₦airaland Forum

WTF? Wetin concern me concern Muki?

I no get YIM, na only AIM I get. Plus I no dey house right now.

M as in Mukina

Who? I hope it's not Emeraldbee o!

He who is used to eating beans must one day eat rice.

I only managed to watch the debate last night.

McCain won the debate hands down. Forget what the polls say. The polls only reflect hardening views over the length of the campaign. McCain won the debate.

Firstly, he threw Obama off with that Joe the plumber thing. He managed to decieve everyone into thinking Joe the plumber was a middle class guy and Obama had no response.

Obama was flat, lacked energy and lacked the clarity to impose his argument.

McCain hammered him on the "tax-increases taking away jobs" argument and he was unable to retort with the fact that Bush's tax cuts have only added 4million jobs whilst Clinton who raised taxes on the upper-class added 19 million jobs.

Obama allowed McCain to establish a theme on taxes which he will use to hammer Obama from now till election day. That gave McCain a solid footing and a focus for the rest of his campaign.

McCain also won a slight advantage on Energy Policy and surprisingly, Education.

The only topic Obama won was on the question about the "negativity of the campaigns" and possibly a slight advantage on Healthcare.

On the plus side, Obama buried the Bill Ayres question for good.

If McCain lost any points, its that he was overagressive, overbearing and showed his disdain for Obama through his facial expressions.

Nigeria, Algeria, Benin and Malawi please!

Anything that requires human input is prone to inefficiency because humans are inherently inefficient. That is why extreme socialism didn't work and that is why extreme capitalism and deregulation has fallen flat on it's face.  They both rely too heavily on human input. Just because one fails, that doesn't mean the other is correct - and vice versa. (At this point some will insert argument about the subprime crisis being caused by social policies, neglecting that the market for CDO's is worth $48 trillion; and these CDO's are what brought down the economy. This is akin to placing a grenade next to a nuclear bomb and then blaming the grenade for acting as a detonator when the nuclear bomb wipes out the city)

I think the following copy and paste is very interesting. It's the best thing I have read all week on political economy:


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4937563.ece


Two fundamentally American ideas have dominated global thinking since the early 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was President. The first was a vision of capitalism which argued that low taxes, light regulation and a pared-back government would be the engine for economic growth. The second was America as a promoter of liberal democracy around the world.

It's hard to fathom just how badly these features of the American brand have been discredited. Between 2002 and 2007, as the world was enjoying unprecedented growth, it was easy to ignore those who denounced the US economic model as “cowboy capitalism”, but now the American economy threatens to drag the rest of the world down with it. Under the mantra of less government, Washington has failed to regulate adequately the financial sector.

Democracy was tarnished even earlier. Once Saddam Hussein was proved not to have weapons of mass destruction, the Bush Administration sought to justify the Iraq war by linking it to a broader “freedom agenda”; suddenly promotion of democracy was a chief weapon in the war against terrorism.

The Reagan-Thatcher revolution caused a huge amount of pain as industries shrank or shut down. But it also laid the groundwork for three decades of growth and the emergence of new sectors such as information technology and biotechnology.Like all transformative movements, however, the revolution lost its way because it became an unimpeachable ideology, not a pragmatic response to the excesses of the welfare state.

Two concepts were sacrosanct: that tax cuts would be self-financing, and financial markets self-regulating. Before the 1980s, conservatives were unwilling to spend more than they took in in taxes. But Reaganomics introduced the idea that virtually any tax cut would so stimulate growth that the government would take in more revenue in the end. In fact, the traditional view was correct: if you cut taxes without cutting spending, you end up with a damaging deficit - the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s produced a big deficit; the Clinton tax increases of the 1990s a surplus.

The fact that the US economy grew just as fast in the Clinton years didn't shake conservative faith in tax cuts. And globalisation masked the flaws in this reasoning for several decades. Foreigners seemed endlessly willing to hold US dollars, allowing the US Government to run deficits and enjoy high growth. That's why early on privates Cheney reportedly told President Bush that the lesson of the 1980s was that “deficits don't matter”.

The second article of faith - financial deregulation - was pushed by an unholy alliance of true believers and Wall Street. It produced the flood of innovative new products such as collateralised debt obligations at the core of the present crisis.

