#57 | Posted by HeliumRat

So you don't like that AI platform?

"but you need to think it through and not just be programmed like a robot."

The irony in this statement is absolutely rife.

And that's the link to the actual query.

#53

"Did RFK Jr. recently pronounce that bird flu should be allowed to spread without countermeasures?" through perplexity.ai

Don't know where you got that. He's the guy that stated biosecurity was the way to go. I heard the 14 out of 15 hatcheroies quote from him on youtube explaining it.
#47 | Posted by HeliumRat

Yes, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently proposed allowing bird flu to spread naturally among poultry flocks as a strategy to identify birds with natural immunity. He made this suggestion during multiple interviews on Fox News, advocating for farmers to let the virus propagate instead of culling infected birds. Kennedy argued that this approach could help preserve immune birds, but his proposal has been widely criticized by veterinary experts and scientists as dangerous, inhumane, and impractical[1][2][3][6][7].

#45 | Posted by HeliumRat

Why are you ignoring the context provided in #41?

Are you having another episode?

But biosecurity worked. And why living ---- are people posting links to MSM sites? That's fake news! Next you'll be shouting that COVID-19 came from a bat ------- a pangolin. Don't ------- read newspapers for science! That's like going to the New York Times or WaPo for the truth about RussiaGate or the Laptop or a billion other things. Jesus, those days are over.
#43 | Posted by HeliumRat

WTF happened? We were having a perfectly fine conversation. Then you went all 4chan. Why? You're still screaming fake news? JFC man.

Culling had no effect.
#40 | Posted by HeliumRat

What do you think about RFK's stance that it should be let loose?

#40 | Posted by HeliumRat

You should give perplexity.ai a try.

The claim about "bio-securing hatcheries" and stopping the bird flu in 14 or 15 facilities with minimal, cost-effective measures aligns with the broader strategies being implemented to combat avian influenza. Here's how it fits into the context of current efforts:

Biosecurity in Hatcheries
- Key Measures: Biosecurity involves a series of practices aimed at preventing the introduction and spread of pathogens. For hatcheries, this includes controlling access, maintaining hygiene, segregating flocks, and ensuring proper cleaning, disinfection, and fumigation of facilities and equipment[1][6].
- Cost-Effective Solutions: Simple steps like patching up facilities or improving barriers can make a significant difference. For example, preventing wild bird access and improving sanitation are relatively low-cost measures that have proven effective in reducing outbreaks[2][4].

Success Stories
- USDA Initiatives: The USDA has been investing heavily in biosecurity upgrades, including funding up to 75% of the cost for producers to address vulnerabilities. Facilities that implemented these measures have seen substantial success, with minimal outbreaks reported among those following gold-standard protocols[3][7].
- Hatchery-Specific Actions: Weekly testing of breeder flocks, early fumigation of eggs, and strict hygiene protocols for personnel entering hatcheries have been critical in controlling disease spread within hatcheries[1][6].

The claim that minimal investments in biosecurity helped control bird flu in several facilities aligns with documented strategies. While these measures may seem simple (e.g., patching up facilities), they are part of a broader framework that emphasizes prevention through targeted biosecurity practices.

#35 | Posted by HeliumRat

I would appreciate a source to read deeper into that. Thank you.

Retail egg prices remain high despite a significant drop in wholesale prices. Wholesale costs for large eggs have fallen by over 40% since late February, reaching a national average of $4.15 - $4.83 per dozen, depending on the region[1][9][10]. However, grocery stores have been slow to adjust retail prices, largely due to inventory dynamics and pricing strategies. Eggs currently on store shelves were purchased at higher wholesale rates weeks ago, and retailers may delay price reductions until older stock is sold[2][10].

Economists predict that retail prices will begin to decline within the next few weeks if bird flu remains under control and supply continues to stabilize[9][10]. However, regional differences and retailer policies could result in uneven price drops across the country[2].

gss prices are dropping and the plan is working, and has been for weeks now.
#32 | Posted by HeliumRat

Wait, what's the plan? Be specific.

Go to bed, LAMPY.

JFC

Gladly...

perplexity.ai

Enjoy

Oh, and BTW JEFF, swallow it.

The statement contains some accurate points but also oversimplifies the legal framework and intent behind student loan forgiveness programs. Here's a detailed analysis:

### **"All of the forgiveness programs enacted after the SCOTUS decision was well within the power of a POTUS to force a government agency to perform as intended by their statutory mandate under federal law."**

1. Accuracy of Post-SCOTUS Programs:
- After the Supreme Court struck down President Biden's original mass forgiveness plan under the HEROES Act (*Biden v. Nebraska*), the administration shifted its focus to narrower programs authorized by existing statutes, such as the **Higher Education Act (HEA)** and other targeted relief mechanisms.
- These programs, such as Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF), Borrower Defense to Repayment, and relief for borrowers with disabilities, operate within statutory mandates explicitly granted by Congress. Therefore, they align with federal law and are generally considered within the president's authority to direct agencies like the Department of Education to implement.

2. Legal Challenges:
- While many post-SCOTUS forgiveness efforts comply with statutory mandates, critics argue that some actions (e.g., invoking broad HEA authority for new forgiveness plans) stretch the limits of executive power. For example, ongoing legal challenges claim that these actions are attempts to circumvent *Biden v. Nebraska* and may still exceed statutory authority.

"On a case-by-case basis only after proven that the lender violated lending law and/or misled a borrower.

1. Borrower Defense to Repayment:
- This program allows forgiveness on a case-by-case basis when borrowers can prove they were defrauded or misled by their schools. This aligns with federal law and is not blanket forgiveness but targeted relief for specific harm.
- However, this principle does not apply universally to all post-SCOTUS forgiveness efforts. Other programs, like PSLF or income-driven repayment adjustments (e.g., SAVE Plan), are not based on lender misconduct but rather on long-standing statutory provisions.

"It was never set up for any kind of blanket forgiveness like it was some kind of class-action lawsuit."

1. Mass Forgiveness vs. Targeted Relief:
- The Supreme Court ruled in *Biden v. Nebraska* that broad-based loan forgiveness under the HEROES Act exceeded executive authority because it constituted a "major question" requiring clear congressional authorization.
- However, targeted relief programs (e.g., PSLF, Borrower Defense) are not blanket forgiveness but are designed to address specific borrower circumstances under existing laws.

2. Higher Education Act Authority:
- The Biden administration's post-SCOTUS strategy includes exploring broader forgiveness through the HEA's provision allowing the Secretary of Education to "compromise, waive, or release" loans. Critics argue this could resemble blanket forgiveness if applied broadly, but it is subject to a formal rulemaking process and is narrower than the original HEROES Act plan.

The statement is partially accurate but oversimplifies important distinctions:
- Post-SCOTUS programs like PSLF and Borrower Defense operate within statutory mandates and are not blanket forgiveness.
- Broader efforts under the HEA may face legal challenges if perceived as circumventing *Biden v. Nebraska*.
- The claim that all relief must be case-by-case based on lender misconduct applies only to specific programs like Borrower Defense, not all forms of loan forgiveness.

All of the forgiveness programs enacted after the SCOTUS decision was well within the power of a POTUS to force a government agency to perform as intended by their statutory mandate under federal law.
Again, you've been corrected on this tons of times. Stop chirping ignorant bulls(*&.
#266 | Posted by jpw

The statement contains partial truth but oversimplifies the legal landscape.

Key Context from the Supreme Court's 2023 Ruling
The Supreme Court rejected Biden's original $430 billion forgiveness plan in *Biden v. Nebraska* (2023), ruling it exceeded statutory authority under the **HEROES Act**[1][4][5]. The Court emphasized that "waive or modify" under the HEROES Act did not authorize sweeping debt cancellation, calling it a "novel and fundamentally different program"[5].

Post-SCOTUS Loan Forgiveness Programs
After the ruling, the Biden administration pursued narrower debt relief through alternative statutory pathways, such as:
1. Revised Income-Driven Repayment Plans (e.g., the SAVE Plan): Adjusted repayment terms under the **Higher Education Act (HEA)** to cap monthly payments at 5% of discretionary income.
2. Targeted Forgiveness for Specific Groups:
- Borrowers defrauded by for-profit colleges (*Borrower Defense to Repayment*)
- Public servants via the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program
- Borrowers with disabilities or long-term repayment histories

These programs rely on **existing statutory authority** explicitly granted by Congress, such as:
- The HEA's provisions for "compromise, waiver, or release" of loans[3].
- The PSLF program established by Congress in 2007[3].

Accuracy of the Claim
- Partially Correct: Many post-2023 forgiveness measures operate under **longstanding statutory authority** (e.g., PSLF, Borrower Defense) that Congress explicitly authorized. These programs align with the Court's directive to avoid overreach.
- Overly Broad: The claim ignores that some post-2023 efforts (e.g., a 2025 Eighth Circuit case) were struck down for exceeding statutory limits, similar to the original plan[2]. Courts have repeatedly ruled that unilateral mass forgiveness without congressional approval remains unconstitutional.

Legal Boundaries
- Executive Power: The president can direct agencies to implement congressionally authorized programs but cannot invent new ones. For example, the HEA allows incremental adjustments (e.g., adjusting repayment terms) but not blanket debt cancellation[3][5].
- Ongoing Challenges: Even narrower programs face lawsuits. In 2025, the Eighth Circuit blocked a $188.8 billion forgiveness effort, reaffirming that the executive branch lacks "unilateral authority to erase hundreds of billions in debt"[2].

The statement oversimplifies by implying all post-2023 forgiveness programs were lawful. While many targeted relief efforts (e.g., PSLF) fall within statutory mandates, others (like the 2025 plan) repeated the overreach the Supreme Court condemned. The administration's authority remains contingent on specific congressional authorization, not unilateral executive power.

Move forward or ---- off.
#263 | Posted by BellRinger

"move forward" as in "fall in line with the cult or else!", right?

You haven't logically refuted a single point on this thread, simply relying on emotional BS as refutation. It's ------- hilarious that you deem yourself intellectually superior when the evidence against said suggestion is routinely thrown in your face.

So stop with the libelous accusation.
#261 | Posted by BellRinger

LOL Right. Libelous accusation while you ignore the crucial context provided to you here, that which you CHOOSE to ignore.

---- man, explain to me why I bother with you.

His team cited a different law as justification to do what SCOTUS forbade them from doing under the HEROES Act.
#259 | Posted by BellRinger

The statement, "His team cited a different law as justification to do what SCOTUS forbade them from doing under the HEROES Act," is partially accurate but oversimplifies the situation. Here's a detailed analysis:

1. **"Cited a different law as justification"**:
- This is accurate. After the Supreme Court struck down President Biden's initial student loan forgiveness plan, which relied on the HEROES Act of 2003, the administration shifted its legal foundation to the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965. The HEA grants the Secretary of Education authority to "compromise, waive, or release" federal student loans under certain conditions[1][3][7].

2. **"To do what SCOTUS forbade them from doing under the HEROES Act"**:
- This is partially accurate but misleading. The Supreme Court did not categorically forbid student loan forgiveness; rather, it ruled that the HEROES Act did not provide sufficient authority for such sweeping debt cancellation. The administration's new plan under the HEA is narrower in scope and targets specific groups of borrowers, such as those facing financial hardship or who have been repaying loans for decades[1][3][5]. The shift to the HEA reflects an effort to address the Court's concerns about overreach under the HEROES Act.

3. **Key Differences in Legal Approach**:
- The HEROES Act was tied to national emergencies (e.g., COVID-19), which the Court found insufficient to justify broad loan forgiveness. The HEA provides a more general authority for loan adjustments but requires a formal rulemaking process, which the administration is pursuing to strengthen its legal position[1][3][7].

4. **Oversimplification**:
- The statement implies that the administration is merely attempting to bypass the Supreme Court's decision without addressing its legal concerns. In reality, the new plan represents a narrower approach and follows a more involved regulatory process designed to withstand legal scrutiny[1][3].

While it is true that the Biden administration cited a different law (the HEA) after the Supreme Court's rejection of its original plan under the HEROES Act, framing it as simply "doing what SCOTUS forbade" oversimplifies both the legal nuances and differences in scope between the two plans.

"I'm right and you're wrong. Nyah!" isn't a correction of anything, moron.
#250 | Posted by BellRinger

Not once have you backed your argument with legitimate context let alone facts. EVERY single time I provide exactly that. Why are you so lazy?

#256 | Posted by BellRinger

Nope. This is not a one-off occasion. You think we haven't paid attention to your homosexual/homophobic trend of commentary?

JFC you dumb