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

quote:

---

"I'm used to the lies. I'm used to the hypocrisy," said Stewart, commenting on Senate Republicans at a Capitol Hill press conference last Thursday. "I'm used to the cowardice. I've been here a long time. Senate's where accountability goes to die.(Republicans) don't care. They're never losing their jobs, they're never losing their health care."

---

Stewart hitting it hard on this one. Not sure how many burn pits he's been around, but I'd rather he not use me or other veterans for his politics.

quote:

---

You should have stopped right here.

---

No.

quote:

---

So you should be quiet or at least be honest enough to admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

---

I know what I’m talking about though. Do you?

Sure, you claim to know the VA, but you’ve done nothing more than author bare assertions in lieu of anything substantive or even remotely relevant to the topic at hand: the PACT bill.

quote:

---

“Guys, let's stick to the bill!"

---

Did I invoke the bill in my first comment? Yes or no?

Did I invoke the bill in subsequent comments? Yes or no?

quote:

---

Complaining about anyone not answering questions is amusing coming from you.

---

Okay. So anyway, about whether I misrepresented Senator Cruz’s sentiments…

quote:

---

There we go.

---

So what did Senator Cruz say in the accompanying video?

quote:

---

Why is this so hard for you to admit?

---

Admit what?

quote:

---

Why is this so hard for you to admit?

---

Considering that my contributions were all submitted in written form, I’d argue that I was not “running [my] mouth.”

quote:

---

If you're going to show up acting like that, don't be surprised when people call you out.

---

I don’t mind anyone calling me out. To the contrary, I welcome it. I’m just pointing out that I’ve been discussing the bill from the get-go.

quote:

---

I know what I’m talking about though.

---

Ok.

I guess we'll keep waiting for you to demonstrate this.

quote:

---

Did I invoke the bill in my first comment?

---

Don't care. That isn't how you started things out.

quote:

---

Considering that my contributions were all submitted in written form, I’d argue that I was not “running [my] mouth.”

---

Herp. Derp.

quote:

---

I’m just pointing out that I’ve been discussing the bill from the get-go.

---

Most of your posts here have been spent, not talking about the bill, but trying to convince us that you're only here to talk about the bill.

quote:

---

Ok. I guess we'll keep waiting for you to demonstrate this.

---

Okay. Watch this.

I don't know how much experience you have with the VA and, more specifically, how they've handled burn pit exposure, but I'm going on 10 years.

I have full faith that they'll use the funding for matters relating to the treatment and compensation of veterans who were exposed to toxic burn pits.

As I already outlined, I'm very familiar with the process and the specific attempts to push similar legislation. I've been living it for ten years. I'm very likely going to receive treatment for respiratory issues in a way that's beneficial to me.

Now you might not be convinced by the preceding statements, and I wouldn’t blame you one bit. After all, they’re nothing more than empty assertions which are completely devoid of any supporting evidence or reason, let alone relevance to the topic in dispute (the PACT bill).

And if you’re paying attention, you might’ve picked up on the fact that the statements are, in fact, your statements, albeit ever-so-slightly reworded to fit this particular rejoinder. So rather than demanding that others demonstrate their understanding of the VA, why don’t you demonstrate—don’t just merely proclaim—your expertise in the subject. And after that, explain how one’s personal insight would even be relevant as to what the bill says since, after all, that’s what we should be discussing.

quote:

---

Don't care. That isn't how you started things out.

---

Man, you never seem to care about anything once you’re asked very simple questions which solicit either a “yes” or “no” response. It’s as though I’ve found your personal “off” switch which forces you to shut down on any particular issue. But okay. Since you’re incapable of answering simple questions like a sincere person arguing in good-faith, I’ll do it for you.

The answer to both questions is “yes.” I’ve repeatedly and consistently invoked the bill. The fact that I prefaced my reference to the bill by correctly noting that many here are parroting the propaganda that they encountered does nothing to negate the obvious fact that I referenced the bill, whether from the start and throughout our discussion.

If we were to borrow from your “reasoning,” if it can even be called that, we would be forced to conclude that the Happy Gilmore isn’t about a guy who finds success playing golf simply because the film starts out with him playing hockey. Come on, now. People are allowed to preface their central theses with commentary, so let’s not pretend otherwise.

quote:

---

Most of your posts here have been spent, not talking about the bill, but trying to convince us that you're only here to talk about the bill.

---

I’ve repeatedly tried to redirect attention towards the bill itself. The reason that I’ve had to devote some much time pointing this out recently is because you falsely claimed ad nauseum that I only recently tried to focus on the bill. If you want me to stop rebutting your claims, stop making them in the first place.

quote:

---

Rejoice. Now maybe the Oklahoma alter will go away for another couple of years.

---

Nah.

quote:

---

You made the assertion. You provided nothing to indicate you know what you're talking about. That's your problem, not mine.

---

You made the assertion. I repeatedly challenged the soundness and relevance of your claim, and I borrowed from your assertion merely to make a rhetorical point. Demonstrate—don’t just merely claim—that you have a thorough understanding of the VA and its operations. After that, demonstrate—don’t just merely claim—that one’s professed understanding of the VA is even relevant to a discussion about the PACT bill.

quote:

---

This is accurate. I don't believe for a second that you're using your alter to spend time on honest discussion.

