- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Joe Biden did not ignore/defy the Supreme Court re: Student Loans
Posted on 2/12/25 at 10:32 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 2/12/25 at 10:32 am to SlowFlowPro
I don’t necessarily disagree with your thread. But the fact that you felt compelled to write all of that speaks volumes.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 10:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:im asking you....what emergency are you saying that Biden used?
so what emergency?
Ask Trump. I didn't support the spending.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 10:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The Boston Globe piece said "Defy", but was an opinion piece (so irrelevant and not reporting)
You're actually parsing "Defy" vs "Defying"
Anyway I wasn't addressing you, I was addressing JellyRoll. The overall point to him was regarding the fact that, indeed, Biden's statements were framed as him defying the Court, which is why people came to this conclusion. It wasn't in some vacuum. Sources media proclaimed he was in defiance to make him look tough to garner votes. Whether or not they were opinion pieces or not are irrelevant to my response to him.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 10:41 am to SlowFlowPro
Them's sure is a lot of words that could've been more wisely used on your actual casework; provided, once again, that you do actually has a job and clients that depend on you to give them the time they paid for.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 10:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:pfft
Trump's being very aggressive in use of EOs. ... Trump's issued the most EOs in his firth month since Truman.
On EOs Trump (275) is a piker compared with FDR (3,721), Woodrow Wilson (1,803), Coolidge (1,203), Teddy Roosevelt (1,081), Hoover (968), Truman (907), and Taft (724).
I doubt he'll even catch Eisenhower (484) or Nixon (346), and he still hasn't matched what Johnson (325) or Carter (320) each did in one term.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 10:47 am to NIH
quote:
But the fact that you felt compelled to write all of that speaks volumes.
Have you not seen the people saying Trump should defy the court orders and then reference this supposed parallel by Biden? It's a meme on MAGA-X and vicariously, here.
I made the thread after this post in a thread titled, "Biden can ignore SCOTUS and spend money on student loans, but Trump cannot not spend money"
Posted on 2/12/25 at 10:47 am to CarRamrod
quote:
what emergency are you saying that Biden used?
As was already referenced, Covid was the "emergency" behind the statute.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 10:49 am to Stealth Matrix
quote:
and clients that depend on you to give them the time they paid for.
As I've posted exhaustively, I don't do very much hourly billing, if at all. I would never bill a client while posting, but that opportunity almost never arises due to the fact that I don't bill clients. In 2023 it was sub-5% of my revenue and I had fewer hourly cases in 2024 (books aren't complete there, yet).
Posted on 2/12/25 at 10:51 am to NIH
quote:
I don’t necessarily disagree with your thread. But the fact that you felt compelled to write all of that speaks volumes.
With SFP, all roads lead to narcissism.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 11:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:for pauing off students loans? what does covid have to do with student loans? I mean student loans were deferred for like 4 years.
Covid was the "emergency" behind the statute.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 11:07 am to CarRamrod
quote:
for pauing off students loans? what does covid have to do with student loans? I
Did you not read how the USSC said this argument didn't fly?
Posted on 2/12/25 at 11:20 am to BestBanker
quote:
If it takes that many words to defend a position, it either means your audience is ignorant or undereducated, or you're lying, or a combination of the two, or you believe a lie.
You used far too few words to defend your position about someone using too many words to defend theirs.
I'm no fan of student loan forgiveness, but it's clear that what Biden did forgive was within already passed legislation.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 11:29 am to SlowFlowPro
How much does your life suck that you must frequently post on a message board where everyone hates you and has zero respect for you and we don’t even read anything you spend hours writing?
Just a miserable little man who has no one in your life who loves you. No wonder you waste so much of your life on here. You don’t have one.
Just a miserable little man who has no one in your life who loves you. No wonder you waste so much of your life on here. You don’t have one.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 11:30 am to Stan Switek
quote:
You're actually parsing "Defy" vs "Defying"
It’s called pilpul. His tribe is notorious for this.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 11:32 am to SlowFlowPro
Nice use of the copy and paste of the daily democrat talking point.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 11:35 am to SlowFlowPro
Do you not understand the essence of people’s posts?
If posters more meticulously state, “Biden frequently ignored the will of the governed (as evidenced by his evisceration in the election) and continuously tried to implement student loan forgiveness after his methods were deemed unlawful. Indeed, his last effort is still under an injunction. Trump should do the same. He should ignore this faux appeal to arbitrariness in the district decisions, and craft his XOs around these rulings to accomplish what the people want.” Would you then engage in discussion without the condescending tone?
This isn’t the LSAT, law school or academic exercise or some puzzle. People see objectives being thwarted that they have good reason to believe are shared by most of the governed. The reasons are based on minute holdings which arguably don’t apply to the facts at hand. Even if they do, they result in absurdities, such as the executive not being able to audit their own departments
That’s the complaints. Pretending you don’t understand their arguments doesn’t make you erudite. It just means your deaf to others and can’t discern their issues and concerns
Picking at details ( when you aren’t getting paid to do so ) will just breed resentment
I probably will disagree with many on where we draw the line on permissable executive action, particularly related to impoundment, but that’s not a reason for condescension
If posters more meticulously state, “Biden frequently ignored the will of the governed (as evidenced by his evisceration in the election) and continuously tried to implement student loan forgiveness after his methods were deemed unlawful. Indeed, his last effort is still under an injunction. Trump should do the same. He should ignore this faux appeal to arbitrariness in the district decisions, and craft his XOs around these rulings to accomplish what the people want.” Would you then engage in discussion without the condescending tone?
This isn’t the LSAT, law school or academic exercise or some puzzle. People see objectives being thwarted that they have good reason to believe are shared by most of the governed. The reasons are based on minute holdings which arguably don’t apply to the facts at hand. Even if they do, they result in absurdities, such as the executive not being able to audit their own departments
That’s the complaints. Pretending you don’t understand their arguments doesn’t make you erudite. It just means your deaf to others and can’t discern their issues and concerns
Picking at details ( when you aren’t getting paid to do so ) will just breed resentment
I probably will disagree with many on where we draw the line on permissable executive action, particularly related to impoundment, but that’s not a reason for condescension
This post was edited on 2/12/25 at 11:47 am
Popular
Back to top


2








