₦airaland Forum

slimtoney:
a pack of jittery and confused lots,if michael.j converts to mus/lim,it is just yet another proof that your libel and deceits realy has gotten no impact on this credible faith.the fight is not for d a great one/s but for God,so for all d massive condemnation and blackmails, isla/m still grows frm strenght to strenght.can't u people see that thrillions of u cannot stands in d way of this faith??

To hold up the conversion of Wacko Jacko as proof of the enduring quality of your faith is the height of absurdity.

EmekaNaija:
To all the hypocrites:
How many times have anyone of you disowned your father for saying controversial things? How many people here decided never to visit their parents just because of some comments you did not agree with?
What do you guys want this Obama guy to do? Should he reject his black church and his mother's white family because of their comments?

Rev Wright is now Obama's father? You get to choose your pastor but you don't get to choose your parents or family.There is a world of difference between the two.

Per Obama:

a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical The Great Religion.”

How does the above quote fit into Obamaniacs' narrative of the Middle-East. . . . .kind of sounds similar to what I have been harping on.

McKren:
Obama did not say he will "Militarily intervene in Pakistan" (whatever the means)

This is an absurd attempt at a straw man argument.The above couldn't have possibly been derived from this:"Obama's assertion that he would be prepared to militarily intervene in Pakistan "

He said if he has actionable inteligence on Osama Bin Laden's location in Pakistan and Musharaf is not willing to act he will order the Army to strike at Bin Laden's location.

I believe the exact statement from Obama was:"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will". Lets ignore the mangled attempt to reduce the subject of his "threat" to Osama Bin Laden instead of high-value terrorist targets(a vague group of unlimited potential candidates).Its funny to see you defend this botched attempt by Obama at foreign policy-making on the basis that Bush "borrowed the same ideology". So much for "change"

Its also odd to see your attempt to present unconfirmed reports as facts.How do we know whether the Pakistanis gave their consent or not? If they didn't,why didn't they lodge a protest?

What made Obama's comments remarkable was his stated willingness to act even without the permission of Pakistan,a position that,however you spin it,doesn't fit into your narrative.

PS:I hope you weren't one of those people who condemned Colombia's intervention in Bolivia,I marvel at the cognitive dissonance many Nigerian Obamaniacs must be enveloped in.They passionately support a candidate whose views on many issues-from abortion,gay rights,Israel to Pakistan-does not fit in with their views.

RichyBlacK:
Your post above has confirmed to me that your IQ is in the single digits. When will you stop talking from your ass? Baba himself tell us say nyash na for shit no be for talk.

What's your problem with Obama? The other time you were trying your very best to make Obama look inferior to Mitt Romney (a forgotten nonentity), today you're trying to make him look like an incompetent speaker. People who started analyzing political speeches before you were conceived have called Barack Obama an orator, and gone as far as comparing him with great speakers like FDR, JFK and MLK.

If you didn't reason like a pathological oaf,I might take you seriously.Obama gives eloquent speeches,the product of an army of gifted speech writers. The question is whether Obama's natural oratory,without the aid of speech writers,is particularly remarkable.

There is an excellent way to verify.Listen to him talk at press conferences and during the presidential debates.Here,the opportunity for scripted speech is virtually lost.Not even the most deranged Obamaniac would claim that Obama epitomises eloquence on these occasions.

Anybody who has listened to JFK,MLK or even contemporaries like George Galloway(whose politics I loath) will bear witness to their incredible ability in totally unscripted occasions.I don't like the politics of the likes of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton but I would concede they are gifted orators and would sound even better if they had Obama's speech writers.

I do not belong to the club of glib naifs who instantly believe that Obama must have written his last speech because,wait for it,his campaign team said so!

Lets see more of this supposed eloquence in unscripted occasions.I have witnessed more unscripted eloquence from Adams Oshiomole than Obama.

bluehorizo:
Arsenal should forget the league until the return of Eduardo. We should not forget that since that unfateful day Eduardo got injured against Birmingham,things have not been the same for the Gunners.

It is not Eduardo but the ass-whopping they got at OT.Gunners never recover from an OT ass-whupping.They are still going through post-traumatic stress disorder.They probably need some counseling

That game was the first in which Billy The Goat a.k.a Gallas suffered his nervous breakdown.Never underestimate the harmful effects of an OT ass-whopping!

Milan lost again at home yesterday to Sampdoria.Using Gaynner's post-San Siro logic,does that make Sampdoria one of the best teams in Europe?

This thread is becoming like a graveyard.Wonder why Gaynners suddenly lost interest.

Chacal:
Ferguson knew what he was doing when he splashed 12 mil on Ronaldo. . . . It was a shrewd buy.

Wenger claimed then that it was too much for someone so young. How much did the plonker pay for the likes of Jeffers and Reyes?

A Gaynner called into a phone-in programme on TalkSports radio once.He said that Ronaldo was generally ineffective,all he does is score goals but provides few assists. Gaynner imbecility is widespread!Arse-anal would wish they could find a player who was so "ineffective",he only managed to score 33goals in 37 appearances.

Ronaldo not only surpassed George Best's 4 decades long record,he did it in 37 games while Best did his in 52 appearances.

PS:Incredible.Saha makes French squad,Trezeguet doesn't.Did you guys see Saha pick up an injury from merely taking a shot on goal?

chuckdee4:
Ruudie Ruudie

fair enough u got bragging rights being on top of the table n all, if your looking at Chelsea to do y'all a favour that won't happen, did u see how they fumbled against Spurs @ White Shyte lane, i see a certain home record being broken on sunday.

Who is looking for Chelski to do us a favor? Chelski is our biggest rival for the title.They are going to finish ahead of Arsenal this season.Quite frankly,I would rather that Arsenal won on Sunday than that Chelski won.

Saw an article in the Times that made me resurrect this thread.Here are a few interesting excerpts:

Wayne Rooney, hands down, and I'm a Manchester United supporter. He does practically nothing at international level, and until he scores 20 in the Premiership like Fernando Torres, I wish people would quit purring about him. He needs to be less of a footballer and more of a predator. Chip Barbre.

I agree with the above.Rooney is grossly overrated.I can't see why Fergie starts him ahead of Tevez when Fergie goes with one striker. Rooney's finishing is appalling,especially in one-on-one situations.

Paul Scholes doesn't play and when he does play he chokes in big games; he can't run and is even lazier than Andrea Pirlo; he can’t tackle and that makes him a liability. Twice a season he'll hit some blistering volley and for that he's hailed as a football genius. Nonsense. RJA.

I could bet my left nut that the above comment was made by a Gaynner or a Scouser. Nothing much needs to be said about the above except that the author must be a first-class cretin.

Pele. A fantastic international career, winning three World Cups (though after being injured early in the tournament, he contributed as little to Brazil’s 1962 triumph as Jimmy Greaves did to England’s 1966 victory) but what about his club career? Yes he played for Santos and scored an incredible number of goals, but neither then nor now is the Brazilian league home to the best defenders in the world. He was a Brazilian legend playing in a cosseted environment, unlike Diego Maradona who tested and proved himself in the Spanish and Italian leagues, home of great defenders, man marking and brutal tackles. Pele didn’t do that and, as such, only had half a career. He is the Matt Le Tissier of Brazil. Clarence Darrow.

More imbecility above. . . . . .certainly from a Gunner.

Andriy Shevchenko. Absolute rubbish. The biggest waste of money in football history, and probably the source of most of Chelsea's problems in the last couple of years. Simmojo.

This must from the CEO of [i]I Only Watch EPL Ignoramuses Inc[/i]Anybody who saw Shevy at D.Kiev and Milan knows that he is a legend.

The most overrated accolade would go to Michael Owen and Ryan Giggs. Resting on glorious past achievements does not give you the divine right to be on the team sheet. Alex.

Probably right in Owen's case,but Giggs. . . . . . . .that man is one of the greatest left-wingers the game has ever seen.Underrated in my opinion.

Eric Cantona. He only ever rose to the small occasions. Whenever Man United played in Europe he hid. Joshua.

Funny thing is. . . .I agree in regards to Europe.He was however highly instrumental to United's domestic resurgence.

Patrick Vieira for me. I could never see what the fuss was all about. He hardly ever scored and passed the ball back or sideways most of the time. He wasn't a bad player but everyone raved about him and I just couldn't see it. Tim H.

Don't know about that.I thought he was a rare gem while at the Arse.

