Despite the fact that a sizable chunk of the Osun State population is rather disgruntled with them, the APC will win for two simple reasons

1- The number of major candidates will fragment the opposition vote, giving the APC the larger majority. This can only be avoided if One of Omisore and Adeleke steps down and endorses the other. This is extremely unlikely

2- Do you know how good the APC are at cheating their way to victory? The population of Ejigbo has nearly doubled in the last three days. People have been imported from other states, and they keep pouring in.

It's a pity, cos most of the citizenry just want the APC gone. Shame it would end like this.

Obdk:



pretend u understand him and answer. we kno u do understand him but due to d fact u dony have answer to him. u looking for way out

abi o! lol.

to all socialists here, let's take it a step further from the scenario in the picture...
What if the tall guy goes back and gets two more boxes to stand on so he can see the entire stadium?

Robynwelo1:

That picture depicts three men. One has no problem at all. NO ONE is trying to take ANYTHING from ANYONE here. It's like giving scholarship to dangote's child...Lol. it's more like an illustration of need.
Equity is fairness in any and all kinds of situation. There is no hiding it's pushing Marxism, but there is nothing wrong with that view.
Everybody can be happy, it's not a lazy or selfish agenda.
Should equal taxes be taken from everybody? Is it really equity to take a dollar from everyone.
Equality is giving every family 1 bag of rice for Christmas, equity is giving bag(s) of rice to families according to their riches or number. it's harder, but achievable.
Limited resources is a problem and would continue to be a problem if the rich ones keep getting more than what they would ever need. Capitalism.

Please also note that distribution according to work is also equity, distribution according to need is just one facet of equity and is what the picture above depicts.

Marxism is a tried philosophy, and history teaches us it always ends in disaster. It is nothing but a philosophy rooted in envy, so there's a lot wrong with it.
The problem with your post is that it places shadows where it needs to. Where do the bags of rice being distributed come from?
Who is giving the scholarship?
There's a big difference between giving the rich more and the rich generating more by themselves.
Nobody is taking anything from anyone? so you're saying robbing the rich continually is not really "taking anything" from them! Well, if you create a state where there's no very rich people with excess, you will also have created a state where there's no great wealth or excess. You must now continue to try to maintain a state where all can survive just so. Ask the USSR.

daewoorazer:
I do hope you understand basic mathematics OP.

This is how it works in the economy especially in the West. Tax the rich heavily while you tax the poor sparingly. It is a relative thing.

Let ability to eat and have basic things in life= ability to view the match
Let each box = revenue made

Let riches be proportional to their respective heights meaning the tallest is the richest and the shortest is the poorest.

Also note that the reason why some are poor is due to disabilities, unemployment and all that.

Let’s start

By taking huge revenues (tax) from the tall man, it doesn’t render him incapable, he’d still be able to feed, fend for family, drive good cars and all that. ===taking the boxes from the tall guy, he can still watch d match right?

The huge revenues collected by government from the tall man is used to feed the weak and old, unemployed and infants. In the United States, there is something called EBT and or food stamps. This is the avenue where funds and food are made available to the categories of people aforementioned FREE.




As to your point about making people less zealous about getting rich. If you have been to centers where people queue up for food, if your ego is still intact, you’d never want to be lazy till you’d have to rely on government for food stamps.
In addition, the rich class are more than happy to part away with such taxes because it reduces hunger in the street, hence, hoodlumps that’d normally carry firearms to rob and kill the elites won’t have to do so. They have access to free money and food.

In addition, such huge taxes are used to build train stations such that even a beggar on the street has access to transportation at a very cheap rate.

In the US today, if you don’t have money to subscribe, there is free WiFi service in every subway and it’s very fast. It’s free for all and sundry, you can enjoy this enroute your journey.

Do you need more points?

Back to the image, if the shortest of them all can’t see the match well, he might end up pulling on the taller ones in order to be able to see clearly. Ain’t that disturbance?

Peace out!

the fact that it is operative in some countries in the world is exactly why I wrote this. Well look at those countries operating a welfare state and see how they're faring economically compared to their contemporaries. Just because it is the system in current use in some countries does not mean it is serving those nations well, which is entirely the fact. It is a way of wasting wealth generated in a capitalist past.

You should understand that the infrastructural and economic development of such states is not a product of a socialist/welfare state past, but a fiercely capitalist past. I don't think I need to explain that further to you. That's how it works; generate enormous wealth being capitalist, switch to socialist because now everyone is now living in a state so good socialism appeals to them, and then their economies go down the drain. Thatcher once said the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money, and that is exactly true. Every country under the sun using the system has experienced this : Denmark, Venezuela, Canada, Ireland, The Soviet union,... the only reason the US is still so successful is because 1, the wealth they generated during those fiercely capitalist 19th to early 20th century years is ridiculous, and 2, they're not taxing the rich nearly as much as socialists like Bernie Sanders want.
Sweden even apply the "Matthew principle" to an extent, taxing the middle class more and leaving the higher class to generate more wealth, and it is working actually!
China is still working and is growing stronger because their system does not threaten the rich.
Countries like Hungary and Croatia actually make references to their socialist past in their Constitution...in order to condemn it!
so, I know what I'm talking about sir.

YungMillionaire:
OP you are wrong and the pic is right. Use your brain.

Using my brain led me to make the post, and I explained my thoughts. Can you explain why you think I'm wrong?

Gggg102:
I have a problem with that meme. it assumes that the three boys are not equal. the first boy is superior to the third boy. and the third boy needs special treatment.


the meme would have been much better if the boys are of equal height, but the ground below them is uneven I.e the third boy is standing on lower ground. equality would then be achieved by filling the ground to make it level. then they have equal opportunity. the playing filled is now levelled. they can now all watch the match.

Well said sir. That is EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY, which is eminently desirable in every way.

by extrapolation, the socioeconomic implication of this is that we should sieze from the rich what more they have than is absolutely necessary. That is the spirit of Marxism. It doesn't ask whether you got it fairly or not. You have more than others, it must be taken. Simple.
that has all sorts of terrible implications. And that is what the post is about.

ameri9ja:


You worry to much. The big guy lost NOTHING.
Aim is everybody enjoy the game.

lol. did he lose nothing? if the aim is to simply enjoy the game, why did he bring the box? it is to enjoy the game better. And if he gives it willingly, there's no ish. Next time he'll bring two.
But if you force him, next time he won't bother to bring any.

ameri9ja:


Are u blind. The 3 can all enjoy the match.

I'm sure that is a desirable outcome. What I am attacking though, is HOW that outcome is achieved. If it is achieved by voluntary charity, it is wonderful. Equity though, in modern socioeconomic discourse means that it is achieved by force. The picture is pretty, the outcome is desirable, but the message and method is terrible.
Why not just get another box for the little guy?

ameri9ja:
Op, the pic is right, u r wrong

please explain why that is so.

Look at the picture below very well. You must have seen it before somewhere on social media. Does it make you feel good or enlightened? Look at the words on the tagline, does it make sense to you? It shouldn't!

Equity is not fairness in any situation at all. It is equality of outcome. And equality of outcome is a terrible thing. Look at the picture. To achieve equity you take from the tall guy his box and give it to the little guy. Now if he gives it voluntarily that is virtue, but equity as a social mechanism is not self operated or based on personal virtue. It means someone coerces you into giving or even taking from you what is yours based on THEIR prerogative and understanding of virtue is and their will to force it down your throat. You know what the socioeconomic implication of the message of the picture is? Take from the rich till all have the same thing. You know what that does? It eliminates motivation for productivity and aspiration for growth, meaning that next time, the tall guy will be less inclined to bring any more boxes, while the little guys will feel less pressed to find more boxes because they are to be provided for by the forces of equity. The result? Nobody brings boxes.
The message of this picture is primed on scarce resources. But are resources always so scarce and new ones so difficult to generate? Why can't the little guy find his own extra boxes, or ask for help ? I know I'm sounding mean, cold and "immoral", but so is life here on earth. And we can make it better by espousing the virtues of kindness as much as responsibility and productivity, not some form of compelled "sharing"!

Also, it begs the question, how scarce can resources be that they must still be shared with equity? What if the tall guy is not so tall, and he needs two boxes to see clearly and one to see just so, the small guy has a smaller box and can barely see, and the little guy has none? Well in the spirit of equity, take one of the tall guy's boxes and give to the little guy, take the smaller box from the small guy and swap it with the tall guys other box, and now though Nobody can see, they have the same view. Lol. And what if there's only one box, and the tall guy has it, who gets the box?
There's one theme throughout all of that though- take from the tall guy, AKA the rich guy. Well then, in a society ruled by equity/equality of outcome, why should we ever aim to be rich or rise above our current means, if all that we gain will be taken from us?

I think a few words should by myself be said about this. I've chosen to not dabble in the arguments directly, but I think some things should be noted,as they are essential to the entire noisy enterprise.
First and foremost,critics of Christianity, atheists, in fact the generality of non-christians are excused from this conversation. Your opinions are unneeded and irrelevant. Discussions about the practices of any profession is restricted to the professionals and inductees of the profession.Whether or not Christianity demands something from its adherents should not bother you, because you are uninitiated. The subject is foreign to you,no matter how much you think you know about it. Except it directly affects you, which it doesn't, your opinions are inherently impotent and unsolicited.

So, shut up.
And get lost.

Second, let's get the facts of the conversation right. This discussion is NOT about whether or not tithing is wrong. Tithing predates the giving of the Law,so it's not bound by it. Abraham gave a tithe of his spoils to Melchizedek at least half a millennium before Moses was even born. Dedicating 10 percent of your earnings to God,or not,is entirely your choice. What this conversation is about is whether Systematic, Compulsory tithing that was instituted by the law through Moses is still relevant in Christianity. That is what this is about. On one side, there's no injunction necessitating tithing in the New testament,on the other hand there is non refuting it either. Not as a practice,but as a strict regime that is essential to worship as it was in the old testament and Judaism. Christianity as situated in the NT demands free giving, and giving could be in terms of tithes or in terms of offering. Whether Systematic, Compulsory tithing is relevant in Christianity is what the discussion is about, not the morality of it. It's in a sense like observing the Sabbath...it also predates the law,but the law made it institutionalised. Whether or not Christians should observe the Sabbath day is not about the morality of observing the Sabbath day.

So stop bickering, people.

Third, Tithing as a Christian practice is between you and God. You give to God, not to your Pastor. If the tithe you give is to the person of your pastor and not to his ministry as given by God,then it is no more inherently valuable,in my opinion,than given it to beggars and orphanages. If you give your tithe to Adeboye and not to his ministry and the power behind it, you may as well give more or less, because he will bless you for your personal gift and that's all. You just gave him a gift.
Finally, the question that seems so hard for everyone to articulate is rather straightforward: should your tithe enrich the pastor or enrich the church? But while it is straightforward,it is not simple. It leads to a further question; are you enriching the Pastor's person or his ministry? and furthermore, doesn't enriching his ministry invariably bode well for his person? Furthermore,the question comes from both the giver's perspective as well as the receiver's. We should ask, should a Pastor treat the tithe he receives as a function of his ministry or as a form of Personal gain?

Answering this question will then lead to a more pragmatic enquiry regarding what is actually behind this whole argument thing, innately; do Pastors, Specifically Prosperity-preaching or Prosperity gaining Nigerian/African Pastors, treat tithes like their personal gains? I think you should understand why I specified Nigerian/African Pastors. Joel Osteen is widely cited as an example of an international feel-good multimillionaire Pastor. He doesn't ever get stick for tithes. Same with Joseph Prince. These guys ensure that it is known about them that your donations are "to the ministry", not them.
The quicker we start asking the right questions,the easier for everyone. And Yea,OAP Freeze has issues!

Happy Sunday

Guys,this is one long but incredibly worthy read,but I've copied some of the first paragraphs anyway. Do read the the full article, so you LGTB warriors can shut the hell up!

https://youthtranscriticalprofessionals.org/2017/07/22/you-cant-feel-like-a-girl-an-essay-by-jamie-shupe/

Jamie Shupe made history when they become the first legally non-binary person in the United States. In this post, Jamie shares their story of creating an extensive web-based archive of media stories on trans issues. The research Jamie conducted for this archive contributed to them desisting from identifying as a transwoman and coming to feel strongly that transitioning children and young people is wrong.

-
As the first person in the United States to have their sex legally declared as non-binary by an Oregon court last year, I’ve had a lot of media coverage for that accomplishment. But what’s been essentially missing from that coverage has
been the potential implications that my court ruling can have on the future of transgender children. I had high hopes that
I would be able to use the platform that my court victory has brought me to effect real change for these kids. That’s what they need, societal change. They don’t need
surgical procedures. They don’t need cross- sex hormones. And they certainly don’t need to be sterilized because of their gender nonconformities. These trans and gender nonconforming kids most need to
be able to safely and successfully express
their gender and uniqueness. That’s what I
needed as a child and what I still need as a
53-year-old adult.
My ultimate hope is that because of what
I’ve done to the gender binary and how we
see it in the future, this massive shift in
thinking that I’ve helped to unleash is
going to put the unsavory people that have
been cutting on or sterilizing these children
out of business. If we properly enact social
change, the need for their medicalized
services will all but cease to exist. In
reality however, these charlatans deserve
to be fired at best and jailed at worst.
Security literally needs to show up with a
box, watch as they empty out their desks,
and escort them out of the buildings that
are our major medical centers here in
America.
But sadly, my hopes for massive change in
the way we have been treating these trans
kids have been dashed. Despite having had
numerous open and frank discussions
about transgender children with plenty of
journalists to date, my concerns heard
about sterilization and misguided medical
practices being carried out on these trans
kids haven’t been heard. By the time these
articles make it into print, the views that I
have expressed for a better, different, and
less medicalized future for these youth are
all conspicuously absent. I want my
narrative corrected. I want my views
heard.
After all of these repeated incidents of
essentially being silenced, I’ve come to the
realization that I’ve been no-platformed
from speaking on the subject of
transgender kids. And this is despite
having a vast amount of knowledge to
share. Knowledge that’s been previously
and formally recognized .
I do however understand that my dilemma
of being silenced is rather common
nowadays. In fact, it has become rather
routine, even at formerly great institutions
like Berkeley .
This is undoubtedly because my views
about transgenderism and the medical
practices being employed on transgender
children run contrary to the media’s
desired narrative on these subjects. Most
media outlets have become entrenched in
either affirming gender and medicalizing
transgenderism, or labeling it as illness.
Infomercials for surgical clinics get passed
off as news in this twisted new world of
ours.
“And I still don’t get the cutting, and I’m a little
bothered by it. It doesn’t seem like the kind of thing
a happy person does. But what do I know. Maybe I
should try it.”
Common sense would dictate that someone
like me would make a good role model for
trans kids. I’m a decorated army retiree
that survived “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in a
dress, as a male. I survived having a
mother who used to slap me and call me a
sissy for being girly. I’ve never tried to
commit suicide. I don’t have any scars on
my arms from cutting on myself . I’ve never
stood in the bathroom with a pair of nail
clippers trying to make my parents think I
was going cut my penis off to get what I
wanted.
But instead of me, the surgery queens get
the job of role model. The surgery queens
aren’t proper role models for these trans
children. They’re what they get to see at
the circus. The surgery queens are the
advertisements for the Porsche driving
surgeons that are cutting joysticks off.
I reside in the camp that labels all of this
nuttiness as craziness and loudly call it
that, instead of passing it off as liberal medicine. But that doesn’t make me a conservative any more than hormones made me a woman. I’m otherwise still very much a bleeding-heart liberal, which leaves me in a rather awkward space. I don’t have a platform to stand on. But for the record: I’m flat-out against sterilizing trans kids for the purposes of stopping discrimination or making them more cosmetically appealing in a sex classification that’s false. It’s legal fiction. It’s medical fiction. And it hasn’t helped
them. It didn’t help me. They are just younger versions of me.

Thank you o... He's not the only one though, every single response from atheists around here today has been overwrought with deep sadness. The desperation is pathetic. Imagine the first sentence of Seun's "response" (more like lamentations)....
"This is unfortunate "

Loooooll

HardMirror:

What do u mean extraterrestrial powers?
The sun is an extraterrestrial power I believe in

I don't believe in mumbo jumbo.

Again I ask, do you know God?

Hosea 8:2 Israel shall cry unto me, My God, we know thee.
Jeremiah 24:7 And I will give them an heart to know me, that I am the LORD: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto me with their whole heart.

Apparently you can decide to refuse to know him, but that doesn't mean nobody does, because

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Guys, what exactly is this thread about, mourning for the lost soul of Mark Zuckerberg or something? It appears the faith of these atheists around here is connected somehow to Zuckerberg's, and his denial of that faith is throwing them off hill headfirst. The desperation to continue to see an unbeliever in Mark Zuckerberg is monumental! What is so difficult to understand when he spoke in such clear, conversational language? He didn't make a speech or create a lengthy post, he simply said it in an honest conversation, not a business meeting, so he wasn't in any duress of any sort! Just accept a simple fact... NO means NO and not maybe! Haba!

HardMirror:

Oh pls. Spare us the sermon. You know it, you don't know god, no one does, it's all a charade of make believe and delusion. But religion has it's uses and I won't argue that.

This comment reeks of insecurity. Sorry mate, but you're just the one who doesn't know God.

JhyMedex:

We won't expect Mark to explicitly say he's Atheist... His business might b at Risk...

Bt like u said.. He's most likely a closet-Atheist

Keep embarrassing yourself trying to find a way to keep yourself believing you have a comrade in Zuckerberg. Why do you think he will be ashamed of atheism at this point, after all these years of success when he was taken to be an atheist? He doesn't have anything to lose by declaring himself an atheist. Stop waddling in the mud, stop fighting it. Just go to bed and sleep, then wake up and wonder where you're headed :-D

Seun:
On facebook, in reply to his Christmas and Hanukkah greeting, someone asked Mark Zuckerberg, "but aren't you atheist?" He replied, "No. I was raised Jewish and then I went through a period where I questioned things, but now I believe religion is very important."

[url=https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103363940448171?comment_id=10103363945378291&reply_comment_id=1852873111664385&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D]https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103363940448171[/url]

This is unfortunate. If not for the explicit "no", I would have said that he was dodging the question, but he said it. He threw atheism under the bus. He has made it very clear to everybody that he doesn't identify as an atheist and doesn't want to be considered as an atheist. Bless him. This doesn't mean he's not an atheist, of course; an atheist is simply someone who doesn't hold a belief in the existence of any God.

I don't believe for one second that Mark believes in the existence of the Jewish God. The one who forbade Jews from eating pork instead of teaching them how to cook it properly. Who created foreskins to protect the sensitive tips of male organs, but then ordered the Jews to cut them off their newborn babies. Who permitted Jews to enslave foreigners and treat them as property, even though he created all people. Who made women menstruate but then declared that a menstruating woman is unclean, and anyone who touches her - even her husband - is also unclean. Who banished children of single parents and their descendants from entering his temple for 400 years (the 10th generation).

I don't believe that Mark believes in that God. And since he hasn't talked about any other God, I continue to believe that he is an atheist. He may choose to call himself an agnostic, a cultural Jew, or whatever helps Facebook and his family, but that doesn't mean he's not an atheist.

The lamentations of Seun Osewa.... Looool

Why are you so worked up about the God he believes in? Your post would have been perfect with a crying emoji :-D

And by the way, I'm not sorry to inform you, you're wrong. If he (as he apparently does) holds his religious convictions in the Jewish Faith he was raised in, the God he believes in is the same you're moaning about. Loool

I'm fed up of loosing bet slips , pls add me up... 07062241354

ifyeez:
If you call dis a beast, please what do you call galaxy note 7, A ghost ?

A metallic demon of awesomeness

Hehehehahah

Hehehe