You're Gonna Starve to Death! Trey Gowdy Dismantles Professor Charles Tiefer

[Derideo_Te]

Deri, you could care less that our government is (or was) victimizing people based on their political ideologies. When you're actually doing your job up there in Washington, like Gowdy was, you will naturally become enraged that your constituents, your fellow Americans are being abused by the government they are supposed to be trusting.

You speak of 'manners' while ignoring the reason why Gowdy did what he did. The bigger picture here is that our government is abusive, malcontent. What Democrat will you see there showing any kind of emotion such as his there?

Emotional appeals is all you have based upon specious misinformation?

The IRS investigation determined that both sides were targeted and no one was "abused by the government".

For Gowdy to "become enraged" is unprofessional and what is even worse is that he directed his rage and anger at an innocent person who had nothing to do with issue at all.

The use of empty emotive terminology such as "our government is abusive, malcontent" exposes the weakness of your position. The facts indicate that one person initiated what happened at the IRS. It was not systemic and it did not result in any actual harm.

 

[Meathead]

Deri, you could care less that our government is (or was) victimizing people based on their political ideologies. When you're actually doing your job up there in Washington, like Gowdy was, you will naturally become enraged that your constituents, your fellow Americans are being abused by the government they are supposed to be trusting.

You speak of 'manners' while ignoring the reason why Gowdy did what he did. The bigger picture here is that our government is abusive, malcontent. What Democrat will you see there showing any kind of emotion such as his there?

Emotional appeals is all you have based upon specious misinformation?

The IRS investigation determined that both sides were targeted and no one was "abused by the government".

For Gowdy to "become enraged" is unprofessional and what is even worse is that he directed his rage and anger at an innocent person who had nothing to do with issue at all.

The use of empty emotive terminology such as "our government is abusive, malcontent" exposes the weakness of your position. The facts indicate that one person initiated what happened at the IRS. It was not systemic and it did not result in any actual harm.

If Lerner were to take the stand and divulge her emails, your scenario which finds innocence abound would have credence. In the meantime, what do you think, are Gowdy, or any opposition in a free country expected to take your word or that of Obama administration officials?

Seriously, what's wrong with you? Why

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let me just remind you of how this debate stuff works. You present your OP and I respond with how it will be perceived by moderate Independents like myself.

Funny how you think you're the only one here. It isn't just a matter of how "moderate Independents" like yourself perceive it. There are other viewpoints to consider, unfortunately for you, you are too close minded to see that.

Let me remind you how a debate works. I make a point, you make a pertinent counterpoint. Any fallacies you make will be pointed out to you. It is your job to refute my argument, not berate me for positing it. In a debate, you dispense with emotional attachments and debate with substantiated facts and sources. Emotion destroys logic. Anger obliterates reason.

Yet, you call me ignorant, but my supposed ignorance is borne from your perception of ignorance. Just how am I being 'ignorant?' By not agreeing with 'a moderate independent' such as yourself?

Plus, where did I 'admit' anything? You lecture Gowdy on having no manners, but start throwing my alleged ignorance and failures at me instead of a valid counterargument. That position is hypocritical. Oh, I also did research on Charles Tiefer as well LAST NIGHT. None of what you just mentioned justifies you propping him up on a pedestal. Only you would bestow prestige on someone for what college they graduated from. Besides George W. Bush graduated from Yale, and from Harvard too, but I don't see you giving him this kind of treatment...

Deri, when you say 'my position stands unchalleged' you liken yourself to a blazing inferno which believes it can stand against a rainstorm. In the end, each drop of water puts an end to your argument, until finally nothing but smoke remains. Your position was "Gowdy has no manners, and was extremely rude to Professor Tiefer." Sorry, that's not a valid position, that is nothing but a strawman.

 

[Lakhota]

Deri, you could care less that our government is (or was) victimizing people based on their political ideologies. When you're actually doing your job up there in Washington, like Gowdy was, you will naturally become enraged that your constituents, your fellow Americans are being abused by the government they are supposed to be trusting.

You speak of 'manners' while ignoring the reason why Gowdy did what he did. The bigger picture here is that our government is abusive, malcontent. What Democrat will you see there showing any kind of emotion such as his there?

Emotional appeals is all you have based upon specious misinformation?

The IRS investigation determined that both sides were targeted and no one was "abused by the government".

For Gowdy to "become enraged" is unprofessional and what is even worse is that he directed his rage and anger at an innocent person who had nothing to do with issue at all.

The use of empty emotive terminology such as "our government is abusive, malcontent" exposes the weakness of your position. The facts indicate that one person initiated what happened at the IRS. It was not systemic and it did not result in any actual harm.

Amen! You nailed it.

 

[Bush92]

How can Democrats even defend the actions of the IRS? Really guys?

 

[Bush92]

Deri, you could care less that our government is (or was) victimizing people based on their political ideologies. When you're actually doing your job up there in Washington, like Gowdy was, you will naturally become enraged that your constituents, your fellow Americans are being abused by the government they are supposed to be trusting.

You speak of 'manners' while ignoring the reason why Gowdy did what he did. The bigger picture here is that our government is abusive, malcontent. What Democrat will you see there showing any kind of emotion such as his there?

Emotional appeals is all you have based upon specious misinformation?

The IRS investigation determined that both sides were targeted and no one was "abused by the government".

For Gowdy to "become enraged" is unprofessional and what is even worse is that he directed his rage and anger at an innocent person who had nothing to do with issue at all.

The use of empty emotive terminology such as "our government is abusive, malcontent" exposes the weakness of your position. The facts indicate that one person initiated what happened at the IRS. It was not systemic and it did not result in any actual harm.

Amen! You nailed it.

Democrats are going to find out who is upset with IRS scandal in mid-terms. Winner, winner, chicken dinner!!!

 

[Bush92]

What amazes me is the hypocrisy of liberals. For 8 years under Bush 2 they felt Washington DC was the evil empire. Now they defend the most hideous institution there...IRS. What a fucking joke.

 

[Bush92]

If your a conservative do not expect fair treatment from any federal agency. Full of Democrat bureaucrats.

 

[Meathead]

How can Democrats even defend the actions of the IRS? Really guys?

No real taxpayer would piss on the IRS to stop it from burning. Now, legions of dingbats are coming out of the shadows to sing its graces!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Let me just remind you of how this debate stuff works. You present your OP and I respond with how it will be perceived by moderate Independents like myself.

Funny how you think you're the only one here. It isn't just a matter of how "moderate Independents" like yourself perceive it. There are other viewpoints to consider, unfortunately for you, you are too close minded to see that.

Let me remind you how a debate works. I make a point, you make a pertinent counterpoint. Any fallacies you make will be pointed out to you. It is your job to refute my argument, not berate me for positing it. In a debate, you dispense with emotional attachments and debate with substantiated facts and sources. Emotion destroys logic. Anger obliterates reason.

Yet, you call me ignorant, but my supposed ignorance is borne from your perception of ignorance. Just how am I being 'ignorant?' By not agreeing with 'a moderate independent' such as yourself?

Plus, where did I 'admit' anything? You lecture Gowdy on having no manners, but start throwing my alleged ignorance and failures at me instead of a valid counterargument. That position is hypocritical. Oh, I also did research on Charles Tiefer as well LAST NIGHT. None of what you just mentioned justifies you propping him up on a pedestal. Only you would bestow prestige on someone for what college they graduated from. Besides George W. Bush graduated from Yale, and from Harvard too, but I don't see you giving him this kind of treatment...

Deri, you are like a blazing inferno which believes it can stand against a rainstorm. In the end, each drop of water puts an end to your argument, until finally nothing but smoke remains. Your position was "Gowdy has no manners, and was extremely rude to Professor Tiefer." Sorry, that's not a valid position, that is nothing but a strawman.

All of the above is not a defense of your hapless OP. Instead it is a personal attack on me which is understandable since you cannot refute the facts.

As a moderate Independent I am well aware of how my fellow moderate Independents think and vote. Since you are on the extreme right you can only speak for your fellow extremists. The reason I brought up moderate Independents is because we are the key to winning elections. Without our votes neither party can achieve control unless they resort to gerrymandering and other shenanigans intended to alter voter turnout.

My position on how Gowdy's unmannerly tirade will be perceived by moderate Independents remains standing since you haven't refuted it with anything to the contrary. Pretending that my position is a "strawman" exposes your inability to come up with a valid rebuttal. However you can't even substantiate your baseless "strawman" allegation. Simply using a term like "strawman" doesn't make it so. The onus is on you to prove that it is. You are derelict is that regard.

You asked what made Professor Tiefer respected and your ignorance was exposed. You cannot pretend to knowledge that you obviously never had when you asked that question because if you had you wouldn't have asked it in the first place. This is elementary logic and you are as transparent as glass when it comes to trying to squirm out of making yourself look foolish.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Deri, you could care less that our government is (or was) victimizing people based on their political ideologies. When you're actually doing your job up there in Washington, like Gowdy was, you will naturally become enraged that your constituents, your fellow Americans are being abused by the government they are supposed to be trusting.

You speak of 'manners' while ignoring the reason why Gowdy did what he did. The bigger picture here is that our government is abusive, malcontent. What Democrat will you see there showing any kind of emotion such as his there?

Emotional appeals is all you have based upon specious misinformation?

The IRS investigation determined that both sides were targeted and no one was "abused by the government".

For Gowdy to "become enraged" is unprofessional and what is even worse is that he directed his rage and anger at an innocent person who had nothing to do with issue at all.

The use of empty emotive terminology such as "our government is abusive, malcontent" exposes the weakness of your position. The facts indicate that one person initiated what happened at the IRS. It was not systemic and it did not result in any actual harm.

Emotional appeals is all you have based upon specious misinformation?

No, I have facts. Now, are you really telling me that what Lois Lerner and the IRS did, they didn't do because of 'specious' information? Really?

For Gowdy to "become enraged" is unprofessional and what is even worse is that he directed his rage and anger at an innocent person who had nothing to do with issue at all.

So, he isn't allowed to have any emotion? What would you know of professionalism? Democrats put him there, using him as bait. Frankly I don't know why he was put on the bench to begin with.

The use of empty emotive terminology such as "our government is abusive, malcontent" exposes the weakness of your position. The facts indicate that one person initiated what happened at the IRS. It was not systemic and it did not result in any actual harm

And that is a supposition. Can you present me with proof that it was not systemic? Or do I have to do your homework for you?



The Inspector General found that the IRS improperly used criteria to single out Tea Party groups:

http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf

Then there's this:

Additional scrutiny of conservative organizations’ activities by the IRS did not solely originate in the agency’s Cincinnati office, with requests for information coming from other offices and often bearing the signatures of higher-ups at the agency, according to attorneys representing some of the targeted groups. At least one letter requesting information about one of the groups bears the signature of Lois Lerner, the suspended director of the IRS Exempt Organizations department in Washington.

Jay Sekulow, an attorney representing 27 conservative political advocacy organizations that applied to the Internal Revenue Service for tax-exempt status, provided some of the letters to NBC News. He said the groups’ contacts with the IRS prove that the practices went beyond a few “front line” employees in the Cincinnati office, as the IRS has maintained.

IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show - Investigations

And this:

Higher-Ups Knew of IRS Case - WSJ

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let me just remind you of how this debate stuff works. You present your OP and I respond with how it will be perceived by moderate Independents like myself.

Funny how you think you're the only one here. It isn't just a matter of how "moderate Independents" like yourself perceive it. There are other viewpoints to consider, unfortunately for you, you are too close minded to see that.

Let me remind you how a debate works. I make a point, you make a pertinent counterpoint. Any fallacies you make will be pointed out to you. It is your job to refute my argument, not berate me for positing it. In a debate, you dispense with emotional attachments and debate with substantiated facts and sources. Emotion destroys logic. Anger obliterates reason.

Yet, you call me ignorant, but my supposed ignorance is borne from your perception of ignorance. Just how am I being 'ignorant?' By not agreeing with 'a moderate independent' such as yourself?

Plus, where did I 'admit' anything? You lecture Gowdy on having no manners, but start throwing my alleged ignorance and failures at me instead of a valid counterargument. That position is hypocritical. Oh, I also did research on Charles Tiefer as well LAST NIGHT. None of what you just mentioned justifies you propping him up on a pedestal. Only you would bestow prestige on someone for what college they graduated from. Besides George W. Bush graduated from Yale, and from Harvard too, but I don't see you giving him this kind of treatment...

Deri, you are like a blazing inferno which believes it can stand against a rainstorm. In the end, each drop of water puts an end to your argument, until finally nothing but smoke remains. Your position was "Gowdy has no manners, and was extremely rude to Professor Tiefer." Sorry, that's not a valid position, that is nothing but a strawman.

All of the above is not a defense of your hapless OP. Instead it is a personal attack on me which is understandable since you cannot refute the facts.

As a moderate Independent I am well aware of how my fellow moderate Independents think and vote. Since you are on the extreme right you can only speak for your fellow extremists. The reason I brought up moderate Independents is because we are the key to winning elections. Without our votes neither party can achieve control unless they resort to gerrymandering and other shenanigans intended to alter voter turnout.

My position on how Gowdy's unmannerly tirade will be perceived by moderate Independents remains standing since you haven't refuted it with anything to the contrary. Pretending that my position is a "strawman" exposes your inability to come up with a valid rebuttal. However you can't even substantiate your baseless "strawman" allegation. Simply using a term like "strawman" doesn't make it so. The onus is on you to prove that it is. You are derelict is that regard.

