Author Topic: Ron Paul For President of the USA in 2008  (Read 4926 times)

w8tlftr

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5111
  • I ♥ ( o Y o )
Re: Ron Paul For President of the USA in 2008
« Reply #25 on: May 21, 2007, 02:32:18 PM »
A national budget is a fact of life in the US. 

In our country, that BIG GOV. you speak of is us:  We The People are the government.

It is one's constitutional and patriotic duty to pay taxes to support our great nation.

It is the scoundrel that takes tax avoidance to heart...paying little to no tax when he/she/it is capable of paying a fair share.

It seems that you want the benefits of government: armed forces, internet, telephone services, highways, GI Bill, etc but you don't want to pay for them.

There is no free lunch in america.

I want the benifit of a small and ACCOUNTABLE government that provides for our nations infrastructure and it's defense. Not a big government that spends billions on pork projects, welfare programs, and God knows how many other useless programs it wastes tax payer dollars on. What we have now is a government that, IMO, illegally taxes OUR wages, is slave to WORLD banks with dreams of a global government, and a budget that gets bigger and bigger and is out of control. If you want to support that then more power to you. I, on the other hand, will support candidates that support my point of view and will fight socialism whenever I can. Big government means centralized power. Power taken from the states and the inviduals that make up this great republic. It's very idea sickens me and is as un-American as it gets.

And you're damn right there are no free lunches in America. It's time to rip lazy bastards that won't work and contribute to society away from the nipple.

He's a nice quote from a good friend of mine that really struck a cord with me because it's dead on accurate:

They (liberals) think they have a deep enough understanding of capitalism (and the universe, for that matter) that they can mock it but when you see, hear, or read their glorious finished product (the art, the article, the song), though often interesting, at its core it's always so empty and puerile.  Always an adult with a child's mind complaining about the debauchery and unfairness of  the system that keeps his welfare checks paid so he can go through life painting pictures of bad people with money and Christian values.

Filthy Socialist pigs.


w8tlftr

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5111
  • I ♥ ( o Y o )
Re: Ron Paul For President of the USA in 2008
« Reply #26 on: May 21, 2007, 02:35:37 PM »
Yes, those who pay taxes in America are able to pay those taxes.

Those that can't pay don't.

You seem to have a problem with indigents and poor people not paying enough taxes.


Decker, what we have a problem with is people who choose to sit on their asses and stay poor and milk the system when they are capable of working.


Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Ron Paul For President of the USA in 2008
« Reply #27 on: May 22, 2007, 07:30:15 AM »
I want the benifit of a small and ACCOUNTABLE government that provides for our nations infrastructure and it's defense. Not a big government that spends billions on pork projects, welfare programs, and God knows how many other useless programs it wastes tax payer dollars on. What we have now is a government that, IMO, illegally taxes OUR wages, is slave to WORLD banks with dreams of a global government, and a budget that gets bigger and bigger and is out of control. If you want to support that then more power to you. I, on the other hand, will support candidates that support my point of view and will fight socialism whenever I can. Big government means centralized power. Power taken from the states and the inviduals that make up this great republic. It's very idea sickens me and is as un-American as it gets.

And you're damn right there are no free lunches in America. It's time to rip lazy bastards that won't work and contribute to society away from the nipple.

He's a nice quote from a good friend of mine that really struck a cord with me because it's dead on accurate:

They (liberals) think they have a deep enough understanding of capitalism (and the universe, for that matter) that they can mock it but when you see, hear, or read their glorious finished product (the art, the article, the song), though often interesting, at its core it's always so empty and puerile.  Always an adult with a child's mind complaining about the debauchery and unfairness of  the system that keeps his welfare checks paid so he can go through life painting pictures of bad people with money and Christian values.

Filthy Socialist pigs.


I don’t make a whipping boy out of libertarian capitalists even though I think the dream of a smoothly humming laissez faire economy and small centralized government is just that—a dream.

Total free marketeering ends up in centralized monopolies—the very thing you abhor about government.  Competition is fine but like with any competitive endeavor we need rules and referees to keep the game running smoothly while maintaining a sustainable economy w/ respect to resources.  We need a moderated capitalist system where the markets are regulated (e.g. anti-trust laws) so that we don’t have monopolistic capitalism nor do we exhaust our resources.  The federal government provides that moderating effect.

The US government has always played a role in the development of this country—from land acquisition and redistribution of land rights to water rights to the development of our railroad system to our highway system and the Internet.

In essence I agree with you about the size and role of government.  However, I want a big federal government, at the moment, to reign in the corporate rule that exists:  corporations have the same constitutional rights as you and me but they have infinite lives and require no food, air or water to exist and they have more influence in our government moreso than any person could have.  They are not people.  With the federal gov., at least I have a voice and vote.  With corporations, I have no representation.

