Paul Levinson vs. Bill O'Reilly about the New York Times

[espada9]

New York Times CEO was paid $4.9 million in 2009, An analysis by The Associated Press shows that New York Times Co. CEO Janet Robinson got roughly $4.9 million in compensation in 2009.

Robinson's base salary fell 4 percent to $962,500. But she got a bonus of about $2.3 million, four times the size of her 2008 bonus

In other news The New York Times plans to eliminate 100 newsroom jobs — about 8 percent of the total work force.

[cdcook316]

That was hilarious, O'reilly calls for the reporters to prove their information, and Levinson asks him the same, and he cuts him off, pathetic.

[swamimans]

man oreilly got his ass kicked.

[JimmyeDallas]

The Passion of the Christ is more violent and anti-semitic than any movie I've ever seen. For example, at the end of the movie Mel Gibson managed to add the destruction of Herod's Temple (which happened 40 years after Jesus died) as some kind of divine punishment on the Jewish people. Any person who understands the slightest bit about religious history can see why this is extremely anti-semitic.

[kopitetommy]

Are all movies about nazi Germany anti-german because they show Germans in a bad light? maybe we should start calling for bans on those movies. Jews killed jesus, history should not be rewritten just for the sake of liberals. shall we start making Nazi movies where we put British and Irish people in roles of Nazi Guards just to be a bit more PC. you moron, and how about some movies on Israel and the British troops murdered out there by extremists. maybe not because zionists don't want it

[JimmyeDallas]

You are the moron. Biblical stories aren't at all historic. There isn't even a shred of evidence that proves that Jesus existed (other than a book that began to be written 30 years after he supposedly died). Mel Gibson is taking a historical event and relabeling it as a biblical punishment.

[Stephenmichael2244]

There is historical evidence that Jesus existed, at least as a philosopher.

[eshnajizzle]

there is very little first hand (eyewitness) evidence of that. There are some pieces of evidence, that mention his existence as heard from someone else, or related mainly with the sect of christianity and their claim to have rooted in someone named jesus.

I do believe a philosopher Jesus existed, but the evidence is actually thinner than one might think.

At least if you claim him the messiah. I'd think that news would have spread a lot faster if he actually was..

[GstateBALLER925]

oreilly has such a big ego that he always thinks people are out to get him.

[mcmashya]

even though I'm not siding with the professor, i still think bill need's to suffer a painful death, like a cow infected with foot & mouth disease.

[najmahaj]

i like how BillO hears a comment he doesnt like from levison and makes that ridiculous "pehhhhh" sound, like a big baby

[countertreason]

Give me a break, Levinson only made one good point at the end of the segment (though a good one). Stop being so hateful towards Bill O'Reilly you goddamn jerks.

[MEpianist]

"counter treason" That is the most un-American phrase I've ever heard. YOU should be ashamed of yourself.

Good Job here, Paul!

[countertreason]

Wow, intelligent point. The United States revolted against a monarchy in its foundation and treason is the defying of the monarchy. You sure are clever.

In any case, since there is no term for defying established beliefs in values in a democracy, I use the term 'treason' figuratively. As in betrayal. Therefore, yes, you can commit the type of 'treason' I worry about against the US, for example.

[MEpianist]

That's my point, treason and freedom of expression are central to the American idea, so why are you so against it, like some scumbag NeoConservative?

[countertreason]

OK idiot. Continue to believe that, say, being a committed facist or communist or anarchist is helpful to your liberal democracy. I don't care. Hippy bitches from your political wing hide behind freedom of expression all the time. Your not confusing my people or shaming us though. As long as beliefs exist which threaten our society, we will call ya out and tell you to be ashamed of yourselves. Freedom exists because good morals maintain it. Bad morals threaten it. I fight bad morals.

[MEpianist]

Some grandiose delusion! We don't actually have institutions that fight bad morals, unless you work for the FCC radio division or something. I'm the conservative, and people like you support "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and unconstitutional wars declared by the president.

Make no mistake: you would have been on the side of George III in April 1775, part of the Loyalist faction, fighting the treasonous Gen. Washington. Of course, I'm still holding out the possibility that you are an expert troll.

[countertreason]

What kind of ingrate asshole would say that their own society, the envy of the world still in 2010, has no institutions that maintain good morals. You are a fucking idiot, and I won't honor that comment by proving it wrong. You need to think about what you are saying more, clearly. Or stop being dishonest, whichever.

