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

[TemplarKormac]

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.



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:



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

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December 17, 2012, 108 had been approved, Final Report issued on May 14, 2013 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied,

LOL. I was referring to Tiefer silly!

!!!

Side busting hilarity! All that effort wasted. Perhaps you should learn to read more slowly next time. I was questioning Tiefer's relevance to this case. As in "I don't know why he's there in the first place"!

This discussion is over. Your eagerness to refute me has been exposed. You aren't honest, my friend.

As for the approval rate that you got from The Atlantic, I'll raise you this:

In the 27 months that the Internal Revenue Service put a hold on all Tea Party applications for non-profit status, it approved applications from similar liberal groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.

As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with obviously liberal names were approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," these groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.


The controversial, 3-year-old strategy to manage the increasing number of political groups seeking tax-exempt status came under fire Tuesday. The agency's own inspector general blamed IRS leadership for "ineffective management."

IRS gave liberals a pass; Tea Party groups put on hold

 

[TemplarKormac]

A House Ways and Means Committee staff analysis of the applications of 111 conservative and progressive groups applying for tax exempt status found conservative applicants faced, “more questions, more denials, more delays,” says committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich. That is, when the IRS sent groups letters asking for further information, conservative groups were asked more questions — on average, three times more. All of the groups with “progressive” in their name were ultimately approved, while only 46 percent of conservative groups won approval. Others are still waiting for an answer or gave up.

Report: IRS Scrutiny Worse For Conservatives : It's All Politics : NPR

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.



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?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LguURVVMvw0

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:



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



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!

LOL. I was referring to Tiefer silly!

!!!

Side busting hilarity! All that effort wasted. Perhaps you should learn to read more slowly next time. I was questioning Tiefer's relevance to this case. As in "I don't know why he's there in the first place"!

This discussion is over. Your eagerness to refute me has been exposed. You aren't honest, my friend.

As for the approval rate that you got from The Atlantic, I'll raise you this:

In the 27 months that the Internal Revenue Service put a hold on all Tea Party applications for non-profit status, it approved applications from similar liberal groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.

As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with obviously liberal names were approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," these groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.


The controversial, 3-year-old strategy to manage the increasing number of political groups seeking tax-exempt status came under fire Tuesday. The agency's own inspector general blamed IRS leadership for "ineffective management."

IRS gave liberals a pass; Tea Party groups put on hold

I am not responsible for your inability to construct an intelligible sentence. The onus is on you to make yourself clear. Your reference to "he was put on the bench" can only apply to Gowdy since he was the one "on the bench" in your OP.

As far dishonesty goes that is readily apparent in your failure to concede that no organizations were denied IRS exemptions. That came from your own link. Instead you are beating that dead horse because you cannot deal with the fact that you raised Gowdy's uncouth behavior in your title and you cannot defend it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Huh? There is nothing to refute! You're the one under the delusion that I made some sort of argument in my OP.

 

[Derideo_Te]

A House Ways and Means Committee staff analysis of the applications of 111 conservative and progressive groups applying for tax exempt status found conservative applicants faced, “more questions, more denials, more delays,” says committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich. That is, when the IRS sent groups letters asking for further information, conservative groups were asked more questions — on average, three times more. All of the groups with “progressive” in their name were ultimately approved, while only 46 percent of conservative groups won approval. Others are still waiting for an answer or gave up.

Report: IRS Scrutiny Worse For Conservatives : It's All Politics : NPR

Once again your link exposes the fallacy of your position. Progressive organizations were also targeted for scrutiny so it was not only conservative organizations.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Huh? There is nothing to refute! You're the one under the delusion that I made some sort of argument in my OP.

Are you denying your own title now?

Might as well ask the mods to close this thread since you have just conceded that you have nothing at all!



That was easy!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Failed your homework assignment again?

Trey Gowdy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



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!

LOL. I was referring to Tiefer silly!

!!!

Side busting hilarity! All that effort wasted. Perhaps you should learn to read more slowly next time. I was questioning Tiefer's relevance to this case. As in "I don't know why he's there in the first place"!

This discussion is over. Your eagerness to refute me has been exposed. You aren't honest, my friend.

As for the approval rate that you got from The Atlantic, I'll raise you this:

In the 27 months that the Internal Revenue Service put a hold on all Tea Party applications for non-profit status, it approved applications from similar liberal groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.

As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with obviously liberal names were approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," these groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.

The controversial, 3-year-old strategy to manage the increasing number of political groups seeking tax-exempt status came under fire Tuesday. The agency's own inspector general blamed IRS leadership for "ineffective management."

IRS gave liberals a pass; Tea Party groups put on hold

I am not responsible for your inability to construct an intelligible sentence. The onus is on you to make yourself clear. Your reference to "he was put on the bench" can only apply to Gowdy since he was the one "on the bench" in your OP.

As far dishonesty goes that is readily apparent in your failure to concede that no organizations were denied IRS exemptions. That came from your own link. Instead you are beating that dead horse because you cannot deal with the fact that you raised Gowdy's uncouth behavior in your title and you cannot defend it.

You can't make me concede anything based on your own willpower alone. Debates don't work that way. The only concession here I will make is that I should have used 'table' instead of 'bench.' Or, 'called to testify.' But in any case your argument is based on the fallacy fallacy (not a typo, but an inference that just because one makes an error in an argument that the entire argument is fallacious). My error in addressing the layout of the room has no bearing on this discussion. A non sequitur.

And yes, I can defend Gowdy's behavior. It's what the rest of us in reality call DOING HIS JOB.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

Huh? There is nothing to refute! You're the one under the delusion that I made some sort of argument in my OP.

Are you denying your own title now?

Might as well ask the mods to close this thread since you have just conceded that you have nothing at all!



That was easy!

No. I made no inferences in the body of the thread. You spent the entirety of it calling Gowdy down for being 'uncouth.' All the inferences made were made by you. He did in fact dismantle Mr. Tiefer, since he is a law professor, and Gowdy is a former Federal Prosecutor. The only inference (if you want to call it that) was to delineate between one who teaches law, and one who puts it into practice on a routine basis. Experience vs. Philosophy.

Oh, and you just revealed how your intent from the beginning was to troll my thread. Instead of attacking the points he made, you attacked the person making them. As if somehow his presumed lack of manners did away with his professionalism. Might as well admit it, you were trolling.

And for the record, the title of the OP and the OP itself are two different things. I go by writing etiquette, and unlike you, I don't judge a post by its title, as opposed to what you just did. Your entire methodology is to attack the title, not the post itself. As for writing etiquette, there's the title, the thesis statement, the body of the thread, and lastly the conclusion. This demonstrates a clear lack of understanding as far as forum posts go.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Huh? There is nothing to refute! You're the one under the delusion that I made some sort of argument in my OP.

Are you denying your own title now?

Might as well ask the mods to close this thread since you have just conceded that you have nothing at all!



That was easy!

No. I made no inferences in the body of the thread. You spent the entirety of it calling Gowdy down for being 'uncouth.' All the inferences made were made by you. He did in fact dismantle Mr. Tiefer, since he is a law professor, and Gowdy is a former Federal Prosecutor. The only inference (if you want to call it that) was to delineate between one who teaches law, and one who puts it into practice on a routine basis. Experience vs. Philosophy.

Oh, and you just revealed how your intent from the beginning was to troll my thread. Instead of attacking the points he made, you attacked the person making them. As if somehow his presumed lack of manners did away with his professionalism. Might as well admit it, you were trolling.

And for the record, the title of the OP and the OP itself are two different things. I go by writing etiquette, and unlike you, I don't judge a post by its title, as opposed to what you just did. Your entire methodology is to attack the title, not the post itself. As for writing etiquette, there's the title, the thesis statement, the body of the thread, and lastly the conclusion. This demonstrates a clear lack of understanding as far as forum posts go.

How full of shit are you? Any room left?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Are you denying your own title now?

Might as well ask the mods to close this thread since you have just conceded that you have nothing at all!



That was easy!

No. I made no inferences in the body of the thread. You spent the entirety of it calling Gowdy down for being 'uncouth.' All the inferences made were made by you. He did in fact dismantle Mr. Tiefer, since he is a law professor, and Gowdy is a former Federal Prosecutor. The only inference (if you want to call it that) was to delineate between one who teaches law, and one who puts it into practice on a routine basis. Experience vs. Philosophy.

Oh, and you just revealed how your intent from the beginning was to troll my thread. Instead of attacking the points he made, you attacked the person making them. As if somehow his presumed lack of manners did away with his professionalism. Might as well admit it, you were trolling.

And for the record, the title of the OP and the OP itself are two different things. I go by writing etiquette, and unlike you, I don't judge a post by its title, as opposed to what you just did. Your entire methodology is to attack the title, not the post itself. As for writing etiquette, there's the title, the thesis statement, the body of the thread, and lastly the conclusion. This demonstrates a clear lack of understanding as far as forum posts go.

How full of shit are you? Any room left?

My bowel habits are none of your concern. As for you being full of it, you have secondary space in that empty head of yours. Good day.

 

[blackhawk]

What is truly sad here is so many have no problem with the I.R.S. being used as political weapon seemingly blind to the fact that power changes and those who are supporting the targeting today may well be the victims of it tomorrow. This nation would be wise to look to the example of former I.R.S. chief Johnnie Mac Walters who refused when Nixon wanted him to do the same thing back in the 70s.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What is truly sad here is so many have no problem with the I.R.S. being used as political weapon seemingly blind to the fact that power changes and those who are supporting the targeting today may well be the victims of it tomorrow. This nation would be wise to look to the example of former I.R.S. chief Johnnie Mac Walters who refused when Nixon wanted him to do the same thing back in the 70s.

The IRS, as far as we know at this moment, was not and is not being used as a political weapon. So...I guess you can go back to being happy.

 

[skookerasbil]

Trey Gowdy kicks ass.....the anti-limpwrister.

 

[Siete]

Nice deflection, but no.

Your crystal ball is busted Deri. And what does it matter if the media doesn't report this stuff? People make the mistake of thinking they are credible if they get talked about by the media. Anywho, that was a nice JakeStarkey impression.

Isn't it strange that when someone like you disagrees with an opinion or behavior, it gets dismissed as 'extreme?' Isn't it strange that people don't care about something bad until it happens to them? All Tiefer had to do was give a straight answer.

Oh well.

not as strange as people making a mountain out of a molehill ... but it takes all types.... the molehillers have lost back to back presidential elections if that tells you anything ?

Well, you're one of the types who would rather see a molehill than a mountain.

when it comes down to government in my life you're correct... apparently by your reply you feel quite the opposite ... Oh well.

 

[MaxGrit]

not as strange as people making a mountain out of a molehill ... but it takes all types.... the molehillers have lost back to back presidential elections if that tells you anything ?

Well, you're one of the types who would rather see a molehill than a mountain.

when it comes down to government in my life you're correct... apparently by your reply you feel quite the opposite ... Oh well.

The problem is that you won't feel the weight of the mountain until it's your turn to get crushed.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What is truly sad here is so many have no problem with the I.R.S. being used as political weapon seemingly blind to the fact that power changes and those who are supporting the targeting today may well be the victims of it tomorrow. This nation would be wise to look to the example of former I.R.S. chief Johnnie Mac Walters who refused when Nixon wanted him to do the same thing back in the 70s.

The IRS, as far as we know at this moment, was not and is not being used as a political weapon. So...I guess you can go back to being happy.

Correction!! The IRS is being used as a political weapon.

By Gowdy and the nut brigade.

 

[Interpol]

When Lois Lerner complained to her husband about Republicans being "crazies" and "assholes", crazy asshole Trey Gowdy was precisely the type she was referring to.

He's shouting because his false outrage-o-meter has taken a bullshit issue and made it the most important thing around.

The so-called IRS scandal is just more distraction from Republicans who wish to collect our tax dollars, treat themselves like royalty, while doing nothing. Republican lawmakers are the real welfare queens of America.

We learned long ago that progressive liberal groups were more frequently targeted than Teabagger groups.

