GOP seeks to cut funding to Tsunami Relief and Preparedness. And no cuts in Defense.

Reason number 286 that an across the budget 25% reduction would treat all programs equally. No favorites, no special pet projects...

If nobody likes everything end everyone likes something in a budget, it must be pretty fair...

GMTom wrote:His background is fair game, dismissing the hearing simply because of his background is flat out wrong.

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 (and let's be clear, there are very few Americans who have become Islamic terrorists.

And the story posted is simply a smear piece having nothing to do with the investigation.

Sorry, but how is it irrelevant that the chair of the Congressional committee overseeing Homeland Security has links to terrorism? Fair enough, terrorism that occurred mainly in the UK and is thankfully largely done and dusted, but terrorism all the same. The investigation is about terrorism, isn't it? I mean, you don't think it's about something else, perhaps?

agreed about the guy, he's a scoundrel. I'm not sticking up for him or his position past or present. But this grandstanding is assumed is it not? It may very well be and if so, call him on it. I don't doubt this may very well be the case. But I have seen so very many liberal blogs and such dismiss this without even giving a chance. That is my problem, without knowing what is to be said, what is to be done, we find so many attempts to dismiss this. It is after all a liberal agenda to denounce any sort of linkage between Islam (extremism) and terrorism. It's as plain as the nose on your face but it has to be ignored and these liberal outlets are simply following their marching orders.
As far as Danivon goes (one of our more liberal posters here?) I am happy to see he at least acknowledges this link and he shows he is at least thinking for himself! (not all here have their own minds) But the simple assumption that he can not be objective, the assumption this is a waste of time, the assumption this is grandstanding ...them's a lot of assumptions. Again, it would not surprise me if every assumption ends up true, but it isn't wise to simply dismiss this with a waive of the hand.

Care to put a name to those of us who don't have our own minds ?

nope, read a few posts and I think you can figure it out. Seemingly no individual thought

Actually I can't. All the regulars here seem to me to have arrived at their opinions independently, even if I don't agree with most of them. You're going to have to help me out here Tom.

That is my problem, without knowing what is to be said, what is to be done

Tom, you made this comment on March 11 at 1:23 PM.

The hearings were on March 10.

yep, and those comments I referred to were made when?
Before the hearings, nice try

I'm going to bet you weren't even aware of the timing of the hearings...
I think my point would be that you could have, when you wrote, , if you refered to the reports of the hearings, made a call as to who was accurate in their prognostications. After all, if the hearings turned out to have some enormous probative value the media reports would focus on that wouldn't they?
On the other hand if nothing was learned from the 7 witnesses, that wasn't already known ... (really 7 witnesses is all they had?)
If all that was served was that some fairly anonymous congressmen got to try being McCarthy then the assumptions you are complaining about turned out to be correctly made havn;t they? And the problem is not making assumptions. Its making incorrect assumptions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

The list of "witrnesses" and the actual "testimony" was pretty threadbare. It offered nothing new, and indicates that King couldn't find anything note worthy that would alarm the public .But that it didn't stop him from using the blunt instrument of congressional hearings to give his attitudes an airing.
Its telling that he didn't attract any law enforcement witnesses and the only one there, a democratic witness, refuted the heated asertions he faced. I'm guessing that the only lasting image of the hearings will be rep. Ellison crying and evoking the memory of a Muslim killed as a first responder at 9/11.

I'm going to bet you weren't even aware of the timing of the hearings...

Gee thanks for the vote of confidence, but you would have lost that bet. In fact, I remember when I was about to reply ...I wondered when the hearings were, I had to look up something or other regarding the topic and noticed, "oh look there, it was yesterday".
I even thought about not posting it but read what was being replied to and what I said was still correct and I went ahead and finished the posting. As expected, the hearing indeed went off without even being noticed by the media. And if you notice, I even agreed that would probably be the case.
But "probably" is the key word and that is what I was referring to as well.

And the problem is not making assumptions. Its making incorrect assumptions.

Huh? It's ok to guess all you want as long as you were right?
The ends justify the means???

Either way, it looks as if I assumed correctly huh?
And your assumption that I did not know the hearing had already been made turns out to be wrong, so based on your own logic, incorrect assumptions are a problem ....you sir seem to have a problem you need to deal with?

and Ricky, you really do make me laugh...

Congressional hearings are no big deal, why sure some of them are and can be a big deal but most go un-noticed and fly low under the radar. I did a quick look-see and found a list of hearings from 2009-2010
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... ion=nosort
Some examples:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2009

FREIGHT AND PASSENGER RAIL: PRESENT AND FUTURE ROLES, PERFORMANCE, BENEFITS, AND NEEDS

NEW INNOVATIONS AND BEST PRACTICES UNDER THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT

YOUTH VIOLENCE: TRENDS, MYTHS, AND SOLUTIONS

LIBEL TOURISM

ENCOURAGING FAMILY-FRIENDLY WORKPLACE POLICIES


...it goes on and on, a big yawn fest! As assumed correctly, this would be yet another such affair. How come you didn't complain about them having a hearing on Youth Violence? Of course nothing new was going to be found, and it was likely nothing but grandstanding to score some political points ...it seems quite along the same lines as this doesn't it? Why are you soooo against one and not the other? Why is the US government wasting time so concerning to you all of a sudden?

Tom, I think the point here is that a hearing into rail freight or the workplace investment act (whatever that is) are somewhat different to a hearing chaired by a known terrorist sympathiser designed to cast a negative spotlight on a particular section of the community for no tangible benefit. It's quite clear that the goal was to make a point, that point being that the US Islamic community cannot be trusted. This much was obvious from the outset.

there's also the wider point about the judgment of the Republican leadership in selecting a man with such a past to head up the Homeland Security committee. I guess that isn't directly related to the issue of the hearing per se, but it did bring it to light and I think it's fair to comment on it.

Nope, the point here was that the hearing was wrong and/or a waste of time. (turns out yes it was indeed a waste of time, I had pointed out we could not know for certain if it would be).
The liberal agenda that is against any accusations against Islamic extremists took the opportunity to turn that issue into something different and call it a sham because of Kings role. Agreed King is no saint but it was in no way a sham, his history played no role in how things proceeded. Kings past had zero to do with the point of the hearing and was instead a smokescreen. Please do not lose sight of the issue, looking into Islamic Extremism. This issue was basically no different than the Youth Violence trend a waste of time looking into an otherwise very real problem. Who headed the hearing was simply an attempt to change the focus and it seems to have worked. Sass, you yourself are already claiming the "point" was something it most certainly was not. Did you read even one posting here in support of Kings past? Nobody here supports the clown, we simply said the Islamic Extremists are a very real threat, are you suggesting we should not investigate this threat? You can certainly claim another should be in charge of it, but that my friend is ...another point!
Please don't confuse the two, when an attempt to confuse by bringing up a different issue is made, that is called a smokescreen isn't it?

and should you think the issue was about Kings role and not about the validity of having such a hearing at all...

Are Congressional Hearings about "getting the facts" or are they about politcal grandstanding. Creating a media event that will persuade the populace that action is required? Or are they about political opportunism. The chairmen and its members hoping to get a moment in the spotlight to polish their credentials as "wise men or women".

I kind of doubt its about getting the facts.

we were arguing this claim, one that the hearing was not about a very real threat. "(No) action is required"?
Does anyone really believe this crap? Excuse me, where do most of today's terrorists come from? Seems to me action most certainly is required and a hearing isn't a bad start?