Paul Ryan has spent the past several weeks apologizing.

First, he delivered a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference where he decried school lunch programs, arguing that organizing programs to feed hungry children could produce "a full stomach and an empty soul." Unfortunately, Ryan illustrated his argument with a story that turned out to be unsettlingly inaccurate — in both specific details and broad premises.

The House Budget Committee chairman had to apologize — as best an ambitious advocate for austerity could — with a note explaining that the basis for his remarks had been “improperly sourced.”

Then Ryan went on a national radio program and ripped on unemployed “inner city” men, who he claimed were “not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work.”

The Wisconsin congressman had to apologize — as best an ambitious advocate for job-killing and factory-closing “free trade” deals could — for being “inarticulate.”

AND Paul Ryan might want to make one more apology.

For disregarding his own history.

Just as he now disrespects and diminishes hungry and unemployed Americans, the British Tories of the mid-19th century disrespected and diminished starving Irish men, women and children — including, presumably, the ancestors Ryan says were “Irish peasants who came over during the potato famine.”

After reviewing Ryan's remarks, the very wise New York Times essayist Timothy Egan noted over the weekend: “You can’t help noticing the deep historic irony that finds a tea party favorite and descendant of famine Irish using the same language that English Tories used to justify indifference to an epic tragedy.”

Egan reminds us that historians of the Irish experience have for some time now been been picking up on the fact that Ryan seems to have forgotten where he came from — and what his immigrant ancestors went through.

“The whole British argument in the famine was that the poor are poor because of a character defect,” explains Christine Kinealy, a professor of Irish studies and director of Ireland’s Great Hunger Institute at Quinnipiac University. “It’s a dangerous, mean-spirited and tired argument.”

John Kelly, a historian who has written extensively on the famine, has noted more broadly with regard to Ryan's habit of blaming the disenfranchised for being disenfranchised that the congressman seems to adopt “the very same (approach) that hurt, not helped, his forebears during the famine — and hurt them badly.”

Like Ryan, I am descended from Irish immigrants who settled in Wisconsin. But mine was a different experience. I knew from an early age about Britain’s colonial repression of the Irish, and of the mistreatment of immigrants to the United States who were greeted with “Irish Need Not Apply” signs.

My Irish history inspired enthusiasm for anti-colonial, anti-apartheid and pro-civil rights movements — along with sympathy for immigrant rights. This is not uncommon. My friend Tom Hayden, whose Irish ancestors settled in Wisconsin, wrote a grand book, "Irish on the Inside: The Search for the Soul of Irish America" (Verso), that explained why Irish-Americans should identify with the liberation struggles of immigrants, people of color and other victims of class and race discrimination.

Hayden’s exploration of his roots — in Ireland and in the immigrant communities of rural Wisconsin —helped him to unearth the seeds of his own radicalism. He employed a wonderful phrase in that book: suggesting that an understanding of the oppression of the Irish and of the experience of immigration was “the fertile soil of awakenings."

It is disappointing that, in losing sight of his past, Paul Ryan has denied himself the opportunity for an awakening that might provide him with a broader and better understanding of the issues that he admits he has been “inarticulate” in discussing.

It was certainly true in the 19th century that the last thing the impoverished people of Ireland needed was a British Tory politician blaming them for their hard times — or telling them that organizing programs to feed hungry children might do damage to the soul.

And it is certainly true in the 20th century that the last thing the impoverished people of the United States need is an American Tory politician blaming them for their hard times — or telling them that organizing programs to feed hungry children might do damage to the soul.

John Nichols is associate editor of The Capital Times. jnichols@madison.com and @NicholsUprising

Associate Editor of the Cap Times

You might also like

(42) comments

MrData
MrData

Nav writes .."..But adapt to change they (OLD PEOPLE) must as there is nothing they can do about our nation evolving. and becoming more diverse. We also cannot continue to be the policeman of the world as other powers are emerging who want to play ball..

