₦airaland Forum

Why can't you Naija women stick to the ''civilised'' Western men? Whether it's African-Americans o ,or just Caucasians, it's time you practiced what you preach. 

Yet, if these women find you with a white woman, they will be making snide comments and giving you dirty looks. 

beebop:
@4Play.
whatever. go delight in the superior brainpower of your fellow menfolk. I'm going offline. I don tire.

Never said anything about superior brainpower. All I have said is that I don't learn anything reading female posts in the politics section.

If this is the ''brainpower'' you have threatened to inflict on the politics threads, I'm delighted that you have decided to stay offline.

@KarmaMod

Predictability is not inherently bad. Perhaps, yet another example of the clueless punditry of the Naija female specie.

@beehop

So? Who cares what you studied. My point still stands and I have as evidence the political threads of NL where many women have proceeded to defaecate on our threads with commentary devoid of any iota of sapience.

Bastage:
Go back and check, dude.
The first round were about as fair as you can get in Africa although I do agree that there were some discrepencies.
It was when Mugabe realised that he was going to lose the second round that he started targetting MDC supporters with his thugs.

This stems from the flawed notion that the fairness of an election is to be determined primarily by what goes on on polling day. Many elections are effectively rigged before polling day. Zimbabwe had an atmosphere of tyranny which expressed itself in a virtual media blackout for the opposition, violence and and intimidation, all of which combined to subvert the process.

Arguably, the preceding political atmosphere was worse than what you will find in most African states and by that measure, the elections, notwithstanding what happened on polling day alone, cannot be described as relatively fair.

The targeting of MDC supporters has been going on for years, long before the latest elections.

The fact that our census came out with such a flawed result tells you a lot about the census.

Nigeria may benefit from some Naira revaluation so long as it's not a precipitous fall.

Much of our Govt receipts comes from export revenues and the preceding strengthening of the Naira, partly owing to the erosion of the dollar's value, undermined the Govt's purchasing power when 'petrodollars' are converted to Naira.

Whatever Blagojevich's achievements are, they are tangential to the question of his alleged corruption.

Two quick points; of course the premise of the thread has some truth. Many African men love African culture, or those parts of African culture, that confer advantage over women.

However, regarding this

Not surprised. Heard it all before.
Dafidi sef is guilty of  stuff like "what are you going in poltics, is Romance full"  Angry

I can't find any female Nairalander whose views on the ''hard stuffs'' are worth reading. Not one.

I think Seun should sequester all females from politics and confine female users to the romance and sexuality sections

doyin13:
Pray. . . . . indulge me please

I really would like to see the evidence

Per General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money

The State will have to exercise a guiding influence on the propensity to consume partly through its scheme of taxation, partly by fixing the rate of interest, and partly, perhaps, in other ways. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the influence of banking policy on the rate of interest will be sufficient by itself to determine an optimum rate of investment. I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment; though this need not exclude all manner of compromises and of devices by which public authority will co-operate with private initiative.

Keynes was enamored with the idea that there was a relative shortage of capital; a consequence of the unchecked mercantilism of the wealthy who hoarded much needed capital to the detriment of the economy as a whole.

The Govt, in his view, would have to intervene, by no means temporarily, to manage investment and ensure the efficient allocation of capital.

In effect,you have confused 2 views:

1: Keynes' postulations on how to deal with a slump; this will require deficit spending - a repudiation of previous economic wisdom - to prime up aggregate demand. However, this will only be a temporary measure until economic conditions improve considerably.

2: Keynes' all encompassing views on the Govt's role in calibrating investment to ensure full employment. Though the private sector would still determine much of investment policy making, the state's role was to assume the commanding heights of the economy and act as the ultimate manager in determining appropriate levels of investment and savings.

The former was intended to be transient, applicable only in recessionary circumstances. The latter was to be the normal state of affairs. It is this second precept which constituted the theoretical foundation for much of the socialisation of the economy right up to the late 70s. As LBJ once declared, "we are all Keynesians now". This thinking later proved to be misguided.

Again, while many economists, including those who often go by the toga of "free marketers", are accepting of the first precept, it is the latter precept which has been thoroughly discredited in the course of history.

omi tutu:
That is a misconception. . . . . Keynes never said the the state should have a permanent presence in the economy.
He clearly stated that his aim was not to stifle the creativity of free enterprise. No.

His target was the laissez-faire economics which advocated doing nothing, that the market would right itself
in the long run, while it sorts out the chinks in the short run.

His refrain,''In the long run we are all dead''.

The so-called Keynesianism of the mid twentieth century took short term bursts of state activity that
Keynes advocated and turned it into a permanent feature, a prelude to the economic troubles of
the 70's

Keynes did call for greater government intervention as a permanent feature of the economy and basing your rebutal on Keynes tolerance of free enterprise is besides the point. Nobody claims Keynes was against free enterprise, not even the Communist party in China is.

