Mitt Romney Chooses Paul Ryan As Election Running Mate

[Jingthing]

This republican ticket is shamelessly wealthy and shamelessly ONLY about redistributing wealth from the bottom and middle to the top. Absolutely, every wealthy American who cares ONLY about themselves should by all means support this ticket.

Wealthy political candidates are nothing new, of course. But we’ve never had two wealthy candidates on a national ticket whose top priority is to reduce already low taxes on the well-to-do while raising taxes on everyone else — even as they propose to slash programs that serve the poor, or that (like college aid) create chances for the lowly born to rise.

...

Ryan is equally mysterious — the boy-next-door who pays lip service to “upward mobility” yet seems to have no notion his plans would likely produce what liberal analyst Robert Greenstein calls “the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern U.S. history.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/matt-miller-the-rise-of-the-drawbridge-republicans/2012/08/20/d426c7f8-eb16-11e1-9ddc-340d5efb1e9c_story.html

[Ulysses G.]

As long as we are linking to biased opinion pieces, here is the brilliant Doctor Charles Krauthammer on the Romney/Ryan tea:.

Ryan’s role is to make the case for a serious approach to structural problems — a hardheaded, sober-hearted conservatism that puts to shame a reactionary liberalism that, with Greece in our future, offers handouts, bromides and a 4.6 percent increase in tax rates. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-romneys-present-ryans-future/2012/08/16/d0411adc-e7b8-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_story.html

[Jingthing]

Ryan's Medicare "solutions" may sound good from a knee jerk Ayn Rand-ish right wing ideological point of view, but the ideas don't hold up so well under realistic scrutiny:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-20/private-market-tooth-fairy-can-t-cut-medicare-cost.html

Unfortunately, proponents of moving Medicare to a private “consumer-driven” system, including Republican vice presidential hopeful Paul Ryan, seem to instead believe in a health-care competition tooth fairy -- that if we just increase the patient’s share of costs and bolster competition among insurance companies, the expense will come down. As Karl Rove recently argued, “Competition will lower costs by using market forces to spur innovation and improvement.”

What did the budget office conclude? “A private health insurance plan covering the standardized benefit would, CBO estimates, be more expensive currently than traditional Medicare.”

[Neurath]

I was very excited by the selection of Paul Ryan as the VP contender - at last I thought, a real discussion on the future with Congressman Ryan presenting a real and coherent alternative to the status quo. A sincere alternative generated from a coherent economic and philosophical basis. But no, it turns out that Congressmen Ryan is another who will say absolutely anything to anyone and pervert his apparently deeply held views for a chance at the public trough. Here he is (below) arguing for PRECISELY that which he says has gotten us into this mess.

"What's key here is not just that Ryan supported stimulus then, it's that he supported it for explicitly Keynesian reasons, including the idea that spending money during a recession would then juice the economy to improve government revenues down the road."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-ryan-support-of-stimulus-2012-8#ixzz24Jcf1Q42"

Watch the video - the man taking could be John Maynard Keynes.

The man is sincere only about tax cuts favoring the wealthy and a social agenda that would radically restrict and perhaps outlaw any and all abortion. Sad, very sad

[chuckd]

I was very excited by the selection of Paul Ryan as the VP contender - at last I thought, a real discussion on the future with Congressman Ryan presenting a real and coherent alternative to the status quo. A sincere alternative generated from a coherent economic and philosophical basis. But no, it turns out that Congressmen Ryan is another who will say absolutely anything to anyone and pervert his apparently deeply held views for a chance at the public trough. Here he is (below) arguing for PRECISELY that which he says has gotten us into this mess.

"What's key here is not just that Ryan supported stimulus then, it's that he supported it for explicitly Keynesian reasons, including the idea that spending money during a recession would then juice the economy to improve government revenues down the road."

Read more: http://www.businessi...8#ixzz24Jcf1Q42"

Watch the video - the man taking could be John Maynard Keynes.

The man is sincere only about tax cuts favoring the wealthy and a social agenda that would radically restrict and perhaps outlaw any and all abortion. Sad, very sad

Sorry but I couldn't get the video to load here in Isaan. I'm sure since it was from MSNBC it was more straight shooting non-partisan right down the middle journalism.