Financial institutions are based on trust, which can only flourish if governments ensure that they are transparent and constrained in the risks they take with other people's money. The sector is also different because the collapse of a financial institution harms not just its shareholders and employees, but a host of innocent bystanders as well.

Signs that the Reagan revolution had drifted dangerously have been clear over the past decade. An early warning was the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98. As Thailand and South Korea liberalised capital markets, hot money started flowing in, creating a speculative bubble, and then rushed out again at the first sign of trouble.

And China and other countries began buying dollars as part of a strategy to undervalue their currencies. This meant that the US could cut taxes, finance consumption, pay for two expensive wars and run a fiscal deficit. But the mounting deficits were clearly unsustainable; sooner or later foreigners would decide that America wasn't such a great place for their money. The falling dollar indicates that we are at that point. Clearly, deficits do matter.

All this suggests that the Reagan era should have ended some time ago. It didn't partly because the Democratic Party failed to be convincing but also because, in America, less-educated, working-class citizens can swing either left or right. This group of voters will decide next month's election. Will they tilt toward the more distant, Barack Obama, who more accurately reflects their economic interests? Or stick with people they can better identify with, John McCain and Sarah Palin? It took the economic crisis of 1929-31 to bring the Democrats to power. We may again have reached that point.

No matter who wins the presidency, a new cycle of American and world politics will have begun. Which candidate is better positioned to rebrand America? Mr Obama obviously carries less baggage from the recent past, while Mr McCain may be the only Republican who can bring his party, kicking and screaming, into a post-Reagan era. But one gets the sense that he hasn't fully made up his mind what kind of Republican he is, or what principles should define the new America.

American influence can and will be restored. The US has come back from serious setbacks in the 1930s and 1970s. Still, another comeback rests on some fundamental changes. It must break out of the Reagan-era straitjacket. Tax cuts feel good but do not necessarily stimulate growth or pay for themselves; Americans must be told honestly that they will have to pay their own way.

Of course, there's a danger of overcorrecting. Financial institutions need strong supervision, but it isn't clear that other sectors of the economy do. Free trade remains a powerful motor for economic growth. If tax cutting is not a path to automatic prosperity, neither is unconstrained social spending. The cost of the bailouts and the long-term weakness of the dollar make inflation a serious threat.

The biggest change that America must make is in its politics. The Reagan revolution broke the 50-year dominance of liberals and Democrats in US politics but what were once fresh ideas have hardened into dogmas. The ultimate test for the US model will be its capacity to reinvent itself. Good branding is not a matter of putting lipstick on a pig. It's about having the right product to sell in the first place. American democracy has its work cut out.

I heard that Britain is repossessing Iceland.  Seriously, Britain had to invoke anti-terror laws in order to sieze some of Iceland's assets.

Iceland have learned a very harsh lesson, that a country of only 300,000 people should not overleverage themselves in the credit markets.

All this means is that Iceland cannot resist the EU any longer. They have to join now.

dayokanu:
Which boxer was not stopped by a freak Tyson had Douglas, Lennox had Mccall/Rahman, Holyfield had Bowe.

Riddick Bowe was no freak. He was a qualified fighter. Rahman caught Lennox with a sneak shot. That is not the case with Buster Douglas. Go and watch the Buster Douglas fight again. You will see that Buster beat Mike Tyson black and blue for the last three rounds. It was no freak result.

dayokanu:
Moreover Holyfield and Lennox were not fighters at all they are just hunks who can't do anything.

Lennox used his size too much maybe, but Holyfield was an accomplished boxer who was smaller and weighed less than most of his opponents.

dayokanu:
Tyson defeated Spinks, Holmes, Ruddock who was number 2 and many more.

Abeg comot old man Larry Holmes name from that list. Tyson cannot beat Holmes in his heydey: the same way Holmes cannot beat Ali in his heydey. That fight came after 2 year retirement from Holmes.

All the rest that Tyson beat are nobodies.

dayokanu:
Iron Mike was the first heavyweight to Unify all the titles WBC, WBA and IBF yet you feel this guy is not the Greatest or do you think he was picking the titles on the floor?

