<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fact Check: Media Matters Wrong on Card Check Facts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/19/fact-check-media-matters-wrong-on-card-check/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/19/fact-check-media-matters-wrong-on-card-check/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:54:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Medai Matters lies, always has, always will</title>
		<link>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/19/fact-check-media-matters-wrong-on-card-check/#comment-246601</link>
		<dc:creator>Medai Matters lies, always has, always will</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2010 19:27:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foundry.org/?p=7028#comment-246601</guid>
		<description>[...] always has, always will     I smell another snitty fit oming on from someplace around here... lol  Fact Check: Media Matters Wrong on Card Check Facts &#124; The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.            Originally Posted by pbrauer  But it wasn&#039;t shown on teevee.    Link to what was not [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] always has, always will     I smell another snitty fit oming on from someplace around here&#8230; lol  Fact Check: Media Matters Wrong on Card Check Facts | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.            Originally Posted by pbrauer  But it wasn&#039;t shown on teevee.    Link to what was not [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Snertly</title>
		<link>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/19/fact-check-media-matters-wrong-on-card-check/#comment-65677</link>
		<dc:creator>Snertly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:20:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foundry.org/?p=7028#comment-65677</guid>
		<description>So does the Heritage Foundation as a whole have a problem with reading comprehension, or do you just expect your readers to have a problem with reading comprehension? 
 
&quot;Media Matters claims that &#8220;Arbitration is not mandatory if both parties are negotiating in good faith.&#8221; But that is not true. Read the bill. It allows unions to call in government arbitrators to write the contract at any time 90 days after negotiations start &#8211; irrespective of whether or not the employer bargains in good faith.&quot; 
 
Looks like you have a problem with either &quot;mandatory&quot; or &quot;both&quot;.  From sentence four:  &quot;It allows unions to call in government arbitrators&quot; emphasizes the concept of not mandatory because of &quot;it /allows/&quot; i.e. it does not require.  For something to be mandatory, it has to be required. 
 
Further, if one side of a dispute thinks it necessary to call in arbitration, the obviously both parties are /not/ negotiating in good faith. 
 
Does your heritage not include proficiency in the language? </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So does the Heritage Foundation as a whole have a problem with reading comprehension, or do you just expect your readers to have a problem with reading comprehension?</p>
<p>&quot;Media Matters claims that &ldquo;Arbitration is not mandatory if both parties are negotiating in good faith.&rdquo; But that is not true. Read the bill. It allows unions to call in government arbitrators to write the contract at any time 90 days after negotiations start &ndash; irrespective of whether or not the employer bargains in good faith.&quot;</p>
<p>Looks like you have a problem with either &quot;mandatory&quot; or &quot;both&quot;.  From sentence four:  &quot;It allows unions to call in government arbitrators&quot; emphasizes the concept of not mandatory because of &quot;it /allows/&quot; i.e. it does not require.  For something to be mandatory, it has to be required.</p>
<p>Further, if one side of a dispute thinks it necessary to call in arbitration, the obviously both parties are /not/ negotiating in good faith.</p>
<p>Does your heritage not include proficiency in the language?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brendan M.</title>
		<link>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/19/fact-check-media-matters-wrong-on-card-check/#comment-35239</link>
		<dc:creator>Brendan M.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 10:29:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foundry.org/?p=7028#comment-35239</guid>
		<description>Interesting that Media Matters has numerous citations and excerpts of the bill to back up their arguments and Heritage has practically nothing to back up their claims, many of which are demonstratively false.  And by interesting, I mean typical of this cynical and dishonest &quot;think&quot; tank. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting that Media Matters has numerous citations and excerpts of the bill to back up their arguments and Heritage has practically nothing to back up their claims, many of which are demonstratively false.  And by interesting, I mean typical of this cynical and dishonest &quot;think&quot; tank.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fab, Zurich</title>
		<link>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/19/fact-check-media-matters-wrong-on-card-check/#comment-33510</link>
		<dc:creator>Fab, Zurich</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2009 05:47:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foundry.org/?p=7028#comment-33510</guid>
		<description> &lt;a href=&quot;http://mediamattersaction.org/blog/200905200008&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://mediamattersaction.org/blog/200905200008&lt;/a&gt;  
The response to response. 
Have a nice day. 
FF </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://mediamattersaction.org/blog/200905200008" rel="nofollow">http://mediamattersaction.org/blog/200905200008</a><br />
The response to response.</p>
<p>Have a nice day.</p>
<p>FF</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: As If Media Matters Matters &#124; thetruthaboutefca.com &#124; The Truth About The Employee Free Choice Act &#38; Card Check</title>
		<link>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/19/fact-check-media-matters-wrong-on-card-check/#comment-33317</link>
		<dc:creator>As If Media Matters Matters &#124; thetruthaboutefca.com &#124; The Truth About The Employee Free Choice Act &#38; Card Check</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2009 12:08:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foundry.org/?p=7028#comment-33317</guid>
		<description>[...] Unfortunately, the Internet gives power to mistruths and half-truths to spread quickly. The Heritage Foundation takes offense at claims by Media Matters that the Foundation&#8217;s video on card check is full of falsehoods. Check out the back and forth and decide for yourself. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Unfortunately, the Internet gives power to mistruths and half-truths to spread quickly. The Heritage Foundation takes offense at claims by Media Matters that the Foundation&#8217;s video on card check is full of falsehoods. Check out the back and forth and decide for yourself. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shopfloor » Blog Archive &#187; Card Check: Arbitration, Distinctions</title>
		<link>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/19/fact-check-media-matters-wrong-on-card-check/#comment-33223</link>
		<dc:creator>Shopfloor » Blog Archive &#187; Card Check: Arbitration, Distinctions</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 20:11:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foundry.org/?p=7028#comment-33223</guid>
		<description>[...] the Employee Free Choice Act&#8217;s binding arbitration provisions  are so bad. The post, &#8220;Fact Check: Media Matters Wrong on Card Check Facts,&#8221; notes several misrepresentations from Media Matters (yeah, bit surprise). More importantly, Sherk [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the Employee Free Choice Act&#8217;s binding arbitration provisions  are so bad. The post, &#8220;Fact Check: Media Matters Wrong on Card Check Facts,&#8221; notes several misrepresentations from Media Matters (yeah, bit surprise). More importantly, Sherk [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DP, Washington DC</title>
		<link>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/19/fact-check-media-matters-wrong-on-card-check/#comment-33217</link>
		<dc:creator>DP, Washington DC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 15:34:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foundry.org/?p=7028#comment-33217</guid>
		<description>I covered this dispute in quite a bit of detail at EFCA Blog if anyone from Heritage is interested in checking it out.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://efcablog.blogspot.com/2009/05/playing-referree-between-media-matters.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://efcablog.blogspot.com/2009/05/playing-refe...&lt;/a&gt;  
 
Thanks, 
DP 
EFCA Blog </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I covered this dispute in quite a bit of detail at EFCA Blog if anyone from Heritage is interested in checking it out.<br />
  <a href="http://efcablog.blogspot.com/2009/05/playing-referree-between-media-matters.html" rel="nofollow">http://efcablog.blogspot.com/2009/05/playing-refe&#8230;</a>  </p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p>DP</p>
<p>EFCA Blog</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

