₦airaland Forum

FBS:
Garry to Man Citeh? Thought someone said he would only go to a top 4 club and in a Champions League?

when money talks, bullshit walks

[quote author=$osisi link=topic=279343.msg3968170#msg3968170 date=1243995435]I had signed blank checks from my fiance when love was sharking us
Now,after years of marriage I can't even touch his wallet without being admonished[/quote]ROTFLMFAO 
Na so lov be!!!

[quote author=A-40 link=topic=148652.msg3967897#msg3967897 date=1243986631]@drUche.God
I am actually supporting the Lakers  abeg i am tired of Shaq dissing my man Kobe besides he cant lose lost 3 straight NBA Finals that ain't right[/quote]Fixed 

Pepeye:
Really don’t know much about him to pass judgement
But he looks more like an egocentric dominating man tho

from a pic?

Sagamite:
I think people are more pissed off about the amount rather than the performance delivered for the amount. I am in full support of the latter but promoting a bit more rationality about the former based on my own assessment of the relative cost of similar functions worldwide and requirements of the role.

I was enraged last year when I first read about the pay, to the point I put it on a thread on NL:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=159551.msg2685182#msg2685182

But when I decided to put emotions aside and do some research, it appeared not so bad.

The exaggeration is not very significant to me, it is the performance that enrages me and the fact that a large proportion of them can't even read and write that pisses me off.

Then you should show more concern for the people not getting value for their money, and not spending time trying to correct the exaggeration. Whichever value is put forward, the people are being ripped off.

Maradona is the most skillfull football player ever, but Pele played well ahead of his time.

Kaka from Milan to Madrid?
Spanish and italian sources are claiming that a deal has been reached. A €65 million Euro transfer fee has been agreed on by the two clubs. In terms of the player, he has accepted a five year contract worth €9m annually and that the deal was brokered between Perez, Galliani and Bosco Leite (Kaka's agent).
Chelsea are said to have put in late bid but were turned down.

Gareth Barry to Man. City
England midfielder Gareth Barry has completed his £12 million move from Aston Villa to Manchester City

Man City, the new money miss road?

There is an existing thread https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-278865.0.html
You should check before creating new threads.
Not all problems in Nigerian are caused by Yaradua and the government, some simply emanate from people failing to do the right thing.

@JeSoul
His not congratulating Howard reeks of arrogance and simply being unwilling to acknowledge that Superman and the rest of the Magic were better than his Cavs led team.
The presence of another super star that might take away from his spotlight is something he has to accommodate. He will not win a ring on a team where he is head and shoulders above his team mates.
Look at the Celtics, Pierce need help and willingly shared the spotlight with Allen and KG. Each one of them has stolen the show at various points in time.
If Lebron cannot give credit to others when due, he would have problems sharing the team with another superstar.

Sadly for Lebron, I see D-Wade getting another ring, and even Carmelo, before the Cavs.
The story line is just too reminiscent of the boy wonders of the past: Iverson, Garnett etc.
They come in, rising to the top posting superman stats, get to finals, fail to win a ring, and go down south from there.

I am suspicious that Lebron might not be accommodating to having another superstar on the team, and yet he needs 1 or 2 to win a ring.
Either of Amare or Bosh is likely headed to Miami in 2010. Boozer might be the cavs best bet at a big man.

Returning to our regular scheduled programming: Magic in 5!!!

bawomolo:
john d baptist, he came before derrick rose

bravo!!!

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=276897.msg3966198#msg3966198 date=1243965955]@biina,
I don't get you!  There is no reason to ensure the govt secures people's Rights? The Declaration of Independence clearly states that this is the role of govt.  

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"[/quote]Please remember my initial argument that democracy requires undemocratic actions to secure the interest of the minority.
The declaration of independence was adopted by the continental congress, and there is no evidence that the adoption reflected the choice of the majority in the congress or the colonies as a whole.  The opinon of the majority is now superseded by an undemocratic document.
This is often needed as evidence points that democracy cannot survive by always following the wish of the majority.

