December 08, 2009
— Dave in Texas Like Obama said, "they acted stupidly". Which he didn't really say, but they did.
Barfoot won the Medal of Honor for actions while his platoon was under German assault near Carano, Italy, in May 1944. He was credited with standing up to three German tanks with a bazooka and stopping their advance.He also won the Purple Heart and other decorations, and served in Korea and Vietnam before retiring from the service in 1974.
Seriously people, what the hell were you thinking? Aesthetic guidelines? A rusted out 51 International Harvester in the front yard is an "aesthetic guideline" (I know this because I had to correct the spelling for my neighbor, who wouldn't even come to the door to show me the letter until I put on a bathrobe).
There's nothing quite so petty as picking a fight with an elderly war hero, and in the process pissing off the rest of the country plus two Senators. Good thinking!
Posted by: Dave in Texas at
05:31 PM
| Comments (43)
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Flubber at December 08, 2009 05:41 PM (/kVbY)
Yeah, right, and they showed all the newsfolks right where flying 'Old Glory' was prohibited in their published "aesthetic guideline".
Posted by: Druid at December 08, 2009 05:41 PM (Gct7d)
Posted by: Britt at December 08, 2009 05:43 PM (DcWbe)
Posted by: Frank G at December 08, 2009 05:46 PM (I+To0)
Posted by: Lone Marauder at December 08, 2009 05:49 PM (p1iaB)
Posted by: RushBabe at December 08, 2009 05:51 PM (LKkE8)
Posted by: J. Wilde at December 08, 2009 05:53 PM (ZE0Hi)
Posted by: TheQuietMan at December 08, 2009 05:53 PM (I7cvO)
Posted by: Truman North at December 08, 2009 05:55 PM (XH/G8)
Some of the rules are pretty picky, but no one is required to live in these communities, and if a majority of the residents want to change the rules, they can. I''m fine with the idea that people in different communities should be allowed to make rules for their own community that aren't likely the same rules someone would make elsewhere.
That said, I think a smart HOA board would make a rule that would allow any 90-year old Medal of Honor recipient to fly whatever size or shape of flag he wants, on whatever kind of poll he wants to put it on, on whatever part of his property suits him. I doubt they'll have any problems with such a rule.
Posted by: Skeptic at December 08, 2009 05:56 PM (hvmhn)
Also, you have to question the smarts of a group of people who decided to boss around a man who took on three German Tiger tanks head-on armed with only a bazooka and a Thompson, and came out on top.
Wish I'd written that.
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at December 08, 2009 05:57 PM (9Lm5R)
Mark Levin had this story about a week ago. I called the law firm representing the HOA and told them what a bunch of pussies and douches they were.I think during the course of the not-too-civil discussion that I actually used those words.
Posted by: beedubya at December 08, 2009 05:57 PM (AnTyA)
Posted by: John Galt at December 08, 2009 06:02 PM (Ylv1H)
Posted by: A.G. at December 08, 2009 06:07 PM (jBPzC)
Posted by: logprof at December 08, 2009 06:08 PM (I3Udb)
12 Contrary ...
Posted by: Skeptic
Jurisdiction I am in does not require that a property under a HOA disclose anything until closing.
That follows that the Seller need not under its Agreement/Offer of Sale.
Needless to say, though a 'right to work' State, they are as in the bag as New York State, Cali, or Michigan.
Posted by: Druid at December 08, 2009 06:14 PM (Gct7d)
Fuck that
Posted by: Melodic Metal at December 08, 2009 06:19 PM (9QC0z)
Posted by: AngelEm at December 08, 2009 06:20 PM (HCxZ0)
The HOA is the PROFESSIONAL IMPLEMENTATION of the amateur Obama Administration. Better?
Posted by: codekeyguy at December 08, 2009 06:27 PM (ss9Ij)
The issue is that it was not explicitly against the rules per the HOA. All that was stated that any displays must be aesthetically pleasing. There were *no* direct bans against flag poles. Thus, the argument of knowing the rules when you moved is isn't valid. Also remember that many HOAs change their rules quickly and with only the consent of those in the meeting. If you say, have children to take care of, and can't make it to the meeting, you may find yourself hosed.
Posted by: GeoSTI at December 08, 2009 06:31 PM (chyhr)
Posted by: befuddled at December 08, 2009 06:31 PM (BByz2)
They and the cold warriors basically fought for nothing since we are now implementing everything they fought against at a breakneck pace.
I would consider it a massive fraud for someone to sell me a property without telling me that I won't actually own it. Some board of neighborhood busybodies will own it and I will merely be the caretaker. How stupid would anyone have to be to go for that sort of deal?
