Winners only.

[ThxOne Premium Member]

This is along the lines of the point I was trying to make when I asked why the relatives were brought up if they had not experienced getting fcvked over in/by the service.

He even corrected me when I said “uncle” in the singular, to be sure it was known he had uncleS who served.
Using THEIR time in the service as some sort of cachet for his argument against service members having rights was kind of weird.

You were the one ranting on about Agent Orange and other shit. I had Uncles in the military, one in Vietnam. The way you were talking was like ALL military had been screwed over and anyone in Nam had cancer from Agent Orange. I simply stated that it isn't true and sited my family since none of them were screwed over, none of them had issues with agent orange. If the two of you don't like the fact that I have family that served and they don't match your narrative, tough shit. The bill needs to be thinned out.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

You were the one ranting on about Agent Orange and other shit. I had Uncles in the military, one in Vietnam. The way you were talking was like ALL military had been screwed over and anyone in Nam had cancer from Agent Orange. I simply stated that it isn't true and sited my family since none of them were screwed over, none of them had issues with agent orange. If the two of you don't like the fact that I have family that served and they don't match your narrative, tough shit. The bill needs to be thinned out.

Actually i was expressing disgust for the 14 shitheads who were against the bill that would benefit the servicemembers hurt by the burn pits. I never claimed all who served were hurt.

The convo progressed and I referenced Agent Orange and Cam LeJeune as similar situations. You used your relative’s service and the many conversations you had with servicemembers to say that none of them deserve anything more than the pay they got. I think you described them as “property” who “knew the risks” when they enlisted.

I don’t want your relatives to “match my narrative”. In fact, I never asked if you had relatives who served, or if you yourself served. It isn’t relevant, though you asked ME if I had served. What were you going to do, insult me for not serving because your relatives HAD? Odd flex.
Why did you even bring them up in a discussion of people who were screwed over if they weren’t in that group?

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Actually i was expressing disgust for the 14 shitheads who were against the bill that would benefit the servicemembers hurt by the burn pits. I never claimed all who served were hurt.

The convo progressed and I referenced Agent Orange and Cam LeJeune as similar situations. You used your relative’s service and the many conversations you had with servicemembers to say that none of them deserve anything more than the pay they got. I think you described them as “property” who “knew the risks” when they enlisted.

I don’t want your relatives to “match my narrative”. In fact, I never asked if you had relatives who served, or if you yourself served. It isn’t relevant, though you asked ME if I had served. What were you going to do, insult me for not serving because your relatives HAD? Odd flex.
Why did you even bring them up in a discussion of people who were screwed over if they weren’t in that group?

Do you realize how much you jump around in a conversation and how often you switch topics within a conversation? The conversation progressed from your starting point and when it progressed I made my statements in response to your post. Then the topic changed, I responded, changed again, I responded and now we are back to the beginning. The Bill has things that need to be removed so that it is focused on just the victims of the burn pits. No other spending is needed on unrelated things. This was my point and my stand from the beginning. Why do you take exception to the victims of the burn pits getting all the funding from the Bill and nobody else?

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Do you realize how much you jump around in a conversation and how often you switch topics within a conversation? The conversation progressed from your starting point and when it progressed I made my statements in response to your post. Then the topic changed, I responded, changed again, I responded and now we are back to the beginning. The Bill has things that need to be removed so that it is focused on just the victims of the burn pits. No other spending is needed on unrelated things. This was my point and my stand from the beginning. Why do you take exception to the victims of the burn pits getting all the funding from the Bill and nobody else?

Discussing parallel circumstances is not “jumping around”, it’s a way of communicating. Burn pits are part of the bill I discussed. The other things are historically similar.

Thinking that bills such as this are written for one thing only is unrealistic given all machinations that are gone through.
It would be like building a garage by going to the lumberyard and buying one 2x4 per trip. Then a sheet of plywood on a trip. Then a bundle. It’s not the way it’s done. It’s not the way bills are done.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Discussing parallel circumstances is not “jumping around”, it’s a way of communicating. Burn pits are part of the bill I discussed. The other things are historically similar.

Thinking that bills such as this are written for one thing only is unrealistic given all machinations that are gone through.
It would be like building a garage by going to the lumberyard and buying one 2x4 per trip. Then a sheet of plywood on a trip. Then a bundle. It’s not the way it’s done. It’s not the way bills are done.

Then call the bill something else.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Discussing parallel circumstances is not “jumping around”, it’s a way of communicating. Burn pits are part of the bill I discussed. The other things are historically similar.

Thinking that bills such as this are written for one thing only is unrealistic given all machinations that are gone through.
It would be like building a garage by going to the lumberyard and buying one 2x4 per trip. Then a sheet of plywood on a trip. Then a bundle. It’s not the way it’s done. It’s not the way bills are done.

It's only like that so politicians can hide things...it's not the way its supposed to work...

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

It's only like that so politicians can hide things...it's not the way its supposed to work...

Hide things or get pork barrel spending thru that wouldn't stand a chance on its own merits.

 

[Kayge 10+ year member]

@spokey9, Trump appointed 226 judges. Only 9 of them were black. That's only 4%. Do you still think he isn't racist?

View attachment 41126

lol what a pathetic idiot you are

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Then call the bill something else.

It's the PACT Act. What name would you like for it?

Comprehensive Toxics Act, otherwise known as the PACT Act, was introduced in June by Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA), who chairs the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, with the aim to address and fund health care, research, and other matters related to veterans who were exposed to toxic substances, including burn pits — large trenches dug to burn and dispose of sewage, medical waste, and other trash — during their service.

