Skip to main content

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.


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.
Last edited 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 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.


Typical liberal comeback. I would expect nothing less of you. It's sad to think that a living Medal of Honor recipient, one of 92 still living, cannot earn more respect from liberal half-wits such as yourself. If you don’t think holding the highest honor a military person can obtain deserves a little more respect and an exemption to fly the very flag for which he risked his life, then you are sad indeed.
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.
jaime erupts thusly:

[QUOTE]Typical liberal comeback. I would expect nothing less of you. It's sad to think that a living Medal of Honor recipient, one of 92 still living, cannot earn more respect from liberal half-wits such as yourself. If you don’t think holding the highest honor a military person can obtain deserves a little more respect and an exemption to fly the very flag for which he risked his life, then you are sad indeed.{QUOTE]

Pay attention. Mr. Barfield does not need an exemption to fly the flag. He already has permission to fly his flag. He does not have permission to fly it in a manner that violates the rules that apply to him and all others in his subdivision.

I sincerely respect Mr. Barfield and his heroic accomplishments. But neither he nor any other persons of special accomplishment are entitled to submit their accomplishments as justification for breaking the rules. Have you considered that in fighting for this country, Mr. Barfield was defending, inter alia, the rights of people such as homeowners associations to come together and voluntarily submit to rules designed for the common good?
The first line of enforcement of such rules is by the persons who benefit from then, the homeowners. Only when a homeowner doggedly refuses to comply is legal action threatened

Would you prefer a system where such rules, instead of being formulated by homeowners, were imposed from outside, by the government, with no input from those affected? I think not. But retrospectively, that is pretty much what the meddlesome Eric Cantor is doing, or trying to do. He is trying to extend the long arm of federal authority into a little neighborhood matter. Cantor and other wingnuts want it both ways. They want to keep government off peoples' backs when it suits them but they also want to control personal and local actions when they can make political hay by doing so. Can you say Terry Schiavo?
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.
Cantor is indeed a wimp and waited way too long to weigh in on this, but he has offered a bill that will make allowances (in light of some of these ridiculous HOA laws) for any winner of a Medal of Honor to fly the flag "properly". I hope he didn't withdraw it in light of Barfoot's HOA backing down. I think we need this bill anyway just in case the situation arises again.
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 another matter of lack of common sense. If this man wants to fly his flag on a vertical pole then so be it. If there was a rule against it then someone needs to have the balls to say lets change the rule. It was so predictable that bitternut would be against it.
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.


I will gladly address the substance of issue here dear madam/sir!
As I correctly assumed you would do, as is your modus operandi, you have turned what is a matter of giving someone who has done something extraordinary the exemption to fly the American flag as he sees fit (as long as no other person rights are infringed) into a bash Republican debate.

I have not and will not express any concordance with Congress issuing specific laws on a particular group. Id est, the Sussex Square HOA. The resolution brought forth by Rep. Cantor has no issue in this case as it only addresses the matter of allowing a Medal of Honor to display a flag in the proper manner. Any passage of this bill would have no impact on this particular situation because the HOA has a provision for displaying the Flag.

This entire situation is not about denying a person the right to simply display a flag. It is about giving the proper respect to a decorated war hero that put his country and his fellow soldiers above himself.

Just so you will know what this man went through to EARN the right to fly the Flag however he sees fit, here is how his Medal of Honor citation reads:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty on 23 May 1944, near Carano, Italy. With his platoon heavily engaged during an assault against forces well entrenched on commanding ground, 2d Lt. Barfoot (then Tech. Sgt.) moved off alone upon the enemy left flank. He crawled to the proximity of 1 machinegun nest and made a direct hit on it with a hand grenade, killing 2 and wounding 3 Germans. He continued along the German defense line to another machinegun emplacement, and with his tommygun killed 2 and captured 3 soldiers. Members of another enemy machinegun crew then abandoned their position and gave themselves up to Sgt. Barfoot. Leaving the prisoners for his support squad to pick up, he proceeded to mop up positions in the immediate area, capturing more prisoners and bringing his total count to 17. Later that day, after he had reorganized his men and consolidated the newly captured ground, the enemy launched a fierce armored counterattack directly at his platoon positions. Securing a bazooka, Sgt. Barfoot took up an exposed position directly in front of 3 advancing Mark VI tanks. From a distance of 75 yards his first shot destroyed the track of the leading tank, effectively disabling it, while the other 2 changed direction toward the flank. As the crew of the disabled tank dismounted, Sgt. Barfoot killed 3 of them with his tommygun. He continued onward into enemy terrain and destroyed a recently abandoned German fieldpiece with a demolition charge placed in the breech. While returning to his platoon position, Sgt. Barfoot, though greatly fatigued by his Herculean efforts, assisted 2 of his seriously wounded men 1,700 yards to a position of safety. Sgt. Barfoot's extraordinary heroism, demonstration of magnificent valor, and aggressive determination in the face of pointblank fire are a perpetual inspiration to his fellow soldiers.

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?
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:
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.
Last edited by jaime.
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.
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 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 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.


Agreed!
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.)


It's cool hammbone. I'm well aware of the web betern spins. He's to predictable and to easy. I knew what I was getting into. Smiler
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 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!


So you have concluded that all those neighbors of Mr. Barfoot have done nothing to recognize his heroic actions? And how do you, in your wisdom and clairvoyance, know that? Be advised, rumrunner, that when you ASSume things that you can not substantiate, then you have offered NOTHING but ASSumptions.
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! Big Grin
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!!!!


Oh my goodness, the dreaded TRIPLE PIFFLE!!! What's next, the sinister TRIPLE DOG PIFFLE??? Smiler

Your perception of my "meager" ability to understand has fallen short of my actual ability of understanding. You on the other hand, are continuing to assert that I am proposing Col. Barfoot be exempt from something more than the subject of the discussion. I have not suggested such things, but at least I would have the common sense and decency to take into consideration the past of a 90 year old American Hero when it comes to matters of enforcing rules on such an individual. I am not suggesting someone be exempt from written LAWS. An HOA does not have written LAWS that one has to follow or face prosecution from the government. They have RULES that are controlled by a group of people that have complete control of what, who, when and where they are enforced. This is the nexus of my debate here.
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:
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.


At no point has Col. Barfoot stated that he is above anyone else. To the contrary, he has demonstrated that he willing to lay down his life for his fellow man!

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.


I agree with you totally!!! Smiler
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! Big Grin


This also is off subject, but you need to know how to distinguish between GRAMMAR and SPELLING.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×