Gimme a break! Who was hoilding the titles that Tyson collected. All nobodies. The Heavyweights in the 80's were as rubbish as the heavyweights in the Marciano/Jersey Joe Walcott era. As soon as some greats came onto the scene in the 90's, Tyson was nowhere to be found. Don King tricked HBO into organising a unification tournament, otherwise Tyson would not have unified the belts so young. HBO bought into it because of the hype surrounding Tyson, due to his reputation as a knockout King.


Finally, comparing Tyson to Ali is blasphemy. Ali fought 3 fighters with similar styles to Tyson and beat all of them. Sonny Liston is the most similar boxer to Tyson in history. Yet he suffered 2 ignonimous defeats to Ali without even putting up a fight. Ali would be too fast for Tyson just like he was for Liston. Another knockout king that Ali faced was George Foreman. George Foreman who killed a cow with one punch. The greatest knockout king of all time. Ali was already old when he fought Foreman, yet again, he was too fast for him, slipping all his punches on the ropes. Another Tyson-clone was Frasier. Frasier's left hook is just like Tyson's. Ali beat him twice and Frasier won once. Yet, none of these knockout Kings could KO Ali, so is it unfit Mike Tyson who cannot last more than 5 rounds that will KO Ali? Ali is too fast for him. Ali is the only heavyweight who fought with the style, foot speed and hand speed of a middleweight - and he learnt it from Sugar Ray Robinson.

You guys dey yarn opata.

How can you compare Tyson to even Holyfield? Holyfield was King of lightweight and cruiserweight for years before he even stepped up to heavyweight. His fight with Mohamed Qawi is these lower divisions is ranked as one of the best of all time. Mike Tyson was scared of Holyfield:

In 1990, Holyfield beat Seamus McDonagh, knocking him out in four rounds. Holyfield by this time had been the Ring Magazine's Number 1 contender for 2 years and had yet to receive a shot a Tyson's heavyweight title.

Then a deal was signed for him to defend his crown against Mike Tyson in November 1991. Tyson delayed the fight, claiming he was injured in training, but was then convicted for the rape of Desiree Washington and sentenced to six years in prison, so the fight did not happen at that time.

Why is Tyson fighting guys like Buster Douglas when Holyfield is the no 1 contender? It is only after Holyfield won the belt that Tyson dared to fight him.

Lets not forget that Mike Tyson lost twice to one white boy and couldn't even qualify for the olympics. What kind of nonsense is this?

If you want to talk about power or knockout punch, George Foreman has way more power than Mike Tyson.

Tyson is only the third best heavyweight (not boxer) of his generation, talkless of greatest of all time. We are talking about a man who paid Lennox Lewis $4million not to fight him when Lennox was the mandatory challenger. His style may be more exciting but that does not make him the best. If excitement is the criteria for greatness, then Mohammed Qawi and Marvin Haggler were far more exciting to me than Mike Tyson. Tyson went to prison for 47 months, so what? Mohammed Ali was inactive for 43 months after the Vietnam fiasco and still came back to dominate the world. Still I ask, which important fighter did Mike Tyson beat? Is it a 40 year old Larry Holmes? Mike Tyson did not beat any single fighter who could be considered a great. Infact, he is remembered more for his defeats than his victories. So how can he be considered the greatest?


Please read this:

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/boxing-news/lotierzo1803.php

I have watched the amateur and professional boxing career of Mike Tyson since 1982. I have never seen a fighter who has been afforded so many excuses by the public. Never have I heard more fans make excuses for a fighter after suffering a loss. As of this writing he has been beaten 4 times, knocked out in three of his defeats with each one more severe, and he quit in his other defeat before he was stopped. Against Buster Douglas his fans say he threw the fight or he was drugged, why was it that they couldn't accept him being beaten. I've even heard some say Holyfield waited until Tyson was shot before facing him, which has to be the most uninformed opinion in history! It was Holyfield who was shot when he and Tyson met in November of 96. Most fail to mention that Holyfield is 4 years older then Tyson, and he has faced the very best the heavyweight division has had to offer, which cannot be said about Tyson. Holyfield also has had a much tougher career then Tyson because of him not being blessed with one punch knockout power, many of his fights turned into wars and going the distance. In fact Holyfield resurrected his career off the wins he scored over Tyson. I've even have had fans tell me that Tyson should be rated above Holyfield in the overall ranking of histories greatest heavyweight champions. How can that even be said in jest ? Not only has Holyfield clearly beaten Tyson twice but he had the better career. He's fought fighters that Tyson avoided and has faced and defeated better fighters then Tyson throughout his career, no boxing fan or historian can question this. Holyfield proved he's clearly the better fighter period, why can't some Tyson fans accept it?

How about his defeat by Lennox Lewis? Again some try to convince themselves that Mike was drugged or wasn't himself. Do you realize Frank Bruno put up a better fight vs Lewis then Tyson did. The fact of the matter is, Mike Tyson was never as good as the media or fans thought or wanted to believe he was. He's been a front runner against overmatched opponents and he's been thoroughly beat by the best fighters he's shared the ring with. A review of Tyson's career leads to only one conclusion. However physically talented he may be, he is maybe the most overrated champion in heavyweight history. He has been the loser of the three most important fights of his career, and that is not an opinion it is a fact.

When reviewing the career of Mike Tyson it must start with the exceptional job done by his management team. Tyson managers Jim Jacobs and Bill Cayton did the best marketing job in history with Tyson. Remember how they circulated a highlight tape of the fighters first 5 pro bouts to the mainstream sports media and writers. He was matched so perfectly with opponents that he would not only beat but he would look like something from out of this world in the process. Make no mistake Mr. Tyson can punch with both hands, and he is extremely fast for a fighter who hits as hard as he does. And he is a great front runner.

However, a close examination of Tyson's career reveals several telling facts indicating that he is not all that he was built up to be. His first 20 opponents are probably among the worst of any heavyweight at the start of their career. He actually fought guys who were inactive for three years and had lost their last 8-10 fights by knockout ! He won the WBC title from 32 year old Trevor Berbick in Nov 86 to become the youngest heavyweight champion in history at age 20. This is the same Berbick who was knocked out in one round by Bernardo Mercardo.

Tyson then wins the WBA title in March 87 from Bonecrusher Smith by decision, Bonecrusher was stopped in 12 rounds by Larry Holmes in Nov 84, and Tyson only decisions him 3 years later. He then goes on to win his title-unification bout with undefeated Tony Tucker by unanimous decision in August of 87, however the only fighter who was hurt or shook in the fight was Tyson by a Tucker uppercut. After a 7 round stoppage of 15-0 Tyrell Biggs he stops 38 year old Larry Holmes in 4 rounds in Jan 88. Holmes hadn't fought in two years, trained on a rowing machine and tread mill and only sparred a few times at his own gym, and had no training camp. Holmes said before the fight needed 3 million to pay off a building. The best testament to Tyson's punch is that Holmes was never stopped before or since. After Holmes Tyson goes to Tokyo to fight the human blimp Tony Tubbs. Tubbs is in such good shape he comes in at 237 pounds forfeiting a 50,000 $ bonus for not coming in 230 or below. Tyson does what he should and blows Tubbs out in two rounds.

In his next fight he beats former Lt. heavyweight champ Michael Spinks in one round in June 88, this is what his whole career is built on. Remember this is the Spinks who got a gift decision over 36 year old Holmes two years earlier in their rematch. However impressive Tyson was vs Spinks, in my book beating an old overfed Lt. heavyweight is not a pass to the Hall of Fame. After a brief marriage to Robin Givens he fights china chinned Frank Bruno in Feb 89 and TKO's him in 5. Bonecrusher Smith knocked out Bruno for a 10 count in Feb 84, Tim Witherspoon also knocked out Bruno for the count in July 86. Why is it so monumental when Tyson TKO's him 5 years after Bonecrusher and 3 years after Witherspoon. This is the hysteria I could never understand after some Tyson fights.

