₦airaland Forum

RichyBlacK:
Furthermore, Ahmadinejad never stated that Israel "be wiped off the map". Farsi (Persian) does not have that idiomatic expression! Western media outlets have seized on a translation error to sell the hype.

He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away.

The above is a translation of the statement according to the Iranian state media:http://www.president.ir/eng/ahmadinejad/cronicnews/1384/08/4/index-e.htm#b3

debosky:
Oprah decided not to use her show to promote any candidate, and she's one now, so wait till after the contest.

She's joking if she thinks someone who has declared support for another candidate will give her 'free' publicity. Try again publicans - another clear attempt to make this more about Palin's gender and not really about what she can do - how many organisations are boycotting Jerry Springer for not putting Palin on his show?

How could she have ''decided not to use her show to promote any candidate'' when she had the Obamas on the show? If I recall correctly,she even had Bush on the show when he was running against Gore.

As for making it about gender,the Democrats have have already done a fine job of disposing of substance to engage in scurrilous rumours. That Palin is having the effect she has today is due to the Democrats absurd descent into an anti-Palin frenzy

What he has simply done is cite the estimated unfunded costs of health care and social security and quoted it as deficits run by Bush.

He was asking how Bush spent $57 trillion,his curiosity in this regard is no where near mine giving that the Fed budget only just hit $3trillion. Total Fed expenditure over the past 8 years is barely half that,never mind deficits of $57 trillion.

There was an interesting argument earlier about whether the Bush administration "inherited" a recession. A lot of it depends on how you define a recession. The NBER tends to define it as a significant decline across all sectors of the economy,as opposed to the pedestrian definition of 2 consecutive quarters of contraction.

Anyway,according to the NBER,the '01 recession began in March 2001. Unless you are a rabid Bush hater,you can't claim it was Bush's fault that the economy sank into a recession barely 2 months into his reign. By September,the US suffered the 9-11 attacks and the rest is history.

I noted earlier in some other thread that the halcyon post-Cold War economic boom is a once in a lifetime phenomenon.Such anomalous economic booms are a rarity and are always followed by depressed growth.

Ibime:
. . . all this stuff you have typed does not explain why Government ran a $57trn deficit. . . .it is simply bad Governance. . .  the American Government has handed tax rebates to the tune of $170bn, but with borrowed money. . . .all I want to know is what did George Bush spend $57trn on, to the point he even has to borrow money from Mexico?

It could just be,just a thought,that the reason Negro can't explain why the Bush administration ''ran a $57trn deficit" is simply because,they never ran a $57trillion deficit. I mean,it's like wondering why someone can't explain why Chelsea finished 7th last season in the EPL. It's hard to explain fiction.

Daily Sun learnt that the police had on several occasions come to dispel the surging crowd which had taken over the building. Some young men even mounted sentry and collected N50 from each person who wanted to go in and see the show live. Daily Sun had to pay and rush in to take photographs before the twosome could suddenly disentangle to kill a possible front-page lead.

Surprisingly, there was no couple inside the two-storey building. Our correspondent searched every room pointing camera like American soldiers guns searching for Sadam Hussien with machine guns, yet no love-making couple was in sight.

It was only after Daily Sun had struggled to get out of the choking building and asked those doing business around the place that it was revealed that the whole drama was a hoax.

As RichyBlack keeps shouting,juju is Nigeria's longest running 419 scam. With such a gullible populace,it shouldn't be any surprise.

Guys, ABC is soliciting questions for Gov Palin,make una go contribute:http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2008/09/questions-for-s.html

Kudos to the National Review for this summary of some of the more hilarious questions:

Please identify the leading political opposition leaders for Zimbabwe and Myanmar (Burma).

How is the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) calculated? the Gross National Product (GNP)?

Please identify the nine naval chokepoints around the globe and briefly discuss the importance of each, as well as consequences if any or all were to become blocked.

Please explain in detail the legislative process at the federal level, i.e., how a bill becomes a law.

