" I want that. I want, not for personally for me, but for working Americans, to have a option, that if they don't like their health insurance, if it's too expensive, they can't afford it, if the government can cobble together a cheaper insurance policy that gives the same benefits, I see that as a plus for the folks."

????

No, I didn't find this on The Onion ... 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/bill-oreilly-backs-public_n_290658.html

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/bill-oreilly-backs-public_n_290658.html

to take time out from the serious work of the House of Representatives to pass a resolution "strongly condemning" a private organization for taking out a newspaper ad that contained an implied insult to a General (something that I believe falls under freedom of speech also) .................................. but it isn't important enough to vote to admonish one of their own members for violating House rules and directly insulting and interrupting the President of the United States (that General's boss)?   

According to Boehner, this resolution is "patently partisan" and represents an effort by the Democrats to "change the subject"   And the 2007 resolution introduced by Republicans was ...... what?

Is there anyone in the media who will ask Boehner about this to his face? 

(That vote, by the way, was 341-79 -- so apparently Democrats don't line up like lemmings, even when it's a "partisan" Republican bill.  Let's see what the Republicans do.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoveOn.org_ad_controversy

Marre, Klaus (2007-09-26). "House overwhelmingly condemns MoveOn ad". The Hill. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-overwhelmingly-condemns-moveon-ad-2007-09-26.html. Retrieved 2007-09-26   [[not sure this works but maybe if you use the search feature]]