The broadcast home of Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman (now gone) has been famous for that for years.

[Ulysses G.]

At least MSNBC does not pretend to be anything but biased far to the left. The rest of the mainsteam media tries to pretend that they are objective.

[Neurath]

"Ryan was also one of several dozen Republican co-sponsors last year of a bill called the Sanctity of Human Life Act. The measure, which never made it to the House floor, would give a fertilized egg the same legal rights as a person."

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/166775846.html?refer=y

Since he was a co-sponsor of the Sanctity of Human LIfe Act, congressman Ryan truly believes that a fertilized egg should have the same legal rights as a person. If a fertilized egg was to have the same legal rights as a person, a right to abortion could never be protected under a Constitutional Right to Privacy (Roe v Wade). Congressman Ryan is on record as saying that Roe v Wade decision is wrong headed and comparable to Dredd Scott in denying rights to persons and he very publicly sponsored the Sanctity of Human Life Act. People say that Congressman Ryan is a straight-shooter and acts from beliefs and convictions. Make no mistake, if that is true, he wants abortion, even and especially in the case of rape, prohibited, illegal and prosecutable. Make no mistake, Congressman Ryan's position would not allow access to abortion for your wife or your daughter should she be violently raped by Willie Horten. The only other conclusion is that congressman Ryan is not sincere, that he is merely posturing, and that he is unlikely to act from conviction in this case.

[Ulysses G.]

The majority of Americans are pro-life. There is nothing radical about wanting to protect the lives of unborn children. However, Ryan is running for vice president and has pleged to support Mitt Romneys position on abortion witch makes exceptions for rape and incest.

[Neurath]

The majority of Americans are pro-life. There is nothing radical about wanting to protect the lives of unborn children. However, Ryan is running for vice president and has pleged to support Mitt Romneys position on abortion witch makes exceptions for rape and incest.

Wow, this is a difficult one

"The majority of Americans are pro-life." So? What's that got to do with the argument? That congressman Ryan would or could never advocate or do anything unpopular if elected? If that's the case there would be little point in electing him. After all, we all LOVE our own tax loopholes and subsidies. It's only other people's that are unpopular.

"There is nothing radical about wanting to protect the lives of unborn children" Really? Really, there's nothing radical about wanting to protect the lives of unborn children? Who would have thought? One dash of rhetorical slop deserves another: There's nothing radical about ensuring that your 13 year old daughter can get an abortion after being violently raped by a tumescent paedophile. In fact, It would take a very special , even radical, sort of father to ensure that she couldn't.

"However, Ryan is running for vice president and has pleged to support Mitt Romneys position on abortion witch makes exceptions for rape and incest." Sure, which means that should Romney die, Ryan would be President and there's as little wrong on evaluating his convictions in this manner as there is in wanting to protect the lives of unborn children which you agree is a good thing which means you agree with me about Ryan. QED.

[Ulysses G.]

I think it was already pointed out to you that the president or vice president can not overturn a Supreme Court decision and that Ryan has only participated in legislation that would prevent abortions paid for with state funds.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Neurath]

I think it was already pointed out to you that the president or vice president can not overturn a Supreme Court decision.

Touche squire, but here's the rub. When a constitutional protection for abortion is argued under and granted under a constitutional right to privacy (Roe v Wade) one does not need to 'overturn' a Supreme Court decision in order prohibit, prosecute or otherwise persecute those who would have one or provide one. All one need do is bring to the court an argument that since congress has passed a law saying that a fertilized egg has all the rights of person (in fact is legally a person) the right to privacy is irrelevant. It's irrelevant because the right to privacy does not pertain to the illegal termination of life (aka, murder). And there you have it. Congressman Ryan has sponsored a bill stipulating precisely that a fertilized egg has all the rights of a person. Why not be a proud anti abortionist rather than all this contortion and obfuscation? It's unbecoming of a gentleman who would protect the innocent unborn in our midst.

[chuckd]

I think it was already pointed out to you that the president or vice president can not overturn a Supreme Court decision.