The people should decide this because marriage is not a Right but a priviledge. While the legislature do get their fingers in such issues, it is only prudent to defere the decision to the people when it is so socially divisive.  There is no question that the govt in all its ramifications does not need to go to the people when the issue is on human rights.  I mean, that is the purpose why the govt exists - to secure these Rights.

but the legislature then argues that their primary responsibility is taking this decision on behalf of the people. Ironically, the choice to send the decision to the ballot is to made by the same legislature that is unwilling to do so as it feels the move would weaken its position.

See you are here talking about interests and not Rights. These are two diferent things. You will get things clearer if you do not muddle the two.

The definition of rights or interests is subjective. There are no rights that are absolute, and all are deferred from the state. Hence such right can be withdrawn when the state deems necessary. Inalienable rights is simply a misnomer as that which enforces your right can deny such right directly or indirectly by not enforcing it.

@JeSoul
I dont mean that everyone should be sent packing, but outside Lebron no one else is sacred.

A few years ago, Miami (with stan van gundy as coach) lost the conference finals to Detroit despite having the best record in the conference. Pat Riley was criticized for taking apart that squad, but was vindicated when the new team won the title the following season.

If the support cast are not good enough, rings are simply wishful thinking.

As to Mo Williams crying on not being selected, it was not as hilarious as his guarantee for Game 4!
I wonder who he felt should have been dropped from the all stars in his favor.  Jameer Nelson or Allen Iverson?
I no blame am sha, even me sef vex say dem no select me 

@bowomolo
did mo williams choke in the three games they lost to the magics during the regular season? I doubt it.
The fact that none of the cavs except Lebron was voted to the all stars despite the team  record is an hint of the quality of players on the team.
Mo williams is as far from being the top guard in the NBA as Big Z is from being the best center.

Mo williams  stats(Pts/Asst/TO)
Career 13.5/4.8/2.23
08/09  17.8/4.1/2.21
Playoff Avg 16.3/4.1/2.14
vs Detroit 14.8/5.5/2.75
vs Atlanta 14.8/1.75/2.50
vs Orlando 18.3/3.7/2.00
Game 6 17.0/5.0/1

So how did he choke? His performance in the series was quite good when compared to his past, and in the last game he was even better.
The guy did his best. To expect more from him is unfair.

Sagamite:
Still don't get you.

You expressed concern over the fact that the stated income might have been exaggerated. I see the exaggeration resulting in angering the people, as they feel the senators are getting paid and not doing their work, which would in turn likely lead to the people demanding more from those in office, and seeking means of ridding the system of those that fail to perform.
My question then is what is the downside to the exaggeration?

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=276897.msg3965648#msg3965648 date=1243960257]@biina,

No you are getting it wrong.  The purpose of a govt in the first place is to ensure that human rights of the citizens are protected. There is no greater purpose of govt than that. Human rights are not subject to vote! In other words, Rights by definition are God (or nature) endowed. They cannot be conferred on man by man! So to say others should vote on whether you should have some Rights is mute.[/quote]On the contrary, the opinion given above is simply of yours and those of like minds, and unless the majority shares your view, there is no reason for that view to be imposed on all. But  you see if one continues along my line of argument, progress would be difficult. Hence the need for some undemocratic decision to accommodate the democratic ones.

Coming back to the issue of gay marriages, it has been shown that gay marriage and other same sex unions are often approved by the legislature, but fail under popular vote. Then the question becomes who should decide on gay marriages: the representatives of the people or the people themselves.

The legislature approving gay marriages in California simply protected the interest of the minority at the expense of the majority, as was evident by the proposition 8 ballot.

@jesoul.
If you need to blame someone, please blame the cavs management who assembled the team.
All the cav players couldn't have played any better, and even their coach threw everything against orlando.
It was simply a case of a better team won.

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=276897.msg3965510#msg3965510 date=1243958924]@biina,
Every one has got an opinion on the issue.  That is why they vote. You express your opinion through your vote.
Which is why I have always advocated for a limited role for the govt. The govt's sole aim should be to ensure nobody's human right is violated.  Human rights surpass any goal or desires of the majority. We must defer to uphold the right of the minority at any cost.  This is the crux of the issue regarding gay marriages.  Is marriage a Right? I disagree while others agree. If marriage is a God-given Right, then I will jusmp on baord and advocate for gay marriage.[/quote]but you see the latter opposes the former. I should be allowed to vote, but not on all issues? ergo certain issues should be imposed on the people even if it is against the wish of the majority.
You said that human rights should override the choice of the majority, but should not that choice be left to the majority under democracy?
If the government is elected to represent the wishes of the people, why should same government now deny the wishes of the majority of the people?
Who decides what is the right of a human? should that decision not be also left to the majority?

@Frank-C
Transcorp is a private company that has failed to meet its financial obligations. I don't think the government should provide funds for Transcorp as that would defeat the whole aim of privatizing Nitel.
The technical board is simply to run the company, as the management structure had been modified since the sale. At the same time, they cannot setup a permanent management structure as that would be against the spirit of privatizing the entity.

I think their desire to find a new investor is clear enough plan. They cannot do so while the entity is still in the control of Transcorp, as new investor would be skeptical of their intentions given that Transcorp could be stripping the asset of the company. The financial mess created by Transcorp would have to cleared by the federal government. It is quite alarming that the Nitel staff are owed 11 months salary arrears. I doubt such is the case for the staff of Transcorp itself.

Transcorp saw Nitel as a profitable investment and acted primarily in the interest of their shareholders. There is no need for the government to give preferential treatment to them.

If everything obj touched is questionable (with justifiable reason) then we should criticize obj and look to find out if he is guilty of impropriety.

While the revocation is definitely a set back, I think it is the better option when compared to leaving the company in the hands of Transcorp. If Transcorp have lost their technical partners, failed to inject funds, failed to maintain it as a going concern, and worst of all, are guilty of owing workers salary arrears, their continued possession of Nitel could only make things worse.

The exam body said that they simply corrected the online representation of the scores.
Nigerian newspapers should not cry wolf unnecessarily.

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=276897.msg3964021#msg3964021 date=1243944441]I don't necessarily agree it can be considered a flaw. Democracy functions only when you have a collection of people. The balancing act is to adopt rules that provide the greatest amount of good to the greatest amount of people, while preserving the soicety for the next generation.  If we decide that the minority must have the last say, then I can personally veto any law that the State passes. Afterall, I am the smallest minority in the State. You can also make that argument for yourself.

But the majority you talked about making the undemocratic move is actually a collection of the smallest minorities.  Each minority decides what is best for them and cast their votes based on that perception.[/quote]The classification of majority and minority cannot be done in a vacuum, but rather must done in the context of a specific issue. Hence, the individual becomes a minority if only he holds a particular opinion on the issue at hand.

To achieve democracy, the accepted tenet is one man - one vote, with all votes being equal, but then granting the minority veto powers contradicts this. Even in formalized systems, often the wishes of the majority is overlooked by the elected, so as not to marginalize the minority.

netotse:
@biina
this wont be the first time the sale of nitel to ____ is being revoked and then a technical board would be put in place to further run the company down. . . once and for all they shld sell it to a befitting investor and stop bellyaching!

I quite agree that the issue needs to be resolved (though I dont think the sale of Nitel at this time is the right move - but thats a different discussion).
What I dont like is posters putting the blame on the Yaradua government when all the previous sales and revocation were done under obsanjo's tenure in office.
- Nitel was sold to Transcorp in 2006 under the Obasanjo regime.
- Transcorp has allegedly failed to meet his obligations.
- The sale has been revoked by the current administration.
I just don't see why the current administration deserves the criticism. Why are posters not criticizing the administration that made the initial sale to dubious investors.

As much as the present administration leaves so much to be desired, Nigerians need to learn to give them credit when they do the right thing (even if its only once in a blue moon) and i feel the current move is commendable (as Transcorp have not hinted at any foul play on the governments part)

[quote author=Frank-C link=topic=278865.msg3965009#msg3965009 date=1243954348]I think the question should be what does Yar'Dua really want out of this whole thing? The unfortunate answer seem to be nothing. He is just confused. That is my worry. Had the revoke of the sale of NITEL been part of an elaborate plan to make the company more productive, then i would not mind. But i don't just understand. We have seen YRD revoke many OBJ policies and replace them with nothing; not even with worse policies. Look, i think that Obama already have an opinion about how this whole GM motors issue should end and whatever he is doing now is just providing leadership to the end he BELIEVED in. Ours is different. Our president is as confused on the way foward as you and i. I am so ashamed of this man, i remember i once believed he is the solution. Now, i think differently. Tomorrow, he'll start losing sleep over NEPA or complaining about Nigeria's non attendance of G-20 meeting. **Sighs!!!!***[/quote]are they not constituting a technical board to run the affairs of the entity, pending they find a new investor?
If that is unsatisfactory, then could you please state what you would have them do (even prior to the revocation)?

