• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Media Matters boss paid former partner $850G 'blackmail' settlement

roughdraft274 said:
And?

George Bush gave a speech for the Heritage Foundation during his presidency. I didn't see any of you squawking back then. If ya'll want to change the status of all of these non-profit companies, I'd be fine with it, but you all look silly by pretending that what MediaMatters does is illegal or different from the norm.
Click to expand...

Remember when the Heritage Foundation worked hand-in-hand with Republicans to draft an alternative to Hillarycare ... that went on to become Obamacare?
 
roughdraft274 said:
And?

George Bush gave a speech for the Heritage Foundation during his presidency. I didn't see any of you squawking back then. If ya'll want to change the status of all of these non-profit companies, I'd be fine with it, but you all look silly by pretending that what MediaMatters does is illegal or different from the norm.
Click to expand...


No, no, no....Giving a speech, and having weekly meetings, writing script, and colluding on behalf of the WH are two totally different things.

j-mac
 
roughdraft274 said:
You can't begin to understand the hilarity of you calling other people "easily duped" and then sourcing the Daily Caller.
Click to expand...

Something wrong with the Daily Caller? Or is it that you just don't like it because it isn't a liberal hack outlet like MSNBC?

j-mac
 
AdamT said:
Remember when the Heritage Foundation worked hand-in-hand with Republicans to draft an alternative to Hillarycare ... that went on to become Obamacare?
Click to expand...

Proof? endorsing, and working on are two different things.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Something wrong with the Daily Caller? Or is it that you just don't like it because it isn't a liberal hack outlet like MSNBC?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't trust biased sources purely based on whether they agree with me like you do. I don't watch MSNBC (I switched cable companies a year ago and for the life of me I couldn't tell you the number for MSNBC), and likewise, I don't go about reading the B.S. from the Daily Caller.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Sorry, I don't trust biased sources purely based on whether they agree with me like you do. I don't watch MSNBC (I switched cable companies a year ago and for the life of me I couldn't tell you the number for MSNBC), and likewise, I don't go about reading the B.S. from the Daily Caller.
Click to expand...


Ok, why is the Daily Caller BS?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Ok, why is the Daily Caller BS?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Its a website that has repeatedly lied in the past to favor a political agenda.

To save you the trouble, I have read that article from the daily caller, it's a bunch of accusations from anonymous sources and even if it were all true, would not go against media matters tax exempt status. You have been duped.
 
AdamT said:
No, clearly that is not my position. As stated several times, what Media Matters does is fact check the conservative media.
Click to expand...

Then if they only check conservative media they are clearly biased and should not receive tax exempt status.

The should also change their name to Democratic Party Media Matters.

T
 
roughdraft274 said:
And?

George Bush gave a speech for the Heritage Foundation during his presidency. I didn't see any of you squawking back then. If ya'll want to change the status of all of these non-profit companies, I'd be fine with it, but you all look silly by pretending that what MediaMatters does is illegal or different from the norm.
Click to expand...

You obviously refused to read the article and this willful ignorance is rapidly leading toward America's downfall.
 
AdamT said:
Apparently you've never actually visited the site? But Rush Limbaugh says it's bad, so it MUST be completely without merit. :lol:
Click to expand...

Riiiggghhhtt.. Well, what I've come to learn from being a member here is that anyone, and I mean ANYONE that sources MM hs officially outed themselves in my book as both a complete and utter moron, and two, a partisan hack not worth the time to scratch your balls..


Tim-
 
roughdraft274 said:
Its a website that has repeatedly lied in the past to favor a political agenda.
Click to expand...

Whenever I have said the same of liberal left sites, I have been told in here to document the lies specifically. But yet, you think you get to just type this and get away with it? No, document what you think they are lying about.

To save you the trouble, I have read that article from the daily caller, it's a bunch of accusations from anonymous sources and even if it were all true, would not go against media matters tax exempt status.
Click to expand...


What the....? This is the MSM main method of writing stories these days. Carlson claims the sources are inside MMFA so it makes sense that they would want their names withheld. But, I find it ironic that those on the left who consistantly took the word of shill outlets like WaPo, NYTimes, ACJ, MSNBC, Politico, HuffPost...etc. have the absolute nerve to come back and say 'well, you can't believe an article that gores my ox if it uses anonymus sourcing, that only is credible when talking of hit pieces against your guys'....It is laughable.

You have been duped.
Click to expand...

Liberalism 101 is to call your opponent stupid enough to be 'duped'....It accomplishes nothing more than to make your argument look weak. But I suppose in the bitterly divided partisan soup that is today's politics thanks to Obama, it is possible that we all see things we want to see from time to time, but this isn't a new claim of hackery by MMFA. The troubling thing you should be asking yourself is their close ties to major news outlets, and the white house at the highest levels. Propaganda is the bastion of the despot, and knows no ideology.

j-mac
 
Hicup said:
Riiiggghhhtt.. Well, what I've come to learn from being a member here is that anyone, and I mean ANYONE that sources MM hs officially outed themselves in my book as both a complete and utter moron, and two, a partisan hack not worth the time to scratch your balls..


Tim-
Click to expand...

... he said, outing himself as a frivolous fellow who judges others entirely on the basis of ad hominem.
 
AdamT said:
... he said, outing himself as a frivolous fellow who judges others entirely on the basis of ad hominem.
Click to expand...

