₦airaland Forum

jaxxy:
Don’t sell your birth right for a plate of porridge. Lol

Yes! Wait till you're offered the entire pot of porridge!

obi58:
I doubt you even know ANYTHING apart from the 30k PETTY BMC allowance you receive.

Nigerians are an industrious set of people. If you want to help them out of poverty, get them to form cooperatives and lend them supervised reasonable funds (100k minimum) through MFBs to break the poverty cycle and not insult their intelligence with pittances as if they are beggars.

Empower budding entrepreneurs with good business ideas with loans to start up and grow their businesses and employ people.

Not all these pandering to the gallery.

Nigerians are industrious people. So industrious that they have not waited for government and have formed cooperatives that lend them up and above 1M if they want! This is for people who can't access those coops!

iskay1971:
You don't smell what I smell. It seems you need someone to tell you that this high level inducement. Not just a Congo of rice or two yards of Ankara again. Remember it is called "interest free loan" but I bet you BENEFICIARIES VOTE IS THE INTEREST.

Things are this tough when inducement is just Rice & Ankara How can you imagine how tough it will be now that the package is gone up. Those who did not collect the loan too will feel the pain when the desperate lender will start collecting back the loan.

Wait and see.

This is not "high level inducement" at all. At best, it's a little above 'low' - a loaf of bread and akara, or a congo of rice - and not even "medium". "High level" is electricity, good roads and schools and hospitals and security and such likes. But you should not expect anyone to give you those high level things if low level would get your vote! No one pays monkeys in dollars.

Butterflyle0:
But your GEJ who is your own brother ignored you and did nothing for you. Why didn't he give you all the things you listed ?

They did not need those things at the time perhaps, or na Buhari open dem eye!

sirfemoz:
I just have a question; If you are selling spare parts at Ladipo, and someone gives you 50k to boost the business, hope you will be happy?

I too have a question.
Is a spare parts seller at Ladipo a petty trader?

CAPSLOCKED:
IT HAPPENED TO MOST OF US. SHAKIRA WAS MY MAIN SQUEEZE
THE FACE IN YOUR DREAM WAS LOPEZ CUS YOU'VE SEEN HER FACE BEFORE. HER PRIVATES WILL BE 100% DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU SAW IN THE DREAMS, I'M SURE.

Sure? Yeah right!

Mine was the next door neighbour's (didn't have telly). And it was exactly as it had been in my dream (though, I might have revised the dream a tinsy bit afterwards).

MusicSots:
Please how or where can he learn about Jay?

Your friend already knows about Jay-Z or he wouldn't have recognised him in his dreams.

Newsnight did a wonderful program about immigration in Europe which must be seen. It deserves a thread of its own but since it's related, I've posted it here.

Good Sweden Bad Sweden

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCKxyDTlfHs

Coms and ops please.

Your friend said he "saw Jay-Z in white and a being not completely human also in white and Jay said Satan is the new God 3 time", but on receiving the message, "he thrashed it and prayed against it"? No wonder "he has been battling anxiety and depression ever since", and been "placed on medication since", "not been enjoying life". One question. Did part of your friend's previous "enjoying life" not include listening to Jay-Z? I bet it was, a lot!

You friend is going through what Mohammed went through when he is said to have encountered the Angel Gabriel. You friend has searched, and has found, and what he has found is not what he expected, and so he is now disturbed and in denial "battling anxiety and depression" and is "placed on medication". And why wouldn't your friend be in this state when he thinks he can blot out the message he is receiving?

What your friend is going through is the consequence of denying 'light' after having been in 'darkness' all along and thinking the darkness was light. Whatever he previously knew as 'God' and 'Satan's is being challenged and his denial is proving traumatic for him. The medication dumbs his mind for awhile, but not always and whenever his mind kicks in he's further traumatised.

I'd advise your friend to abandon his preconceived ideas about God and satan. He should "become as a child", as in open his mind to what his conscious mind is telling him. And he should go learn more about Jay-Z, despite all he knows about him already which is why the message is being couched in Jay-Zinese. Praying against and thrashing it is being in denial and he will not be healed until he confronts his demon.

MusicSots:
Please I need all the help I could get for my friend. He has been having terrible dreams since early last year or thereabout. This my friend said has been told several times that he is a special person on heart and that he should be taking his dreams seriously.

Last year he said he saw Jay Z in white and a being not completely human also in white and Jay said Satan is the new God 3 times. He prayed against it and thrashed the dream. But he has been battling anxiety and depression ever since. He was placed on medication since but he has not been enjoying life still.

Recently, he said he had a voice in his dream that Satan is God again. He went to churches for help, they said he should stop his medications and only pray. But when he obeys the prophet's voice depression sets in again with some side effects of failure to stick to medication which would eventually make him resume medical care again. This event has happened according to him twice or thrice. And now he is very confused about God.

My friend falls under the Aquarius star sign which is said to be ruled by Saturn'(which some says is the origin of the word 'satan'). Could this have anything to do with his problem?

Please, I need help from serious and mature minds. This is not a joke as this my friend has a great potential and he is also a very benevolent young man.

Butterflyle0:
My bible says that who is he that sayeth a thing and it comes to pass when God commanderh it not.

God does nor honour curses. He honours blessings for we have been called to inherit blessings.

I therefore stand as a child of God and bless Mr President and all those who love and believe in him and I declare that it shall be well with them and theirs.

They will always receive wisdom from God to do what is right even when it is against self interest and focus on considering others above themselves in Jesus name. Amen

Dem go laugh over in the religious section with dis your comment and my support of it. I'm laughing at us myself over here! Buhari must most definitely have paid us that 30k people keep mentioning. Or somebody put something in the water!

I follow you stand as the no-godder that I am.

In Jesus name. Amen

Op, you do make some sense here. Snakes, in the time of Adam and Eve had legs. But what people fail to understand is that they were actually serpents, and only modern understanding made the translators call them snake, as that would make more sense to modern readers. The only link is that snakes have evolved from serpents. And serpents have evolved into lizards and such like animals.

It's the same way Adam and Eve were naked and just picking food off the growing plants and trees. People call them man and woman, but they were ape like, before they became conscious and understood what good and evil was and that they better put some clothes on. Nor does "Adam" and "Eve" mean like two individual man and woman, but "men" and "women", the words Adam and Eve being closer to Europeans and Africans than single Segun and Bolanle!

Some say death came into the world through the disobedience of 'Adam' and 'Eve'. But this is wrong, for living things died before Adam and Eve, except that Adam and Eve were so primitive that they believed the 'dead' went up to somewhere else, most likely to meet their maker where they thought they came from. Or just like their ape cousins, do you think they knew that the sexual act is what produced offspring? Of course they didn't, or they would have built a maternity centre!

The case is that when it is said that "their eyes opened", it means they evolved to a new level of understanding instead of believing the things they had thought up and held on to in their more primitive naked unevolved state. And it must be noted that it was the so called "serpent" that assisted in this process of evolution. The idea being that since people are averse to serpents, they would be equally averse to evolving and would be more easily kept in a state of servitude in a Garden of Ignorance. But note the name of this serpent, Lucifer, the Light Bringer! Does one put good wine in bad bottles? Does darkness not disappear when light appears?

It's the same today. Unevolved means to not be aware and remain in a primitive state of existence. And then the "serpent" (the Enlightener, or Enlightenment) arrived, said "get sense people!" And in effect gave those who accept 'him' into their lives the power and ability to "become like us" and evolve into gods. And for those who don't to remain 'naked', unconscious and unaware like their ape and chimpanzee cousins and Adam and Eve, enslaved in the imaginary Garden of Eden! This is a continuous process by the way. There have been many points in time when the 'Gods' of the day enslaved people until the Redeemer came to redeem them. Moses and the freeing of the Israelites is one, the freeing from Babylon is another, as well as the Martin Luther Kings who also opened peoples' eyes in their own times.

Some think because everything was created, "and it was good", that everything was therefore created perfectly in the beginning. But that is like claiming the computer and phone existed at the very beginning, after all Eve ate "an iPhone", didn't she, and the iPhone did not evolve from people having to communicate over long distances with drums or the writing of letters!

The fact is that everything, absolutely everything came out of a state that preceeded it, even the heaven and the earth. It just didn't have form, as in not the form it had before God moulded it into its current form. But it did have some sort of form as depicted by the very first verse from God's Word itself, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". As in gave form to heaven and earth - heaven not being somewhere God sits, but everything primitive 'ape' saw when they looked up. And in those days, they only saw the Sun, the Moon and the Stars at best.