You asked what made Professor Tiefer respected and your ignorance was exposed. You cannot pretend to knowledge that you obviously never had when you asked that question because if you had you wouldn't have asked it in the first place. This is elementary logic and you are as transparent as glass when it comes to trying to squirm out of making yourself look foolish.

All those words, and I all I need are these:

I can't refute facts you yourself won't present, Deri. Plain and simple.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Lastly, Derideo, you act as the consummate representative of 'moderate independents' which is quite arrogant. Assuming your view is the right view is pretty dishonest. A strawman is when you use Gowdy's manners in place of addressing the issue, then you attack his manners as if it has any bearing on the debate. That is a strawman.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Hapless" "Ignorance" "Failures"... so... since when did that count as an argument perchance?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Deri, you could care less that our government is (or was) victimizing people based on their political ideologies. When you're actually doing your job up there in Washington, like Gowdy was, you will naturally become enraged that your constituents, your fellow Americans are being abused by the government they are supposed to be trusting.

You speak of 'manners' while ignoring the reason why Gowdy did what he did. The bigger picture here is that our government is abusive, malcontent. What Democrat will you see there showing any kind of emotion such as his there?

Emotional appeals is all you have based upon specious misinformation?

The IRS investigation determined that both sides were targeted and no one was "abused by the government".

For Gowdy to "become enraged" is unprofessional and what is even worse is that he directed his rage and anger at an innocent person who had nothing to do with issue at all.

The use of empty emotive terminology such as "our government is abusive, malcontent" exposes the weakness of your position. The facts indicate that one person initiated what happened at the IRS. It was not systemic and it did not result in any actual harm.

No, I have facts. Now, are you really telling me that what Lois Lerner and the IRS did, they didn't do because of 'specious' information? Really?



So, he isn't allowed to have any emotion? What would you know of professionalism? Democrats put him there, using him as bait. Frankly I don't know why he was put on the bench to begin with.

The use of empty emotive terminology such as "our government is abusive, malcontent" exposes the weakness of your position. The facts indicate that one person initiated what happened at the IRS. It was not systemic and it did not result in any actual harm

And that is a supposition. Can you present me with proof that it was not systemic? Or do I have to do your homework for you?



The Inspector General found that the IRS improperly used criteria to single out Tea Party groups:

http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf

Then there's this:

Additional scrutiny of conservative organizations’ activities by the IRS did not solely originate in the agency’s Cincinnati office, with requests for information coming from other offices and often bearing the signatures of higher-ups at the agency, according to attorneys representing some of the targeted groups. At least one letter requesting information about one of the groups bears the signature of Lois Lerner, the suspended director of the IRS Exempt Organizations department in Washington.

Jay Sekulow, an attorney representing 27 conservative political advocacy organizations that applied to the Internal Revenue Service for tax-exempt status, provided some of the letters to NBC News. He said the groups’ contacts with the IRS prove that the practices went beyond a few “front line” employees in the Cincinnati office, as the IRS has maintained.

IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show - Investigations

And this:

Higher-Ups Knew of IRS Case - WSJ

Failed your homework assignment again?

Trey Gowdy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Committee assignments[edit]
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law (Vice Chair)
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the National Archives (Chairman)
Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services and Bailouts of Public and Private Programs
Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi (Chairman)

So, he isn't allowed to have any emotion? What would you know of professionalism? Democrats put him there, using him as bait. Frankly I don't know why he was put on the bench to begin with

No, the Democrats did not "put him [Gowdy] there"! The House is controlled by the GOP and they decide Committee assignments and Chairs.


Gotta when your own link refutes your allegation!

For the 296 total political campaign intervention applications TIGTA reviewed as of
December 17, 2012, 108 had been approved, Final Report issued on May 14, 2013 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied,

 

[Derideo_Te]

Funny how you think you're the only one here. It isn't just a matter of how "moderate Independents" like yourself perceive it. There are other viewpoints to consider, unfortunately for you, you are too close minded to see that.

Let me remind you how a debate works. I make a point, you make a pertinent counterpoint. Any fallacies you make will be pointed out to you. It is your job to refute my argument, not berate me for positing it. In a debate, you dispense with emotional attachments and debate with substantiated facts and sources. Emotion destroys logic. Anger obliterates reason.

Yet, you call me ignorant, but my supposed ignorance is borne from your perception of ignorance. Just how am I being 'ignorant?' By not agreeing with 'a moderate independent' such as yourself?

