₦airaland Forum

LASIEFAIRE:
Obamanite . . . getting all furious. . He is one of Obama favorite rappers, he gets heavy rotation in his ipod.
Obama said this himself. Please can someone tell me what Ludacris raps about. He drops a new song - same ol thing- that has the potential to damage Obama's presidential aspiration now they want to deny him.

You dey mind them. When Obama was trying to look hip,he didn't realize Ludacris calls women "bitches". It must be the legendary "Obama deafness" which prevented him from hearing Rev Wright's race baiting.

davidylan:
McCain always knew he would the standout candidate to replace Bush either after 4 or 8 years . . . it was imperative that he distance himself from Bush's failings to stand a chance.

Ah . . . . . not only is McCain a mere opportunist in this regard but he also seems to possess the prescience of Nostrademus! Given that McCain was a thorn in Bush's side when Bush was extremely popular(hitting 90% approval ratings),he must have possessed the ability of a sorcerer to forsee that Bush would become less popular and thus,it would become "imperative" to distance himself from Bush.

Why is that a problem? A stable middle east will solve a large portion of the world's energy crisis.

A stable Middle East? Can you name one sustained period in history when the Middle East was stable? Nobody should use the terms "stable" and "Middle East" in a sentence.

Basing policy on the prospects of a stable Middle East verges on lunacy.

davidylan:
What if there was no domestic supply? Of course i don't support trying to put pressure on OPEC, they have to do all they can to squeeze every dollar they can from each barrel they sell.
I would however support the smart idea not to encourage offshore drilling for now, America stands to make a lot more in the future when world oil reserves run low.

Let's not dwell on the hypothetical.There is domestic 'supply',billions of it waiting to be tapped and Democrats like Obama have been blocking its exploitation.

You seem to misunderstand Obama's position. He is not against drilling because he and his fellow Democrats want to reserve for the future-he is against it on mainly environmental grounds.

You keep talking of the future.At some point in the future,oil will be rendered redundant.

Obama insisted America not go to Iraq in the first place. The problem with Afghanistan is not as easy as you make it sound - you're not fighting a conventional army, the terrain is more suitable to guerilla fighters and NATO troops have to be extra careful not to upset the natives who unfortunately stand in harms way.

Please,are they fighting a "conventional army" in Iraq? As for Obama insisting that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place,that is clearly irrelevant.The question is what can be done now,unless you have a time machine to take us back to 2003,we are more concerned with how to deal with the situation as it is not as we would have desired it to be.

Lets be honest, the anbar uprising was the first step to stemming the tide of violence in Iraq. It was to America's interest that the Iraqis themselves show the desire to rout al qaeda and prevent it from gaining a solid foothold.

Duh. The Sunnis needed US support to avoid the backlash that would inevitably follow their decision to fight against al qaeda.

So Obama's idea of providing the support that the Sunnis need in order to fight Al-Qaeda is to reduce support for the people prepare to take on the battle against Al-Qaeda.

The Anbar uprising would not even have been remotely possible if they weren't assured of US military assistance.

davidylan:
Nothing new here. McCain was a presidential candidate in 2000. Anyone who saw clinton during the 2008 democratic primaries would almost assume she'd hated Obama since she was a child.

It's a far cry from your suggestion that it is somewhat of a merely convenient act for McCain to have differences with Bush when they have been daggers drawn since time immemorial.

If in 8 years time,someone who barely knows Clinton's history claims it is only out of convenience that she distances herself from Obama,won't you find that absurd?

If America had drilled her own oil solely since 1900, wont she be back buying oil from these same Saudi Arabia and Venezuela today?
When Nigeria's oil reserves dry up in 40yrs will we not be buying oil from these same people?
What if America had NO oil reserves . . . should she be buying oil from Niger instead?

Its easy to whip up arguments now because at least America has proven oil reserves, the world is a global market . . . China is America's fiercest competitors, is known to veto several American positions at the UN YET it would be unthinkable for America to lose the Chinese market.

Saudi Arabia and Venezuela can cry all they want, they still need America to buy their oil. China buys oil from Africa . . . to be honest . . . is it because they love us?