God first created the heaven but we are told nothing about this creation, except that it was created, and in one tiny verse. But one just has to read through the whole of the first chapter of Genesis, and anyone who has eaten apples (though, any fruit would do, even Blackberrys, Nokia or Samsungs) would wonder that if it took a whole chapter to create earth, then how many more chapters depicting the creation of the entire heavens with all the other planets in it must have preceeded that chapter! In fact, would like ten or more Holy Bibles be sufficient? It is why it is written in the Quran that "even all the oceans multiplied by seven and made into ink, and all the trees multiplied by seven and made into pens, would not be sufficient to write all that God has done". But, why give humans all that reading matter when they can't even get through and understand the little they have been given!? Who's going to be providing their daily bread if they were even trying to!?

So no one really knows how long it took, or what really happened, God things being timeless after all. And that does not mean the time itself had a beginning point, but that clocks are a very recent invention. So who's to say that "In the beginning" was not like some 10 billion years ago, and that "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" for another 10 billion years before that? Or would you claim humans with their 6000 year scale can measure in the tens of billions? Surely the number system of humans is not the number system of the Gods!

Thanks op. For provoking this out of me.

You are right lexy2014. I have not engaged with you "in a meaningful& respectful manner" regarding the question you asked at all. Without intending it as an excuse of my disrespect, I can not believe that you already do not know the answer to the question you asked, and that you only meant it as trollish bait. And when you go on and call it "a theory", I see more evidence to believe you are indeed trolling, which if you are, I can't help but disrespect you since, by asking the question and requesting evidence that it is not a theory but a fact, you are, in my opinion, disrespecting those engaged on this thread and deserve to be served in the same coin.

However, if it is indeed the case that you do not know that looting throws an economy into recession, then might I suggest that you start a thread. Not only would I apologise to you for being disrespectful, I will also take my time to meaningfully show and prove to you how looting does throw an economy into recession as part of my penance.

lexy2014:
I don't have a problem with u getting into a conversation. as u rightly pointed out, it is a public forum. Since u decided 2 get into d conversation, i don't c how u have tried 2 engage me in a meaningful& respectful manner. D same way it is a public forum where u have d freedom 2 get involved in any conversation, is d same way I have d right 2 make enquiries about any subject I so desire. what I don't have d right 2do is 2 demean any person because of what he/she stands 4 or says in accordance with d second rule governing interaction on this forum. So if u have a point 2 make regarding d subject, u have d freedom and right 2 make it. What u don't have d right 2 do is to criticise me 4 expressing myself on a public forum and use demeaning words in interacting with me because I said something which u don't agree with.


Below is a response from d gentleman I was having d conversation with.


Ur analogy of wallet and hole in a bucket are great but don't adequately address d issue of recession except we aren't discussing d same thing. Historically and internationally, I am yet 2 hear about any economy that got into recession cos of looting. Several countries over d years have experienced recession was it because of looting? That's y I still insist that its a theory not a fact cos I don't no if u can point 2 one economy in d world were u can prove ur "fact". U are talking about me being abstract but I am yet 2c anything practical in ur write up. So let's get practical. Provide facts, historical and international

Until then, and since I have time. First, the statement, "looting causes recession", does not in any way imply that looting is the only cause of a recession where a recession occurs, nor is the technical definition of recession narrowly meant. I'll start with a definition of terms.

Looting - steal goods from (a place), typically during a war or riot.

Recession - a period of temporary economic decline during which trade and industrial activity are reduced, generally identified by a fall in GDP in two successive quarters.

I give the above, which iis in no way a response to your question yet, but just so you get an idea of the sort of detail I may go into if I am made to believe that you truly do not know, or even agree, that looting may cause a recession.

Start that thread now.

93Miles:
My bad! Why lied against me?

Did I tell u I can't answer d question or I told u I will creat a thread on 'HOW GEJ THROWN THE COUNTRY INTO RECESSION AND HOW LOOTING CAN CAUSE RECESSION' that for now my fingers hurting u should give me time.


Why this lie?

Stop it bro.

I'm sorry 93Miles, but why would your fingers or hand not hurt if this is the sort of questions you bother responding to?

I took this one on to save your fingers so that you can continue with the intelligent posts I have been reading you post. Please let the person asking the question go do some research instead of wasting your valuable time and depriving me of reading the more intelligent stuff you have to write with those wonderful fingers of your's please!