In the end, I still don't understand why the IRS shouldn't be making sure that explicitly political groups aren't getting tax exempt status.

 

[Derideo_Te]

LOL. I was referring to Tiefer silly!

!!!

Side busting hilarity! All that effort wasted. Perhaps you should learn to read more slowly next time. I was questioning Tiefer's relevance to this case. As in "I don't know why he's there in the first place"!

This discussion is over. Your eagerness to refute me has been exposed. You aren't honest, my friend.

As for the approval rate that you got from The Atlantic, I'll raise you this:

IRS gave liberals a pass; Tea Party groups put on hold

I am not responsible for your inability to construct an intelligible sentence. The onus is on you to make yourself clear. Your reference to "he was put on the bench" can only apply to Gowdy since he was the one "on the bench" in your OP.

As far dishonesty goes that is readily apparent in your failure to concede that no organizations were denied IRS exemptions. That came from your own link. Instead you are beating that dead horse because you cannot deal with the fact that you raised Gowdy's uncouth behavior in your title and you cannot defend it.

You can't make me concede anything based on your own willpower alone. Debates don't work that way. The only concession here I will make is that I should have used 'table' instead of 'bench.' Or, 'called to testify.' But in any case your argument is based on the fallacy fallacy (not a typo, but an inference that just because one makes an error in an argument that the entire argument is fallacious). My error in addressing the layout of the room has no bearing on this discussion. A non sequitur.

And yes, I can defend Gowdy's behavior. It's what the rest of us in reality call DOING HIS JOB.

You screwed up! But instead of manning up and apologizing you try to blame someone else. That doesn't reflect well on your character.

As far as defending Gowdy's abysmal behavior that is a non starter from your side. All you have done so far is whine about me exposing it for what it is. You haven't established that he wasn't being deliberately demeaning and insulting towards Professor Tiefer.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Huh? There is nothing to refute! You're the one under the delusion that I made some sort of argument in my OP.

Are you denying your own title now?

Might as well ask the mods to close this thread since you have just conceded that you have nothing at all!



That was easy!

No. I made no inferences in the body of the thread. You spent the entirety of it calling Gowdy down for being 'uncouth.' All the inferences made were made by you. He did in fact dismantle Mr. Tiefer, since he is a law professor, and Gowdy is a former Federal Prosecutor. The only inference (if you want to call it that) was to delineate between one who teaches law, and one who puts it into practice on a routine basis. Experience vs. Philosophy.

Oh, and you just revealed how your intent from the beginning was to troll my thread. Instead of attacking the points he made, you attacked the person making them. As if somehow his presumed lack of manners did away with his professionalism. Might as well admit it, you were trolling.

Gowdy didn't make any valid points. The onus is on you to establish that he did. Furthermore his insulting attitude is the whole point here. You are cheerleading it because it suits your extreme right agenda. I am exposing it because it goes to credibility. Or to be more precise, the utter lack of credibility that Gowdy will earn for himself amongst moderate Independents if this gets into the MSM.

And for the record, the title of the OP and the OP itself are two different things. I go by writing etiquette, and unlike you, I don't judge a post by its title, as opposed to what you just did. Your entire methodology is to attack the title, not the post itself. As for writing etiquette, there's the title, the thesis statement, the body of the thread, and lastly the conclusion. This demonstrates a clear lack of understanding as far as forum posts go.

Your pathetic attempt to "school me" once again exposes your own ignorance.

Your title contains an extract from the transcript. The OP is a transcript of the video. The video exposes the demeaning attitude that Gowdy adopted towards the esteemed Professor.

Every one of my posts deals with the subject matter in the OP. That I used the title to illustrate a point is fair game since you were unwise enough to choose to put that disparaging remark into your title.

Now you still haven't defended a single aspect of your OP or your title for that matter. All of your responses have been attacks against me. You have falsely alleged that I am "trolling your thread" but you haven't dared to report that to the mods. Attacking me personally is not a defense of the OP. And no, I am not in the least surprised that you cannot defend the OP because it is a despicable display of the abuse of power by an elected representative of the people.