That thing you posted was Republican propaganda and the one I posted was incorrect and only reflects bills sponsored individually. I can now reveal Obama's true record:

Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 570 bills in the 109th and 110th Congress. Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 15 bills that have become LAW since he joined the Senate in 2005.

Senator McCain has sponsored or co-sponsored 1667 bills of which 17 have become LAW since he joined the Senate in 1987. . . . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bills_sponsored_by_John_McCain_in_the_United_States_Senate
So please do that Mathematics again Mr Tayo-D.

Ibime,you should be happy I no longer spend so much time on Nairaland,it's people like you that I love exposing their foolishness. The above quote is a study in extreme crassitude.

You told us that Obama sponsored and co-sponsored 570 bills,15 of which became law. You then tell us that McCain sponsored and co-sponsored 1667 bills,17 of which became law.

Problem is,your mendacity was so glaring:All you have done is contrast bills sponsored and co-sponsored by Obama with bills sponsored,excluding co-sponsored bills,by McCain. Surely,something should have clicked in your head that there was something wrong with your figures.

You even went to cite a wikipedia link which should have been clear to you was only referring to bills sponsored by McCain. It's only desperation by Obamaniacs that will make them even start citing "co-sponsored" bills. . . .a window-dressing PR exercise that many legislators indulge in. Even then,if you were to start counting McCain's co-sponsored bills,the tally will dwarf Obama's,naturally.

No wonder you didn't want to cite your source because getting a reliable source for such records off the net is virtually impossible.

Ibime:
I am glad we don reach the economy. On this, I must say, my approach is completely independent. I disagree with Obama raising corporate taxes. However, one monkey no dey stop show as per my support for him. If we look at America's corporate tax, we find that it is higher than even the so-called 'liberal Europeans' as Fox News likes to call it. 39% is way too much, compared with circa 30 - 35% in mainland Europe and 15% in Ireland. However, I also disagree with McCains policy of cutting income tax for the wealthy. The wealthy pay a lot of income tax and any reduction in that will see a significant reduction in the budget. Also, the wealthy are just as likely to spend money outside America as they are likely to spend in it. This represents a significant drain out of the economy.

Your point about the corporate tax rate is spot on. It's important to note that McCain's stated policy is to reduce the corporate tax rate to 25%. Obama,on the other hand,wants to increase capital gains tax(na this one vex me pass) while increasing the top rate of income tax.

Lets get some facts straight though. McCain has no plans to increase personal income tax so your assertion that he plans to cut "income tax for the wealthy" is wrong. Unless you are referring to his stated intent of allowing the Bush '01 tax cuts become permanent,I won't call that a tax increase,it's retaining the status quo.

I don't agree that cutting the top rate of income tax necessarily reduces Govt tax receipts. Tax cuts can incentivise wealth creation and spur economic growth. Ever since Thatcher cut the top rate of income tax from 70%,now 40%,tax receipts have been surging. 

At the same time, we should remember that a society is not judged on its GDP but on the level of the weakest amongst it.

Ibime,don't tell me you are a "bleeding heart" egalitarian. 

Cutting income tax for the middle classes is something which is necessary on a human level. A lot of people are struggling with mortgages and bills right now and tax breaks for the middle class will ease unrest somewhat. Ignoring such disparities has led to many bloody revolutions and the communist societies that we so wish to avoid. It is in every countries interest to keep a healthy and balanced society. The extreme arguments do not work. Some at Fox news would label the European system to be left wing, but I believe the European policies are almost perfect. Social Healthcare is standardised, as well as Private healthcare for those who prefer expediency. I have always wondered how a country like America could have no social healthcare.

Of course,income inequality can pose dangers to social stability. However,what I detest is the suggestion that it's better to maintain a certain level of income equality rather than have wide variations in income even though the average person is better off. 50% of Americans pay virtually no tax,the top 50% pay nearly 97% of taxes already. There isn't much room for tax cuts for large chunks of society.

RichyBlacK:
Why modern times?Is it because of Abraham Lincoln?

Abraham Lincoln had less experience than Obama but turned out to be America's most iconic president.