Touche squire, but here's the rub. When a constitutional protection for abortion is argued under and granted under a constitutional right to privacy (Roe v Wade) one does not need to 'overturn' a Supreme Court decision in order prohibit, prosecute or otherwise persecute those who would have one or provide one. All one need do is bring to the court an argument that since congress has passed a law saying that a fertilized egg has all the rights of person (in fact is legally a person) the right to privacy is irrelevant. It's irrelevant because the right to privacy does not pertain to the illegal termination of life (aka, murder). And there you have it. Congressman Ryan has sponsored a bill stipulating precisely that a fertilized egg has all the rights of a person. Why not be a proud anti abortionist rather than all this contortion and obfuscation? It's unbecoming of a gentleman who would protect the innocent unborn in our midst.

You obviously do not understand the history of the Sanctity of Life Act. It was first submitted to Congress in 1995 and has been submitted intermittently since then, never having passed the House.

Ryan is not the primary sponsor of the bill but is listed as a co-sponsor with 63 other Representatives, including, as I recall some 16 Democrats.

Your argument is rather silly.

[chuckd]

Sure, which means that should Romney die, Ryan would be President and there's as little wrong on evaluating his convictions in this manner as there is in wanting to protect the lives of unborn children which you agree is a good thing which means you agree with me about Ryan. QED.

If the "other guy" dies, Joe Biden will take over.

Do you really want the King of the Gaffe' to be sitting in the Oval Office?

[hellodolly]

Good choice. Paul Ryan is brilliant. Maybe they can save America before it is too late.

for a moment you fooled me.......

i love sarcasm!

I gave up on him with his first speech. Not one word about the human factor. All about money.

Then he said he wanted to make the States number one in the world. As if they haven't caused a big enough problem as it is.

Can just see the Headlines if Romney wins.

U. S. DECLARES WAR ON IRAN DO TO SUSPECTED MISSILES OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

No proof but we will bring democracy to Iran. We will also issue billions of unbid contracts to Halburton.

[Ulysses G.]

I think it was already pointed out to you that the president or vice president can not overturn a Supreme Court decision.

Touche squire, but here's the rub. When a constitutional protection for abortion is argued under and granted under a constitutional right to privacy (Roe v Wade) one does not need to 'overturn' a Supreme Court decision in order prohibit, prosecute or otherwise persecute those who would have one or provide one. All one need do is bring to the court an argument that since congress has passed a law saying that a fertilized egg has all the rights of person (in fact is legally a person) the right to privacy is irrelevant. It's irrelevant because the right to privacy does not pertain to the illegal termination of life (aka, murder). And there you have it. Congressman Ryan has sponsored a bill stipulating precisely that a fertilized egg has all the rights of a person. Why not be a proud anti abortionist rather than all this contortion and obfuscation? It's unbecoming of a gentleman who would protect the innocent unborn in our midst.

You obviously do not understand the history of the Sanctity of Life Act. It was first submitted to Congress in 1995 and has been submitted intermittently since then, never having passed the House.

Ryan is not the primary sponsor of the bill but is listed as a co-sponsor with 63 other Representatives, including, as I recall some 16 Democrats.

Your argument is rather silly.

As long as it distracts voters from the lousy economy.

[Neurath]

I think it was already pointed out to you that the president or vice president can not overturn a Supreme Court decision.

Touche squire, but here's the rub. When a constitutional protection for abortion is argued under and granted under a constitutional right to privacy (Roe v Wade) one does not need to 'overturn' a Supreme Court decision in order prohibit, prosecute or otherwise persecute those who would have one or provide one. All one need do is bring to the court an argument that since congress has passed a law saying that a fertilized egg has all the rights of person (in fact is legally a person) the right to privacy is irrelevant. It's irrelevant because the right to privacy does not pertain to the illegal termination of life (aka, murder). And there you have it. Congressman Ryan has sponsored a bill stipulating precisely that a fertilized egg has all the rights of a person. Why not be a proud anti abortionist rather than all this contortion and obfuscation? It's unbecoming of a gentleman who would protect the innocent unborn in our midst.

You obviously do not understand the history of the Sanctity of Life Act. It was first submitted to Congress in 1995 and has been submitted intermittently since then, never having passed the House.