Adam, you're a smart guy...In all seriousness, do you think that MM tells the unvarnished truth in their reports?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Adam, you're a smart guy...In all seriousness, do you think that MM tells the unvarnished truth in their reports?


j-mac
Click to expand...

I think they clearly have a partisan agenda, just like Heritage and all the other partisan nonprofits. I think they serve a role in fact checking hyperpartisan right wing media sources. More often than not, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
 
AdamT said:
I think they clearly have a partisan agenda, just like Heritage and all the other partisan nonprofits. I think they serve a role in fact checking hyperpartisan right wing media sources. More often than not, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Click to expand...


Would you grant the same leeway to Brent Bozell? or Breitbart, or NewsMax?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Would you grant the same leeway to Brent Bozell? or Breitbart, or NewsMax?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Yes, I think they're all of a part. They all have a place. The problem is that people tend to focus exclusively on the sites that represent their particular leaning to the exclusion of all others. That just feeds existing biases and leads to an ever widening partisan divide.
 
AdamT said:
Yes, I think they're all of a part. They all have a place. The problem is that people tend to focus exclusively on the sites that represent their particular leaning to the exclusion of all others. That just feeds existing biases and leads to an ever widening partisan divide.
Click to expand...

I listen to, watch, and source a wide variety of differing opinion but I have my own beliefs, and still get accused by many in here, including you of what you are describing.


j-mac
 
Deuce said:
Sounds like a personal conflict. I don't see how it's relevant to these links you're talking about. [...]
Click to expand...
Well, it's what the right does -- since they can rarely contest the facts brought by the messenger, they attack the messenger personally. Of course, anyone of any intelligence knows that does not refute the facts, but the right simply doesn't seem to care (since they use the same tactic over and over and over again).

In fact, it is also what the right's media often does --- according to Fox, who has been after Media Matters for some time, Brock is a weirdo, Van Jones is a communist, ACORN is a child prostitutionist, Shirley Sherrod is a racist, Anita Dunn is a commie lover, Kevin Jennings is a pedophile, and Obama is -- well, the list for him is too long to list here. Suffice to say, none of these personal attacks have nothing to do with the particular person's public actions, deeds, or accomplishments, and everything to do with trying to smear them personally.

And that's a really repugnant way to try and push one's agenda.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Would you grant the same leeway to Brent Bozell? or Breitbart, or NewsMax?
Click to expand...
Speaking for myself, given that the majority of those listed are proven liars, no.
 
j-mac said:
Adam, you're a smart guy...In all seriousness, do you think that MM tells the unvarnished truth in their reports?
Click to expand...
Oh my, AdamT, you sure let yourself get suckered in by that one ;)

j-mac, if you want to have an independent panel investigate, fact check, and assign 'truth ratings' to all media, then have it and be sure to post the results. I think we all know who will be near the top (it won't be Fox) and who will be languishing near the bottom (it won't be MM).
 
j-mac said:
Whenever I have said the same of liberal left sites, I have been told in here to document the lies specifically. But yet, you think you get to just type this and get away with it? No, document what you think they are lying about.
Click to expand...
Just what I saw them do with the "journolist" crap is plenty of reason for me to ask for a better source from them that someone who wishes to remain anonymous.



j-mac said:
What the....? This is the MSM main method of writing stories these days. Carlson claims the sources are inside MMFA so it makes sense that they would want their names withheld. But, I find it ironic that those on the left who consistantly took the word of shill outlets like WaPo, NYTimes, ACJ, MSNBC, Politico, HuffPost...etc. have the absolute nerve to come back and say 'well, you can't believe an article that gores my ox if it uses anonymus sourcing, that only is credible when talking of hit pieces against your guys'....It is laughable.
Click to expand...
I don't really care. If a main stream source uses anonymous sources, I'd still be skeptical. If it's a hackish rag like Daily Caller, I take it about as serious as I'd take it if I had seen it written on a bathroom stall.


j-mac said:
Liberalism 101 is to call your opponent stupid enough to be 'duped'....It accomplishes nothing more than to make your argument look weak. But I suppose in the bitterly divided partisan soup that is today's politics thanks to Obama
Click to expand...


j-mac said:
What they have done is collude with the WH, and MSNBC to shape opinion of the easily duped.
Click to expand...

Jesus, you're just not worth my time. You wouldn't understand anything I try to tell you anyways.
 
AdamT said:
Yes, I think they're all of a part. They all have a place. The problem is that people tend to focus exclusively on the sites that represent their particular leaning to the exclusion of all others. That just feeds existing biases and leads to an ever widening partisan divide.
Click to expand...

So should Brent Bozell, Breitbart and NewsMax, like Media matters, have tax exempt status?
 
Grant said:
So should Brent Bozell, Breitbart and NewsMax, like Media matters, have tax exempt status?
Click to expand...

Presumably they are for-profit operations, so clearly they should not be tax exempt. They also take direct stands on political issues, unlike Media Matters, which only critiques other media outfits.
 
AdamT said:
Presumably they are for-profit operations, so clearly they should not be tax exempt. They also take direct stands on political issues, unlike Media Matters, which only critiques other media outfits.
Click to expand...

You mean they only critique Conservative or Republican media outlets, don't you?

And if those mentioned can make a profit, why can't Media Matters? Their staff appears to be paid quite well in fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom