Quote:

---

On the eve of the 11 th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and as the federal government formally recognized the link between harmful toxins at Ground Zero of the World Trade Center and the risk of cancer for first responders, one legislator's opposition to a bill to provide medical care for people exposed that day is adding to the narrative of the 2012 election.

Rep. Paul Ryan, the Republican nominee for vice president, voted July 29, 2010 against the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act when the measure first came up for a vote in the House of Representatives. In order to expedite consideration of the bill, the House Democratic leadership considered the measure under suspension of the rules, requiring a two-thirds majority for passage. Support for the bill fell short, 255-159.

Eight weeks later on Sept. 29, when the $7.4 billion package returned to the House floor under regular order, Ryan voted no again. This time, however, the bill was considered under a rule, requiring only a simple majority for passage, and was sent on to the Senate.

The Democrat-controlled Senate made its changes to the bill and the House voted on final passage during the lame duck session on Dec. 22, 2010. Ryan, along with 167 other members of the House, did not vote on final passage in the House, having already skipped town to return to their congressional districts for the holidays.

Ryan explained in a floor statement that he would have opposed the final passage vote, too, calling the bill "deeply flawed." He also complained that it "would create a new health care entitlement, the World Trade Center Health Program, while also extending eligibility for compensation under the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001."

Now, almost two years later, congressional Democrats are citing Ryan's opposition to the bill as "another example of Ryan's extreme ideology."

"This bipartisan law is crucial to the families and victims of 9/11 and will be a painful thorn in the Romney campaign's side as our nation comes together again on the 11th anniversary of the attacks," one senior Democratic aide told ABC News.

The fire and collapse of the World Trade Center's twin towers contaminated the nearby air with particles of glass, asbestos, cement, lead, gypsum, calcium carbonate, other metal particles and other toxins. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which determines which cancers are covered under a fund established to care for first responders to the attacks, initially included just a short list of illnesses - but not cancer - that qualified for compensation. Still, the bill allowed for other health conditions to be added over time and today's announcement adds two-dozen types of cancer to a range of illnesses covered by the law.

President Obama signed the legislation into law Jan. 2, 2011.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:
What's the difference between 9/11 and a cow?

You can't milk a cow for 11 years.


Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Rappy's not saying it's not true. He's just cranky that people have the audacity to remind him what kind of person he's supporting.

Sure, he'll whine about politicising today - because it's not his side benefiting. Turn the tables, and the boy would be cheering with pom-poms.

Nothing new.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Eh, just more "neener, neener" from Raptor. By the way, I don't think he said it's not true, just that it's tacky to mention it today.

What's sadly amusing is that, in mentioning the difficulty in getting help for the first responders to 9/11, our heroes, the men who in many cases gave their futures, if not their lives, to cleaning up what 9/11 did, which SHOULD be the most important thing of all to our country now, Raptor considers it...whatever adjectives he spit out.

They ARE who we should be thinking about on this day. To even THINK of denying them help for what they suffered in their heroism is what's indecent, abhorrent and unconscionable. ALL those who voted against it should be ashamed, not just Ryan...but because it's ABOUT Ryan voting against it, suddenly it's not relevant.

Oh, by the way, when Paul Ryan voted against 9/11 First Responders Healthcare Bill THREE TIMES, according to him it was because giving 9/11 First Responders Healthcare did not "take priority". Whose "cheap, tacky ploy" is it now? Makes me sick.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Rappy's not saying it's not true. He's just cranky that people have the audacity to remind him what kind of person he's supporting.

Sure, he'll whine about politicising today - because it's not his side benefiting. Turn the tables, and the boy would be cheering with pom-poms.

Nothing new.

---

It's unbelievably false, but that's never stopped the Left from trying to spread lies and divide this country, over any matter, from condoms to catastrophes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
It amazes me that certain people here can hate certain other people here so much that they will literally walk over someone's dead grandma to try to score points.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
It amazes me that certain people here can hate certain other people here so much that they will literally walk over someone's dead grandma to try to score points.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
It amazes me that certain people here can hate certain other people here so much that they will literally walk over someone's dead grandma to try to score points.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

I'd like to think some are better than to use a cheap, tacky ploy like this to mark the significance of this day.

Seems not.

---

Quote:

---

On the eve of the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, former Vice President Dick Cheney accused President Obama of taking “sole credit” for the killing of Osama bin Laden and ignoring his presidential daily intelligence briefings. “If President Obama were participating in his intelligence briefings on a regular basis then perhaps he would understand why people are so offended at his efforts to take sole credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden,” Cheney told the Daily Caller on Monday night, quoting a report by former Bush administration official Marc Thiessen that “charged that Obama had attended fewer than half of the presidential daily briefs since taking office.”
But by parroting the claims of Birther-led “Swift Boater” groups, who argue that Obama has overstated his role in the bin Laden raid, Cheney ignores Obama’s repeated efforts to credit the intelligence community and the Bush administration for playing a part in the successful mission to kill the perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks. As Obama explained earlier this year:
[L]ast year, when we delivered justice to Osama bin Laden, I made it clear that our success was due to many people in many organizations working together over many years — across two administrations. That’s why my first call once American forces were safely out of harm’s way was to President Bush. Because protecting our country is neither the work of one person, nor the task of one period of time, it’s an ongoing obligation that we all share.
Obama also continues to receive intelligence information on a daily basis, even if he prefers to read the analyses himself rather than have it read told to him. As National Security Council spokesperson Tommy Vietor told Politico, Obama “receives and reads his [Presidential Daily Brief] every day, and most days when he’s at the White House receives a briefing in person. When necessary he probes the arguments, requests more information or seeks alternate analysis. Sometimes that’s via a written assessment and other times it’s in person…Marc basically wrote a story culled from our public schedule that shows how Marc’s old boss, President Bush, structured his day differently than President Obama.”

---