₦airaland Forum

Hehehehe. . . . . what are all these statistics?. . . . . . last time I checked, Lampard usually misses the games like Andorra, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, Estonia etc. . . . . Gerrard has been playing for england since 2000 when England were more prolific. . . . are we going to compare the Nicky Barmby, Steve Mcmanaman era to the recent era?. . . . . if we are going to be objective, let's look at the record since 2004 and the individual games played. . . . . when it comes to goals and assists, there is no competition. . . . . Gerrards goal record for England is littered with names like Andorra and Estonia. . . .

OlaOluFred, since when does being Captain have to do with anything? Is Lionel Messi captain of Barca or Argentina? Mascherano must be better than Messi since he is captain and Messi is not? Captain is based on personality, not footballing skills. What an asinine comparison.

Gerrard is suddenly bigger than Lamps because he scored in Champions league final and Jerzy Dudek saved Liverpool? Last time I checked, Lamps also scored in CL final but Terry and Anelka did not save him.

All the points I made in my previous post dissecting Lamps and Gerrards games still stand. When it comes to playing in tight spaces, goals scored, assists, positional discipline, ground covered, Lamps trumps Gerrard. Those statistics do not lie. Even before Abramovic bought Chelsea, Lamps scored 18 goals or thereabouts in 02/03 season. Mr consistent, year in, year out. The statistics do not lie. Forget the media hype. English press tend to get carried away. The first time I heard this Gerrard nonsense was in 2000, when Liverpool press were claiming that Gerrard was better than Vieira. I couldn't help but laugh. English press have gone from hailing Alan Shearer as the greatest striker in Europe, to claiming that Beckham is a great player, to comparing Rooney to Pele to lauding Gerrard as the greatest all round midfielder in the world. More often than not, their hype falls flat in the face of reality. English press knows nothing about football. They are still stuck in 1970's and 1980's mentality, when they were excluded from European football. If you want some objective opinions, read The Times. They know the score on the Lamps and Gerrard debate.

[quote author=~Sauron~ link=topic=193153.msg3066172#msg3066172 date=1226327795]Lampard get the credits ONLY because he has more world class players around him in Chelsea.[/quote]What rubbish! So Drogba is better than Torres? Are Kalou, Malouda and Joe Cole world beaters? How much better than Riera and Babel are they?

People used to say that Lamps scored so many goals because he had Maka and Essien doing his defensive work. At which point I ask: what do Mascherano and Alonso do? Now, Lamps has more defensive responsibility because he has Deco and Mikel behind him who are not exactly strong defensively. Yet, he is still outscoring and out-assisting Gerrard.

As far as I am concerned, Alonso and Mascherano are almost as good as Mikel and Deco. Deco is better than Alonso whilst Mascherano is better than Mikel. On top of that, Gerrard is currently playing much far forward than Lamps.   

[quote author=~Sauron~ link=topic=193153.msg3066172#msg3066172 date=1226327795]Statistics show England play better WITHOUT Lampard.
enough said!!![/quote]Which statistics? Are you talking about the 4-1 hammering they handed to Croatia when Gerrard was injured?

As far as Capello is concerned, the only man for CM is Lampard. This is consistent with other managers such as Benitez, Sven and McLaren who consistently refuse to play Gerrard in CM, simply for the fact that his positioning is awful and he likes to go on walkabout like a kid in the playground.

It is debates like this where we see who the free thinkers are. I remember Beckhams worst game for England - the draw with Greece when they drew 2-2. If you watch the game, you would see that Beckham totally vacated his position, running all around the pitch from left to right, eating into the midfields space and exposing Gary Neville. Yet he scores a last minute free kick and the press lauds him as the greatest thing since sliced bread. He then started fancying himself as an all-rounder instead of sticking to his wing. He came back to Man Utd and tried those tactics of running everywhere, vacating his position and SAF kicked a boot into his face. Gerrard suffers from the same wandering disease now as Beckham did back then.

Gerrard scores spectacular goals but Lampard scores more goals. Gerrard has scored 100 goals overall in his career, the same as Danny Murphy, Lampard has scored 100 in the league alone, talkless of other competitions.

Gerrard is a highlights player. If you only watch highlights, you will enjoy his surging runs and bullet shots. If you watch the full game, you will appreciate Lampard's controlled methodical approach better.

Lampard has more assists than Gerrard.

Lampard covers more km per game than Gerrard.

Lampard is better positionally than Gerrard. Many coaches refuse to play Gerrard in CM because he goes on walkabout like a playground schoolboy.