All these experience talk is just excuse for red necks and confused blacks to justify their intent of never voting for a black man to become president of the United States.

Good 'ol Abe,the Republican,is that you guys standard bearer for defending Obama? You have to go back almost a century and half to juxtapose qualifications demanded of an entirely different era with the 21st century.

If my memory serves me correctly,his successor was not even a University graduate so one day someone might use that excuse to justify running for President with poor academic credentials.

Jonathan doesn't strike me as a man with an independent streak,he will probably turn into a Northern lackey.

doyin13:
If Goodluck Jonathan does not become President.
Then I swear, I shall pick up arms and join MEND

The problem is the implied consensus in favor of Presidential rotation. It's the North's "turn" to have the Presidency for 8 years and you don't want to upset such a delicate balancing act.

All I know is that if Obama was white, he would at least be as popular as Clinton was in 1992 - at the very least! You think say na yam? Obama came to Europe and people in Germany were lining up the streets to see him. You think Gordon Brown did not have better record than Tony Blair in 1994? But the fact is that Tony Blair can hold a crowd, he is more affable and speaks better. Based on that, Obama in white skin would have been more poular than Bill Clinton. Obama belongs to a certain class of men whose personality is so strong that voters are drawn to them whatever their policies. Sarkozy, Blair, Clinton - he belongs in that category.

Simple question we have been asking all day;name one white politician with as thin a record as Obama who has been nominated as flag bearer of a major party in modern times. Is it that there has never been a white man/woman who can read off teleprompters as well as Obama?

This your tendency for inane conjectures no dey tire you? Obama came to Europe and drew crowds,thus,if he was white,he will be even more popular. . . . . . Has it not occurred to you that his mixed origins has a lot to do with the hype? Even you admitted that you support him because of his pigmentation.

All these rednecks always voting for Republicans even though Republicans no get them for mind. All Republicans would do is cut income tax for the very rich and leave the very poor struggling to meet their healthcare and energy bills. Cut corporate tax, cut middle class tax and leave the rich people to pay the same tax abeg. . . . the people who stimulate the economy are the middle class who actually spend their money in the USA while the rich spend their money in Monaco etc. . . . I don't buy that shit for a second.

Obama wants to raise the corporate taxes and taxes for high-income earners. If there is any lesson you should take away from life,it is the fact that the rich-the entrepreneurial and creative engine of the economy- are a crucial building block of a successful economy.

RichyBlacK:
On the executive experience issue, I wasn't comparing McCain with Obama, but with Palin. You asserted that Palin has more executive experience than Obama because she has been governor of Alaska for about 20 months. Let me ask the questions again:

1. Does this mean that Sarah Palin has more executive experience than McCain and/or Biden who have never been governors?
2. If your answer is "no", then can you provide us with the mathematical (or political, economic, leadership, etc) formula that relates senate experience and governorship experience?
Thanks.

The executive arm of Govt is miles apart from the legislative branch. You can't equate being a Governor to being a legislator amongst 435 other fellow legislators.

Palin has greater executive experience compared to McCain/Obama/Biden. Name one legislative accomplishment of Obama. Nothing. He runs on a thin record composed solely of navel gazing autobiographies and reading off teleprompters.

@TOH

Maybe I should get some of your brothers to apply some liposuction .Now where is my Amala and Ewedu before I can consider taking you as a 3rd wife?

Does the fact that Sarah Palin has publicly expressed support for contraception have any bearing on some of the more ignorant hogwash being produced here?

@TOH

If I start with you now,you think your avoirdupois induced boobs blinds me like some other folks here?

Carry your self to the Romance threads before I count to 10.

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=167941.msg2772862#msg2772862 date=1220906970]@karmaMod,
No wonder David admires you so much. While we are talking politics here, all he could talk about were the twin gifts you carry on your chest. And here you are refering to Palin's vagina just as David did recently. birds of the same feather indeed!  [/quote]I have told her to run off to the kitchen and prepare me Amala and Ewedu,let her leave politics to grown men. It's not uploading photoshopped pictures of Sarah Palin that we need here.  

davidylan:
McCain doesnt have much better than age on his side when it comes to senate experience.
pretty stupid considering the only speeches Palin has given has been through teleprompters.