In July of 89 he stops Carl "The Truth" Williams in one round, (Quick hook by Ref Randy Neuman), the Truth had been KO'D for the count by Mike Weaver in 86 on Tyson-Ferguson undercard. Once again Tyson is perceived as a boxing immortal off a stoppage of a fighter who's known to have a questionable chin. Then comes Buster Douglas. Going into the Tyson fight Douglas had been KO'D in 3 of his 4 loses. In his title shot before Tyson he was KO'D by Tony Tucker, or as some have said he quit. This is some guy to lose your title against when you are about to turn 24 and in your absolute prime. Yes this is close to Tyson's prime, punchers mature much sooner then boxers do. I guess if I told you going into the fight that Douglas was in the best shape of his life and Tyson was in the worst shape of his career you would've picked the 42-1 underdog Douglas? Tyson should be eliminated from all-time status for that defeat alone. How could he get knocked out by a stiff like Douglas, I don't care how bad a shape he was in, he was in good enough shape to drop Douglas in round 8 with one right uppercut after getting shellacked up to that point in the fight. Maybe if he hung on to lose a decision it wouldn't be so terrible but he was knocked out by a STIFF, not TKO'D but KO'D. Douglas affords Tyson another record, the youngest fighter to lose the heavyweight title.

After being dethroned by Douglas Tyson scores first round knockouts over Henry Tillman and Alex Stewart, obvious confidence builders for Tyson's shattered psyche. Next is Razor Ruddock, the one arm bandit. Before talking about Tyson-Ruddock, let's not forget that Ruddock was KO'D by journeyman Dave Jaco prior to this. Tyson-Ruddock I, Tyson once again is the benefactor of quick hooked referee Richard Steele as Ruddock lives up to one arm bandit billing. However it must be said that other then a brief Ruddock flurry that shook Tyson in the 6th round Tyson was in complete command. Tyson-Ruddock II, Tyson wins a 12 round unanimous decision after dropping Ruddock in rounds two and four. Ruddock actually stands up to Tyson and Tyson accounts him self very good proving that he is the better fighter. Then after serving 3 year jail conviction for rape Tyson is released from prison and fights boxings version of murders row, starting with Peter McNeely, (Remember Ali fought Second ranked Jerry Quarry in his first fight after his exile which was 43 months, Tyson's absence was 47 months) followed by Buster Mathis Jr, Frank Bruno and Bruce Seldon as their names say just about all you need to know about them. Mathis couldn't punch, Bruno and Seldon had no chin. However we can't forget that Tyson paid Lennox Lewis 4 million $ so he didn't have to fight him, thus clearing the away for Seldon.

After the Seldon farce he fights Evander Holyfield in Nov of 96. This is Holyfield coming off the two worst fights of his life. He was KO'D by Bowe in the 3rd match up between them in Nov of 95 and couldn't even put down former middleweight Bobby Czyz in May of 96. After Holyfield is cleared by the Mayo clinic he fights Tyson. Holyfield goes on to knock Tyson down in round 6 and thoroughly kick Tyson's butt before stopping him in round 11. Oh' Holyfield hadn't scored a stoppage over a heavyweight since Bert Cooper in Nov of 91 but he stops Tyson. After one postponement he and Holyfield fight again. Tyson by quitting in this fight says more about him than if he got knocked out again. When Tyson realized that he was on his way to being stopped by Holyfield for a second consecutive time he wanted out. So he hid behind the ref crying about being head butt by Holyfield. Isn't that something, the fighter who made a career out of hitting on the break and after the bell looks to the referee to save him. Tyson is DQ'D in round 3 for biting both of Holyfield's ears. This is after a stern warning from ref Mills Lane to Tyson for biting Holyfield's ear the first time. After Tyson is threatened with disqualification he goes and bites Holyfield's other ear the very next time they clinch, he wanted out of the fight. By biting and acting crazy he saved his career because he convinced the public he was so mad at Holyfield that he wanted to injure him, he even went so far as to push Holyfield after the fight while his back was turned !

As a result of biting Holyfield the Nevada boxing commission revokes Tyson's boxing license. After 6 months of inactivity Tyson returns to the ring and fights six nondescript opponents before facing Heavyweight Champion Lennox Lewis in Memphis. The twice beaten Lewis is recognized as the worlds best heavyweight and true champion. Lewis provides Tyson a chance to redeem himself for the poor showings against Holyfield and a chance to lay claim to again being boxings premier heavyweight. Lewis suffering one punch knockout loses to Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman is thought to be just right for Tyson by some due to his chin which has come under it fair share of criticism. On June 8th 2002 Lewis inflicts Tyson with the worse beating of his career. On this night Lewis bust Tyson's face up knocking him down in round 4 and knocking him out in round 8. A sullen Tyson can only offer praise and respect to Lewis in ring center after the fight while wiping the sweat from Lewis' face with his hand. Since Lewis Tyson has fought one time, scoring a 49 second KO of Clifford Eitenne in what has been a staple of the type fight Tyson returns with following a defeat.