Lampard is better in tight spaces than Gerrard.

Lampard is more of a continental type midfielder whilst Gerrard is a throwback to the 1970's. Lampard plays a good short game whilst Gerrard is more of a long game player.

All we can say is Gerrard has more pace than Lampard, but he cannot dominate midfield because he loses the ball in tight spaces too easily.

If not for Gerrard's goals against West Ham in FA Cup 2006, we would not see the absurd media campaign to deride Lampard whilst praising Gerrard to the high heavens.

In reality, only one player has ever done it for England, Lampard being the top scorer in Euro 2004 and WC 2006 qualification and Euro 2004 itself, being voted England player of the year in 2004 and 2005. All we have from Gerrard is 8 years of excuses. The only year he manages to win England player of the year is the year England do not qualify for the European Championships. Injury to Lampard gave him the perfect opportunity to stake his claim, yet he was bossed around by Luka Modric, Sergei Semak and Igor Semshov. This goes to show that the gung-ho style of football Gerrard thrives on does not work in the tight spaces of international football.  

As Guillem Ballegue said on Revista de la Liga on tuesday, Xavi Hernandes is the best midfielder in the world at the moment, the only person that can compete with him for that title is Lampard.

Where is the debate? If not for ex-Liverpool infested media, this is not even a debate.

tocdee:
You are not too bright are you? Take a poll and see who people prefer. I dare say you'll be very disappointed.

Hype is hype. . . . I do not need to take opinions. . . .MOTD has convinced everyone that Gerrard is the greatest thing sincle sliced bread (no thanks to the unusual high no of ex-Liverpool players in the English press). . . . the fact that the last three England managers all preferred Lampard in their favourite position and that Benitez does not trust Gerrard in CM shows that general concensus is not always right. . . . .  in 2004, if you ask Liverpool fans, they always repeat the mantra that Gerrard is the greatest midfielder in the world. . . . ignoring that guys like Zidane, Kaka and Deco are head and shoulders above. . . . . how many years has Gerrard played for England. . . . all we hear for the last 8 years is excuse after excuse. . . . Gerrard is a highlights player. . . . .watch the full game and you will see he cannot pass in tight spaces, often conceding possession, he has no left foot and frequently wanders from his position. . . . . the only thing that makes him look good on highlights is ability to make a surging run every 10 minutes and a brilliant long range shot. . . . other than that, Lamps outscores him every season, outpasses him and covers more ground, plus is way more disciplined. . . . . end of. . . . .


Gerrard, the great white hype. . . .

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pYHggzKlAi4

Which is more glory seeking, the Gullit-era Blue or the Fergie Red? The Jewish Oligarch fell into my lap, I didn't follow him here.

Leave Joe the plumber to make his money jare. Even Tito the builder is cashing in.

4Play,

https://img29.picoodle.com/img/img29/3/11/6/f_olem_cf08733.png

ntoor!

RichyBlacK:
So, singular points on the number lines are not comparable, however, distances between any pair of points are comparable across number lines.

Scalar distances, not vector distances

Even on a 1-D plane, distance must have direction.

Gamine, no vex but since when does David Duke = white people?

please rename your thread as KKK unites against Obama. Thank you.

When chickens quit quarrelling over their food they often find that there is enough for all of them

McCain began both his political and military career in 200 A.D, being defeated by Septimius Severus for Roman Emperor. Since moving to Arizona during the last Ice Age, he has had a mixed career.

Good speech though!

anombem:
You guys are clearly misdirecting your anger. poor Gerrard, having to bear the wrath for Roma. I'm not a liverpool fan but saying Gerrard is overrated is like talking through your arse. You can't be overrated for 8 years! He gets into the EPL 11 and CL 11 every year. Believe me, Lampard is still in Chelsea because Gerrard didn't join you guys. He also didn't even protest for the penalty, it was presented to him! Surely he could only dispatch it!

Lick your wounds but leave him alone. I'm an M United fan but I rate the lad highly.

My friend comot there. . . . who is Gerrard? Can he outpass or outscore Lamps?. . . . .all he does is make a surging run every ten minutes and you guys get orgasm. . . . for the last 8 years, all I see is underachievement with England and inability to cement England's central midfield spot. . . . . . how dare you compare him to the European midfielder of the year?. . . . . .this guy is a hype created by ex-Liverpool players on Match of The Day.

RichyBlacK:
Number line representations:

(1) -5^^-4^^-3^^-2^^-1^^0^^1^^2^^3^^4^^5

(2) 5^^4^^3^^2^^1^^0^^-1^^-2^^-3^^-4^^-5

Number lines 1 and 2 are isometric representations of each other (flipping 1 about its zero number gives 2). So, singular points on the number lines are not comparable, however, distances between any pair of points are comparable across number lines.

From the above isometric number lines, -3 x -4 is equal to 3 x 4 = 3 + 3 + 3 + = 12 _{men, you're wicked o}

Hehehehe. . . . . . this is unacceptable. . . . flipping number lines around is a tacit admission that you are multiplying by (-1).

Jak, na Sam Cooke abi na George Benson? You know say everybody dey remix these days.

This guy, you still dey here? All these are pre-election debates, intended to paint our preferred candidates in the best light and their opponents in the worst light. I can carry on, but I have no wish to, my man is already President-elect. .

The ideology you espouse has beaten a hasty retreat into the dark confines of the Deep South and Apalachian Mountains. If you don't like it, go and die!

RichyBlack, decent analysis, but you also ignore that Obama received almost the same support amongst whites as Al Gore and Kerry. The Deep South and Beltway Ridge will always vote Republican so that limits the amount of white votes Obama can receive. The effect of "race" in the election was quite limited, probably down to 2 or 3 percentage points amongst white voters, which reflects very well on America.

Nuzo, you catch am there but you no catch am well. The problem is not that he implied that blacks were stupid cos they voted based on skin colour. The problem is that he made an assumption without any statistical evidence. Black turnout only increased by 1% and they overwhelmingly voted Democrat just like they always do whether the candidate is black or white. The big shift came amongst Latino and Other groups who voted for Obama by 2:1. Previously, 40% of Latinos had voted for George Bush.

Ife-Eco, the fact that we voted for Obama based on race may be true - but only after he had demonstrated his competency. Blacks did not vote for Jesse Jackson when he ran. Also, this was the first time we had a competitive black candidate. A people who have never seen their kind in power will always vote overwhelmingly for the first one with a good chance. Trust me, if we already had 3 or 4 black presidents, black people would not care about the skin colour of the candidate.

lol. . . . very funny. . . . Gerrard is the most overrated piece of bullcrap I have seen and an expert diver to boot.

dayokanu:
@Nguage,

If you are for real then you are welcome as the first bundesliga thread on Nairaland

How can he be for real. . . . .the ashawo thinks its OK to change club like he changes underwear. . . . how can you leave Chelsea for Hoffenheim?. . . . . will you follow Obasi to Chelsea when we sign him. . . .

A good speech by John McCain. He ran a good race and has shown us the real McCain. He also refused to mention Jeremiah Wright because he understood the ramifications of opening up racial wounds. Well done to John McCain.

But our man, Barrack Obama is the 44th President of the USA!

He broke the barriers and he showed that everything is possible. He also gave the people a stake in the election process.

He needs all our prayers because the expectation on him is through the roof.

Importantly, America showed us what a wonderful, civilised country they are today.

Obama will win Virginia. The ballots which haven't yet been counted are mostly from Urban precincts and absentee ballots.

[quote author=plus_Queen link=topic=186602.msg3039327#msg3039327 date=1225853211]I wanted to say Ibime and said Bawomolo
get ready
you and Tayo D and co
na me and una tomorrow
You must call me auntie and prostrate before I leave you alone[/quote]Excuse me, I have been the staunchest Obama supporter on Nairaland for the last few months. . . . check my profile pic. . . . please reserve your venom for 4Play, Tayo and Kobo. . . . no be me abeg. . . . I refuse to fall victim to an Igbo woman's tongue lashing.

What a show of soft underbelly by the team tonight. We haven't been this flimsy since Ranieri. I hope we don't turn into the new Arsenal. I didn't watch the match cos I decided to get some sleep so I can follow the elections.

I said last week that we will struggle in the Cup games and against the big teams. I don't know why Scolari is busy booking hotel room for CL final cos I doubt we will be there. If you remember, he also booked a hotel for Portugal during Euro 2008 before losing to Germany. If we are going to win anything this season, it will be by amassing points against the samller teams and winning the league.

Obama has won! Hallelujah!

I wasn't being serious when I said that McCain would win.I just didn't wanna get my hopes up.

Hehehehe. . . . . . this guy is a fool. . . . . . I shall keep this as brief as I can because I am following the election. . . .

4 Play:
After kicking off the debate by glibly suggesting that the US economy has moved too far to the right,he now claims that the Theory of convergence is simultaneously apt and asks whether I haven't witnessed a shift left.

Only a first rate idiot like Ibime will simultaneously lament a right-ward shift in economy while praising a 1960s theory which proclaimed that Western economies will be moving towards the socialist model. If your knowledge of economic history tells you that the past 4 decades has witnessed greater centralisation of Western economies,you are a dunderhead.

To try to crassly explain away this your incoherent gabble by citing events of the past few months makes you look even more stupid. Even by today's standard,as even your confused self admitted,most economies are much more liberalised than they ever were at the time the discredited theory originated. Idiot Ibime,make up your mind,is the economy ''too right-wing'' or has it been converging all along in line with the theory?

If the idiot had read up on the theory, he would have seen that the premise of the theory is that Nations would learn that extreme positions on Capitalism or Communism would blow up in their face. . . . . this fool seeks to presume that the convergence referred to is a steady quasi-linear movement toward the centre. . . . . how is that possible when Governments change direction every 4 or 5 years depending on the policy of the party voted into power?. . . . . . well, as someone who is into algorithms, I need to remind this fool that convergence can occur over a handful of iterations as well as millions of iterations. . . . . . the premise of the theory was simply that convergence will be brought about by violent swings after ideological failures. . . . . . in order to support his argument, he has sought to apply a 40 year timeline to the theory. . . . . Communist convergence to the centre occured almost overnight in 1990 as a result of the failure of Communism. . . . . if the theory holds for a swing period of months in 1990, then sure as hell, it holds for the quick swing we have witnessed in the West over the last one year. . . . .we have seen a steady progression to the right, followed by a violent lurch to the left in the last few months. . . . the fact is that the theory of Convergence was never more apt than at the present moment. . . . . .

4 Play:
You are a two-faced idiot. In referring to the economy,there is no implicit understanding of it to mean the financial services industry. The fact that the financial services industry is a cornerstone of the economy doesn't make it a synonym for the economy.

Lets be honest,the reason why you retreated into yapping about the financial markets is that you made a baseless suggestion:that the economy was moving too far to the right under Bush. Caught pants down lying,you started an inglorious retreat. In the context of a debate about deregulating the economy,deregulation of varying sectors:airline,communication,energy,mining,manufacturing,tourism,e.t.c:cannot be narrowed down into merely a discussion about deregulating the financial markets.

Please somebody tell this idiot that the Financial Industry is THE cornerstone of the economy. I have a beautiful picture for you. . . .

https://img26.picoodle.com/img/img26/3/11/4/f_businesscycm_91cdbfe.jpg

At what point do you not understand that the Financial sector dictates the economic cycle in Western markets? I have not even started to look into other sectors that Bush deregulated. This fool would have you believe that Bush regulated all sectors except the financials, which is simply not true. I pointed out the tax-policies and runaway military spending. . . . and yet, his only rebuttal is that Bush increased spending. . . . although that fell flat on it's face because I showed that Bush did not actually spend as much as he would have you believe when you adjust for inflation.

4 Play:
Again,the non-partisan Ibime engages in a hare-brained rant about his bogey men,Republicans. This dolt obviously doesn't know what being unbiased means. Again,let me ask,if you blame Republicans for the bad policies of the Clinton administration,who do you applaud for the good policies?

Firstly, this idiot says that the FSM act was not a bad act because it saved Morgan Stanley, now he is calling it a bad policy. . . . where is the consistency in this blathering idiot's argument?

Look in the mirror please. . . . . . . I did not blame Republicans for Clinton's policies. . . . you tried to make a biased argument about Clinton's policies, but you did not tell us the full truth. . . . I only had to correct you and give the full story: which is that the FSM act was sponsored and pushed through by a Republican congress and was opposed by many Democrats. That is the undeniable truth. Clinton also takes some blame, but tell us the full story please. The FSM act was a bi-partizan agreement. Infact, it was supported more overwhelmingly by the Republicans than the Democrats. So please, stop your beer parlour analysis. . . . .comparing the FSM act to the Sarbanes-Oxley act in an assinine attempt to draw a contrast between Bush and Clinton is as nonobjective as it gets.

4 Play:
I still maintain that a President that throws money at subsidizing the agriculture and oil industry,a so-called big government conservative,the same fellow who imposed steel tariffs,cannot with a straight face be tagged as pursuing a policy of deregulating the economy.

erm. . . . last time I checked, subsidizing the oil industry is actually a regular Republican habit. . . . so all this big spending you are talking about was spent on Republican issues, not socialistic. . . .

4 Play:
The sub-prime crisis can be blamed on a wide variety of causes including even the imposition of a regulatory measure,the Community Reinvestment Act,which required financial institutions,particularly Fannie and Freddie, to pour money into low income communities. No doubt good intentioned,it is a clear example that bad regulation is as deleterious as no regulation.

Like you said yourself, most of this crisis was caused by unregulated derivatives. . . . I have said before that blaming the Community Reinvestment Act for the current crisis is similar to placing a grenade next to a nuclear bomb (CD's) and then blaming the grenade for acting as the detonator when the nuclear bomb blows up the whole city.

4 Play:
I will give you credit for this one,though,my statement earlier,reproduced here:T[i]he past 8 years has seen the biggest expansion of Government since LBJ. Indeed,if you take away defense and homeland security spending,the past 8 years has seen the biggest increase in Govt spending since the 1930s.[/i]:are also backed up if like you,we resort to googling:http://www.independent.org/images/article_images/charts/040624_spending.gif,http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article570387.ece

All show that far from moving too far to the right,Bush has overseen a major expansion of Govt.

Mr man, stop beating an inglorious retreat. . . . . you made an assinine comment having misread articles through your partizan lens and you have been abruptly corrected. . . . . ignoring inflation when judging Bush's spending policy is similar to stating that a house which was bought for $10,000 in 1900 is cheaper than a house which is bought for $200,000 in 2008. Only a beer parlour partizan like yourself would make a point like this without corroborating the facts and placing them in the proper context.


What a dork!


Go Celtic!

McCain will win! Don't delude yourselves. I shall believe in an Obama victory when I see it. The voter turnout has not materialised in Virginia so far.

Obama '08

somze:
Should I remind you that both of you said Lampard would not fit into this sort of game, that he was done for, he could not complement another midfielder, he could not play the passing style, he was a route one player . . . . blah! blah! blah!.

Excuse me compadre, please scratch my name from your accusation. . . . I was never for the playmaker system and Nateevs proved me wrong. . . . if you remember, I was quite happy with Lamps and Ballack. . . . I only asked for 2 wingers. . . . I was a strong defender of Lamps, my only problem was the monumental wages he was asking for.

I don comot my shirt . . . pesin go wound today. . . . make una hold me o!. . . . . Lord, please help me to be civil

4 Play:
Even then,the theory of convergence,again,like much of the article,falls flat in the face of reality. The tension is not between the vestiges of capitalism and communism(the latter has been thoroughly repudiated) but one version of capitalism(neo-liberal economics) and another(neoKeynesian economics) . The reality is that the past 3 decades,particularly since the Thatcher/Reaganite reforms, has seen a general shift,not towards the centre,but towards Hayek/Friedman's right of centre economics. Once again,the facts belie your points.

See this one dey form ITK. Between Keynesian and Saysian economics, we have seen entrenchment, not convergence, so what does this have to do with theory of convergence? Either you dey try form ITK or you are stating the bleeding obvious. The fact that we have seen virtual nationalisation of companies like AIG and part nationalisation of many others does not tell you that there has been a shift to the left? The fact that Russia, China etc have moved toward the right does not tell you that there is a convergence toward the centre? The fact that businesses are now borrowing directly from the FEDS does not show you a convergence? Wake up and smell the coffee. Invariably, extreme forms of ideology do not work because they rely too much on human influence and humans are inefficient as George Soros taught me.

4 Play:
The typical tactic of the clueless when they are found out is to engage in a gradual retreat from their claims. From suggesting that the economy is too far to the right, a rather clumsy appellation,you have now narrowed it down to the financial markets.

You are on the defensive here, not me. . . . . .only a Forrest Gump incarnate would dare to dissociate the financial markets from the economy. . . . can you recall a single occasion where the financial sector took a strategic hit and the economy did not follow?. . . . we are talking about a credit-fuelled economy here, however diversified it may be. . . . a $50 trn dollar US industry which permeates all other sectors and affects all walks of life. . . . and this guy is trying to tell me that right-wing policies on the financials do not represent right-wing policies on the economy as a whole.

. . . financial markets have taught me that each economic cycle begins and ends with the Financial sector. . .  . . .  if you apply right-wing economics to the financials, then as far as I am concerned, you are applying right-wing economics to the economy. Factor in a right-wing tax policy and George Bush ticks all my boxes. Add runaway military spending and I don't know what else to call it except right-wing policies. Your only rebuttal is George Bush's spending, but we will deal with that later in the post. . . .

Again, this is the thing that amazes me about Republicans. Their ideology must always be right. If their man phocks up, it is only because he did not carry out that ideology to the letter of the law. One simple question, if the Republicans controlled the Presidency and Congress, who else do they have to blame? Did they lose their ideological compass. . . . . claiming that George Bush implemented left-wing policies is a stunning act of Maradona-style trickery. . . . 4 Play is trying to pull off the greatest hoodwink in the history of mankind. . . . . George Bush is from the far right reaches of the Republican party where Palin dwells. . . . I cannot think of any significant social policies that he implemented. . . . his so-called "big spending" was spent on war, unemployment benefits (since he didn't create jobs), medicaid for Health industries whose drug prices are unregulated and pork barrel scratchings written into various bills to serve the interests of big business. . . . . there is nothing socialistic about George Bush.

4 Play:
To back up a rather baseless suggestion of a Bush policy of an overly deregulated economy,you have now cited Chris Cox . Unless you are a dolt,nowhere did Cox claim that deregulation is somewhat a recent phenomenon that started under Bush. Deregulation of financial markets go back decades and does not have a partisan face. .

Look at this serial denier. . . . . who introduced voluntary regulation into the financials. . . . was it not under Bush? . . . . Did Cox not say that he thought the instinct of self preservation would make voluntary regulation work?. . . . now he is admitting it was a failure. . . . no doubt, the Subprime Crisis was caused in most part by credit instruments. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/business/27sec.html


WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, a longtime proponent of deregulation, acknowledged on Friday that failures in a voluntary supervision program for Wall Street's largest investment banks had contributed to the financial crisis, and he shut the program down.

The SEC's oversight responsibilities will largely shift to the Federal Reserve.

Also Friday, the SEC's inspector general released a report strongly criticizing the agency's performance in monitoring Bear Stearns before it collapsed in March. SEC Chairman Christopher Cox said he agreed that the oversight program was "fundamentally flawed from the beginning."

"The last six months have made it abundantly clear that voluntary regulation does not work," Cox said in a statement. The program "was fundamentally flawed from the beginning, because investment banks could opt in or out of supervision voluntarily."

The program Cox abolished was unanimously approved in 2004 by the commission under his predecessor, William Donaldson. The program allowed the SEC to monitor the parent companies of major Wall Street firms, even though technically the agency had authority over only the firms' brokerage firm components.

The commission created the program after heavy lobbying for the plan from the major investment banks. At the time, Henry Paulson Jr. was the head of Goldman Sachs. He left two years later to become the Treasury secretary.

The investment banks favored the SEC as their umbrella regulator because that let them avoid regulation of their European operations by the European Union.

4 Play:
One of the dumbest things about the Bush deranged mob is that they try to put a partisan face to a global problem. You would think that the facts that European banks seem more vulnerable than their American counterparts would dispel some of the derangement. I wonder whether Bush and Republicans are at fault for Northern Rock,Bradford & Bingley,Dexia,Hypo Real Estate,e.t.c .

You seem to forget that we are living in a globalised economy. For clarity, I shall highlight the last part of my post. . . .

The investment banks favored the SEC as their umbrella regulator because that let them avoid regulation of their European operations by the European Union

Wriggle your way out of that one.

4 Play:
My friend,your mendacity knows no bounds. I would like to see the evidence that Nixon and Ford's real spending growth outstrips Bush's. . . .  .quite frankly,for even citing Ford,you are an ignoramus

If I am an ignoramus, then you are ignorantus. . . . inflation adjusted yearly non-military growth was 8.6% and 6.2% for Nixon and Ford respectively. . . . and 3.8% for Dubya

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/fiscalconservative.htm

And please do not come here and start doing extra calculations including the bailout package as part of spending because that has not been spent yet. . . .

4 Play:
Look at your naff attempts to explain away Sarbanes-Oxley. How would you explain away the attempts by  Bush The Deregulator to regulate Fannie and Freddie,torpedoed by Congress. Your viewpoints are an obsession in search of a justification.

Not at all. . . . .Sarbanes-Oxley came on the back of a National outcry over Enron and Worldcom. . . . don't get slick and try to act like George Bush just plucked this bill out of nowhere. . . . it was an obvious necessity at the time.

4 Play:
3 Democrats in the top 4? Are you now praising fiscal conservatism? For an Obamabot who just claimed the economy is too far to the right,you seem hopelessly confused.

Obamabot? How derogatory! I am offended! What did you call Colin Powell when he cast his lot in with Obama. . . . . either he is an idiot or you are a psychophantic ideologue.

What do Colin Powell, Bill Gates, George Soros and Warren Buffet have in common?

And whose policies did Michael Bloomberg support on Fareed Zakaria GPS?

Damn it, even Ronald Reagan's Chief of staff and Ronald Reagan's son endorsed Obama.

Compared to all the Obamatrons above, 4Play is nothing but an insignificant gnat who loves displaying his pedantry on public forums, trawling through voluminous data in order to validate wrongly held beliefs he has imbibed from God knows where.

In life, your views are formed from the kind of literature you read. Almost everything you have written here are Republican points of view, not based in reality.

I am typing from my friend's laptop so I shall keep it brief.

4 Play:
Take the above suggestion that the economy has moved too far to the right. To the extent that it means that the Bush administration,over the past 8 years,has pursued neoliberal free market economics,that would amount to an abuse of truth and any basic understanding of economics .

When even Cris Cox admits that the deregulation of the SEC led to the current crisis, then you must put up your hands and admit you are talking rubbish. George Bush may have regulated many parts of the economy, but that does not extend to the financial markets and the Investment banks. Even as a fan of Reagan, there is a precedent for this in his deregulation of the Savings and Loans industry that led to the S&L crisis. When it comes to deregulation of the financial services to miltary spending to tax breaks for the rich, you must be losing your marbles to suggest that George Bush has moved to the left, based on the fact that non-military spending has increased by 3.8% yearly adjusted for inflation. Newsflash: If you don't create enough jobs to match expanding population, you will have more domestic spending to pay for the unemployed.

4 Play:
In 1 area and 1 area alone can the Bush administration be said to have pursued neoliberal economics; tax policy. Bush did indeed cut taxes lower than Clinton,however,no sane person(not even the most rabid Obamabots) would claim that the present economic meltdown is as a result of taxes being too low. Even then,US corporate taxes are arguably higher than most states in the world,even communist China,but that is a debate for another day.

And it didn't work. These tax cuts didn't produce jobs so why is McCain pursuing the same policy under the false premise of job creation?

4 Play:
In every other respect,Bush has repudiated neoliberal economics. Take the cardinal issue of the size of the Government. The past 8 years has seen the biggest expansion of Government since LBJ. Indeed,if you take away defense and homeland security spending,the past 8 years has seen the biggest increase in Govt spending since the 1930s. In the light of this,to claim that the economy is "too far to the right" verges on lunacy.

For someone who is a stickler for facts, this is the most factually incorrect statement I have heard. Trust Republicans to blame everything on "liberal policies" when their man phocks up. Adjusting for inflation, both Nixon and Ford increased non-military spending by a greater margin than Bush. Republicans seem to think they have a monopoly on "small spending" but infact, Bill Clinton is the smallest spending President in history, followed by Reagan, Carter and Truman. That is three democrats in the top four. From what I can see that is a very good record of "fiscal conservatism" from the democrats. And we haven't even started talking about military spending. . . . . .

4 Play:
Another cardinal principle of neoliberal economics and one which has become a common buzzword in today's debate is deregulation. Deregulation effectively refers to the reduction of or removal of Govt regulation.

(1.) No person in possession of the facts can claim with a straight face that the past 8 years has witnessed a drive to reduce Govt regulation in the US.

(2.) Funny enough,the general consensus up until a few months ago was on how over-regulation was stifling US growth and was prompting the gradual erosion of New York's status as the world's pre-eminent financial centre in favor of places like London,Hong Kong and Dubai.

(1.) Are you refering to regulation of the financial markets or other non-descript regulations? If it is the former, then you must be smoking seaweed.

(2.) Another evidence of "You are what you read." Are we talking about Governments or markets: because markets always prefer deregulation even to the point of self-destruction (Remember Barings Bank in Singapore?). However, the sensible amongst Wall Street warned about deregulation. Warren Buffet called for regulation of CD's back in 2003 as did many others. However, we know which crowd of Wall Street most Republicans prefer to listen to.

4 Play:
No 2 legislative measures epitomize the contrast in regulatory policies between the Clinton and Bush eras as the Financial Services Modernization Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act respectively. Any person who claims that the Bush era has heralded a right-ward shift in economic policy,while continuing to praise Clinton,is engaging in voodoo economics.

Look at this nonsense. . . . . why not tell us about Phil Gramm and his Republican cohorts who sponsored and pushed the Financial Services Modernisation Act through, although most democrats opposed it?. . . . so you want to shift blame now?. . . . why did you not not use the correct name of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act so we can all see that it was a Republican move by Republican Senators? If you recall, many Democrats criticised Clinton for signing the act. . . . . last time I checked, Phil Gramm was in hiding after Anderson Cooper named him as one of the culprits of the crisis on CNN.

. . . if not for Enron and Worldcom, would it have crossed George Bush's mind to sign in Sarbanes-Oakley? He was simply reacting to obvious public pressure. . . .if McCain implements regulation on OTC's if he becomes President, you can be sure it is not because he is that way inclined but because he is under obvious public pressure to do so.

The stats do not lie: 22.5 million jobs created under Clinton and 4.5 million jobs created under Bush. You cannot argue with that.

Speaking of voodoo economics, your economics defies the law of gravity. You seem to be the one waffling and making up facts.

[quote author=Negro_Ntns link=topic=190417.msg3031902#msg3031902 date=1225726363]You mean understated?

Followers of Obama have a blindfold over their eyes, they are duped, bamboozled and scammed into thinking that Obama is innocent of these associations or that they were mere circumstantial meetings. To the contrary, Obama was actively connected with these people and organizations in an ideological imprint. I continue to say this, I am on Tayo's side on the issues of Obama's associations with radicalism. The difference is you can see radicalism as a problem or you can see it as an asset. I see it as an asset and when I look at Obama in terms of these associations he earns my respect, without them he is irrelevant in my eyes.

America stopped imprisoning people for political conscience and so you don't see political prisoners in America. Its because they serve as galvanizing points for grassroot movements. That tactic has proven successful. People refuse to believe in Obama's radicalism and that helps the establishment to isolate him and dilute the convergence which otherwise would have resulted if he was indeed crowned as a radical. Stop the denial and accept that he is radical. Obama has a future beyond Nov 4th, if he wins on grounds that he is not radical then it becomes impossible for him to run as a radical President. Attempting to do just that might then cost him his life. fbi and cia can decapitate their own leader just as they can that of a foreign country.[/quote]You are completely wrong for many reasons. . . . . you would love to believe that Obama shares your radical views, but you are in for a rude awakening. . . . . association does not mean you share ideology, neither does friendship. . . I have friendships with some people who frankly should be arrested. . . it doesn't mean I share their beliefs. . . . . lest we forget, Aryres is a colleague of Obama's. . . . Jeremiah Wright is just a typical pastor still hung up and affected by the Jim Crowe era. . . . . that does not mean we turn our backs on such people. . . . they are a part of our community. . . . it is IMPOSSIBLE for anybody in political life in Chicage not to have associations with such people. . . . . it is par for the course. . . . .I know many pastors such as Jeremiah Wright. . . . it doesn't mean I accept their message on America or UK, but I can go to their church, no problem. . . .


From Bill Gates to Bill Ayres

From Warren Buffet to Jeremiah Wright

From ACORN to Harvard Law Review

From Hedge Fund Managers to Community Organisers


I am happy that Obama has a diverse range of associations and is well schooled in this thing we call life. He has seen all sides.

Nateevs, nice rebuttal to Somze.

I wanted to enter the debate but you have said all that needs to be said.

Drogba will not fit into the new system. The ball breaks down at his feet everytime he gets it. Look at the game against Cluj and when he came on yesterday. Our build up play completely broke down. Anelka has the movement, the touch and the speed to work with the new system. He may not score many goals, but he helps to create them. However, I'm still not convinced. We need someone with the touch, awareness and movement of Anelka, but the hunger, finishing and confidence of Drogba.

Drogba is the perfect player for the old system, but times have changed. Let us see what he has to offer sha. Scolari knows best.

[quote author=Negro_Ntns link=topic=188792.msg3031944#msg3031944 date=1225727019]There is suspicion on the unemployment report and forecast by labor departments for this very reason.[/quote]You and your conspiracy theories. . . . whether it comes to electoral votes or employment, you have a conspiracy theory for everything. . . . . .economic analysts will still use it to determine the state of the economy and Investors confidence. . . . . some things are beyond our control. . . . the good thing about the West is that their figures are not too far off the truth, unlike countries like Nigeria where it is hazardous to believe Govt statistics when carrying out top-down analysis.

https://img02.picoodle.com/img/img02/3/11/3/f_businesscycm_e3920ea.jpg



Negro, this is all I am concerned about. It is important to know the economic times you live in. We are in a late bear, and the 2 sectors to lead us out of it are the 2 sectors that started it. If not for the bailout, the financial sector cannot lead the economy out of the recession. This is how the investors think. They will not invest unless the financial sector recovers. This is why I think the bailout was an essential proposition.