1. his approval rating after the capture of Saddam in 2004 was in the 60s.
2. What foolishness . . . Palin rubbishes Obama as being a mere "community organiser" and yet touts herself as "one of you" . . . "common hockey mom". What hypocrisy.

When Palin touts her "hockey mom" credentials,she is doing no more than deploying the typical politician tactics of identifying themselves with common people. If you understood it to mean that it's supposed to mark the apogee of her political experience,that tells us more about your understanding.

There is a fundamental difference between being a legislator,one of 435 others, and being a Governor. The latter can lay claims to decisions that make a difference to people's lives,which is what the job of the presidency is about.

The announcement of Palin's nomination sparked off her huge popularity,way before she made her speech. Obama's teleprompter(you weren't even aware that he uses a teleprompter till I mentioned it here) speeches sparked his popularity. In generating enthusiasm, Palin's profile preceded her speech,Obama's was the reverse.

PS:For God's sake,look at the polling history and stop repeating fables about Bush's popularity equalling Palin's up to '04. One off spikes in approval ratings is no match for sustained popularity.

“Not my will, but Thine, be done”. . . . . a central tenet of Christian faith,invoked by Palin on this occasion to the consternation of 'secular' leftist-loons.

Here is the full quote from Palin:“they should pray ‘that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God, that’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that plan is God’s plan.’” That US troops going to serve in Iraq should pray that they are being sent on a task that is God's will is now cause for consternation?

If there is one lesson people should take from the innumerable anti-Palin bile spewing forth like an unattended sewer,it's the reality that much of the smear campaign has been built on lies.

davidylan:
I tire o. So being a governor is now a prerequisite for president? poor Obama, its hard to be black and face up to white mainstream America seeking every single excuse not to vote for him.

Please,spare us the irritating victimology nonsense. What white candidate with as thin a resume as Obama has ever been the flag bearer of of a mahor party in recent history?

This is the same silly, racist argument we've heard all yr. McCain has no speeches and can't even inspire his party but no one asks if he can lead. Oh sorry he's white, that is taken for granted.

If Debosky was white,you would have accused him of being a racist. Substance should tower over teleprompter speeches. McCain offers leadership by the force of his example,Obama's ability to lead is clearly predicated on the ability to read speeches off a teleprompter.

1. Bush's ratings were still strong up to 2004.
2. Palin has an strong approval rating in a state the size of what? Some small cities in mainland America?

1. Wrong! No need debating this point. Go to pollingreport.com and try and trace Bush's polling history
2. I don't see what the size of a state has to do with anything when the opposing party's presidential candidate's best example of managing anything is as the nebulous "community organiser".

KarmaMod:
hehehe. did my Downie comment hit a nerve, 4Play dear.

Besides I perfer when you do the cooking.  

poor brits. all they have is a monarchy  

Look who is talking. When you have the choice between a vacuous teleprompter candidate and a decomposing living corpse,you have to say,"Long Live The Queen".

1. The terror attacks were 2001, ratings i mentioned were 2yrs after.
2. I never claimed to know Palin, you who claim to know her have however failed to provide compelling evidence of her accomplishments.

1) Bush didn't have Palinesque sky-high approval ratings in 2003. By late '02,his ratings were down to the 50s .

2) Lets be honest,all we know about Palin is what we have binged on over the past few weeks. I can go and copy and paste a litany of achievements,just as you can go and copy and paste all the anti-Palin bile you recently came across.

It is important to know one's limitations. In this case,I defer to the good people of Alaska who are in a far better position to judge than all the pretentious  partisan talking points we are all re-producing here. My own position is that what ever her impressive accomplishments in Alaska,they are insufficient for V-P. However,compared to Obama,she is the least objectionable.

I don't understand these people,if you are so keen on seeing black faces,why are you not in Nigeria?

Is it not the same African-Americans you people foolishly refer to as Akata and all sorts of derogatory names? Black face or Tu face,low self-esteem amongst Black people is shocking.