You have no idea who I would have supported in 1775. That is called 'conjecture'. Now I am realizing you are incapable of debate. Look some shit up.

Stop embarassing yourself.

[MEpianist]

More venom, what a shocker!

The truth is I am making debate, not a conjecture. Your ilk equates the status quo with good morality. You think treason is unhealthy, whereas I think people like you said just that in April 1775, when 1/3 of the colonial population supported the government. You don't have to "honor" this point with a repartee, but don't think I'm spewing some nonsense, I'm clearly making a point, you Loyalist douchebag, and destroying you in this debate!

[countertreason]

Conjecture: "the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof."

That I would be a loyalist is conjecture, you fucking retard. I am correct. You cannot prove that statement.

That you would even claim the USA does not institutionally instill good morals in its population reflects either deep ignorance, or dishonesty.

You are embarassing yourself. You are not 'destroying' anything but your credibility.

Go read children's books.

[MEpianist]

It's so sad to see you coming back for more intellectual defeat. You are transparent here, figure it out: You laughably claim to be the guard against those who would subvert the government, those with bad morals who "threaten our society." But I'm a conservative who knows better. I know the Constitution, unlike you, half-wit, and no maintenance of "right morality" is mandated in NO ONE SECTION. In a democracy the battle of ideas is the goal.

You are transparent, a patriot, a scoundrel.

[countertreason]

What intellectual defeat. All your groundless statements. "This is the case and that is the case, etc." You make arguments like an angry woman.

You are not intelligent. I don't come to you for intellectual anything. I reply because your mere existence amazes me; the depravity that exists in good societies.

John Adams once said, our Constitution is made only for a moral and religious people.

Just like religion, the constitution does not prescribe moral institutions. They just exist. Retard.

[MEpianist]

Oh, I like it when you appeal to pity. You come back because you believe you can back up any of the nonsense points you made about your quest to defend morality, yet fail to every time. You are proof that the human is capable of having beliefs which are comforting, yet untrue.

John Adams is a good example or a moral founding father, because he was a soundly moral man in his personal life and a fascist of a president. I can see why you look up to him, Loyalist. We are our laws, not your BS.

[countertreason]

John Adams was a founding father and your true colors as not much of an American at all are coming out.

Pity? In what way do I ask for that? What makes you think that you have stood out to me as respectable enough that I would value your pity or what not?

All you have is a series of statements. No theory, no fact. Just statements that, tho vague and debatable, are being put forward like fact.

You are an idiot. You know neither what 'facts' are, or what 'theory' is. You offer neither.

[MEpianist]

You rants are unceasing streams of shit. You have made a specific point that you work to cull seeds of immorality. I have asserted a fact that we DO NOT have such institutions in America, and that you are instead a lonely bombastic moron with fascistic delusions.  Of course, you can't back it up!

Our founding fathers were greater men that you will ever know and they would have slapped your Loyalist scumbag cheek with a white glove of a mortal duel. You root out treason? Long live the King!

[countertreason]

Your replies reflect a deep detachment from reality. You are a weak, dumb man hoping to imitate an intelligent one by clinging to cliche points about freedom of expression.

Meanwhile, you are too dumb to even acknowledge that you are accusing me of being against a debate I am currently pariticipating in.

There are idiots like you that can be cured. That is what I do. Occasionally it works. In that way I serve a function.

I know you don't feel like you won. It is far too clear that I am smarter.

[MEpianist]

No it's clear to EVERYONE that you are an imbecile. Only 1 out of your 9 unlettered sentences was relevant to this discussion, the rest was verbal masturbation. Feel better? So, tell me, in what capacity to you work to defeat "bad morals?" Do tell, or you've proven me right, in addition to much smarter than you.

[countertreason]

Hahaha, you are really upset. That is funny...

In any case, let it just be said that if you or anyone else reading this, believes that arguing for good values (in an effort to 'counterteason' as I have already said is a metaphorical notion) is facism, than they are, surely, stupid. Like you!

Others will feel compelled to explain how they also promote good values. Something that I encourage. You feel that bad values are all part of our freedoms and they are. Nevertheless I argue against them.

[MEpianist]

Upset? No, amused, but thank you for tipping your hand on your own mental state. .

