Red Mosquito

id say the landlord is within his rights but i am sure will face some backlash for it

Bi_3 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Who is supposed to be occupying democrats? Land barons?

Classic B(urt)

Given all the dreck this thread piles up as it adds pages so fast, I don't know if Classic [username]ing anyone in here is worth it.

Peeps wrote:id say the landlord is within his rights but i am sure will face some backlash for it

I agree. What makes that tweet so perplexing is that the left has been fighting tooth and nail against evictions, citing covid reasons...but hey now they're cool with evictions of unvaccinated people.

Green Habit wrote:

Peeps wrote:id say the landlord is within his rights but i am sure will face some backlash for it

I agree. What makes that tweet so perplexing is that the left has been fighting tooth and nail against evictions, citing covid reasons...but hey now they're cool with evictions of unvaccinated people.

The unvaccinated are the new negroes. 3/4 human at most. Even worse than coming to rape your wife and children, they're coming to infect them. /s

That eviction moratorium was blatantly unconstitutional and for about a year now a horrendous policy. I guess it's tough to foment too much rage on behalf of landlords, but man.

surfndestroy wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Peeps wrote:id say the landlord is within his rights but i am sure will face some backlash for it

I agree. What makes that tweet so perplexing is that the left has been fighting tooth and nail against evictions, citing covid reasons...but hey now they're cool with evictions of unvaccinated people.

The unvaccinated are the new negroes. 3/4 human at most. Even worse than coming to rape your wife and children, they're coming to infect them. /s

The war against stupidity is finally under way.

Green Habit wrote:

Peeps wrote:id say the landlord is within his rights but i am sure will face some backlash for it

I agree. What makes that tweet so perplexing is that the left has been fighting tooth and nail against evictions, citing covid reasons...but hey now they're cool with evictions of unvaccinated people.

It's (D)ifferent

Green Habit wrote:

Peeps wrote:id say the landlord is within his rights but i am sure will face some backlash for it

I agree. What makes that tweet so perplexing is that the left has been fighting tooth and nail against evictions, citing covid reasons...but hey now they're cool with evictions of unvaccinated people.

I'd be disappointed if anyone threw their support behind this. It's unlikely that unvaccinated people in an apartment are putting the rest of the building at great risk, and we know that evictions increase the incidences of COVID because people lose the safe place that they had.

I doubt there is any legal history on landlords requiring vaccination. They're going to have a hard time proving that an unvaccinated person causes damage to the landlord's property or business or that said damage is so great that it justifies violating the privacy of the tenants and making them homeless.

B wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Peeps wrote:id say the landlord is within his rights but i am sure will face some backlash for it

I agree. What makes that tweet so perplexing is that the left has been fighting tooth and nail against evictions, citing covid reasons...but hey now they're cool with evictions of unvaccinated people.

I'd be disappointed if anyone threw their support behind this. It's unlikely that unvaccinated people in an apartment are putting the rest of the building at great risk, and we know that evictions increase the incidences of COVID because people lose the safe place that they had.

I doubt there is any legal history on landlords requiring vaccination. They're going to have a hard time proving that an unvaccinated person causes damage to the landlord's property or business or that said damage is so great that it justifies violating the privacy of the tennants.

I can't wait until verb sees this post. Actually I can. Nm.

4/5 wrote:That eviction moratorium was blatantly unconstitutional and for about a year now a horrendous policy. I guess it's tough to foment too much rage on behalf of landlords, but man.

I don't know about unconstitutional, but even under a Chevron deference regime I really don't understand how the statutory law gives the White House this power.

Green Habit wrote:

4/5 wrote:That eviction moratorium was blatantly unconstitutional and for about a year now a horrendous policy. I guess it's tough to foment too much rage on behalf of landlords, but man.

I don't know about unconstitutional, but even under a Chevron deference regime I really don't understand how the statutory law gives the White House this power.

