Why do People Hate Bill O'Reilly?

[The New Sea Territory]

Just about as credible as Ron Paul talking about the fed

I'm afraid I don't follow what you mean by that. Could you clarify?

You're a socialist, talking about how America has no left wing. He rejected your ideas at face value.

Ironically, very similar to Bill O'Reilly.

[Aidannadia]

I wouldn't take what he's saying very seriously. He called Bernie Sanders and his supporters "socialist". Sanders can call himself a socialist all he wants, but there is more to socialism than free healthcare and welfare.

^This

Regulation is for the Nazi Facist-Socialists. Legalize gay marijuana. Democrats are all baby-killing Muslims. Bernie Sanders and Obama got gay married on the moon. We need to kill the reptile known as Janet Yellen. The internet told me so.

[Lalaki]

Repulsive? Explain.

It's all just rabble-rousing nonsense. There's a few basic points I and most people can agree with. Universal Healthcare + free education + higher minimum wage. But we can get all that under hillary. The rest of the nonsense would be an irrational and isolationist foreign policy, protectionism, a step away from free trade, and more anti wall-street rhetoric that solves nothing.

We wouldn't get universal health care under Hillary. She would merely maintain the PPACA. While I support that law, the final goal should be a single-payer system. Sanders is the only Democrat supporting that so far. With free education, we don't know if Hillary will merely support free community colleges or actual debt-free universities. I can concede wages, for both of them have raised support for increases. Anyways, the TPP/TTIP are potentially harmful for labor and the environment. While I'm not as hardliner as Sanders is, he raises very legitimate points that Hillary seems to be kicking down the road. And his anti-Wall Street rhetoric is mostly accurate. It was our largest financial institutions that took down our economy after all. Hillary doesn't seem that keen on furthering regulations. Sanders would fervently push for them.

To be clear, Hillary will have my full support should she win the nomination. But I will be behind Sanders until then, with O'Malley being my second choice.

[Ancient Magmia]

Because he's a loudmouthed, bigoted, arrogant, self-righteous, laughably ignorant douchebag. All he does on his show is basically scream at people about how right he is; rarely does he ever actually attempt to have a civilized debate, unless whoever he's speaking to already agrees with him. He's a pretentious reactionary who caters to the lowest common denominator of the Republican party base.
Even when I was a die-hard right-winger, after a while I thought he was an arrogant douche.

Oh, and we can also now add wife-beater to the list of disgraceful things this man is.

[United Marxist Nations]

I'm afraid I don't follow what you mean by that. Could you clarify?

You're a socialist, talking about how America has no left wing. He rejected your ideas at face value.

Ironically, very similar to Bill O'Reilly.

That's kind of what I thought he was saying, but I wasn't sure I wanted to make the leap to assume he meant that.

[North Calaveras]

Because he's a loudmouthed, bigoted, arrogant, self-righteous, laughably ignorant douchebag. All he does on his show is basically scream at people about how right he is; rarely does he ever actually attempt to have a civilized debate, unless whoever he's speaking to already agrees with him. He's a pretentious reactionary who caters to the lowest common denominator of the Republican party base.
Even when I was a die-hard right-winger, after a while I thought he was an arrogant douche.

Oh, and we can also now add wife-beater to the list of disgraceful things this man is.

sounds like piers morgan.

[Neutraligon]

I don't hate him, I hate how he acts when "interviewing." I hate that he is misinformed about almost every scientific topic imaginable, and then tries to spread his misinformation to his viewers. I hate that he strawmans everyone who has a differing opinion.

[Ancient Magmia]

Because he's a loudmouthed, bigoted, arrogant, self-righteous, laughably ignorant douchebag. All he does on his show is basically scream at people about how right he is; rarely does he ever actually attempt to have a civilized debate, unless whoever he's speaking to already agrees with him. He's a pretentious reactionary who caters to the lowest common denominator of the Republican party base.
Even when I was a die-hard right-winger, after a while I thought he was an arrogant douche.

Oh, and we can also now add wife-beater to the list of disgraceful things this man is.

sounds like piers morgan.

Piers is a douche too, but I don't see how that's relevant.