Plus, where did I 'admit' anything? You lecture Gowdy on having no manners, but start throwing my alleged ignorance and failures at me instead of a valid counterargument. That position is hypocritical. Oh, I also did research on Charles Tiefer as well LAST NIGHT. None of what you just mentioned justifies you propping him up on a pedestal. Only you would bestow prestige on someone for what college they graduated from. Besides George W. Bush graduated from Yale, and from Harvard too, but I don't see you giving him this kind of treatment...

Deri, you are like a blazing inferno which believes it can stand against a rainstorm. In the end, each drop of water puts an end to your argument, until finally nothing but smoke remains. Your position was "Gowdy has no manners, and was extremely rude to Professor Tiefer." Sorry, that's not a valid position, that is nothing but a strawman.

All of the above is not a defense of your hapless OP. Instead it is a personal attack on me which is understandable since you cannot refute the facts.

As a moderate Independent I am well aware of how my fellow moderate Independents think and vote. Since you are on the extreme right you can only speak for your fellow extremists. The reason I brought up moderate Independents is because we are the key to winning elections. Without our votes neither party can achieve control unless they resort to gerrymandering and other shenanigans intended to alter voter turnout.

My position on how Gowdy's unmannerly tirade will be perceived by moderate Independents remains standing since you haven't refuted it with anything to the contrary. Pretending that my position is a "strawman" exposes your inability to come up with a valid rebuttal. However you can't even substantiate your baseless "strawman" allegation. Simply using a term like "strawman" doesn't make it so. The onus is on you to prove that it is. You are derelict is that regard.

You asked what made Professor Tiefer respected and your ignorance was exposed. You cannot pretend to knowledge that you obviously never had when you asked that question because if you had you wouldn't have asked it in the first place. This is elementary logic and you are as transparent as glass when it comes to trying to squirm out of making yourself look foolish.

All those words, and I all I need are these:

I can't refute facts you yourself won't present, Deri. Plain and simple.

Thank you for admitting that you cannot defend your OP or refute my position.

 

[Bush92]

We need to clean the beauracrats out of D.C. And make that place a ghost town.

 

[MaxGrit]

All of the above is not a defense of your hapless OP. Instead it is a personal attack on me which is understandable since you cannot refute the facts.

As a moderate Independent I am well aware of how my fellow moderate Independents think and vote. Since you are on the extreme right you can only speak for your fellow extremists. The reason I brought up moderate Independents is because we are the key to winning elections. Without our votes neither party can achieve control unless they resort to gerrymandering and other shenanigans intended to alter voter turnout.

My position on how Gowdy's unmannerly tirade will be perceived by moderate Independents remains standing since you haven't refuted it with anything to the contrary. Pretending that my position is a "strawman" exposes your inability to come up with a valid rebuttal. However you can't even substantiate your baseless "strawman" allegation. Simply using a term like "strawman" doesn't make it so. The onus is on you to prove that it is. You are derelict is that regard.

You asked what made Professor Tiefer respected and your ignorance was exposed. You cannot pretend to knowledge that you obviously never had when you asked that question because if you had you wouldn't have asked it in the first place. This is elementary logic and you are as transparent as glass when it comes to trying to squirm out of making yourself look foolish.

All those words, and I all I need are these:

I can't refute facts you yourself won't present, Deri. Plain and simple.

Thank you for admitting that you cannot defend your OP or refute my position.

Thank you for admitting that you are a libtard.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Lastly, Derideo, you act as the consummate representative of 'moderate independents' which is quite arrogant. Assuming your view is the right view is pretty dishonest.

The entire extreme right assumes that "their view is the right view" so are you calling them (and yourself) arrogant and dishonest now?

A strawman is when you use Gowdy's manners in place of addressing the issue, then you attack his manners as if it has any bearing on the debate. That is a strawman.

Thank you for admitting that you don't know what a "strawman" argument actually is. I suggest that you do your homework.

Gowdy's inappropriate behavior is the issue here. You are trumpeting his loutish manners in your own title. "You're Gonna Starve to Death! Trey Gowdy Dismantles Professor Charles Tiefer". Backpedaling on your own title because it has exposed Gowdy for what he really is, an unprofessional ill mannered rude and abusive bully who was grandstanding for his own partisan purposes instead of dealing with the issue. You made his "manners" the topic so if there is a "strawman" here it is of your own devising.

 

[Derideo_Te]

"Hapless" "Ignorance" "Failures"... so... since when did that count as an argument perchance?

So now you are resorting to taking things out of context because you cannot refute them?

The reek of desperation coming from you is palpable.