“I’ll go to jail” – Florida Veteran told to remove military flags from restaurant pro

[Ravi]

an established full-tilt leftwingloon, hates nipples AND free speech for anybody who doesn't share her limited views.

This is the best you can offer as any type of comment in this thread. You need some remedial work on just about all of your issues; mostly your cognitive skills. I told you to do some research on this flim flam artist, but you sat on a mushroom and spoke of that which you knew nothing about.

Don't mind him. He caught confirmation bias a long time ago and is currently terminal with it.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

an established full-tilt leftwingloon, hates nipples AND free speech for anybody who doesn't share her limited views.

This is the best you can offer as any type of comment in this thread. You need some remedial work on just about all of your issues; mostly your cognitive skills. I told you to do some research on this flim flam artist, but you sat on a mushroom and spoke of that which you knew nothing about.

No no, conny. I rejected your bleating. there's a difference.

And as far as talking about stuff when you know nothing, you seem to be an expert on that.

I was responding to the ever unbalanced and hugely dishonest Ravi. You might be ignorant of what a stupid propagandizing hack she is, but that's not important. She is all of that and that's all that needs to be said about the silly shit she always spews.

Meanwhile, back ON topic, your objection to Colisomo's invocation of freedom of speech is vacuous. Nobody gives a rat's ass if you agree or disagree with his views. What people are actually addressing is whether or not that dopey ordinance is Constitutionally valid.

Horty showed what this is all over. It quite squarely and fairly relegates your bleatings to the trash can.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

an established full-tilt leftwingloon, hates nipples AND free speech for anybody who doesn't share her limited views.

This is the best you can offer as any type of comment in this thread. You need some remedial work on just about all of your issues; mostly your cognitive skills. I told you to do some research on this flim flam artist, but you sat on a mushroom and spoke of that which you knew nothing about.

Don't mind him. He caught confirmation bias a long time ago and is currently terminal with it.

Poor Raving Dipshit almost thought she would have to go a whole day without repeating the empty phrase "confirmation bias" (as though she has any clue of what she's muttering).

 

[Connery]

an established full-tilt leftwingloon, hates nipples AND free speech for anybody who doesn't share her limited views.

This is the best you can offer as any type of comment in this thread. You need some remedial work on just about all of your issues; mostly your cognitive skills. I told you to do some research on this flim flam artist, but you sat on a mushroom and spoke of that which you knew nothing about.

No no, conny. I rejected your bleating. there's a difference.

And as far as talking about stuff when you know nothing, you seem to be an expert on that.

I was responding to the ever unbalanced and hugely dishonest Ravi. You might be ignorant of what a stupid propagandizing hack she is, but that's not important. She is all of that and that's all that needs to be said about the silly shit she always spews.

Meanwhile, back ON topic, your objection to Colisomo's invocation of freedom of speech is vacuous. Nobody gives a rat's ass if you agree or disagree with his views. What people are actually addressing is whether or not that dopey ordinance is Constitutionally valid.

Horty showed what this is all over. It quite squarely and fairly relegates your bleatings to the trash can.

Still hanging on to to your senseless argument for fear of having a bruised ego, I see. The ordinance speaks clearly to "temporary signs" and that is why he has been warned to take them down, get a permit or be fined for those "temporary signs".

"Crazy" Eddie has made misrepresentations regarding the City's objection and you have fallen for his nonsense and swallowed his fish story whole. You can make your check out to "Crazy" Eddie Colostomybag and he will gladly cash it while laughing all the way to the bank....

 

[IlarMeilyr]

This is the best you can offer as any type of comment in this thread. You need some remedial work on just about all of your issues; mostly your cognitive skills. I told you to do some research on this flim flam artist, but you sat on a mushroom and spoke of that which you knew nothing about.

No no, conny. I rejected your bleating. there's a difference.

And as far as talking about stuff when you know nothing, you seem to be an expert on that.

I was responding to the ever unbalanced and hugely dishonest Ravi. You might be ignorant of what a stupid propagandizing hack she is, but that's not important. She is all of that and that's all that needs to be said about the silly shit she always spews.