The heavy state presence state presence right up to the late 70s:BP, British Coal, BT, BA, British Steel, British Aerospace,e.t.c. reflected an actualisation of Keynes policy formulations in an era his philosophy reigned supreme amongst economists.

What are the odds of Hoffeinheim doing what Kaiserslautern did back in 97/98 season? Very unlikely, for one thing, Trappatoni's Bayern were utterly hopeless then but there is a slim chance.

Any true football lover will be rooting for Hoffeinheim.

New movie release!

Demographically, there are always more women than men from the post-teen period. If you don't like it, move to China where the one-child policy has led to the greater abortion of females.

Seun:
But that is very stupid of them. I don't think people with access to lots of capital can be that stupid.

My guess is that governors have started looting again, and converting the looted billions into dollars.

Why is it neccesarily stupid of them? It's not Nigerian Governors that have overseen the recent strenghtening of the dollar - I wish we were that influential - but it's part of a general trend.

Do you think it's wiser to trust in the Naira than the dollar?

Seun:
How can the US financial crisis lead to an increase in demand for the dollar?  I am confused.

Because the crisis has gone global, many people in a global crisis rush to the developed markets, of which the US is the most prominent. Witness the strenghtening of the dollar.

Bastage:
Utterly ridiculous.
He purportedly lived and died in a country run by some of the most avid historical documenters of any civilisation. The Romans documented everything. To claim that contemporary documentation is absurd is absurd in itself. Three years of miracles, preaching, rebellion against the Jewish authorities and a state execution would have been more than enough for a contemporary Roman to document Christ. Yet not a single one did.

Stop digging yourself in a hole,slowpoke. You posed an obtuse challenge which has been summarily dismissed. According to you,no single mention of Christ outside scripture.

To conjecture that the Romans must have recorded everything in all corners of their empire and if Christ lived, he necessarily would have been recorded and those records preserved for future perusal is moronic. In effect, how do you know that everything was recorded and that everything that was recorded has been preserved?

I specifically cited many ''hostile'' authors who had no reason to treat the Christ figure as authentic. Like I noted earlier, most historians do not subscribe to the relatively recent revisionist attempts to deny the fact of a Christ. This is effectively a clash of what we know, the works of non-believing authors, and conjecture, the supposed inevitability of preserved recordings of all significant events in the Roman Empire.

Like any bovine, you seem to miss the crux of the argument. The question is not whether a miracle working and rebellious Christ existed, but whether a Christ existed,whatever the actual details of his life.

No. A cretin would try to place Pasteur on the Christian bandwagon and totally ignore the similarity in the argument with Hitler.

Idiot, there is little reason to parrellel Pasteur's religiosity to that of Hitler's. Both men's values are as distinct as night and day.

I "cravenly dodged" it because it is utterly irrelevant. The figures mentioned were involved in politics not religion.
Someone makes a statement that chicken tastes horrible so you attack cabbages. Where's the relevance?Try harder. You're failing badly at the moment.

Look at this slowpoke, you crassly referred to the ''Hitlers of this world'' and proceeded to garble on ignorantly about persecution of non-believers. What Hitlers of this world when the 20th century's worst mass murderers could not by any stretch of the imagination be referred to as Christians?

omi tutu:
I guess the fault lies with the conflation of Keynes and Keynesianism rather than the validity of his theory.

On the other hand, I find it hard to imagine Hayek is lying still in his grave at the moment.

Ultimately, the fault may lie with the art of "labelling", attempts to fit nondescript theories and theoreticians into neat and distinct schools of thought. You mentioned Bernanke, Bernanke is no Keynesian but his most cited piece of work was on the Great Depression and in it, he fingered the lack of Govt intervention to save financial institutions as one of the prime causes of the meltdown.

Why do I think Keynes was discredited? Firstly, if your prefered state of affairs, stronger emphasis on the role of the state in adjusting the levers of the economy, is relegated to be adopted only in emergency times, that is as compelling a repudiation as you will find. Like I noted, most ''free market'' economists, whether Larry Summers or Ben Bernanke, allow for such emergency measures in extra-ordinary times.   

The nadir for old fashioned Keynesianism was the stagflation of the 70s - recession coupled with rampaging inflation -something which Keynesianism seemingly couldn't account for nor had the tools to combat. 

Sure, Hayek won't be sleeping easy but the true verdict is not so much the resort to these measures but will be their success or failure.

Bastage:
Let's take a look at those shall we?
Celsus wrote 200 years after Christ. Pliny 100 years after Christ. Lucian 300 years after Christ. Seutonias doesn't mention Jesus Christ. Thallus actually wrote to discredit the Jesus myth (ironic that one). Tacitus 100 years after Christ and his work was edited long after. Mara bar Serapion doesn't mention Jesus Christ.