It's not that I think bad morals must be promoted. I just dispute your judgment: I don't think you are qualified to enforce your morality on us, like Tim McVeigh and the filthy Falwell (now a corpse, praise Jebus)... I dispute your qualifications and sanity.

Legislating morality has tradition, from Adams' Sedition acts to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." A history of failure which you idiots haven't learned from.

[countertreason]

You are upset. Just that you are a liar who can't admit it. It doesn't make you less of a man... it makes you who you truly are, less of a man than the average man.

Quote me talking legislation, dummy. You are getting heavy into the lying now. You are realizing you are wrong. Just not consciously.

I am as qualified to argue morality as any other. That is freedom of expression. Censoring others through social boycott is not only legal, but common and necessary. I try to promote that.

[MEpianist]

Again more projection from the transparent dunce.

I'm glad you've backed down and admitted that all you will ever really every accomplish is having your private opinions and keeping them to your little circle of unfortunates. It doesn't make me happy to destroy you like this but it is necessary, because once in a while the Falwells among you get the idea that you can start forcing free-thinking citizens such as myself to fall back into line. This is my raisin d'etre here.

[countertreason]

Wow, pop psychology! YOU KNOW PROJECTION!

You are an idiot. Its raison, by the way. Parle-tu francais? Une autre langue? Non? Just English eh... Unilingual, vague understanding of pop psychology. Haha, constant associations to large American iconic figures... even constant reference to freedom...

BY GOD MAN! You are a typical ignorant American! The ones that give the good, honest Yanks a bad name!

Congrats, fag.

[MEpianist]

Haha, thought you might be upset, it's a shame you can't admit it though.

This projection of yours is becoming a problem, as well as your petty xenophobia. I know a lot of Canadians, and somehow you're the first I've come across that puts the typical Yank to shame, долбоёб сраный.

[countertreason]

"No, you are."

Good response, moron. As well, you know no one, because nobody likes you. Your eschew low self esteem and shame. You cling to your pop psychology and talk projection because you don't know much, so you can't tell me my actual faults. But as I hammer on yours you need a response, so you say, what amounts to 'no, you are.' Projection. You are a real idiot. Trying to take what I have said and turn it around on me. I hope one day you see someone employing this tactic and feel ashamed.

[MEpianist]

I'm seeing someone employ that tactic right now.

Again more verbal masturbation from the homophobe faction. I dismantled every one of your positions and delusions, and now you're left with unhinged projection.

Like I said, as long as you keep your silly opinions to your unfortunate surroundings, we have no problem. Just don't think your morals mean shit to the silent majority to honest working people.

[countertreason]

OK, OK, I see. You have given up. Nothing you say even makes sense now, it sound like rap.

"Mothafucka, I dismantled every one of your positions and delusions, and now you're left with unhinged projection, sucka."

You are so stupid, its embarassing.

[MEpianist]

I gave up beating your gory pulp of an argument when you admitted all you had in mind was "social boycott." Well, we all counter treason in some way, but I suppose if that is your choice I have no problem. Since then I've just been enjoying your company. Upsetting people make me feel better about my own shallow self-image.

I suppose you have a problem with "street" music too. You're a catch.

[MADDKNOCKER]

this guy made bill look as stupid and insecure as he really is.

[kalindoscopy]

Levinson got talked over

[tangofdoom]

good god is o'reilly awful or what. he never defends his stances on anything, he just repeats his opinion over and over and louder and louder. on the off chance that he does use a quote, it's almost always taken out of context. he seems to forget what kind of show he puts on when he tries to criticize other forms of media.

[ginerlynn]

Total hypocrite...agree Neeson.

[neeson16]

Bill's a hypocrite. It's okay to put out this movie and not be branded an anti-semite, but it's not okay to put out the 9/11 conspiracy movie without being branded un-american.

[Suz45]

Poor Billy having his own little pity party because he finally got a taste of his own medicine. Boo-hoo.

[wizarddragon]

How can the kings of misleading talk about others who do the same

[sencorp]

Paul Levinson doesn't give billo an inch

[therealjohnbob]

Levison's the one being interviewed here and O'Reilly asks him questions then interupts the answers before levison can explain his point. He acts unproffesionaly - mocks levison, and the question involving the students was completely off topic. Typical Fox journalism.