I don't know where you are getting at but the simple truth is that the US currently possesses abundant domestic energy resources and has chosen to import them not out of economic logic but for spurious environmental reasons.

Between 2000 and 2005, US gas prices averaged $1.5/gallon all without offshore drilling.
Again what's new?

Rising hydrocarbon prices obviously.In simple terms,demand for oil is growing faster than the supply of oil.Democrats in Congress recently called on OPEC-remember they are planning to take measures against OPEC for being a cartel-to increase their supply of oil.

How can you call on OPEC to increase their oil supply while constraining your own domestic supply?

The surge in itself was not the key to unlocking the Iraq problem, it all started from the Anbar uprising . . . one that begun, contrary to McCain's false claims WELL BEFORE any surge.

The surge excuse is another duh moment:
1. If America had stayed away from Iraq in the first place we wont be talking about preventing a surge.
2. If you swamp Iraq with 1m soldiers (aka surge), of course violence will go down duh!

So if the US swamps Iraq with more soldiers violence will go down? How come Obama insisted on the contrary? In Afghanistan,the more NATO troops are poured in,the more the violence gets worse.

If pouring troops into a country automatically makes violence less,LBJ would have won the Vietnam war.

The Anbar uprising didn't turn the tables in Iraq.Did Anbar uprising crush the Sadrists in Basra and Sadr City?

As many Sunnis have noted,they won't have turned against Al-Qaeda if they didn't receive encouragement from the Bush administration that the US will be prepared to back them,with men and material,if they joined the Iraqi Govt's cause.

davidylan:
I'm not sure you even know why McCain is called a maverick beyond merely repeating rightwing slogans that don't mean a thing. Its easy to understand why McCain "stood up to" Bush with the benefit of hindsight, if i had plans to take over after Bush i'd want to put up a front too.

Be honest,8 years ago,you would have struggled to recognize who McCain was if he was standing in front of you. Only people who started taking a keen interest in McCain in a period the Obama campaign started painting him as somewhat of a Bush clone would be puzzled as to why he is described as a 'maverick'.

Up to '04,his relationship with Republicans and Bush was so bad that he was touted as Kerry's running mate in the '04 Presidential elections.There were strong rumors that he may decamp to the Democratic party which never materialised.

Suggesting that McCain is standing up to Bush now out of personal convenience is ridiculous.You obviously missed the GOP 2000 primaries!

It wont solve any crisis . . . the energy "crisis" today is entirely a result of an very unstable middle east no thanks to US meddlesomeness, a trait that McCain is 100% certain to continue. I ask again . . . is McCain smarter than every other president (including) Clinton who did not see ofshore drilling as a way to reduce gas prices in the US?

Oil price has been rising since 99,before Bush came into power,and is mainly due to the strong growth of emerging economies like China and India.However,the US has compounded its problem by refusing to drill in many parts of its territory.

Tell me,where is the logic in insisting on buying oil from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela when you can cut down your funding of those regimes by mining some of the oil in your own backyard?

Since when did Clinton become the hallmark of prescient thinking? Democrats have been blocking drilling for decades for spurious environmental reasons.Unfortunately,Obama is part and parcel of the problem.

If I recall correctly,she claimed to be pregnant as a result of the pool session live on Big Brother.

All the Nigerian ethnic groups swear by their juju but these jujus didn't prevent the British from conquering the country.

Kobojunkie:
I don't think you can arbitrarily make such substitutions without some information to back it up.
In the case of contracting AIDS, there is proof to show that the HIV virus actually moves through fluid from one party to another and so telling people they have a higher risk of contracting the disease if they have unprotected sense is actually sensible.

Blimey!By drawing an analogy with HIV,I'm not asserting that spanking is the equivalent of unprotected sex but simply highlighting grammatical usage.

You seemed to think that a study that proclaims that spanking raises the likelihood of sexual deviancy was wrong because there were examples of spanked kids who turned out well.I refuted it earlier by pointing out:that an act is said to increase the likelihood of a particular outcome doesn't mean that the act produces that same outcome every single time nor could it mean that in its absence,the said outcome must necessarily be absent.