Meanwhile, back ON topic, your objection to Colisomo's invocation of freedom of speech is vacuous. Nobody gives a rat's ass if you agree or disagree with his views. What people are actually addressing is whether or not that dopey ordinance is Constitutionally valid.

Horty showed what this is all over. It quite squarely and fairly relegates your bleatings to the trash can.

Still hanging on to to your senseless argument for fear of having a bruised ego, I see. The ordinance speaks clearly to "temporary signs" and that is why he has been warned to take them down, get a permit or be fined for those "temporary signs".

"Crazy" Eddie has made misrepresentations regarding the City's objection and you have fallen for his nonsense and swallowed his fish story whole. You can make your check out to "Crazy" Eddie Colostomybag and he will gladly cash it while laughing all the way to the bank....

No, conny.

I am merely pointing out that you are unable to admit that you have no valid argument to offer.

And you don't.

And, of course, you are not man enough to admit it.

 

[Ravi]

This is the best you can offer as any type of comment in this thread. You need some remedial work on just about all of your issues; mostly your cognitive skills. I told you to do some research on this flim flam artist, but you sat on a mushroom and spoke of that which you knew nothing about.

No no, conny. I rejected your bleating. there's a difference.

And as far as talking about stuff when you know nothing, you seem to be an expert on that.

I was responding to the ever unbalanced and hugely dishonest Ravi. You might be ignorant of what a stupid propagandizing hack she is, but that's not important. She is all of that and that's all that needs to be said about the silly shit she always spews.

Meanwhile, back ON topic, your objection to Colisomo's invocation of freedom of speech is vacuous. Nobody gives a rat's ass if you agree or disagree with his views. What people are actually addressing is whether or not that dopey ordinance is Constitutionally valid.

Horty showed what this is all over. It quite squarely and fairly relegates your bleatings to the trash can.

Still hanging on to to your senseless argument for fear of having a bruised ego, I see. The ordinance speaks clearly to "temporary signs" and that is why he has been warned to take them down, get a permit or be fined for those "temporary signs".

"Crazy" Eddie has made misrepresentations regarding the City's objection and you have fallen for his nonsense and swallowed his fish story whole. You can make your check out to "Crazy" Eddie Colostomybag and he will gladly cash it while laughing all the way to the bank....

Yep, and what is really funny is that those very same people applauding the Crazy guy for "standing up" for a non-existent right would have an absolute meltdown over the Stolen Valor issue.

Crazy dude is doing much worse than some yahoo pretending to serve to get positive attention.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

No no, conny. I rejected your bleating. there's a difference.

And as far as talking about stuff when you know nothing, you seem to be an expert on that.

I was responding to the ever unbalanced and hugely dishonest Ravi. You might be ignorant of what a stupid propagandizing hack she is, but that's not important. She is all of that and that's all that needs to be said about the silly shit she always spews.

Meanwhile, back ON topic, your objection to Colisomo's invocation of freedom of speech is vacuous. Nobody gives a rat's ass if you agree or disagree with his views. What people are actually addressing is whether or not that dopey ordinance is Constitutionally valid.

Horty showed what this is all over. It quite squarely and fairly relegates your bleatings to the trash can.

Still hanging on to to your senseless argument for fear of having a bruised ego, I see. The ordinance speaks clearly to "temporary signs" and that is why he has been warned to take them down, get a permit or be fined for those "temporary signs".

"Crazy" Eddie has made misrepresentations regarding the City's objection and you have fallen for his nonsense and swallowed his fish story whole. You can make your check out to "Crazy" Eddie Colostomybag and he will gladly cash it while laughing all the way to the bank....

Yep, and what is really funny is that those very same people applauding the Crazy guy for "standing up" for a non-existent right would have an absolute meltdown over the Stolen Valor issue.

Crazy dude is doing much worse than some yahoo pretending to serve to get positive attention.

Raving Lunatic ^ still hates nipples, still detests free speech when used by anyone with whom she disagrees and she still cannot formulate a coherent, logical, honest argument to save her mile-wide ass.

 

[Pop23]

He has a commercial use and needs to obey the codes for commercial use. That being said, the yahoos in City Hall need to realize they blew it buy not enforcing the code earlier and back the hell off.

Its simply that easy.

 

[Connery]

No no, conny. I rejected your bleating. there's a difference.

And as far as talking about stuff when you know nothing, you seem to be an expert on that.

I was responding to the ever unbalanced and hugely dishonest Ravi. You might be ignorant of what a stupid propagandizing hack she is, but that's not important. She is all of that and that's all that needs to be said about the silly shit she always spews.

Meanwhile, back ON topic, your objection to Colisomo's invocation of freedom of speech is vacuous. Nobody gives a rat's ass if you agree or disagree with his views. What people are actually addressing is whether or not that dopey ordinance is Constitutionally valid.

Horty showed what this is all over. It quite squarely and fairly relegates your bleatings to the trash can.

Still hanging on to to your senseless argument for fear of having a bruised ego, I see. The ordinance speaks clearly to "temporary signs" and that is why he has been warned to take them down, get a permit or be fined for those "temporary signs".

"Crazy" Eddie has made misrepresentations regarding the City's objection and you have fallen for his nonsense and swallowed his fish story whole. You can make your check out to "Crazy" Eddie Colostomybag and he will gladly cash it while laughing all the way to the bank....

No, conny.

I am merely pointing out that you are unable to admit that you have no valid argument to offer.

And you don't.

And, of course, you are not man enough to admit it.

^^^
Got any substance to go with line of bullshit? For example, anything on point would do.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Still hanging on to to your senseless argument for fear of having a bruised ego, I see. The ordinance speaks clearly to "temporary signs" and that is why he has been warned to take them down, get a permit or be fined for those "temporary signs".

"Crazy" Eddie has made misrepresentations regarding the City's objection and you have fallen for his nonsense and swallowed his fish story whole. You can make your check out to "Crazy" Eddie Colostomybag and he will gladly cash it while laughing all the way to the bank....

No, conny.

I am merely pointing out that you are unable to admit that you have no valid argument to offer.

And you don't.

And, of course, you are not man enough to admit it.

^^^
Got any substance to go with line of bullshit? For example, anything on point would do.

^ after you, scooter.

 

[Ravi]

Still hanging on to to your senseless argument for fear of having a bruised ego, I see. The ordinance speaks clearly to "temporary signs" and that is why he has been warned to take them down, get a permit or be fined for those "temporary signs".

"Crazy" Eddie has made misrepresentations regarding the City's objection and you have fallen for his nonsense and swallowed his fish story whole. You can make your check out to "Crazy" Eddie Colostomybag and he will gladly cash it while laughing all the way to the bank....

Yep, and what is really funny is that those very same people applauding the Crazy guy for "standing up" for a non-existent right would have an absolute meltdown over the Stolen Valor issue.

Crazy dude is doing much worse than some yahoo pretending to serve to get positive attention.

Raving Lunatic ^ still hates nipples, still detests free speech when used by anyone with whom she disagrees and she still cannot formulate a coherent, logical, honest argument to save her mile-wide ass.

Not sure why you feel the constant need to make things up, but why don't you explain in your own words how requiring a permit for signs or banners or flags is limiting free speech exactly.

 

[Ravi]

He has a commercial use and needs to obey the codes for commercial use. That being said, the yahoos in City Hall need to realize they blew it buy not enforcing the code earlier and back the hell off.

Its simply that easy.

Damn, you aren't as much of a rightwingnutter as I took you for. Absolutely right, a commercial establishment is obligated to follow local zoning laws.

 

[Pop23]

He has a commercial use and needs to obey the codes for commercial use. That being said, the yahoos in City Hall need to realize they blew it buy not enforcing the code earlier and back the hell off.

Its simply that easy.

Damn, you aren't as much of a rightwingnutter as I took you for. Absolutely right, a commercial establishment is obligated to follow local zoning laws.

You musta caught me on a good day!

Not everything is black or white, life would be dang boring if everything was so easy.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

He has a commercial use and needs to obey the codes for commercial use. That being said, the yahoos in City Hall need to realize they blew it buy not enforcing the code earlier and back the hell off.

Its simply that easy.

Damn, you aren't as much of a rightwingnutter as I took you for. Absolutely right, a commercial establishment is obligated to follow local zoning laws.

Wrong.

Even codes for commercial establishments have to be reasonably related to a valid government purpose AND may not violate the Constitution.

And that's how simple this really is.

 

[Ravi]

He has a commercial use and needs to obey the codes for commercial use. That being said, the yahoos in City Hall need to realize they blew it buy not enforcing the code earlier and back the hell off.

Its simply that easy.

Damn, you aren't as much of a rightwingnutter as I took you for. Absolutely right, a commercial establishment is obligated to follow local zoning laws.

Wrong.

Even codes for commercial establishments have to be reasonably related to a valid government purpose AND may not violate the Constitution.

And that's how simple this really is.

Yep. And that's why they have a new law requiring permits for signs. This guy doesn't want to get one, he wants to be treated differently than every other commercial business simply because they are military flags.

That shit don't fly and you are a piss poor lawyer.

 

[Pop23]

Not arguing with you at the Constitutional level. I stayed at a Holiday Inn express once, but used that up pretending to be an astronaut.

The City IS WRONG in this, and they should simply back off. Yet, if I'm a City Official, seeing the shabby job of display I would have taken a different tact and help him improve the display, thus improving his the area and improving the TAX TAKE.

Seems like someones itching for a fight in which nobody will win.

 

[Pop23]

Damn, you aren't as much of a rightwingnutter as I took you for. Absolutely right, a commercial establishment is obligated to follow local zoning laws.

Wrong.

Even codes for commercial establishments have to be reasonably related to a valid government purpose AND may not violate the Constitution.

And that's how simple this really is.

Yep. And that's why they have a new law requiring permits for signs. This guy doesn't want to get one, he wants to be treated differently than every other commercial business simply because they are military flags.

That shit don't fly and you are a piss poor lawyer.

I might be wrong, and I will stand corrected if I am, I read earlier that it was not actually a new ordinance, but an old one they just chose to start enforcing. If that is the case, tough luck City, you can't pick and choose when to enforce ordinances. And that is where the City will get their clocks cleaned, not any Constitutional issues.

 

[Ravi]

Not arguing with you at the Constitutional level. I stayed at a Holiday Inn express once, but used that up pretending to be an astronaut.

The City IS WRONG in this, and they should simply back off. Yet, if I'm a City Official, seeing the shabby job of display I would have taken a different tact and help him improve the display, thus improving his the area and improving the TAX TAKE.

Seems like someones itching for a fight in which nobody will win.

I'm sure they'll back down. This is a big red part of the state and they are sure to let this nutter have his way....but prolly the poor slob down the street that puts up a banner that says "sale today" will be crucified.

 

[Ravi]

Wrong.

Even codes for commercial establishments have to be reasonably related to a valid government purpose AND may not violate the Constitution.

And that's how simple this really is.

Yep. And that's why they have a new law requiring permits for signs. This guy doesn't want to get one, he wants to be treated differently than every other commercial business simply because they are military flags.

That shit don't fly and you are a piss poor lawyer.

I might be wrong, and I will stand corrected if I am, I read earlier that it was not actually a new ordinance, but an old one they just chose to start enforcing. If that is the case, tough luck City, you can't pick and choose when to enforce ordinances. And that is where the City will get their clocks cleaned, not any Constitutional issues.

The law was just passed in March.

 

[Pop23]

Yep. And that's why they have a new law requiring permits for signs. This guy doesn't want to get one, he wants to be treated differently than every other commercial business simply because they are military flags.

That shit don't fly and you are a piss poor lawyer.

I might be wrong, and I will stand corrected if I am, I read earlier that it was not actually a new ordinance, but an old one they just chose to start enforcing. If that is the case, tough luck City, you can't pick and choose when to enforce ordinances. And that is where the City will get their clocks cleaned, not any Constitutional issues.

The law was just passed in March.

Really doesn't matter much. The flags were flying for years. Grandfather them in and problems solved unless theirs a huge public outcry, which I doubt. Looking at the condition of the area of the sign, the size of the sign, etc., the flags are a pimple, not a boil.