https://eo.steamhost.cc/steamcommunity_com/groups/Paliban

ron paul should have won

this group is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ dead trump 2016

infowars.com

Im in, freedom force is on the march empire is on the run!

That was also assuming that the tonnage was in the Troy Pound system instead of the more common Avoirdupois system. If it's flawed in that regard, then it would rise to... 8 trillion or so. Still not nearly enough.

The problem with the Gold Standard is simple. You gather up all the gold in the world, and you get 6,012,000,000,000 or so in monetary value worth. This comes from assuming that the world has 150,000 tons of gold (It's actually lower somewhat) then multiplying that times 2,000 to get 3,000,000,000 pounds then times 12 to get 36,000,0000,000 ounces, and then by 1,670 the the current cost of an ounce of gold which results in 6,012,000,000,000 dollars. Sounds like a lot doesn't it? Too bad the world has a GDP of 70 trillion. And this assumes all of the gold in the world. In reality, it's going to be lower, and so that means there simply isn't enough gold to create a sound modern currency. Sure if you kick in some other precious metals, add in Silver, perhaps some Platinum, back it up with whatever you mine, it's going to be higher... but not enough.

And he is still running. Just he isn't actively campaigning. He's out of the likely candidates list, face that hard and cold fact. I'm not saying he's a horrible person or whatever you believe I said. Simply that there isn't a chance for him to become president anymore this year.

And as I also said in my various comments, I'm not at all opposed to many of his programs. Cutting defense spending? I'm all for it! Cut the President's salary? Excellent idea, tying it to the income of the average American is a wonderful notion. Voting against laws that take away our civil liberties? Best thing I've heard in a while.

But apparnetly pointing out programs of his which I dislike and find flawed means I detest him...

As I have stated (Repeatedly, I had hoped to avoid that statement it didn't work apparently....) I am merely speaking out against some of his platforms. Apparently you didn't read that....,,

I'm a grand admiral due to a rank in some of my groups...

I view providing an argument as beneficial. Provides an idealogical base.

And I will go find those quotes off wikipedia then. I haven't found any instances of wikipedia telling me the wrong information in the past, despite what others claim.

Over 15 trillion dollars? It's easy to throw those sums around. Because when you have an economy worth 15 trillion dollars, big sums are easy to find. Many nations in the world have debts higher than their GDP. America simply looks like it has an overwhelming debt problem because of the sheer size of our economy.

Thomas. Ron Paul is still in the race and no matter what you say in is not over until the convention. The main reason we are so supportive over him is the fact that the Media and people like yourself detest him. You gents do not realize that we are honestly going to hit the fan in the future. Also who quotes from Wikipedia? Its more of entertainment rather than informative. Regardless to that point when it comes to spending cuts. It's eventually necessary once our debt goes over 15 Trillion dollars and the value of the money is getting worse everyday when the FED (central bank) prints money to make up for the debt yet; There is nothing backing it. It's air money, worthless, there is nothing making that money valuable. When stuff like that happens there is always a mind set to "Spend spend spend".

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
We were perfectly safe in 2006. You can do the same job with less money if you operate it more effectively. If you disagree with Ron Paul please dont come on here and try to look like you are really a "Grand Admiral" Though we do appreciate your opinion even if it is one of those that have been causing our downfall :)

And there is plenty more for me to continue onward with. But I'm tired. Perhaps I will bring it up in the future if somebody wants that.

There are plenty of other things I can argue about. Things I'm vehemently opposed to. But let's face it, I'm highly, one might say Radically liberal. If I discuss them I lose my claim to simply attacking positions on moral grounds, and instead head off into the realm of partisan politis. So I will restrain myself on this count.

And as I have said before, there are many policies of his I support. An America not at war with the world. His position on Gay Marrige, which isn't a government issue, merely a social one. Reducing the size of the CIA. Working against Domestic Surveillance. Voting against the Patriot act. I agree with all of these things. I simply view a large number of his ideas and policies as flawed, and certainly not things I would support. That's my opinion. If you don't share it, I understand that. I'm willing to listen to what you say. Just please think of what I said here, and don't attack me over it.

In his 1987 book, Freedom Under Siege, Paul expressed the view that those who experience sexual harassment in the work force should remedy the situation by quitting their jobs. He further argued that governmental oversight is warranted only where victims are physically forced into sexual actions.[citation needed]
Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity. Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable.[137]

Easy for you to say, your a man... You use words like "So-Called harrasment to describe people having their dignity taken away? Your idea of justice for people is to have them quit their job? That the only protection for people should be when they are raped, not in any other circumstance?

