http://www.foxnews.com/slidesh...-flying-flag?slide=1
Am I the only one who finds this unbelievable? This gentleman fought for us, so in return, to show how much we appreciate his sacrifice, he's being threatened with a lawsuit.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
quote:Originally posted by kimberleehel:
http://www.foxnews.com/slidesh...-flying-flag?slide=1
Am I the only one who finds this unbelievable? This gentleman fought for us, so in return, to show how much we appreciate his sacrifice, he's being threatened with a lawsuit.
quote:Originally posted by jaime.:
The threat of a lawsuit was dropped by these idiots thank goodness!
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/...91208-222007/310368/
quote:Originally posted by beternU:quote:Originally posted by kimberleehel:
http://www.foxnews.com/slidesh...-flying-flag?slide=1
Am I the only one who finds this unbelievable? This gentleman fought for us, so in return, to show how much we appreciate his sacrifice, he's being threatened with a lawsuit.
You are probably not the only one who finds this unbelievable. Expect the predictable cascade of "amens" from the right-wing.
I find it quite believable, however, that the gentleman is being required to comply with the covenants, conditions and restrictions that apply to all homeowners in his subdivision. He is NOT being told that he is prohibited from flying a flag. He is simply being told that he needs to fly his flag in compliance with the subdivision rules in effect when he moved there--rules he agreed to when he moved in.
Fox News has chosen to report this case, obviously because of the tie-in with a Medal of Honor winner. Fox reports the story rather matter-of-factly, however, so I will give them credit here for being consistent with their oft-violated mantra, "We report, you decide." Well, I have decided that this is a silly dust-up that right-wingers will predictably portray as some kind of callous abuse of a hero who just wants to fly his flag.
There are probably hundreds of actions taken each year by homeowners Associations to enforce against noncompliance with the covenants that apply to their subdivisions. Usually, all that is needed is a tactful letter to the violator or a visit by officers of the Homeowners Association, with legal action following only when these more gentle measures fail. Thus, it is probable that Mr. Barfoot had refused to do what he has been reasonably requested to do, leaving the Homeowners Association with no other course than to threaten legal action.
There is nothing "unbelievable" or "outrageous" about a Homeowners Association taking prescribed measures to prevent violation of rules governing its members. Holding a Medal of Honor does not provide Mr. Barfoot an exemption from the rules.
quote:Originally posted by beternU:quote:Originally posted by jaime.:
The threat of a lawsuit was dropped by these idiots thank goodness!
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/...91208-222007/310368/
The real idiot in all of this is Republican wingnut Congressman Eric Cantor, who used the situation to grandstand big-time by escalating this little neighborhood skirmish into a Congressional affair. "Cantor praised Barfoot as a man who made "countless sacrifices, wore his country's uniform with honor, and earned the right to proudly display the American flag." Listen up, Cantor--the man's right to fly his flag was not taken away. He was simply informed that the rules that apply to him and to all others in the subdivision prescribe the MANNER in which the flag is to be flown, and that his vertical, free-standing flagpole was inconsistent with those rules.
According to your link, Barfield contended "that the proper way to display the flag is on vertical pole, not on an angled porch fixture that is commonly in use, and approved, in his neighborhood." Barfield is simply mistaken on that point. The rules for display of the American flag prescribe a number of ways that are "proper," with no one way taking precedence over any other. For example:
"5. When the flag is suspended over a sidewalk from a rope extending from a house to a pole at the edge of the sidewalk, the flag should be hoisted out, union first, from the building.
6. When the flag of the United States is displayed from a staff projecting horizontally or at an angle from the window sill, balcony, or front of a building, the union of the flag should be placed at the peak of the staff unless the flag is at half-staff."
LINK: http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html
Undoubtedly, Barfield is a hero, and his courageous actions are to be respected, but they do not entitle him to violate rules that govern all homeowners in his subdivision, and especailly when such rules provide ample opportunity for him and others so disposed to fly the American flag upon their properties.
Much ado about nothing much, Congressman Cantor!
quote:Originally posted by jaime.:quote:Originally posted by beternU:quote:Originally posted by jaime.:
The threat of a lawsuit was dropped by these idiots thank goodness!
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/...91208-222007/310368/
The real idiot in all of this is Republican wingnut Congressman Eric Cantor, who used the situation to grandstand big-time by escalating this little neighborhood skirmish into a Congressional affair. "Cantor praised Barfoot as a man who made "countless sacrifices, wore his country's uniform with honor, and earned the right to proudly display the American flag." Listen up, Cantor--the man's right to fly his flag was not taken away. He was simply informed that the rules that apply to him and to all others in the subdivision prescribe the MANNER in which the flag is to be flown, and that his vertical, free-standing flagpole was inconsistent with those rules.