Ryan is not the primary sponsor of the bill but is listed as a co-sponsor with 63 other Representatives, including, as I recall some 16 Democrats.

Your argument is rather silly.

You obviously have poor comprehension of the inferential links between sentences. Seemingly a constitutional though perhaps not a mortal Sin. Be that as it may, I don't care, and nor does my 'argument', if the Act was first introduced in 1995 or in 1895 - a time and place that many Republicans seem to think was just dandy, particularly for their women folk and for the total absence of a federal income tax. Congressman Ryan CO-sponsored the Sanctity of Life Act in 2011. Here it is http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr212ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr212ih.pdf Notice that there is no such thing a 'primary' sponsor on the Act. You wouldn't perchance be inventing procedural terms to hide policy horrors?

He believes in the Acts provisions. He believes that a fertilized egg has the status and the rights under the Constitution of any extant US Citizen. What's more, he's running for the Vice Presidency on the basis of his convictions, and unless he wants to run away from them he lives with their political consequences. If he didn't believe in the provision of the Sanctity of LIfe Act 2011 I suppose he wouldn't have co sponsored it - particularly since it keeps coming back like the ghost from Christmas' Past (bad year '95 was too). If he (or his cheer squad) now wants to run away from the provisions in the Act, well then, the thin and fragile veneer of 'conviction' gets lost in the abrasions of his jostling ambition and their lack of principle.

How extraordinarily crass though so equally comforting to see both Congressman Ryan and his supporters run away from an issue that has to do with the very definition of life and it's sanctity. And to do so for a few measly votes. One really couldn't expect less. Shame, Shame, Ignominy and Shame.

[hellodolly]

I think it was already pointed out to you that the president or vice president can not overturn a Supreme Court decision.

Touche squire, but here's the rub. When a constitutional protection for abortion is argued under and granted under a constitutional right to privacy (Roe v Wade) one does not need to 'overturn' a Supreme Court decision in order prohibit, prosecute or otherwise persecute those who would have one or provide one. All one need do is bring to the court an argument that since congress has passed a law saying that a fertilized egg has all the rights of person (in fact is legally a person) the right to privacy is irrelevant. It's irrelevant because the right to privacy does not pertain to the illegal termination of life (aka, murder). And there you have it. Congressman Ryan has sponsored a bill stipulating precisely that a fertilized egg has all the rights of a person. Why not be a proud anti abortionist rather than all this contortion and obfuscation? It's unbecoming of a gentleman who would protect the innocent unborn in our midst.

You obviously do not understand the history of the Sanctity of Life Act. It was first submitted to Congress in 1995 and has been submitted intermittently since then, never having passed the House.

Ryan is not the primary sponsor of the bill but is listed as a co-sponsor with 63 other Representatives, including, as I recall some 16 Democrats.

Your argument is rather silly.

So what I get out of this is Ryan is being dishonest in trying to take credit for what was a sponsorship by 63 members of both parties.

On a side note it should be obvious to any one who is awake when you try to mix religion in with Government. Look t the middle east. Se how well it is working there.

It is a subject that neither party should comment on.

The States has Economic problems. Problems with there health care and the way they are and have been spending the SS money they will soon have a problem with that.

They are in one unwinable war now where soldier's are not only being killed but just about s many of them are committing suicide.

[KeyserSoze01]

This is what Ryan is on about. Trillion+ dollar deficits in spending over the last 4 years. The trend is to continue deficit spending on the current path the Dems are taking us. At what point does insolvency become the talking point when the USD is devalued to the point where it's cheap enough to use for bog paper? 4 more years on the current path and it will be a done deal. Yet the Dems continue to bleep about their entitlement programs. If the American people are too ignorant to see the fiscal cliff they are heading toward, then they deserve to be taken down by those they elected. Simple as that.

[hellodolly]

This is what Ryan is on about. Trillion+ dollar deficits in spending over the last 4 years. The trend is to continue deficit spending on the current path the Dems are taking us. At what point does insolvency become the talking point when the USD is devalued to the point where it's cheap enough to use for bog paper? 4 more years on the current path and it will be a done deal. Yet the Dems continue to bleep about their entitlement programs. If the American people are too ignorant to see the fiscal cliff they are heading toward, then they deserve to be taken down by those they elected. Simple as that.

Seems to be holding it's own against the baht.

[Ulysses G.]

Notice that there is no such thing a 'primary' sponsor on the Act.

He did notice. That is why he pointed it out. Ryan was one of 60 other Representatives including 16 democrats to sign the bill and Ryan is not "running" from it. Why would he? Many Americans feel that life starts at conception and it is not going to cost him votes. Ryan is supporting Romney's policy as Romney is the one running for president. That is how it works in politics.

[Steely Dan]

Seems to be holding it's own against the baht.

Or in the race to zero the baht is currently depreciating as rapidly as the dollar.

Here is a good explanation of the choice voters face between capitalism and champagne socialism.

http://www.sultankni...rican-mule.html

Both Obama and Paul Ryan agree that the current hybrid system has no future. The debate is over whether America will go back to being a horse or turn into a donkey. The donkey party is slowly breeding out the horse lines to turn the United States into a fully socialist beast. A creature that eats money and excretes bureaucracy with a community organizer on every corner and a propaganda bulletin on every porch.

Edited August 24, 2012 by Steely Dan

[chuckd]

Notice that there is no such thing a 'primary' sponsor on the Act. You wouldn't perchance be inventing procedural terms to hide policy horrors?

I normally don't use Wikipedia but this one is concise and to the point.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sponsor (legislative)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A sponsor, in the United States Congress, is a senator or representative who introduces a bill or amendment and is its chief advocate.[1] Committees are occasionally identified as sponsors of legislation as well. A sponsor is also sometimes called a "primary sponsor."[2]

http://en.wikipedia....r_(legislative)

The bill was re-introduced by Rep. Ron Paul in 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011, making him the primary sponsor.

Edited August 24, 2012 by chuckd

[Neurath]

Notice that there is no such thing a 'primary' sponsor on the Act. You wouldn't perchance be inventing procedural terms to hide policy horrors?

I normally don't use Wikipedia but this one is concise and to the point.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sponsor (legislative)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A sponsor, in the United States Congress, is a senator or representative who introduces a bill or amendment and is its chief advocate.[1] Committees are occasionally identified as sponsors of legislation as well. A sponsor is also sometimes called a "primary sponsor."[2]

http://en.wikipedia....r_(legislative)

The bill was re-introduced by Rep. Ron Paul in 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011, making him the primary sponsor.

Oh dear, just making it up as we go are we?

112TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 212

To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 7, 2011

Mr. BROUN of Georgia (for himself, Mr. AKIN, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BARTLETT,

Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. CARTER, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. COLE, Mr.

CONAWAY, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. FORBES, Ms. FOXX, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona,

Mr. GARRETT, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr.

JONES, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. KLINE, Mr. LAMBORN,

Mr. LATTA, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr.

MCKINLEY, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. NEUGEBAUER,

Mr. OLSON, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. ROGERS

of Alabama, Mr. ROONEY, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. SCHOCK, Mr. TERRY,

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. SAM JOHNSON

of Texas, Mr. HERGER, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin,

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. BACHUS,

Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. LONG, Mr. PEARCE, Mrs. BLACK, Mr. GIBBS,

Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. ROKITA, and Mr. WITTMAN)

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary

A BILL

To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with

fertilization.

Dear me, that above is the content of the link provided above. That's right, Ron Paul didn't introduce the Bill in 2011. Congressman Broun did. Perhaps not bothering to look at how this simple and easily available fact is at odds with your statement is a compulsional attribute. I dunno, but surely it's symptomatic of soooo much. Anyhoo, you obviously don't understand the history of this Bill. Never let the facts get in the way, just tiresome. But then on the other hand I suppose watching this attempt to redefine precise congressional terms with the use of Wikipedia whilst the heroes are trying to redefine the concept of person-hood in order to criminalize abortion is a delicious symmetry just too good to miss. Anyway, there's Ryan's name, right there in the middle. Not a Paul to behold. As for Ryan's Bill (you know, the one with his name on it): Life begins at fertilization and all rights accruing to otherwise defined citizens apply equally to a fertilized egg. Result: the criminalization of any and all abortion. This is the aim of the Bill. This is Paul Ryan's aim, and it's something he shares fully with the disgraced and disgracefull fellow Republican Todd Akin. What an outfit Try a fact, they're not that hard to find: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr212ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr212ih.pdf

[chuckd]

Notice that there is no such thing a 'primary' sponsor on the Act. You wouldn't perchance be inventing procedural terms to hide policy horrors?

