re: There was a $400 billion blank check for "pork" in the PACT Act AKA Vets bill

quote:

---

That's an observation. You admitted you had very little knowledge or experience.

---

Negative. What I did was propose that I don’t so that we could redirect our focus to the topic at hand—that is, what’s written in the bill. Here’s what I wrote:

“I’m not saying that I don’t know anything about the VA. I’m merely proposing that we assume as much so that we can focus on the topic at hand. What matters is what’s prescribed in the bill—not whether some random guy on the internet knows the inner-workings of the VA.

For whatever it’s worth, I retire from the military in September, and I’m currently working with the VA on obtaining a disability rating. But that’s altogether irrelevant because I’m not the topic in focus; rather, the bill is.”

I’ve repeatedly rejected your efforts to focus on me personally and have tried to discuss the bill.

quote:

---

That's also an observation. Explain away your reasoning for the behavior all you want. Changes nothing.

---

And yet, your observation focuses on me personally rather than the topic in dispute.

quote:

---

You're misrepresenting them.

---

Oh, okay. So your comments don’t focus on me personally?

quote:

---

I’ve repeatedly rejected your efforts to focus on me personally and have tried to discuss the bill.

---

You've repeatedly tried to frame your lack of knowledge as irrelevant. It isn't.

quote:

---

So your comments don’t focus on me personally?

---

No, especially when you consider that I didn't really say anything about you that you didn't say yourself, granted that I was more direct.

quote:

---

To suppose that I lack knowledge in something merely because I’ve tried to discuss the bill is to fallaciously affirm the consequent.

---

You said you have very little experience.

quote:

---

The comments did focus on me though.

---

No, they didn't. You were, at best, a backdrop. And, again, only using what you yourself offered up.

quote:

---

stout

---

Get those facts out of here

quote:

---

Not sure I'd interpret that as anything other than "very little experience." If you had something more useful, you'd have offered it up by now. I think the best part, to bring this full circle, is someone who posted this...

---

I am indeed working with the VA on obtaining a disability rating. Is that therefore an admission that I have no understanding of how the VA works? Yet again, you’re fallaciously affirming the consequent and reading too much into my statements.

quote:

---

...whining about "just wanting to discuss the bill."

---

Yeah, I’ve wanted to discuss what’s in the bill, but you’re welcome to call it “whining” if you’d like. So anyway, about what the bill says and whether it’s funding mechanism gives rise to pork spending…

quote:

---

Is that therefore an admission that I have no understanding of how the VA works?

---

No. That is a tacit admission that you have little knowledge or experience.

quote:

---

Yeah, I’ve wanted to discuss what’s in the bill, but you’re welcome to call it “whining” if you’d like.

---

Then next time, just do that.

quote:

---

knowledge or experience

---

=/=

quote:

---

understanding

---

quote:

---

I did just that when I wrote:

---

That isn't how you kicked things off in the thread.

quote:

---

Yet again, I’ll note that nothing in my comment suggests that I lack knowledge, experience, or understanding of the VA and/or its processes.

---

Incorrect. There's plenty that can be inferred by how you chose to address that challenge. You've also displayed nothing to suggest you know anything about how the VA or any government agency does business.

quote:

---

But even if we were to assume that it is, such a condition would have no bearing on the topic at hand—that is, whether the bill’s shift from discretionary to mandatory spending therefore means that it’s loaded with pork. So if you’d like to discuss that…

---

Isn't that something Toomey said?

quote:

---

Considering that my statement on the bill was made in my very first comment on the topic, I’d say that it was how I kicked things off in the thread.

---

You can say whatever you want.

This is how you kicked things off in the thread:

quote:

---

It doesn’t exist. Many here are merely parroting right-wing propaganda that they overheard on Fox “News” or gleaned from social media without ever having verified the claims that they unwittingly accepted.

---

Now, it's "guys, can we just focus on the bill please."

No getting around that, bud.

quote:

---

If Dems really care, they can make this a one-page bill and get it passed.

---

Exactly. And it's a problem both sides have, just make a bill specific to an issue and leave the BS out. If you want the other stuff create a bill for that. Won't happen though since that's where all their under the table slush comes from.

quote:

---

Incorrect. There's plenty that can be inferred by how you chose to address that challenge. You've also displayed nothing to suggest you know anything about how the VA or any government agency does business.

---

Yes! I agree that there’s plenty that can be inferred by those who fallaciously affirm the consequent, but the mere fact that people can draw inferences doesn’t mean that their conclusions are sound.

There’s a lot that I’ve not displayed because it’s all irrelevant to the topic at hand. So what? The fact that I’ve not displayed something here doesn’t therefore mean that I don’t know anything about a topic. I’ve not displayed anything here which suggests that I know matters relating to my career field. Why is that? Perhaps it’s because I’m not the topic of discussion; rather, the bill is.

quote:

---

Isn't that something Toomey said?

---

[sarcasm] Well, since you were kind enough to answer the question that I posed to you regarding Senator Cruz, I suppose that I’ll answer yours concerning Senator Toomey. [/sarcasm]

No. To my knowledge, Senator Toomey did not state that the change in funding mechanism thereby led to pork spending, but:

1. The comment which triggered this entire thread was about what Senator Cruz stated—hence, why my response focused on the sentiments that he expressed and why I inquired about his statement.

2. Senator Toomey’s apparently pretextual objection is that the switch to mandatory funding means that $400B in discretionary spending will necessarily take its place, but this claim is supported…well, absolutely nothing. It’s just an assertion.

He might as well be claiming that he’d whoop Mike Tyson in his prime. It’s an empty statement which ignores the fact that congressional members have agency to vote on discretionary budgets. Quite simply, he’s capable of voting for the PACT Act while simultaneously voting against any potential increase in discretionary funding.

3. To illustrate the ease with which many will make empty claims, look no further than the GOP which claims to be the party of “fiscal responsibility” while simultaneously implementing a gimmick known as the Two Santa Claus strategy. So yeah, I tend to be very skeptical when Republicans vote against measures for reasons of “fiscal responsibility.” Given their history over the last four decades, votes like these appear to me as petty attempts to obstruct the opposing party’s agenda under the guise of “fiscal responsibility.”

quote:

---

You can say whatever you want. This is how you kicked things off in the thread:

It doesn’t exist. Many here are merely parroting right-wing propaganda that they overheard on Fox “News” or gleaned from social media without ever having verified the claims that they unwittingly accepted.

Now, it's "guys, can we just focus on the bill please." No getting around that, bud.

---

What are you talking about? I invoked the bill immediately after stating truthfully that many posters here were parroting right-wing propaganda.

- In my first comment, I linked directly to the bill.

- In my second comment, I quoted relevant passages from the bill which support my position.

- In my third comment, I challenged you to cite passages from the bill which supported your position.

- In my fourth comment, I again challenged you to cite passages from the bill which supported your position.

- In my fifth comment, I immediately insisted that we discuss the bill the moment that you started throwing out red herrings.

And so on. I’ve been focused on discussing the bill from the very get-go. This isn’t some new development or anything.