RE: Small town politics, ain't it great

RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

ThatDaveGuy69 -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/11/2009 11:20:46 PM)
As Neo would say: Whoa... As stated by at least one other person, the licensing process varies by location. In the case of Chicago, what BAA mentioned has been a trend for years: a precinct has decided to go "dry" but they don't want to close any businesses and thus have to deal with the job loss. So they decide that no new liquor licenses will be issued and that attrition will eventually take out the last liquor establishment. In areas like that, the existing liquor license is rarely allowed to change hands, even though the "new" business would occupy the exact same location as the old. Exceptions ARE made. After all, this is Chicago, the land where money, and clout, talks... It could very well be that this prospective restaurateur did every bit of due diligence imaginable. The article does not go into any of that. A license doesn't get issued until AFTER the business is operational. You can't get a license to operate a restaurant until after the place is built - and inspected. I doubt the guy built the place in a vacuum. He would need all sorts of permits to re-hab the building and that would require inspections, city council appearances, etc. In a small town this might well be handled by the same person. The building permit, the restaurant license, the business license, the liquor license, and any other licenses required were probably all applied for at the same time. And the various offices he dealt with probably all wished him well and asked when he was planning the grand opening. And so he proceeded with his plans. And then someone decided he can't have a liquor license. Now what? Can he appeal the decision? The article doesn't say. So now this guy's got a restaurant all set to open. But who wants to go to out to dinner if you can't order a drink? (btw, alcohol is much more profitable than food) So he decided to protest. Now you can talk all you want about how - or even IF - Vito should have protested. A one-man picket in front of city hall? Call the town newspaper? Go on Oprah? He chose a form of protest that is completely legal. You may find it distasteful, but it's still legal. You don't have to like it. I hate that the anti-abortion crowd holds signs showing aborted fetuses, but so far as I know it's legal for them to do so. So all this nonsense over the legality of his protest is just that: nonsense. Let's get beyond that part. The only issue in this story is that the police "removed the flag under the advice of Marinette County District Attorney Allen Brey". This implies that someone on the police force asked the DA if they could do this and he agreed. Really?! A District Attorney told the local PD it would be legal for them to enter private property, without a warrant, and commit a theft? Mr. Brey clearly aspires to higher office. Maybe the AG slot will be offered to him when the political pendulum swings back in another decade or so... To me, the amazing part of this thread is the people who are attacking Vito based on his chosen form of protest. Once again, it's only a piece of cloth. As a people, we derive no power, rights, authority, etc from it. It is ONLY a symbol. I will grant you that it is one of the most greatest and most recognized symbols going, but in the end, it is only a symbol. No US soldier has EVER died for the flag. Let me repeat that: NO US SOLDIER HAS EVER DIED FOR THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The (theoretical) reason we send our troops into battle is to protect the freedoms we have (he’s gonna get mail on that one!). We DO NOT send them to protect our flag. The flag is only one of many symbols of our freedom. The Lincoln Memorial, the Statue of Liberty, and the Washington Monument are all symbols of the freedoms we enjoy. And not one of them has changed over the years like the flag has. (OK Lady Liberty had a face lift, but she's still pretty much the same as she ever was.) This most-beautiful symbol of freedom has been re-designed several times over the last 200 years and yet we, as a nation, have somehow survived. This nonsense of wanting to kill anyone who would “desecrate” the US flag completely misses the point of what the flag is a symbol of. The flag is not sacred. To say so is to create a state religion and that is NOT OK under the constitution. The flag does not give us our right to free speech. It is the US Constitution – and the willingness of the government to enforce it – that gives us this right. This is NOT a semantics issue. If we made PR a state tomorrow and added another star to the flag the next day, only the symbol has changed. Not what the symbol stands for. The freedoms behind it haven’t changed, only the icon. I truly hope Vito sues the police department and the DA and wins millions. I don’t imagine him losing, but you never know. If it were my place, after I got every last penny the town had, I would leave the place vacant but construct a razor-wire fence around the building and then paint it in the ugliest colors I could find. And as a finishing touch, I would paint a huge, inverted US flag on the side that people would have the best view of. Same thing for the house. ~Dave Oh boy, do I have a topic for new thread! But that can wait - I need to sleep.

