Yes He Can!
There’s an update to the story about the Navy vet and his flag.
Ore. building lets Navy veteran hang U.S. flag
SPRINGFIELD, Ore. — A 70-year-old Navy veteran will be allowed to hang the American flag outside his apartment on Veterans Day.
The management of the downtown apartment complex had threatened to evict Edward Zivica for repeatedly hanging the flag in a commons area in violation of rules against hanging anything on exterior walls. But it has relented.
The nonprofit St. Vincent de Paul of Lane County announced a deal Friday: Zivica gets to stay and can display the flag on designated days the two sides have agreed on, KVAL-TV and The Register-Guard of Eugene reported Friday.
The organization said in a statement it had gotten “a lot of attention” over the dispute.
I’m smiling…
Category: Geezer Alert!
Yea, it took them getting shit on to unfuck themselves. Despite the outcome, it’s still sad it had to come to this.
I’m smiling…
Me too! Almost happy hout to boot! Now I have a reason to tilt a couple back!!
I am sure you are famaliar with what St. Vincent de Paul does for vets, including emergency assistance, housing, and job training. The place does a lot of good for a lot of people. Their website explains what they did to resolve this matter and points out that where the tenant lives, a US flag flies 24/7. Now, what if some soldier decided that he would like to, say, fly the Stars and Stripes from his barracks window or place one on his bunk? Would that be okay? You bet it wouldn’t.
The act of simply relenting when enough media attention gathers sets a poor precedent.
The emotional issue of this particular symbol will be shifted the next time a property owners attempts to enforce a contract, and the medium is something other than the US flag.
Another vet gets special treatment…….
I do not regard Saint Vincent de Paul as a villain here and won’t stand by quietly if others do so. Some of the points made regarding this matter when it was first raised here were right on the money. In particular, one commenter–to paraphrase– correctly pointed out that the gentleman entered into a contract that included a prohibition on flags of any type. If we assume that he did not imagine that would include Old Glory, he was mistaken. At some point, Saint Vincent’s erected a flagpole from which to fly the flag. The vet called it flimsy. Okay, HE did not approve and the firestorm resulted. Perhaps it’s Obama backlash and the OWS he supports. I don’t know. But I’m not riding the wagon on this one.
Well, Joe, your little comment almost makes me regret my position on the matter. If I’m not mistaken, you’re the twit who called us morons some days ago. Go blow insipid.
2-17AirCav #6: The way I read the thing it has little to do with HOA rules and/or conditions agreed to in a lease type document. Broadly speaking, I would agree with you in those cases.
I’ll argue, in this case, that BECAUSE we are talking about St. Vincent de Paul the original decision made little sense.
Of course, not being there, and having only limited details, can make either position questionable.
I’m gonna call this latest decision a victory anyway.
re: JOE: Target insignificant, save ammunition, do not engage.
Well, Zero, w/o the HOA rules, the thing makes no sense whatsoeverto me. With those rules, it makes perfect sense. It was my understanding that the tenants were aware, based upon their lease agreements, that no flags were to be flown. If that is true, then whether it’s St Vincent de Paul or Atilla the Hun, Inc., it makes no difference. Why does it make a critical difference to you that the issue involves Saint Vincent’s? I am not getting that part.
@9. FO: The SOB walked into my field of fire while I was engaged!
I’m not a lawyer, nor do play one, etc.
This is a subsidized housing project managed by a non profit organization. My limited understanding suggests an HOA is a different animal?
Threatening Mr. Zivica while saying the action wasn’t aimed at the American flag as such but rather at preventing a precedent that could lead to more-controversial flags or banners strikes me as a bit specious. Especially while flying that very flag.
Beyond that I’m left only with more speculation, and the smile I mentioned earlier.
Okay. There’s much that I can say but, what the heck, it’s Friday night and love awaits. Have a good weekend. And may all of your teams win, except those opposing mine.
>re: JOE: Target insignificant, save ammunition, do not engage.
Does that ever work,or do they come back with more outrageous things to say to get someone to respond?
re #14 Melle 1228:
That is the test. Yes, that is what they usually try to do, as they are playing the same game as almost big boys n girls, as they played as kids. Daring someone to do something to them, and then running to momma was the order of the day for them.
I enjoy seeing some dissenting conversation here, but most of these trolls are not dissenting, but rather are just trying to get us to go off on them. I engaged them for awhile, but seeing comments on a single post go over 300 in a pissing contest is not “reading material” to me.
Play with them, stick pins in them, light a match in their shoe; but don’t expect to change their minds, or to have them admit the error of their ways.
Every few months isn’t there some vet somewhere that tries to hang a flag in complete disregard to the agreement he signed when he moved in and the press gets wind of it and the HOA backs down and the vet gets special treatment? I’ve lost track of how many times this issue has come up on TAH. What surprises me is that there are a few contributors who actually are able to see through the supposedly patriotic dogma and acknowledge that the vet in question is breaking the rules he agreed to, plain and simple. Of course for most of you he’s some kind of hero, despite his inconsiderate, self-centered, narcissistic behavior.