Why does MRC Refuse to Debate Media Matters For America?
- Login to post comments
Why won't the MRC debate Media Matters?
I wrote about this before. Now that Van Jones has challenged Glenn Beck to a debate, the question has come back to me.
Will they debate? Should they? If so why or why not?
didn't you? That's a laugh. You can't even debate me here in this forum.
Here is yet another explanation why Media Matters deserves no credibility. These tax cheats belong in the slammer as do Charlie Rangel and Tim Geithner.
What you just said is insanely ignorant.
Rangel and Geithner did not pay taxes they were required top pay. Therefore they broke the law.
Media Matters is legally tax exempt under 501(c)(3) as a no profit organization. As is...... Oh your gonna hate this....... the Media Research Center.
Really, this is as stupid as freaking out that Obama has appointed "czars"
Media Matters is a highly partisan left wing organization. That DISQUALIFIES it as a 501(c)(3). My link explains clearly what they are doing that violates the terms of their 501c3 incorporation. Rangel and Geithner also violated the tax codes, something they share in common with Media Matters.
Refute the link or concede. Explain to us all how MMFA conforms to the 501C3 tax classification. I've shown you why we think they do not.
Anyway you might want to read the IRS code 501(c)(3)
Also geithner and rangel are not non profit organizations
"Media Matters is a highly partisan left wing organization" Is that it? You'd be laughed out of an irs buliding if you tried to file a case.
The Heratige Foundation, Cato, American Enterprise Institute and yes the Medai Research Center are all 501(c)(3) organizations like MMFA. So what is the difference between them and MMFA under the code ?
THIS LINK. Note that this link was in the thread above. YOU apparently ignored it.
"MMA’s role as a Democratic training camp parallels exactly the operations of the American Campaign Academy (ACA), which was denied tax-exempt status by the IRS in 1989. ACA operated a school of intensive training for people planning to be campaign professionals..."
"The U.S. Tax Court held that an organization cannot be classified as a tax-exempt educational entity where it operated a school to train individuals for careers as political campaign professionals, because of the private benefit accruing to those who employ them after graduation"
Again from the Washington Times :
"attacks on individuals, statement of positions that are unsupported by facts and use of inflammatory language and other distortions will cost an organization its tax-free status"
It is forbidden for a 501(c)(3) to engage in such activity when the persons and organizations it attacks are political.
"“Political campaign intervention includes any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office,” said Crom, who speaks to non-profit organizations on a regular basis about tax-compliance issues. “The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.”"
If I am not mistaken, only the IRS has the standing to take action in this matter. Private citizens have no standing in this matter.
The Cato and Heritage Institutes are not engaged in political activity anymore than the Rand Corporation is. This is just another red herring.
Thought you were referring to a link you forgot to link to in your post. But it was the last link from the last post. Sorry about that.
Anyway MMFA does not do training programs for political campaigning any more than Newsbusters owned by the MRC. I noticed you left MRC out of the last 2 sentences. Is that your red herring?
Tell me what's the difference between MRC- educating the public and media on bias in the media and MMFA - comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media? Gray and you are overbrodening 501(c)(3), again this is why you'd be laughed out of an irs court.
I'm looking forword to seeing the lawsuits that will never go through.
And we also have noted the IRS rulings prohibiting 501(c)(3) organizations from attacking and defaming private individuals and entities. Gray talks about this in his article. You have blithely ignored that point. MMFA is engaged in a defamation campaign against Fox News. to wit :
"Media Matters CEO Discusses Training Program to Combat Fox News"
"Media Matters CEO and President Matt Butler answered your questions about the organization's program that trains progressive leaders to be talking heads in an effort to combat Fox News"
Notice that MMFA isn't 'combating conservative bias wherever it is found'. It is instead targeting Fox News specifically. THIS is what is prohibited. Notice too, that MRC is dedicated to 'exposing and combating liberal media bias' .
In the ACA case, the objection to ACA's 501(c)(3) status was based on unfair value provided to the partisan political trainees ACA trained. Had the ACA been training political operatives for a broad range of political organizations instead of just Republicans, they might have retained 501 (c)(3) status.
You are in so deep you don't have a clue.
Keep paddling. I'm sure NL will swoop in and give you a life preserver.
Oh sorry...Microwave just beeped. Be back later.
You'll probably be receiving a STFU memo from Bozell any day now.