ThatDaveGuy69 -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/11/2009 11:56:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic So a community tradition is not a free expression??? Parades interfere with all sorts of rights. Hell, you can't even cross the street in some places. and people put folding chairs on the sidewalk! This jackass isn't special. His rights don't trump anyone else's because he using a powerful symbol. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, a thousand times NO! Traditions are NOT rights!!! A town, city, village has no absolute right to hold a parade. There is no law that says this town can have a parade. The city coucil makes a motion to hold a parade, the motion is seconded, voted on, and passed. They might even hold a couple of meetings to get input from the people who live there on how to make the parade even better than last year's! Golly-gee - it's gonna be swell, aunt B! A parade is sanctioned by the State and if you wanted to you could "alter or abolish" the parade -beforehand- by taking the authotative body to court and presenting your case that the parade is too dissruption to business (please change the route), too dangerous for the spectators (that knife-juggling meth-head unicycle-riding guy has GOT to go), the town can't afford it, or whatever reason you've got. In a small town like Crivitz, WI you probably don't even have to take it to court. Just show up at the town meeting when they plan it and get your 2-cents worth in. HOWEVER, Mr. Congine's right to fly his inverted flag on his own private property takes absolute preference. No one has the "right" to not be offended (although it is easy to make the case that we are headed that way). I can call you "jackass" all day long and it is protected under the Constitution. You have the absolute right to ignore me or call me names right back. You do not, and hopefully never will, have the "right" to not be offended by what I say or do (so long as my actions are legal). There is really only one correct repsonse for anyone in or near the parade who might have been upset by this: roll your eyes and ignore it. That is the very essence of free speech: you have the right to say it - I have the right to ignore you. Anything else is just whining. But then again, we pretty much are a nation of whiners, aren't we...? ~Dave

Politesub53 -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 2:53:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl the site i gave is the National Flag Code. Each state has their own laws. the flag code is as follows: quote: This code is the guide for all handling and display of the Stars and Stripes. It does not impose penalties for misuse of the United States Flag. That is left to the states and to the federal government for the District of Columbia. Each state has its own flag law. I know that, I posted the link as the OP is about an event in Wisconsin.

