Paul Ryans record. The more you know...

[techs]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/11/paul-ryan-personhood_n_1767760.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Ryan also supported a highly controversial bill that Democrats nicknamed the "Let Women Die Act," which would have allowed hospitals to refuse to provide a woman emergency abortion care, even if her life is on the line.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) cosponsored a bill that would give fetuses full personhood rights from the moment of fertilization, which was even rejected by voters in the socially conservative state of Mississippi.

 

[conehead433]

WOW! What a douche!

 

[Svnla]

Hey OP, how about you create one, just one Obama own record thread, eh? I bet it will be full of "but...but...but...but BBBBBUUUUUUUUSSSSHHHHH" right? LOL.

The more you know indeed.

 

[Bowfinger]

Techs, don't you think you've started enough Ryan threads for one day? Enough is enough.

 

[nehalem256]

He voted to defund federal family planning programs, authored a budget that dismantles Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, all of which disproportionately aid and employ women

So the majority of the domestic government exists to transfer money from men to women.

And if you oppose forcibly transfering money from men to women that makes you anti-woman :hmm:

 

[nehalem256]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/11/paul-ryan-personhood_n_1767760.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Ryan also supported a highly controversial bill that Democrats nicknamed the "Let Women Die Act," which would have allowed hospitals to refuse to provide a woman emergency abortion care, even if her life is on the line.
.

This appears to be the tet of the "Let Women Die Act"

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr358/text

Please point out which section "lets women die". Or provide a link that is not just some hysterical Democrat ranting about the bill and actually points out the relevant provision.

Because it seems to deal with health insurance, not with hospitals "letting women die".

 

[Matt1970]

8.3% Unemployment, Debt equal to GDP, House and Senate are about as functional as a screen door on a submarine and this is what you are worried about?

 

[techs]

Ryan was also opposed to the Cuban boycott, though he has since changed his mind.

I hear that is a huge thing among Florida's Cuban community.

 

[Lemon law]

Techs, don't you think you've started enough Ryan threads for one day? Enough is enough.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok OK Bowfinger, even if you can shut techs up, do you really think it just techs who is going to be dumping on Ryan and his dubious and phony record.

Wait until tomorrow Bowfinger, if you think it was bad today, its a going to get progressively far worse day by day until election day in November 2012.

 

[her209]

Paul Ryan voted for sequestration before he was against it.

 

[sportage]

One nice thing. Thanks to Sheldon everything is now all settled for the republicans.
Republicans can just take the kids, pack a lunch, and go to the beach on election day.
I mean really... why bother pulling the lever?
You're not deciding anything. Sheldon is.
Or should I say has..?

 

[halik]

OMG hufpo has a anti article on (insert republican candidate)? Please oh please can you post what commondreams.org has to say about (said candidate)?

 

[MovingTarget]

Hey OP, how about you create one, just one Obama own record thread, eh? I bet it will be full of "but...but...but...but BBBBBUUUUUUUUSSSSHHHHH" right? LOL.

The more you know indeed.

I do agree with you about consolidating threads on Ryan as half the first page will likely be nothing but Ryan threads otherwise. However, it is perfectly valid for the left to scream "But Bush!" every chance they get so long as the right continues to run on his ideals.

Now, if a moderate or left-leaning person wants to post a Huffpo link about a law, think about the right for a minute doing the same from (albeit more extreme) Foxnews or WND. In this case, if the article is about a law, dig a little bit in the article and link the law in question. Its the only way to ensure that the article is not intentionally trying to mislead.

 

[Bowfinger]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok OK Bowfinger, even if you can shut techs up, do you really think it just techs who is going to be dumping on Ryan and his dubious and phony record.

Wait until tomorrow Bowfinger, if you think it was bad today, its a going to get progressively far worse day by day until election day in November 2012.

WTF? I'm not objecting to the content. It's just there was no need to put it in yet another Ryan thread. We now have at least 10 threads about Ryan, all largely filled with the same redundant comments.

 

[techs]

I do agree with you about consolidating threads on Ryan as half the first page will likely be nothing but Ryan threads otherwise. However, it is perfectly valid for the left to scream "But Bush!" every chance they get so long as the right continues to run on his ideals.

Now, if a moderate or left-leaning person wants to post a Huffpo link about a law, think about the right for a minute doing the same from (albeit more extreme) Foxnews or WND. In this case, if the article is about a law, dig a little bit in the article and link the law in question. Its the only way to ensure that the article is not intentionally trying to mislead.

Personally before I post a Huffpost link I follow the Huffpost link to the original story and check its validity since Huffpost is generally a re-poster of other sources.
When Huffpo posts something not a link from another story I check out the person who wrote it and look at the facts it gives. Which makes me a better journalist than Foxnews and WND, I belieive.

