assumption, my mistake. I'm not completely atheist myself, either. I just don't believe in the Christian "God".
*facepalm again* I've heard that argument countless times. It wasn't me who named those movements as such, it was conservatives so that they could sound "virtuous."
My questions: What is marriage being defended from in the first place?
It's so typical of conservatives to view things so black-and-white. "You're either pro-life, or you're anti-life." My views: if I were a woman who had an unwanted pregnancy, I don't think I'd be able to get an abortion. But it's not my right to tell others what to do with their body, only with my own.
And who laid the claim on the word "marriage" in the first place? Why does it have to be "defended?"
Typical liberal defense of abortion, I suppose if it were 1865 you would say, " I wouldn't own slaves myself, but I don't have the right to tell my neighbor what to do with his property" Well there is a human being involved and democrats consider them less than human in both examples.
Marriage has been defined, society encourages marriage for the procreation and raising of children.
1) I don't consider people property. Where did you get that idea? Now who's making assumptions?
2) There's a difference between a fully functional human being and a glob of cells barely resembling a human called a FETUS (yes, I acknowledge that the time that is considered when life begins is debatable, and everyone has their own opinions on it, which is why I have no business telling people whether or not to do it).
3) Saying "Democrats consider them less than human is an unfounded accusation.
3 cont.) That is your opinion formed from your (obvious) black and white point of view, and simply an attempt to demonize your opposition.
4) Sure, marriage has been "officially defined," but it's been done from a religious point of view and only passed due to religious propaganda. Seriously, those "Yes-on-Prop-8" commercials were ridiculous and based on unfounded claims. "Priests will be sued for discrimination for not marrying homosexuals.
4a) I've heard of no homosexuals that want a religious ceremony, as they are ostracized in the Abrahamic religions (except maybe from Unitarian Universalists).
4b) There would be no "violation of the right to practice religion," as they wouldn't be forcing anyone to marry them. There would be no basis of a suit anyway. It'd never make it to court.
4c) The country was founded on SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, so religious agendas have no place in the legal process.
@Comicaze247 The country was absolutely never founded on the seperation of church and state. This idea has been largely perpetrated by liberal progressives who view religion as a barrier in the way of progress because it has a static moral code, as does the constitution. To the contrary, the entire process through wich our great nation was formed was intertwined with religious morals and beliefs and script.
@danwk7 There can be no ruling or law against someone for their religion, but to say a judge cannot make a decision without consulting the moral code he or she believes in as guided by their faith is pretty unbelievable.
4d) So for the couples who are infertile/don't want kids aren't allowed to get married either?
4e) The rule that "You must have many children" was a long-term political plan made by the Church to gain more power by having more followers, as children would be raised in the religion. One reason why polygamy was allowed in Mormonism for a time.
4f) The world is overpopulated as it is.
4g) The adoption and foster system is terrible, and they have enough kids waiting for homes.
Oh, and a continuation on 2) The abortion issue is about what someone is allowed to do with their OWN body (even when they are informed of the risks). NOT someone else's body.
For example, you have no right to go against a family member's "Do Not Resuscitate" order, as it is a choice they are making with their own body.
Facts and truth seem to be "unfounded" to you isn't it. It is a fact that there is no room in the Democrat party for pro life proponents, It is a fact that Abortion kills another person (your rights to do what you want with your own body stop when you harm someone else).
It is a fact that children benefit from both a mother and a father, (male and female) more than a single parent or two parents of the same sex. You are just a baby killing socialist god less liberal aren't you?
You are so offensive on so many grounds. If you aren't just a troll, I feel pain for you, and many others like you, who are so disgustingly thought-out that they cannot be helped.
Fact: You cannot assume that the beliefs of one apply to the whole group.
Fact: Your belief that a fetus is already human is still under debate, and is therefore subjective (i.e.: not a fact).
Fact: It was conservatives that viewed slaves as less than human. Liberals were the ones who freed them.
Fact: There has been no credible research proving that two heterosexual parents are better than two homosexual parents. If you can cite an OBJECTIVE source (doubtful), then I stand corrected.
Fact: Accusations such as "you are just a baby-killing socialist god-less liberal" arise when one is out of arguments and an attempt to demonize the opposition ;)
A socialist would be insulted by the assumption that my arguments are socialist.
And even if I was "god-less," what relevance does that have here?
OK, that was a bit cruel. I`m not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. I completely agree with the two views you showed. But you might not want to use black and white thinking to dismiss black and white thinking.
Few problems have 1 correct solution and few political positions have people with no good (or all good) ideas.
If you understood the conversation that O'Reilly was having with Clark, you would know that he was defending the Marines at Haditha against Clark and Murtha and other America hating liberals who called them "cold blooded killers" involved in "revenge killing" He made the comparison to Malmedy because 60 unarmed SS prisoners were shot in "revenge" for Malmedy.
What Olbermann does is called "dissembling" (look it up). It is sad that gullible morons like you are to stupid to question this idiot.
I don't understand why conservatives think liberals hate America. We love America just as much as you do. We just disagree on what direction to take the country.
And O'Reilly made it seem that the US troops committed the war crime unprovoked seemingly to defend the atrocities in Abu Ghraibe, when in fact, it was in response to crimes committed against them beforehand. Granted, it's still a war crime, provoked or not, but O'Reilly implied they were the only ones who committed it.
"This kind of desperation tells us a lot about Olbermann. His glib manner, wise-guy approach, and steady flow of Bush-bashing have not significantly improved his ratings, and his mean-spirited attacks on O'Reilly and Fox News over Malmédy cannot help. It's too bad he didn't stick to his well-documented case that O'Reilly had badly mangled the facts about Malmédy. He exaggerated the controversy into something it was not."
Conservatives defend the military and America, Liberals attack the military and America. That is why people think that Liberals hate America.
O'Reilly's point is that sometimes bad things happen in war, and the Malmedy example was an example of revenge killings that the Marines at Haditha were accused of.
I, personally, don't attack the military or America, and neither do any other liberals I know. What I do disapprove of is how they're being used. Also, some military guys can be dicks (I live near Camp Pendleton), but that's beside the point. My dad was in the navy, so I'm far from against the military, and if I didn't have asthma, I'd have joined a long time ago. I just don't approve of where our forces are being used.
What you read about the transcripts was from Accuracy in Media. They are saying that Olbermann lied about the transcripts being "scrubbed" by fox or O'Reilly. and that it was a stupid lie by Olbermann because it didn't even make sense. If you want to make the criticism that Bill did not go far enough to explain the example of the revenge killing of Malmedy, that is one thing, but Olbermann has done three shows on this, each more dishonest than the other. Ask yourself who really is the liar here
They both made poor decisions in this incidence. O'Reilly took things out of context to make it seem as though the US troops were the ones who perpetrated the crime unprovoked, not noting that it was out of revenge, in some misguided attempt to defend the Abu Ghraibe incident with some "it happens all the time" argument. Not only that, but he won't own up to the mistake. And Olbermann either didn't do enough research, or perhaps purposely misrepresented evidence. Nobody is innocent here.
Your defense of Olbermann and condemnation of O'Reilly only proves your partisanship and ignorance. O'Reilly has valid points and Olbermann is a lying propagandist. It shows in the ratings, most of America agrees with O'Reilly and Most of America knows that Olbermann is a delusional lying propagandist. Obama agreed with O'Reilly about Abu Ghraibe and the Marines at Haditha were found innocent of any wrong doing. Bill was completely correct, and Keith is left as the lying America hating fool
The point still stands that he misrepresented the facts, taking them out of context either intentionally or out of incompetence, and he doesn't own up to it. Also, the "it happens all the time" argument doesn't fly with me. We're the most powerful nation in the world. We should be setting a better example of honor and integrity. Our troops are better than that and they know it.
Bill never misrepresented facts, That was Olbermann that did that. Bill clarified that he was talking about "after" Malmedy. He did not say that "it happens all the time", now you are misrepresenting the facts. Bill says 99.5% of the time these kinds of things don't happen. Keep in mind that Malmedy was a 3 second example Bill used while defending the Marines at Haditha who were being attacked by liberal politicians like Clark and Murtha. This is a common tactic of liberals.
