1. Ryan defends the DOMA which says that the states' can't tell each other what to do
Ryan also voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment.
2. DADT is already repealed and the government is supposed to tell members of the military what to do
DADT being repealed doesn't change the fact that Ryan opposed repealing it. Sure, the government is supposed to tell the military what to do, but you claimed Ryan doesn't want to the government to tell people what to do anymore than they do now, which isn't what that is.
3. No one wants to tell women they can't have a medical procedure - that is a mischaracterization. Pro-Lifers want to tell women that they cannot kill children. That is a rather important distinction.
I said nothing about "medical procedure", that's
your "mischaracterization". I wrote about
abortion, put whatever distinction you want on it, Ryan wants the government to stop women from having abortion.
and still, after that, Ryan wants to reduce the sphere of government that tells us what to do. and so it seems that you are wrong.
Sure, if you say the sky will fall, it will fall. Ryan wants the government to put more restrictions on more than half of the population, that's not reducing "the sphere of government that tells us what to do" no matter how much wish it to be so or how many times you tell yourself that.
Often it is.
For example, it turns out that Nancy Pelosi's wealth increased by 62% in a single year thanks to an IPO that she got unique access to at the exact right time... an IPO being handled through VISA and in a time period when Nancy was developing Credit Card regulation....
There's alot of that crap going on. That's why "reducing corruption" has crept up to
#2 on the list of "voters want"
Right, the kind of crap where Ryan got richer off his shares right after he had a meeting telling him how bad the banking industry was going to be and who's the likely winners were.
Have you ever worked in a high-flow office? Those are form letters. The aid took out the blocs dealing with "social security" and added in "alternative energy" and put it in the stack. Indeed it was an oversight, and one that Ryan takes responsibility for.
I have and I signed those kind of letters too. I know that if I was going on day after day about how some programme is a waste money and so on, and my assistance presented me with a letter associated with said programme, I would take the time to know what the letter was about, and remember it. But of course I don't have to answer to the public, when you do, you often develop a convenient memory. But let's assume that Ryan really forgot about those letters, your characterisation of them is still a falsehood. The letters were written in Ryan's name, from his office with the purpose of soliciting money from the Stimulus bill. It was not "forwarded" from some constituent, nor was it sent to the wrong department or with the wrong content. It was sent to the right department, and money were given to those programme he proposed.
And that's a point worth repeating - it was a screw up that Ryan takes responsibility for.
Ryan only took responsibility for having been caught in a falsehood. He never took responsibility for asking for the money in the first place. I have yet to see him claim that he meant to refuse those constituents who asked him to request the money.
Glad you find it funny when your falsehoods are pointed to you.
And so on and so forth? Only one of those links had him saying it at a Latino event, though he did say it, which I thought he would be too smart to do, but I'm wrong.
. Maybe you should investigate whether or not Ryan has ever put a family dog in an odd carrying position, I'm sure the voters will be all over that one 
