Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nothing. But the owner doesn't want the flag displayed.
[that's it]
And I don't want an petty, selfish jerk off receiving my tax dollars in his government subsidized slumlord operation who finds it necessary to disrespect an old man for simply wanting to honor those who sacrificed so much for Mr. Landlord to have the life he has.
Excuse me? But who ultimately gets the money? The freaking landlord does
It's a contract between the government and the property owner who will set aside some or all of the units he has for rent. The prospective tenant then pays based on his ability/income a certain amount ... and the government makes up the difference in payment to the property owner.
Historically, this ends up being a very lucrative arrangement for the property owner .. often accompanied by a great deal of corruption, to include much higher total returns for less than spectacular, and frequently substandard units that would NEVER get the rental amounts being charged if it were on the open market. And, because of the long waiting list for such subsidized housing ... the property owner is virtually guaranteed 100% occupancy, and on time, guaranteed payments.
And I don't want an petty, selfish jerk off receiving my tax dollars in his government subsidized slumlord operation who finds it necessary to disrespect an old man for simply wanting to honor those who sacrificed so much for Mr. Landlord to have the life he has.
The selfish jerk who put up a flag pole so the dude could hang his flag? What an ass huh?
There is no nexus for government intervention in the matter unlike the other examples you cited.
[admittedly, the strength or weakness of the government 'interest' in those other examples varies]
I've already stated that I would not be in favor of having government intervene, nor do I think there are grounds to do so in such disputes, so I'm not arguing those points ... in truth, I'm an advocate for those property owner rights.
I was simply highlighting how frequently and sometimes egregiously those property rights are violated, when the State finds it convenient. So that dilutes the argument from a "principle" standpoint.
Maybe I should have been more clear .... I find the use of such an argument another example of leftist hypocrisy, given the left's embrace of so many other examples of property rights violations.
Normally, I'd side with the veteran. Not in this case. This isn't property he owns. The owner of the property sets the rules. What he could do is politely speak with the owners about other options or possibly find another property which would allow him to fly his flag or has a better flag pole and would allow him to fly his own American flag from the pole.
There is already a flag on a flag pole in the complex, but he doesn't like it.........
I disagree .... if this is "subsidized" housing, the owner is getting tax payer funds (often times extremely lucrative amounts)
No, not in the Section 8 program. It only makes is affordable for landlords to rent units to people who otherwise could not afford them and would be living under bridges.
Quote:
that pays much of his revenue.
You don't know that. I could be a handful of units or most of the development. Either way, it's not a profit-generating program.
Quote:
He, of all people should be proud to have a tenet that wants to fly the Stars and Stripes ...
Irrelevant.
Quote:
I don't think there needs to be a law ... because if being a JERK was a felony, we'd have to lock up 25% of the population, conservatively.
But good grief ... what's the fracking harm in allowing a 70 year old veteran to hang an American flag on veterans day for cris sake.
Because next it will be some other flag, then another, then another. It's not our prerogative to tell the landowners that they have to permit flags. It's THEIR property, it's THEIR choice - having the government mandate otherwise would violate their First Amendment rights.
Quote:
A nation run totally by 5 year old children would demonstrate better sense.
I bet I could explain this to an unbiased five year old and they would understand it better than some posters in this thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
