Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Is Media Matters guilty of cheating on taxes?

Page 6 of 6 [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Previous topic | Next topic

Is Media Matters guilty of cheating on taxes?
Guilty 25%  25%  [ 2 ]
Not Guilty 75%  75%  [ 6 ]
Total votes : 8

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

06 Nov 2011, 2:52 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
If Media Matters plays hanky panky they will loose their non-profit status which will crimp their style.

ruveyn


I'm sure that Media Matters is very careful, and that their lawyers have looked over the requirements quite carefully. As long as they are not participating in political campaigns, and not lobbying excessively, and not doing anything illegal, they should be fine, no matter how many people contact the IRS through Fox News.


No, I'm just expecting the IRS won't prosecute nor will the corrupt Eric Holder.


:roll:

The IRS will prosecute, if there is evidence of a violation. So far, there is no evidence.

This would be outside the jurisdiction of the corrupt Eric Holder. Even Fox News viewers should know that.


Just like those New Black Panthers are sitting in jail from what they did back in 2008. Oh that's right they aren't because the Obama Justice Department dismissed the charges after they had been already convicted.


:roll:

The Black Panthers were not on trial in this thread. Media Matters was.


I'm pointing out the blatent track record of Obama's DoJ ignoring the law, and letting people get away with committing crimes if it benefits the Obama White House.


Either way, Media Matters has not committed any crime.


Your opinion =/= fact, the fact the most corrupt DoJ in my lifetime and the most corrupt IRS in my lifetime chooses not to enforce the law, doesn't change the fact that Media Matters is breaking the law.


The facts are the facts, and your opinion does not change the fact that Media Matters is not breaking the law. You are committing libel, sir. Libel. If we were actually speaking, it would be slander. But, since we are just typing, LIBEL IT IS!! !! !



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

06 Nov 2011, 2:56 pm

pandabear wrote:
The facts are the facts, and your opinion does not change the fact that Media Matters is not breaking the law. You are committing libel, sir. Libel. If we were actually speaking, it would be slander. But, since we are just typing, LIBEL IT IS!! !! !


pandabear, they are breaking the law, as I pointed out using some of the very things you were quoting.

Engaging in hysterical theatrics is not helping your case at all.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

06 Nov 2011, 3:18 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
The facts are the facts, and your opinion does not change the fact that Media Matters is not breaking the law. You are committing libel, sir. Libel. If we were actually speaking, it would be slander. But, since we are just typing, LIBEL IT IS!! !! !


pandabear, they are breaking the law, as I pointed out using some of the very things you were quoting.

Engaging in hysterical theatrics is not helping your case at all.


The case was closed. Media Matters was found not to be in violation of any laws. Re-read my decision.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

06 Nov 2011, 4:28 pm

pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
The facts are the facts, and your opinion does not change the fact that Media Matters is not breaking the law. You are committing libel, sir. Libel. If we were actually speaking, it would be slander. But, since we are just typing, LIBEL IT IS!! !! !


pandabear, they are breaking the law, as I pointed out using some of the very things you were quoting.

Engaging in hysterical theatrics is not helping your case at all.


The case was closed. Media Matters was found not to be in violation of any laws. Re-read my decision.


I could care less what you decide, you had your mind made up to begin with. If you think I'm not going to call you out on this farce, you're very mistaken.

1. You are not superior to me, you don't have a superior intellect, so stop with the elitist attitude, it's one of the reasons why I have absolutely no respect for you.

2. You are not a judge, you don't have the temperment, you lack any objectivity, etc. Hell you are more partisan than I am.

3. I know you are trying to goad me into flaming you, so your ploy isn't working.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

06 Nov 2011, 7:24 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
The facts are the facts, and your opinion does not change the fact that Media Matters is not breaking the law. You are committing libel, sir. Libel. If we were actually speaking, it would be slander. But, since we are just typing, LIBEL IT IS!! !! !


pandabear, they are breaking the law, as I pointed out using some of the very things you were quoting.

Engaging in hysterical theatrics is not helping your case at all.


The case was closed. Media Matters was found not to be in violation of any laws. Re-read my decision.


I could care less what you decide, you had your mind made up to begin with. If you think I'm not going to call you out on this farce, you're very mistaken.

1. You are not superior to me, you don't have a superior intellect, so stop with the elitist attitude, it's one of the reasons why I have absolutely no respect for you.

2. You are not a judge, you don't have the temperment, you lack any objectivity, etc. Hell you are more partisan than I am.

3. I know you are trying to goad me into flaming you, so your ploy isn't working.


I did not make up my mind prior to the start of the trial.

I examined the laws and accusations carefully.

You had every opportunity to present your accusations and arguments.

You still haven't identified any law that Media Matters is violating. You just keep repeating the mantra "Media Matters is breaking the law", like some freak on Fox News. Now that we have examined the laws, arguments, facts and accusations, there is no law that Media Matters is violating.