Why should the bill name matter when we can just look up the name of what's in it? Do you prefer "Oreos", or "(UNBLEACHED ENRICHED FLOUR (WHEAT FLOUR, NIACIN, REDUCED IRON, THIAMINE MONONITRATE \, RIBOFLAVIN \, FOLIC ACID), SUGAR, PALM AND/OR CANOLA OIL, COCOA (PROCESSED WITH ALKALI), HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, LEAVENING (BAKING SODA AND/OR CALCIUM PHOSPHATE), SALT, SOY LECITHIN, CHOCOLATE, ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR"

Perhaps this name would tell us what's in the bill. Kind of long though:
"To ensure veterans can receive high-quality health care screenings and services related to potential toxic exposures, the PACT Act expands access to VA health care services for veterans exposed during their military service. For post-9/11 combat veterans, the bill extends the period of time they have to enroll in VA health care from five to ten years post-discharge. For those combat veterans who do not fall within that window, the bill also creates a one-year open enrollment period. These expansions mean that more veterans can enroll in VA health care without having to demonstrate a service connected disability.
The PACT Act codifies VA’s new process for evaluating and determining presumption of exposure and service connection for various chronic conditions when the evidence of a military environmental exposure and the associated health risks are strong in the aggregate but hard to prove on an individual basis. PACT requires VA to seek independent evaluation of this process as well as external input on the conditions it will review using this framework. The new process is evidence-based, transparent, and allows VA to make faster policy decisions on crucial exposure issues. This new process has already fundamentally changed how VA makes decisions on environmental exposures and ensures more veterans have access to the care they need.
The legislation removes the need for certain veterans and their survivors to prove service connection if they are diagnosed with one of 23 specific conditions. This greatly reduces the amount of paperwork and need for exams that veterans diagnosed with one of these conditions must complete before being granted access to health care and disability compensation, thereby speeding up their receipt of the benefits they have earned. This list includes 11 respiratory related conditions, along with several forms of cancer, including reproductive cancers, melanoma, pancreatic cancer, kidney cancer, and brain cancers such as glioblastoma. Survivors of veterans who died due to one of these conditions may now also be eligible for benefits.
To better understand the impact of toxic exposures, the PACT Act requires VA to conduct new studies of veterans who served in Southwest Asia during the Gulf War and analyses of post-9/11 veterans’ health trends. The new law also directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to convene a new interagency working group to develop a five-year strategic plan on toxic exposure research.
Ensuring veterans get the care they need includes ensuring that they are screened for toxic exposure and that VA personnel have the appropriate education and training. The PACT Act requires that veterans enrolled in VA health care be screened regularly for toxic exposure related concerns. This new law also requires VA to establish an outreach program for veterans regarding toxic exposure related benefits and supports, and to require additional toxic exposure related education and training for VA personnel.
This bill also delivers critical resources to VA to ensure it can deliver timely access to services and benefits for all veterans eligible – including those already enrolled. The PACT Act provides VA with mechanisms to enhance claims processing and to increase the workforce. The bill also invests in VA health care facilities by authorizing 31 major medical health clinics and research facilities in 19 states.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

White men with guns are terrorists. Sounds like something 18th century British would say:

“My Committee has found that the business practices of these gun manufacturers are deeply disturbing, exploitative, and reckless. These companies use aggressive marketing tactics to target young people—especially young men—and some even evoke symbols of white supremacy. Yet we found that none of these companies bothers to keep track of the death and destruction caused by their products.”

Ahead of Hearing, Committee Reveals Major Gun Companies Collected More than $1 Billion in Revenue from Military-Style Assault Weapons

Washington, D.C. (July 27, 2022)—Today, Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, Chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, released new findings from the Committee’s investigation into five major gun manufacturers’ sales and marketing of AR-15-style assault rifles, the weapons of choice for murderers...

oversight.house.gov

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Do you realize how much you jump around in a conversation and how often you switch topics within a conversation? The conversation progressed from your starting point and when it progressed I made my statements in response to your post. Then the topic changed, I responded, changed again, I responded and now we are back to the beginning. The Bill has things that need to be removed so that it is focused on just the victims of the burn pits. No other spending is needed on unrelated things. This was my point and my stand from the beginning. Why do you take exception to the victims of the burn pits getting all the funding from the Bill and nobody else?

Rob can’t keep his thoughts straight

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Rob can’t keep his thoughts straight

HAHAHAHA. Follow your own post history. From one conspiracy fantasy to the next. And one useless topic to the next.

Self-proclaimed vaccine research genius, who thought polio had been eradicated
Self-proclaimed theologian who refuses to explain the concept of god.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

‘These strikes threaten "the very real risk of a nuclear disaster that could threaten public health and the environment in Ukraine and beyond," Grossi said.’

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

White men with guns are terrorists. Sounds like something 18th century British would say:

“My Committee has found that the business practices of these gun manufacturers are deeply disturbing, exploitative, and reckless. These companies use aggressive marketing tactics to target young people—especially young men—and some even evoke symbols of white supremacy. Yet we found that none of these companies bothers to keep track of the death and destruction caused by their products.”

Ahead of Hearing, Committee Reveals Major Gun Companies Collected More than $1 Billion in Revenue from Military-Style Assault Weapons

Washington, D.C. (July 27, 2022)—Today, Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, Chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, released new findings from the Committee’s investigation into five major gun manufacturers’ sales and marketing of AR-15-style assault rifles, the weapons of choice for murderers...

oversight.house.gov

So you don't think the gun industry would conspire against us???

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

So you don't think the gun industry would conspire against us???

Not by selling us guns. Idk how they would conspire against us to sell us guns, because our guns is what keeps us free. People in the federal government need to kill Americans, potentially, to do what they wanna do to this nation.