I normally don't use Wikipedia but this one is concise and to the point.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sponsor (legislative)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A sponsor, in the United States Congress, is a senator or representative who introduces a bill or amendment and is its chief advocate.[1] Committees are occasionally identified as sponsors of legislation as well. A sponsor is also sometimes called a "primary sponsor."[2]

http://en.wikipedia....r_(legislative)

The bill was re-introduced by Rep. Ron Paul in 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011, making him the primary sponsor.

Oh dear, just making it up as we go are we?

112TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 212

To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 7, 2011

Mr. BROUN of Georgia (for himself, Mr. AKIN, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BARTLETT,

Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. CARTER, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. COLE, Mr.

CONAWAY, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. FORBES, Ms. FOXX, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona,

Mr. GARRETT, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr.

JONES, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. KLINE, Mr. LAMBORN,

Mr. LATTA, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr.

MCKINLEY, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. NEUGEBAUER,

Mr. OLSON, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. ROGERS

of Alabama, Mr. ROONEY, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. SCHOCK, Mr. TERRY,

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. SAM JOHNSON

of Texas, Mr. HERGER, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin,

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. BACHUS,

Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. LONG, Mr. PEARCE, Mrs. BLACK, Mr. GIBBS,

Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. ROKITA, and Mr. WITTMAN)

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary

A BILL

To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with

fertilization.

Dear me, that above is the content of the link provided above. That's right, Ron Paul didn't introduce the Bill in 2011. Congressman Broun did. Perhaps not bothering to look at how this simple and easily available fact is at odds with your statement is a compulsional attribute. I dunno, but surely it's symptomatic of soooo much. Anyhoo, you obviously don't understand the history of this Bill. Never let the facts get in the way, just tiresome. But then on the other hand I suppose watching this attempt to redefine precise congressional terms with the use of Wikipedia whilst the heroes are trying to redefine the concept of person-hood in order to criminalize abortion is a delicious symmetry just too good to miss. Anyway, there's Ryan's name, right there in the middle. Not a Paul to behold. As for Ryan's Bill (you know, the one with his name on it): Life begins at fertilization and all rights accruing to otherwise defined citizens apply equally to a fertilized egg. Result: the criminalization of any and all abortion. This is the aim of the Bill. This is Paul Ryan's aim, and it's something he shares fully with the disgraced and disgracefull fellow Republican Todd Akin. What an outfit Try a fact, they're not that hard to find: http://www.gpo.gov/f...-112hr212ih.pdf

I stand corrected. Ron Paul was NOT the primary sponsor in 2011, it was Broun of Georgia.

Now about that "no such thing as a primary sponsor" thing? Can you stand corrected as well?

[Ulysses G.]

I've been trying to figure out why it even matters if Ron Paul was the primary sponsor or if it was Congressman Broun. I thought that the argument was about whether there is a "procedural term" for a "primary sponsor" and obviously there is.

[Neurath]

Notice that there is no such thing a 'primary' sponsor on the Act. You wouldn't perchance be inventing procedural terms to hide policy horrors?

I normally don't use Wikipedia but this one is concise and to the point. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sponsor (legislative) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A sponsor, in the United States Congress, is a senator or representative who introduces a bill or amendment and is its chief advocate.[1] Committees are occasionally identified as sponsors of legislation as well. A sponsor is also sometimes called a "primary sponsor."[2] http://en.wikipedia....r_(legislative) The bill was re-introduced by Rep. Ron Paul in 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011, making him the primary sponsor.