Posted by: Voluble at December 08, 2009 06:44 PM (nZNTl)
I am ashamed of Chairman Zero. He is a disgrace, an embarrassment to this country, and an insult to every veteran, live or dead.
Posted by: the real joe at December 08, 2009 06:52 PM (SUYSs)
Posted by: Unclefacts, Summoner of Bacons, and the Odd Meteor at December 08, 2009 06:56 PM (erIg9)
"Some of the rules are pretty picky, but no one is required to live in these communities, and if a majority of the residents want to change the rules, they can"
Just throwing this out here, but no one is required to live in the United States, and if a majority of residents want to eliminate Jews/Poles/Blacks/Etc, etc... OH WAIT.
We live in a republic, not in a democracy. HOAs have to live by the rules too.
I''m fine with the idea that people in different communities should be allowed to make rules for their own community that aren't likely the same rules someone would make elsewhere.
Yeah, as long as they don't violate the basic protections laid out the inital framework of the law...
How would you feel if they banned political speech on your private property through simple tyranny of the majority? The HOA is not a part of the State, so how can they possibly have the power to compel people in a geographic location to conform to their standards? What's their statutory authority? I mean, the things exist so they must have some basis in precedence if not actual law.
Frankly I find the things to be contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the republican system.
Posted by: flashoverride at December 08, 2009 07:00 PM (EwE2i)
Posted by: flashoverride at December 08, 2009 07:06 PM (EwE2i)
Gibbs you Fat Ignorant Cocksucker....
Posted by: BigWyo at December 08, 2009 07:38 PM (SafY+)
Landscape Architecture,
and Engineering
are licensed professions under every State's laws.
Not unlike Law and Medicine.
Relatively speaking, the later two are cheap.
FEW HOAs have those hired guns to give qualified professional opinions under the law. MOST HOAs and their "architectural committees" are nobodies.
Upon moving into my newest home I notified the HOA El Presidente that these are licensed professions, and under the State's regs, those that violate the law may be administartively found in contempt of court - i.e.: YOU may go to jail if you deny my request to put up a flagpole because YOU are not a State sanctioned professional qualified to judge the aesthetics of my landscaping and/or architecture. (I was more diplomatic than that - It is the 'Architural Board', but he is ultimately responsible...)
About two months later he told me that they 'just want to know' what is going on, and will automagically approve unless it is explicitly prohibited.
I have been on 'the other side' as well ... but another story..
Posted by: Druid at December 08, 2009 07:40 PM (Gct7d)
Posted by: Spurwing Plover at December 08, 2009 07:44 PM (BRsUk)
Posted by: Saint at December 08, 2009 07:55 PM (8fIcf)
33 Look what can happen once the public gets news of this you can make the socialists scum back down
Posted by: Spurwing Plover
Busy-Body House-Husbands will fricken back down when you show that that they will be contempt of the administartion court governing Licensed Architects (General, Landscape, Engineers, & such) for practicing without a license, after refusing to pay a $5K fine, and go to the big-house administratively - goes over as well as pretending to be a chestcutter, or a congresscritter.. errr, I meant attorney.
Not many HOA members will pay a few hundred more a month for busybodies legal fees either.
If you have a gate, you'll pay a few hundred more a month to keep out dirtbags like T. Woods and his 'guests', but that's your choice.
Posted by: Druid at December 08, 2009 07:59 PM (Gct7d)
Posted by: befuddled at December 08, 2009 08:49 PM (BByz2)
"Some of the rules are pretty picky, but no one is required to live in these communities, "
Actually, you pretty much are. Local governments find this a cost effective way of transferring responsibility for code enforcement.
If you want to evade the dreaded HOA nazis, you basically have the same choice of accomodations as a registered sex offender.
Anyway, glad to see that Mr. Barfoot's prior experience standing up to nazi tanks with a bazooka prepared him for his later life experiences.
Posted by: Matt at December 08, 2009 10:53 PM (CKG2u)
Posted by: JEA at December 09, 2009 03:56 AM (H7yeS)
Posted by: reginaldL at December 09, 2009 04:26 AM (k6Tcc)
Posted by: Nate at December 09, 2009 04:44 AM (h/im3)
Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at December 09, 2009 05:30 AM (xqhoO)
Posted by: Tantor at December 09, 2009 01:16 PM (SWvPS)
Posted by: virdy at April 18, 2010 03:58 AM (T6XIp)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.4158 seconds, 171 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: logprof at December 08, 2009 05:33 PM (I3Udb)