I know he didn't say "it happens all the time." That's just how he presented it. Just because it happened before doesn't excuse it happening now. I don't see any other reason to bring that up other than to say "See? They're not the only ones that did it!"
If you had any ability to think for yourself, you might question, "Why would Bill change it from Malmedy to Normandy and then back again?" If what Keith is saying is true, "How does that help or make any difference?". It wouldn't. Nothing Keith says makes any sense. Of course, you are not interested in the truth are you? You don't like Bill, so you are more than willing to support Keith s lie. You really are pathetic
O'Reilly never said that the Americans that were murdered, did the murdering. That was Olbermann saying that Bill said that. Bill was talking about the U.S troops that killed 60 unarmed SS prisoners in revenge for Malmedy. Thats what Clark was accusing the Marines at Haditha of, "revenge killing" Bill was abosouluty right, it did happen. Olbermann is a lying piece of shit,(Its called dissembling. It is most often practiced by children and people who think they are smart)
listen. there's something called implication, and oreily implied that when he misspoke. if he hadn't fumbled, fox news would have never changed the transcript and then changed it back. it's that simple
Fox didn't change the transcripts nor could they. They are done by a company called morningside partners, (they also do Olbermanns transcripts) They own the copyrights and are the only one that can change them. Obviously Olbermann knows this as well and intentionally lied about that too. You see, with Kieth it is pathological. Kieth will lie even when it makes no sense at all to do it, It is a mental disorder. Only the most extreme left wing idiots could believe what Keith says
This video is pointless ... What people keep forgeting is whether the troops masacred were German or American, people died, and the sacrifice they ALL showed for their countries should be remembered. We should remember their sacrifice to not remember it.
@MoralityVirtue2 What you seem to have unfortunately looked over is the context. Yes, people died. But if your father was shot and killed by a madman you'd be incredibly offended if a news reporter called your father the madman who murdered someone else. Bill screwed up, but instead of admitting it he just calls other people ignorant.
People died, it's an horrible atrocity. But Bill needs to admit that he is wrong.
Bill wasn't wrong, he was defending the Marines at Haditha, who Clark and Murtha and other America hating liberals called "cold blooded killers" and engaging in "revenge killing" U.S. troops did kill 60 unarmed SS prisoners in revenge for Malmedy. Olbermann is the one exploiting U.S. servicemen to score cheap political points. Keith is the worst kind of lying propagandist.
Excuse me? My grandfather was one of the soldiers that found the murder victims at Malmedy. That was no US soldiers killing SS soldiers. And the only German soldiers that were executed were at the battle of the bulge and they were the ones dressed as us soldiers, acting like us soldiers and then killing us soldier in their foxholes. And they were shot as spies. Get your info right you neocon!
EveMech, If that is true, then you should be outraged at Olbermann as much as anyone for exploiting the soldiers at Malmedy to try to score silly political points against O'Reilly. Bill was absolutely right and Keith knows it, He hates the military and only uses them as political pawns. If you had your info right, you might not be such an America hating brain dead socialist
America hating brain dead socialist huh? For your information Every member of my family including my mother and myself has served active duty in the military, merchants marine or the federal government. So what branch were you in?
U.S Navy, My Dad was In the Air Force During the Korean war, My Grandfather was captured in Bataan and spend the rest of WWII in Japan in a Japanese prison camp. He was awarded the Bronze star, the Silver Star and the Filipino Medal of Honor. But of course that is Irrelevant to the fact that Olbermann is exploiting American soldiers to try to score cheap political points aganst O'Reilly. Why would you defend an American military hating lying dirt bag like Olbermann?
@bluegsp I guess that's one thing that you and I have in common and we both fought for. Free speech and free thought and the right to have our own political views. You think Olbermann is a liar and I think that O'Reilly is a liar. So we agree to disagree. Thanks for you service shipmate and thanks to your family also.
This video is an egregious example of Olbermanns deliberate calculating and malicious lie exploiting dead American soldiers to smear another commentator. Show me where O'Reilly has ever done anything like this.
My Grandfather was with the 1st Cavalry, who rescued the guys in your Grandfather's position (He landed at Leyte, & his DIV was the first into Japan as well). My entire family is MIL, & they've been in every single war & conflict this Nation has ever had. I for one despise Olbermann, because he typically bashes the MIL, & it's guys like him who prosecute our personnel for garbage like Haditha, & the SEAL Team Fallujah mastermind capture. As for Gen. Clark, he's a bureaucrat in the same boat.
So your grandfather served under MacArthur as well. I thought he was our greatest General, although my grandfather never forgave him for leaving the Phillipeans. I have family that fought in every war as far back as the Civil War.(that we could trace) It really pisses me off when propagandist like Olbermann lie and denigrate our Military.
There was a general agreement amongst the American GI's after that massacre, and they silently decided to never take anymore prisoners after that point. I completely understand why they did that, and I would've done the same without a doubt. Hell, even the German Army HATED the SS. My Uncle's father died in the European campaign fighting those punks anyhow (Even though now-a-days I have nothing but love for the Japanese and Germans).
doesn't it make you sick when liberals like Olbermann and Clark exploit the military for political gain? Hell thats what Obama was doing with his speech at West Point (or as Chris Matthews describes it, "enemy camp") America needs to wake up and realize that this group in office and their supporters are the enemy of America
"You were born from FAIL"? You only can come up with one stupid run-on sentence and you weren't even capable of making it coherent? Just how stupid are you? It must be some prerequisite to being a liberal, dumb as box of rocks. XD
loll of course it was coherent you where probaly a failed abbortion = Being born from Fail, Simple! And being a liberal? if anything im more of a conservative and even i know Bill O'Reillys a moron next he will be denying the holocaust, Hes a loud mouth idiot who throws a tantrum if he dosn't get his own way.
loll and i would say you are a fool, Who dosnt even know the definition of illiterate and Moron Party? woah Your confusing me with the O'Reilly followers.
haha "Brain dead" & "lying" Hipocrytical much? "liberal shit stain" Next you will be calling me a Communitst haha, are you trying to over compensate for somthing my friend?
loll "an illiterate, moron brain dead lying" Coming from some one who Supports, Agrees with and also Pulls facts out of his ass just like the man we know and hate, ol' Bill-o
lolll you are an idiot and no thank you for the entertainment :').
Yet you can't dispute my facts, or O'Reillys, just as Olbermann can't. You have not offered any information since you joined this thread, only poorly worded insults and a demonstration of pathetically bad grasp of the English language. I have exposed Olbermann for the lying sack of shit that he is and confirmed you demonstration of your moronic stupidity. Thanks for playing along, it has been fun. XD
Lol my god, You are delusional. What facts do you have? and Olbermann can't dispute O'Reillys? Its fact that O'Reilly is wrong about Malmedy so its pretty much conclusive that Olbermann disputed O'reillys facts.
How have you exposed Olbermann? the only thing you have exposed is that you are an idiot. lol you havent "Confirmed" anything about me the only thing you have confirmed is that you are not only a Hipocryte but you also lack the knowledge of what illiterate means.
O'Reilly is completely correct in his analogy (and his defense of the Marines at Haditha, which is what his conversation with Clark was about) Olbermann is a lying douche bag exploiting the victims at Malmedy to try to score cheap political points to try to boost his ratings, he failed completely as did you. You are an illiterate moron, and it has been fun bitch slapping the piss out of you. XD
The trouble with that -- is that O'Reilly has NO heart whatsoever!!!
SCRIPPSCAST2007 1 week ago
Though I can't believe I'm saying this, but even though Bill O was wrong on Malmedy, he had a point. Americans have caused atrocities, and we shouldn't act like we haven't. Instances like Trail of Tears and the torture of Japanese soldiers pre-Geneva recognition. (Even though the Japanese treated Americans worse) Though Bill's example was incorrect and he should apologize, I think Keith over analysed this because Bill had a legitimate argument. His way of delivering it though, was offensive.
davidwigs 2 months ago
Wow. And O'Reilly told that a general.
IScareWomenAway 4 months ago
Comment removed
IScareWomenAway 4 months ago
Bill O'Reilly is a douche tard!
TheLafemmegamer 5 months ago
Ron Paul salivating at Rick Perry treason corruption scandal! Bobby Jindal nervously watches; "Mr RICK PERRY! I am hereby filing a lawsuit against you for treason, racketeering and conspiracy! You thought you could just sweep 6 billion dollars under the rug?? Newsflash MR PERRY..I'VE GOT THE DOCUMENT! Clown.I am indicting you on youtube for now while the Supreme Court reviews the paperwork for a showdown the likes of which the high courts have never seen!" Good Day Mr Perry. Steve Spell2
stevespell2 5 months ago
I would love to see both these fuck holes in a noose..Fuck Orielly and Olbermann...both mainstream media liars.
ScrapMetalBomb 5 months ago
is there a way to force Bill to retire?
ShadowWolfRising 7 months ago
this is the typical tactic of the America hating left. Paul Rieckhoff and Olbermann are a disgrace to our military. The Marines at Haditha were found innocent of any crimes and found to have acted professionally and in accordance with the rules of engagement. Paul, Keith, Wessley Clark were all wrong about Haditha, Bill was right. Bill still has his show and his reputation, these other morons are relegated to the ash heap of history in disgrace.
bluegsp 11 months ago
@bluegsp you should listen more carefully, neither Olbermann nor Rieckhoff placed any blame on the Marines in Haditha. they acknowledged the charges, but did not proclaim innocence nor guilt. At 6:04 Rieckhoff says "we need to let the investigation run its course." Strange how you claim they were wrong. Were they wrong for waiting for a fair investigation? or for calling you, er, I mean Bill on the carpet for his lunacy?
evillirish 11 months ago
@evillirish I have listened to it carefully and that is how I know Olbermann, Rieckhoff and Clark are full of shit. Olbermann has purposefully skewed the context of what Bill said and blind sycophants like yourself take his lies as gospel. Bill was making the point that isolated incidents like Abu Garahib or Haditha (if the charges were true) shouldn't be used to criticize the policy as Murtha and Clark had been doing. Again, Bill was right and these bozo's are yesterday's jokes.
bluegsp 11 months ago
@bluegsp really? um, wow. I'm not sure how to respond to blatantly ignoring the argument. 1st you said they were horrible people and wrong about Haditha. you ignored the fact that they made no predictions there, which I pointed out. so now your claim is that anything they say is wrong? how do you skew a direct statement? he straight up stated that it was Americans slaughtering unarmed nazis and failed to apologize for being wrong, unless you can direct me to something that shows different?
evillirish 11 months ago
@evillirish I have not "blatantly' ignore the argument, I successfully defended it. Olbermann lied about what Bill said about Malmedy and his support of Abu Garahib and Fox news and their transcripts. His comparison to Joe McCarthy is blatant lying propaganda. Congressman John Murtha and Wesley Clark and other America hating liberals called the Marines at Haditha "cold blooded murderers" and used that incident to criticize Bush's Iraq policy.
bluegsp 11 months ago
@evillirish Rieckhoff's support of Kieth's lies makes him a liar as well. I have fact checked both Bill and Kieth and Bill is absolutely correct and Kieth, Clark, Rieckhoff, Murtha and the rest are not only wrong, but intentionally wrong to try to score cheap political points. Again you prove that you don't understand the context of Bill's statements (which Keith intentionally withheld) or you are trying perpetrate the same lies as Kieth
bluegsp 11 months ago
@bluegsp as i said, Show Me. I have watched the entire episode of online, independent of Kieth's commentary and I still don't see it. Please direct me to the quote of "cold blooded murders". please provide where you did your fact checking. anyone can say they checked the facts, just asking you to show me where I can find the same info. I am open minded enough to admit if I was wrong about something, but as yet all you have done is make claims with out backing.
evillirish 11 months ago
@evillirish The conversation that Bill had with Clark about Git Mo was whether or not they should release more photos. Bill's position was the same as Obama's (they shouldn't for obvious reasons). His conversation with Clark about Haditha was that even if the Marines had done something wrong, (which they didn't and Bill was correctly giving them the benefit of the doubt) public officials like Murtha shouldn't use the incident for cheap political points against the president
bluegsp 11 months ago
@evillirish Just google "murtha...cold blooded killers...haditha.." or "Wes Clark defends Murtha" or any other combination's of key words like that and you will get thousands of examples. All of the segments that Keith did about Bill and Malmedy are complete and blatant slanderous lies. That is one example of why Keith was fired.
bluegsp 11 months ago
Anyone who believes Olby's spin is an idiot. But that is redundant - since all his fans are idiots.
Keith knows he is playing games with the facts. O'Reilly was speaking of the documented revenge killing of some German soldiers after the Malmedy massacre. Our soldiers committed a revenge killing. It wasn't right, but it was understandable ... and it happened many more times than was documented.
Partisans like Olbermann and Rieckhoff are fully aware of this reality, but they're liars.
klrdotorg 1 year ago
@klrdotorg I'm assuming you can offer up some scientific research to support your generalization?
Zion667 11 months ago
@Zion667
I've learned from debating partisan droids on YouTube that you can't claim the sun sets in the West, or that water makes you wet, unless you link those claims with a study that supports the assertion.
I'm currently raising funds for a study to prove Olbermann fans are idiots. It's the first of a series of research studies called the Disproving Utopian Hypocrisy (or DUH) Program. But since his termination from MSNBC, enthusiasm for the study is drying up. Care to contribute?
klrdotorg 11 months ago
@klrdotorg I sure do. PM me the research plan and we'll get some science going. This DUH business sounds like a hoot. I would volunteer my lab and subjects (ie students) here at the university of Amsterdam but I'm afraid very few of them watch American (talk?)shows. But I trust you'll make it work. Peace.
Zion667 11 months ago
@klrdotorg Put those funds towards a study of Fox News supporters instead. You'll find shocking results: the demographic is dominated by simple-minded, low IQ, brainwashed right-wingers.
CrackeTheSkull 11 months ago
id like to know what this general said to bill o'reilly in response to what he said about malmandy.. this almighty msnbc seems to be conveniently leaving that out.
i dont trust any of these big information dealing corporations.
danielkelly009 1 year ago
O'Reilly is an arrogant boor - BECAUSE it pays him a big fat check. Some people sell drugs for money, some sell lies. It's a living.
slide4180 1 year ago 4
Yeah the americans never committed ONE WARCRIME IN WWII. Joseph McCarthy was right there were spies in the government. There were not as many as he said but he was right. The soviet archives confirmed they were afraid of him. This is vicious propaganda.
Graham6762 1 year ago
I'm ashamed I ever liked O'Reilly back in 03-04. He does wrap himself up in the flag even though he doesn't deserve any of the "patriotism points" he gives himself. Ignoring Malmedy for a second (not to belittle it) and going back to the original story on why he wanted more photos of Abu Ghraib released, why? Sure we know there's more photos, but you don't need to release them. Why would you want our troops in more danger than they already are? Despicable man.
Raptor302 1 year ago
I'm surprised Keith is on MSNBC... I think all of the great, true reporters need to get together and start a new REAL NEWS channel...
parrish001 1 year ago
@parrish001I'm not surprised that you never shut up on youtube... i think you should really get a life and stop blabbing on so many videos. lol
TheAmericanUhate 1 year ago
How did Billo ever get into Harvard?
comfortat 1 year ago
It's kinda scary to think that O'Reilly isn't the dumbest guy on Fox.
Glen Beck holds on to that title like his life depended on it.
I wonder what he's going to say to prove he's the champ after this.
Tyjohnable 1 year ago
If O'Reilly says its true, then everyone and everything else is wrong, including history itself.
Marsman315 1 year ago
Has Bill O'Reilly ever apologized?