Jer
I'm not the hirsute guy here. I seriously doubt Bozell is worried about MRC's 501(c)(3) status, especially since the link I presented has been featured in the Editor's picks on NB's home page. i.e., The NB staff called attention to this all on their own.
So, Jer, you planning to start carrying water for MMFA now or are you going to let this Jon fellow here do that?
MMFA gave their statements on the Fox News Story. MRC has even responded to the hypocrisy with their own organization's tax exempt status.
...and twists themselves into a pretzel trying to convince us that they aren't what we here know them to be?
This one seems to have zeroed in on Glenn Beck and Alex Jones, who are two of the more vocal people out there who routinely do a pretty good job of kicking commies right in the sack.
I'm not exactly an Alex Jones fan, as he is pretty far out there for me, but he usually gets it right when it comes to the commies among us.
As does Beck.
You want a debate about communism, comrade?
Fine.
Communism is the most destructive, dignity-robbing, and freedom-destroying totalitarian form of government yet conceived by man.
In the last century, this hideous, authoritarian idealogy was directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of between 100 and 200 million people, depending on whose numbers you believe.
Since its inception, it has left nothing but a wide swath of death, pain, destruction, and misery everywhere it has ever been, and it has never worked anywhere it has been imposed.
Communism was not designed to help the average person, but instead as a way to put a small number of "elites" in ultimate power and keep them there, making the bulk of the population little more than slaves to the government.
It was, and will always be, nothing more a two-tiered totalitarian society that forces the many to support the very few.
In a word, communism sucks, and communists are stupid suckers.
Debate over.
Now take your BS communist propaganda somewhere else, as I did not attend government school (which means I know what communism actually is), I do not get my news from television, and I have propably read more about communism by accident than you would read on purpose in three lifetimes, which means I have probably forgotten more about it than yoiu will ever know.
BTW: Van Jones is commie to the bone.
-Dave
Not once have I defended Communism in anyway shape or form. And i agree with everything you said about the atrocities of Communism.
Dude, there aren't only 2 side to align yourself with. This is how Communists got recruitment. The regime preached that there was only Communism or Capitalism (Aligning it with Fascism). Same thing with the Fascists except they were anti-Communist.
Your being suckered into soft fascism.
And what i mean by that is you believe these news media outlets and "think tanks" that are openly funded or owned by large corporations. That have an business interest in what they want to be the public opinion to be. I'm not saying to not trust any corporately funded news or think tank. Because not all corporations are bad. I'm saying watch and listen with a critical eye.
Examples of how your being suckered.
- Death Panels
- Net Neutrality
- War Propaganda
- Tax Cuts
- Who's income tax is the Fox News wing of the Tea Party protesting?
It’s was either Obama or McCain America.
Joe the Plumber chose the one he'd actually burden from. Either out of racism or ignorance.
I'd say it was ignorance.
I'm more than happy to oblige.
"Net Neutrality" is an attempt by the FCC to regulate information access on the Internet. This activity by the FCC is completely outside its scope. The Courts have told the FCC it lacks the authority to regulate the Internet. The Congress has directed the FCC not to regulate the internet, in the past under the Democrats, and most recently here. Yet, in a jaw-dropping display of lawlessness and tyranny, the FCC has forged ahead in its attempts to impose its will on private parties and property. The Internet is NOT public property nor is it making exclusive use of public airwaves as do commercial broadcasters.
The most disgusting aspect of this push is the left, who entirely endorse this action, cloaking it with claims of open access and free use for all. In point of fact, these numerous proponents of Net Neutrality have no idea what the new FCC regulations say or are trying to do, because these regulations have not yet been published. No one has actually SEEN what the FCC has done yet, so all of their claims as to its goals and effects are pure speculation and wishful thinking.
Conservatives look to history to discern the truth. Once the Government has established its authority over the medium, it will also begin to dictate how and for what the medium is to be used and to whom and for what price it will be available, as it has with the public airwaves, power, natural gas and telephone services. The point of this FCC exercise is to establish government authority over one of the most powerful communications mediums on the planet.
You also tell us we are being suckered. Conservatives are opposed entirely to the FCC regulating the Internet as if it were broadcast airwaves. It is not. It is private property. Given what the FCC has done in the past, such as the Fairness Doctrine, it is not hard to understand why Conservatives see this as tyranny. There can be no expectation that the government will be anymore enlightened about this than anything else it has done in the past.
are right of center.