I watch Zlatan Ibrahimovic play every week. If he is overrated then everybody is. He has been outstanding since joining Inter Milan, scoring more regularly than he ever did with Juventus and Ajax. He allows team-mates to score with great passes and displays tricks on the pitch with fantastic skills in minimal space. He has the bad luck to play for a team that dominates in Italy, but has huge difficulties against strong European teams. Also, his national team, Sweden, does not suit his capability. Of course, he still has some limits, but he is absolutely the best player of the past two years. Ale.

Ibra is a wastepipe.What is it. . . . .21 goals this season and 9 of them are penalties.I rate him as currently the most overrated player in Europe.

Deco: at a club with quality players such as Lionel Messi, Samuel Eto'o and Ronaldinho, it makes him look good when the team win comprehensively against lower opposition. He doesn't have the creativity others possess, lacks fitness and is now only pushing for a place warming the bench at Barcelona. Neil Thomas.

Totally agree.Had his best days in the pre-Mourinho Porto.Then he was outstanding,I'm talking of even before Jose became Porto manager.

I am happy that in the past few seasons, people have started to pick up on Lampard’s faults, especially England fans. He scores goals but what else? He contributes very little to the passing side of the game and blasts it at every chance. And where does he go in big games? The reason Liverpool won the Champions League was that Gerrard is a big game player. Liam Hanfrey.

Lampard couldn’t buy a goal in the World Cup despite having the most shots. He was woeful. Turns like a tank, average technical skills but scoring four against a basket case club like Derby County leads to plaudits. At Juventus he would be lucky to get a game. Jonas, Liverpool.

Wake up, England. Your obsession with Viking footballers like Gerrard is why you'll go even longer without winning anything. For a true reflection of a player ask someone who sees him day in day out: his coach. Rafael Benitez realised very quickly that Gerrard had to be part of his set up but didn’t want him anywhere near the brains of his team because of his poor short passing game, severe tactical indiscipline and inability to dictate tempo. That is why he entrusts the running of Liverpool to proper central midfielders like Alonso and Lucas Leiva who don’t charge around a pitch. The last time Arsenal and Liverpool met, Cesc Fabregas made 109 successful passes, Gerrard made 33, yet Sky pundits judged Gerrard man of the match. Lampard is the best goal scoring midfielder in the world. Only one midfielder, in the professional game has managed to score more than 20 goals a season for four seasons in row, and this year he will make it five. Denton.

This sort of topic won't be complete without the usual Lampard-Gerrard comparison.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/thegame/2008/03/martin-samuel-2.html

I didn't get to read Bawo's entire article but the premise is incredibly warped.Never mind the attempts to stretch stats,this is a clear example of someone mistaking correlation for causation.

The sensible thing would have been to compare like for like-the difference in crime rates between theist and atheist Japanese for instance. Its incredibly meaningless to compare,say Japan with its unique socio-cultural make up and the US with its also unique make up and history(large ethnic minority population and huge income inequality)

Blatant:
poster, I had never considered myself someone who could react to racism. As a matter of fact, I denied claims of racism from some of my friends until I decided that I should reside permanently in 'the land of the white man'. the city I live in is predominantly white and you only need to hear stories of what happens to non-white people for you to start reacting and becoming bitter towards them.

I know that I may never have suffered from racism as much as many other people but I do realise that my attitude has changed with regards to other races as a result of my experiences and the things that I hear about.

To sum it up, if white people never showed me racism, I'd never have anything but normal human love for EVERY human being

Every single race has individuals who have suffered racism from people of other races-blacks at the hands of whites and vice-versa,blacks vs Asians,blacks vs Arabs,Arabs vs Kurds,e.t.c Using the justification you applied in your post,every race has a good reason for its racism.

The speech was very good and no one wrote it for him like 4play has said. We Africans need to be more enlightened on several issues concerning our race, the society, and the relationship with others; in otherwords, we need to start being proactive and see that those in diaspora can be of good use to us just as we can be of good use to them. So alot of things need to change like we know too well in the case of Nigeria, including good governance and less traditional bulls, in the continent.
The speech is enough for the enlightened and I liked the way he fell short of denouncing the church and the pastor so that some cooperations don't think he can just be manipulated into all sorts of submissions. And @4play, I think you are either an ignorant white or a no good use type sellout and my advice to u is that, give honor where honor is due and don't hate,relate.

This is why my people toil away forever in manual labor when they come to the West.How will they ever get through verbal aptitude tests? 4 Play said this speech was written for Obama,where?

If you don't support Obama,you are a sellout.You want to bring your Nigerian "tribal" mentality to serious issues.

Politicians don't write speeches because they don't have the time.They tend to delegate this responsibility.However,pretty much every one of those major US politicians can write their own speeches if they have the time.Even the linguistically challenged Bush used to write eloquent speeches for his father while the latter was President.

Is Obama naturally eloquent a la JFK,MLK or Churchill in unscripted environments?Anybody who has seen him during his numerous debates will know he is obviously not.That is why he is known as the teleprompter candidate

He was the only candidate,in either party, delivering his speeches via a teleprompter in those party primary nights events.

RichyBlacK:
@4 Play,
Stop talking from your ass! Obama is superior to Reagan on every imaginable front! How dare you compare a fresh spring water (Obama) with a stagnant pond water (Reagan). I know you worship your Republican fathers but please stop elevating a man whose only achievement was "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall".

This is why you are a putrid slowpoke.The above tells us more about your knowledge of history than about Reagan.Not even Obama,who has praised Reagan,will be idiotic enough to claim he has achieved more in his political career than Reagan.

JayFK:
ditto
based on what I said before, if one draws their conclusions based on their personal experiences it can't be classified as "bad", thats my point.

So,you agree that not all prejudices are necessarily bad in so far as they are based on "personal experiences" ?

nwando:
Chineke Nna!
I never hear that one o.
Mr Nwando loves sitting at a park to relax and read novels.
I better warn him that he's being profiled.
Ojigbijigbi

If na children's park,there could be suspicious eyes focused on him.

peedfunk:
Prejidiced beliefs are not always based on facts. If homophobe in Europe is based on the statement in bold, what of Africa? Is HIV/AIDS the reason for prejudice against homosexuals in Africa?

That is why I said "many" and also why I used a homophobe in Western Europe as example,not homophobia in general irrespective of location.

[quote author=blue-sky link=topic=121068.msg2070926#msg2070926 date=1205894074]your giving reasons for people being prejudice not examples of them.

these are prejudice

1) all black people are theifs
2) all men who are in parks are pedophiles.[/quote]You are using extremes as examples of prejudice.Prejudice could easily manifest itself in the form of:

1) A lot of black people are thieves
2) A lot of men in parks are pedophiles

JosBoy4Lif:
If they are so functional why are they lacking practicality?
Prejudice beliefs do not act on facts for Goodness sake!!

Who says they lack practicality?The example I used exemplifies prejudice serving a useful purpose.

Many,if not most,prejudiced beliefs are based on facts.Many "I'slamophobes" base their prejudice on actual examples of i'slamist violence,a homophobe in W.Europe may base his prejudice on the fact that homosexuals are the biggest vectors of HIV/AIDS,e.t.c.

JayFK:
How about the other party involved? I'm just curious
4 Play your black right? Okay let's say you're walking down the street and a Policeman stops you to search you and you just know its because you're black, are you saying its justified? or its for a good cause? surely you won't take offense because it is more efficient for them?

Instinctively,I would be offended but I still understand why they do it.At the end of the day,the main victims of knife crimes in London(so-called black-on-black crime)are blacks,so this would be a small price to pay for a larger more useful cause.

[quote author=blue-sky link=topic=121068.msg2070886#msg2070886 date=1205892581]yes, it is beneficial for the police to stop young people, ok thats good prejudice.

But theres always 2 sides to everything.

it is a common fact that the police do more stop and search on young black guys than young white guys. So, if the police are stopping and searching more young people, and their prejudice is influencing them to stop black guys, is this not a bad thing.

I know many of my friends have stopped and searched by the police, when they havent done nothing wrong, but because of thir skin colour their immediately thought of to be criminals.[/quote]Why do you seem to acknowledge the rationale in 'profiling' young people but immediately recoil at the prospect of profiling young black men?

If the underlying rationale is sound-to find as efficiently as possible,those in possession of knives-then the Police would be justified in singling out young black men for. . . . . . surprise, surprise;guess which race is disproportionately more likely to be carrying knives in London.

Of course,like I noted before,these preconceptions may be grossly exaggerated,especially when being put into practice, but it still doesn't vitiate their underlying soundness and functionality.

Uche2nna:
Well in that context You maybe right.
Maybe I should put my question this way : All prejudices might be built on pre concieved opinions but are all pre concieved opinions considered as "prejudice"
Cos in the example above, I don't see anybody being discriminated against.

I think the young men will beg to differ.

I would say that the point about discrimination is to a certain extent irrelevant for prejudice can be present in the absence of discrimination.

[quote author=blue-sky link=topic=121068.msg2070866#msg2070866 date=1205891811]but what if i was i young black guy, walking down the street of london, because of your prejudice, i more likely to stopped, even though i have done nothing wrong, than if i was a young white guy, is this not bad?[/quote]The reality is that the Police can't search everybody,this would be demanding the impossible. Here,a preconceived opinion about the likelihood of a particular person to be in possession of knives would enable the police efficiently execute its tasks.

Of course,there is always the possibility of a prejudice being effectively exaggerated but,in the circumstance I pointed out,prejudice does serve a useful purpose.

Not all preconceived opinions(prejudices) are wrong.Many preconceptions are based on evidence.

If I was a police officer doing random searches for concealed knives on the streets on London and I decide to select young men,mainly, for my searches-my decision making here can be seen by many as fitting the definition of prejudice-but it would be a "prejudice" based on tons of indisputable evidence showing that young men are more likely to carry knives than any other segment of society.

Wouldn't the above be "prejudice" which serves a good purpose?

[quote author=Iyke-D link=topic=118668.msg2043238#msg2043238 date=1205182820]For all his greenness and "inexperience", the fact shows that he has managed to out-raise
(funds) and out-organize his opponents till date. That is not by accident as it shows a lot
about his managerial or organizational abilities.[/quote]People who seek to demonstrate Obama's supposed competence by referring to his fund-raising are engaged in an absurd display of illogic.If this is the template for measuring competence,they face the supreme irony that the fund-raising juggernaut of US national politics since the beginning of the 21st century is none other than President George W Bush. By this measure,Bush must be an epitome of "managerial or organizational abilities."

McKren:
Meanwhile on America, the weapon of mass destruction that I know now is the fear mongering that led america into Iraq. It has created more terrorist than any American foreign policy in history. It has made friends and fans of America make comments that should be heard from only people who are anti-american.

That is the idealogy the next President of US will have to change.

I wonder where Obama's assertion that he would be prepared to militarily intervene in Pakistan fits into this your narrative.

What creates terrorists is not US policy per se but an Islamist ideology that promotes a culture of death.What is happening in Iraq is child's play compared to what is happening in Darfur and South Sudan,yet Africans are not going about blowing up Arabs in revenge.

doyin13:
Is it his putting game then?

The way the commentator at the weekend put it was,although he is not the best in any particular aspect,in all aspects,he is very strong.Most importantly,he is very consistent. He has incredible mental strength.

Sometimes you see some golfers make a couple of eagle putts on one day,the next day they are producing triple bogeys. I don't think Tiger shot the lowest round on any particular day during the weekend but he was consistent enough to produce a winning performance especially when it mattered most.

doyin13:
Talking of Churchill. . . .he was witty alright. My fave to Lady Astor

"Sir, you're drunk!"

"Yes, Madam, I am. But in the morning, I will be sober and you will still be ugly."

No mind Churchill.Lady Astor wasn't that ugly. http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:1NqAtNfMLnwJ:jssgallery.org/Paintings/Lady_Astor.htm+Churchill+to+Lady+Astor&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk

There was another witty exchange with her:

Lady Astor said, "Winston, if I were your wife I'd put poison in your coffee." Whereupon Winston said, "Nancy, if I were your husband I'd drink it."

Driving the farthest isn't even one Woods strengths,Vijay Singh hits the ball farther.

His point is that the basis of his new found faith is as immune to empirical verification as all faiths.

JayFK:
Obama sounds very much like Ronald Reagan, and that gives me the chills.

WTF? Obama doesn't even sound a tad like Reagan!

doyin13:
I meant his speech making

That was what I was referring to.Churchill's speeches had substance and he often didn't mind whose ox was gored.

Obama's best quotes come from speeches or soundbites written for him. Churchill was naturally gifted with wit.

doyin13:
Well he did admit he has heard on many occasions things he disagreed with his pastor on.


But hearing his speech. . . . .He reminds me so much of Churchill for some reason. Can't quite put my finger on why

Churchill was a brave straight-talker.This guy is a smarmy pol who thrives on being all things to all people.