Hilotc 1 year ago
Saying '...i wasn't clear enough...' isn't the same as saying you were utterly, and completely wrong. It is in fact quite the opposite. YOU WERE VERY WRONG! ADMIT IT FOR ONCE!
ifyoufly 1 year ago
Keith is fucking witty.
brownkv081 1 year ago
maybe hes just a nazi
callinthecaptian 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
pro AMNESTY OBERMAN
HAS ANYONE SEEN THE LONG LIST OF RULES AND STIPULATIONS
FOR AMNESTY. HAS ANYONE HEARD about how many jobs will be created to not enforce all these AMNESTY RULES. ALL THESE STIPULATIONS ,AND PRETEND THEY WILL BE ENFORCED AND THEY CANNOT ENFORCE THE MOST BASIC IMMIGRATION LAW. CLUSTERWHAT
mvagusta750 1 year ago
Why doesn't this guy worry more about his failing program than O'Reilly's.
wafflehouse33 1 year ago
@wafflehouse33
because he is driving him into the ground. O'Reilly sucks. Wrong all the time, thinks he is right... high and mighty. When people like Olbermann pull out facts and show how it really is. Now there is a left side bias which is fine... there will always be bias. But the bias is laid in opinion. Fox News can't get their facts straight with their bias.
CrazedMachine 1 year ago
This is not about abortion but since the topic has been brought up if Republicans have trouble with abortion than why not make it a point to prevent unwanted pregnancies through common sense teachings? Also, as much as I hate abortion I would hate to see how many unwanted kids would be free in our country who come from broken homes. That is just more crimes and more children suffering. Cutting down on unwanted pregnancies is the only thing that makes sense. Early education people!!
75630KaraokeStar 1 year ago
I apologise for my ignorance on the subject i'm English i have one question how the hell does Bill O'Reilly still have a job? every video i've seen of him, his interviews are more like him telling people there wrong and not allowing people to respond
is there no obligation to have balanced discussion on US news broadcasts?
d0nni39 1 year ago
@d0nni39 Because the far right are retarded, and need constant reinforcement, due to their lack of self esteem.
dertnberny 1 year ago
@d0nni39 unfortunately, news can be quite biased. However, look how much attention O'Reilly gets. you don't have to be reasonable to be successful. I'm no expert, but I'd say most people watch him to laugh at him and criticize him. People might not like, but they still watch him. That's probably why he's so successful. I agree with you though, there should be a balance and he does interupt a lot.
darby451 1 year ago
@d0nni39 Even if that's true, atleast he'll have a dem. on his show to have a discussion with... Keith Overbite NEVER has someone on his show who disagrees with his beliefs....
St3hLy 1 year ago
this was exactly what they wanted though a large distraction taking attention off of the torture
Demockracy69 1 year ago
There really is no excuse to make the same mistake twice on Malmedy.
donjabroni 2 years ago 38
@donjabroni you assume it was a mistake.
i assume bill knew what he was saying was wacked.
tehKap0w 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If ever a person should get lock jaw it should be Overbite. I've never seen a person so in love with the sound of his voice.
imou8125150 2 years ago
bill o'reilly is a faggot.
AmpluexCompressa 2 years ago
Abortion is murder, bottom line. If you dont want kids, DONT FUCK! If you think we should be allowed to do whatever we want with out OWN body, you would also think it should be okay to shoot up with heroine or meth, as long as its in my OWN body. Your argument defending the murder of innocent babies are just nuts. If you ever watch an ultrasound of an abortion, that "glob of cells" that oddly looks VERY human, is clearly moving on its own. Hmm independant thought? Sounds alive to me.
danwk7 2 years ago
Drugs = 100% harmful to your body
Abortion = like any surgery, POTENTIALLY harmful to your body.
Ever heard of reflexes? Unconscious movements of the body, purely reactionary, having nothing to do with thought.
It's a DEVELOPING (as in, not yet formed) body's way of testing the circuitry, in a sense.
So tell me, danwk7, where did you have this revelation that the country was, in fact, NOT founded on separation of church and state?
Comicaze247 2 years ago
Oh, yet abortion is healthy for the baby inside the womb? I don't know how you can magically tell that the baby's movement is reactionary, since they don't do MRI's on baby's heads but I could care less about your guess work. A life, even an unborn baby, is still a life. Anyways, If you read the constitution, not only is there no mention of separation of church and state, but text which prohibits the making of any law that inhibits religion.
danwk7 2 years ago
By that argument, you can't force someone who practices NO organized religion to follow someone ELSE'S religion. So by making a law on the basis of a religion, you're violating the rights of people to practice their own religion (and yes, that includes atheists).
Comicaze247 2 years ago
"If you don't want kids, DON'T FUCK!"
Ever heard of contraceptives?
"...you would also think it should be okay to shoot up with heroine or meth, as long as it's in my OWN body..."
Precisely. Personal drug USE should not be a matter of ethics or law, but a matter of personal freedom. Drug ABUSE should also not be an ethical issue, but a health issue. So, yes, you should be able to use such drugs safely, just as you can alcohol and caffeine (i.e., with similar regulations on behavior).
andrew11235 2 years ago
And thats why your fucking nuts. ^liberal *crazy* over here, thinks it should be okay to abuse drugs in a civil society. People these days, watching too much ball mahr, we should just send them all to europe so they can be with their progressive socialist friends to complete their pathetic utpoian worldview.
danwk7 2 years ago
Lrn2read, danwk7.
If you actually read what he said, you would understand that his argument is that it should be okay to USE, as long as it doesn't turn into ABUSE.
Much like drawing the line from the USE of alcohol to the ABUSE of alcohol.
Again, Lrn2read, n00b.
Comicaze247 2 years ago
"...murder of innocent babies..."
Abortion is not murder--that idea in itself is so naive. Do you think abortion is impulsively and cruelly committed? You cannot be everyone, so you cannot feel others' pain in the decisions they make. Before you limit others' free will, consider all the people in the world, and all the tough situations they might be in, and all the factors, and all the gray areas that make up such a decision. You cannot be so omniscient. The individual will choose, not just you
andrew11235 2 years ago
No, it worse than impulsive murder because it is planned and executed with a surgical coldness and detatchment from a respect for human life. Its funny, im guessing you're a liberal, you may not be but, you're all about free will when it comes to abortion, yet you all want to take away my guns, and force me to pay for other peoples health care.Dont say its her body her choice because its not. i dont think you understand the difference between liberty and freedom, thats clear to me.
danwk7 2 years ago
"I'm guessing you're a liberal"
Don't--as soon as you start "guessing" at what I "am," you'll start making baseless assumptions about my views, and using those assumptions to prove your points about my faulty character...
"you all want to take away my guns... you don't understand the difference between liberty and freedom.."
See, there you go...
You don't have to have an abortion. But don't take away others' choice when it's right for them. Sometimes it's necessary, however "cold" it sounds.
andrew11235 2 years ago
Heres the problem with your logic. Me owning guns will not hurt anyone. Having an abortion kills a baby and possibly the mother. What it really comes down to is if you feel the baby is alive just because its in the mothers womb or not. No one can defend killing babies, so you try to say its not really alive. No woman has the "right" to an abortion tho, if you dont want a kid, dont have sex, or go buy a 50 cent condom.
danwk7 2 years ago
"What it really comes down to is if you feel the baby is alive just because its in the mothers womb or not."
And who are you to decide that for others?
Condoms (last I checked) aren't 100% effective, and less so when used improperly.
Birth control is only 99.9% effective (last I checked), but only about 85% if used improperly.
Problem is, conservative states like Texas promote "abstinence-only sex ed," which means kids would be less likely to know how to use condoms or birth control properly.
Comicaze247 2 years ago
@danwk7 hahahah yes of course guns have never hurt anyone have they
IrelandFTW 1 year ago
@IrelandFTW haha hang on....i thought the bullets did the damage :)
bricksalegend 1 year ago
You just can't read, can you, danwk7?
andrew11235: "You cannot be everyone, so you cannot feel others' pain in the decisions they make."
danwk7: "it is planned and executed with a surgical coldness and detACHment from a respect for human life."
Does not compute.
Baseless assumption #1: ^^
Baseless assumption #2: andrew11235 wants to take away guns. Did he say that?
