Thank you.
Try it out. Commenting primarily about other people's posts all the time has to get old.
I thought Republicans loved the military
- Thread starter PurdueFan1
- Start date
Try it out. Commenting primarily about other people's posts all the time has to get old.
Did Toomey make the same argument against the bill the first time? I have never found out the reason for initial negative votes from the pubs.
I've at least seen a speech from him from before the House passed it. It was after the initial Senate passage (6/26, if I recall correctly), but since the funding provisions never changed, it seems likely he had the same issue all along. If I had time, I could search to see if he had any comments on it on or prior to 6/16.
You’re welcome?
I will but I won’t try too hard because I don’t want to waste nearly the time you do. Thinking you know it all when you don’t has to get equally as old.
Oh, and I found you on Twitter. Has Biden responded to the pictures of your dog that you sent him? 😂😂😂
Tears: “Do you even work? You post a lot” (as irony throws itself over a cliff)
Also tears a few minutes later: “I stalked you on social media”.
You should look into a restraining order, Bob. This whacko will be camped at the front of your house soon.
Should we get into your ironic posts? Nah, the rules only apply to others. I forgot how hypocrites live. Stalked him? Restraining order? Don’t get all dramatic like a teenaged girl.
Last edited:
Wtf are you doing trying to find me on Twitter?
Mind your own business and leave me the hell alone.
I wanted to see if I was right about the accounts you follow. Looks like your tiny number of followers are all stripper bots too. Thanks for the laughs. You think you’re something but you’re nothing. As expected.
Lol I’m disappointed that Biden didn’t respond to you. Were you disappointed too?
Holy crap Bob, looks like you’ve got both the INCEL brothers, crayflake and
ChristearsPforBaconfears, stalking you now!
L-U-C-K-Y!!!!!
So after doing a little digging, it appears that there weren't really any major changes to the bill. It sounds like the R's that voted against it the second go around weren't aware of the discretionary spending in the bill the first go around. The spending language would allow congress to move those funds to other things, taking away from the Veterans. R's want the spending to be mandatory so that the bill is always funded.
So, in short, the R's need to be more careful reading bills before voting for them.
So, in short, the R's need to be more careful reading bills before voting for them.
I mean you’re creepy AF, have had multiple user names because you’ve gotten banned so many times, and are a stalker to boot. But yeah, otherwise totally normal.
Knock yourself out with my posts. You clearly have nothing else going on.
Agreed. And it happens on both sides, to be sure. But this time, thankfully, petty politics didn’t work. It’s also yet another reason we need term limits for these folks. They do not listen to and are out of touch with their constituents and many of them are bought and paid for.
I mean no I’m not and no I haven’t, and have never stalked anybody in my life. I understand one has to jump off the diving board of dramatic when you don’t like that somebody you don’t like found public information and found it quite easily to boot. But yeah, be dramatic.
I won’t. You know you’re a bigger hypocrite than anybody on the board while telling everybody else how hypocritical they are.
I think this is backwards, R's wanted to include an amendment to prevent moving money from discretionary to mandatory. I don't know that I'm generous enough to assume they just didn't know about it until after they passed it the first time.
There is no reason for you to track posters down on other sites........other than to take any information you find and bring it here just to give them sh!t.
You should consider taking a hard look at why that is appealing to you......and then stop doing it.
When you have to try this hard to defend what you’re doing, you’re just digging further. Grow up.
Sure there is a reason. “You deserve it” just like you told another poster. You give sh!t to people constantly here and obviously don’t react well when people give that sh!t right back to you, do you?
Belittling people who voted for the man who has obviously ruined you has gotten old and others will agree. You should consider taking a hard look at why that is appealing to you…..and then stop doing it.
I don’t have to try to defend myself against dramatic Democrat statements. You think I’m the one that needs to grow up? Read your posts once in a while, hypocrite.
Ha I am example #1 @BuilderBob6 doesnt have the *****s to respond to me and never has.
Bullies aren’t as tough as they think they are. Bob can sure dish it but can’t take it!
Let’s see. You comment on and ruin every thread (by essentially copying/pasting your dumb insults), start multiple threads a day, pounce as soon as someone responds to you because you stalk the board, you stalk people outside of the board, and have been banned repeatedly for being a general piece of shit. So yeah, growing up is the minimum for you at this point.