tazzygirl -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 8:08:25 AM)
Sorry about the length, but, hey, i had to clear up a few things. First, i never attacked the man. never have i once referred to him at all. Second, it is against the flag code to fly it upside down except in certain cases... a protest isnt one of them. quote: The flag is only one of many symbols of our freedom. The Lincoln Memorial, the Statue of Liberty, and the Washington Monument are all symbols of the freedoms we enjoy. And not one of them has changed over the years like the flag has. (OK Lady Liberty had a face lift, but she's still pretty much the same as she ever was.) This most-beautiful symbol of freedom has been re-designed several times over the last 200 years and yet we, as a nation, have somehow survived. quote: Why is the flag such a big deal? Some people wonder why our US Flag is so special, and why people make such a big deal about the care and use of it. Although there are many reasons that our flag is special, perhaps the most important reason is that it is ours. That may sound silly, but before 1777 (when the first official US flag was created through a resolution of the Continental Congress) common people could not own (much less fly) a flag. Flags were only owned by dictators and monarchs that used them to show property ownership. Even today in some countries, there are different flags for the the rulers and the people. There are still some countries where citizens do not have the right to own or fly the national flag. We Americans are very lucky -- so fly your flag with pride! quote: Do you know that the US Flag is alive? Yes, it's true! The U.S. Code, Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 8(j) says "The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing." quote: Would you give the stars a 'B-'? The stars on our flag represent the fifty states in our union. You may have noticed that the stars are aligned in a specific pattern, so that it looks nice and not all cluttered. Well, that didn't just happen by chance. In 1949, when Alaska and Hawaii became states, the star field had to be completely redesigned (before it was 48 stars...pretty easy to line up). And who do you think could tackle such a hard job? Believe it or not, it was a high school student from Ohio, named Robert Heft. He spent twelve and a half hours one weekend designing a new arrangement for a class project at school. He sewed the 50 stars in the pattern he created, and when he turned in his work, he received a B minus! His teacher even told him that if he could get Congress to accept his design, that she would raise his grade. Wow, she was tough! Well, Robert sent his flag to his Congressman and much to his surprise, it became the official flag of the United States! I wonder what she changed his grade to? quote: The colors of the flag are special, too! You may think that just any old red, white, and blue will do for Old Glory, but you would be wrong! It is true that the white and blue are common colors, but did you know that the red is a very specific shade of red? As a matter of fact, the red in our flag is only produced for our flag...not for anything else! Now that's special quote: The First Official United States Flag: This 13-Star Flag became the Official United States Flag on June14th, 1777 and is the result of the congressional action that took place on that date. Much evidence exists pointing to Congressman Francis Hopkinson as the person responsible for its design.The only President to serve under this flag was George Washington (1789-1797). This Flag was the official flag for a period of 18 years. Each star and stripe represented a Colony of which there were thirteen, united nearly one year earlier by the Declaration of Independence. The thirteen Colonies are listed below with the date that each ratified the Constitution and became a State. The 13 Star Flag 1777 (1st) Delaware - December 7, 1787 (2nd) Pennsylvania - December 12,1787 (3rd) New Jersey - December 18, 1787 (4th) Georgia - January 2, 1788 (5th) Connecticut - January 9, 1788 (6th) Massachusetts - February 6, 1788 (7th) Maryland - April 28, 1788 (8th) South Carolina - May 23, 1788 (9th) New Hampshire - June 21, 1788 (10th) Virginia - June 25, 1788 (11th) New York - July 25, 1788 (12th) North Carolina - November 21, 1789 (13th) Rhode Island - May 29, 1790 The Star Spangled Banner, the 15 Star Flag 1795 This Flag became the Official United States Flag on May 1, 1795. Two stars were added for the admission of (14th) Vermont - March 4, 1791 (15th) Kentucky - June 1, 1792 The 20 Star Flag 1818 Realizing that the addition of a new star and new stripe for each new State was impractical, Congress passed the Flag Act of 1818 which returned the flag design to 13 stripes and specified 20 stars for the 20 states. This Flag became the Official United States Flag on April 13th, 1818. (16th) Tennessee - June 1, 1796 (17th) Ohio - March 1, 1803 (18th) Louisiana - April 30, 1812 (19th) Indiana - December 11, 1816 (20th) Mississippi - December 10, 1817 The 21 Star Flag 1819 This Flag became the Official United States Flag on July 4th, 1819. A star was added for the admission of (21st) Illinois - December 3, 1818 The 23 Star Flag This Flag became the Official United States Flag on July 4th, 1820. Two stars were added for the admission of (22nd) Alabama - December 14, 1819 (23rd) Maine - March 15, 1820 The 24 Star Flag 1822 This Flag became the Official United States Flag on July 4, 1822. A star was added for the admission of (24th) Missouri - August 10, 1821 The flag changed 13 more time, adding the rest of the states as they became part of the Union. Sort of debunks your idea. Now, for a symbol to have changed to include every state, for it to have its own code, for it to be changed only under Congressional approval, seems to make it a tad bit more important than just a piece of cloth. however you are partly correct. no one died for a flag. they died for what it stands for. it has been present in every war this country has had. quote: before 1777 (when the first official US flag was created through a resolution of the Continental Congress) common people could not own (much less fly) a flag. Flags were only owned by dictators and monarchs that used them to show property ownership. Even today in some countries, there are different flags for the the rulers and the people. There are still some countries where citizens do not have the right to own or fly the national flag Its the people's flag, always has been, always will be. Men have died for what it represents. So, Vito didnt get what he wanted, for whatever reason. We dont know that reason yet. But, seems to me he put his pout on and decided to t ry and embarrass a community by doing what he did, when he did it. and it backfired. Im sure it will end up in court, unless something in the background is mentioned as to a specific reason why he didnt get his license. at such time, the courts will settle the dispute, either way.