When the federal gov. reigns in corporations by stripping them of their personhood under the Constitution, I would like to see the federal government reduced in size and scope with some current federal functions devolving to the States.

The only thing dead-on accurate about that quote from your friend is the fundamental error of calling liberalism the same thing as socialism.  It’s a horrible quote.  Liberalism means that private individuals should own the means of production operating w/in the bounds of the law (our current situation).  Socialism is collective ownership and control of the means of production.  Socialism doesn’t necessarily mean ‘Big Government’ owns everything.  It is impossible to characterize the ‘top down’ control of corporate enterprise as anything but capitalist.

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Ron Paul For President of the USA in 2008
« Reply #28 on: May 22, 2007, 07:43:35 AM »
Decker, what we have a problem with is people who choose to sit on their asses and stay poor and milk the system when they are capable of working.


I don't like it either but your reference is anachronistic.  Clinton changed the character of Welfare so that five years is the maximum time a person in his lifetime may collect federal assistance.

Annually AFDC expenditures are a fraction of other types of governmental spending.  http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/hist.pdf

I think more wasteful spending occurs for defense ($700 hammers, cost plus governmental no bid contracts) and federal subsidies for things like big agriculture and such.

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Ron Paul For President of the USA in 2008
« Reply #29 on: May 22, 2007, 11:56:25 AM »
In the last republican debate, Ron Paul said this:

"Well," he said, "I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy. Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy – no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them."

He was then asked if 9-11 changed anything. He responded that US foreign policy was a "major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attacked us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East – I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. "
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/paul-said-it.html

That candid and remarkably on-target assessment is a direct rebuke of the Bush foreign policy.  Now Fox News' Michelle Malkin is painting him as deranged.

"I'm glad that this moment provided great TV for FOX News — it was a very instructive exchange — but Ron Paul really has no business being on stage as a legitimate representative of Republicans, because the 9/11 truth virus is something that infects only a very small proportion of people that would identify themselves as conservative or Republican. And as you say, John, this is far more prevalent, this strain of 9/11 truth virus, on the left, and in much of the mainstream of the Democratic Party as that Rasmussen poll showed."

According to a recent Rasmussen Report poll, 35 percent of Democrats think President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand. The so-called 9/11 Truth Movement has already infected people like Rosie O'Donnell and one in three Democrats, and many other people, Americans evidently, including Congressman Ron Paul.


http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/smearing_paul.html

I wonder if other members of Fox News will turn on Mr. Paul as well.




w8tlftr

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5111
  • I ♥ ( o Y o )
Re: Ron Paul For President of the USA in 2008
« Reply #30 on: May 22, 2007, 05:53:00 PM »
I don’t make a whipping boy out of libertarian capitalists even though I think the dream of a smoothly humming laissez faire economy and small centralized government is just that—a dream.

Total free marketeering ends up in centralized monopolies—the very thing you abhor about government.  Competition is fine but like with any competitive endeavor we need rules and referees to keep the game running smoothly while maintaining a sustainable economy w/ respect to resources.  We need a moderated capitalist system where the markets are regulated (e.g. anti-trust laws) so that we don’t have monopolistic capitalism nor do we exhaust our resources.  The federal government provides that moderating effect.

The US government has always played a role in the development of this country—from land acquisition and redistribution of land rights to water rights to the development of our railroad system to our highway system and the Internet.

In essence I agree with you about the size and role of government.  However, I want a big federal government, at the moment, to reign in the corporate rule that exists:  corporations have the same constitutional rights as you and me but they have infinite lives and require no food, air or water to exist and they have more influence in our government moreso than any person could have.  They are not people.  With the federal gov., at least I have a voice and vote.  With corporations, I have no representation.

When the federal gov. reigns in corporations by stripping them of their personhood under the Constitution, I would like to see the federal government reduced in size and scope with some current federal functions devolving to the States.

The only thing dead-on accurate about that quote from your friend is the fundamental error of calling liberalism the same thing as socialism.  It’s a horrible quote.  Liberalism means that private individuals should own the means of production operating w/in the bounds of the law (our current situation).  Socialism is collective ownership and control of the means of production.  Socialism doesn’t necessarily mean ‘Big Government’ owns everything.  It is impossible to characterize the ‘top down’ control of corporate enterprise as anything but capitalist.


You'd be right about his interpretation of liberalism if that what left wing liberals believed -they don't.

I for one happen to be very liberal in respect to individual liberties. Sort of a live and let live way of life. IMO, left wing liberals do not share my view of liberalism. They want law after law created to grant special rights and tell the masses how to think and act.




