Instead of admitting that Mayor Daley's remark was not really a threat and calling it that was a simple rhetorical trick on his part, which I suggested, Kurt, always true to form, stuck to his guns.
The "mayor's comments" referred to above would be Daley's proposal to put a bayonet tipped rifle "up [the] butt" of a reporter who had the temerity to ask if Chicago's handgun ban could be said to be effective, given the consistent carnage there.
Repeating the word "proposal" several times in the new article seems to be the new way to distort the mayor's comments, while supporting his original question: "Is Chicago's Mayor Daley guilty of 'terroristic threats'?"
What's your opinion? Is Kurt one of those stubborn guys who can never admit when they're wrong? Is it reasonable to you that during a press conference, while being video taped, Mayor Daley really threatened to harm someone? On the other hand, do you think someone making a call to the mayor from California, might have been serious?
I think it was clear from the very beginning that the mayor did not threaten anyone. I don't think the California caller was so obviously innocent, at least not at the beginning. Yet, at this point, extraditing him to Chicago and making an example out of him is just a foolish as insisting the mayor was guilty of 'terroristic threats'.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
Let's see:
ReplyDeleteOne guy was hundreds of miles away, on a telephone. The other guy was standing right there, with a gun in his hands.
Logically, the more imminent threat is the guy with the gun in his hands. That's the guy i'd put in jail.
Neither of them was a true threat and should be treated as such. One of them was a mayor of a major city and at the very least should publicly apologize for making such a boneheaded remark.
ReplyDeleteOf course, Hoffmmann is neurologically impaired and since his life is devoid of anything save for his male enhancement toys, it should be no surprise that he harp on Daley.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it rather telling that the gunloons are taking Daley's comments far more seriously than the reporter?
--JadeGold
Their rules of engagement include, never backing down and never admitting you're wrong.
ReplyDeleteI'll cheerfully admit I'm wrong--hardly a new experience for me--when I see some indication that I am wrong about this. You're the one who called Fox's words "the same kind of stupid remarks" (that Daley made). If Daley's words were not a threat, then obviously neither were Fox's--unless the standards are different for Chicago's King Richard II.
As for my "repeating the word 'proposal' several times in the new article," I actually was thinking of you when I called it something other than a threat--I know how much that offends your delicate sensibilities. Apparently, "proposal" doesn't make the grade either. Alright, then, O wise arbiter of linguistics, what word do you suggest?
Hey Jade--what's up--you're only giving me one "H"?
"Isn't it rather telling that the gunloons are taking Daley's comments far more seriously than the reporter?"
ReplyDeleteReporters aren't exactly known for their quickness. Why do you think so many people crack on communications majors?
RuffRidr said it.
ReplyDelete"Neither of them was a true threat and should be treated as such."
Amen to that. Can we agree that the only true threat is Kurt? (That's a joke)
Amen to that. Can we agree that the only true threat is Kurt? (That's a joke)
ReplyDeleteAnd not a bad one, either.
If Daley and Fox were treated equally--whichever that treatment was--I'd have little to criticize.
It's Daley's elite treatment that deserves condemnation.
MikeB: “RuffRidr said it.
ReplyDelete"Neither of them was a true threat and should be treated as such."
Amen to that. Can we agree that the only true threat is Kurt? (That's a joke)”
Does that mean you are retracting the following statement:
MikeB: “In my opinion, he should now be released and charged with some minor offenses. But since these involve gun ownership and his mental state and threatening a public official, he should forfeit his rights to own guns the same way a domestic violence offender does.”
Good catch, TS, but I don't think the two remarks are mutually exclusive.
ReplyDeleteI don't suggest the only disqualifying gun crime is "making a threat." I'd like to see any gun crime at all result in disqualification, or should I say, a life-changing permanent punishment.
One thing you picked up on is initially I thought he'd threatened Daley. But as the story unfolded and it became clear he was just trying to make a point and had no travel plans to go to Chicago, it became clear that "threat" was too strong to describe what he'd done.
So let's see, what could his disqualifying behavior have been? Making feigned threats to a public official, expressing difficulty with anger management, plain stupidity, I don't know, there must be something.
MikeB: “So let's see, what could his disqualifying behavior have been? Making feigned threats to a public official, expressing difficulty with anger management, plain stupidity, I don't know, there must be something.”
ReplyDeleteAnd whatever that punishment for “just plain stupidity” is, you should apply to Daley as well. Of course Daley could care less about being disqualified, but maybe he won’t be mayor (and have bodyguards) forever.