So isn't that unconstitutional? My argument is that the CDC has no such power (even in the beginning when the policy was justifiable for a few months) to issue a moratorium on evictions. Not only does the CDC have no such power, but neither does any person or institution in the executive branch. Only Congress could conceivably have that power, and even that would likely require a looser interpretation of the commerce clause than I'm comfortable with.

4/5 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

4/5 wrote:That eviction moratorium was blatantly unconstitutional and for about a year now a horrendous policy. I guess it's tough to foment too much rage on behalf of landlords, but man.

I don't know about unconstitutional, but even under a Chevron deference regime I really don't understand how the statutory law gives the White House this power.

So isn't that unconstitutional? My argument is that the CDC has no such power (even in the beginning when the policy was justifiable for a few months) to issue a moratorium on evictions. Not only does the CDC have no such power, but neither does any person or institution in the executive branch. Only Congress could conceivably have that power, and even that would likely require a looser interpretation of the commerce clause than I'm comfortable with.

No department of the executive branch has any limiting principle that constrains their actions so long as we approve of the outcome.

Thanks to the cunts who didn't wanna get the vaccine and are now clogging up our ICU's AND the hapless dipshit running my province, Alberta has declared a state of public health emergency.

34 dead in the last 2 days.

We may run out of staffed intensive care beds within the next 10 days. Many crucial surgeries are being cancelled so staff can go take care of said cunts.

I say, let 'em die.

Stickman wrote:Thanks to the cunts who didn't wanna get the vaccine and are now clogging up our ICU's AND the hapless dipshit running my province, Alberta has declared a state of public health emergency.

34 dead in the last 2 days.

We may run out of staffed intensive care beds within the next 10 days. Many crucial surgeries are being cancelled so staff can go take care of said cunts.

I say, let 'em die.

You're a psychopath

4/5 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

4/5 wrote:That eviction moratorium was blatantly unconstitutional and for about a year now a horrendous policy. I guess it's tough to foment too much rage on behalf of landlords, but man.

I don't know about unconstitutional, but even under a Chevron deference regime I really don't understand how the statutory law gives the White House this power.

So isn't that unconstitutional? My argument is that the CDC has no such power (even in the beginning when the policy was justifiable for a few months) to issue a moratorium on evictions. Not only does the CDC have no such power, but neither does any person or institution in the executive branch. Only Congress could conceivably have that power, and even that would likely require a looser interpretation of the commerce clause than I'm comfortable with.

Well, if you're arguing that the laws that created the CDC, et al didn't give the executive branch that power, then that would be a statutory issue, not a constitutional one. Hypothetically, it would be corrected by Congress passing a law amending whichever executive department it chooses to explicitly allow it to ban evictions during pandemics.

But if you're going to make constitutional arguments, pandemics quite obviously transmit on an interstate basis, thus I find it really difficult to see how the Commerce Clause could be a limiting factor there. The best I can think of is some sort of Takings Clause argument where the government would have to pay landlords in exchange for forcing them to keep tenants on their property, and I'm tenuous on that thought.

verb_to_trust wrote:

Stickman wrote:Thanks to the cunts who didn't wanna get the vaccine and are now clogging up our ICU's AND the hapless dipshit running my province, Alberta has declared a state of public health emergency.

34 dead in the last 2 days.

We may run out of staffed intensive care beds within the next 10 days. Many crucial surgeries are being cancelled so staff can go take care of said cunts.

I say, let 'em die.

You're a psychopath

Sentiment like this really makes me more open to the idea of socialized medicine.

Stickler should stick to doomer tweets.

This covid shit has spun people completely out of control with their identity politics. It really is religion now for people. Honestly, I'm probably never voting again.

i mean, you've lost the plot

spike wrote:i mean, you've lost the plot

That lady that got temporary paralysis from the jab deserved what she got.

Oh wait, this sentiment does not get shared in polite company.

Compared to Don Lemon, who apparently agrees with Stickman.