Liberal Forum

Huey » 35 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

35 minutes ago

All I want to hear from you is

It is not about what you want.

It's about the probability that you know more than an active duty officer executing a task to which he was assigned.

It is small enough to warrant favoring the known facts.
 

Blackvegetable » 19 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

19 minutes ago

This is much too funny..

What would you expect each party to say to the public?

 

 

Right now you have anonymous sources creating a he said/she said conflict.  So basically you got nuttin'.

Blackvegetable » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

18 minutes ago

It is not about what you want.

It's about the probability that you know more than an active duty officer executing a task to which he was assigned.

It is small enough to warrant favoring the known facts.
 

 

It is the probability that you have no clue what he is talking.  You are calling the AF source I posted, the lawyer, a liar.

And you refuse to post what definition of Line of Duty you are using.  I already post.  I posted known facts.  Some from your own source, and more from the AF website. 
 

Blackvegetable » 23 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

23 minutes ago

It is not about what you want.

It's about the probability that you know more than an active duty officer executing a task to which he was assigned.

It is small enough to warrant favoring the known facts.
 

 

§ 3.301 Line of duty and misconduct.(a) Line of duty. Direct service connection may be granted only when a disability or cause of death was incurred or aggravated in line of duty, and not the result of the veteran's own willful misconduct or, for claims filed after October 31, 1990, the result of his or her abuse of alcohol or drugs.https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.301

Your definition is what?  

Blackvegetable » 23 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

23 minutes ago

It is not about what you want.

It's about the probability that you know more than an active duty officer executing a task to which he was assigned.

It is small enough to warrant favoring the known facts.
 


 

Disability Compensation and DIC are available under the following conditions.

• any period of active duty for training during which a person is disabled or dies from
  – a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty, or

https://veteransaidbenefit.org/who-is-e ... ty%2C%20or

Your definition is what?

 
 

Blackvegetable » 28 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

28 minutes ago

It is not about what you want.

It's about the probability that you know more than an active duty officer executing a task to which he was assigned.

It is small enough to warrant favoring the known facts.
 



 

You wanna use this one? 

It is from a CFR, Code of Federal Regualtion.

§ 17.31 Duty periods defined.Definitions of duty periods applicable to eligibility for medical benefits are as follows
a) Active military, naval, or air service includes
1) Active duty.
(2) Any period of active duty for training during which the individual was disabled from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty.
(3) Any period of inactive duty training during which the individual was disabled from an injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-38/c ... 0of%20duty.

So far you are taking a massive L.
 
 
 

Huey » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

You wanna use this one? 




 

No..
I don't. 


I'm satisfied that you have no idea what you're yapping about.

Again.

Blackvegetable » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

No..
I don't. 


I'm satisfied that you have no idea what you're yapping about.

Again.

 

Sure.  You need more definitions.  None of them agree with yours.  Yes, line of duty has a specific meaning, just not the **** you are peddeling.

Using your argument my injury was NOT found to be in the line of duty because I did not die.  Also, I should not have received my owed flight pay in my final check. 
 

Huey » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

11 minutes ago

Disability Compensation 

No...

Facts make no impression on you.

Math makes no impression on you.

Words only mean what you believe they mean.

You run from your words regardless of meaning.

It's pointless.

Huey » 1 minute ago » wrote: ↑

1 minute ago

Sure.  You need more definitions.  

No...I don't. 

 

Huey » 24 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

24 minutes ago

It is the probability that you have no clue what he is talking.  You are calling the AF source I posted, the lawyer, a liar.


 

Tiny,

This will require going over the facts and obliging you to acknowledge them.

You know you won't. 

 

Blackvegetable » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

No...

Facts make no impression on you.

Math makes no impression on you.

Words only mean what you believe they mean.

You run from your words regardless of meaning.

It's pointless.

 

I am the one posting actual facts with credible, sourced, citations.  And it is not looking good for you.
 

Blackvegetable » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

Tiny,

This will require going over the facts and obliging you to acknowledge them.

You know you won't. 

 

 

But you refuse to acknowledge the sourced facts I posted.  When you post the facts and you show exactly which of my  statements is wrong I will acknowledge your facts.  But in order to acknowledge facts you have to start posting facts.  Don't forget the links.  

Huey » 12 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

12 minutes ago

But you refuse to acknowledge the 

We aren't working backwards...



We start with the facts, never your assumptions.

Huey » 16 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

16 minutes ago

I am the one posting actual facts with credible, sourced, citations.  And it is not looking good for you.

And ffs, stop relying.

Blackvegetable » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

We aren't working backwards...



We start with the facts, never your assumptions.

 

Hey, asshole, start with the facts.  

My premise is that line of duty applies not just to being in a war zone and the woman in question was upset over the final paycheck, not survivor basis.

No post the facts showing I am wrong on both counts.

Good luck.  ANd stop with the **** deletions.
 

Huey » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

Hey, asshole, start with the facts.  

My premise is 

That's backwards.

This is about what happened. 

Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

That's backwards.

This is about what happened. 

 

Again, start posting these alleged facts with links.  Can't acknowledge what your candy *** fails to post. 

Huey » Today, 9:27 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 9:27 am

What benefits are going to deny the widows?  I also you are still not ready to show us how to hang without insults.  What a **** fraud you are.

And after years of saying servicemembers suck at the teat of government you are suddenly for them?  

PS.  Idiot, those are listed as occurring during combat operations.
 

 

@Blackvegetable  acknowledge that is where I questioned you comment about denyin widows benefits.
 

Huey » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

Again, start posting these alleged facts with links.  Can't acknowledge what your candy *** fails to post.

I've already done that..


This is another reason why it is a waste of time.