tazzygirl -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 8:33:49 AM)
Now, back to the original thread. Has anyone read the town's minutes? or the statement put out by the Town? if not, here are the links. http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/assets/pdf/U0138358710.PDF The police didnt act on their own. They did call the DA. it was then the DA's decision as to what to do. They also stated the numerous phone calls to the police department and why they did what they did. http://www.villageofcrivitz.com/other%20PDF%20docs/012009.pdf The Minutes of the General Meeting. quote: 18) Class B Reserve Liquor & Fermented Malt Beverage License Application: VTC Tavern, LLC: (Whole) Motion by Trustee Volk, seconded by Pres. Deschane, to issue a Class B Reserve Liquor & Fermented Malt Beverage license effective 1/20/09 through 6/30/09 to VTC Tavern, LLC, Vito Congine, Jr., Agent. Roll call vote: Keller: No, Volk: Yes, Swanson: No, Rich Porfilio: No, Janis Porfilio: No, Kostuch: No. Motion failed for lack of voting requirement. Motion by Trustee Janis Porfilio, seconded by Trustee Rich Porfilio, to deny issuance of a Class B Reserve Liquor & Fermented Malt Beverage license to VTC Tavern, LLC, Vito Congine, Jr., Agent, due to current economic conditions and concerns within the community as to an additional licensed establishment, and to concerns regarding the location of the establishment. Roll call vote: Keller: Yes, Volk: No, Swanson: Yes, Rich Porfilio: Yes, Janis Porfilio: Yes, Kostuch: Yes. Motion carried.

TheHeretic -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 9:25:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69 the very essence of free speech: you have the right to say it - I have the right to ignore you. Not just to ignore, Dave. I am not muzzled by your exercise of freedom. I am free to say what I think in response. We are both free to converse on the subject, and it is completely legal, right up to the part where someone gets punched in the nose. That's one of the reasons free speech is such a dangerous thing. [;)] I'm not sure why you would want to say there isn't a right for the people to peaceably assemble, and have a parade. I guess you could ask the residents of Skokie about that, or any group that has sued to join somebody else's parade, or have their own. The permits just cover the when, where, and "are you sure you have enough porta-potties." If the jackass wanted to fly his upside-down flag to protest the parade, or the 4th of July, that would be a different thing. He's all ass-hurt over something else, though. He is crying wolf over a liquor license. If his right to throw a tantrum is going to present a potential hazard to their right to peaceably assemble... I see a values conflict, and it isn't leaning his way.

TheHeretic -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 10:44:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/assets/pdf/U0138358710.PDF On the parade route, an estimated 4000 people in town for the event, trouble brewing... Good link, Tazzy!

tazzygirl -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 11:21:35 AM)
Thanks Heretic. I hate seeing only one side of the story.

Arpig -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 12:07:16 PM)
quote: but before 1777 (when the first official US flag was created through a resolution of the Continental Congress) common people could not own (much less fly) a flag. but before 1777 (when the first official US flag was created through a resolution of the Continental Congress) common people could not own (much less fly) a flag. Not true, look up the Corsican Republic, also the danish national flag dates to the 14th century, and the dutch flag predates that of the US. The British Union Jack (a seperate flag from that of the monarch) dates to 1606, the Spanish national flag (again distinct from the monarch's flag) dates to 1760. I am sure if I looked further I would find more that predate the US flag. I realise that it is difficult to accept, but there is nothing particularly special about the US flag, it is not the earliest, oldest, or anythingest. It is just a flag of a country, no different than any other national flag.

tazzygirl -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 1:12:35 PM)
The point was.. who flew those flags? did the common man in those countries fly their flags? no where does any of the sources i linked claim that the US flag was any of those things you listed. its not the best, the brightest the bigest, ect, nor is it the oldest. it merely claimed that it was the first for the commoner. im sorry you are having so much trouble understanding these simple concepts. The President has his own flag... states can fly their state flags as high as the US flag.. no higher.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 1:38:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Methinks the flag is a bit more important than a collar. Whereas I think a collar is a bit more important than a flag. Which of us is right? both, obviously. I was merely pointing out the disconnect between respecting a symbol vs respecting what it represents.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 1:40:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda His right to protest is not in conflict with the community's right not to be irritated by it, because the community has no such right. Of course the community has right to be irritated by it. they just have no right to stop it.

tazzygirl -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 1:59:38 PM)
True. But, wouldn't the polices job be to stop a brewing riot?