It is my opinion that in not making him use his own fingers you are allowing yourself to be looted!

lexy2014:
When I asked this: "how does looting throw an economy into recession?", I wasn't even talking 2u. I was having a discussion with another gentleman&he couldn't answer d question though he just like u, had alleged looting led 2 recession. But u decided 2 enter d discussion with a false confidence. Confronted with a request to inform, u are stranded. I believe this, if u can't defend ur claims then don't talk about it until u are sure u have enough info to share. For your information, part of learning is asking questions and having d maturity 2 hear people's opinion b4 jumping into conclusion.

Looting leads to corruption is a theory. In research, no theory is fool proof and no theory is valid just because it has been stated. It must b proved valid. So if ur theory is that looting leads to recession, then u should b able 2 proffer at least a bit of information as to how u came 2 such conclusion. So ur theory might b right, it might b wrong. But u can't just make such claims and then when u are asked to defend it, u take off.

Your question, "how does looting throw an economy into recession?" was asked on a public forum. If you meant it for anyone in particular, perhaps you should have tried emailing it to that peron, or asking it on some other private forum where the only person who'd see it is the person you intend it to be seen by. But you didn't, so here I am!

Second, that "looting throws an economy into recession" is not a theory, and claiming it is "a theory" is like claiming the statement "One can't fill a bucket with a big hole in the bottom", is a theory. It isn't. It's a fact. And anyone with an ounce of sense who asks such a question should be told to use their brain and try it out themselves if they want to learn, as you claim, if it is or not, rather than ask someone else to prove it to them.

Thirdly, the question "how does looting throw an economy into recession?" is a silly question. If you'd meant it rhetorically you might have gotten away with it, but you didn't. You actually called it "a theory" and want proof of the statements validity presented to you, which makes your 'question' slightly worse than it would have been if it truly were a question asked in search of knowledge. It's more likely you were just trolling, which I seriously hope you were. The question is so stupid that if you aren't trolling, one should worry about you. If you were in a position to loot, you just might go ahead and loot without realising the harm you might be doing to the institution you might be looting. Ordinary, put your wallet down and me looting it would answer your question and provide you with evidence of the statements validity, as would you going to work and looting your employer, or if you were in the position, letting your employees loot you, so you hardly need anyone educating you, a Nigerian, on the fact that looting throws an economy into recession, especially in a political discussion on a Nigerian forum involving Nigerians and Nigeria!

The "claim" that "looting throws an economy into recession" is made. Hopefully, the person who made it is still not wasting their time responding to you like I am. But hopefully, you'd stop everything else you might have going and find out if looting really does throw an economy into recession. And the economy you should consider, if you really want to learn, does not have to be some nation's abstract economy either as it applies to one's very own economy too. And the looting doesn't have to be of money only, as the statement applies to the looting of a person's sense, as well as anything else that can be looted.

true2god:
Having spent less than 2 months in Austria he confided to his fellow Muslim friend that Austria would have been better if it were a Muslim country. That they should use the freedom of religion granted to everybody to convert as much people as possible so that it can become a Muslim nation in the future.

I'm beginning to worry about you. Your Muslim friend says the above, and you are not rolling on the floor, holding your belly laughing your head off. Instead, you de fear! How does your Muslim friend plan to "convert as many people as possible" please? Is your friend planning to put Islam in the water and affect everyone? Or maybe put on a burqa and blow the Austrians up and watch them all run to Islam?

I wonder if you even bothered to tell your friend what the foundations and source of the "beauty, organization and generosity of the Austrian people" was even if you had to lie or state it as you understand it to be.

Pity, if you didn't. You lost a great opportunity there all because of your irrational fear of your stupid ignorant "Muslim friend who left his banking job to go and 'hustle' in Austria".

This thread is actually beneath anyone's reasoning capacity, and would have been much better if op had desisted from posting it and remained a lurker! Perhaps he might have grasped another cell in his one celled brain!

12Monkeys:
[s][/s]

This thread is above your myopic reasoning capacity.

Kindly desist from posting and continue to lurk...who knows you may grasp something into that 2 celled brain of yours.

12Monkeys:
[s][/s]

What exactly is my concern if an afonja traitor becomes my president?

As long as we all in this sh!thole together we will continue to sabotage any of your useless daft ambitions.

Of course you don't care. Makes me wonder why you're here really. I'll try and fulfil your wish for you,
Good luck now.

lexy2014:
Am still waiting 4 ur response on d above question?