mbulela:
biina, how can you say that?
is it today that BT pulled out of the technical partnership?
is it today that Nitel and Mtel staff stopped being paid?
just weeks back a road show was done by BPE (a parasatal of FG) in London for core investors into Nitel/Mtel.
then weeks and days later you revoke the sale.
it just does not make sense and does not show that decisions are properly thought out.
the level of planlessness and indecision in this govt is frightening.
look at all the rumour peddling, anxiety and uncertainty that was displayed in this Sanusi matter.
what stopped him (i mean the guy called yar adua) sending the name to senate 5 wks ago, having done all the necessary security checks?
he just realised that soludo's contract expires this week?

I am not sure what your argument is getting at. If the allegations against Transcorp are true, then the revocation while late, is the right action to take.
The NCP listed four areas in which Transcorp has allegedly failed to meets its contractual obligations, which if true means that Transcorp are likely not acting in the best interest of Nitel/Mtel or Nigerian.
Would it be preferable to have let them continue stripping the asset of Nitel/Mtel? What about the EFCC prosecution of principal officers of Transcorp?
Transcorp is not a government parastatal, so the government cannot force it to do things their way. They have exercised the option they felt is available to them.
The revocation might have been long due, and was most likely delayed by those with interests in the sale, but that the sale was eventually revoked should be lauded not criticized.

Sagamite:
My gripe is that despite us having increasing poverty and almajiris in Ibadan. The slowpoke that calls himself Olubadan that hardly did anything to stop the illegalities of Adedibu is only bothered about building a palace at a ridiculously high price and is basically putting a man, on a visit that works for his money, on the spot to contribute money.

If they want the money from donors, they should make the announcement public and then contact selected people privately and not put them on the spot in such a way it is blackmail. If Akingbola does not pay up, only god knows the negative consequences for Intercontinental in Ibadan.

So after Akingola's hand is twisted to pay money into the fund, who next will ask for his share of Intercontinental's profits? Oni of Ife? Soun of Ogbomoso? Ewujale of Ijebuland?

To now compound it, the slowpoke called KnowAll now comes up with some lunatical tribalistic statements that tries to portray Yorubas as better than the rest.

Some people have so little achievements in their life that they feel the only way of demonstrating their "speciality" is by finding a group they belong to and alluding superiority over other groups. Typical of pathetic racists and tribalists.

I think they did make it public as far back as in April (please see below). As to putting Akingbola on the spot, one cannot really say, given one is not privy to details of the conversation, or the express purpose of Akingbola's visit to the Olubadan, as I don't think bank executives make a habit of visiting all monarchs. If Akingbola's visit was to seek a favor from the monarch, then the king might have tried o seize the opportunity to get something in return.

Olubadan’s New Palace To Cost N4.3Billion
April 07, 2009 15:01, 337 views

The new palace of the OIubadan of Ibadanland is to cost N4.3billion, according to the Otun Olubadan, Chief Omowale Kuye. Kuye, who is the Chairman, Building Committee, disclosed this to newsmen on Monday, in Ibadan, after meeting with the Olubadan-in-Council.

According to him, the plan to construct a new and beffitting palace for the monarch has been on for years, adding that eminent personalities in Ibadanland were involved. He added that due to the lack of a modern palace, the previous obas of the ancient town, including the incumbent, Oba Odulana Odugade I, have been operating in their personal houses. The chairman said  the situation did not augur well with the traditional rulers and their council members as proper traditional administration was impaired.

Kuye said the new palace would be built at Oke-Aremo area of the town which is expected to have modern equipment, including ICT facilities. At the meeting were former Oyo governor, Senator Rasheed Ladoja; Chief Lekan Balogun and many others.

http://thepmnews.com/2009/04/07/olubadans-new-palace-to-cost-n43b

[quote author=oyinda. link=topic=276897.msg3962920#msg3962920 date=1243925044]this is what i don't get about it. i think they are selfish reasons[/quote]I don't think their reasons are selfish, else we could argue that the reasons of the supporters of the gay community are also selfish, after all each can only truly speak for oneself.
Everyone has their notion of how they would like the society to be, and thus simply support or oppose moves as they pertain to this objective.

