4 votes

TheDC: Bloomberg & OH Mayor's Staffer SCURRY, when confronted on Payola/Retirement Plan via AntiGun Lobby MAIG

Run ya cockroaches! Run!

Interview request to Ohio mayor sets off alarms for Bloomberg, Media Matters

Published: 11:51 PM 08/09/2012

By Jesse Hathaway

Before responding to a May 2012 interview request from conservative news organization Media Trackers Ohio, an employee of Columbus, Ohio Mayor Michael Coleman forwarded the request to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s office and a liberal D.C. consultant, who immediately alerted liberal organization Media Matters for America.

The Coleman staffer, R. Lee Roberts, is the Ohio chairman of Mayor Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), a pro-gun control lobbying group. Coleman, a Democrat, receives a salary from MAIG but works from Coleman’s office and participates in a taxpayer-funded retirement plan.

Media Trackers has since used public records to prove Roberts coordinated with Bloomberg employees and left-wing Ohio nonprofit, ProgressOhio, to advance MAIG’s policy agenda using the January 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, and a February 2012 school shooting in Chardon, Ohio.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/09/interview-request-to-ohio-...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

MAIG is

"pro gun-control" not "pro-gun control"

Actually, as much as I detest the idea of defending anyone

from F*cker Carlson's The Daily Caller, now that Jack Hunter has officially fallen out of my favor, be that as it may, how the writer wrote it, is acceptable, provided what follows "pro-" is a known word, or a phrase.

In modern diction, both "gun control" and "guncontrol" have been used interchangeably.

So, if the writer wants to allude that a term is 'for something,' and essentially make a transitory 'prefixed' word, anything "pro-___________" is fine, be that a single word, or a phrase.

I say "transitory" because while true, it's completely arbitrary when something culturally can 'acceptably' become a 'new' word, but it's become a common practice for one to add a dash before a word, as a descriptive prefix/adjective, for a word that has not been settled on widely, 'yet.'

So if the writer viewed "gun control" as a whole 'word,' it is grammatically correct to call it pro-gun control, as well as pro-guncontrol.

Though personally, I've rarely seen "gun-control," written in that manner, used widely. Of course, that doesn't mean you're wrong. It's just that I haven't seen it used that way, that much.

But, even IF one wants to add "pro-" prior to a two-word phrase connected via a dash like "gun-control" (if one accepts that version vs. say "gun control"), it still is a more widely accepted linguistic practice that one uses only one dash, not two, as the version you're asserting to be the correct one is really:

pro- "gun-control."

Thus, "pro-gun control," is still more preferable than "pro-gun-control."

Because if you say "pro gun-control," you're making the entire "pro gun" into a descriptor/adjective. As such, what you actually end up saying is that your "control" is "pro gun."

Think of say... a "reddish yellow-car."

In such case, because both "yellow" and "red" are colors, ie. same category, it's easier to distinguish; people automatically assume that you're referring to a car that's both red and yellow.

NOT, a "yellow car" (assuming that a car CAN be natively yellow, pre-paint) that's also a bit "red."

Now, if you wanted to say that your already "yellow car" has somewhat of "red" hue mixed in? Then, you would say "reddish-yellow car," which is kinda redundant as me merely stating "reddish" just made it an adjective for the color "yellow."

So in that case, with or without the dash, I'm already describing that particular "yellow" as having some "red" mixed in: thus, reddish yellow.

Suppose, one can argue that because you're describing variations in the same category, ie. color, trying to tie together "pro"+"gun"+"control," which are all separate items, into a working phrase, is comparing apples and oranges.

Well... true, kinda.

Which is why, ALL of my above stated reasons are PRECISELY why personally, I'm of the mind that one should write however one likes, as there is no real absolute right way of using any language, as it was never fiat; everyday-people used the language, verbally, before it were ever 'codified' into written structures.

Language has always developed that way, for the most part.

So, just because a bunch of hoity-toity self-proclaimed linguistic 'masters' meet annually to decide what is, or is not 'linguistically acceptable' as a modern vernacular, don't make it so.

Just in the same way that we won't accept fiat currency,

It's like, who the hell do they think they are?

LOL.o)

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

A old Navy friend

Of mine from my used to say "Well alright!". That's the first thing that came to mind when I read your response. You got it covered AnCap and I totally appreciate that well thought out response. Thanks for taking the time. Youre good people.

you're welcome!

happy to oblige.

excuse my long-winded verbosity, as it's always been a work in progress for me.o)

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul