₦airaland Forum

Diminishing returns since Get Rich or Die Tryin, each subsequent album album is worse than the previous.

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi invited hundreds of attractive Italian "hostesses" to a villa in Rome last night for an evening at which he urged them to convert to Islam and told them Christianity was based on a fraud, Italian reports said today.

The Libyan leader is in Italy to attend a United Nations summit on world food security. Reports said that Colonel Gaddafi's aides phoned an agency which provides elegantly dressed young women to act as hospitality staff at events.

The agency was asked to send 500 women to the residence of Hafed Gaddur, the Libyan ambassador in Rome, where Colonel Gaddafi is staying, over a series of evenings during the three day summit.

The agency advertised for "500 pleasing girls between 18 and 35 years of age, at least one metre 70 high." The women were asked to dress elegantly but soberly, with both miniskirts and cleavage-revealing decolletage firmly banned.

Paola Lo Mele, a journalist with the Italian news agency ANSA who posed as a hostess to enter the villa, said the 200 women who attended yesterday had to pass through metal detectors, before being ushered by white turbanned Libyan staff into a "sumptuous drawing room" with white and red divans arranged in a semi-circle in front of Colonel Gaddafi. He arrived an hour late. He sat next to an interpreter and two of his renowned female guards.

The Libyan leader said it was "untrue that Islam is against women" according to Corriere della Sera. He urged the women to convert to Islam, pointing out that whereas there were four different Gospels, there was only one Koran.

He then observed — to "general incredulity" — that Christ had not died on the Cross and been resurrected, as Christians believe, because the person crucified had been "a look-alike" who was substituted for the real Jesus.

"Convert to Islam. Jesus was sent to the Jews, not for you. Mohammed, on the other hand, was sent for all human beings," he reportedly said. "Whoever goes in a different direction than Mohammed is wrong. God's religion is Islam, and whoever follows a different one, in the end, will lose," Colonel Gaddafi added, according to La Stampa.

He said women must do only "what their physical condition allows them", and spoke about the role that women played during the Second World War. He claimed that in the West women "have often been used as pieces of furniture, changed whenever it pleases men. And this is an injustice." He then invited the women to travel to the Islamic holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia.

As the soiree broke up at midnight he handed out copies of the Koran, his own Green Book on the Libyan revolution, and a pamphlet entitled How to be a Muslim.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6918541.ece

Imagine a non-Muslim leader visiting a Muslim country and telling the local people that Islam is a fraud.

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=351718.msg4932456#msg4932456 date=1258325592]@4Play,
There is nothing little about what Obama is proposing.  This is nothing but another entitlement program. Last I checked, entitlement programs have eaten deep into the GDP.  Even if the status quo is maintained, these programs are forecast to eat even deeper. Imagine what will happen with this entitlement monstrosity called universal healthcare.[/quote]Mea culpa, I shouldn't call it 'little', nevertheless, US healthcare expenditure currently makes up a larger proportion of GDP than any other OECD country. That's clearly unacceptable. A significant majority of the growth in consumer spending in the US that has helped spurn a massive global imbalance is attributable to healthcare spending.

We need to backtrack a little bit from your premise of its cost implication. Question is what has made it more costly than what it is now? What has limited competition? Could those be govt regulation?

I agree that we need less regulation but there is little empirical evidence to show that the outsized US healthcare spending is purely down to too much regulation.

By the way, if coverage for everyone is the goal, then the bill has failed even before it is enacted.  There is no way coverage can be guaranteed for everyone. Isn't that why Obama and co now want to criminalise people who refuse to obtain insurance under their plan?  If coverage is guaranteed, why the fines and threats of jail time?  Isn't this part of the problem the article points out? You either follow the leading of the centralplanners with unquestioned loyalty, or you are criminalised for exercising you freedom of choice.

I don't like the Obama plan(if he does have one). I think they should scrap the whole thing and have a single payer model like the UK or simply expand Medicaid to include everyone without health insurance. Either way, this will cover everyone.

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=351718.msg4927418#msg4927418 date=1258242647]@4Play,
You have totally missed the point 4Play.  This is about the role of govt in the society.  While the US govt has gone beyond its limit, Nigeria's hasn't got to the starting block.  Both govt are on opposite side of the divide.[/quote]That may be so in general but on the specific issue of healthcare, the US will surely benefit from a little state intervention.

The principle behind lessening state intervention and relying on private enterprise is that private enterprise promotes efficiency. However, the US health system in its present form has failed to achieve these objective. Not only is it incredibly costly but it has failed to serve its basic purpose, that of providing coverage for everyone.

What metric do you use in determining that the Govt has gone too far? For me, if a privately run system is failing, it's time to try something that has worked effectively in other developed countries - state run healthcare.

So why not let people be held responsible for their action?  People are aware of the consequences of smoking and still choose to smoke.  That is what is called freedom of choice.

The ill effects of tobacco affects third parties through second hand smoke. Also, the health burdens brought about the ill health of smokers is borne by society in general. It's what is called a  Pigovian tax

posakosa:
maybe if Hassan had a WIFE, he would have put his anger on her puhssy.

The wife get regenerating hymen?

bawomolo:
doesn't this tragedy say a lot about the mental stress on US troops?

Being a soldier sure isn't easy.

True, but Hassan arguably didn't face any more stress than the thousands of US combat troops who have done 2 or 3 tours already and none of whom have opened fire on colleagues.

Men against boys and the boys won.  

Thank God. The thought of these dishonest rogues called the Golden Eaglets lifting the trophy would fill any right thinking person with dread.

nolongTing:
No its your mother you are talking about, don't get it twisted you little gay

Told you, piggy is squealing here. Must be nights spent bitten by mosquitoes and listening to the din of generators.

Patriotism indeed, more like rectal-cranial inversion. I think NoLongThing is one of those pigs at a refuse dump. Thinks the whole place reeks of cinnamon.

nolongTing:
I think you are a bit overexcited, who is [size=13pt]you lot?[/size] and [size=13pt]imposing your will[/size] you are an immigrant in the UK talking to me like that? Paleeeseze, think before you talk silly Geeza  I am simply stating that professionals (you don't sound like one) living abroad are entitled to criticise as I do myself but it would be nice to think of how we can contribute to the solution rather than kicking people while they are down.

In fact, I migrated to Nigeria, not the other way round. You see, woolly thinking is the hallmark of inmates of the nut house called Nigeria.

It's not a question of kicking people when they're down. Any sane person will feel a sense of outrage at the state of the country. Instead, what we get is knee-jerk defensiveness over constructive criticisms and retarded blithering about the lack of patriotism.

Cancer of the mind in full effect here.

nolongTing:
Why don't Nigerians living abroad like yourself return and set up a food standards agency to assist the government in ensuring that food vendors adhere to hygiene standards?

We can't impose our will on you lot. See how we're trying to help you guys see the light on this forum but it's going in vain. Like taking a dog to church.

edoyad:
Sauron's i can understand , but that p*ssy tease idiot, whom i suspect to be  one of dayo's usernames is just oozing stupidity straight from his fingers into the key board.

Sauron you just said Man U's victory in 91 helped the English cause in Europe. I want you to tell me how victories by Arsenal and Chelsea in 94 and 98 didn't do same
And dont give me that consistency crap cos i know teams that consistently appear in group stages of Europe to go out in the group stages.

Cretin, the overall performance of Utd, particularly in the UCL, puts the combined performances of all the other English clubs in the 90s in the shade.

In 97, Utd made it to the Semis, in 98, the Q/F and in 99 actually won it. What did Blackburn(95), Newcastle(96 & 97), Arsenal(98) do when they played in the UCL? Absolutely nothing. They were as sh*t as your reasoning.

Utd's performances helped England's cause in a way that the combined performances of the rest didn't.

edoyad:
No body's attributing coefficients to Englands performance in the 70s and 80r. Go back to the beginning of the Argument and understand.
I'm telling you England has always been a major league in Europe and were always going to recover from the dark ages. You can't claim Man fcking Yoo rescued a league that was always destined to be one of the biggest.

If Manc's European victory in 91 added to the coefficient what did Arsenals do in 94 ? Subtract from it i suppose.

What a blithering idiot. There is no destiny in life. There were leagues that used to be powerful but are now a shadow of themselves.

That England was to return to its pinnacle was not guaranteed. Swallow your pride and admit United's performances helped in regaining England's dominance.

akinalabi:
       
Now I understand what Afam was saying. Why insult people that do not to live abroad?

I'm just stating the blindingly obvious. Many Nigerians live life as if they are totally oblivious to how screwed up things are.