You keep waiting. Don't bother putting in the effort to inform yourself. That would be learning, which I'm told is overrated and a complete waste of your valuable time.

Thanks for this. You say you know the area. Please enlighten us on who the enemy they plan to shoot is? Do they have like, Muslims, there, or aliens?

(OK ignore that last one, it's joke.) But who though?

Mobilia:
Brother,
Yes....this short clip was interesting. I also thank you for allowing me to comment, although I'm not coming from the Nigerian perspective...since I don't live there.
Just a few things though:
That church is in Alabama and not Kansas....I actually know that area very well.
The Southeastern portion of the U.S. is termed "The Bible Belt" ( which includes Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, Georgia, Arkansas, small portion of Louisiana, some small portions of North and South Carolina, and the panhandle/Northern portion of Florida)...because of its supposed "strong Christian, Bible beliefs".
However, the "Bible Belt" also has, unfortunately, some of the most racist states in the U.S.... and probably the largest proponents of the U.S. Constitutional 2nd Amendment..(the right to bear arms)....

Unfortunately, that constitutional right transcends religion for a huge majority of Americans..
They are deeply serous about protecting their right to kill...(and one of the things my dad dislikes about the U.S.). He says it's the most violent country in the world.....
What I find interesting is this particular church's integration of church and state...they use their "gun range" practice as a form of "ministry"...which I highly disagree with. That method directly contradicts what Christ says about non-violence....

There was also a pastor (who was interviewed) who directly opposed what this particular southern church was doing in terms of their "ministry".
So you did get a balanced side of Christianity.....not all Christians believe in "bearing arms".

Now you asked if Christians believe in trusting in God and not owning any weapon.....
Hmmm...it's a thought-provoking question for sure.
This is the concept of faith/dependence on God vs. works/practicality.
It obviously would have to be an individual decision for each Christian. Many people see it only as an "as needed only" basis. But then there are extremists who just love to "kill" for sport...
I, personally (as a female), would not own a gun...
I don't like the idea of having such a powerful, dangerous and deadly weapon in my care.
Now are there some instances where self-defense" would come into play....? Yes...
I would have to use some other weapon.... but not a gun.
The idea of blowing someone's brains out...isn't quite appealing to me...

I don't support violence regardless of the religion. Islam has some extremists just as Christianity does.
By the way, I didn't see any part of the video that featured Mosques...it was strictly Christianity...
Perhaps that was featured in another documentary.

ewenla7:
saraki will always control kwara, everything in that state is skewed in his favor. the political delineation of that state was designed to favor the saraki dynasty.

So let's called it Saraki State now, except I'm sure Kwara people would say, "for where?!"

For your information True2, and the future, and so you know. if some Islamic government becomes a majority in Nigeria and wants to burqanise everyone, or proclaim Nigeria is an Islamic country I will fight them as vehemently as I'm fighting this burqa ban now. And I'd equally fight a majority Christian or atheist government if they attempt to impose their version of a burqa too! (Though I confess that one of my hands might be behind my back while I fight where some atheistic burqas might be concerned!)

true2god:
I may not fully understand the dynamics of British politics but one thing is clear, the people in power are elected (or selected) to represent the of the citizens. What is the point for a representative govt when public opinion are not valued and/or respected?

It's a rather odd situation, I tell you. While the Members of Parliament are there to represent the people, it does not mean they get to wholesale do what the majority of people want, and this goes back further than what happened in Hitler's Germany, but is often brought up to illustrate it so I'd use it too.

The Germans voted for a leader who promoted the rhetoric that Jews were bad. When he got into power he imposed policies against the Jews that culminated in their gasing, and the world became more aware of the tyranny of the majority inherent in democracy, and are minded to guide against it.

You may be the majority today and do as you wish, but what happens if you are not the majority tomorrow? Would the new majority not now impose oppressive laws on you? UK has history of this being the case with its constant switches between Catholic and Protestant Kings and Queens each oppressing those who didn't worship as they preferred. So, to avoid this, the polity is designed so the majority do not rule by opinion, or poll or referendum, but by rationale evidence supported by reason. And if there's no evidence to support your position, we shall not accept whimsical sentimental rhetoric in place of it!

Now read what a fact check of the polls say to see the evidence for banning the burqa in UK please! Next to zero burqa related crime! In fact, more crime is committed by youths wearing hoodies and no one is wholesale saying ban hoodies except in communities where evidence exists for their ban.

I can't help thinking there's more behind this than a burqa. But I need not even think since you've shown it's a fear of burqas taking over and everyone being forced to wear one, which I assure you cannot ever ever happen in UK even if everyone says we should, since we are way too stubborn and rebellious for that nonsense.

Can you believe the French ban the burqini and make people take them off on the beach!? And where there are topless people knickers only with their tits out! How stupid is that!?

And you're asking me to allow such nonsense where I live because of some unfounded fear that has no basis whatsoever!

Obi1kenobi:
It would dawn on you when the backlash is strong enough for your own version of Trump to rise to PM.

You are funny! The only people close to Trump in British polity is our darling Nigel Farage, of the, go on guess which party?

We can't elect a Trump even if we wanted to. Our electoral system is designed not to allow it. People fear common Corbyn and you think we'd go for a Trump? To us here in UK there's no difference between Trump and a terrorist, or did you not hear what we did when he visited? We sure aren't doing anything similar against Muslims or burqas!

You seriously need to have an understanding of the society you are talking about to quite understand what I'm saying, (my apologies for low blowing). Personally, I think we would rather eradicate the Trumps than the burqa. We sure are intelligent to know which is more dangerous.

True2, I'm not so much disputing your points, and I'm sure you agree we see the available evidence in different ways. Nor am I presenting polls, but more concrete electoral results, though I'm willing to accept that you may consider they may be as significant as Obi1kenobi or even less so.

Let me tell you that I think. If there were a public referendum to ban the burqa in UK today it will be won by ban the burqas, there's absolutely no question about it, and I'm talking like 60% or more for a ban. But UK policy is not made by referendums or polls or public opinion for that matter, so that is a rather mute point.

UK policy is made in parliament, and to get into parliament, you have to win a constituency election, and before that you have to get on the ballot for a constituency election meaning you must have been selected by your party, as in win a constituency party nomination, which involves coming to people like me, grassroot card carrying party members who assess your suitability to represent the community on issues that concern us, and I'm not so much telling you, but letting you know that you'd be very hard pressed to find any constituency with enough people to nominate a burqa ban person to represent them if they seriously wish to contest, not win, mind, but ordinary contest for a seat in UK parliament unless your party is the fringe UKIP or the old BNP.

Now, assuming you get past me and the electorate and get into parliament, and since it was not on your parties manifesto (because if it was, please see my 126 to 3 on UKIP) you would have to propose a Private Members Bill, meaning, of all the concerns of all the people who elected you into office, the burqa is the most serious concern they have because if it weren't, and you, their parliamentary representative, decide that's what you want to spend your time on instead of what concerns the members of your constituency, they'd very soon let you know how they feel about it! But assuming it is the greatest concern of the electorate that elected you, you'd have to get a majority of members who attend parliament to vote your way. And you don't need a House majority, just a majority amongst members attending to vote on your bill, meaning if 9 members attend the final debate and vote afterwards, you only need 5 to ban a burqa.

Except that burqas is not our concern! But if it were, that 5 would be closer to half of 650 and at grassroots, we would have fought over it, and I and all the people on my side in half the 650 Constituencies would have to lose, and if burqas are as important to me as I'm showing here, I'd defect to the opposing party and get them to nominate a no burqa ban person, and I'd support that person at election, and if my not concerned about burqa nominee loses, and provided it was a manifesto item; which you would have had to vote for at Conference and won, and then campaigned at election and won too; and which it most likely would have to be - on your party's manifesto that is, if we all lost at grassroots, and you win a majority in election for parliament, and it's your party policy - then, and only then can you present a bill to be debated in parliament and which only passes if you have a majority in both houses of Commons and the Lord's supporting your ban a burqa bill. And after all that, I'll go pay someone to wear a burqa (not that I need to, because even English non-burqa wearing women would do so just to oppose your silly ban), so that you will have to justify yourself in the Crown Court. And if I lose there I'd go to Appeal Court, and if I lose there I'm off to the European Court of Human Rights. And if I lose there, I'd then propose an annual burqa wearing parade so you can arrest the thousands who attend. And trust me, I wouldn't need women to wear burqas that day. We men would wear it if only because nothing gives us more pleasure than sticking two fingers up to oppressive governments. And if you think I can't afford it, think again, or what do you think crowd funding is for, and don't you delude yourself that I wouldn't take Saudi money to fight you!

My point of all this is that we have more important things to concern ourselves with than banning a stupid burqa! Our government gave money to bail out business and let people starve, for instance, and we don't like it. The Churches and other religious organisations now run food banks to help the starving! NHS is starved of cash and one now struggles to see a doctor! People wait months for operations to save their lives and sometimes die while waiting! Inflation is killing us but pay rise is pegged at a paltry insignificant 1% while taxes are going up! Students have to take on loans to go to uni, where their parents went for free! They graduate with huge debt they can't pay because there's no jobs, meanwhile, the quality of education goes down and we produce nothing but services. Or when did you last buy anything in the shop Made in England? We are in Yemen killing the Yemenis on behalf of Saudis because they spend billions in our economy, and you expect some stupid burqa to be the issue we spend our time banning?!

Yeah, government, you'd like that, wouldn't you! Distract us with some stupid burqa that does no harm to anyone while you line your pockets with the national wealth right! You must think we Brits were born like this morning if you think that old switch bait trick would work on us!

I'm not disregarding anything you say True2. I just disagree with your interpretation and how it affects things. UK elects representatives to Parliament to pass laws, and is not ruled by referendum or polls or sentiment. Any election where any contestant from any party has put ban a burqa, or ban a nigga (just so you appreciate the history) on their ballot paper, not only has the contestant lost, the party itself has lost. And besides, how many people actually wear the damn thing anyway? You can't put one on your daughter and send her to school without Social Services getting involved, and no one will employ you, despite the law to not discriminate, not even McDonalds for minimum wage. You're more likely to find it in wealthy Kensington than poor Manchester since those more likely to wear it are rich Saudi Arabians down here on holiday riding around in their Bentley and Rolls Royce, and trust me, we are way too greedy to take their money than to concern ourself with their silly burqas, and they are more concerned in spending their petrodollars to blow themselves up. And, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that a burqa has been complicit in any terrorist act on our shores (least that I've heard of), so please, why should this non-issue be taking up any serious persons time?

No one is taking advantage of us, not Muslims, not burqa wearers, and most definitely not the government, and we wouldn't let them if they tried. And funny enough, we do more multiculturalism (everyone do your thing) since we find it promotes cohesion as we know we can't create other people in the image that we prefer. In fact, you're more likely to find the Jews not mixing than Muslims, since the Muslims are poorer and have to integrate to earn a living than the more wealthy Jews who can sustain their own communities, and whom no one is telling to integrate or not wear whatever they want!

But if there's a will, as you claim, go ahead and attempt to ban it and let's just see how you far you get against my extremely very strong and heavily involved will!

true2god:
Hi bro, you made a claim that most British people, except for fringe elements in UKIP (and very insignificant number in the conservative party), do not have problem with women burka in the public. 'Obi1kenobi' gave you statistics and public opinion, on the subject matter, which you ingeniously ignored, but came up with another claim that data and polls are not reliable. The same 'data' that you have depended on to articulate your points.

There is nothing whatsoever difficult in banning the wearing of burka in public places if there is a will, by the people, to do it. And banning the burka does not in any way go against the British values. I believe that British values do not include stupidity and socio-cultural suicide. You seem not to understand (or deliberately ignorant) of the importance of social cohesion and integration which are anathema to Islamic values and principles.

As I said earlier, I'm not British but Igbo but happens to have a fair knowledge of Islamic history. The truth is, Muslims greatly took advantage of western nation's religious tolerance to push their Islamic agenda which you are subtly defending, or deliberately failed to understand.

A poll! Teresa May called the last elections because the polls said she'd win more seats and have a greater majority if she did. She lost her majority!

David Cameron gave us a referendum on leaving or remaining in Europe because the polls said we'd unanimously vote to remain. We voted to leave and he resigned.

What you fail to recognise is the difficult of actually banning it in UK. It goes against the fundamentals of being British, some of which go back to the Magna Carta for starts, which you can't do without a debate in parliament. And we don't seem to have the problems they seem to have in Europe regarding the segregation and ghettoisation of Muslims. That is the reason it remains a debate mostly held in the Sun and the Daily Mail, and is the preferred topic of people seeking relevance. Trump once said we have "no go areas" because they are taken over by Muslims, and British people laughed. The thought that anyone can come over here, carve out a piece of our land and say "we can't go there" is the stuff we do in comedy. Why do people think we'd so lose our spine?!

