Next thing you know somebody's

Message

wbtravis007 · #1 Post by **wbtravis007** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:39 pm

gonna get a ticket for calling Democrats jackasses.

This is ridiculous:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080408/ap_ ... FAuqJh24cA

Bob Juch · #2 Post by **Bob Juch** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:43 pm

Even if you buy that she wasn't being racist, what right did she have to tell her neighbors to get their kids out of their own tree?

wbtravis007 · #3 Post by **wbtravis007** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:58 pm

Bob Juch wrote:Even if you buy that she wasn't being racist, what right did she have to tell her neighbors to get their kids out of their own tree?

The article that I linked doesn't say it was their own tree.

If it was, then I'll agree that she should have kept her mouth shut.

Bob Juch · #4 Post by **Bob Juch** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:11 pm

wbtravis007 wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:Even if you buy that she wasn't being racist, what right did she have to tell her neighbors to get their kids out of their own tree?
The article that I linked doesn't say it was their own tree.

If it was, then I'll agree that she should have kept her mouth shut.

You're right, that's not stated, but it wasn't her tree either:

The incident occurred Saturday, when two children were playing in a tree next door to Ramirez-Sliwinski's house.

themanintheseersuckersuit · #5 Post by **themanintheseersuckersuit** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:39 pm

Bob Juch wrote:Even if you buy that she wasn't being racist, what right did she have to tell her neighbors to get their kids out of their own tree?

Wassa matter can't you read, she's a Democrat, its all about telling other people how to live their lives. What if the kids had been eating junkfood with transfats or foie gras? It takes a village.

wbtravis007 · #6 Post by **wbtravis007** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:57 pm

Bob Juch wrote:
wbtravis007 wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:Even if you buy that she wasn't being racist, what right did she have to tell her neighbors to get their kids out of their own tree?
The article that I linked doesn't say it was their own tree.

If it was, then I'll agree that she should have kept her mouth shut.
You're right, that's not stated, but it wasn't her tree either:
The incident occurred Saturday, when two children were playing in a tree next door to Ramirez-Sliwinski's house.

Wrong again, Maude. The article I linked doesn't support a conclusion that it couldn't possibly be her tree.

silvercamaro · #7 Post by **silvercamaro** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:23 pm

Bob Juch wrote:Even if you buy that she wasn't being racist, what right did she have to tell her neighbors to get their kids out of their own tree?

To mothers, all kids are their kids when they appear in position to fall and break bones. She had a maternal imperative to tell the kids to get down. I would consider that being "a good neighbor" or part of the "village" in the proverbial "it takes a...."

BackInTex · #8 Post by **BackInTex** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:33 pm

She said the parents were outside supervising the children, but she went over and told them to get out of the tree because she was concerned about the boys' safety and because the small magnolia tree was being damaged.

The father of one of the boys told her it was none of her business, she told the Chicago Tribune, and "I calmly said the tree is not there for them to be climbing in there like monkeys."

This is the most ridiculous thing I've seen in quite a while. She was not calling the kids monkeys, just said they were climbing like monkeys. She was also concerned about the potential damage to the tree, let alone the safety of the kids.

a ticket was issued because the ordinance bans conduct that disturbs or alarms people.

O.K. THIS is the most ridiculous thing I've seen in quite a while. At a minimum the parents of the kids should be issued a ticket as well since it was their conduct that alarmed Ms. Ramirez-Sliwinski in the first place.

But that ordinance could be used against homosexuals for holding hands or just someone expressing they think Obama is the best candidate for President. Or that McCain is the best candidate. Or that Bush has been a great president.

Beebs52 · #9 Post by **Beebs52** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:44 pm

I think this is another example of major "other issues" between neighbors. It reminds me of stuff we see here that appear to be simple "covenants" stuff, when actually it's bad blood between people. People who are unable to live normally and work their differences out like normal neighbors.
Alarmed and disturbed? Honey, I gotchur alarmed and disturbed. Please.

Bob Juch · #10 Post by **Bob Juch** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:11 pm

BackInTex wrote:
She said the parents were outside supervising the children, but she went over and told them to get out of the tree because she was concerned about the boys' safety and because the small magnolia tree was being damaged.

The father of one of the boys told her it was none of her business, she told the Chicago Tribune, and "I calmly said the tree is not there for them to be climbing in there like monkeys."
This is the most ridiculous thing I've seen in quite a while. She was not calling the kids monkeys, just said they were climbing like monkeys. She was also concerned about the potential damage to the tree, let alone the safety of the kids.

a ticket was issued because the ordinance bans conduct that disturbs or alarms people.
O.K. THIS is the most ridiculous thing I've seen in quite a while. At a minimum the parents of the kids should be issued a ticket as well since it was their conduct that alarmed Ms. Ramirez-Sliwinski in the first place.

But that ordinance could be used against homosexuals for holding hands or just someone expressing they think Obama is the best candidate for President. Or that McCain is the best candidate. Or that Bush has been a great president.

Must have been Republicans who passed that law.

silverscreenselect · #11 Post by **silverscreenselect** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:45 am

I guess if you're Barack Obama, it's OK to stand by a pastor who spends 20 years telling everyone that white people invented AIDS, but not by a woman who gets in an argument with a couple of neighbor kids.

Can you imagine if this had happened to one of Hillary's delegates? The press would be over this for weeks.

Just more Obama hypocrisy in action.

PlacentiaSoccerMom · #12 Post by **PlacentiaSoccerMom** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:02 am

a ticket was issued because the ordinance bans conduct that disturbs or alarms people.

What a stupid ordinance.

gsabc · #13 Post by **gsabc** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:16 am

"Ramirez-Sliwinski says she doesn't plan to run for another term on the village board. "In the eyes of the public, this is wrong," she told the Arlington Heights Daily Herald."

If you can't or aren't willing to discuss the issue with your constituents and justify your point of view, you aren't worth anything as an elected official anyway. Just because you're viewed as politically incorrect doesn't mean you are, and you owe it to the people who voted for you in the first place to stand up for your own viewpoint. If you can't convince them and get voted out at the next opportunity, that's how it is. But at least TRY!

"We interrupt our regular programming for a special report from the Politically Correct Census Bureau, whose latest analysis of the population concludes that everyone is equally a victim of something today. This means that blame is out, and personal responsibility is in!
"The P.C. Age is officially over and a new era of common sense has begun! Independence of thought, opinions and speech is the rule of the day! Now when someone says something you don't like, tough! Deal with it! It's time to wake up!"
(shift to patient on psychiatrist's couch) "... then, unfortunately, that's when I always wake up, doctor."
- Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller, 8/17/97 (!)