Fortunately, not all old people have this mind set. Some understand better than others that the diversity of our nation is a strength, and that going to so called "good ole days" would be going backwards. They want their nation to go forward."

How intellectual. Now a liberal war on old people.

What a bunch of numbsculls trying to run this nation. Well, actually, the liberals are running it ..right into the ground!

His or her reference to the nation is becoming MORE DIVERSE is right. The nation's people has clearly been segmented into many 'diverse' or 'different' groups by the liberals who now are pitted against each other for survival. Join the liberal ideology or die!

That offends not only those 'old people' Nav demeans, but also women of the conservation nature, Christians, people who believe in pro-life, etc. The new prevailing liberal elitist, exclusive, insensitive, I-am-smarter-than-you-, politically correct crowd wrecking our nation through their abusive government control / power has to be shown the door.

We need to return to sanity and common sense government willing to work for the people, not just the democrat party agenda.

Nav
Nav

tomtom33,

I would not say that most old people are "stupid". Many, though not all, do want cling to the past to the good ole days (in their mind). They do not like or approve the way the demographics of the nation have changed and they "want their country " back.

They want to go back to the days where women knew where there place was.

They want to go back to the days when minorities had fewer rights and could legally be demined the right to vote.

They want to go back to the time when the United States was the dominant power in the world that controlled the global economy and world politics.

This is what they were used to. Therefore, it is hard for them to adapt to change.

But adapt to change they must as there is nothing they can do about our nation evolving. and becoming more diverse. We also cannot continue to be the policeman of the world as other powers are emerging who want to play ball..

Fortunately, not all old people have this mind set. Some understand better than others that the diversity of our nation is a strength, and that going to so called "good ole days" would be going backwards. They want their nation to go forward.

tomtom33
tomtom33

For the most part old people want no such thing. Continue to demonize whoever may not agree with you.

With age comes a deeper understanding of many things. With retirement comes the time to reflect. We know that there are three certainties in life: death, taxes, and change. This old guy never was racist or sexist. I came of age in the 60s. And I was fairly liberal in those days. Then reality manifested itself.

Nav
Nav

tomtom33,

Now having a discussion with you and say something different than what you believe is demonizing? You are showing your insecurities.

We may reflect a little more as we get older, but it is hard to change our long held beliefs which we developed a long time ago and are a part of our personality. Of course there are exceptions to this rule but that's what they are exceptions. George Wallace comes to mind, although some people still question if he truly became less prejudice in age.

The good thing is that more and more older people are starting to think for themselves, and realizing that they may have had enough with the Republicans. No one that I know wants to see the Social Security or the Medicare programs cut as we know them, and this is PRECISELY what the Republican party wants.

tomtom33
tomtom33

I am receiving Social Security and Medicare. I want both programs changed so they can continue. If they are not changed, they will not. No change proposed by anyone cuts anything from any current recipient nor from anyone close to being a recipient.

Try re-reading what you wrote above. That is demonizing. "They want to go back to the days when minorities had fewer rights and could legally be demined the right to vote."

196ski
196ski

"No one that I know wants to see the Social Security or the Medicare programs cut as we know them, and this is PRECISELY what the Republican party wants."

I am going to call you on this Nav every time you write it. It is FALSE and YOU know it.
Read the SS and Medicare Annual Trustee's report. Leaving SS and Medicare untouched will result in both programs failing. Even Obama has acknowledged th fact. Ryan offered up a plan to save them, Democrats, other Republicans and the President have offered up NOTHING. The longer we wait to address the shortfall the more painful and costly the fix is going to be. You are demonizing one of the few in Congress willing to advance ideas that will save the programs. You are being grossly unfair by intentionally mischaracterizing Ryan's efforts.

luckus
luckus

We shouldn't argue with Republicans about the poor and poverty, they are experts at keeping folks poor and in poverty. Actually they are experts at putting people into poverty. Paul Ryan is a disgrace to this State and the Congress.

