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.