The distinction between fascists and socialists is merely the manner in which the state central planners control the means of production. In the former case fascists coerce private owners to do their bidding. In the latter, the state owns the means directly. Both are left. Both are abject failures.
Tell me about the IPAB contained in Obamacare. What are its powers? What are the limitations on its powers? Who elects these people? What avenue of appeal does anyone have who would benefit from a course of treatment they have rejected?
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says the advisory board "shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums." Also, the board isn't made up of Washington bureaucrats. The 15 voting members will be appointed by the president in consultation with congressional leaders; they must include doctors and other health care professionals, economists and health care finance experts, and representatives of consumers and seniors, as the American Medical Association explains. There will also be three non-voting members: the Health and Human Services secretary, and the administrators of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Health Resources and Services Administration.
Come on, snap out of it man.
"A Project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center". That is, the same Annenberg as in "Chicago Annenberg Challenge". These are partisan Obama hacks.
There is no requirement whatsoever in the law as to the exact composition of the IPAB, so why do you pretend there is? Or are you so weak minded as to believe the propaganda Obama and his stooges are disseminating about this?
Get with the program. The President may appoint up to 15 members to this board with the advice and consent of the SENATE. You can drop the 'congressional leaders' pretense. That is a pant load. The House will have zero input to who is on that board.
The President may appoint anyone he wishes to this post including Washington Bureaucrats. Ergo, it is complete BS to suggest this board will not contain such people. It will, and Obama would like two of them to be Donald Berwick and Ezekiel Emmanuel. Fortunately, the Senate is likely to reject these Mengele wannabes.
You've not included one iota about what the actual powers of this panel are. Why? Ignorance? More likely duplicity with your kind. A Myth? The power of this body is no myth.
George Will had this to say about IPAB : emphasis mine.
"The point of PPACA is cost containment. This supposedly depends on the Independent Payment Advisory Board. The IPAB, which is a perfect expression of the progressive mind, is to be composed of 15 presidential appointees empowered to reduce Medicare spending — which is 13 percent of federal spending — to certain stipulated targets. IPAB is to do this by making “proposals” or “recommendations” to limit costs by limiting reimbursements to doctors. This, inevitably, will limit available treatments — and access to care when physicians leave the Medicare system.
The PPACA repeatedly refers to any IPAB proposal as a “legislative proposal” and speaks of “the legislation introduced” by the IPAB. Each proposal automatically becomes law unless Congress passes — with a three-fifths supermajority required in the Senate — a measure cutting medical spending as much as the IPAB proposal would. "
This is the actual text of the bill George Will refers to. The IPAB will exercise dictatorial power over Medicare reimbursements for any medical procedure. This power extends to effectively prohibiting certain procedures for whole classes of patients by fixing the reimbursement rate at zero or some other arbitrarily low value. In circumstances where patients denied such care die prematurely as a result of these dictates, this is your death panel.
And you defend this monster.
How is factcheck.org bias? They've been accused of that from the Left too on Paul Ryan's budget. Geez what partisan hacks. lol
Where did "death panels" originate? From a Republican proposed idea that Democrats accepted.
Funny you never here right wing media call out the "monster" who wrote this fascist communist Nazi socialist provision.
If the guy who wrote the provision is a Republican and calls interpreting that as death panels as "nuts" and you still believe there are death panels, how do I ever talk to you people.
Sen. Isakson did not author section 3403 of PPACA, which establishes the IPAB. Nor did he vote for the bill (HR 3590), either cloture motion or the final floor vote. Your claim is a naked falsehood.
IPAB is the portion of this law we are discussing and it is what Sarah Palin was talking about when she said Obamacare contains death panels : the power to decide what treatments will be available to which patients. This link you've made is about (a) the unconsolidated house version of the bill, HR 3200, which is NOT the bill passed and signed into law. The bill which became PPACA is HR 3590. Try getting the right law. (b) and references a section of the legislation not relevant to the IPAB at all but rather a different and also controversial section of the law about living wills which was included in HR 3590 as well. Were I discussing this provision, I'd lookup those sections of both bills and compare them to see if 3590 differs from 3200 with regard to living wills. I suspect it does.
--> You don't even know what you are talking about.