David Blaska
David Blaska

Is that the problem in the U.S. 2014 -- famine?

Fact or Fiction
Fact or Fiction

Yes, David, that is the problem in the U.S. in 2014 - a famine of morality and character in the Republican Party leadership and legislative members of our government.

The famine that afflicts the Republicans is that of selfishness, arrogance, indifference, and cowardice.

Any political party that celebrates a Scott Walker as a "hero" is a party that has lost its ability to govern the people, but now grasps at the power to control the people - which explains the fascism-in-exchange-for-democracy program that Walker has engaged in as governor of Wisconsin.

This era will be remembered with the same shame as that of the late Wisconsin senator, Joseph McCarthy - a liar, like Walker, intent on personal fame and power at the expense of democracy.

tomtom33
tomtom33

You seem to like to talk about liars while ignoring the elephant in the room. Who won the lie of the year? Demonize the GOP, and let any Democrat slide for the same(or worse)?

"...intent on personal fame and power at the expense of democracy." I know a President who has unilaterally changed laws without Congressional approval. And he brazenly promises more.

Nav
Nav

Rep. Paul Ryan is one of the biggest political illusionist (and opportunistic) politician in recent memory.

He has done NOTHING of any significance for anyone but he has a grand ego and pretends to address the issue of poverty never having experienced it.

He has been proven to be a "fake" a number of times, something the people in Janesville (part of his district know) and make sure they do not vote for him.

I would like this term to be his last term in Congress. Maybe then he can try to see if he can find a real job.

Fact or Fiction
Fact or Fiction

Nav, I'm not sure you are correct about Ryan having never experienced poverty, or at least some form of disadvantage economically. If I'm correct, Ryan's father died when Ryan was young, and as a result Ryan applied for social security benefits - something that helped the now-anti-social-security Ryan make it through college.

Nav
Nav

For those who are too lazy to open the link I sent about How President Kennedy defined himself as a liberal, I will reproduce his entire quote. If I was as articulate as he was, this is exactly how I would have defined myself.

President John F. Kennedy on being a liberal...

"I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a super state. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies.

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Honorary Kentucky Colonel
Honorary Kentucky Colonel

Rose-colored glasses never give a balanced point-of-view.

How many billion$ were diverted to defense spending (after promoting the bogus "Misslie Gap"), escalating the VN War, and the Space Race which might have been earmarked for "Liberal" social spending?

"Although Kennedy did next to nothing with regard to advancing civil rights during his presidency, he saw the importance of of taking a cue from (Lyndon) Johnson's play book and reaching out to MLK's wife, after the civil rights leader was imprisoned for a probation violation.

"The apparent PR stunt seemed to contradict Robert and John Kennedy's true intentions; which involved covert FBI wiretapping and a ramped-up investigation of King.

"I did not lie awake at night worrying about the problems of Negroes."--Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, 1961

"Kennedy later authorized wiretapping the phones and bugging the hotel rooms of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr."

JLK & RFK were birds of a rich feather talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Is being two-faced the hallmark of a "proud Liberal?"

Nav
Nav

Kentucky Colonel,

We expect nothing less from an ultra conservative such as you. Did you read his entire definition about liberalism? At no point does he make any references to blacks per se but throughout he discusses how liberals care for the health, welfare, justice for ALL people.

You are very good at taking a couple of statements these people MAY have made to try to portray them as some racists. Racists we find in your party a lot more today.

WHEN Robert Kennedy died, millions of African Americans wept openly in the streets. Does that tell you anything at all???

Honorary Kentucky Colonel
Honorary Kentucky Colonel

More of this "we" stuff?

Sorry to be the one to inform you that the Liberal Icon heroes of the 60's had a dark side and a motivation for supporting Civil Rights that won't pentrate the rose-colored glass wearing crowd.

Probably not a good time to bring up the contents of the LBJ 'playbook,' am I right?

Fact or Fiction
Fact or Fiction

To be accurate, Nav, you have to consider that President Kennedy was a man of many strengths, but also many weaknesses. One of those weaknesses was relying on ghost writers. Profiles in Courage, while a great book, was most likely written by Kennedy's friend and supporter, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.

So while we can assume that Kennedy approved of the comments above, we cannot be entirely certain he wrote the comments you posted.

Fact or Fiction
Fact or Fiction

Nav, a correction - That should have been Theodore Sorenson, not Schlessinger, who most likely wrote Profiles in Courage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profiles_in_Courage

Lynne4300
Lynne4300

John Nichols, your obvious envy of Paul Ryan is pathetic.

Comment deleted.
Crow Barr
Crow Barr

Maybe Lynne is not Rebecca Lynne Kleefisch, but maybe she is

PAUL RYAN'S MOM,

Comment deleted.
Fact or Fiction
Fact or Fiction

@ TheRestOfTheStory FACT

tomtom33
tomtom33

There was a different take on Ryan in NRO this morning: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373479/paul-ryan-right-editors.

The rich can take care of themselves. And JFK was so conservative that he could not have gotten the Democratic nomination for anything today.

witness2012
witness2012

tt33, I'm certain JFK's positions on civil rights would have prevented him from being embraced by Republicans, as well as his strong support and funding for public schools.

He was a Democrat when he lived and he would be a Democrat today.

tomtom33
tomtom33

The GOP advocated civil rights in the face of Southern Democrats. How soon you forget.

Nav
Nav

John Kennedy was a liberal first and foremost. Here is how he defined himself. I will take him at his word than tomto33 trying to define him

http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=539

witness2012
witness2012

tt33, no, no they didn't. In fact what is referred to as "the great alignment" is when all those Southern Dems switched to the Republican party because the Democratic leadership took the position of supporting the civil rights struggle in the 1960's.

To find Republican support for civil rights, you need to go back to the 19th century when the Republican party was formed by German socialists who belonged to the northern branch of the Whig party in Ripon, Wi by Carl Schurz and others.

The platform of the first Republican party was decidedly socialist and also defined itself in opposition to the corrupt party bosses of the Democratic party of the 19th century.

It goes without saying that Abraham Lincoln's Republican party did support ending slavery, but doesn't bear much resemblance to the current Republican party. The Democratic party of today also doesn't resemble the Democratic party of the 19th century- there has been much change, switching of positions, and shifting of constituencies in both.

koala
koala

tt is correct, as far as he goes and the facts (and tragic aftermath) bear remembering. JFK called for the Civil Rights Act in a speech on June 11, 1963, following protests led by MLK in Birmingham.

Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R) and Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield supported broad outlines of the proposed bill, except for equal access to public accommodations. The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in the House, but the chair of the Rules Committee – Howard Smith, a segregationist Democrat – held it up.

After JFK's assassination, LBJ pushed hard to pass the CRA. A filibuster to stop it was led by 18 southern Democratic senators and one R senator. The filibuster was epic, lasting 57 working days. The filibuster then succumbed to a cloture vote, one of only two to overcome a filibuster since 1927 at that point. The measure had strong support, ca. 62% among the Democrats and ca. 81% among the Republicans. The Republicans of that day - led by the estimable Dirksen - did indeed take the moral high road, pioneered by Lincoln.

Alas, it was not to last. The damnable racists among the southern Democrats migrated very rapidly toward the Republican Party. It's not clear that Goldwater - another estimable leader - had anything at all to do with that, but the shift led to the breakup of the once "Solid South" that had voted heavily Democratic for the century since Reconstruction, essentially to spite the Republicans and Lincoln. For Nixon's campaign, a formal "southern strategy" was developed by Kevin Phillips, his campaign manager, who actually once explained its racist pitch explicitly in a national interview. In time, this "wagging of the tail" of the Republican party became the dog itself; it led initially to major gains for the party in the South and parts of the Midwest and West in the Bible (or Mormon) belt. More recently, however, it has seemingly backfired as the attempts to sell the GOP hard in the South succeeded grandly, but at the expense of making the party so "conservative" (actually, reactionary) it became a pariah on the East and West Coats, and in some areas of the mountain states.