Eyeball Chambers

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14344
  • Would you hold still? You're making me fuck up...
Re: Ron Paul For President of the USA in 2008
« Reply #31 on: May 22, 2007, 06:55:48 PM »
Sort of a live and let live way of life. IMO, left wing liberals do not share my view of liberalism. They want law after law created to grant special rights and tell the masses how to think and act.

Yes
S

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Ron Paul For President of the USA in 2008
« Reply #32 on: May 22, 2007, 09:31:32 PM »
michelle malkin of fox said Ron Paul should be removed for questioning the 911 story and associating with alex jones.

turns out miss malkin was writing articles on what bullshit the official story was, in 2002.


Hello, Ms. Hypocrite!

The Coach

  • Guest
Re: Ron Paul For President of the USA in 2008
« Reply #33 on: May 22, 2007, 10:15:53 PM »
michelle malkin of fox said Ron Paul should be removed for questioning the 911 story and associating with alex jones.

turns out miss malkin was writing articles on what bullshit the official story was, in 2002.


Hello, Ms. Hypocrite!

Rob, I like you, I trust no one else with my site, but between you, Enigma, Michael Moore and Ted Kennedy, I can't figure out who's more Liberal!

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Ron Paul For President of the USA in 2008
« Reply #34 on: May 22, 2007, 10:20:58 PM »
Rob, I like you, I trust no one else with my site, but between you, Enigma, Michael Moore and Ted Kennedy, I can't figure out who's more Liberal!

I voted Bush then Dole while you were wearing a clinton button.
I carry a gun every day of my life.
I am against most social welfare BS, I want criminals locked up. 
I support the war because we need the oil and the position over CHI/RUS.

I have a masters in business/econ, and a degree in history.  I spent a year looking at 911 before i spoke a word about it.  Joe, it was allowed to happen to justify these wars.  you don't have to believe it - and if it helps, I don't believe bush had any say in it - that decision was made way over his head by the groups which control GLOBAL policy, not 4-year popularity contests called presidencies.  And I can understand, in the util sense, why it was allowed to happen - we needed that oil and position.



I'm not a liberal.  I think you know that.  I'd execute 10 death row criminals then 10 jihadists with my sidearm in the time it would take most people to blink and clear their throat.  I'm a fairly cold man :)  I like justice, I love america.  but the facts show, we knew it was gonna happen and we didn't act.  So don't call me a lib, I am not.  I just like to talk about 911, and I don't like it when people who haven't researched it will tell me I"m wrong - when I am right on this.

w8tlftr

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5111
  • I ♥ ( o Y o )
Re: Ron Paul For President of the USA in 2008
« Reply #35 on: May 23, 2007, 04:27:31 AM »
I think what we have here, Rob, is that left-wing, America hating, socialists have hijacked the word "liberal".

Like I stated earlier, I am very liberal when it comes to individual sovereignty. It's what this country was founded on - a collection of strong independent individuals that make up strong communities.

I would say that you are very liberal. You want and demand the rights to live your life as you see fit and do not want the government or any organization to tell you how a free man should live and what he should think.


militarymuscle69

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2655
  • You can't be a citizen unless you serve
Re: Ron Paul For President of the USA in 2008
« Reply #36 on: May 23, 2007, 05:25:08 AM »
I voted Bush then Dole while you were wearing a clinton button.
I carry a gun every day of my life.
I am against most social welfare BS, I want criminals locked up. 
I support the war because we need the oil and the position over CHI/RUS.

I have a masters in business/econ, and a degree in history.  I spent a year looking at 911 before i spoke a word about it.  Joe, it was allowed to happen to justify these wars.  you don't have to believe it - and if it helps, I don't believe bush had any say in it - that decision was made way over his head by the groups which control GLOBAL policy, not 4-year popularity contests called presidencies.  And I can understand, in the util sense, why it was allowed to happen - we needed that oil and position.