Gay community would like to be accepted by the general public and are less interested in the opinion of the general populace, as they feel it is their right to be accepted. but then it is also the right of the general populace to reject them.

Personally,  I don't think people should be persecuted simply because they are gay, but at the same time, the state should not recognize gay relationships until society accepts homosexuality itself.
The problem with the US is that public opinion intimdates most to hide their true feelings on the issue. If one was to go by public display, you will wonder as to who constituted the majority that supported the proposition 8 ballot.

Homosexuals should seek their acceptance by the society by amicable means, and shun the demand by right, as it will leave them worse than they started off. If they continue the confrontational approach, even the domestic partnership provisions would soon be under threat. Their greed might cost them all.

[quote author=oyinda. link=topic=276897.msg3962864#msg3962864 date=1243922452]lol. interesting
do u have evidence of this?
and what do they stand to gain from trying to repeal the law[/quote]The move was not only in California, but the opposition also won in Arizona and Florida.
The ballot issue is being debated in New Hampshire in a bid to preempt the legalizing of gay marriages in the state.
Also in Washington, there are moves to get the issue placed on the November 2010 ballot.
If you check the usual pro and against websites, one would get a good heads up on developments.

As to what they stand to gain, that would be an individual choice. Each would allude to various reasons such as religion, morality, science, sociology or even gut feeling.

[quote author=oyinda. link=topic=276897.msg3962868#msg3962868 date=1243922552]Imagine if all the laws were decided by popular vote. US would be a disaster[/quote]I think that is the inherent flaw in democracy: balancing the choice of the majority against the interest of the minority. To protect the interest of the minority often requires an undemocratic move, as the majority are often inconsiderate of the minority.

[quote author=oyinda. link=topic=276897.msg3962804#msg3962804 date=1243920898]I don't agree with that
what makes u think the other 4 states will hold referendums?

the prop 8 poll was pretty close. 48 to 52%.
I was reading abt the poll on wiki and found it interesting that blacks and hispanics voted most favorably for prop 8. whites and asians voted mostly against prop8.[/quote]I think the domestic partnership/civil union provisions will soon or later be adopted by most states but I am quite pessimistic about the adoption of gay marriages.

Given the events in California, it is clear to the opposition to gay marriages that the key to winning is to let people express their opinions anonymously and in a democratic manner. They will never win by passing a bill in the house, as most members of the legislature will support gay marriages, not because it is their choice, but simply because they fear acting otherwise is political suicide. On the other hand, a referendum allows people to state their position anonymously and will always favor the majority. The result in California is the closest you can expect of any state, given the large gay community and liberals present in the state. The polls likely reflect the popularity of homosexuality among the different races.

Reveling in their recent win, opposition to gay marriages will soon be trying to repeat same in other states and will likely succeed in their bid.

[quote author=oyinda. link=topic=276897.msg3962735#msg3962735 date=1243918863]gay marriage is legal in MA, CT and two other states. what have you got to say abt that? do u think the list of states will widen? i think so[/quote]Actually I feel the list will shrink.
A lot of people have feigned approval for gay marriages so as not to be seen as being intolerant, but the result of the California proposition 8 ballot showed that the truth is different.
The opposition to gay marriages will always win in a democratic process as they are simply the majority.
If the ban is upheld in California, which is the most tolerant state to homosexuals, others will retrace their steps.
Those other states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, and Vermont ) will soon follow suit by holding referendums which would invariably result in them reversing their position.

[quote author=oyinda. link=topic=276897.msg3962692#msg3962692 date=1243917868]why settle for less. homosexuals want right to marriage[/quote]but the marriage institution was not setup with them in mind, so they cannot retroactively be added to it.
They are free to seek the same level of recognition for their union, but should not be simply swept under the banner of marriage. That would be disingenuous.

[quote author=oyinda. link=topic=276897.msg3962669#msg3962669 date=1243917321]davidylan never gives up. wat r u talking about [/quote]you seem convinced that I am davidylan. If it makes you sleep at night, I couldn't care less.