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 2:02:34 PM)
OK, so now there was a riot brewing?

tazzygirl -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 2:09:38 PM)
Not exactly a riot. in one of the links i gave, there was talk about how many people had been calling on the 3rd, then against the 4th. quote: OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE July10, 2009 The Village of Crivitz supports the actions of the Crivitz Police Department in protecting the health and well being of our citizens and guests in our community on July 4th, 2009. We also are in agreement with the advice of the Marinette County District Attorney that action was required not only to prevent a possible civil disturbance within the community, but also to protect the property owner from potential bodily harm and/or property damage. Following is a statement from the Crivitz Police Chief regarding the events that occurred on July 4th, 2009: Per Village of Crivitz Police Chief Michael Frievalt: “The Crivitz Police Department received complaints about the American flag being flown upside down at property owned by Vito Congine, Jr., on the evening of Friday, July 3rd. Police officers researched this activity and found the property owner was within his rights to display the flag in such a manner. Therefore police action was not taken at that time. On Saturday morning during the July 4th parade set up the Police Department received numerous complaints that the flag was again being flown upside down. Police officers went to the property, which is located directly on the parade route, and observed many people openly complaining about the situation, as well as openly voicing threats of property damage and bodily injury to the property owner. The rising temper and anxiety of the large volume of people in the immediate area quickly reached near riot conditions. The Police Department contacted and consulted with the Marinette County District Attorney as to how the situation would best be handled. The District Attorney and Police Department decided that it was in the best interest of the safety of both the property owner and the public to immediately remove the flag from the property. Attempts to contact the property owner prior to removing the flag were unsuccessful. The flag was removed by the Police Department at approximately 10:15 am, before the parade started. The Police Chief estimated that there were in excess of 4,000 people in the downtown area along the 7 block parade route. The flag was returned to the property owner the following day. The events that occurred on Monday, July 6th at the Vito Congine, Jr., property were handled by the Marinette County Sheriff’s Department.” Due to the potential for future legal action on this matter, and in accordance with current policy, the Village of Crivitz will make no other statements regarding this matter at this time. Crivitz Village Board of Trustees

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 2:22:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl True. But, wouldn't the polices job be to stop a brewing riot? If that was a potential (likely? I forget what the standard was in the SCOTUS decision) consequence then yes it would certainly be their job.

tazzygirl -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 2:24:40 PM)
Im not sure either. just seems logical to prevent a riot short term that way then to try and protect his property against a mod like atmosphere when all they wanted was the flag changed

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 2:34:00 PM)
quote: On Saturday morning during the July 4th parade set up the Police Department received numerous complaints that the flag was again being flown upside down. Police officers went to the property, which is located directly on the parade route, and observed many people openly complaining about the situation, as well as openly voicing threats of property damage and bodily injury to the property owner. The rising temper and anxiety of the large volume of people in the immediate area quickly reached near riot conditions. I'll find it interesting to see what sources other than the town's official press release have to say. But personally, I was always of the impression that when the police witness people "openly voicing threats of property damage and bodily injury to the property owner", their job is to arrest people making the threats. I thought that falls under the category of "enforcing the law."

tazzygirl -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 2:42:26 PM)
Lesser of two evils, i suppose. I dont know what the people there would say. All we have to go on is the newspaper article and the Town's Press release. for now. im erring with the side of the PD, acting under the command of the DA.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 3:05:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: On Saturday morning during the July 4th parade set up the Police Department received numerous complaints that the flag was again being flown upside down. Police officers went to the property, which is located directly on the parade route, and observed many people openly complaining about the situation, as well as openly voicing threats of property damage and bodily injury to the property owner. The rising temper and anxiety of the large volume of people in the immediate area quickly reached near riot conditions. I'll find it interesting to see what sources other than the town's official press release have to say. But personally, I was always of the impression that when the police witness people "openly voicing threats of property damage and bodily injury to the property owner", their job is to arrest people making the threats. I thought that falls under the category of "enforcing the law." their job is to peacably diffuse the situation, not necessarily arrest anyone. If that involves warnings to both parties, sobeit.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875