Bill O'Reilly has his own made up war stories. I wonder if Fox will[W:237,343,676]

[pbrauer]

:doh
Wrong on all counts.
Nothing Bill said (that is being complained about) has been proven to be a lie.
Nothing Engberg says refutes that.

Not true Enberg refuted O'Reilly stance that he was the only reporter to go out in the street.

 

[JANFU]

As you wish.

Till the morning at least. Then I will see how this debate goes. Enjoy your evening.

 

[Excon]

As you can see, I told you I understand.

You are saying one thing and doing another showing that you do not understand.
If you understood you would not be trying to make an irrelevant point with an image that adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[Jack Hays]

Not true Enberg refuted O'Reilly stance that he was the only reporter to go out in the street.

Enberg made a claim.

 

[Jack Hays]

Till the morning at least. Then I will see how this debate goes. Enjoy your evening.

Same to you.

 

[Excon]

Nothing Bill said (that is being complained about) has been proven to be a lie.
Nothing Engberg says refutes that.

Not true Enberg refuted O'Reilly stance that he was the only reporter to go out in the street.

Oh gawd! :doh
You really do not pay attention.
Read the sentence before that. "Nothing Bill said (that is being complained about) has been proven to be a lie. Nothing Engberg says refutes that."


Again, nothing Engberg says refutes that.

 

[rocket88]

Then you should support impeaching the Vice President who has been known to exaggerate his football career. A Lie is a lie. He should be fired.

Show me a politician who never lied, and I'll show you a unicorn.

 

[vesper]

I can't believe this thread warrants 31 pages.
Accusations from David Corn? The leftist of print? Who is in the gutter with Michael Moore, MoveOn.Org, the Nation? None which are known for journalistic excellence but rather far left loony tunes. Wasn't it David Corn that stuck Bush with Bush Hitler over the Iraq invasion? He is notorious for hit pieces. That's all he does. So what's behind this one? Is it to try and make Brian Williams look normal? If so, it ain't going to work.

 

[Threegoofs]

]

The incident happened after surrender.

That's really all you needed to write.

 

[Threegoofs]

1. Yes it is absurdly irrelevant as that is where he said he was.
2. As pointed out by Jack Hays, it was considered a war zone.

You clearly have no understanding of what a war zone is. Which is why I provided you with the information about the Sinai. And yet you still do not understand. :doh

Except it happened after the war was over.

It's absurd that A place 1500 miles away is a 'war zone', but it's even more absurd that it still remains one AFTER the war is over.

 

[Threegoofs]

It will be fun when they actually contact the cameraman OReilly says he saved.

I predict if he corrobotmrates the story, the usual suspects will claim that everything must then be true.

If he doesn't, it will be dismissed as a biased liberal conspiracy.

 

[Jack Hays]

Except it happened after the war was over.

It's absurd that A place 1500 miles away is a 'war zone', but it's even more absurd that it still remains one AFTER the war is over.

There is much absurdity in war. The absurdity does not erase the truth. The end of the war did not mean the end of violence or danger. Your personal views are simply not important concerning subject matter well beyond your experience.

 

[Excon]

That's really all you needed to write.

Not at all. What you said was patently untrue.

Not only that, but saying it happened after surrender is irrelevant.

It still would have been designated as a war/combat zone for some time after surrender.

 

[pbrauer]

Oh gawd! :doh
You really do not pay attention.
Read the sentence before that. "Nothing Bill said (that is being complained about) has been proven to be a lie. Nothing Engberg says refutes that."


Again, nothing Engberg says refutes that.

Sorry, I don't follow what you are saying. Bill O'Reilly has said he was the only reporter to go out into the streets. Engberg says that's an outright lie.

 

[Threegoofs]

There is much absurdity in war. The absurdity does not erase the truth. The end of the war did not mean the end of violence or danger. Your personal views are simply not important concerning subject matter well beyond your experience.

There is even more absurdity in your rationalizations.

 

[Threegoofs]

Not at all. What you said was patently untrue.

Not only that, but saying it happened after surrender is irrelevant.

It still would have been designated as a war/combat zone for some time after surrender.

I was in Argentina a decade ago. Never realized I was in a war zone.

 

[Jack Hays]

Sorry, I don't follow what you are saying. Bill O'Reilly has said he was the only reporter to go out into the streets. Engberg says that's an outright lie.

In that situation there's plenty of room for confusion or faulty information, and there is still the question of Engberg's motive.

 

[Excon]

Sorry, I don't follow what you are saying. Bill O'Reilly has said he was the only reporter to go out into the streets. Engberg says that's an outright lie.

I guess you are unable to remained focused on the claims of the topic then.
What you now point out has nothing to do with what is complained about.

Do you, or do you not understand that?

 

[Jack Hays]

There is even more absurdity in your rationalizations.

There's nothing to rationalize. BO's account is credible.

 

[Excon]

I was in Argentina a decade ago. Never realized I was in a war zone.

You have no point and are being dishonest in debate.
Were you there while it was a designated war zone or were you not?
Or do you really not know?


I guess I again have to refer back to the Gulf War.
Cease fire was in April of 91. War/Combat zone designation was removed in Jan of 92, long after the actual war was over.

 

[Jack Hays]

I was in Argentina a decade ago. Never realized I was in a war zone.

You would have needed to be there 33 years ago.

 

[Threegoofs]

You would have needed to be there 33 years ago.

I suppose the war zone designation ended....when OReilly was told to go home.

 

[Dem]

`
1) Brian Williams apologized for his lie. O'Reilly will not. Of the two, Williams has infinitely more strength of character than O'Reilly.

2) Bill O'Reilly is a political commentator and entertainer, not a newscaster. So, in a manner of speaking, Brian Williams, who is a newscaster, should be held to a much higher standard, at least in my opinion. O'Reilly can always claim his lie was all part of an act.

From watching O'Reilly I have noticed that Bill will never admit fault with anything. And he's a know it all. When he's getting owned on his show he will usually lose his mind throw a huge fit and cut off the individual. His whole sexual harassment thing kinda shows you what a scumbag he is.

 

[pbrauer]

I guess you are unable to remained focused on the claims of the topic then.
What you now point out has nothing to do with what is complained about.

Do you, or do you not understand that?

So you are saying that if it wasn't complained about it irrelevant? How do you know what was complained about?

Can you tell me what Bill O says after Argentina in the following video?

 

[Dem]

So you are saying that if it wasn't complained about it irrelevant? How do you know what was complained about?

Can you tell me what Bill O says after Argentina in the following video?

Conservatives will defend O'Reilly even if he is wrong, much like the libs and Obama. This is due to the fact that the fringe libs and cons do not have the ability to agree with the other side, even if it makes sense.