There are many studies that show the negative effects of corporal punishment.Simply pointing out that there are particular instances that counter these studies misses the point.

I have in fact met more violent people during my time as an intern in the Delaware juvenile system, who were never spanked as kids. I can categorically state that majority of the violent youths at the time in the system where from homes where the parents were too busy (or absent) to discipline or watch the kids.

Again,typical Naija anecdotal apple sauce.

Kobojunkie:
Dude, it claims that it lowers cognitive development. How? In essence all kids who were not spanked as kids should have higher cognitive development? Is that a reasonable to believe?

This is obviously a problem with grammar. Substitute spanking for unprotected sex and lower cognitive development for HIV. There are a lot of people who have unprotected sex without contacting HIV,does that mean that unprotected sex doesn't increase your chances of acquiring HIV?

Nobody said anything about all.

Kobojunkie:
Here is a link to another unbelievable claim against spanking. My Question remains, how do they make these unbelievable connections when even persons who have never been spanked sometimes choose these same path.

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/080228/spanking-raises-chances-of-risky-deviant-sexual-behavior.htm

Unless you don't understand English,that an act is said to increase the likelihood of a particular outcome doesn't mean that the act produces that same outcome every single time nor could it mean that in its absence,the said outcome must necessarily be absent.

If I say that unprotected sex raises the chances of acquiring HIV,that doesn't mean that one can't contact HIV without engaging in unprotected sex.

Kobojunkie:
You can start by helping me understand/pointing out when and where I made such a statement?

You mean you have been debating all along without holding the belief that spanking is a net positive? Is it a net negative then? Where do you stand on the issue?

Kobojunkie:
Nah, I only posted that to follow your post which I assumed from the same. Well, the article did not really say that spanking was wrong and the samples left me the same questions and no answers. Now a good study would be a controlled study of Spanking, No Spanking at all, and then no disciplne for control and No Bias. lol

The article only chronicles various studies done on corporal punishment and most of the studies cast corporal punishment in a bad light.Its not in the article's place to make emphatic claims as to the rightness or wrongness of corporal punishment.

However,to the extent that it shows that corporal punishment can lower cognitive development and increase aggression,I don't know what else you want.

Even the convenient part you just cited states:

Some experts believe nonabusive spanking can play a role in effective parental discipline of young children. According to Robert E. Larzelere, s[b]panking can have beneficial results when it is "nonabusive (e.g., two swats to the buttocks with an open hand[/b]) and used primarily to back up milder disciplinary tactics with 2- to 6-year-olds by loving parents"

"2 swats to the buttocks" delivered by loving parents when the child is between 2-6 years old is nowhere near what you are advocating.

@Kobo

I made a claim that racial minorities spank their kids more,your rebuttal was based on "come to my area". You haven't produced one iota of evidence to show that African-Americans spank their kids less.

I have shown you studies that show that African-Americans have greater confidence in corporal punishment.I have also shown you studies that show a link between the levels of aggression/lesser cognitive development and spanking.

You are yet to show any evidence for the claims you have made.Were is your evidence that corporal punishment is a net positive?

@Kobo

Don't be disingenuous,you conveniently selected only a part of the link that looked at the effect of spanking on 6 year olds which found that it had zero negative effects for African-Americans/Latinos while having a net negative effect for whites.

You also conveniently forgot this part of the report:

Corporal punishment experienced in adolescence produces the same effect on males and females. Parents who were physically punished thirty or more times as adolescents (24%) were three times as likely as those who never received physical punishment (7%) to abuse their children physically.

This part:

Murray A. Straus and Mallie J. Paschall found that corporal punishment was associated with a child's failure to keep up with the average rate of cognitive development.Straus and Paschall found that the more prevalent the corporal punishment, the greater the decrease in cognitive ability.

The results of the study also debunked the general belief among African-Americans that corporal punishment benefits children. The adverse consequences on cognitive development held true for all racial and ethnic groups.

The researchers also found changes in some children's aggression. Nonaggressive children at the start of the study who were spanked were twice as aggressive by the end of the study.

