The GOP's Convicted Felon Going Joe McCarthy

Issa Stirs Echoes of McCarthy as Obama's 'Best Friend' in IRS Probe
Chief GOP investigator doesn't know when to let damning facts speak for themselves.

By Ron Fournier
Updated: June 3, 2013 | 11:39 a.m.
June 3, 2013 | 8:47 a.m.


In one brief and repugnant interview, the GOP's chief congressional investigator into Internal Revenue Service abuses cherry-picked evidence, overstated his case, and violated the sacred American principle of presumed innocence.
If that was not enough, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., called White House press secretary Jay Carney a "paid liar," and couldn't explain why. "We're getting to proving it," he said.
Meet the best friend of a controversy-plagued Democratic White House: a demagogic Republican.
In a reminder of how the GOP overreached during the Clinton-era sex scandal, Issa doesn't seem capable of letting damning facts speak for themselves.
Interviewed by a smartly skeptical Candy Crowley on CNN's State of the Union, the California Republican found himself on the defensive from the start.
"Congressional investigators tell CNN the [congressional] report finds the IRS spent over $50 million on 225 employee conferences over a two-year period," Crowley said, adding that the Obama administration no longer allows spending on such training.
"So what's the hearing about?" she said. "Why are you having it?"
Issa shifted focus to the IRS's admission that its agents targeted conservative groups for review of their tax-exempt status. "Well, first of all, we're looking at the IRS for how big the problem is," he replied. "As you know as late as last week the administration is still trying to say there's a few rogue agents in Cincinnati when in fact the indication is they were directly being ordered from Washington."
Note what Issa is doing. He does it all the time--start an unsubstantiated allegation with an absolute declaration ("when in fact") and follow it with weasel words ("the indication is"). This smear-and-caveat technique allows him to ruin reputations without being called a liar.
Issa is a demagogue with plausible deniability.
Crowley turned next to excerpts of interviews with IRS agents that were selectively made public. She calls the practice "problematic" because "it's hard for us to kind of judge what's going on."

http://www.nationaljournal.com/poli...-as-obama-s-best-friend-in-irs-probe-20130603

 

Convicted felon?

 

Funny, but nearly 1/3 of that 2 year period was subsequent to Obama issuing that directive.

 

What these republican politicians fail to understand, or ignore the dangers of, is the concept of "blowback", perhaps because it's typically used in conjunction with covert activities, and they may feel they are being overt.

Some of them do understand, and try to reign in those who may cause problems for the party. But, the sheer number of bs these people put out is too much for any one person to stop.

republicans, especially after Romney lost, keep scratching their chins, wondering what the problem is. It's easy: Stop saying bs. Stop being bs. People don't like it, and are leaving your party because they can't stand your bs anymore.

My advice: Keep talking bs.

 

Convicted felon?

 

Yep, keep that head in the sand & allow BO & his gang to run amuck...I guess it's okay as long as a far left ideologue is in charge?

 

I posted this elsewhere, but it is also relevant here:

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/all-in-/52089142#52089195

NOTE: THIS IS A SELF-STARTING VIDEO LINK

The first segment is about the failure of republican branding, how young people DO NOT LIKE what the republican party is today.

They join many "old-timers" in that assessment. Old-timers who remember Reagan, Nixon, etc.

 

Convicted felon?

 

I'll ask again: Convicted felon? Please explain, Moron Joe....

 

Ask nicely and I will. Until then F#@* Off!

 

3 times you have been asked nicely. 4 times you have refused to answer now!

 

What are you two, interchangeable?

 

It's amok, not amuck you ignorant blowhole.

 

I said "please". What more do you want, Moron Joe?

 

Whether or not we are anything is not relevant to how many times you were asked. However, I guess I should have known your mathematics skills so I apologize for expecting too much from you.

 

Convicted felon?

 

Hey, David. "Amuck" didn't look right as I've always spelled it "amok". However, I did a little checking and found this:

amuck |əˈmək|
adverb
variant spelling of amok.
amok |əˈmək, əˈmäk|(also amuck )
adverb (in phrase run amok)
behave uncontrollably and disruptively: stone-throwing anarchists running amok | figurative : her feelingsseemed to be running amok.

ORIGIN mid 17th cent.: via Portuguese amouco, from Malay amok ‘rushing in a frenzy.’ Early use was as a noun denoting a Malay in a homicidal frenzy; the adverb use dates from the late 17th cent.

So, good going.

 

Alright, calm down Mr. 100th percentile.

 

"Amuck is an old alternative spelling of the Malaysian loanword. It had a few decades of prevalence before the middle 20th century, but it has now fallen out of favor. Amok is preferred in edited writing of this century."

Source:

Oxford English Dictionary.

All things were spelled phonetically before English was standardized, so by your logic, "red" is also an acceptable alternative to "read," because that was also spelled that way before 1900.

Keep grasping at straws....sigh.

 

Though, to be fair, you retards are more akin to this type of speaking/spelling:

"hey Cleitus, we'z gon go git sum a dem der' 'taters fer suppur?"
"yeap I'm fixin' ta do that ther."