Laws for thee but not for me
-
The headline refers to Lightfoot "refusing" to pay the tickets.
The opening sentence uses the phrase "racked up" to describe four tickets and two warnings in the past month, and "outstanding" -- not enumerated -- tickets by SUVs that were previously assigned to her detail.
Racked up?
There was no mention of any refusal on her part to pay the tickets. In any case, the tickets wouldn't come to her damn self. Non-payment for tickets written "in the past month" is nothing in government. It's more likely that she doesn't even know about it.
But let's not miss any opportunity to keep the readership roiled.
Success is measured by your discipline and inner peace. – Mike Ditka
-
The headline refers to Lightfoot "refusing" to pay the tickets.
The opening sentence uses the phrase "racked up" to describe four tickets and two warnings in the past month, and "outstanding" -- not enumerated -- tickets by SUVs that were previously assigned to her detail.
Racked up?
There was no mention of any refusal on her part to pay the tickets. In any case, the tickets wouldn't come to her damn self. Non-payment for tickets written "in the past month" is nothing in government. It's more likely that she doesn't even know about it.
But let's not miss any opportunity to keep the readership roiled.
@Catseye3 said in Laws for thee but not for me:
The headline refers to Lightfoot "refusing" to pay the tickets.
The opening sentence uses the phrase "racked up" to describe four tickets and two warnings in the past month, and "outstanding" -- not enumerated -- tickets by SUVs that were previously assigned to her detail.
Racked up?
There was no mention of any refusal on her part to pay the tickets. In any case, the tickets wouldn't come to her damn self. Non-payment for tickets written "in the past month" is nothing in government. It's more likely that she doesn't even know about it.
But let's not miss any opportunity to keep the readership roiled.
"In 2020, Chicago Tribune reported that the city of Chicago dismissed the majority of tickets that were issued to Lightfoot's security team, which included tickets given at times the mayor was attending non-city related events.
The Illinois Policy Institute, a libertarian think tank, found that Chicago has issued 3.8 million speeding tickets, generating almost $80 million in revenue to the city since Lightfoot lowered the threshold last year."
-
@Catseye3 said in Laws for thee but not for me:
The headline refers to Lightfoot "refusing" to pay the tickets.
The opening sentence uses the phrase "racked up" to describe four tickets and two warnings in the past month, and "outstanding" -- not enumerated -- tickets by SUVs that were previously assigned to her detail.
Racked up?
There was no mention of any refusal on her part to pay the tickets. In any case, the tickets wouldn't come to her damn self. Non-payment for tickets written "in the past month" is nothing in government. It's more likely that she doesn't even know about it.
But let's not miss any opportunity to keep the readership roiled.
"In 2020, Chicago Tribune reported that the city of Chicago dismissed the majority of tickets that were issued to Lightfoot's security team, which included tickets given at times the mayor was attending non-city related events.
The Illinois Policy Institute, a libertarian think tank, found that Chicago has issued 3.8 million speeding tickets, generating almost $80 million in revenue to the city since Lightfoot lowered the threshold last year."
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login