Comments on: A Stunt So Dishonest, You’re Shocked Obama Didn’t Pull It

By: askeptic

askeptic — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:45:38 +0000

Comment by Beldar (9f5ad0) — 2/12/2013 @ 4:03 am

And we want your Assault Bullets too, Beldar.

By: gary gulrud

gary gulrud — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:35:44 +0000

I admire the formulation of the title. It captures the essence of the man-child and his mission.

By: Russ from Winterset

Russ from Winterset — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 13:41:03 +0000

Seems to me that once the municipality has been caught lying about painting the spot WHILE the car was sitting there, the alleged “notice” of the reclassification of the spot becomes questionable as well. That municipality sacricifed their credibility for the ticket and towing fee.

By: Beldar

Beldar — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:03:17 +0000

Sorry, I meant one of those assault guns. She might own one of those with a handle and a bayonette mount exactly like what killed all those kids in that place that time. I read it in the New York Times.

By: Beldar

Beldar — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:59:56 +0000

She was on constructive knowledge. She could have gone to the library. Read the Federal Register every week, it’s only ______ pages. Who was stopping her?

In a community, which it takes a village of to raise a child or children (no gender fascism implied), we each are responsible for monitoring our compliance with community-friendly non-optional approved usage compliance standards.

What, you’re against metrics?

And she’s probably a Republican, she might own a gun. Plus:

Racist.

By: Bored Lawyer

Bored Lawyer — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 03:25:04 +0000

But this strategy can work the other way. I have a history book that says George Bush was president until 2009, and then Obama was sworn in in 2009, and has been president since.

Just erase that to read 2005 — and poof, Obama is now illegitimately in his third term, in violation of the 22nd Amendment. His last re-election is Constitutionally null, and he is not President.

By: Dan Kauffman

Dan Kauffman — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 03:12:40 +0000

Something like that happened in LA some years back. A truck came around painted the curb no parking another came around and erected No Parking signs a meter maid came around handing out tickets and then tow trucks showed up and hauled all the cars away. Yep people parked on the side of the street and returned to find their cars gone and the area signed and designated No Parking

By: Amy Shulkusky

Amy Shulkusky — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 00:22:31 +0000

SPQR – I was in the USN for 11 years, so I look at things differently I guess.

askeptic said it better than I did:

“We can argue about the propriety of the action, but without the actual notice, we are left with the question as to what it was warning about:
That the space was being re-classified; or that street-painting would be done at a certain date/time; or both?
The action taken in painting around the parked car, and then towing it, is just so illustrative of the bureaucratic mindset, that the action does not seem that exceptional.”

Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 2/11/2013 @ 3:53 pm

So the black and white “ignorance of the law is no excuse” butts heads with the outrage people feel when we see an abuse of power, and everything gets painted in shades of grey.

That in a nutshell is the problem with gov’t running things – obedience to bureaucratic rules trump common sense.

By: askeptic

askeptic — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 23:53:21 +0000

We can argue about the propriety of the action, but without the actual notice, we are left with the question as to what it was warning about:
That the space was being re-classified; or that street-painting would be done at a certain date/time; or both?
The action taken in painting around the parked car, and then towing it, is just so illustrative of the bureaucratic mindset, that the action does not seem that exceptional.

By: Ben Morris

Ben Morris — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 23:43:19 +0000

I don’t get what the big deal is. It makes for funny and superficially embarrassing video, for sure, but doesn’t the propriety of the tow/ticket rest on what is considered adequate notice in that jurisdiction?

I mean, that article really buries the lede re: the notice posted 3 days earlier. Without more information, it’s hard to know whether that was sufficient grounds or not.