So dramatic. I don’t comment on and ruin every thread. I started one thread yesterday. One is not “multiple threads” just in case you’re too hysterical to realize that. I stalk nobody. Calling out junk is now stalking? I have never been banned and don’t know why you keep saying that. Cool it on the conspiracy theories. Grow up.
I don't react well to people stalking me no. And yes, If you're actually taking the time to try and find me or anybody else on other sites, that is stalking....no matter how you want to try and turn it around or justify it. Then you actually take that info and post it here......just to give me sh!t.......and you see nothing wrong with that? You posted about my dog, what's next, my kids? So you can be entertained and get your kicks?
Leave me alone. Stick to this site and what is said here.
So who manages your and crayflake’s INCEL blog if you’re both over here riffing?
I’ll leave you alone as soon as you leave Trump alone. Wanna talk about who the stalker is between me and you? 😂😂😂
I’ve spent about five minutes on you and you’ve spent how much time on Trump? 500 hours? That’s a lot of time to spend getting your kicks. Loser.
tRump, tRump, tRump all the time with you. I thought you liked the tRumpylite guy from Fla.
Drama drama drama and exaggeration all the time with you democrats. Who’s “the tRumpylite guy from Fla.”?
No, I'm pretty sure the money in the bill as of right now is discretionary and they want it to be mandatory.
Nope. Toomey’s proposed amendment includes the following:
“B) Any amounts appropriated to the Fund for a fiscal year in excess of the amount specified under subsection (c)(2) for that fiscal year shall be scored as discretionary budget authority and outlays for any estimate of an appropriations Act.”
In the parallel spot, the bill as passed says:
”No amount appropriated to the Fund in fiscal year 2023 or any subsequent fiscal year pursuant to this section shall be counted as discretionary budget authority and outlays or as direct spending for any estimate of an appropriation Act under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) and any other Act.”
Last edited:
I think you need to re-read his amendments. The first section is saying that anything OVER the appropriated fund amount will be discretionary. Not the main fund itself. The second section is saying NO amount appropriated for the fund shall be counted as discretionary.
In other words the fund will be mandatory.
On the contrary, I think you need to re-read how I identified each passage of text. Only one is Toomey’s amendment, the other is the part that his amendment would’ve replaced.
The second one, which is the actual bill, NOT his amendment, says the whole fund is mandatory. This is the part Republicans supposedly had a problem with. His proposed, but not approved, amendment (the first passage of text I quoted) caps the amount that is mandatory and says that anything that goes beyond those limited amounts must be discretionary.
Here’s a statement from Toomey:
Toomey: Democrats Using Veterans Bill to Enable Additional $400 B for Unrelated Spending Binge | U.S. Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) today spoke on the Senate floor advocating...
www.toomey.senate.gov
”The PACT Act as written includes a budget gimmick that would allow $400 billion of current law spending to be moved from discretionary to mandatory spending. This provision is completely unnecessary to achieve the PACT Act’s stated goal of expanding health care and other benefits for veterans.”
Here’s Ted Cruz saying the same thing:
I don’t know where you did your “digging,” but it’s wrong. Republicans wanted it to be discretionary.
Last edited:
I thought you were saying they were both his amendments.On the contrary, I think you need to re-read how I identified each passage of text. Only one is Toomey’s amendment, the other is the part that his amendment would’ve replaced.
The second one, which is the actual bill, NOT his amendment, says the whole fund is mandatory. This is the part Republicans supposedly had a problem with. His proposed, but not approved, amendment (the first passage of text I quoted) caps the amount that is mandatory and says that anything that goes beyond those limited amounts must be discretionary.
Here’s a statement from Toomey:
Toomey: Democrats Using Veterans Bill to Enable Additional $400 B for Unrelated Spending Binge | U.S. Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) today spoke on the Senate floor advocating...
”The PACT Act as written includes a budget gimmick that would allow $400 billion of current law spending to be moved from discretionary to mandatory spending. This provision is completely unnecessary to achieve the PACT Act’s stated goal of expanding health care and other benefits for veterans.”
Here’s Ted Cruz saying the same thing:
I don’t know where you did your “digging,” but it’s wrong. Republicans wanted it to be discretionary.
So, out of curiosity, do you think having some of the money be discretionary was worse?
I don't know. It could be. As long as the funding is enough to serve the veterans I'd say it depends on what those extra funds are used for.