---

I’ve answered the yes-or-no question that you posed and have sought to discuss the bill, but okay. You’re the one who refuses to answer questions and stay on topic.

quote:

---

But it does demonstrate that you're not "just here to talk about the bill." That only began when you were called out.

---

No. I discussed and linked to the bill in my very first comment.

quote:

---

I don't care what you do. I'm not forcing you to keep doing exactly the opposite of what you claim that you're here to do. Quite literally the only thing I've been doing is allowing you to make the point for me. I'm happy to keep doing that.

---

quote:

---

I don't care what you do. I'm not forcing you to keep doing exactly the opposite of what you claim that you're here to do. Quite literally the only thing I've been doing is allowing you to make the point for me. I'm happy to keep doing that.

---

Sure, okay. Anyway, feel free to explain how the bill’s funding being switched from discretionary to mandatory therefore means that it contains pork.

quote:

---

You made the assertion.

---

Incorrect.

I replied to your assertion.

quote:

---

No.

---

Yes. I've even quoted the portion of your initial post decidedly not "just the bill" multiple times. And you've spent days now, discussing everything but the bill.

quote:

---

No way! Mickey Goldmill said that's not true in that other thread about why Repubs hate vets.

---

Liar. I said exactly what the OP said. This was known last week. It moved funding from discretionary to mandatory which opens up a budget gap that could be filled with unrelated items in the future.

quote:

---

I did that. More than once. I even cited a portion of the bill, which you then claimed I had not done. More than once.

---

1. You didn’t explain anything. Rather, you merely asserted something as being true.

2. Incorrect. I didn’t say that you never cited a portion of the bill. Rather, I correctly stated that you failed to “cite one or more passages which prescribe funding for matters unrelated to the treatment and compensation of veterans who were deemed to be affected by exposure to toxins from burn pits.”

I didn’t ask you to merely post a passage from the bill. Rather, I challenged you cite a passage which supports the supposition that:

- the bill necessarily funds matters which do not relate to the healthcare and compensation for veterans who were exposed to toxic burn pits

- the switch from discretionary to mandatory spending somehow created pork within the bill

I then noted that “Title VII funds 1) enhancements to the VA’s ability to process claims and 2) leases of treatment facilities, both of which relate to the treatment and compensation of veterans exposed to toxic burn pits.”

I concluding my post by inquiring, “even if we are to assume, for the sake of argument, that neither relate to the treatment and compensation of veterans, how does the mechanism of spending (discretionary versus mandatory) matter at all?

The GOP’s position appears to posit that a) the bill necessarily funds matters which do not relate to the healthcare and compensation for veterans who were exposed to toxic burn pits and b) the switch from discretionary to mandatory spending somehow created pork within the bill. This is the ground that needs to be defen

quote:

---

Oh, but I did. Another poster even directed you to one of my posts rather than explaining it to you again.

---

No. A bald assertion is not an explanation.

quote:

---

If you're in any way confused as to why you're not going to get a serious discussion from me, this right here perfectly illustrates why. Here is exactly what you said: Where? I’ve reviewed your comments, and I can’t locate anything which cites a passage from the bill, let alone a “snippet” of a passage.

---

Saying that I can’t find something is not the same as saying that you didn’t do something. I Reading comprehension is a virtue.

quote:

---

You're either a liar or an idiot. It's not particularly important to me which is accurate. To remove any ambiguity, ^that is a personal attack.

---

I’m neither a liar nor an idiot, but okay.

quote:

---

Yeah, I don't really care what you asked me to do, if you're still confused about that. We're not going to have the conversation you want to have. If that bothers you, well, that's your problem.

---

I realize that we’re not going to have the conversation that I want to have because I prefer to work with evidence and sound syllogistic reasoning which leads to reasonable conclusions, whereas you seem to prefer to advance bare assertions and devolve to authoring childish personal attacks like a petulant second-grader.

Best wishes.

quote:

---

An explanation is an explanation.

---

I agree that an explanation is an explanation, but you didn’t provide an explanation. Rather, you offered an assertion. At no point in time do you actually demonstrate that 1) enhancements to the VA’s ability to process claims and 2) leases of medical treatment facilities are unrelated to the treatment and compensation of veterans who were rated as having ailments due to exposure to burn pits. Nor did you demonstrate that switching the funding from discretionary to mandatory spending therefore means that the bill is pork. All that you had to offer were bare assertions, completely devoid of structured reasoning.

quote:

---

Nope, but saying I didn't do something is.

---

I didn’t say that you never cited anything. Rather, I correctly stated that you never cited anything which served as evidence for your claims. For insight into why I write this, see the preceding point.

quote:

---

Well, I'll just disagree and let your posts here speak for me.

---

Okay.

quote:

---

It's about damn time. Next time, come into the discussion with good intentions and it might go better for you.

---

I entered into this discussion with good intentions, but I can’t help the fact that:

1. You’re incapable of answering simple yes-or-no questions which would’ve allowed us to resolve to a satisfactory conclusion.

2. You’re apparently more interested in discussing me personally than you are the bill.

3. You commit various logical fallacies in an effort to defend your ground.

I tried in good faith; I did my part.