Baseless assumption #3: andrew11235 wants to force people to pay for others' health care. Did he say that?
Comicaze247 2 years ago
@Comicaze247 Bottom line here, those are all trademark liberal idea, and you are probably a social liberal if you support abortion. Call it a baseless assumption all you want, those are just the facts. If you didnt take what i said out of context, you will see that I used those arguments to compare them in terms of their possible impacts on society.
danwk7 2 years ago
Granted, they're "typical," but it may or may not apply, and whether or not it does, your phrasing attempts to demonize your opposition, especially using the words "take away my" and "force me to." As if putting the so-called "pro-life" (as if pro-choice = anti-life, again demonizing opposition) agenda into law isn't forcing people to abide by YOUR moral code.
And I can't take things out of context if they, themselves are out of context, i.e.: unrelated to the issue at hand.
Comicaze247 2 years ago
Lot of butthurt GOP up in here.
It's sad that you can be SHOWN how willing fox news is to rewrite history and still defend this guy. You really think it was just a co-incidence that the transcript was changed not once, but twice.
aceflashheart 2 years ago
They weren't changed twice, and Fox cannot change the transcripts
You have a real comprehension problem don't you?
bluegsp 2 years ago 4
y comprehension is fine. It's your naivete that's the problem.
Just so happens that this neutral third party should change the script right after the Olbermann piece... and then revert it back when he criticizes the original alteration?
On an unrelated note, would you like to buy some authentic pieces of he true cross? $200 a pop, -real- bargain.
aceflashheart 2 years ago
You still don't get it do you? The transcripts were changed only once, from Normandy to Malmedy. (after Olbermann presented this elaborate fictitious fairy tale)O'Reilly nor Fox could change them. I know you are too stupid to do any actual checking for yourself, but if you could you would find that the transcriber, who had probably never heard of Malmedy, mistakenly wrote Normandy instead and then corrected it after it was brought to his attention.
bluegsp 2 years ago 5
It was misposted the first time as Normandy in the wake of Olbermann running this segment, and then changed when he pointed out the mistake. Why don't you hang you around the fox news site, check the transcripts, and see how many instances of change there are post-news programs that don't involve being called out by another network. Also, way to ignore the point of this video in favor of petty gripes over unprovable specifics. The GOP can win any argument they have ensured they can't lose -_-.
aceflashheart 2 years ago
It was misprinted as Normandy when it was written the first time. It was corrected after Keith fabricated his fictitious fable about Bill. Again I ask, Why would he change it and how does it help? Bill was right in his example of revenge killings of Malmedy and he was right to defend the Marines at Haditha who were all found Innocent of any wrong doing. Clark and Murtha and the other America hating liberals that called them "cold blooded killers" have yet to apologize to them, so they are suing
bluegsp 2 years ago 3
If fox news changed the original transcript from Malmedy to Normandy to disguise the error, when Olbermann pointing it out isn't it naural to switch back quickly to avoid the allegation of bias/revision?
Honestly I don' care so much that Bill was incorrect, more that a) he never apologised b) he talked down about the war to a four star general and c) he's convinced people like you that disagreeing with the GOP = America hating.
aceflashheart 2 years ago
Fox didn't change it from Malmedy to Normandy. Morningside partners originally wrote Normandy and then changed it after Keith's big lie. (you still haven't answered "why" they would do it) Clark is a liberal politician that used to be a general. He was calling the Marines at Haditha "cold blooded killers" engaged in "revenge killing" before there was any evidence, Bill defended them. All the Marines were found innocent of any wrong doing. falsely condemning our military is "America hating"
bluegsp 2 years ago 4
Fox was wrong to try and contradict. Bill was wrong not to apologise for Malmedy. Clark was -very- wrong to falsely accuse troops.
I just think it's pretty damn sad that there's big chunks of society who only talk about politics in the language of Fox news. Dissenting voices are 'liberals'(?) who hate America. The only analogy relevent to 2010 America is 1939 Germany. Greatest threat to our freedom is not terror, it's the systematic dumbing down of our nation.
aceflashheart 2 years ago
And what do you call Olbermann? He has devoted 3 shows to trying to smear O'Reilly and explointing the victims of Malmedy to do it.
I agree, lets privatise schools and get the federal gov. out of education. Quality education has drastically declined since Carter created the department of Education in 1977
bluegsp 2 years ago 3
Olbermann pointed out a grevous and insulting error Bill made in his commentary, esp. considering the subject matter.
This attack on Bill isn't random, it's a response to news corps trampling un-apologetically over what journalism is supposed to represent.
Bias may be unavoidable human nature, but if people only get their info from Fox you don't really have a world view of your own.
It's as bad as people only watching the Daily Show for news.
Anyway, enough of this... good debate etc.
aceflashheart 2 years ago
Bill made no errors, he was correct. Olbermann is not pointing out errors, he is a pathological lying propagandist. These attacks on O'Reilly have nothing to do with what Bill said or his conversation with Clark. If you can't see that, you have a problem thinking for yourself. Olbermann attacks O"Reilly every night because he is jealous of his ratings.
bluegsp 2 years ago 2
He was wrong twice in referring to Malmedy as being a massacre of Nazi soldiers by US troops when it was the other way around. Have you watched the video? Maybe he got mixed up with a later retaliation killing, but does that mean he shouldn't apologise?
Olbermann is a lying propagandist but O'Reilly isn't? Olbermann has an agenda for sure, but at least he doesn't bs you "no spin zone" my ass.
I think he attacks Bill because he pisses all over the truh on a nightly basis.
aceflashheart 2 years ago
Bill was right with his Malmedy example of revenge killing, and he was right about the Marines at Haditha, he was right about releasing more photos from Abu grab (even Obama agrees with him). And thats what you hate about him isn't it. You disagree with him, but he always turns out to be right. Olbermann is pathological and shouldn't be taken seriously. Bill defends the military, and you America hating libs are looking for any excuse you can to hang them. That is whats really going on here.
bluegsp 2 years ago 5
You're pretty brain-washed buddy. Watch the video again. That's one example of right in front of you of O'Reilly being wrong about something. There are many others. Unfortunately, you already seem to be long gone.
aceflashheart 2 years ago
Thats what I thought. So filled with hate that you are delusional. This is not an example of Bill being wrong, it is an example of Olbermann's calculating and pathological lies. This is why Keiths audience is so small, only the far left retards take anything he says seriously. Normal people see what a lying jack ass he really is. Maybe someday you will grow up and learn to think for your self. You are a pathetic little man! XD
bluegsp 2 years ago 3
You sound like Bill O'Reilly...won't even admit when you're wrong, ugh. How can you defend this man?!
stlvideo08 2 years ago
Because He is right. Don't be such a brain dead liberal idiot. learn to think for yourself and quit swallowing up Olbermanns lies.
bluegsp 2 years ago 2
Sorry, I don't pledge allegiance to any party...and if indeed why WOULD Bill O'Reilly change it from "Malmedy to Normandy" in the transcripts?? Because he knew he was wrong!!
The problem is Bill will not admit when he made a glaring mistake which is the crux of his argument. *sigh*
I would encourage you to look up the facts for yourself instead of blindly following Bill O'Reilley 's words...Sure, there are things I agree with that he says but he's too arrogant to admit his mistakes. Example:
stlvideo08 2 years ago
Bill, nor fox changed anything, and Olbermann knows it.(another lie from Keith) The conversations was about 'revenge killings" at Haditha and Bill gave an example of revenge killings in WWII. 60 unarmed SS prisoners were killed in revenge of Malmedy. If you could think for yourself you would have known that.
bluegsp 2 years ago 4
ROFL @ bluegsp
"learn to think for yourself" coming from an O'Reilly fan. LOL
Comicaze247 2 years ago
You are a gullible brain dead liberal too stupid to decern facts from propaganda. typical Olbermann fan. XD
bluegsp 2 years ago
Because I refuse to allow myself to be influenced by archaic notions of morality from a 2000-year-old book that talks about some invisible all-powerful man in the sky that made everything in 7 days, I'M the gullible one?
Because I refuse to accept O'Reilly's ranting as fact, I'M the gullible one? LOL!
Okay, whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy.
P.S.: It's "Discern". Insults are more effective if you spell them right. L2English.
Comicaze247 2 years ago
Yes you are the gullible one. You are too stupid to actually investigate the lies that Keith tells you. You are so anxious to attack religion, you do it even when it is irrelevant, and your attack of spelling shows you have no intellectual argument.
Typical brain dead liberal, to stupid to "discern" facts from propaganda. typical Olbermann fan. XD
bluegsp 2 years ago
Give me an example of one of these supposed lies, please. Your sources would help too.
And who said I was attacking religion? I'm criticizing O'Relliy for using it as a basis of his arguments on political issues when it should have no part in politics (separation of church and state, anyone?).
P.S.: I criticized your spelling in a "P.S." because it wasn't a part of any argument of mine.
Comicaze247 2 years ago
First of all, Keith lies when he says that "fox news scrubbed clean" the transcripts. this is a lie, and Keith knows it. The company that does the transcripts for O'Reilly also does the transcripts for Countdown. They are called Morningside Partners and they own the copyrights to the transcripts and no body but them can change them. references to "George Orwell" and "Joesph McCarthy" is nothing but lying propaganda
bluegsp 2 years ago 3
Again, I ask for sources. As in, where did you find this out? Official statements from said company? If so, show me where you found them.
Comicaze247 2 years ago
There are many souces to cooborate the truth.
Accuracy in Media for one...Once again, Olbermann had put the darkest interpretation of events on what Fox had done. But his claim made no sense. Why would using "Normandy" instead of "Malmédy" have made O'Reilly look any better? Clearly, it was an innocent mistake that Fox News and O'Reilly had no control over.
bluegsp 2 years ago 3
So are you saying that Fox was the one who told him to say it was Malmedy? Or are you saying that they did rewrite the transcripts? You're not being clear on this.
I checked out Accuracy in Media. Interesting site. Thank you.
I'm making a disclaimer right now: I don't watch either of these people regularly, just when it's on, or watching O'Reilly for laughs. That said, I don't condone blowing things out of proportion, but neither do I condone not acknowledging mistakes.
Comicaze247 2 years ago
And your reference to a "2000 year old book that talks about some invisible all-powerful man in the sky that made everything in 7 days" is not the latest fashionable attack on religion among the hate filled idiotic atheist left? O'Reilly never said anything about religion. You are as disingenuous as Olbermann. Must be a liberal thing.
bluegsp 2 years ago
Did I say that was an original/new argument? No. Whether or not it is is irrelevant. The religious right has yet to prove any of it, thinking the need for proof lies on their opponents.
Besides, that's just my own opinion on religion after having been raised Catholic and then having thoughts. Believing that applies to the entirety of the left is asinine.
And did I say O'Reilly was using it in this argument? No. I'm speaking of his other arguments, such as the so-called "War on Christmas."
Comicaze247 2 years ago
It is called faith, when you still believe in the absence of "proof" You must have been molested by a priest, to carry over such hatred that permeates every unrelated topic that you address.
bluegsp 2 years ago
*facepalm* I don't hate the religion. I just don't respect people who can't defend their beliefs. Blindly believe if you want, that's your choice. I see the function of religion, giving guidelines for conduct. I just think we've advanced to a point where we don't need it to know right from wrong.
And for a Christian, you seem to be quite critical of fellow Christians (yes, Catholics are Christians). And no, no such thing happened to me. Not all militant atheists need something like that to wake.
Comicaze247 2 years ago
Also, as I stated before, I don't hate religion, but I do hate when it's used as a basis for political agendas, when the US was founded on separation of Church and State. It was to ensure everyone the right to practice religion. That means ANY religion (or even non-religion), not just Christianity. That includes freedom from ideals taken from a religious perspective ("Defense of Marriage," "Pro-life").
Comicaze247 2 years ago
Who said I am a Christian? You make a lot of unwarranted assumptions (symptom of your colossal arrogance) I am agnostic, I am not so arrogant as to say definitively that there is no god and that people are idiots to believe. I think that it takes more "faith" to believe in evolution as a "random" process than one that may be guided by a divine creator.
So you would ("Attack Marriage"' and you are "Anti-life"). I gottcha! XD
bluegsp 2 years ago
*facepalm* Your statements have been typical of the religious right, born-again Christians. I made an assumption, my mistake. I'm not completely atheist myself, either. I just don't believe in the Christian "God".
*facepalm again* I've heard that argument countless times. It wasn't me who named those movements as such, it was conservatives so that they could sound "virtuous."
My questions: What is marriage being defended from in the first place?
How does pro-choice equate to anti-life?
komorifk 2 years ago
It's so typical of conservatives to view things so black-and-white. "You're either pro-life, or you're anti-life." My views: if I were a woman who had an unwanted pregnancy, I don't think I'd be able to get an abortion. But it's not my right to tell others what to do with their body, only with my own.
And who laid the claim on the word "marriage" in the first place? Why does it have to be "defended?"
komorifk 2 years ago 16
Typical liberal defense of abortion, I suppose if it were 1865 you would say, " I wouldn't own slaves myself, but I don't have the right to tell my neighbor what to do with his property" Well there is a human being involved and democrats consider them less than human in both examples.
Marriage has been defined, society encourages marriage for the procreation and raising of children.
bluegsp 2 years ago
1) I don't consider people property. Where did you get that idea? Now who's making assumptions?
2) There's a difference between a fully functional human being and a glob of cells barely resembling a human called a FETUS (yes, I acknowledge that the time that is considered when life begins is debatable, and everyone has their own opinions on it, which is why I have no business telling people whether or not to do it).
3) Saying "Democrats consider them less than human is an unfounded accusation.
Comicaze247 2 years ago
3 cont.) That is your opinion formed from your (obvious) black and white point of view, and simply an attempt to demonize your opposition.
4) Sure, marriage has been "officially defined," but it's been done from a religious point of view and only passed due to religious propaganda. Seriously, those "Yes-on-Prop-8" commercials were ridiculous and based on unfounded claims. "Priests will be sued for discrimination for not marrying homosexuals.
Comicaze247 2 years ago
4a) I've heard of no homosexuals that want a religious ceremony, as they are ostracized in the Abrahamic religions (except maybe from Unitarian Universalists).
4b) There would be no "violation of the right to practice religion," as they wouldn't be forcing anyone to marry them. There would be no basis of a suit anyway. It'd never make it to court.
4c) The country was founded on SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, so religious agendas have no place in the legal process.
Comicaze247 2 years ago
@Comicaze247 The country was absolutely never founded on the seperation of church and state. This idea has been largely perpetrated by liberal progressives who view religion as a barrier in the way of progress because it has a static moral code, as does the constitution. To the contrary, the entire process through wich our great nation was formed was intertwined with religious morals and beliefs and script.
danwk7 2 years ago
@danwk7 There can be no ruling or law against someone for their religion, but to say a judge cannot make a decision without consulting the moral code he or she believes in as guided by their faith is pretty unbelievable.
danwk7 2 years ago
4d) So for the couples who are infertile/don't want kids aren't allowed to get married either?
4e) The rule that "You must have many children" was a long-term political plan made by the Church to gain more power by having more followers, as children would be raised in the religion. One reason why polygamy was allowed in Mormonism for a time.
4f) The world is overpopulated as it is.
4g) The adoption and foster system is terrible, and they have enough kids waiting for homes.
Comicaze247 2 years ago
Oh, and a continuation on 2) The abortion issue is about what someone is allowed to do with their OWN body (even when they are informed of the risks). NOT someone else's body.
For example, you have no right to go against a family member's "Do Not Resuscitate" order, as it is a choice they are making with their own body.
Comicaze247 2 years ago
Facts and truth seem to be "unfounded" to you isn't it. It is a fact that there is no room in the Democrat party for pro life proponents, It is a fact that Abortion kills another person (your rights to do what you want with your own body stop when you harm someone else).
It is a fact that children benefit from both a mother and a father, (male and female) more than a single parent or two parents of the same sex. You are just a baby killing socialist god less liberal aren't you?
bluegsp 2 years ago 2
You are so offensive on so many grounds. If you aren't just a troll, I feel pain for you, and many others like you, who are so disgustingly thought-out that they cannot be helped.
andrew11235 2 years ago
The "pain" you feel is your own conscious kicking your ass for being a Baby killing socialist god less liberal. go fuck your self jack ass.
bluegsp 2 years ago
You mean "conscience?" ;)
Is "baby-killing socialist god-less liberal" the new catchphrase? *yawn*
As I said before, being god-less is irrelevant here.
Also, as I said before, the precise moment when a fetus become aware (i.e.: human) is still under debate.
Comicaze247 2 years ago
*facepalm*
Fact: You cannot assume that the beliefs of one apply to the whole group.
Fact: Your belief that a fetus is already human is still under debate, and is therefore subjective (i.e.: not a fact).
Fact: It was conservatives that viewed slaves as less than human. Liberals were the ones who freed them.
Fact: There has been no credible research proving that two heterosexual parents are better than two homosexual parents. If you can cite an OBJECTIVE source (doubtful), then I stand corrected.
Comicaze247 2 years ago
@Comicaze247 "Liberal" back then is NOT what it is today....
St3hLy 1 year ago
Fact: Accusations such as "you are just a baby-killing socialist god-less liberal" arise when one is out of arguments and an attempt to demonize the opposition ;)
A socialist would be insulted by the assumption that my arguments are socialist.
And even if I was "god-less," what relevance does that have here?
Comicaze247 2 years ago
@komorifk Defending marriage is a guise for hating gays. Religious definitions should have absolutely no sway on secular states laws.
doksekko 1 year ago
@komorifk
It`s so typical of liberals to be hypocritical.
OK, that was a bit cruel. I`m not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. I completely agree with the two views you showed. But you might not want to use black and white thinking to dismiss black and white thinking.
Few problems have 1 correct solution and few political positions have people with no good (or all good) ideas.
RaymondCorrigan 1 year ago
@RaymondCorrigan sorry but i forgot to sign out that day and the comment wasn't mine. Don't even know who post that.
komorifk 1 year ago
@komorifk
No problem, sorry!
RaymondCorrigan 1 year ago
If you understood the conversation that O'Reilly was having with Clark, you would know that he was defending the Marines at Haditha against Clark and Murtha and other America hating liberals who called them "cold blooded killers" involved in "revenge killing" He made the comparison to Malmedy because 60 unarmed SS prisoners were shot in "revenge" for Malmedy.
What Olbermann does is called "dissembling" (look it up). It is sad that gullible morons like you are to stupid to question this idiot.
bluegsp 2 years ago
I don't understand why conservatives think liberals hate America. We love America just as much as you do. We just disagree on what direction to take the country.
And O'Reilly made it seem that the US troops committed the war crime unprovoked seemingly to defend the atrocities in Abu Ghraibe, when in fact, it was in response to crimes committed against them beforehand. Granted, it's still a war crime, provoked or not, but O'Reilly implied they were the only ones who committed it.
Comicaze247 2 years ago
"This kind of desperation tells us a lot about Olbermann. His glib manner, wise-guy approach, and steady flow of Bush-bashing have not significantly improved his ratings, and his mean-spirited attacks on O'Reilly and Fox News over Malmédy cannot help. It's too bad he didn't stick to his well-documented case that O'Reilly had badly mangled the facts about Malmédy. He exaggerated the controversy into something it was not."
bluegsp 2 years ago
Conservatives defend the military and America, Liberals attack the military and America. That is why people think that Liberals hate America.
O'Reilly's point is that sometimes bad things happen in war, and the Malmedy example was an example of revenge killings that the Marines at Haditha were accused of.
bluegsp 2 years ago
I, personally, don't attack the military or America, and neither do any other liberals I know. What I do disapprove of is how they're being used. Also, some military guys can be dicks (I live near Camp Pendleton), but that's beside the point. My dad was in the navy, so I'm far from against the military, and if I didn't have asthma, I'd have joined a long time ago. I just don't approve of where our forces are being used.
Comicaze247 2 years ago
What you read about the transcripts was from Accuracy in Media. They are saying that Olbermann lied about the transcripts being "scrubbed" by fox or O'Reilly. and that it was a stupid lie by Olbermann because it didn't even make sense. If you want to make the criticism that Bill did not go far enough to explain the example of the revenge killing of Malmedy, that is one thing, but Olbermann has done three shows on this, each more dishonest than the other. Ask yourself who really is the liar here
bluegsp 2 years ago
They both made poor decisions in this incidence. O'Reilly took things out of context to make it seem as though the US troops were the ones who perpetrated the crime unprovoked, not noting that it was out of revenge, in some misguided attempt to defend the Abu Ghraibe incident with some "it happens all the time" argument. Not only that, but he won't own up to the mistake. And Olbermann either didn't do enough research, or perhaps purposely misrepresented evidence. Nobody is innocent here.
komorifk 2 years ago
Your defense of Olbermann and condemnation of O'Reilly only proves your partisanship and ignorance. O'Reilly has valid points and Olbermann is a lying propagandist. It shows in the ratings, most of America agrees with O'Reilly and Most of America knows that Olbermann is a delusional lying propagandist. Obama agreed with O'Reilly about Abu Ghraibe and the Marines at Haditha were found innocent of any wrong doing. Bill was completely correct, and Keith is left as the lying America hating fool
bluegsp 2 years ago
The point still stands that he misrepresented the facts, taking them out of context either intentionally or out of incompetence, and he doesn't own up to it. Also, the "it happens all the time" argument doesn't fly with me. We're the most powerful nation in the world. We should be setting a better example of honor and integrity. Our troops are better than that and they know it.
Comicaze247 2 years ago
Bill never misrepresented facts, That was Olbermann that did that. Bill clarified that he was talking about "after" Malmedy. He did not say that "it happens all the time", now you are misrepresenting the facts. Bill says 99.5% of the time these kinds of things don't happen. Keep in mind that Malmedy was a 3 second example Bill used while defending the Marines at Haditha who were being attacked by liberal politicians like Clark and Murtha. This is a common tactic of liberals.
bluegsp 2 years ago
I know he didn't say "it happens all the time." That's just how he presented it. Just because it happened before doesn't excuse it happening now. I don't see any other reason to bring that up other than to say "See? They're not the only ones that did it!"
komorifk 2 years ago
Holy crap, people need to learn to sign out on public computers. This komorifk guy has been me, lol.
Comicaze247 2 years ago
If you had any ability to think for yourself, you might question, "Why would Bill change it from Malmedy to Normandy and then back again?" If what Keith is saying is true, "How does that help or make any difference?". It wouldn't. Nothing Keith says makes any sense. Of course, you are not interested in the truth are you? You don't like Bill, so you are more than willing to support Keith s lie. You really are pathetic
bluegsp 2 years ago
Too bad I have no historical knowledge to confirm any of this. If Olberman's right though, O'Reilly is an asshole.
FolstrimHori 2 years ago
Olbermann is lying, he is the asshole!
bluegsp 2 years ago
lying??? lying about what o'reily himself said?? LOL. you ppl make no sense
ghlover2001 2 years ago
O'Reilly never said that the Americans that were murdered, did the murdering. That was Olbermann saying that Bill said that. Bill was talking about the U.S troops that killed 60 unarmed SS prisoners in revenge for Malmedy. Thats what Clark was accusing the Marines at Haditha of, "revenge killing" Bill was abosouluty right, it did happen. Olbermann is a lying piece of shit,(Its called dissembling. It is most often practiced by children and people who think they are smart)
bluegsp 2 years ago
listen. there's something called implication, and oreily implied that when he misspoke. if he hadn't fumbled, fox news would have never changed the transcript and then changed it back. it's that simple
ghlover2001 2 years ago
Fox didn't change the transcripts nor could they. They are done by a company called morningside partners, (they also do Olbermanns transcripts) They own the copyrights and are the only one that can change them. Obviously Olbermann knows this as well and intentionally lied about that too. You see, with Kieth it is pathological. Kieth will lie even when it makes no sense at all to do it, It is a mental disorder. Only the most extreme left wing idiots could believe what Keith says
bluegsp 2 years ago
wow, everything you described about keith sounds exactly like a memoir of bill o'reily ;)
ghlover2001 2 years ago
Except it is true about Keith, and a unsubstantiated slur about Bill.
bluegsp 2 years ago
lol. good one.
ghlover2001 2 years ago
This video is pointless ... What people keep forgeting is whether the troops masacred were German or American, people died, and the sacrifice they ALL showed for their countries should be remembered. We should remember their sacrifice to not remember it.
- Mathieu, Canada
MoralityVirtue2 2 years ago
@MoralityVirtue2 What you seem to have unfortunately looked over is the context. Yes, people died. But if your father was shot and killed by a madman you'd be incredibly offended if a news reporter called your father the madman who murdered someone else. Bill screwed up, but instead of admitting it he just calls other people ignorant.
People died, it's an horrible atrocity. But Bill needs to admit that he is wrong.
shmagiggywokka 2 years ago
Bill wasn't wrong, he was defending the Marines at Haditha, who Clark and Murtha and other America hating liberals called "cold blooded killers" and engaging in "revenge killing" U.S. troops did kill 60 unarmed SS prisoners in revenge for Malmedy. Olbermann is the one exploiting U.S. servicemen to score cheap political points. Keith is the worst kind of lying propagandist.
bluegsp 2 years ago
Man you humans sure do know how to make a comment section under one video, a full fledged novel.
xXxShadowAxelxXx 2 years ago
Well, I don't like O'Really (no mistake) or Olberman. I don't like ANY of the noise-makers on ANY of the network or cable news stations.
They ALL lie and rip on each other, and ALL of them have their OWN agenda.
Be that as it may (and I doubt if it were), at least Olberman has the balls to wear purple after the death of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"
fuzzybuddy 2 years ago
Olbermann is the liar, O'Reilly was correct. as usual
bluegsp 2 years ago
Excuse me? My grandfather was one of the soldiers that found the murder victims at Malmedy. That was no US soldiers killing SS soldiers. And the only German soldiers that were executed were at the battle of the bulge and they were the ones dressed as us soldiers, acting like us soldiers and then killing us soldier in their foxholes. And they were shot as spies. Get your info right you neocon!
EveMech96 2 years ago
EveMech, If that is true, then you should be outraged at Olbermann as much as anyone for exploiting the soldiers at Malmedy to try to score silly political points against O'Reilly. Bill was absolutely right and Keith knows it, He hates the military and only uses them as political pawns. If you had your info right, you might not be such an America hating brain dead socialist
bluegsp 2 years ago
America hating brain dead socialist huh? For your information Every member of my family including my mother and myself has served active duty in the military, merchants marine or the federal government. So what branch were you in?
EveMech96 2 years ago
U.S Navy, My Dad was In the Air Force During the Korean war, My Grandfather was captured in Bataan and spend the rest of WWII in Japan in a Japanese prison camp. He was awarded the Bronze star, the Silver Star and the Filipino Medal of Honor. But of course that is Irrelevant to the fact that Olbermann is exploiting American soldiers to try to score cheap political points aganst O'Reilly. Why would you defend an American military hating lying dirt bag like Olbermann?
bluegsp 2 years ago 2
@bluegsp I guess that's one thing that you and I have in common and we both fought for. Free speech and free thought and the right to have our own political views. You think Olbermann is a liar and I think that O'Reilly is a liar. So we agree to disagree. Thanks for you service shipmate and thanks to your family also.
EveMech96 2 years ago
This video is an egregious example of Olbermanns deliberate calculating and malicious lie exploiting dead American soldiers to smear another commentator. Show me where O'Reilly has ever done anything like this.
bluegsp 2 years ago
My Grandfather was with the 1st Cavalry, who rescued the guys in your Grandfather's position (He landed at Leyte, & his DIV was the first into Japan as well). My entire family is MIL, & they've been in every single war & conflict this Nation has ever had. I for one despise Olbermann, because he typically bashes the MIL, & it's guys like him who prosecute our personnel for garbage like Haditha, & the SEAL Team Fallujah mastermind capture. As for Gen. Clark, he's a bureaucrat in the same boat.
GUMMYBEAYUH 2 years ago
So your grandfather served under MacArthur as well. I thought he was our greatest General, although my grandfather never forgave him for leaving the Phillipeans. I have family that fought in every war as far back as the Civil War.(that we could trace) It really pisses me off when propagandist like Olbermann lie and denigrate our Military.
bluegsp 2 years ago
There was a general agreement amongst the American GI's after that massacre, and they silently decided to never take anymore prisoners after that point. I completely understand why they did that, and I would've done the same without a doubt. Hell, even the German Army HATED the SS. My Uncle's father died in the European campaign fighting those punks anyhow (Even though now-a-days I have nothing but love for the Japanese and Germans).
GUMMYBEAYUH 2 years ago
doesn't it make you sick when liberals like Olbermann and Clark exploit the military for political gain? Hell thats what Obama was doing with his speech at West Point (or as Chris Matthews describes it, "enemy camp") America needs to wake up and realize that this group in office and their supporters are the enemy of America
bluegsp 2 years ago
Lol your an Idiot, Your worse than O'Reilly, You where born from FAIL.
SASCartman 2 years ago
"You were born from FAIL"? You only can come up with one stupid run-on sentence and you weren't even capable of making it coherent? Just how stupid are you? It must be some prerequisite to being a liberal, dumb as box of rocks. XD
bluegsp 2 years ago
loll of course it was coherent you where probaly a failed abbortion = Being born from Fail, Simple! And being a liberal? if anything im more of a conservative and even i know Bill O'Reillys a moron next he will be denying the holocaust, Hes a loud mouth idiot who throws a tantrum if he dosn't get his own way.
SASCartman 2 years ago
I would say that you must be a member of the illiterate moron party. Just another brain dead lying liberal shit stain
bluegsp 2 years ago
loll and i would say you are a fool, Who dosnt even know the definition of illiterate and Moron Party? woah Your confusing me with the O'Reilly followers.
haha "Brain dead" & "lying" Hipocrytical much? "liberal shit stain" Next you will be calling me a Communitst haha, are you trying to over compensate for somthing my friend?
SASCartman 2 years ago
Your posts demonstrate what an illiterate, moron brain dead lying liberal shit stain you are.
thank you for the demonstration. XD
bluegsp 2 years ago
loll "an illiterate, moron brain dead lying" Coming from some one who Supports, Agrees with and also Pulls facts out of his ass just like the man we know and hate, ol' Bill-o
lolll you are an idiot and no thank you for the entertainment :').
SASCartman 2 years ago
Yet you can't dispute my facts, or O'Reillys, just as Olbermann can't. You have not offered any information since you joined this thread, only poorly worded insults and a demonstration of pathetically bad grasp of the English language. I have exposed Olbermann for the lying sack of shit that he is and confirmed you demonstration of your moronic stupidity. Thanks for playing along, it has been fun. XD
bluegsp 2 years ago
Lol my god, You are delusional. What facts do you have? and Olbermann can't dispute O'Reillys? Its fact that O'Reilly is wrong about Malmedy so its pretty much conclusive that Olbermann disputed O'reillys facts.
How have you exposed Olbermann? the only thing you have exposed is that you are an idiot. lol you havent "Confirmed" anything about me the only thing you have confirmed is that you are not only a Hipocryte but you also lack the knowledge of what illiterate means.
SASCartman 2 years ago
O'Reilly is completely correct in his analogy (and his defense of the Marines at Haditha, which is what his conversation with Clark was about) Olbermann is a lying douche bag exploiting the victims at Malmedy to try to score cheap political points to try to boost his ratings, he failed completely as did you. You are an illiterate moron, and it has been fun bitch slapping the piss out of you. XD
bluegsp 2 years ago