Hagiographical? No.
Bullshit? Absolutely.

Every single one of those examples is either false or irrelevant. Not a single one could be classified as even remotely providing independent evidence that Christ existed. Again, I laugh in your face.

Hitler and Christianity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs
http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm



You dickhead!!! That's the point of the argument. The Christians are claiming Pasteur as one of their own as a "devout" Christian and I've shown that by using the same logic criteria, they have to also take Hitler. I know that since you've joined this thread, you've shown the understanding of an imbecilic dipshit but at least try to follow what's going on.

Honestly. Try again, retard.

Want to explain to me why there isn't one single documented reference of him outside of scripture? Name the instance where Christ is mentioned outside scripture

I wonder who this slowpoke thinks he is deceiving with his absurd attempts to spin away from his earlier obtuse challenge. Faced with his requested "instance" or "one single documented reference", he now seeks to hide behind the issue of contemporaneity.

Christianity had a fringe following started by a man whose life work purpotedly lasted only 3 years, meeting the test of contemporaneity will be absurd given the era we speak of, not even scripture will meet that test, which begs the question why one has to find non-scriptural reference.

The crass attempts to twist and turn your points to fit in with a narrative is underscored by your Pasteur argument. Pasteur's non-religiosity essentially is based on an account by his grand-son, an account in contradiction of the direct evidence of Pasteur's contemporaries.

In the case of Christ, contemporaneity suddenly is paramount, in the case of Pasteur, it is thrown out of the window.

Only a cretin will seek to suggest that Pasteur's religiosity or the lack of one mirrors that of Hitler.

Bastage:
Rest assured, if it were still legal, they would probably do the same today.
The thing that amazes me, is that they try to force-feed you with fantasy, but when you come back with fact you're accused of being a "fundamentalist". If they weren't trying to jack their crap down people's throats and making outlandish statements there would be no need to continually discredit their arguments.

The absurd lack of perspective of a historical illiterate.

As you garble on ignorantly, you have freedoms that believers in atheist states today like China and North Korea can only dream of. I asked you earlier whether the 20th century produced worse mass murderers than Mao, Hitler and Stalin, and you cravenly dodged the question.

Once one subscribes to the belief that a certain school of thought has a sole claim on intelligence, there is little to stop an attempt to compel subscription to it. This obvious fact escapes ignorant souls like you.

omi tutu:
B T W 4play. . . . . Did you once say Keynesianism had been discredited? Try telling Bernanke that 

There are 2 misconceptions: that what we are witnessing is a paradigm ideological shift and that free market economists never countenanced priming up aggregate demand in the event of economic crises.

As recently as a few months ago, people questioned the value of having huge foreign reserves. An illustration of how clueless my fellow Nigerians can be. This forum is littered with threads on this topic.

The key stumbling block to a potential currency collapse, with all its painful effects, is our reserves. I expect a depletion of the reserves to meet budget shortfalls and protect against currency speculation but any notion that Nigeria was shielded from the global economic turmoil will soon be put to rest.

I laugh in your face. Name the instance where Christ is mentioned outside of scripture. I've already offered to debate you on the subject. The post above shows that you are not only an idiot but also a hypocrite too. So come on. Where are these examples?

Unless  the works of Celsus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, Seutonius, Thallos, Tacitus and Mara bar Serapion are parts of scripture, you must admit to encylopedic ignorance. None of these mentions of Jesus could be remotely seen as hagiographical

I suppose even the Jewish Talmuds, with their characteristic imprecations against Jesus, are works of scripture. Rare is the scholar, religious or secular, who doubts the existence of Jesus, whatever varying significance they may ascribe to his life. Obviously, cretins like you lap up the works of the revisionist fringe.

Incredible but factual and true. Saying that Hitler wasn't a Christian is totally and utterly laughable. Read "Mein Kampf". Read his speeches. Read the accounts of people that knew him. You're an ignorant joke. There's no secret or conspiracy regarding Hitler's Christian belief. I would have thought the fact that he gassed Jews might have given a little clue about how Christianity affected him.

There are 2 good ways of determining a man's beliefs - his actions and his words. If a book where to be written of Hitler's religiosity as manifested in his actions, it will be a very short book indeed for Hitler is not known to have a attended religious service in his adulthood, never mind receive any sacraments.

However, cretins like you might want to invert the saying that actions speak louder than words . However, even here, idiots like you struggle for just as there are statements which imply a religious belief, there are equally statements which imply non-belief.

There is no clearer indictment of the warped attempts to dress up Hitler as Christian than the recourse of a mooncalf like you to Hitler's rhetoric. Perhaps, Sen Larry Craig is hetereosexual because, though in his actions he was inclined to "brown love", he did make or pen the odd homophobic comment. What a first-rate idiot.