I'm not a liberal.  I think you know that.  I'd execute 10 death row criminals then 10 jihadists with my sidearm in the time it would take most people to blink and clear their throat.  I'm a fairly cold man :)  I like justice, I love america.  but the facts show, we knew it was gonna happen and we didn't act.  So don't call me a lib, I am not.  I just like to talk about 911, and I don't like it when people who haven't researched it will tell me I"m wrong - when I am right on this.

you are a liberal, and you become more of one every day. You need to get out of your house for a while.
gotta love life

Old_Rooster

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2380
  • SquadFathers mom gave me a BJ
Re: Ron Paul For President of the USA in 2008
« Reply #37 on: May 23, 2007, 05:31:56 AM »
all you liberals here shut yo mouth, you are the party of TAXING OUR ASS TO DEATH!
Benjamin Pearson-Pedo

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Ron Paul For President of the USA in 2008
« Reply #38 on: May 23, 2007, 05:44:32 AM »
you are a liberal, and you become more of one every day.

you're an obedient sheep.  If Gore was in office, you'd be blindly defending his policy. 

militarymuscle69

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2655
  • You can't be a citizen unless you serve
Re: Ron Paul For President of the USA in 2008
« Reply #39 on: May 23, 2007, 05:45:58 AM »
you're an obedient sheep.  If Gore was in office, you'd be blindly defending his policy. 

If it involved the military I would uphold what I pledged to do when I enlisted. carry out the orders given me. I don't get a choice fool when it comes to fighting wars.
gotta love life

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Ron Paul For President of the USA in 2008
« Reply #40 on: May 23, 2007, 07:10:31 AM »
You'd be right about his interpretation of liberalism if that what left wing liberals believed -they don't.

I for one happen to be very liberal in respect to individual liberties. Sort of a live and let live way of life. IMO, left wing liberals do not share my view of liberalism. They want law after law created to grant special rights and tell the masses how to think and act.
That's interesting.  You make some very sweeping statements.  Personally I have not felt the imposition created by special rights for other people.  Which rights are you having a problem with?

The masses.  How and what do the liberals tell the masses to think and act?

I'm not being facetious.  I think you are addressing important points.

w8tlftr

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5111
  • I ♥ ( o Y o )
Re: Ron Paul For President of the USA in 2008
« Reply #41 on: May 23, 2007, 07:35:01 AM »
That's interesting.  You make some very sweeping statements.  Personally I have not felt the imposition created by special rights for other people.  Which rights are you having a problem with?

The masses.  How and what do the liberals tell the masses to think and act?

I'm not being facetious.  I think you are addressing important points.

Come on, Decker, you're an intelligent man. It's very obvious.

Hate crime legislation, the attack on the family unit and Christian values are just a few examples.

Don Imus ring a bell? The man was FIRED over words he said because special interests groups pitched a fit. Now while I find what he said very offensive it should have been the market that decided his fate. He's just the beginning of what's going to be an ugly assault on our free speach rights. Are you familiar with the "Fairness Act"? That's another example of how people the far left are trying to silence those with opposing views.

The things I've listed above are issues that should greatly concern true liberals. I don't care if it comes from the far left or the far right. No one has the right to tell a free man how to live and when I say that I'm talking about personal choices that affect that person. I'm not talking anarchy.



Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Ron Paul For President of the USA in 2008
« Reply #42 on: May 23, 2007, 08:01:27 AM »
Come on, Decker, you're an intelligent man. It's very obvious.

Hate crime legislation, the attack on the family unit and Christian values are just a few examples.

Don Imus ring a bell? The man was FIRED over words he said because special interests groups pitched a fit. Now while I find what he said very offensive it should have been the market that decided his fate. He's just the beginning of what's going to be an ugly assault on our free speach rights. Are you familiar with the "Fairness Act"? That's another example of how people the far left are trying to silence those with opposing views.

The things I've listed above are issues that should greatly concern true liberals. I don't care if it comes from the far left or the far right. No one has the right to tell a free man how to live and when I say that I'm talking about personal choices that affect that person. I'm not talking anarchy.
On the national stage I usually look at 3 things to inform my opinion about the propriety of certain pieces of legislation:  How does the legislation affect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  That's a starting point.  That's how I develop my analysis.  Hate crime legislation seems a bit over the top but I don't see how that affects you or me. 

The attack on the family unit, in my opinion, is an economic argument and not a values one.  It started in the 1970s when the stay-at-home mother disappeared and latch-key kids were 'born'.  It's an economic attack--the elites wring out more work hours/productivity and pay less for that effort.  Both parents have to work nowadays and wages have not grown significantly since 1973 in relation to the executive class.  That's the true assault on the family unit.

The Fairness Doctrine promised equal time for important political discussions.  It was important and its demise was bad.  Why?  The vast majority of radio stations in this country are monopolized by corporations:  The top four radio station owners have almost half of the listeners and the top ten owners have almost two-thirds of listeners.  Corporations support anything pro-business/bottom line so lookout for the constant conservative/pro-business pitch.  And last, the elimination of equal time means the fruition of slanted debate:  O'reilly, Hannity, and of course Rush.