If you want to talk to us you should try telling the truth. Another thing you need to do is get the facts. This pablum you've been spoon fed over at Media Matters is getting your arguments destroyed here.
The IPAB is a monster. So too is the entire PPACA. You can't defend them because you don't even know what they are.
We are getting of topic
If you want to continue the conversation
send me private messages or start a forum about this
You were the one who brought up 'death panels'. Look at your post earlier on this thread when I first joined the debate. You suggested we were all deceived about this topic, in fact, you used the term 'sucker'. If you do not want to discuss a topic, then maybe you should not mention that topic in your posts.
I'll take this as silent concession of my point : PPACA DOES INDEED create at least one de facto 'Death Panel', the IPAB and Sarah Palin was right on the money about this. Looks like we were not the suckers, doesn't it?
If death panels are as you portray it in right wing land. Where are the lawsuits to repeal this Nazi policy? I mean if there are lawsuits just to repeal the mandate (which I'm actually in support of repeal) you'd think there would be more effort to repeal something more unconstitutional.
What's it gonna it take to get through to you that there were never any death panels?
even for someone as obtuse as you. If the individual mandate is declared unconstitutional, because of the way the law was written, the whole thing falls. The entire law is therefore, unconstitutional. It's not "severable" from the rest of the law, so, the entire law is invalid.
And, really, MediaMatters? You can't do any better than that?
I'm only hearing them address the mandate. Isn't what's imaginary more important to file than a mandate?
Media Matters? Yes did you here what dick said? Stop going for political suicide
Also most embarrassed to have to explain to you, that the mandate kills the whole bill, the death panels only a piece.
Just as equally embarrassing, is having to explain to you, that once the Fed runs it, there will be shortages of everything,, oh, and cost more.
edited before anyone saw it.
Jer
Oops...meant to post this further down the thread.
there is indeed a death panel, it has a name, Independent Payment Advisory Board, and that it was established by section 3403 of HR 3590 titled PPACA. You are living proof that denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
Save your Media Matters tripe. I do not waste my time with criminal propaganda organizations. They claim to be a 501(c)(3) tax exempt public service organization, yet they are quite clearly a partisan political advocacy group and therefore not eligible for tax exempt treatment under the IRS code. The IRS needs to raid them, shut them down, and jail their leaders for tax fraud.
LOL
I would like to know why people I haven't voted for have a say in my health care. At least with insurance companies I can move if I'm unhappy, or opt to pay for it myself. Why should un-elected officials have so much power? Who will they answer to?
When the fed sets price quotas for industry, in this case DR's and Big Pharm. What is ALWAYS the end result?
Clue, the DR's will go where they can justify there lengthy education, meaning there will be less DR's servicing the "Public" sector. And Big Pharm will quit making what they cant make a profit on.
There by, you will have rationing by default. Look it up in any socialist country, the end result is always the same. That is why you libtards are dubbed the dumbest of the dumb. You guys have no use for prudence!
The only folks getting adequate medical attention will be the folks who can PAY for it. The Privet Hospitals will no longer be required to serve your parasite a$$ any longer. They will simply refer you to the closest Gov run clinic. Oh, and give up that theory that all DR's owe you their labor, give up that notion all Pharm owe's you that pill, and dam sure give up that dream that the rest of us will be following suit. Good luck
That Jones (as shawn said) is a truther?
That study after study is showing "green" -at least as applicable by way of EPA regulation will A) result in a net job loss and B) result in increased energy costs?
That AGW is junk science?
And exactly what was the smear the Beck put forth that Jones couldn't fight off, ultimately resigning from his post within the administration? Shouldn't Jones have remained steadfast in his beliefs and been able to withstand the challenges of a rodeo clown? Were Jones so righteous, his vision would be bolstering a quick and measurable economic boon and he'd have been promoted into Obama's inner circle rather than slinking away via Friday night news dump.
Further, why would MRC debate Media Matters? They both have websites and their positions are posted for all to see?
Debate, debate, debate. How about a topic, then the debate?
[Edit] I believe you indicated that Beck hasn't responded to the Van Jones challenge; I direct you here.
Van Jones is not a truther.
Glenn Beck fully endorses the John Birch Society's beliefs.
Even before Obama
Why would MRC debate Media Matters? Because the topic might be something like this. And MRC can't have that.
