What did he call them, losers ?


The Trump administration just decided the real threat to America is a disabled person who owns a dog. On Friday, HUD told its fair housing office that, effective immediately, it would stop recognizing emotional support animals and tighten what counts as a service animal for tenants with disabilities. The New York Times broke the story after obtaining the internal memo.
Translation: thousands of disabled renters could be evicted for living with the animal that gets them through the day.
We're talking seniors. Families. Veterans. People with PTSD, anxiety, and depression, the kind of wounds that don't show on an X-ray but make an ordinary apartment feel survivable.
Here's the part that should make your blood boil. The VA's own research found veterans paired with service dogs showed less suicidal ideation and more improvement in mental health. Between 20 and 30 percent of veterans live with PTSD, and nearly 18 service members take their own lives every single day.
And the people who salute hardest at every parade just signed off on taking the dog away from the veteran sitting alone at home, trying to make it to tomorrow.
HUD's excuse? The memo sneered that a whole industry had sprung up to turn ordinary pets into emotional support animals. As if a grieving widow with her cat is the scam bankrupting the country.

Fair's fair, Sprint. Fred Trumft never allowed pets in his government-funded veteran's housing either.

They krap all over the place, you know. It's disgusting.

DL's just continuing his proud family tradition of keeping things clean and nice. Oh - and keeping a few property contracts up his sleeve for Eric and Donnie.

How do you think the family started in this business?

DEEP STATE !!!

Bobby. wrote on May 24^th, 2026 at 10:00pm:


I was skeptical about support animals till I saw one at work.
A dog, he/she was most impressive. VERY aware, very physically close to her owner.
Her owner would not have been able to leave the house without her support dog.

Big Donger wrote Yesterday at 2:41pm:




I did not say any of that - you mischievous scallywag .   

Sprint loves to lie.

MISLEADING OR OVERSIMPLIFIED CLAIMS
"Thousands could be evicted" — possible but overstated as certain. This is speculation from the NYT framing, not an established fact. Eviction requires landlord action and legal process; the memo changes federal enforcement posture, not the underlying law.
The piece conflates emotional support animals with service dogs throughout. This is the biggest rhetorical sleight of hand. The VA research the piece cites actually found that trained service dogs — not ESAs — produced the mental health benefits. The HUD memo primarily strips protections for ESAs (which require only a doctor's letter and no formal training), while trained service animals retain stronger protections. The veterans argument is emotionally powerful but it's mixing two different categories of animal.
"This saves no money" — asserted, not demonstrated. It's an opinion presented as fact.

❌ MISSING CRITICAL CONTEXT
The piece never mentions that the Fair Housing Act itself has not changed. The Fair Housing Act remains fully in effect, and housing providers are still legally required to make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities, including those who use assistance animals. The primary change is the removal of the detailed federal framework that previously outlined best practices. The memo changes HUD's enforcement guidance, not the underlying legal rights. Landlords who discriminate can still be sued; HUD just becomes less likely to champion those cases proactively. Animal Legal & Historical Center

Bottom line: The piece is advocacy writing, not journalism — it's built on real facts but selected and framed to maximise outrage. The core story (HUD memo, real threat to ESA users, legitimate concerns about enforcement) is genuine. But the veterans argument conflates ESAs with trained service dogs, the eviction risk is treated as a certainty rather than a possibility, and the removal of HUD guidance rather than the underlying law is a meaningful distinction that the piece buries entirely.

Sociopaths aren't good with animals.

lee wrote Yesterday at 4:32pm:


Yes.

I studied sociopaths for my Masters.

Bobby. wrote Yesterday at 2:55pm:


Oh, you disagwee, is it?

No worries. Tell us how you never supported Kristi then, Bobby.

Tell us all what a terrible mistake all this was and you wish you'd never supported it.

Say that, and we'll immediately correct our memory, apologize and count you in.

Say it.