How many of those millions of people celebrating over the Golden Eaglets victory in the S/F ever paused to wonder the absurdity of piling an U-17 tournament with old men? Ever driven on the highway and saw a corpse lying there and everyone going about their business like it is nothing out of the ordinary?

Who's even bringing up coefficients in the 70s and 80s? In those days the competition was straight forward, the champions of each nation were the only representatives.

You can't attribute England's 4 places to the performance of English clubs in the 70s/80s.

Ever marvelled at how pigs seem to revel in stench blissfully unaware of the sheer appalling state of their immediate surroundings?

They remind me of many Nigerians back home who, like pigs in a refuse dump, seem to go about their business totally comfortable with an environment any sane person will quickly recognise as having all the features of a mad house.

From the inept and openly corrupt officials that greet you at the airport to the trigger happy policemen that menace the highways, it's mind numbing that seemingly sane people feel totally at peace with this sort of environment.

This Obama is a socialist hogwash is just tiring. The idea that the state centralising the provision of healthcare to its citizens is a slippery road down to tyranny is bizarre. If the absence of Govt run social programs is the hallmark of individual liberty, countries like Nigeria would be a paradise.

My key gripe with Obama's spending policies is that it is unsustainable in the long term. The long term costs far outweigh the short term benefits. Obama can be rightly accused of sacrificing the nation's long term needs for the Democrats' short term political expediency not of being a socialist.

PapaBrowne:
Ok now, I am beginning to respect this guy!!
He confidently put his reputation at stake by predicting in the open that both Nigeria and Mozambique would win.
And it went as he predicted.

There is got to be something about this guy.

This is incredibly stupid. If we count the number of times I have accurately predicted a footballing outcome, maybe I too should be crowned a Man of God. Bunch of idiots.

I took this post from the Guardian blog. It's a rare attempt to do some research into the question of favoritism instead of the usual mouthing of fatuous inanities on this issue:

I've read a lot of opinionated nonsense on this thread, ranging from those who think that almost all decisions have gone in Manchester United's favour in recent years, to those who think that an opposition player has to "take a machete" to a United player for United to get a penalty. So I thought I'd do some research. I used statistics from all Premiership seasons since 2003 to the present day, using clubs who have been ever present in the Premiership during that period.

Quite simply, I wanted to find answers to some questions. Who has had the most penalties awarded to them over the years? Who has had the least penalties awarded against them? Do the refs really favour bigger teams rather than smaller teams?

The first two questions are easy to answer. Here is a list of the teams in order of the number of penalties they have scored since 2003:

Liverpool - 36
Arsenal - 35
Chelsea - 29
Aston Villa - 27
Fulham - 24
Tottenham - 23
Man Utd - 23
Blackburn - 22
Man City - 22
Everton - 21
Bolton - 19
Portsmouth - 19

And here are the same 12 teams in order of the number of penalties they have conceded:

Aston Villa - 29
Portsmouth - 28
Blackburn - 24
Bolton - 24
Fulham - 23
Everton - 21
Tottenham - 21
Man City - 19
Arsenal - 17
Liverpool - 15
Man Utd - 13
Chelsea - 12

Unsurprisingly, some would say, the big four find themselves in general at the top of the first list and the bottom of the second. The only notable exception here is how few penalties Manchester United have been awarded - they are equal 6th in this table. Liverpool (+21), Arsenal (+18) and Chelsea (+17) have the largest "penalty difference", while Portsmouth (-9) have suffered more than any other team. Manchester United lag well behind the other "Sky 4" clubs with a difference of +10.

So how do we tell where the referees' bias - if any - lies? The answer, of course, is that we can't conclusively. However, we can give ourselves an idea by comparing the number of penalties given and conceded as a percentage of the total number of goals scored and conceded. As I say, this is not definitive, but one can infer that a team with a lower than average percentage of penalties scored has been more harshly treated by the referees than a team with a higher than average percentage. Vice versa with penalties conceded.

Here are the twelve teams in order of percentage of goals since 2003 scored from the penalty spot:

Liverpool - 392 goals, 36 pens, 9.1%
Fulham - 281 goals, 24 pens, 8.6%
Aston Villa - 323 goals, 27 pens, 8.4%
Blackburn - 290 goals, 22 pens, 7.6%
Arsenal - 469 goals, 35 pens, 7.5%
Man City - 298 goals, 22 pens, 7.4%
Portsmouth - 268 goals, 19 pens, 7.1%
Everton - 301 goals, 21 pens, 7.0%
Tottenham - 338 goals, 23 pens, 6.8%
Bolton - 285 goals, 19 pens, 6.7%
Chelsea - 437 goals, 29 pens, 6.6%
Man Utd - 448 goals, 23 pens, 5.1%

And here are the same teams in order of percentage of goals conceded from the spot in the same period:

Aston Villa - 303 goals, 29 pens, 9.6%
Portsmouth - 332 goals, 28 pens, 8.4%
Chelsea - 149 goals, 12 pens, 8.1%
Arsenal - 210 goals, 17 pens, 8.1%
Everton - 275 goals, 21 pens, 7.7%
Bolton - 324 goals, 24 pens, 7.4%
Liverpool - 203 goals, 15 pens, 7.4%
Blackburn - 331 goals, 24 pens, 7.3%
Man Utd - 180 goals, 13 pens, 7.2%
Fulham - 332 goals, 23 pens, 6.9%
Tottenham - 313 goals, 21 pens, 6.7%
Man City - 302 goals, 19 pens, 6.3%

These statistics are more illuminating. Firstly they certainly support the view that Manchester United certainly find it incredibly difficult to win a penalty - in fact they win far less as a proportion of their goals than any other team. To balance this, teams also find it relatively difficult to win a penalty against Manchester United, though their City rivals are the most lucky in this regard.

So if we look at the differences in these percentages, which teams are the most and least fortunate when it comes to penalties:

Liverpool - 9.1% of goals scored, 7.4% conceded, Difference = +1.7%
Fulham - 8.6% of goals scored, 6.9% conceded, Difference = +1.7%
Man City - 7.4% of goals scored, 6.3% conceded, Difference = +1.1%
Blackburn - 7.6% of goals scored, 7.3% conceded, Difference = +0.3%
Tottenham - 6.8% of goals scored, 6.7% conceded, Difference = +0.1%
Arsenal - 7.5% of goals scored, 8.1% conceded, Difference = -0.6%
Bolton - 6.7% of goals scored, 7.4% conceded, Difference = -0.7%
Everton - 7.0% of goals scored, 7.7% conceded, Difference = -0.7%
Aston Villa - 8.4% of goals scored, 9.6% conceded, Difference = -1.2%
Portsmouth - 7.1% of goals scored, 8.4% conceded, Difference = -1.3%
Chelsea - 6.6% of goals scored, 8.1% conceded, Difference = -1.5%
Man Utd - 5.1% of goals scored, 7.2% conceded, Difference = -2.1%

So statistically, Liverpool have been the most lucky team with regard to penalties in the past 6 years, and, amazingly, Manchester United have been the most unlucky.
.
Not conclusive, but just some food for thought. Dissect these figures if you can!

slimshay:
sauron stop right there with any stupid conspiracy theory. Evrbody even blind mofos know ManU are on the advantageous end of the highest number of dubious referees calls. if we begin to list we will break nairaland page record abeg.

You are a blinkered idiot. Can you give us some empirical evidence that support your stupid claim?

This knee-jerk claim that Utd get the most calls has no basis in reality. The evidence is overwhelming and conclusive that Utd does not enjoy favourable ref treatment out of the ordinary.

Alex Ferguson has been known to berate referees most times in full galre of the public, denegrating them. He usually gets away with simple relative slaps on the wrist. And its cos England respect their knights.

Fergie berating refs, as opposed to those icons of sportsmanship like Rafa and Wenger who never utter an unkind word about refs? You are one blinkered ostrich. For how many games was Wenger banned when he called a ref a liar? What about Rafa after his premeditated diatribe on refs last season?

So this rancid slowpoke called Ikomi is now masquerading as an expert on Islam? Don't tell me he thinks the Sunni/Shia divide is an ethnic divide?

FL Gators:
die die, we go catch all of una

Pikin, you still dey this forum? I heard you have graduated from primary school, congratulations.

spikedcylinder:
Mumu people can use juju to attempt to hurt others but they cannot use it to pull themselves out of abject poverty.

Keep badmouthing juju. I knew juju works when I watched India thump Brazil 500 - 1 in a football game.