"Read the accounts of the people that knew him" you say. Does that include Joseph Goebells who wrote; "The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay." We haven't even started with the secular Nazi leadership in general.

Somehow, this first-rate slowpoke seems to import that gassing Jews is evidence of a Christian faith.  You have to be a congenital cretin to think that anti-semitism is the sole preserve of Christians.

Or one can look at his Wikipedia biography

The consequence of the "democratization" of learning. Every oik rushes to Google and emerges an ''intellectual''.

The juxtaposition of Pasteur with Hitler was an interesting point. For respectable luminaries, you assert their failure to attend mass is indicative, yet, where it comes to the Fuhrer who is not known to have attended mass throughout his adult life, he becomes a confirmed a Christian! Such is the inconsistency of oafs like you.

You're living in Cloud Cuckoo Land if you think that the majority of Christians will read independent research. Their reading tends to be of a very biased slant as exemplified by OLAADEGBU and his posting of Creationist material. If you think that the majority of devout Christians are liable to often pick up and read material that may be deemed "heretical" by their religion, you're even more of a fool than I first took you for (if that's possible). Independent work is quite often anatheama and the majority of devout Christians will view it as evil. To suggest that they would willingly read it is again, laughable and shows no understanding on your part.

Ah. . . the majority of Christians! Here comes the familiar shameless retreat of Nairalanders when exposed in their stupidity. Initially ,you implied the fact of one being a Christian ipso facto rendering such a person benighted beyond all matters scriptural. From a educated person, it will sound ignorant, from a slowpoke like you, it's the mother of all ironies.

You keep dropping the name of Richard Dawkins as if by knowing of him you prove some sort of credibility. Sorry. It just makes you look like a band-wagon jumper. Although I have a copy of "The God Delusion", Dawkins doesn't bring anything new to the table that hasn't been around before. That said, Dawkins cannot be discounted. Anyone who has received the number of awards that he has, holds a professorship at Oxford University or who has lectured in the Royal Institute Lectures could only be dismissed by someone living in your world. Of course, I could counter that you now think that you are either Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

Listen, I could wager that you never made into the Russell Group of Unis so don't even try to play the "intelligent by association" game. Dawkins can't be discounted but neither can Alister McGrath. To challenge David to produce "intelligent scientists", coming from an oik like you is astonishing.

As for assuming your beliefs? Yes, I assume that you are Christian. Either that or just an idiot who doesn't know what they're talking about. Why? Because you waffle about nothing and show no real inclination to address any question or adhere to any logical thought process.
I'll skip over the rest of your post as it's just mere trash that has already been addressed but please do feel free to follow up on my first point and give some independent evidence of Christ's physical existence.

For a bovine who grounded the validity of his claim on "I do lots of research", a logical thought process is conspicuous by its absence in your posts.

You fail to realise that you have more in common with the fundamentalist than you may wish to admit. No amount of piggybacking and attempts at intelligence by association would obscure an ignorant and obtuse mind as yours.

@ David

You can't solve the problem of the sexual exploitation of women by limiting the career opportunities of women.

Any proposal that ignores the exploiters is not worth listening to.

MrCrackles:


R u serious?!

Na Debosky with 100% certainty. Ask anybody wey sabi am.

Make I tell una, that guy wey dey threaten to comot ID na Nairalander . . . . . na Debosky be that. If the guy want deny make e try.

[quote author=Ebony-Silk link=topic=203674.msg3187047#msg3187047 date=1228512134]4Play, watch yourself o.
So I have to be lesbian to appreciate beauty? [/quote]The girl no hot, haba. You see her bleached face? Chai, how you go call that girl hot?  

@Debo

My point is that I don't see what the fuss is about. She is alright. With regards to her face, not as bad as Eboue but more like Sagna.   ''Shapewise'', nothing to talk about.

@Morenike

Comot for road, you be lesbian?   My view is that she is not hot, if you find her hot, go and marry her.  

@Doyin

If you think Obahiagbon is bad, at least he has no credibility. What about the philosopher Hegel? Check out this pile of garbage:

"Sound is the change in the specific condition of the material parts, and in the negation of this condition; merely an abstract or an ideal identity, as it were, of that specification. But this change, accordingly, is itself immediately the negation of the material specific subsistence; which is, therefore, real ideality of specific gravity and cohestion, i.e - heat. The heating of sounding bodies just as of beaten or rubbed ones, is the appearance of heat, originating conceptually together with sound."

Excerpted this passage from Taleb's book, Fooled by Randomness.

But its obvious. Her boobs are like deflated airbags, even the surfeit of make-up doesn't hide the fact that she is an ordinary looking woman. Nothing particularly alluring about her body shape so I can't see what the fuss is about.

The Tonto girl no get boobs, she no get pretty face, she no get better shape - what's the fuss about?