The right to bear arms is a vital part of our nation's freedoms. But should anybody be able to get an assualt rifle, machine guns, military grade weapons, just pick it up off the street without anybody knowing of their mental health? No. Of course not. There has to be some form of limitation on this, to protect people. It doesn't have to prevent you from owning a gun, just has to be there to make sure that people who are litterly insane and unstable can't own one. So that it's impossible to flip, get a gun, and shoot a room full of children the next day.

When asked whether individuals should be allowed to own machine guns, Paul responded, "Whether it's an automatic weapon or not is, I think, irrelevant."[115] Paul also argues that weapons bans only keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens, not dangerous criminals.[116] He sees school shootings, plane hijackings, and other such events as a result of prohibitions on self-defense.[117] He supports the right of citizens to carry concealed weapons if they are legally owned.[118]

Tell that to the poor people who died at the Aurora Movie Theatre shooting, the children who have died in the Virginia Tech Massacre, the Sikhs killed by that monstrous White Power racist- perhaps in an ideal world everybody could be able to defend themselves? But can children at a university effectively use guns to defend themselves? Can people blinded by smoke grenades shoot their attacker? Can people engaged in peaceful prayer be expected to carry weapons?

Paul was one of only eight members of the entire Congress who voted to block implementation of the National Do Not Call Registry act, which prohibits telemarketers from telephoning those who have opted out of receiving such advertising.[84][85] He argued that "legislation to regulate telemarketing would allow the government to intrude further into our lives," and that "The fact that the privately-run Direct Marketing Association is operating its own 'do-not-call' list is evidence that consumers need not rely upon the national government to address the problems associated with telemarketers."[86]

Yep, cause we all know that Corporations do a great job at regulating themselves... Just look at history, they don't. Enron anyone? Or perhaps the South Sea Company? And as always, this ignores the positive aspects of government, like making sure that people in America aren't you know, starving on the streets.

Thus Paul argues that government, via a central bank (the Federal Reserve), is the primary cause of economic recessions and depressions. He believes that economic volatility is decreased when the free market determines interest rates and money supply.[54

Gee, wonder how the Great Depression happened then?

In 1982, Paul was the prime mover in the creation of the U.S. Gold Commission, and in many public speeches Paul has voiced concern over the dominance of the current banking system and called for the return to a commodity-backed currency through a gradual reintroduction of hard currency, including both gold and silver.[59]

Too bad we tried that and there isn't enough of that stuff to do that.

I'm more in the way of a high-tax for the rich state, to provide for the Middle and Lower classes, but anyway, moving on. The Rich do pay little taxes in oru society, they have a social responsibility to use their wealth to help others, and beyond that, the Middle Class and Lower Class offer some of the primary economic growth sectors. Not people who spend all of their money buying new boats and have millions of dollars in offshore bank accounts.

And sure, for the agency points I raised earlier, he is going to transfer some of the roles ot other agencies? Great yes? But now we have even larger agencies that are even more complex and harder to deal with.

And best of all, we can go with our wonderful and generous foreign policy by cutting foreign aid! Sure, I disagree with the budget of the military. I dissagree with the wars in the Middle East. Those positions of his I support. But the Foreign aid aspect is our duty as a developed nation to offer to others.

Apparnetly also wants to offer the states block grants for Medicare... gee whiz, throw money at the problem, it's way more efficient!

cut the top corporate tax rate to 15% (down from 35%)
allow companies to repatriate capital without additional taxation
permanently extend the Bush administration tax cuts
eliminate capital gains and dividends taxes
eliminate estate and gift taxes
end taxes on personal savings
sell federal lands and other federal assets

cut funding (down from 2006 levels) for the
Food and Drug Administration by 40%
Centers for Disease Control by 20%
Department of Homeland Security by 20%
National Institutes of Health by 20%
Environmental Protection Agency by 30%
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration by 20%

Yep, cut all of the funding for vital agencies... We don't need food safety inspectors! We can live in Upton Sinclairs "The Jungle" again! Diseases aren't a problem in the modern world, and the environment is just a barrier to economic growth! And neither research to minimize the effects of drugs!
I might agree on the Homeland Security thing though. Might.

