reply to post by dethduck
That's kind of amusing. You say not to support Ron Paul, or any of the others for a whole host of reasons, and then say the change will come
from Congress. And then, about who to put in congress, you say:
I'd rather elect a teacher, a factory worker or a scientist into Congress than another Corporate boardman or Wall St. flunky. Frankly,
there's no reason we can't aside from having spent decades convincing ourselves that our only choices are the same old same old.
It seems like you're unaware that Paul himself, a current member of congress as you point out;
1) was an OBGYN for a good chunk of his professional life;
2) refused to accept medicare/medicaid from his patients, instead working either pro bono or providing discounted services;
3) refuses to participate in congressional pension programs;
4) has never taken a taxpayer-funded junket;
5) actually served his country in the military, as well;
6) returns a portion of his congressional budget to the US Treasury every year
7) actually CARES for and helps his district - sources given on the wikipedia page:
Paul also spends extra time in the district to compensate for "violat[ing] almost every rule of political survival you can think of,"traveling
more than 300 miles (480 km) daily to attend civic ceremonies for veterans, graduates, and Boy Scouts, often accompanied by his grandchildren. His
staff helps senior citizens obtain free or low-cost prescription drugs through a little-known drug company program; procures lost or unreceived medals
for war veterans, holding dozens of medal ceremonies annually; is known for its effectiveness in tracing Social Security checks; and sends out
birthday and condolence cards...During 2001, he was one of only eight doctors in the House of Representatives; even fewer had continued to practice
while in office. He is occasionally approached by younger area residents to thank him for attending and assisting their deliveries at birth.
8) has been doing what he can in Congress in attempt to SHRINK the size and power of federal government, restore self-autonomy to and relieve the
burdens of US citizens, end the drug war, and stop our military aggression.
And the list could keep going. Ron Paul is not your usual congress critter. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr Paul is the
"one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill. Senator Mccain even called Ron Paul "the most honest man in congress".
To actively proselytize AGAINST a brother-in-arms, even if he may also happen to be a multiple-term congressman (trying to fix the system from within,
as I wish many others also would), is simply short-sighted and silly - for lack of a better term. I would like to see you present what you would
consider a better idea for a congressman (examples and comparable records, please) OR president, so I can understand what I appear to be missing here.
Paul's a good guy, and one of the best viable options we have for either position I can see at the moment, even if his preferences and policy goals
confuse some here due to lack of in-depth examination of the issues themselves, or failure to actually grasp Paul's stances and the reasons for