Oh dear, just making it up as we go are we? 112TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION H. R. 212 To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JANUARY 7, 2011 Mr. BROUN of Georgia (for himself, Mr. AKIN, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. CARTER, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. COLE, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. FORBES, Ms. FOXX, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. GARRETT, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. JONES, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. KLINE, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. LATTA, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. MCKINLEY, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. OLSON, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. ROONEY, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. SCHOCK, Mr. TERRY, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. HERGER, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. LONG, Mr. PEARCE, Mrs. BLACK, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. ROKITA, and Mr. WITTMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization. Dear me, that above is the content of the link provided above. That's right, Ron Paul didn't introduce the Bill in 2011. Congressman Broun did. Perhaps not bothering to look at how this simple and easily available fact is at odds with your statement is a compulsional attribute. I dunno, but surely it's symptomatic of soooo much. Anyhoo, you obviously don't understand the history of this Bill. Never let the facts get in the way, just tiresome. But then on the other hand I suppose watching this attempt to redefine precise congressional terms with the use of Wikipedia whilst the heroes are trying to redefine the concept of person-hood in order to criminalize abortion is a delicious symmetry just too good to miss. Anyway, there's Ryan's name, right there in the middle. Not a Paul to behold. As for Ryan's Bill (you know, the one with his name on it): Life begins at fertilization and all rights accruing to otherwise defined citizens apply equally to a fertilized egg. Result: the criminalization of any and all abortion. This is the aim of the Bill. This is Paul Ryan's aim, and it's something he shares fully with the disgraced and disgracefull fellow Republican Todd Akin. What an outfit Try a fact, they're not that hard to find: http://www.gpo.gov/f...-112hr212ih.pdf

I stand corrected. Ron Paul was NOT the primary sponsor in 2011, it was Broun of Georgia. Now about that "no such thing as a primary sponsor" thing? Can you stand corrected as well?

Love to do it Chuckd, really I would, after all it would be the honorable and honest thing to do; but I can't for precisely the same reason that Governor Romney can't release his tax returns

[Ulysses G.]

And his opponent can't release his college transcripts.

[Jingthing]

And his opponent can't release his college transcripts.

Which only tea party/Fox News heads supposedly care about. They don't really. They know the tax thing is a real problem for Romney so that's the only (lame) defense they can muster.

The tax returns would likely reveal some serious problems or he would release them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/colbert-king-time-for-mitt-romney-to-come-clean-on-his-taxes/2012/08/24/0a2ddb4c-ee0b-11e1-b0eb-dac6b50187ad_story.html

The “complexity of Romney’s one publicly released tax return, with all its foreign accounts, trusts, corporations and partnerships, leaves even experts (including us) scratching their heads. Disclosure of multiple years’ tax returns is part of the answer here, but in this case it isn’t sufficient. Romney’s financial affairs are so arcane, so opaque and so tied up in his continuing income from Bain Capital that more is needed, including an explanation of the $100 million IRA.”

[Neurath]

And his opponent can't release his college transcripts.

Which only tea party/Fox News heads supposedly care about. They don't really. They know the tax thing is a real problem for Romney so that's the only (lame) defense they can muster.

The tax returns would likely reveal some serious problems or he would release them.

http://www.washingto...87ad_story.html

The “complexity of Romney’s one publicly released tax return, with all its foreign accounts, trusts, corporations and partnerships, leaves even experts (including us) scratching their heads. Disclosure of multiple years’ tax returns is part of the answer here, but in this case it isn’t sufficient. Romney’s financial affairs are so arcane, so opaque and so tied up in his continuing income from Bain Capital that more is needed, including an explanation of the $100 million IRA.”

Another reason Governor Romney won't release his Tax Returns is because they will show him claiming Tax Deductions for donations to Planned Parenthood.

There's more than one side to every issue and Governor Romney has been on everyone one them. I'd not be surprised to find that he's genitally both Male and Female. At least Paul Ryan believes in something: Criminalizing any and all abortion even those sought by rape and incest victims.

[Ulysses G.]

The tax records are just a distraction from his opponents failed record and the distractions will never stop no matter what he does. Two years satisfy the legal requirements and that is plenty for the voters who count. The race is neck to neck after months of completely dishonest advertisements and slurs by the democrats and in a few days Romney can open up his war chest and strike back.