Don Imus was a private employee.  His employer--NBC News--should be looked at and not the liberals.  NBC is a hardly a liberal bastion.  So what if people complained about his remarks, it's a free country.

w8tlftr

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5111
  • I ♥ ( o Y o )
Re: Ron Paul For President of the USA in 2008
« Reply #43 on: May 23, 2007, 11:45:22 AM »
On the national stage I usually look at 3 things to inform my opinion about the propriety of certain pieces of legislation:  How does the legislation affect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  That's a starting point.  That's how I develop my analysis.  Hate crime legislation seems a bit over the top but I don't see how that affects you or me. 

In my humble non-lawyer opinion hate crime legislation sets a precident for societies behavior and how they have to view and handle special interest groups. Why should any group of people have special laws drawn up for them that exclude another group of people? It seems absurd to me. Additionallly, aren't all violent crimes commited out of some degree of anger or hate?

Quote
The attack on the family unit, in my opinion, is an economic argument and not a values one.  It started in the 1970s when the stay-at-home mother disappeared and latch-key kids were 'born'.  It's an economic attack--the elites wring out more work hours/productivity and pay less for that effort.  Both parents have to work nowadays and wages have not grown significantly since 1973 in relation to the executive class.  That's the true assault on the family unit.

There are a lot of attacks from the far left on the traditional family unit. From the attack on traditional moral values to high taxes on the American people that raise the cost of living and errode a families disposable income. So I do agree with you that the problem is economic but you can not count out the role the far left has played (IMO).

Quote
The Fairness Doctrine promised equal time for important political discussions.  It was important and its demise was bad.  Why?  The vast majority of radio stations in this country are monopolized by corporations:  The top four radio station owners have almost half of the listeners and the top ten owners have almost two-thirds of listeners.  Corporations support anything pro-business/bottom line so lookout for the constant conservative/pro-business pitch.  And last, the elimination of equal time means the fruition of slanted debate:  O'reilly, Hannity, and of course Rush.

Don Imus was a private employee.  His employer--NBC News--should be looked at and not the liberals.  NBC is a hardly a liberal bastion.  So what if people complained about his remarks, it's a free country.

Bottom line here is that the free market dictates what people will read, listen, and watch. If there was a strong market for left-wing garbage then Air America wouldn't be going bankrupt, the New York Times wouldn't lose subscribers, and Fox News wouldn't have the high ratings that they currently enjoy. Either way it's not the role of the government to make those decisions for me. If people want the information it will find a way to get out and to the people. I think the Internet is a great example of that.


Eyeball Chambers

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14344
  • Would you hold still? You're making me fuck up...
Re: Ron Paul For President of the USA in 2008
« Reply #44 on: May 23, 2007, 02:21:45 PM »


 8)
S

egj13

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
  • Got life by the balls
Re: Ron Paul For President of the USA in 2008
« Reply #45 on: May 23, 2007, 07:05:35 PM »
michelle malkin of fox said Ron Paul should be removed for questioning the 911 story and associating with alex jones.

turns out miss malkin was writing articles on what bullshit the official story was, in 2002.


Hello, Ms. Hypocrite!

Not suprised, I am sure if NBC or CNN wanted her to report otherwise she would oblige.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Ron Paul For President of the USA in 2008
« Reply #46 on: May 24, 2007, 12:03:10 AM »
Not suprised, I am sure if NBC or CNN wanted her to report otherwise she would oblige.

if she would say the outrageous CT things she said (which even go beyond my belief of 'let it happen' - she is into compliance and a cover up!), then she believed them.

If she suddenly takes another position to bash 911 skeptics, then by all means, she should explain her past positions on it.  It's simple credibility.  If you said hugely racist things in 2002, then wanted to work for the NAACP in 2007, dont ya think you'd have to explain why you said those things in 02? 

Malkin was one of the early 911 truthers.  Like it or not.  And folks can say "she's not like that anymore" - but until SHE tells us she was wrong in 2002, you CERTAINLY cannot tell us how she feels.

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Ron Paul For President of the USA in 2008
« Reply #47 on: June 01, 2007, 07:57:02 AM »
I found this interesting article from Ron Paul. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul52.html

Questions That Won't Be Asked About Iraq

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD


In the House of Representatives, September 10, 2002

Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won’t be asked – and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked.  Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.

1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate – which just confirms that there is no real threat?

3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?

4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?

5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?

6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism?

7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?

8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?

9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?

10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"?

11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States – and who may again attack the United States – and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?

12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US – and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?

13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?

14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?

15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?

16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?

17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?

18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a $100 billion war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?

19. Iraq’s alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?

20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?

21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?

22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?

23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharraf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?

24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992 – including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?

25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?

26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?

27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?

28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?

29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?

31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?

33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and – not coincidentally – we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?

34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?

35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas