₦airaland Forum

aisha2:
Yes Oh, Hope its true, Kidnappers collect your share, yeye man let his suffering begin

Is this the self-professed activist revelling at the thought that someone's mother is held captive?

The tone of Sanusi's comments can be justified if he's merely a public commentator but he's a Central Bank Gov. He has a bit of verbal diarrhoea.

I was wondering today whether I'm a perv or to blame the woman when I managed to sustain a full erection in my lunch break with a female colleague. Her clothing wasn't helping matters. Thank God for dress down Friday which meant I was wearing jeans, would have had a lot of explaining to do.

One day, I might have to strap my abunna to my thighs with duct tape to conceal a raging trouser snake.

Old debate. My view is that 'bad' guys are more successful with women because they have a lot of practice which gives better insight into women. With experience, confidence is gained and women love confident men together with knowledge of all the tricks in the book.

Women overestimate how easily they can figure out a man. The fact is they can't. A determined bad guy with low conscientiousness will find it easier to manipulate and win their hearts.

Like Sagamite pointed out, women only begin to figure out men much later in life as they too have accumulated experience.

The last CBN Gov was a Christian and he didn't do a great job, Sanusi's religious leanings is the least of our problems.

Ibime:
They should ban states from raising bonds until corruption is arrested.

It is bad enough that politicians already steal today's money, but it would be a shame if these same people have access to funds that will be paid back by the next generations.

mbulela:
this would have been so funny if it was not a serious matter.
These men are beginning to loot the future.
With the inherent risk of default due to corruption and instability of governance, i wonder who is underwriting these sorts of bonds.

Exactly. They are stealing tomorrow's money today.

mikeansy:
Sani Lulu is not bigger than EFCC but while Nigeria remains part of FIFA, NFF's relationship with Nigerian Government will be that of an autonomous body and hence any move to investigate it or dissolve it by Government will attract a Ban anyway. So the only way to have a chance to legitimately do this and not attract a FIFA ban is to severe relationship with FIFA.

I should like to think FIFA leaders are filled with folks with common sense and if Nigeria emerges out of this fiasco better off footballwise in terms of organisation of football, then FIFA can only be reasonable.

If FIFA say we can not be part of it for life just because we tried to catch up with the rest of the world in terms of football organisation then may be the expulsion will be worth it.

What stops the Govt from ending its funding of the NFF? Maybe the NFF will learn to self-finance itself. Banning football plays into Lulu's hands as it will elicit punitive measures against Nigeria.

If the NFF is corrupt, why not simply stop all Govt funding of the NFF?

“Please, refer to my order dated 14 August 2009, directing your removal as an Executive Director of …. bank. Following the said order, several representations were made to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), for a review of the circumstances leading to your removal from office.
“The management has duly considered these representations and wishes to state that your removal does not amount to being blacklisted by CBN. Accordingly, CBN hereby confirms that it has no objection to your seeking employment in the financial services sector subject to the express approval by CBN where required.

“However, it should be noted that the position stated above does not constitute a waiver of any action which CBN or any other agency of government may take against you should the on-going investigation in … bank reveal any serious misconduct or any infraction of extant laws or regulations.
“All relevant agencies are being advised to release your travel documents or any property in their possession,”

A bit of a climbdown considering his earlier rhetoric regarding these same people. I wonder whether he faced pressures from above.

What a load of drivel. The hyperbole used in American politics is ridiculous. I think Obama is too apologetic to the Muslim/Arab world but he has by no means lied to the Jewish people or has American ceased to defend Israel.

How can it be wrong when all you did was reinterpret a data? I.e You appeared to redefine competition as accepting low wages and potential poor working conditions. How is that proving the original data wrong? Jeez. Interpreting a known factor so as to favour your view point, do not prove anything wrong or right. It is merely a view point. Oponu.

What else does this cretin understand by wage competitive? In a wage competitive environment, wage inflation will be curtailed and this makes Britain's economy more competitive as a whole and it makes things easier for the BOE in curtailing inflation. Are you always this st-upid.

That may be hard going for the working class but in a market economy, there are winners and losers. For instance, what is good for public sector workers is not necessarily good for the economy at large. With labour flexibility, local people will be forced  to be equally cost competitive or to learn a new trade. Many of the working class already loaf around on benefits anyway.

Look, not to go round and round again. You subscribe to the school of thoughts that Immigration is needed right? On the other hand, I believe that should be regulated better than it is right now, and I welcome the move the current government is looking at. You see, it is not as hard like you are making it.

If anything, you seem unable to distinguish between wanting a tightly regulated control - caps et al - and not wanting immigrants. I think that is the misconception right there, and that is your problem with me. By all means, let immigrant come, but let us have a cap on those who can come here.  Seriously, nothing is about to change that view point of mine.

Why do you disregard the views of the business community which effectively pays your wages. I believe that the UK  needs more labour, particularly in certain areas, as various studies of the UK business environment show. The UK pension system is a Ponzi scheme waiting to collapse as the ratio of the working age to the pension age shrinks. We clearly need more labour for now.

Think of it this way. Think of living standards in the 60s and 70s compared to now. If immigration was so harmful, how do you explain the rise in per capita income even for the working class? Do you want the UK to be like Japan whose xenophobic policies have contributed to a stagnant economy.

It is a bit rich that you used google for your debate to at least look for articles that supports your view point, but when I do the same you have the guts to talks. Dude you are awesome.

How about we stick to the debate at hand? Even better, how about you stick to your views and let me do the same?

I used google in response to your copy and paste. You have not addressed a single point raised in my links. You are simply a verminous oaf.

By the way, I will be busy tomorrow making sure another immigrant who is putting a strain on the NHS have their blood result analysed on time. As we are not allowed to refuse treatment to those who may be putting strain on NHS. What a muppet.

What would the NHS be without immigrant n-iggers like you? What about all those immigrant doctors and nurses without whom the NHS can barely function? The ratio of NHS workers who are of immigrant stock shows that the immigrant population is a net benefit to the NHS. It's only fair that immigrants get to use the same system their labour supports. If you can't see this, you are a slowpoke.

ElRazur:
As for Google and what not, using a search giant for sources is not exactly news in internet debate or is it?

It's also a vehicle for any ignoramus like you who can't articulate a coherent argument to copy and paste material that they deem supportive.

Let's have a debate. Let's take the issue of the effect of immigration on working class wages. If you,instead, want to have a battle of copy and paste, I'm off work tomorrow, so I will give you a run for your money.

ElRazur:
I posted two links and it killed all your points, you reacted by pasting views that supported yours. I suppose you want a chain-reaction type effect over this? I choose not to.

What a self-regarding ignoramus. I pointed out why they are wrong using my own arguments. I pasted articles to show you anyone can copy and paste and to show you the prevailing view among most economists on the subject of immigration.

Can you respond to my copy and paste using your own arguments?

ElRazur:
4play, some other time.

You are not about to change my view.

Why, isn't there more articles you can paste here to make up for your superficiality, Mr Limited Resources? Not into changing Nairalanders' views, I just love bashing flimsily supported arguments and the University of Google forumites who hold them.

ElRazur:
In bed here, so keeping it simple.

So all in all you disagree with view point which shows that immigration is not as beneficial like you are claiming? Nice.

Dude, it is obvious, economics is not my strong point, but it do not make my understanding or view point wrong or irrelevant. I happen to share the views of those who knows better than you.

Trying to link my view point with that of BNP just shows how really are full of poo. Honestly.

And my links from various economists are not worthy of note? You are clearly an i-diot. It's clear where the majority of economists' opinion is on immigration: Though this is a US article, it is reflective of the prevailing view on the subject matter.

Virtually all economists agree that immigration increases the wealth of the United States. For example a group of economists all of whom had been either president of the American Economic Association or a member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, were asked “On balance, what effect has twentieth century immigration had on the nation’s economic growth.” 81% of these prominent economists answered “very favorable”, 19% said slightly favorable, not a single one said slightly or very unfavorable (See Appendix C, to Julian Simon’s The Economic Consequences of Immigration, 1989, Basil Blackwell).

http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=486

That your opinion is based on superficial understanding of the issue is blindingly obvious. Most people on NL hold strong opinions on issues they have limited understanding of and just like you did, will copy and paste when probed further forgetting anyone can google.

My reference to the BNP stands. If resources are limited now, won't the optimum policy be to get rid of all immigrants with the effect that more resources will left for the fewer UK inhabitants. Face it, you have not though this through and know little about the subject.

ElRazur:
You are an Imbec!le.

At the time my parents were here, the strains are not felt. 60s 70s. And there was never a society ill-feeling towards immigrants, as a result of strain on the infrastructures and society itself.

I am not sure how your points apply to me. What more do you have.

This man is a blithering id-iot. Strains not felt in the 60s and 70s? This will not be a period when Britain was considerably poorer, heavily indebted and required a bailout from the IMF?

How convenient for this oaf to proclaim that his retarded ''limited resources'' argument does not apply when his parents migrated but now applies now that his immigrant black a-ss is settled in the UK. Tell that to the anti-immigration brigade in the 60s and 70s.

Since when did limited resources become relative to time? Very convenient from an ignoramus. Think of it, if resources are currently limited, the optimum policy will be the BNP policy which is to get rid of all non-indigenes. After all, this will leave the local white population with more resources.

It’s a bit late in the night so I can’t give a comprehensive reply.

Ideally, I was expecting you to disprove how and why resources are not limited. Using the most obvious example, there is a limit to how much houses can be built in any particular geographical location, which in turns affect number of people who can live there etc. So I guess using your logic, there will be continuous emergence of new houses forever in a particular geographical area? Even using your last argument of building skyscrapers, there is still a limit to which can be built, and as such goes back to the original point that resources are limited. Nice one.

Resources are not in fact limited as the UK can sustain more people, evidenced by the fact that it is not even in the top 40 most densely populated states.

Your hypothesis is moronic as it unrealistic. What pays for housing is financial resources and that increases with economic growth. The UK has not reached the point where the ratio of housing to land is unsustainable.

Oh please, the Lords Economic Affairs Committee are asking for capped immigration, in order to help with economic growth and other economical reasons. Take time to read that, it practically poo all over you half baked theories. Oh, one of them so happen to be an Economist too. Shocker.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3656171.ece

The arguments in your link are a bit more sophisticated than your harebrained “resources are limited” drivel and I’m not surprised to see a lack of unanimity amongst economists. Only a consummate slowpoke will deem as a shock that he found an economist who expressed a contrary opinion. Even your link refers to the CBI which is pro-immigration.

Fair to say I disagree with the views expressed in your link and do not regard it as the general opinion of economists and the business community.

Dude your arguments are weak. My Parents aren't here when the strains of immigration is obvious like it is right now. Any more? If anything, your attempt to make a cheap point, just goes to buttress my point that immigration needs to be checked. There is so much this nation can take.

How predictable! I knew you will claim that things were different then. Strange since the same arguments you are making now were vigorously expressed then.

Your idiocy is startling. If resources are limited, were they “unlimited” then? At what point did resources become limited?

It is weird, but here is someone saying otherwise here too.
http://jcwi./2010/05/19/cap-in-hand-a-limit-on-migration-serves-best-those-who-are-already-here/

I await your reply on the issues he raised there with figures to back it up.

No, the NHS receives budget and allocation, such allocation are not from you so called benefits that the immigrants add to the economy.

To even suggest that the NHS isn't under-strain in some areas as a result of Immigration is just idiotic. Practically, every NHS trust in SE London falls in these category. But yeah, I expect you to claim otherwise.

All public sector budgets comes from taxation and borrowing which is a function of economic activity. An increase in economic activity helps pay for your NHS. The NHS is hardly the place you will use to justify curtailing immigration as the NHS will collapse without immigrant doctors and nurses. Only a boneheaded oaf like you will fail to see that.

You really are daft. Here is the reason why:

Quote
Immigration should be capped, according to a parliamentary report published today which concludes that record numbers of new immigrants have had “little or no impact” on economic well being.

Some groups, including the low-paid, young people seeking jobs and some ethnic minorities, may have suffered because of competition for work from immigrants willing to accept low wages and poor working conditions.


And other one why you are very daft:

Quote
It is evident that the immigration levels of the last decade have caused significant problems as well. Since 1997 the UK has seen the largest and most sustained rise in immigration in the UK’s history, a five-fold increase in the ten years to 2007.

Recently published figures have shown that 512,000 people came to the UK as immigrants in the year to December 2008, little change on 527,000 in the year to December 2007. These figures show the pressure immigration places on public services such as housing, health and schools.

Grants of settlement also rose by 19 per cent from 124,855 in 2007 to 148,740 in 2008. This fact shows that the pressure on public resources, imposed by high immigration numbers in recent years, will be permanent.

I disagree as average unemployment has been lower over the past decade which has seen more immigration than say the 70s which had lower immigration. Income per capita is higher now than in the 60s or 70s for even the working class. If unemployment has increased today, that's because of the financial crises which a retard like you can't possibly blame on immigrants.

You are clever.

It is blindingly obvious. If the presence of migrants in particular areas curtails resources, the areas like the North East with relatively fewer migrants will be booming with abundant resources.

Stop saying the same thing over and over. I am guessing this is your definition of competition? ". . . . the low-paid, young people seeking jobs and some ethnic minorities, may have suffered because of competition for work from immigrants willing to accept low wages and poor working conditions. "

No thanks. But I am sure the Local Builders and those with similar jobs will disagree with you.

Yes, the local builders charge uncompetitive rates. I can get the same quality of work done for a fraction of the cost and multiplied across board, this is beneficial for the economy. Only a comprehensively moronic fool like you will argue that higher cost is good for the economy. Why should UK consumers as a whole pay inflated costs to keep uncompetitive locals happy?

No it do not. There is enough here already, let us employ the cap/controlled approach. Even the economist you are banging on, actually agree to this.

You must be a congenital slowpoke. All economists are to be found in your links and those views express their consensus?


I too can copy and paste:

Most economists argue that immigration is sign of a healthy economy creating jobs and attracting migrants. And since immigrants are, on average, younger than UK-born people, they do not contribute to Britain's pensions crisis. http://www.workpermit.com/news/2005_04_26/uk/uk_immigration_debate.htm


Due to the ageing populations of many Western countries4, the immigration of young adult workers will become essential if pensions schemes are going to last in to the future.

The free migration of open labour markets benefits entire economic regions. The opposite, the nationalist raising of labour barriers against foreigners, has the same effect as trade tariffs: to distort the market, reduce wage efficiency and balance and to harm the economy as a whole. Ironically, attempting to secure local jobs for local residents has the effect of shrinking the economy, therefore reducing the long-term number of overall jobs. Strongly reducing immigration and stopping foreign workers is not worth the economic instability and the loss of freedom and would be hypocritical, given the numbers of Brits that migrate.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/UK/immigration.html

Claims that migrants "take our jobs" and "cut our pay" are misplaced and wrong, according to research published today by the Institute for Public Policy Research. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/26/immigration-eastern-europe-jobs

Dustman et al (2005) examined the way immigration impacted native outcomes in the UK using data from the 1983-2000 Labour Force Surveys. They used pooled data for eighteen years across seventeen regions (n=306) but, because of data availability, for the period 1992-2000 for wages. Empirically they estimated a series of regressions with the immigrant-native ratio as a control. Their main findings were that there was little evidence of any adverse outcomes for natives on wages, employment or unemployment, consistent with the findings for the US and elsewhere.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/speeches/2007/speech297.pdf

ElRazur:
Using some of the logic around here, it is all good to support lax/unchecked immigration simply because of the colour of one skin and where one may come from? Awesome. While ignoring the issues and problems that comes with it?

Schmuck, let me lay out for you the logical conclusion of your idiocy:

1:Resources are limited

2:Immigration is a strain on resources

3:It follows from the above 2 points that your presence in the UK is a strain on resources as your presence is the outcome of immigration.

Tell me where I'm wrong in the above.

Resources are limited. Fact. Resources should be managed effectively. Fact.  Anyone saying other wise is a pleb.

What kind of  vermin thinks asserting that something is a fact makes it one? A country's resources are effectively infinite as long as the economy keeps growing. How do you think the British Isles has managed to keep up with the explosion in population over 2 millennia?

Since you appear to be talking the same poo from last time, allow me to remind you that as a nation[b], it is in the interest of all for immigration to be controlled, whether immigration aids economic growth or not[/b]. As it stand, UK's economy do not rely solely on immigration. No?

I mean, it is like saying Red light districts aids the local economy, but then they shouldn't be in check or regulated. What a joke.

What slowpoke thinks that it is in the interest of the Govt to curtail economic growth on the basis of some harebrained notion of limited resources? The parts in bold illustrate your strawman's argument. No one here has called for 'unchecked' or 'unregulated' immigration. If your comprehension is limited, I obviously can't help you.

Typical naija man mentality - If you can't argue the point, take a shot at parent. Gosh, you are so clever.

It's not a shot at your parents but a statement of the obvious. If resources are limited and immigration is a strain on resources then your parents', presuming you were born here, migration to the UK is arguably parasitic on the UK's 'limited' resources.  

While resources are not infinite, the number of immigration needed to be capped or regulated. Fact. I work in the NHS, and to be honest, I will take what I see practically everyday over your views. It is true, influx of immigrants can be a strain on the limited  resources. NHS is one of the places this model fits in. But I expect you to tell me other wise as to how the NHS have infinite resources etc.

What has your uninformed rants to offer on the sustainability of present immigration levels. So the views of the CBE, economists and the business community is irrelevant and your benighted views more salient?

Economic growth pays for the NHS. Any curtailment of immigration which undermines economic growth will undermine the NHS. Get that into your silly head.

What claims? No, I am asking if you will prefer an open door policy, or a relaxed approach to immigration. So if you are not in favour of uncontrolled immigration, what is your problem when a policy to make UK immigration policy more effective?   Beats me.

I'm of the view that the UK needs more outside labour because it helps economic growth. How do numpties like you think your public services is paid for without the economy growing? I'm obviously not in support of an 'open door' policy but I think the UK could do with more migrants.

There are many parts of the UK that lack migrants, why don't you move there. I'm sure you will find an abundance of 'resources'.

Please using your non-Malthusian ideas, explain to me as to how unchecked immigration benefits say Hosing, Health services etc?

Migration makes UK industry wage competitive, supplies skilled labour and curtails the demographic time bomb. Of course, a benighted ignoramus like you can't comprehend the implication of this.

Oh before you start posting the same clap trap, as it stand UK's immigration have been in shambles over years, thanks to the previous government and co, as it stand the perceived idea that the UK's immigration is effectively controlled under the previous government do not stand up to scrutiny.  So any attempt to make it work should be welcome. No?

UK immigration needs to be changed,  it needs more immigrants. I will take the views of economists and the business community more than your idiotic views.

adconline:
Is your argument now that the US could not have recovered from the ‘08 recession without fiscal stimulus? I think that view is now largely discredited[/b]
Comparing this great recession to  IT's burst in 2001 is pure intellectual dishonesty. How many banks failed in 2001 as result of 01 recession and how many banks failed in 07 -08 recession. What  was unemployment rate in 2001 and what was unemployment rate in 2008-09

Your points are becoming even more disoriented. There was a TARP bailout for the banks and quantitative easing by the FED which dealt with the specific banking crises. This is distinguished from Obama's stimulus package which is predicated on the idea that the state can manage aggregate demand.

The severity of the recession is irrelevant here as the same justification for using fiscal stimulus in major recessions applies equally to mild recessions. The only difference is the size of the fiscal stimulus needed.

Your point is that a hypothetical scenario is the same as a real life scenario. It was the neoclassical hawks who sold us the ideas of bailout and stimulus. Why did they not let what they learned from economic textbooks play out? What's NABE position on bank bailout? How did it help banks and what percentage of the stimulus has been expended in relation to economic growth outcomes?
These were their positions in 2008-09, compare it with their position in 2010. It makes you wonder if they thought of economic as chemistry.

Even more disoriented points, I think you are arguing for argument's sake. The banking bailout, Obama supported it, can be justified on the grounds that the banking sector plays a pivotal role in the economy. It is those numpties like you who justify Obama's fiscal stimulus and his continued deficit spending that bear the onus of proving how these actually pay for themselves in the long run.

Deficit spending cannot be sustained without a credible deficit reduction programme as the Tories/Lib Dems have proposed. Those who think the state can manage the economic cycle have had their ass kicked throughout history and currently in Europe. It's a shame ignoramuses like you fail to recognise the looming debt crises.

ElRazur:
@4play
Typical. **insert roll eyes smiley here**Listen, we had this discussion that other time, and as it stand here is a simple model answer for you - Resources are limited and as such should be manage effectively.Now, if controlled immigration is one of the ways this can be achieved I have no problem with it.

Secondly, it is ludicrous and very illogical of you to think as such. I suppose because I happen to be Black, using your logic, I should not be in support of controlled immigration? Yeah, let us open the borders to every manliness and harry. That way the likes of you won't think there is some sort of "crisis in regards to identity".

Your points are moronic. The talk about limited resources is unfounded as immigration aids economic growth which increases resources.

If resources are limited, then the migration of your parents to the UK harms the UK as it is a strain on the 'limited resources'. Unless of course you want to use the convenient excuse that resources only became limited subsequently. You seem to forget that this argument, including the 'limited resources' meme, has been used for decades and was used by the likes of Enoch Powell.

You make misleading claims by talking of uncontrolled immigration and open door policies as if anyone can just get up and relocate to the UK. It's a strawman's argument as no one is in favour of ''uncontrolled immigration''. UK businesses note that there is a severe skills shortage in the UK and that more migration is needed, not less. You, instead, insist on repeating the same ignorant dross about limited resources, a long discredited Malthusian idea when your black ass could as much be deemed as parasitic if you follow your absurd logic to its logical conclusion.

England getting their excuses in ahead of time. If these calls were always made accurately, England would never have won the World Cup. 45 minutes more for the Germans to shut these people up.

@Dayo

Don't you think England should make an official complaint to FIFA about Germany? This is unfair!  

@ElRazur,

Stop being more English than the English. If severe limitations on immigration was a net benefit, Japan would be thriving today whilst the UK and the US will be wastelands. Look at within the UK itself, higher migration levels to London and the rest of the South East has not made them less prosperous areas than say the North.

You can't help but marvel at the rather supercilious attitude of,''I'm good enough to be here, but others are not''. Talk of identity crises.

adconline:
01 recession should now be compared with 07-08 recession? Intellectually dishonesty is what we really do not need to drive home our points.

Stop being a disingenuous oaf. The Keynesian argument is that a recession, irrespective of severity, is a fall in aggregate demand which can be remedied by fiscal stimulus.

Is your argument now that the US could not have recovered from the ‘08 recession without fiscal stimulus? I think that view is now largely discredited: http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/26/news/economy/NABE_survey/

Let me rephrase my question why didn't neoclassical hawks implement a contractionary fiscal policy when they had the mandate to do so?

More a craven climbdown than a rephrase. Where deficit hawks are in charge of policy during a recession, they will not use deficit spending to recover from the recession. A good example is the Bush I administration in response to the 90/91 recession. By the time Clinton was sworn in ’93, the US had had 4 consecutive quarters of +4% real GDP growth.

For me, deficit spending during a recession is not in itself a problem. The problem is the US is already overleveraged and the Obama administration, whatever the merits of its fiscal stimulus, does not seem to have a credible medium or long term plan to rein in the deficit. Whilst the market may be understanding of Govt deficit spending during a recession, it will eventually balk at the prospect of continuing to finance unsustainable deficits long into the future. That’s what the Europeans have just found out, Obama should not assume that the US will be spared or that the day of reckoning will come after it has left office.

Ibime:
In light of recent developments with the Yuan, is it possible to revisit the fundamental arguments on which this thread was created?

Nope. The Yuan is still not fully convertible, what the PBOC is doing is to allow greater flexibility in managing the peg to the dollar. They are effectively going back to how things were prior to September '08, and the Yuan still did not serve as a reserve currency then.

The Chinese Govt does not want Central Banks buying up the Yuan as that will mean that it appreciates and undermines their export competitiveness. Contrary to the cock and bull claim you googled up in response to my question, the Yuan does not serve as a reserve currency for Norway, Malaysia,e.t.c.

Deutschland Deutschland!

Have a feeling England will win this one. Germany's defence is a worry and it's still a young team.

Come on Manschaft! Give the English a bloody nose. Love to hear them moan on radio phone-ins after they have been thumped.

ThiefOfHearts:
Main reason Im supportng Ghana is cos of how arrogant Americans esp the commentators are

dont know why they keep mentioning how small Ghana is, like that means anything

sore bastids

If anything in this tournament CIV is the best African team

See another traitor!  

FL Gators:
It would be funny if ESPN stops showcasing the world cup. .  . . sore losers lol

Shame on you. I'm sure you are a US citizen, yet, you're rejoicing that they lost. Traitor!  

There is a clear understanding that Nigeria is running a rotational presidency. How many Northerners ran against OBJ in 1999? To ensure political stability, the North should have another go come 2011.

adconline:
How could Cameron and co would have done during the recession? It's easier to say that Obama is clueless after he has rescued the economy. Any historical precedent where a govt ran  a contractionary fiscal policy  and the economy came out of a recession?

Rescued the economy indeed. I suppose it's the same way Bush rescued the economy from the 2001 recession. . . . that is until it all fell apart due to excessive credit growth which had been pumped in to recover from the recession.

Look no further than the UK, with the Thatcher administration's massive cuts in spending in the early 80s which many Keynesian economists warned would prove the death knell for the economy. Instead, Britain grew from a nation which had be bailed out just a few years earlier to one of the fastest growing economies in the G7.