TheSocialGadfly

quote:

---

I did. You never even bothered replying to it. Guess you just "missed" that, too.

---

No; you didn’t. Below are what you call “explanations.”

Posted 1 Aug 2022 at 1357 CT (on page 4)

Yeah, this right here is your problem. The funding can be used to directly benefit exposed veterans. It can also be used for whatever the frick the VA can claim "improves" their processes.

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 9 years.

I'm out of good faith that they'll not use the funding any way they see fit, which is exactly what the bill allows for.

The rhetoric above is nothing more than speculation, bare assertions, and personal opinions. At no point in time did you actually demonstrate that the bill permits funds to be spent on any matter unrelated to the treatment and compensation of veterans who were rated for being exposed to toxic burn pits, nor did you even address the switch from discretionary to mandatory spending.

Posted 1 Aug 2022 1637 CT (on page 5)

I don't know how anyone looks at the language in this bill and concludes that there's a limitation to only support veterans with burn bit exposure.

Yet again, this is nothing more than your personal opinion and fallacious appeal to an argument from ignorance.

Posted 1 Aug 2022 1734 CT (on page 5)

Incorrect. I've cited one of many sections of the bill that allows for subjective and ambiguous interpretation. You are willing to accept this at face value and in good faith. I am not. That's precisely where knowledge and experience come in. But hell, ignore that if you want. Look what the VA, and most government agencies, have done with ambiguous legislation before this.

No matter how you try to frame it, this is an example of a "blank check."

Yet again, this is not an explanation; it’s bare assertions and speculation. At no point in time did you actually cite a passage and explain how it says what you think it says.

I’ll cite the first section of Title VII below. Please tell me specifically which paragraph allows for the funding of matters unrelated to the treatment and compensation of troops.

quote:

---

1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a plan for the modernization of the information technology systems of the Veterans Benefits Administration. The plan shall cover the first fiscal year that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act and the subsequent four fiscal years and shall include each of the following:

(A) An identification of any information system to be modernized or retired, if applicable, during the period covered by the plan.

(B) A description of how the Secretary intends to incorporate the following principles into the modernization of such information systems:

(i) The purpose of automation should be to increase the speed and accuracy of claims processing decisions.

(ii) Automation should be conducted in a manner that enhances the productivity of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

(iii) Automation should be carried out in a manner that achieves greater consistency in the processing and rating of claims by relying on patterns of similar evidence in claim files.

(iv) To the greatest extent possible, automation should be carried out by drawing from information in the possession of the Department, other Government agencies, and applicants for benefits.

(v) Automation of any claims analysis or determination process should not be end-to-end or lack intermediation.

(vi) Employees of the Department should continue to make decisions with respect to the approval of claims and the granting of benefits.

(vii) Automation should not be carried out in a manner that reduces or infringes upon the due process rights of applicants for benefits under the laws administered by the Secretary; or the duties of the Secretary to assist and notify claimants.

(viii) Automation should be carried out while taking all necessary measures to protect the privacy of claimants and their personally identifiable information.

(ix) Automation of claims processing should not eliminate or reduce the workforce of the Veterans Benefits Administration.

(C) An identification of targets, for each fiscal year, by which the Secretary intends to complete the modernization of each information system or major component or functionality of such system identified under subparagraph (A).

(D) Cost estimates for the modernization of each information system identified under paragraph (A) for each fiscal year covered by the plan and in total.

(2) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(A) the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs and the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and

(B) the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs and the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

---

Which passage(s) fund pork? Please be specific and either copy/paste the text or refer to the paragraph’s alphanumerical identifier.

quote:

---

No, you didn't. Again, the opposite has already been demonstrated.

---

Yet again, I’ll note that proclaiming something isn’t a demonstration. If it were, I could simply declare that the Oklahoma Sooners are the greatest college football team on the planet and insist that I demonstrated it.

quote:

---

You wouldn't be burning through this alter if you were here "in good faith."

---

Nice use of affirming the consequent. So anyway, we should now resolve whether I immediately linked to the bill, whether I answered relevant questions, and whether I tried to discuss only matters which were relevant to the topic at hand.

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:

---

Incorrect. I replied to your assertion.

---

Okay.

“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 9 years. I'm out of good faith that they'll not use the funding any way they see fit, which is exactly what the bill allows for.”

quote:

---

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.

---

Forgive me for being very clear with my words. When I challenged you to EXPLAIN how the bill’s funding being switched from discretionary to mandatory spending means that the bill funds pork, I was challenging you to EXPLAIN how the bill does what you seem to think it does.

I didn’t ask you to copy/paste the bill. I tasked you with EXPLAINING how what you copied and pasted gives rise to pork after the funding mechanism was switched from discretionary to mandatory spending.

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:

---

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.

quote:

---

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

---

Negative. It’s a statement that I’m currently working on my disability rating prior to retirement. Nothing about my efforts to resolve a rating with the VA imply that I lack understanding of the VA.

quote:

---

Then next time, just do that.

---

I did just that when I wrote:

“Here’s the bill that’s stalled. It doesn’t mandate spending for anything other than matters relating to healthcare or compensation of veterans who’ve been rated for exposure to toxins. ”

quote:

---

You said you have very little experience.

---

I no point in time did I ever say that I have “very little experience.”

quote:

---

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

---

So you were citing passages from the bill and explaining how the funding mechanism’s change from discretionary to mandatory spending therefore means that the bill is loaded with pork?

I ask because that’s what I’ve solicited from you since we first locked horns. You immediately took to addressing me and my supposed lack of knowledge of the VA rather than—as I had asked—citing passages from the bill and explaining how the funding mechanism’s change means that the bill is loaded with pork.

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:

---

And there it is. Next time don't take so long getting to this point.

---

Exactly. Shame on me for slipping baseless personal attacks and trying to get back on point.

quote:

---

Of course. You don't want to focus on your lack of knowledge and experience as applicable to your understanding of this legislation and, more importantly, what it would actually look like when implemented.

---

…in other words, I’m not trying to play the “No, you” game. Resolved.

quote:

---

I don't care about his motivations or what caused him to recognize it for what it is.

---

Is that a “yes” or a “no” to the question that I posed?

quote:

---

But I did. Again, look up.

---

No. You wrote. “FFS. Did you read Title VII?“

That and your personal anecdote about what could happen do not fulfill the burden of proof.

quote:

---

Incorrect. I've cited one of many sections of the bill that allows for subjective and ambiguous interpretation. You are willing to accept this at face value and in good faith. I am not. That's precisely where knowledge and experience come in. But hell, ignore that if you want. Look what the VA, and most government agencies, have done with ambiguous legislation before this.

---

No. You asked if I had read Title VII. Asking if I’ve read a section does not support your claim. Also, how does the switch in funding mechanisms (from discretionary to mandatory) relate to whether this bill funds pork? I ask because that’s the heart of Senator Cruz’s objection.

quote:

---

No matter how you try to frame it, this is an example of a "blank check."

---

No matter how you try to frame it, this bill is not an example of a “blank check.” See? I too can author claims which aren’t supported by evidence our sound syllogistic reasoning.