I am afraid you are showing once again you don't understand politics. If you google or lap up FOX news then I can see why you are so mis informed. More importantly the issues above cannot be boiled down to one line descriptions pasted from a web site. I would suggest listening to what the man says about those issues, and reading in detail his actual ideology, which can be found here: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ Anyone who can describe Ron Paul as right wing has zero clue about what they are talking about. To be honest it's not worth debating - in any serious US political discussion if you rocked up likening right wing politics to Libertarianism and Constitutionalism you would be laughed out of the room. You would be most laughed at for even considering the issues above as a determination of right wing politics. Research is your friend - the main news outlets are not In terms of the issues themselves I think if you did your research you would know that the issues above, and Ron Paul's stance on them, are all based on the role of the Federal government. Not necessarily whether he thinks they are right or wrong. His most passionate supporters love the fact that he can separate Government from an individuals right to choice. Seek to understand first - then comment. Preferably not on a football forum.
Either Ron Paul knows his policies best, or you do. As my points are from direct quotes and his own book, I think I will trust Mr Paul on this - sorry to burst your latest bubble borne from ignorance on a subject and the arrogance that does not allow you to accept you are totally wrong yet AGAIN. thanks you .
Oh dear - are you really that stupid? Can you read? Where do I say that they are not his policies???? The reason you would be laughed at - for hours - is because you have categorised them as right wing. You would also be challenged, through tears of laughter, to go into more detail about the thinking behind those policies and why he holds those views. In other words understand the ideology. God, what a dullard Get yourself on here: http://www.politicalforum.com/forum.php ...and let's continue and get some reaction on your right wing theories
FACTS: Ron Paul shares many a view with the American right. That he calls himself a libertarian (or whatever it is this month) does not make him a libertarian any more than you calling yourself an Arsenal suporter makes you a gooner. You really are thicker than a bucket of cum. I'm amazed you manage to fool so many on here.
- you sound like FOX news now. So now we shouldn't listen to his own views? Your words: I think you need a trip to debating school You cant even hold together a position for 3 posts! What a complete tool you have made of yourself there!
I have listed 7 views that show him to be right wing. You have shown 1 and that is only that he claims to be a libertarian. Oh dear. You have been wrong about everything all season, why should I expect anything different now?
You have listed 7 views that have nothing to do with being right wing - but you don't understand that, clearly. If you knew anything about politics you would know that the old left wing/right wing classifications have all but vanished. Here's a good article to get you started with your education: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0706b.asp This may also help you gain an understanding: http://www.la-articles.org.uk/pc.htm On the one hand you reason that we must listen to how RP describes himself, then two posts later say we shouldn't As I said - get onto the forum I linked. You can embarrass yourself there. Lets keep to football here.
Same old BS from you Jamrag. Here is my actual quote that you are trying to totally twist as you usually do. You will note that I refer to Ron Paul's policies NOT how he describes himself or the label he gives to himself. Got it now? I am also sorry to have to burst yet another of your delusions, but the 'Right wing/Left wing' classifications do indeed still exist, despite your trying to wish them away. My final bit of advice to you is do not try to educate me, but rather save it for those more impressionable youngsters that lap up your bull****. I have forgotten more than you are ever likely to learn on most subjects, so know your limitations sonny. Thank you
Alight, enough. If you want to discuss this topic then use General chat or that forum, Jayram suggested. Any comments from here that is not on topic will be deleted.
can they be moved to a new thread rather than be deleted please. Maybe 'calling all gooners' as it is for non footy crap and the debate is between gooners?
Anyway, on this thread we have been mainly talking about players coming in and not about the ones that will leave. Bordeaux are interested in taking Chamakh back. Probably good news. He will be taken out of the wage bill and we can get another CF without hesitating. http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/145545.html?CMP=OTC-RSS
As soon as RVP returned, his form fell off the cliff. In the Arsenal system, you can only have one CF. And that man is RVP. Chamakh is not versatile enough to play on the wings so he has not had a run of games since RVP came back. This is why I think someone like Dempsey will be a good buy. He can play in a number of different roles.
Here's an interesting fact that I'm not sure has been stated yet: If Dempsey wears the Arsenal shirt, I believe that would make him the first yank field player to play for a top 4 club. About two years ago there were stateside rumors Wenger showed interest in Landon Donovan. That's the closest a non-goalie yank has come to a top 4 club.
Actually he played alot of games wide right for Bordeaux. He's a striker that does almost everything right except score. I'm sure wenger thought he could get the guy scoring but it was'nt to be. In reality he's just another Emile Heskey(industrious but lacks killer instinct) and will finish his career with a very poor goal tally. He seems like a nice guy and he always gives 100% but I was never convinced he was what we needed.
i don't believ the dempsey story but think he'll be a good addition. Pod aside this is my renewed wish list 1) vetonghen 2) dempsey 3) mateo kovacic chamakh was always one dimensional tbh little else aprt from aerial threat and holding up the ball. Occasional bits of quality but that now seems to have deserted him
