But old Kurt took it one wild step further. here's his title.
Is Chicago's Mayor Daley guilty of 'terroristic threats'?
When the pro-gun guys resort to such ridiculous exaggerations it proves they are not as convinced about their argument as they pretend to be.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
Kurt Hoffman, of course, is neurologically impaired. Perhaps, he should hold his breath waiting for Mayor Daley to be arrested. It certainly wouldn't kill off any more of Kurt's remaining brain cells.
ReplyDeleteMayor Daley's comments were apt.
Kass notes that Daley ha armed bodyguards but neglects to note SCOTUS justices do as well. Further, for the first time in its history, the SC has closed its doors to the public. Now, the public must enter the Court via a side door with metal detectors and armed guards. In fact, no other democratic country's highest court has barred the public from its entrance.
Reap what you sow.
--JadeGold
Jadegold: “Kurt Hoffman, of course, is neurologically impaired. Perhaps, he should hold his breath waiting for Mayor Daley to be arrested. It certainly wouldn't kill off any more of Kurt's remaining brain cells.”
ReplyDeleteI’ll just borrow your quote here MikeB; “When the [anti-gun] guys resort to such ridiculous exaggerations it proves they are not as convinced about their argument as they pretend to be.”
I wouldn’t call what Daley said a terrorist threat, and I don’t think he owes an apology to the Supreme Court. I do think he owes an apology to that reporter, and maybe the entire population of Chicago. Maybe if something happened to one of Daley’s loved ones but was saved by use of a gun, he would change his tune.
TS has nothing to add save for his usual "the anti-gun folks did this or that" nonsense.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things that our Enzyte™ of Gunloons miss is that Daley is a politician that really doesn't have anything to fear WRT reelection. He pretty much could run on virtually any platform and win. He usually wins with about 80% of the vote.
So, you have to ask why Daley takes the position he does on guns. What's in it for him?
Of course, our Enzyte™ of Gunloons will claim Daley wishes to enslave all Chicagoans and render them helpless and defenseless, etc, etc. But even they don't believe that.
This is the problem our Enzyte™ of Gunloons face; the motivation of many mayors that have enacted modest gun laws cannot be criticized except by fantasy and hyperbole.
--JadeGold
Ah, Jade shows his true colors.
ReplyDeleteOnly in anti-gun land is an outright ban on both keeping and bearing considered "modest" gun control.
And you wonder why we fight you bigots tooth and nail (and win)
Jadegold: “TS has nothing to add save for his usual "the anti-gun folks did this or that" nonsense.”
ReplyDeleteWhat is with you and the “nothing to add” line? Last time you used that I thoroughly explained all the points that I did add which you ignored the first time and continue to ignore. On this post, I ADDED that disagree with Kurt Hoffman, yet you’ll note that I did it politely without personally insulting him, because if I did it would undermine my credibility and make me argue like a petulant child.
Since TS has nothing of interest to add, TPM has an interesting article on NRA member Jerry Kane:
ReplyDeletehttp://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/kane_unsuccessful_debt_seminar_speaker.php?ref=fpb
You often find seminars of this type at gun shows. Gun shows I've been to will offer seminars and/or DVDs showing that you aren't obligated to pay taxes or that contracts have no legal basis. In fact, Kane and his cronies often hawked their wares at gun shows.
A pretty hard rule of business is that you sell where your products have a market. Thus, it's really no surprise that gun shows are the market for these bizarre scams.
--JadeGold
Well, hello, Mr. 302000. Haven't been here for a while, but noticed you'd linked to my column. Thanks, I guess, although I see I don't seem to have impressed you (but "well-known pro-gun writer" was a flattering, if wildly inaccurate, touch).
ReplyDeleteYou should note that I never said "terroristic threat" without putting the term in quotes. That's not only due to my taking umbrage at the unprovoked assault on the English language that I consider "words" such as "terroristic" to be. It also has something to do with my objection to using the bogeyman of "terrorism" to advance an authoritarian agenda.
Still, when I said: "In some jurisdictions, these remarks could probably be interpreted as thinly veiled 'terroristic threats,'" I meant it.
Actually, you seem to have recently mentioned a case of rather liberal use of the term "terroristic" yourself.
How about the 14-year-old autistic boy facing charges of "making 'terroristic threats,'" for a drawing?
So tell me, Mr. 302000, how, exactly, is it "hysterical" of me to ask if Daley's rant doesn't make him just as "guilty" as the autistic kid?
Oh, and JadeGold--the name is Hofmann, not "Hoffman," you brainless, illiterate fuck.
Kurt, I apologize for also misspelling your name. I broke my rule of always fact checking whatever Jadegold says before I believe it.
ReplyDeleteDon't sweat it, TS--I don't really care about the name thing--I just like calling out JadeGold's dumb ass.
ReplyDeleteTS, Why is it you never have anything to add?
ReplyDeleteThat's a joke. Did I get ya for a minute.
When JadeGold says that I think he's just breaking balls because it's obviously not true about you. Just as it isn't true about him. Unlike Mike W., along with Jade's colorful remarks, he usually adds to the discussion. I think it's a mistake to focus on his description of Kurt when in the same comment he had this to say:
"Kass notes that Daley ha armed bodyguards but neglects to note SCOTUS justices do as well. Further, for the first time in its history, the SC has closed its doors to the public. Now, the public must enter the Court via a side door with metal detectors and armed guards. In fact, no other democratic country's highest court has barred the public from its entrance.
Reap what you sow."
That was the real point of the comment.
Kurt,
ReplyDeleteThanks for coming by, but I'm afraid your explaination comes up short in justifying the silly-ass use of "terroristic."
The link you provided is to a post in which I complained about the misuse of that very word, just like I'm doing about your Examiner article.
And what does the austic boy have to do with anything? My point is all of you who are so freely using the word terroristic are hysterically exaggerating.
Says Mr. 302000:
ReplyDeleteMy point is all of you who are so freely using the word terroristic are hysterically exaggerating.
And my point is that those people actually are facing the actual legal charge of "making terroristic threats." I don't have to agree with it (and, in fact, I don't)--the fact remains that they face prosecution for that charge.
Since Daley is arguably almost as mentally capable as a 14-year-old autistic boy, it seems a fair comparison.
Kurt, I'm impressed. You were even linked to by Instapundit.
ReplyDeleteThanks--just part of being "well known" ;-).
ReplyDelete