Propose a bill in parliament, present your justification for banning burqas and let's see. If there is justification for a ban then I'm sure burqas would be banned. In the meantime, I, and it seems, anyone in a position to pose a bill in parliament to ban burqas, is not actually bothering much with the scaremongering or rhetoric (which is pure sentiment) to do so, and neither am I. Give me the opportunity, and I'd ban God and religion instead, then you'd all stop picking on each other!

Obi1kenobi:
Is it really a "tiny minority"? Take a look at this poll:
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/08/31/majority-public-backs-burka-ban/
Doesn't look like a "tiny minority", does it?
The problem here is you are somehow conflating a ban on the burka with some kind of radical, extremist fringe racism. A view endorsed by the likes of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Angela Merkel - a woman whose compassion for Muslim refugees almost destroyed her political career - is not some extremist, racist view. Like I said, the burka debate is a mainstream debate and not only among UKIP or BNP extremists. Regular Joes who cast votes for the Tories and even many Labour voters dislike the burka. Regular Joes who read the Daily Mail, The Sun and Telegraph - the most widely circulating papers in the UK. I bet even some Guardianistas too would vote against the burka.

A popular guy I follow on Youtube, Cenk Uygur from The Young Turks network is a Muslim liberal and he loathes the burka and has stated if his daughter suddenly started wearing one around, it'd bother him. As I've said a couple of times, anyone who cannot assimilate into the norms of a society shouldn't move there. I'm as liberal as you can get on a wide spectrum on issues, but some Afghan refugee parading around Stockholm in the summer with a burka should never be normalized. Europeans go far and beyond to accommodate immigrants to their own peril and that is one of the reasons they have problems with home-grown Muslim terrorists: people who from their youth have segregated themselves from society like the infamous Molenbeek in Belgium and several similar enclaves in France were Muslims isolate themselves and refuse to assimilate. This is dangerous for social cohesion and national security. Liberal societies must always strive to promote secularism and not fanatics covering themselves in what look like bin bags.

Gggg102:
both are possible assumptions outside science.

I see you engaged well with the problem of subjectivity being seen as objectivity in this thread.

Impressive!

Obi1kenobi:
Don't go to the UK or Sweden with your anti-social behavior to aggravate the citizens.

I guess you ain't gonna take my word for it. But the truth is only a tiny minority in UK hold this view you're spouting, as shown by the tiny number of votes the party who did got, and anyone spouting such nonsense in Sweden or anywhere else in UK is usually banned from UK or restricted in where they go if allowed in. We ain't letting that far-righted fascist European crap or Islamic jihadist nonsense on our shores, if we know about it. Just look up Tony Robinson (British) and Geert Wilders and Ibrahim Mousawi to get an idea.

Let's wait and see what happens to Boris. He's gunning for Tory party leader so the choice is clear. Corbyn is in the same sort of trouble where the Jews are concerned, though I think it's some concerted effort to destabilise the Labour Party because he's not 'establishment'.

Incidentally, I'm watching a movie, "[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_of_Spies_%28film%29?wprov=sfla1]Bridge of Spies[/url]". One theme in it was the anti-communist rhetoric of the time, and the fear instilled in Americans that the Soviets were coming to blow them up that turned out to be a means to ramp up the military budget.

If there is a boogie man hiding behind a burqa waiting to blow us up, I want their ass caught and thrown in jail, and if there is sufficient evidence to justify banning the burqa, then I'd want it banned. What I don't want is some irrational fear of what don't exist to be the justification for passing laws in a society I live in. If we let them, or as we say here, if we let them bastards, those bastards being the people in government, they'd eventually use those same laws against us citizens and it would be too late to cry 'foul'!

krendo:
Nigeria was the only country in the world in recession during 2015-2017

Are you talking from Mars? Come London at the time see retrenchment ever where! Even Saudi Arabia screamed at the time and I guess you haven't been following the news in Venezuela!

Mars is not far enough for you to make this ignorant statement from. You must be on Jupiter or the next galaxy sef!

lexy2014:
how does looting throw an economy into recession?

Is that a serious question or a joke?

flames01:
As usual, senseless BMC members are too mentally derelict to counter intelligently. They blab unintelligently like the childish senseless minors that they are.

Bla bla bla bla is all you deserve!

Alva2018:
do you have anything to counter what he said

I do! bla bla bla bla! In case you never got it the first time!