According to your link, Barfield contended "that the proper way to display the flag is on vertical pole, not on an angled porch fixture that is commonly in use, and approved, in his neighborhood." Barfield is simply mistaken on that point. The rules for display of the American flag prescribe a number of ways that are "proper," with no one way taking precedence over any other. For example:
"5. When the flag is suspended over a sidewalk from a rope extending from a house to a pole at the edge of the sidewalk, the flag should be hoisted out, union first, from the building.
6. When the flag of the United States is displayed from a staff projecting horizontally or at an angle from the window sill, balcony, or front of a building, the union of the flag should be placed at the peak of the staff unless the flag is at half-staff."
LINK: http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html
Undoubtedly, Barfield is a hero, and his courageous actions are to be respected, but they do not entitle him to violate rules that govern all homeowners in his subdivision, and especailly when such rules provide ample opportunity for him and others so disposed to fly the American flag upon their properties.
Much ado about nothing much, Congressman Cantor!
It's Col. Van T. Barfoot. Oh my, in your zeal to bash a Republican you let it cloud your mind (which I find you doing so often) and INCORRECTLY misnamed a living Medal of Honor recipient. Oh for shame!!! Learn to respect those who have sacrificed so much for this great country.
quote:Originally posted by beternU:quote:Originally posted by jaime.:
The threat of a lawsuit was dropped by these idiots thank goodness!
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/...91208-222007/310368/
The real idiot in all of this is Republican wingnut Congressman Eric Cantor, who used the situation to grandstand big-time by escalating this little neighborhood skirmish into a Congressional affair. "Cantor praised Barfoot as a man who made "countless sacrifices, wore his country's uniform with honor, and earned the right to proudly display the American flag." Listen up, Cantor--the man's right to fly his flag was not taken away. He was simply informed that the rules that apply to him and to all others in the subdivision prescribe the MANNER in which the flag is to be flown, and that his vertical, free-standing flagpole was inconsistent with those rules.
According to your link, Barfield contended "that the proper way to display the flag is on vertical pole, not on an angled porch fixture that is commonly in use, and approved, in his neighborhood." Barfield is simply mistaken on that point. The rules for display of the American flag prescribe a number of ways that are "proper," with no one way taking precedence over any other. For example:
"5. When the flag is suspended over a sidewalk from a rope extending from a house to a pole at the edge of the sidewalk, the flag should be hoisted out, union first, from the building.
6. When the flag of the United States is displayed from a staff projecting horizontally or at an angle from the window sill, balcony, or front of a building, the union of the flag should be placed at the peak of the staff unless the flag is at half-staff."
LINK: http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html
Undoubtedly, Barfield is a hero, and his courageous actions are to be respected, but they do not entitle him to violate rules that govern all homeowners in his subdivision, and especailly when such rules provide ample opportunity for him and others so disposed to fly the American flag upon their properties.
Much ado about nothing much, Congressman Cantor!
quote:Originally posted by beternU:quote:Originally posted by jaime.:quote:Originally posted by beternU:quote:Originally posted by jaime.:
The threat of a lawsuit was dropped by these idiots thank goodness!
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/...91208-222007/310368/
The real idiot in all of this is Republican wingnut Congressman Eric Cantor, who used the situation to grandstand big-time by escalating this little neighborhood skirmish into a Congressional affair. "Cantor praised Barfoot as a man who made "countless sacrifices, wore his country's uniform with honor, and earned the right to proudly display the American flag." Listen up, Cantor--the man's right to fly his flag was not taken away. He was simply informed that the rules that apply to him and to all others in the subdivision prescribe the MANNER in which the flag is to be flown, and that his vertical, free-standing flagpole was inconsistent with those rules.
According to your link, Barfield contended "that the proper way to display the flag is on vertical pole, not on an angled porch fixture that is commonly in use, and approved, in his neighborhood." Barfield is simply mistaken on that point. The rules for display of the American flag prescribe a number of ways that are "proper," with no one way taking precedence over any other. For example:
"5. When the flag is suspended over a sidewalk from a rope extending from a house to a pole at the edge of the sidewalk, the flag should be hoisted out, union first, from the building.
6. When the flag of the United States is displayed from a staff projecting horizontally or at an angle from the window sill, balcony, or front of a building, the union of the flag should be placed at the peak of the staff unless the flag is at half-staff."
LINK: http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html
Undoubtedly, Barfield is a hero, and his courageous actions are to be respected, but they do not entitle him to violate rules that govern all homeowners in his subdivision, and especailly when such rules provide ample opportunity for him and others so disposed to fly the American flag upon their properties.
Much ado about nothing much, Congressman Cantor!