Members of the party of Lincoln now regularly vote for bills that are blatant attempts to suppress the black vote ... as well as voting by the poor, the young, and the old ... across the country. Barry, Everett, Dick (Michael), and Lincoln are spinning in their graves.

koala
koala

NB: I made one mistake - Bob Michel (not Dick Michael) was House Minority Leader from 1981 to 1995. Charles Halleck held that post when the CRA was enacted.

tomtom33
tomtom33

Nav, JFK was first and foremost a skirt chaser. What would liberals have to say about a Republican President who behaved as JFK did? War on chastity?

tomtom33
tomtom33

koala, is the GOP anti-poor, anti-young and anti-old in addition to being racist? Oldsters tend to vote pretty solidly GOP. I guess us old folks are stupid.

The GOP, while it differs from what you believe, is not the party of evil. If it were, it would not exist. I certainly would not support many of its ideas. Believe it or not, I'm not evil either. Instead of demonizing your opposition, try arguing the issues. There is a balance to be sought in protecting the vote. Let's try to get it as close to right as we can.

koala
koala

Yes, tomtom33, there are strong elements of the current Republican/Tea Party that are anti-poor, anti-young, and anti-old, in addition to being racist. This is not demonization, tt, it is the truth. Voter suppression by the Republican/Tea Party is afoot across the land, aimed at the poor, the young, the old, and the non-white. Do you deny it? If so, please read Dale Schulz's honest interview today. Paul Ryan's making a career in the Republican/Tea Party by supposedly trying to "reform" Social Security and Medicare, while actually trying to engineer a $2T (yes, that's right, trillion) tax-based shifted to the wealthiest among us. Ryan is, in my view, truly evil – as he shown, time and again, he is willing to lie repeatedly to advance his agenda. Scott Walker, IMHO, is evil – he truly did demonize public workers, took away part of their net pay, and denied them the power of union association ... why? Because they tend to vote Democratic, and he wanted to deny the Democratic Party of a major source of funding. Vos, the Fitzgeralds, Ellis, etc. – yes, IMHO, they are evil for backing the anti-democratic, anti-American agenda that Walker and company are advancing.

tomtom33
tomtom33

Not surprisingly, we completely disagree. Walker did slander public workers. But that ended long ago. The public employee unions have continued to demonize Walker.

You speak of lying to advance one's agenda? What were those lies told concerning the ACA? The video? Liberal groups were also targeted?

You have shown yourself to be totally incapable of seeing anything but your own bias. Unfortunately, you seem not be be alone in academia.

koala
koala

Walker's abuse of public workers continues to this very day. I note you acknowledge the slander, but not the denial of income and political power based on political affiliation. That is just filth, tom-tom.

I see you don't acknowledge Dale Schulz's interview.

You don't acknowledge that your party has become the party with a disproportionately heavy representation of bigots. These are facts, tom-tom, even if you are so blinded by ideology as to not see it.

To quote Lee Atwater, campaign manager for Ronald Reagan (while not printing the N word he used, repeatedly):

"You start out in 1954 by saying, “N-----, n-----, n-----.” By 1968 you can’t say “n-----”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N-----, n-----.”

That's 32 years ago. The playbook is still the same.

Honorary Kentucky Colonel
Honorary Kentucky Colonel

koala (below);

People who shinny up to the moral highground leave an unsightly backside for all to see.

Courtesy of the guy that signed Civil Rights legislation.

"I’ll have those n****rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

Let's sample something a little more contemporary:

"A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee."

“the only reason you are endorsing him is because he’s black. Let’s just be clear.”

And a Father's Day quote on absentee Black fathers:

"They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men."

Now, who refers to Black men as "boys" and escapes being summarily eviscerated with nary a scratch?

Any guesses?

Is the Liberal/democrat playbook still the same?

tomtom33
tomtom33

I never denied the denial of income nor the union pocketbook. Those are facts not in dispute. But you can call me any name you like.

I knew Dale. He is a decent guy. He differed with his caucus and was shown the door. Guess who else that happened to? Joe Lieberman. Seems to me he was a Democrat who had to leave the party to run as an independent.

There is nothing new under the sun, and neither party holds the moral high ground.

koala
koala

"There is nothing new under the sun, and neither party holds the moral high ground."

To me, that sounds like a free check to let the party of your choice do whatever they will. What would it take, in terms of bad behavior by Republicans, for you to change your mind and believe that they have lost the high ground? Is there anything?? As someone who has voted several times for Republicans in the past, I feel that the party as a whole has gone so far that I wouldn't vote for any R in any election, unless the D was demonstrably corrupt or incompetent or didn't represent my core values. As a professional ecologist – and a lifelong admirer of Teddy Roosevelt AND the Nixon that signed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act – I feel that the Republican stance today re the environment is anathema.

tomtom33
tomtom33

There is no free check. Both parties need restraint. I can list bad and misguided behavior by both. We could start with the mess the Democrats have made of the recovery and the ACA. I am fully aware that the GOP has contributed to both. That's kind of how government works.

Demonizing the other party adds nothing to the argument. Stick to the issues.

MadCityYokal
MadCityYokal

As a Great-Great-Grandson of a Potato Famine Irish Grandmother and Grandfather, who came to the U.S. in 1848 and Wisconsin in 1850, I am truly grateful my relatives survived! In one generation, because they were "Free" and "White" (as it use to be written in the census) their children, my great-grandparents, were able to find work in the mining and logging industries without dealing with racism -- something Black folks are dealing with still today and something else Paul Ryan does not think about when he makes comments on inner-city poverty.

rgoppelt
rgoppelt

I have seen the Irish famine museum where they talk being forced off their land, being sent to the U.S. in " coffin : ships, where they were sent to work houses. The message is to help the poor and needy. The Irish were destitute because of the potato famine but also because food was sent to England at the expense of the starving Irish. Their land was pillaged for trees which left a start landscape. The message is to save the natural resources . Ryan seems to care nothing for history. He cares for the rich only. What has he done to bring jobs to Janesville, nothing. What has he done to help the poor and needy, nothing. He likes fake photo ops washing clean dishes in a food pantry. Does he ever serve food or donate to one? Has he ever actually talked to the men and women of these cities that he claims are lazy? Does he want a solution or just blame people. The Irish and Americans love John Kennedy, a true son of Ireland, who didn't forgot to help the poor and needy. Perhaps Ryan should travel to Ireland and go to the famine museum and talk to the Irish. He might learn something.

Badger91
Badger91

Please share your infinite wisdom with us with regards to the poor and needy. What more should we be doing for them?

Fact or Fiction
Fact or Fiction

@ Badger91 - for starters, Paul Ryan could respond to the admonitions of Sandyo
What has he done to help the poor and needy, nothing. He likes fake photo ops washing clean dishes in a food pantry. Does he ever serve food or donate to one?

Time for Paul Ryan to do some soul-searching. First task - find one. Second task - search it.

TobinWrote
TobinWrote

General statements like, "He cares for the rich only," are ridiculous. You completely ignore the fact that there's no way Ryan or any politician could get elected without support from a diverse population. Your comments are generalities and a typical effort to demonize those with whom you disagree.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. Exchange ideas and opinions on posted articles. Don't promote products or services, impersonate other site users, register multiple accounts, threaten or harass others, post vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language. Don't post content that defames or degrades anyone. Don't repost copyrighted material; link to it. In other words, stick to the topic and play nice. Report abuses by clicking the button. Users who break the rules will be banned from commenting. We no longer issue warnings. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.