Kobojunkie:
Dude, that is exactly what you did. LMAO!! I am giving you my area here so you understand I did not just make this up should you need to verify. You can always look up the records on this city and query the Juvenille departments for more information to help you verify what I posted. simple!!

I should go and look up a claim you made without any evidence to back it up? I guess it is no longer the duty of a person making a claim to prove it.

Well, I guess Singapore should be one of the most violent countries on the planet then.

That is comparing apples and oranges. Simply comparing a police state in one continent and a democracy in another continent is pointless.

It will be quite interesting to compare the rates of spousal abuse and child abuse.The overwhelming majority of violent incidents take place in the home.

Kobojunkie:
Ok… and there are a lot of people who turned into violent adults without being caned. How can you then link violence to caning if you can get the bug even when you have never really been caned as a kid?

Obviously,there are a lot factors involved in determining whether one turns violent,of which caning,can be a factor

Kobojunkie:
Come to my area. Majority of these kids where never caned. They did not even have parents or anyone who cared enough to want to discipline them to that extent and they turn out to be some of the most violent kids around. How can you link this to caning when it does not make sense that such a link exists, especially in the African American community.

Anytime you are debating Nigerians,they resort to anecdotal evidence that is unverifiable except by them.Rather than me "coming to your area",why don't you point me to any study that proves your point.

The academic evidence is overwhelming, compelling and irrefutable in pointing to one direction:Corporal punishment is more prevalent amongst African-Americans.I could flood you with links upon links but let me use one as an example:http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1401/Causes-Effects-Child-Abuse-CORPORAL-PUNISHMENT.html

Kobojunkie:
It does?? I am not violent and many of the violent ones I know of in society were never caned. So what happened here?

The point is not that every single one who is caned turns violent,but that in general,resort to corporal punishment breeds violence. There are a lot of people who turned into decent adults without being caned.

Nobody canes their children in the West as much as racial minorities but no segment of society produces as many criminals as the same racial minorities.You think those gangbanging African-American kids didn't get whipped more than white kids?

I haven't done anything wrong.

Caning teaches you that the use of physical force helps to deal with disagreeable people,which is why we have a violent society.

This is just ridiculous. Unless they are related,nobody has a duty to talk to anybody. If someone is ignoring you,forget about the person,don't hang around like a pyscho.

For one thing,the guy's new girlfriend won't be so happy to see him with another woman who seems to be interested in him.

There seems to be so many psychopathic women who think you have a duty to pay them some attention.

[quote author=HR.hotness link=topic=153004.msg2567102#msg2567102 date=1217198352]would that be dressed or undressed? https://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/5.gif[/quote]Keep your clothes on.We can do the undressing later.

[quote author=HR.hotness link=topic=153004.msg2567083#msg2567083 date=1217198169]the one wey dey dia no do u? [/quote]E no do me.I want to see you in your full glory.

@Doyin13

She be CEO of Cowbell?

I'm all about boobs. . . .24/7 stalking of ''Amaka'' will soon commence.

@Doyin13

You this notorious baby daddy,no be you I dey ask question?

How this Amaka girl dey?

doyin13:
Tell the whole 419 clique for this forum. . . . , Amaka why na.


Just buzz me for YIM jo

Her name na Amaka? How does she look?

How can someone keep calling herself "HR-Hotness" without a picture to show us what makes her "hot"?

Why won't aging men "prey" on younger Nigerian women when these women allow them to? Nigerian women just love money and sometimes,they have to pay the price.

@TOH

I don't want to "get" anything,I just want to bash Naija women,that's all.

@Toshmann

Check your parentage well

KarmaMod:
where did you get the idea that it was arranged?

Isnt it the "nigerian" thing for old agbayas to run after young girls?

agbaya oshi. Loser didnt even have respect for the law. The woman had a bloody restraining order against him.

Was the girl bound and gagged and handed over to an older man? Anybody that grew up in Nigeria will remember how Nigerian girls flocked towards these dinosaurs because they were seen as more financially secure.

Only cretins believe Igbos originate from Israel or Egypt.