[Nierra]

Just about as credible as Ron Paul talking about the fed

I'm afraid I don't follow what you mean by that. Could you clarify?

Ron Paul? The guy who has never taken an economics course in his life, continuously endorses some weird austrian economics nonsense that whatever the Government does is bad, debt is never productive, and money printing to fend of deflation is akin to murder sort of thing?

What I meant by all that, would be it's ridiculous to take someone's opinion about what someone else means by what they say is ridiculous and if you want intentions to be answered you should go to the original author.

[Nierra]

It's all just rabble-rousing nonsense. There's a few basic points I and most people can agree with. Universal Healthcare + free education + higher minimum wage. But we can get all that under hillary. The rest of the nonsense would be an irrational and isolationist foreign policy, protectionism, a step away from free trade, and more anti wall-street rhetoric that solves nothing.

We wouldn't get universal health care under Hillary. She would merely maintain the PPACA. While I support that law, the final goal should be a single-payer system. Sanders is the only Democrat supporting that so far. With free education, we don't know if Hillary will merely support free community colleges or actual debt-free universities. I can concede wages, for both of them have raised support for increases. Anyways, the TPP/TTIP are potentially harmful for labor and the environment. While I'm not as hardliner as Sanders is, he raises very legitimate points that Hillary seems to be kicking down the road. And his anti-Wall Street rhetoric is mostly accurate. It was our largest financial institutions that took down our economy after all. Hillary doesn't seem that keen on furthering regulations. Sanders would fervently push for them.

To be clear, Hillary will have my full support should she win the nomination. But I will be behind Sanders until then, with O'Malley being my second choice.

No, someone like Alan S Blinder has sensible critiques of the financial sector. Also numerous entrepreneurs who have clearly voiced their opinion about what's wrong with finance. Guys like Bernie Sanders however? They're the guys who just try to regulate absolutely anything without much study and jump onto whatever the progressive bandwagon is rather then judge by the specific circumstances and impacts of each financial regulation.

[United Marxist Nations]

I'm afraid I don't follow what you mean by that. Could you clarify?

Ron Paul? The guy who has never taken an economics course in his life, continuously endorses some weird austrian economics nonsense that whatever the Government does is bad, debt is never productive, and money printing to fend of deflation is akin to murder sort of thing?

What I meant by all that, would be it's ridiculous to take someone's opinion about what someone else means by what they say is ridiculous and if you want intentions to be answered you should go to the original author.

Oh, I know who Ron Paul is. On some things he makes points, but in terms of economics as a broad category, he wants to take a step backwards.

You are right on that, and I should have clarified that I was agreeing with his point on Sanders being incorrect in his identification as a socialist. I'm decently acquainted with Sanders' views, and he really just strikes me as a European-style social democrat.

[Vandario]

my biggest issue simply is that he tends to not let the people he brings on speak, and brings people with opposing views then yells at them for having said views, not saying i disagree with him with some of his political views and such, just thats my big peeve, if you want to talk, let the other person speak, and you brought them on knowing they have opposing views and ideas to your own, so don't get all pissy when they disagree with you.

[United Marxist Nations]

We wouldn't get universal health care under Hillary. She would merely maintain the PPACA. While I support that law, the final goal should be a single-payer system. Sanders is the only Democrat supporting that so far. With free education, we don't know if Hillary will merely support free community colleges or actual debt-free universities. I can concede wages, for both of them have raised support for increases. Anyways, the TPP/TTIP are potentially harmful for labor and the environment. While I'm not as hardliner as Sanders is, he raises very legitimate points that Hillary seems to be kicking down the road. And his anti-Wall Street rhetoric is mostly accurate. It was our largest financial institutions that took down our economy after all. Hillary doesn't seem that keen on furthering regulations. Sanders would fervently push for them.

To be clear, Hillary will have my full support should she win the nomination. But I will be behind Sanders until then, with O'Malley being my second choice.

No, someone like Alan S Blinder has sensible critiques of the financial sector. Also numerous entrepreneurs who have clearly voiced their opinion about what's wrong with finance. Guys like Bernie Sanders however? They're the guys who just try to regulate absolutely anything without much study and jump onto whatever the progressive bandwagon is rather then judge by the specific circumstances and impacts of each financial regulation.