It's Col. Van T. Barfoot. Oh my, in your zeal to bash a Republican you let it cloud your mind (which I find you doing so often) and INCORRECTLY misnamed a living Medal of Honor recipient. Oh for shame!!! Learn to respect those who have sacrificed so much for this great country.
Piffle! Okay, it is Barfoot, not Barfield. Now you may address the substance of the issue if you have competence to do so.
quote:Originally posted by thomaswayne0907:
he shouldn't be exempt. this is just another foxnews story that's being made into something that it's not.
quote:If you cannot find it in your heart to respect this Soldier enough to allow him the freedom to fly his American Flag as he wants, then your heart is terribly beyond repair.
The Sussex HOA finally saw fit to allow him. Why can’t you?
quote:Originally posted by beternU:
jaime emits the following eructation:quote:If you cannot find it in your heart to respect this Soldier enough to allow him the freedom to fly his American Flag as he wants, then your heart is terribly beyond repair.
The Sussex HOA finally saw fit to allow him. Why can’t you?
Double PIFFLE! It is not within my power to allow or to forbid Mr. Barfoot the freedom to fuy his flag. If the HOA wants to relax their rule and let him fly it on a pole, that is their business. My POINT was that rules, when formulated for all and subscribed to by all, should be honored by all.
An additional point was that Barfoot WAS NOT FORBIDDEN to fly the flag. Only the MANNER of flying it was prescribed by HOA regulation. Every single homeowner in the whole frazzlin' subdivision is entitled to fly the flag all day long, consistent with the rules.
Now tell me--how many other rules should be relaxed or invalidated just on the basis that a hero does not like want to obey the rules?
My heart is in fine shape.
quote:Originally posted by thomaswayne0907:
get over yourself jaime, my original post was in conjunction with Kimberleehel's, not yours.
quote:Originally posted by dolemitejb:
I can't tell what arguments are being made. There are two issues 1) what the HOA ought to do, and 2) what the government ought to do.
I cannot see any reason that any HOA, acting rationally, would want to deny a decorated war hero permission to fly a flag in any way they see fit. I also cannot see any reason the government should pass any law invalidating HOA agreements for any reason.
quote:Originally posted by MOBY:quote:Originally posted by dolemitejb:
I can't tell what arguments are being made. There are two issues 1) what the HOA ought to do, and 2) what the government ought to do.
I cannot see any reason that any HOA, acting rationally, would want to deny a decorated war hero permission to fly a flag in any way they see fit. I also cannot see any reason the government should pass any law invalidating HOA agreements for any reason.
An HOA would not necessarily want to deny him the right. He did not, however, follow the procedures and request a waiver. All he had to do was apply for permission to display it on the pole and it most likely would have been granted. If they allow him to not follow the rules/procedures, then they will not legally be able to enforce ANY of the rules.
quote:Originally posted by hammbone:
Jamie--I'm afraid you have gotten tangled up in Betternobody's political web. He has anxiously awaited ANY posted topic that could be REMOTELY turned into one of his VERBOSE and BORING left-wing rants. You incited debate from him! He craves it. His ego is so inflated that he needs to belittle 4-5 posters daily. Never feed the beast! (By the way, I too, believe it is outrageous. These covenants are becoming cult-like, IMHO.)
quote:Originally posted by jaime.:quote:Originally posted by beternU:
jaime emits the following eructation:quote:If you cannot find it in your heart to respect this Soldier enough to allow him the freedom to fly his American Flag as he wants, then your heart is terribly beyond repair.
The Sussex HOA finally saw fit to allow him. Why can’t you?
Double PIFFLE! It is not within my power to allow or to forbid Mr. Barfoot the freedom to fuy his flag. If the HOA wants to relax their rule and let him fly it on a pole, that is their business. My POINT was that rules, when formulated for all and subscribed to by all, should be honored by all.
An additional point was that Barfoot WAS NOT FORBIDDEN to fly the flag. Only the MANNER of flying it was prescribed by HOA regulation. Every single homeowner in the whole frazzlin' subdivision is entitled to fly the flag all day long, consistent with the rules.
Now tell me--how many other rules should be relaxed or invalidated just on the basis that a hero does not like want to obey the rules?
My heart is in fine shape.
It is beyond belief how crude one person can be. Neither you or twayne have grasped the concept of my post. Unbelievable. Go back and review what I have written and you will see that I have not mentioned any other rules except for this specific instance. You insist on making this more than what it is. You are too easy to predict BU.
If it was left up to politically correct people as yourself and if not for heroic people like Col. Barfoot, the world would be ruled by the Nazi party that Hitler began.
quote:Originally posted by rum_runner:
Just shows more of what Amerika...has become.
People worried more about how their lawn looks...than actually recognizing a persons actions...that makes their lawns possible.
Guess his neighbors all shop at WalMart (ie:ChinaTown)
Huh!
quote:Originally posted by beternU:
jaime emits the following eructation:quote:If you cannot find it in your heart to respect this Soldier enough to allow him the freedom to fly his American Flag as he wants, then your heart is terribly beyond repair.
The Sussex HOA finally saw fit to allow him. Why can’t you?
Double PIFFLE! It is not within my power to allow or to forbid Mr. Barfoot the freedom to fuy his flag. If the HOA wants to relax their rule and let him fly it on a pole, that is their business. My POINT was that rules, when formulated for all and subscribed to by all, should be honored by all.
An additional point was that Barfoot WAS NOT FORBIDDEN to fly the flag. Only the MANNER of flying it was prescribed by HOA regulation. Every single homeowner in the whole frazzlin' subdivision is entitled to fly the flag all day long, consistent with the rules.
Now tell me--how many other rules should be relaxed or invalidated just on the basis that a hero does not like want to obey the rules?
My heart is in fine shape.
quote:Originally posted by beternU:quote:Originally posted by jaime.:quote:Originally posted by beternU:
jaime emits the following eructation:quote:If you cannot find it in your heart to respect this Soldier enough to allow him the freedom to fly his American Flag as he wants, then your heart is terribly beyond repair.
The Sussex HOA finally saw fit to allow him. Why can’t you?
Double PIFFLE! It is not within my power to allow or to forbid Mr. Barfoot the freedom to fuy his flag. If the HOA wants to relax their rule and let him fly it on a pole, that is their business. My POINT was that rules, when formulated for all and subscribed to by all, should be honored by all.
An additional point was that Barfoot WAS NOT FORBIDDEN to fly the flag. Only the MANNER of flying it was prescribed by HOA regulation. Every single homeowner in the whole frazzlin' subdivision is entitled to fly the flag all day long, consistent with the rules.
Now tell me--how many other rules should be relaxed or invalidated just on the basis that a hero does not like want to obey the rules?
My heart is in fine shape.
It is beyond belief how crude one person can be. Neither you or twayne have grasped the concept of my post. Unbelievable. Go back and review what I have written and you will see that I have not mentioned any other rules except for this specific instance. You insist on making this more than what it is. You are too easy to predict BU.
If it was left up to politically correct people as yourself and if not for heroic people like Col. Barfoot, the world would be ruled by the Nazi party that Hitler began.
No, you did NOT mention other rules. I DID mention other rules, but only within the context of my reasonable inquiry as to just how many rules should be relaxed for persons on the basis of their heroism. That was a valid question, although one that perhaps complicated the discussion beyond your meager ability to understand.
As to your Hitlerian reference, TRIPLE PIFFLE!!!!
quote:Originally posted by rexkwondo72:
Holding a Medal of Honor does not provide Mr. Barfoot an exemption from the rules.
In my opinion being a Medal of Honor recipient gives him the right to do whatever the heck he wants. Link
quote:Originally posted by logical:quote:Originally posted by rexkwondo72:
Holding a Medal of Honor does not provide Mr. Barfoot an exemption from the rules.
In my opinion being a Medal of Honor recipient gives him the right to do whatever the heck he wants. Link
I must disagree with this. If Mr. Barfoot actually felt this way then he would lose my respect. What sort of role model would someone be if they felt free to break rules that others are subject to?
IMHO people in leadership roles/positions are even more obligated to follow rules than those who are not. Unfortunately, most folks tend towards the reverse.
quote:
IMHO people in leadership roles/positions are even more obligated to follow rules than those who are not. Unfortunately, most folks tend towards the reverse.
quote:Originally posted by Hott_moma:quote:Originally posted by beternU:
jaime emits the following eructation:quote:If you cannot find it in your heart to respect this Soldier enough to allow him the freedom to fly his American Flag as he wants, then your heart is terribly beyond repair.
The Sussex HOA finally saw fit to allow him. Why can’t you?
Double PIFFLE! It is not within my power to allow or to forbid Mr. Barfoot the freedom to fuy his flag. If the HOA wants to relax their rule and let him fly it on a pole, that is their business. My POINT was that rules, when formulated for all and subscribed to by all, should be honored by all.
An additional point was that Barfoot WAS NOT FORBIDDEN to fly the flag. Only the MANNER of flying it was prescribed by HOA regulation. Every single homeowner in the whole frazzlin' subdivision is entitled to fly the flag all day long, consistent with the rules.
Now tell me--how many other rules should be relaxed or invalidated just on the basis that a hero does not like want to obey the rules?
My heart is in fine shape.
Sorry this is off subject, but since Beternu is always correcting everyone's grammar maybe he should have learned to spell F-L-Y!