MRC wouldn't appear at the presence of MMFA
If Palin debated Biden and never debated anyone again, I'm sure Beck can.
To him, democracy and civility bring communism.
What's the difference between debating the chairman of the CPUSA and debating Van Jones?
Other then Jones not being a communist.
MMFA links? Really? Just answer the questions.
If Van Jones is your hero,then why dont you go spread the propaganda else-where? Your links are garbage and the ones that are not are irrelevant. As far as I can tell, your just another commie troll playing hemorrhoid
-Dave
I do not know the whole story and cannot speak for Mr Beck or Mr Bozell, but let me ask you do you believe Mr Van Jones should have resigned or was he unfairly treated?
Edit
Also ur bringing up old news from 2009. This man is almost as irrelevant as Cindy Sheehan.
Jones was just one of many Beck and Fox's "Czar" witch hunts, who aren't actually czars
(just a nickname the press has been using since Nixon for awkwardly long job titles)
So yes, he was unfairly treated.
Old news?
The guy who Beck smeared has just challenged him now. Beck could have him on one of his last shows. He did it with the CPUSA chairman, an actual communist.
Can he do it with Jones who's NOT a communist?
Didn't he believe the US might have been behind 911?
All the more reason for Beck to have him on his show
It's something he denies being, so Beck can try to press him on that. Or at least acknowledge Jones challenged him.
and a waste of Becks time. People actually listen to Glen Beck and Mr Bozell. Van Jones is old news.
People actually listen to Beck?
Why is he so hated then?
By people you must mean the cult following. David Koresh had people who listened to him.
Alex Jones has a cult following, that doesn't mean he's most trusted. He gets listed by the Drudge Report btw and his website as a news source.
He easily had more ratings than anyone on CNN or MSNBC. Never heard of Alex Jones. Does he have as good ratings as Beck did?
Can he get as many people to turn up at the National Mall like Glen beck did?
By some people you mean the majority? Read the poll
Alex Jones is Glenn Beck on Steroids.
He is a 911 truther, birther and John Bircher
Ratings don't mean anything except for business purposes trying to reach a sizable and particular audience. Beck uses scare tactic infomercials and so does Alex Jones, those advertisers don't think it's bad for their business to advertise on their shows. Their only trying to target the conspiracy nuts who believe them.
Like the RNC paying the birther website WorldNetDaily for their email list. They are obviously targeting those into right wing conspiratorial thinking. That makes sense giving the birther majority among Republicans, it's great for political gain.
Alex Jones' website gets more web traffic and Beck and Limbaugh. But he's a short wave radio host. He could probably rally a truther protest of 70,000 like beck if he was on corporately funded radio like Beck is. Good thing he's not. It was bad enough under Rosie O'Donnell.
Stop being such a sucker.
I'm not a sucker. Look at Liberal talk radio, Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy and Ed Shultz . Their ratings were terrible and Air America went kaput. There is no conspiracy. They could not get the audience because not enough people liked their product.
People like Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and Mark Levin do not have that problem. It is pretty obvious the Presidents policies have failed because he is running on the platform on his record because his record sucks. His only strategy is to point fingers at republicans and tell follks how evil they are.
All the people I mentioned above might have a right wing point of view, but they are much less bias than most of the msm.
I don't know what you mean when you say "there's no conspiracy" The people you listed are still on the radio. Why has Beck lost so many advertisers?
Conservative Radio is declining
Which of Obama's policies have failed? I'll admit to the ones that have. You just name couple.
Much less bias? Not when it comes to facts.
If Alex Jones was on so many stations he'd probably rank the same as Michael Savage. Someone so vulgar that conservatives want to pretend isn't even on the radio.
Couldn't the RNC spend their money elsewhere other than the conspiracy birther website WorldNetDaily for their email list.
Is that what there running their party from? A mental asylum?
What's next, the White Supremacist website StormFront? Bringing back the Southern Strategy?
- Login to post comments
OMO!
The newest "not-troll" is being schooled.
I don't know how I missed this thread until now, but it was worth the wait. All that NL whoop-ass unleashed in one little thread.
Hey, "Non-troll"...maybe you should suggest your pal Van debate NL207. Because NL isn't a nationally known media pundit. So Van might actually step up to the plate (I doubt it). NL'd hand your man his head on a platter, in three minutes, but hey, I'd pay to see it.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)