@TOH

Men will talk politics,you too go put mouth. What is this world coming to?

How is your campaign for the termination of Downs syndrome babies going? Gerrout of here and go do some knitting  or cooking.

davidylan:
Bush had comparable ratings in 2003. What's new?

Same old media hype. Give us JUST ONE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE.

So Obama is inexperienced, so he has no "record" of standing up to a rock . . . that has nothing to do with the thread. Tell us about Sarah Palin. Thank you.

Bush was the benefactor of a terror attack which caused Americans to rally round the President. Unless you are insisting that your binging on the NYT over someone, who 3 weeks ago you didn't even know existed, is a more compelling basis of analysing her accomplishments than the collective practical experience of resident Alaskans, you have to admit that in this case, your knowledge of her is sorely limited.

One specific example. Isn't tacking old-school GOP nepotism an achievement in its own right? That is a blatant and compelling example of reform,not the vacuous teleprompter speeches of the Democratic candidate.

davidylan:
What are the accomplishments? Please tell us and stop the juvenile sending us to links that say nothing.

If you are really interested in finding Palin's achievements, they are easily available for public consumption. Palin's sky high approval ratings amongst Alaskans couldn't have been achieved if she was bereft of accomplishments. No amount of binging on the NYT is substitute for the first hand experience of Alaskans.

Whether it was her stint at the Oil and Gas Commission,where she resigned honourably,after confronting GOP juggernauts like the Murkowski family or her other innumerable run-ins with the local GOP dinosaurs such as the state party chairman,she has demonstrated a willingness to stand up to even folks on her side of the political divide,something wholly uncharacteristic of many US politicians and moreso,alien to Barack Obama's resume.

Personally,I don't think she will make a competent V-P but if the least experienced man in modern times to run for President on the cards of a major party is at the helm of the opposing party,Sarah Palin isn't much worse.

@Karma Mod

Please keep quiet. A few days ago you demonstrated an urgent need for referral to an ophthalmologist,copying and pasting photo-shopped images of Sarah Palin ,so it may be most advisable to quickly scurry back to the Romance/Sexuality threads.  

Please show some respect! A new Tennis Sheriff is in town and he is from Scotland

Neither candidate seems to have a compelling and comprehensive economic programme.

The key issues for me are keeping taxes low,reforming healthcare and pensions,lowering trade barriers and reining in Govt spending and McCain comes closest to those ideals. Put in another way,the GOP have always been the least objectionable of the 2 choices. Some blogger once said that while the Democrats are hurtling down the highway of greater Govt spending at 100mph,the GOP are doing so at 65mph.

The US is having to bail out FanniMae and Freddie Mac,what is the Govt doing in the mortgage business in the first place?

doyin13:
@4play
The booming oil price story is not due to the demand from China and India alone.
I have been very impressed with Bernanke's activeness in tackling the credit crisis,
although some of his methods leave a lot to be desired.

The provision of credit lines for banks with Federal Funds was innovative and was roundly applauded
But the alarming rate at which those interest rates came down weakened the dollar leading
to speculators invading the oil markets. Couple that with Trichet's obstinate hawkishness and
you have one hundred and forty eight dollar oil.

And the dollar has been firming in the past two months. . . . . .Oil has followed suit

The bottom line is that the factors driving up commodity prices over the past decade are complex and can't be glibly explained by referring to the Iraq war.

I do think that China/India's rise is the single most crucial factor. Remember,this oil boom started,not in '03 but in 1999 after prices reached its nadir-$9 p/b. At the time the dollar was still surging and Greenspan was raving up interest rates to stop the economy from overheating. Oil prices quadrupled within months after OPEC cut supply.

The single most crucial factor is the interplay between demand and supply and glib talk of "standing up to Big Oil" ignores the shift in the balance of economic power.

debosky:
4Play, ONGC and SINOPEC do not claim to have internationally certified Environmental Management Systems like ISO 14001, they don't claim to have internal policies geared at continuous improvement of their environmental performance. If it were SINOPEC or ONGC polluting this way, it would be a different kettle of fish altogether - those companies have weak environmental structures and at that point, more emphasis would be placed on government to improve their own frameworks.

Are you kidding? Which oil major doesn't make the above claims? ONGC and SINOPEC do claim to maintain and pursue high environmental standards. For instance, read SINOPEC's claims and laugh:

Safe production is Sinopec's top priority. Implementing the policy of "Safety First, Prevention Foremost, All Involvement and Comprehensive Control" as well as upholding the principle focusing on all stuff involvement, whole process, all positions and around the clock, Sinopec practices an integrated health, safety and environmental protection (HSE) management. The Company's HSE objectives are to seek zero incidents, no harm to health or deterioration of environment, so as to achieve world-class HSE performance". All subsidiaries execute total HSE management system according to the Company's guidance; make every effort to ensure sufficient deployment of personnel, funds and facilities to set up an effective mechanism, thus achieving stable and safe operations.

There is no oil major that doesn't claim to have high environmental safety procedures. The question becomes why select Western oil majors for special treatment?

This is not about 'pecuniary benefits' as you so slyly try to excuse it as - SHELL is the OPERATOR, i.e the one responsible for all impacts on the environment and for running of these oil assets. The Operator always faces the brunt of criticism or praise wherever it operates, be it in Nigeria or on the North Slope in Alaska. NNPC has virtually nil production by itself, all its oil comes from projects OPERATED by these foreign companies.

Shell is a joint venture partner,the minority partner if I'm not mistaken, and the suggestion that it should be bear the brunt of the blame is farcical. Could it be that Nigeria has no leverage over the environmental practices of its partners? That will be far from the case. The real issue is the domestic regulatory environment;it could be Shell today,Petrobras or Gazprom tomorrow.

It is about pecuniary benefits since the "activist industry" sees big Western multi-nationals as money spinners,in so far as tugging at Western heart strings. Western multi-nationals generally maintain higher standards,where ever they operate,than their domestic and foreign rivals but strangely endure the most criticism.

The idea of giving companies with virtually zero safety procedures a free pass while piling on companies that do make some effort is ludicrous.

Their livelihoods have been destroyed, shouldn't they protest and get their environment remediated? The people by and large are not even asking for 'compensation' as such - they want flaring stopped and the oil cleaned up. To make it out as simply a money-grab is very disingenuous, these people are protesting against real problems on the ground.

The problem of the state of the Niger-Delta transcends Shell's inadequacies. Anybody who really wants a solution to the problem will support handing over a 100% control over the resources of the region to the locals.

This is a national political problem not a problem of internal company procedures. What is Nigeria doing with its share of the joint venture partnership? The Govt must use its share of the revenues(80% of oil revenues) to deal with the economic issues while enforcing good environmental standards.

Shell is a business not a quasi-charity. No responsible country absconds responsibility for regulating a business to the internal management structure of the business. If the US,the UK or Canada looked the other way,Shell will do the same thing in those countries.

Nigeria was quick to muscle in in the 70s;expropriating Shell's PH refinery,BP's retail business and nationalising the oil industry; to grab the oil revenues to squander in far away places like Lagos and Abuja,showing where our priorities lay. Yet,we effectively abandon the responsibility of protecting the Niger-Delta's environment to Western businesses.

davidylan:
I'D say she has every right to . . .   She looks great, she has a likeable personality, she's smart . . . why shldnt she enjoy it?
Start a thread, put up your own picture . . . maybe someone will come appreciate you too someday.  

I know there are various "niches" for all sorts of body types but I haven't yet heard of men who want flat chested women. What use is a flat chested woman?

Talking of correct boobs. What about Morenike or Lady T's( hope they don't see this). Those are boobs to die for- TOH/Morenike/Lady T should be inducted into the NL Boobs Hall of Fame.

onyinye2:
Sure it is.

Why won't it be? Madam President of the Flat Chest Society.

tope2000:
who made u boobs expert
abeg joo

Listen, I have years of experience in observing and analysing boobs.