There's a fair bit of truth to that. His anti-nuclear energy views in-particular strike me as dangerous, and his proposals for trust busting wouldn't really address a lot of the root causes of the 2008 Financial Crisis.

[Lalaki]

We wouldn't get universal health care under Hillary. She would merely maintain the PPACA. While I support that law, the final goal should be a single-payer system. Sanders is the only Democrat supporting that so far. With free education, we don't know if Hillary will merely support free community colleges or actual debt-free universities. I can concede wages, for both of them have raised support for increases. Anyways, the TPP/TTIP are potentially harmful for labor and the environment. While I'm not as hardliner as Sanders is, he raises very legitimate points that Hillary seems to be kicking down the road. And his anti-Wall Street rhetoric is mostly accurate. It was our largest financial institutions that took down our economy after all. Hillary doesn't seem that keen on furthering regulations. Sanders would fervently push for them.

To be clear, Hillary will have my full support should she win the nomination. But I will be behind Sanders until then, with O'Malley being my second choice.

No, someone like Alan S Blinder has sensible critiques of the financial sector. Also numerous entrepreneurs who have clearly voiced their opinion about what's wrong with finance. Guys like Bernie Sanders however? They're the guys who just try to regulate absolutely anything without much study and jump onto whatever the progressive bandwagon is rather then judge by the specific circumstances and impacts of each financial regulation.

Sanders would support regulation in the style of FDR after the Great Depression. Those policies served to keep us out of any financially-spurred recession for decades until we started deregulating. He actually supports very specific and detailed plans that you can look up on his record. It's simple. Prevent banks from becoming "too big to fail" via regulations and dissolutions where necessary, and strongly regulate the financial sector so that companies can't perform the toxic practices that got us into the 2007 mess in the first place. We don't want to bailout anyone if we don't have to, and securing our industries is the best way to do that.

[Nierra]

No, someone like Alan S Blinder has sensible critiques of the financial sector. Also numerous entrepreneurs who have clearly voiced their opinion about what's wrong with finance. Guys like Bernie Sanders however? They're the guys who just try to regulate absolutely anything without much study and jump onto whatever the progressive bandwagon is rather then judge by the specific circumstances and impacts of each financial regulation.

Sanders would support regulation in the style of FDR after the Great Depression. Those policies served to keep us out of any financially-spurred recession for decades until we started deregulating. He actually supports very specific and detailed plans that you can look up on his record. It's simple. Prevent banks from becoming "too big to fail" via regulations and dissolutions where necessary, and strongly regulate the financial sector so that companies can't perform the toxic practices that got us into the 2007 mess in the first place. We don't want to bailout anyone if we don't have to, and securing our industries is the best way to do that.

Sounds like demagoguery to me. He supports glass steagall, hard to take his financial expertise seriously.

[Llamalandia]

O'Reilly's so-called "No-Spin Zone" ticks me off, he's one of the masters of spin.

I think the idea is that that is the part of the show were ostensibly no one is allowed to spin things. But yeah, I've found this ironic myself. I mean even there he puts a spin on stuff sometimes. He does generally try at least to police the guests or commentators from both sides. It's always easier to recognize other people's spun than your own after all.

[Lalaki]

Sanders would support regulation in the style of FDR after the Great Depression. Those policies served to keep us out of any financially-spurred recession for decades until we started deregulating. He actually supports very specific and detailed plans that you can look up on his record. It's simple. Prevent banks from becoming "too big to fail" via regulations and dissolutions where necessary, and strongly regulate the financial sector so that companies can't perform the toxic practices that got us into the 2007 mess in the first place. We don't want to bailout anyone if we don't have to, and securing our industries is the best way to do that.

Sounds like demagoguery to me. He supports glass steagall, hard to take his financial expertise seriously.

What precisely about trust-busting and strong regulations is hard for you to take seriously? If you disagree with Glass-Steagall (merely the separation of different forms of banking for security purposes), Sanders' agenda goes far beyond that.

[Nierra]

Sounds like demagoguery to me. He supports glass steagall, hard to take his financial expertise seriously.

What precisely about trust-busting and strong regulations is hard for you to take seriously? If you disagree with Glass-Steagall (merely the separation of different forms of banking for security purposes), Sanders' agenda goes far beyond that.

Strong regulations =/= sensible regulations. Listen, credit still needs to flow freely and the way you seperation risk is through incentives like a return to the partnership model not more worthless regulations that choke of credit. The problem with finance is they think they're an industry. We need to get them to lend more to real producers, rather than further choke their ability to do that and further promote what they're doing now.

Also he has a childish opinion on the fed more akin to what a drunk college roommate would say than a US congressman.

It's just so hilarious that politicians think they know more about economic policies and controls than economists.

[Cannot think of a name]

I like him, he's better than these individuals:

Al Sharpton MSNBC starlight, racist, homophobic rants:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sUjlle7ZVo

MSNBC Ed Schultz, calling a mother who has adopted multiple Russian Children and is a hard-working mom, a "slut"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YriSB0nwzgw

Chris Matthews who gets a thrill up his leg when he hears Obama speak(talk about creepy):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no9fpKVXxCc

All of these are MSNBC starlights, but you never see the left-wing idealogues hear at Nationstates gaming going after them.

You know how you've found someone indefensible? When instead of talking about that person their defenders start bringing up other people to change the subject.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Because he's a far-right, generally ignorant and bigoted, rich, white, asshole, who works for a corporation known for its blatant disregard for facts and skewing everything to their agenda and ignoring that which they can't skew?

[Nierra]

I like him, he's better than these individuals:

Al Sharpton MSNBC starlight, racist, homophobic rants:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sUjlle7ZVo

MSNBC Ed Schultz, calling a mother who has adopted multiple Russian Children and is a hard-working mom, a "slut"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YriSB0nwzgw

Chris Matthews who gets a thrill up his leg when he hears Obama speak(talk about creepy):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no9fpKVXxCc

All of these are MSNBC starlights, but you never see the left-wing idealogues hear at Nationstates gaming going after them.

You know how you've found someone indefensible? When instead of talking about that person their defenders start bringing up other people to change the subject.

Except that was one "defender", and aside from brutish tactics there are no reasonable criticisms that aren't politically fueled.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

It's not even like Bill O'Reilly is the epitome of conservatism, theres a lot more people to hate much more than Bill O'Reilly, like Sean Hannity, orr Ann Ann Coulter. Why the hate for bill though? Or Megyn Kelly for that matter.

Because they're stupid. I hate them all equally. O'Reilly just gets more news for his bullshit because he's probably mildly more famous than the others. For his bullshit.

[Lalaki]

What precisely about trust-busting and strong regulations is hard for you to take seriously? If you disagree with Glass-Steagall (merely the separation of different forms of banking for security purposes), Sanders' agenda goes far beyond that.

Strong regulations =/= sensible regulations. Listen, credit still needs to flow freely and the way you seperation risk is through incentives like a return to the partnership model not more worthless regulations that choke of credit. The problem with finance is they think they're an industry. We need to get them to lend more to real producers, rather than further choke their ability to do that and further promote what they're doing now.
...
It's just so hilarious that politicians think they know more about economic policies and controls than economists.

What Sanders proposes wouldn't choke the flow of capital as you suggest. It simply makes sure that the concentration of capital is properly spread out (preventing "too big to fail"), regulated to prevent irresponsible lending and credit flow practices (which are what caused our recent recession), and properly separated to make sure investment and commercial banking are not interconnected. By making sure that banks loan capital in a stable manner, we keep the economy in check.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Except that was one "defender", and aside from brutish tactics there are no reasonable criticisms that aren't politically fueled.

Go look at his PolitiFact file and tell me you have to be a leftist to find him intellectually dishonest/an idiot.

[Nierra]

It's not even like Bill O'Reilly is the epitome of conservatism, theres a lot more people to hate much more than Bill O'Reilly, like Sean Hannity, orr Ann Ann Coulter. Why the hate for bill though? Or Megyn Kelly for that matter.

Because they're stupid. I hate them all equally. O'Reilly just gets more news for his bullshit because he's probably mildly more famous than the others. For his bullshit.

I wonder if I was this bad 2 years ago Geez