The other two aren't even worth discussing, we need some agency to collect taxes, and we Health and Human services is important at helping the American People. I personally am more of a Federal Government than State Government advocate, but even if you plan to give power over these agencies to the states, you still need some sort of Umbrella Federal agency to make sure things continue to operate smoothly.

He also wants to eliminate agencies such as FEMA. I'm all right reforming them around, perhaps they are innefficient. But you need something from the Federal Government to help, something that has the resources to deal with major disasters. The States and Charity simply can't do that. They don't have the necessary infrastructure, money, planning, so on and so forth.

I've also quoted Wikipedia, but will move to another site if people raise the old accuracy claim...

2. Eliminate Cabinent Positions

As before, I re-affirm that reducing the size of the Government is a valid position. But government agencies like the following that he proposed to eliminate: Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education. He has called for elimination of other federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,[19] and the Internal Revenue Service,[20] serve vital roles in our Government. What would you do without an agency to make sure that power companies don't run you over like they did to my State Citizens in California in 2003 when the crooks at Enron inflated the price of electricity and created rolling blackouts? Or HUD, which works to provide affordable housing to the American People? Interior which manages our resources, broad ranges of projects? Education, which while it can be reduced and made more efficient, still serves a vital role?

Ron Paul already lost the election. So therefor this group is flawed and useless... but moving onward. While I aknowledge that Ron Paul does have good ideas about stopping our wars, creating a more peaceful world (Though I disagree with the christianity thing in your speech above), a large number of his policies are fatally flawed. In the interests of preventing Conservatives from attacking me I will attempt to stick to centrist political actions he worked against.

1. Voted Against a Nation Archives exhibit on Slavery and the Reconstruction. I asknowledge that less government spending is a valid position. However, the amount of money that we would spend on cultural exhibits like that is so tiny it's insignificant. Perhaps it wasn't authorized in the Constitution, but there are a lot of things in our modern society that we take for granted that aren't authorized in it. For something as nice as working to provide further knowledge to the American People, voting against it is awful.

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩☆۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ Restore ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★☆ ★ ☆ ★
RON PAUL | CHAMPION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ America ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★☆ ★ ☆ ★ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩☆۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

You guys should probably take a look at this bad ass group www.steamcommunity.com/groups/infowars

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7X8WJdlq1k&list=FLwaJUVGF2nVkilcpNhe5rUw&index=1&feature=plpp_video

V eat my booger weaner face

♥♥♥♥ ron paul ya stupid biggot asswipes

VOTE RON PAUL 2012 yeah buddy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuRyaRG3tio

Ohioans for Ron Paul - 2012
From Ohio? Support Ron Paul? Like us on FaceBook.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ohioans-for-Ron-Paul-2012/367718899910702

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z69fYyoMlVk&feature=g-u&context=G29ae72aFUAAAAAAAWAA

Shocking video

Remember that Ron Paul is not going to get elected just because the mass amount of Internet users support him. There is a large number of people out there who don't even know him thanks to the mainstream media. It's our duty to go out and inform fellow Americans about the R3volution! It's one thing to make groups in Steam, but we need to be more politically active. Pass out pamphlets or become a volunteer in his Web site. This is no joke, fellow members. Remember that your vote is only wasted if you let it be wasted away by not voting in the 2012 election. Vote Ron Paul 2012.

ron paul :-)

USA!! USA!! USA!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQDowv4wD8U&feature=g-u&context=G2187035FUAAAAAAACAA

http://www.infowars.com/cnn-poll-ron-paul-most-popular-republican-amongst-non-whites/

Ron Paul Restored my hope for a better America

http://www.nation.foxnews.com/ Vote For Ron Paul in this Poll! Down the page on right side!

I believe in bitcoins for america, get rid of the religious dollar

doctor paul is my baby daddy

http://www.RonPaulForums.com/

great news everybody http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cain-20111204,0,5786799.story

Ron paul destroys neocon war mongers in recent debate: http://youtu.be/x5ZSZ9iKO4U

Ron Paul For PreZ
http://i.imgur.com/wPvsR.png

http://www.youtube.com/user/Luieburger?feature=mhee#p/f

REVOLUTION NOW

Only sane candidate period.

just a couple polls about who won the sept. 22 debate, it's no contest.
http://polldaddy.com/poll/5526473/?view=results
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/09/22/vote-who-won-the-fox-newsgoogle-debate/