 

[nehalem256]

Personally before I post a Huffpost link I follow the Huffpost link to the original story and check its validity since Huffpost is generally a re-poster of other sources.
When Huffpo posts something not a link from another story I check out the person who wrote it and look at the facts it gives. Which makes me a better journalist than Foxnews and WND, I belieive.

But you except the hysterical rantings of Nancy Pelosi as gospel without verifying if the bill she is ranting about actually "lets women die".

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr358/text

The bill is about health insurance, not hospitals "letting women die".

I am pretty sure the assuming that the rantings of a hysterical congresswoman are fact does not make you better than Fox news.

 

[techs]

But you except the hysterical rantings of Nancy Pelosi as gospel without verifying if the bill she is ranting about actually "lets women die".

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr358/text

The bill is about health insurance, not hospitals "letting women die".

I am pretty sure the assuming that the rantings of a hysterical congresswoman are fact does not make you better than Fox news.

I did look it up.

HR358 allows any hospital or health care provider that receives money from the government, such as Medicare or Medicaid, to refuse to provide abortion services, even in life-threatening instances.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65932.html

Basically if a woman goes to a hospital with a life threatening condition and the only way to save her life is by an abortion the hospital can legally refuse even if they get Medicare and/or Medicaid funding.

 

[Modelworks]

It doesn't matter, in a few more presidents people will probably stop voting completely. Most already realize it doesn't matter who you put in Washington they are going to do whatever they want and their isn't a damn thing you can do about it once they are elected. Candidates can promise anything they like but once elected they can lie, cheat, steal and you are stuck with them till the next vote where you get to elect another liar to the throne.

Most people I talk to don't even care about this election , why ? Because they don't like either option, but they are stuck selecting what many say is 'the lesser of two evils' , how is that for democracy. You get to vote for which person you hate less.

 

[nehalem256]

I did look it up.

HR358 allows any hospital or health care provider that receives money from the government, such as Medicare or Medicaid, to refuse to provide abortion services, even in life-threatening instances.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65932.html

Basically if a woman goes to a hospital with a life threatening condition and the only way to save her life is by an abortion the hospital can legally refuse even if they get Medicare and/or Medicaid funding.

Your link fails to tell us where in the bill this actually happens. It merely contains the same hysterical Democrats whining about it. But I guess Democrats would never lie or stretch the truth right?

From your own link:

Republican supporters of the bill, introduced by Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Pitts, say it would merely ensure that no taxpayer money is used to subsidize abortions.

The bill’s supporters, however, say it would not change the current Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, a law that stipulates any health care provider that participates in Medicare must treat anyone who arrives at their door in need of emergency care.

So, I posted the a link to the text in the actual bill. Feel free to point out where in the bill it actually does what the Democrats claim it does.

 

[MovingTarget]

But you except the hysterical rantings of Nancy Pelosi as gospel without verifying if the bill she is ranting about actually "lets women die".

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr358/text

The bill is about health insurance, not hospitals "letting women die".

I am pretty sure the assuming that the rantings of a hysterical congresswoman are fact does not make you better than Fox news.

nehalem, you are wrong about that bill. Yes, it is about insurance and hospitals, but the effect of this bill is that hospitals can outright refuse to do abortions in situations where it is medically necessary. It is the inevitable conclusion that women would die if the circumstances the bill addresses were to happen. My wife and I could face this situation day because of her epilepsy as we do want children. If this bill were to pass and she had to be rushed to a Catholic hospital (for instance), I'd lose the only family I have.

 

[Incorruptible]

Techs, don't you think you've started enough Ryan threads for one day? Enough is enough.

There must be something wrong with the guy, why doesn't he talk about all of the bad things obama is doing?

 

[simpletron]

nehalem, you are wrong about that bill. Yes, it is about insurance and hospitals, but the effect of this bill is that hospitals can outright refuse to do abortions in situations where it is medically necessary. It is the inevitable conclusion that women would die if the circumstances the bill addresses were to happen. My wife and I could face this situation day because of her epilepsy as we do want children. If this bill were to pass and she had to be rushed to a Catholic hospital (for instance), I'd lose the only family I have.

Nothing changes in Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, so if an abortion is the only way to save someone, it will be performed. The question is how is it paid for.

The bill would disallow insurance plans receiving funds from Obamacare to provide funding for abortions except for rape cases or physician certified medical reasons. This will lead health insurance providers to do either a no abortion policy or a abortions only for rape case or physician certified medical reasons. The law would also lead to separate insurance for abortions for any reason paid by state/local government, employers, or individuals.

 

[soccerballtux]

8.3% Unemployment, Debt equal to GDP, House and Senate are about as functional as a screen door on a submarine and this is what you are worried about?

that's a feature dude, not a bug, means nothing gets done. Those were best years under clinton, when everything was gridlocked.