Doctor Fate wrote:Leave your man-crush out of this
You still think I fancy you? That is just too cute!
Because there’s nothing to get. Look, if his investigation is undermined, that’s his problem. His alleged hypocrisy doesn’t negate the whole process by itself.
I never said that it did. The process is flawed by dint of it being a Congressional Hearing, and because it has a clear political flavour to it. King’s past links are just another reason why any conclusions coming out of it would be suspect. But Tom agrees that it was a waste of time, so sounds to me like the ‘whole process’ was negated. Again, you cling to the idea that King’s links to Ireland are the
only reason being put forward for the hearings being a pile. That is not the case, it’s just one among several, but one that is going to annoy Sass and I for what would hope were obvious reasons.
It is politics. So what? About 99% of what Congress and the President do are all about politics.
However, in this case it is possible that something of value may come to light
And politicians are the only, or best, people to run investigations? Aren’t there other ways to look at the issue that are less confrontational? Tell me, when you were a cop, who ran the investigations - was it the local politicians, or professionals? Did those investigations take place on live TV? And when pols did get involved, did they tend to help or hinder? Can you think why it may be that people are saying that there are
different means to investigate the issue, and how that is a different thing to saying that we should not bother to investigate at all?
No, the problem is that you’ve not explained why King’s investigation is such a problem. You’ve presumed that it is, but you’ve not demonstrated that it is
Well, here’s my reasoning (outside of King’s associations with Ireland):
1) It has been instigated by a politician, new to his role, seemingly so he can make a name for himself
2) King has already made various statements on the issue that would appear to suggest that he has prejudged the outcome
3) It seems to be superficial, based on taking a fairly quick look at what is actually a complex issue. The first hearing, which lasted four hours, with no national law enforcement and no major Muslim groups represented, but a series of powerful anecdotes, is not a thorough investigation. It’s theatre. It added little new
4) Public enquiries have their place, but if you are dealing with a sensitive issue, it needs to be handled with care. It may well be that more can be learned by those who need to if it is not based on public hearings.
Are those points proven? I can’t say. I had already made arguments, or supported those made by Sass, in relation to (1) and (4). (2) is a new one, based on looking further at the history of the fellow, and (3) was something I suspected but has only been demonstrable after the first hearing, and is not unexpected given how Congressional Hearings operate.
It’s neither. I’m not surprised that a fool like you would set up such a dichotomy. You’ve got one fact: Peter King did some bad things--or rather supported those who did horrible things. From there you’ve leapt to the argument that his investigation is without merit. That’s not my problem. It’s your inability to articulate a viewpoint. I’ve read what you said. I’m not being dishonest.
Right, you have read my words, then. So when you read the post I wrote on page 6, in which I responded to Tom’s accusation that I was dismissing the hearings “simply because of [King’s] background” with the following:[quote=”Danivon”]That is not why I disagree with the hearings. I see them as politicking by King, as a way of making a name for himself and I also think that setting it up in this way appears designed to annoy Muslim Americans rather than to investigate why some become radicalised[/quote]you are telling me that this is somehow too unclear to follow? Or on page 4 where I said:[quote=”Danivon"]I don’t disagree that the issue of radicalisation should be investigated. I’m less that convinced that the forum of Congressional Hearing is the best way to go about it[/quote] was that not in plain enough English for you? Yes, I also have a problem with King being the one who set it up and runs it because of his past links (and his failure as far as I can see to disavow his part in violence when he was involved), but you are flat out wrong to state that this is the only basis for my arguments.
Either you unable to understand what I write, or are you able to and so are deliberately mischaracterising it for some motive? Perhaps I wrongly speculated as to what that motive is, and for that I apologise. So, if you can understand what you read, can you explain to me why you are indeed being dishonest about my position?
If you can’t, then please tell me what it is that is so difficult in those passages to understand. I assume you have at least attained grade-school level English comprehension, and so can point out what is so inarticulate.
If the guy’s name was “Peter Smith” and he was a Mormon from Kansas you would not be making these arguments.
If the Mormon Peter Smith had associations with extremism and violence, then I would be making them. If he was simply a loudmouth Representative I would be making all but one of them. Do not presume to tell me what I’d say (again). I thought that as a pastor you’d know that bearing false witness was sinful. Well, I used to think that, but you don’t seem to be like any of the priests that I know (even the blood-and-thunder ones I’ve met seldom stoop to pretending to be psychic as part of an argument)
14 Mar 2011, 11:49 pm 