Case closed.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

06 Nov 2011, 10:14 pm

pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
The facts are the facts, and your opinion does not change the fact that Media Matters is not breaking the law. You are committing libel, sir. Libel. If we were actually speaking, it would be slander. But, since we are just typing, LIBEL IT IS!! !! !


pandabear, they are breaking the law, as I pointed out using some of the very things you were quoting.

Engaging in hysterical theatrics is not helping your case at all.


The case was closed. Media Matters was found not to be in violation of any laws. Re-read my decision.


I could care less what you decide, you had your mind made up to begin with. If you think I'm not going to call you out on this farce, you're very mistaken.

1. You are not superior to me, you don't have a superior intellect, so stop with the elitist attitude, it's one of the reasons why I have absolutely no respect for you.

2. You are not a judge, you don't have the temperment, you lack any objectivity, etc. Hell you are more partisan than I am.

3. I know you are trying to goad me into flaming you, so your ploy isn't working.


I did not make up my mind prior to the start of the trial.


Past behavior would indicate otherwise.

pandabear wrote:
I examined the laws and accusations carefully.


Explains how I used your own research against you...

pandabear wrote:
You had every opportunity to present your accusations and arguments.


I said at the very beginning of this that I wasn't going to play your little game, and I didn't, I'm not going to waste my time with this farce so you can turn around and mock me. I will call you out on things, but I have better things to do than be flame baited.

pandabear wrote:
You still haven't identified any law that Media Matters is violating. You just keep repeating the mantra "Media Matters is breaking the law", like some freak on Fox News. Now that we have examined the laws, arguments, facts and accusations, there is no law that Media Matters is violating.


I didn't have to, you managed to supply that information all on your own.

pandabear wrote:
Case closed.


No, this has only just begun.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

07 Nov 2011, 8:55 am

Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
The facts are the facts, and your opinion does not change the fact that Media Matters is not breaking the law. You are committing libel, sir. Libel. If we were actually speaking, it would be slander. But, since we are just typing, LIBEL IT IS!! !! !


pandabear, they are breaking the law, as I pointed out using some of the very things you were quoting.

Engaging in hysterical theatrics is not helping your case at all.


The case was closed. Media Matters was found not to be in violation of any laws. Re-read my decision.


I could care less what you decide, you had your mind made up to begin with. If you think I'm not going to call you out on this farce, you're very mistaken.

1. You are not superior to me, you don't have a superior intellect, so stop with the elitist attitude, it's one of the reasons why I have absolutely no respect for you.

2. You are not a judge, you don't have the temperment, you lack any objectivity, etc. Hell you are more partisan than I am.

3. I know you are trying to goad me into flaming you, so your ploy isn't working.


I did not make up my mind prior to the start of the trial.


Past behavior would indicate otherwise.

pandabear wrote:
I examined the laws and accusations carefully.


Explains how I used your own research against you...

pandabear wrote:
You had every opportunity to present your accusations and arguments.


I said at the very beginning of this that I wasn't going to play your little game, and I didn't, I'm not going to waste my time with this farce so you can turn around and mock me. I will call you out on things, but I have better things to do than be flame baited.

pandabear wrote:
You still haven't identified any law that Media Matters is violating. You just keep repeating the mantra "Media Matters is breaking the law", like some freak on Fox News. Now that we have examined the laws, arguments, facts and accusations, there is no law that Media Matters is violating.


I didn't have to, you managed to supply that information all on your own.

pandabear wrote:
Case closed.


No, this has only just begun.


:roll:

This is just getting silly.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

07 Nov 2011, 10:33 am

If I made a non-profit whose only purpose was to educate people on the evils of the Democratic party
but I did not coordinate with the G.O.P. could I be tax exempt?

I am going to call it Americans Against Jackasses or A.A.J.A.
Hypothetically


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

07 Nov 2011, 11:19 am

JakobVirgil wrote:
If I made a non-profit whose only purpose was to educate people on the evils of the Democratic party
but I did not coordinate with the G.O.P. could I be tax exempt?

I am going to call it Americans Against Jackasses or A.A.J.A.
Hypothetically


You would have to be careful about the prohibition against non-profits getting involved in elections, especially when it comes to endorsing or opposing candidates.

Probably if you limited your activities to exposing the wickedness of Democrats who are no longer serving in or seeking public office. That should be fine.

If you wanted to expose the wickedness of active Democrats, then you would have to do it in such a way that you were neither endorsing nor opposing them.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

13 Nov 2011, 7:13 pm

An interesting little article....

http://nymag.com/news/media/david-brock ... rs-2011-5/



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 122
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

05 Nov 2012, 9:28 am

http://www.wrongplanet.net/posts210955-start150.html

Inuyasha wrote:
Mediamatters...are in serious danger of losing their tax exempt status (which they should) if Romney gets elected.


Is this another one of Mr. Romney's "Day One" promises?

If President Romney changes the law, and Media Matters ends up no longer qualifying as a 401c3 tax-exempt organization, then this would certainly have repercussions that would affect other organizations.

Which part of the law does Gov. Romney propose changing?