When evaluating Tyson the fighter it must be stated, physically he may be as gifted as any heavyweight champ in history other then Muhammad Ali. He has very quick hands that carry knockout power in both. He was somewhat elusive to hit with upper-body movement, not quite the bob and weaver as Frazier but still effective. Some have questioned his chin, I don't. He's been stopped by non-punchers in Douglas and Holyfield but this was due to absorbing many blows throughout the fight. Tyson has a sturdy chin, its what happens to him inside when he gets hit. Tyson's make up inside is his short coming, those traits identify him more then his physical skills.

I once asked Larry Merchant to compare Frazier and Tyson. He said the difference between Frazier and Tyson is, "Frazier was a mile wide and a mile deep, Tyson is a mile wide and an inch deep". When Tyson has been confronted by an opponent who came to win instead of getting paid he's folded every time !

The true test of greatness is how a fighter reacts in the face of adversity, or how he handles defeat. When Tyson has been in with fighters who caved in front of him he was a wrecking machine. He killed guys like Berbick, Stewart, Tillman, Seldon, and Francis. Who has Tyson defeated among his 50 victories that merit anybodies top ten list ? Tyson has been beaten 4 times, three times by knockout and once he quit before he was stopped. Every time he's been beaten its been worse and has followed form. A game start, however if the opponent stood up to the assault he crumbled.

As mentioned earlier, Tyson was the best hyped fighter in history. The public fell in love with him and wanted to see him register a knockout, the opponent didn't matter, it could've been anybody which is who it was a majority of the time. He's fought set-ups his entire career, not that the outcome was pre-determined but their was always and angle. Fighters were coming off long periods of inactivity, or they where tailor made for him like Eitenne. In some fights the fighters were well past their best days or in the midst of a long losing streaks. One only needs to look at the circumstance surrounding the first Holyfield fight to see that Tyson has always avoided, a true challenge. ! Holyfield was in the middle of the worst rut of his career coming off being stopped by Bowe and an awful showing against Czyz in his two previous fights. Their was no public out-cry or demand for this fight, Holyfield was not considered any more then a faded ex-champ going into his fight with Tyson. The determining factor in putting this fight together was the fact that Tyson deemed Holyfield safe, and Tyson knew Holyfield would be the fighter he would be measured against in his era. Tyson wanted a win over Holyfield, even the watered down eroded version was good enough ! After having everything in place to beat Holyfield, Holyfield proves he's the better fighter and takes him apart.

I ask, is this the body of work of an all-time great? I thought great fighters were supposed to win the so-called signature fights of their career ? The Tyson fans have all kinds of reasons and excuses for his defeats. The bottom line is that you can search all day and you'll never find that signature fight on his resume.

He's been knocked out and has quit in the biggest fights of his career, and he has no excuse other then he was not good enough. The truth is that he's more remembered for his defeats then his victories, what other great heavyweight can you say that about?

Tyson did avoid Evander. Evander was chasing Tyson his whole life but Tyson refused to fight him until Evander was in possession of the belt.

All of you so-called boxing officionado's are calling many names but no one is calling the only name who is undoubtedly the greatest of all time - Sugar Ray Robinson. Even Ali said that Robinson is the greatest boxer. Ali is great, but the greatest should not be losing to Joe Frazier, especially when you consider the mauling that Foreman handed to Frasier. As for Mike Tyson, he can forget it. He was great at his explosive best but longevity is part of greatness. For many years he was scared of Holyfield, even before he went to prison, refusing to fight Holyfield for 2 years when Holyfield was the mandatory challenger. As for Marciano, he fought in the days when there were not many great fighters.

Sugar Ray Robinson voted the greatest of all time by countless boxing historians, from Ring Magazine to ESPN to The International Boxing Research Association:

http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00016439.html

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/robinson_p4p.html

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=8346&more=1

Dead wrong. Sugar Ray Robinson is by far the best.

And by the way, Tyson was scared of Holyfield. He ducked him for 2 years.

So what do you guys feel about the $2.3 trillion bailout in Europe. Is that also wrong? I did not hear any Europeans complaining about it.

[quote author=Negro_Ntns link=topic=182370.msg2938439#msg2938439 date=1223936260](1.) instead there is contention on why he lied about the quality or depth of such association.

(2.) Were there partnering, were there ideological alignments between the two and if there is what is it about? If Obama sits and discuss with Ayers on how to improve educational curriculum, then what is the substance of the curriculum and knowing Ayers, what are the objectives of the educational reform?[/quote](1.) Politicians always dissociate themselves from risky people. This is not a question of lying, it's a question of being smart. Whatever he says about his relationship with Ayres, they will make it into another thing anyway.

(2.) Why should there be any ideological alignment between the two? They are in overlapping circles. If Republicans want to be honest about the objectives of the educational reform, they should go and ask all the Republicans who participated in it, including the Annenbergs who approved the grant. Infact, it wasn't even Ayres who appointed Obama to the board, it was another lady, as my copy and paste shows.

This is complete hogwash.

I think the Sierra Leone match proved that these golden oldies are holding us back - but that has always been the case in Nigerian football. Fans find it hard to dissociate their love for the younger version of Kanu, Yakubu etc with their love for the older versions. This is why we struggle to dominate games. The youngsters are ready and are in their prime. They are not Under-23, they are about 28-30. We cannot wait until their football age is 25 before we put them into SE. By then, their real age will be too old to bear any fruit for us. We only need Kanu off the bench because the other elders like Yakubu and Utaka struggle to put games beyond doubt. Now is the time for Odemwingie, Obasi, Nsofor, Uche and even Anichebe to lead our attack.

I agree. Their legs are tired.

[center]Laloko: Kanu, Aiyegbeni should quit Eagles now
Written by Richard Animam & Philips Adefioye [/center]

FORMER Nigeria Football Federation, (NFF), Technical Director, Chief Kashimawo Laloko, has advised Super Eagles head coach, Shaibu Amodu, to beef up the present Eagles with new players who are at their peak in their various clubs.

Laloko said inability to take risk of introducing new players to build a team to replace the old ones has been the major obstacle to the Nigerian coaches progress.

“I credit Arsene Wenger because he is a man who can take risk. He doesn’t care if a player is young or not because he believes in himself and the technicalities of coaching. He brings in new players, coach them well and take the risk which is giving results. Our coaches must learn how to take risk, our coaches must believe in themselves, our coaches must show people that they know how to coach.

“Players like Nwankwo Kanu, Yakubu Aiyegbeni and John Utaka are old and they have to go and rest but each time we say that they are not happy. By now I think we should have done with these old players in the Eagles and get the new ones to continue the journey, without taking the risk we cannot develop.”

The one-time handler of the defunct Stationery Stores of Lagos Football Club said that the Nigeria Football Federation and coach Amodu should not wait to be told that some of the players in the team are old, adding that the second stanza of the World Cup/Nations Cup qualifiers is on the way which will be tougher compared to the first phase.

“We should always look at the level of development of our game, nobody needs to tell anybody that Kanu is old. For example Austin Okocha eased himself out of the game. I thought that they should know that it is high time they left the game. If the speed is lost, the power is lost. It is only the brain that is there but you can only play football with speed, power and skill and once the speed is gone forget it and allow other upcoming players to step in.

Meanwhile, the former Stationery Stores coach has adviced national U-23 coach Samson Siasia, who unveiled plans for his football Academy (SIA ONE FOOTBALL ACADEMY) last Thursday at the Lagos Airport Hotel, Ikeja, not to depend on government for the funding of his academy. Laloko who spoke from personal experience as the founder and coordinator of Pepsi Football Academy, said Siasia should not wait till he gets millions of Naira from government before he starts the academy.

According to him, there are people in government who does not want anything good to succeed and would go out of their ways to ensure that they frustrate attempts by government to support such ideas or programme. He gave an example of how, some people in the NSC denied him the opportunity of getting the sum approved by then NSC chairman Alex Akinleye.

“I advice Siasia to start small. He should not be too optimistic about the government or any corporate body. He does not need a million Naira to start an academy. He needs the structures no matter how small it is. Again, I want to advice Siasia not to involve too many brothers or friends. This is business and there is no friendship. Too many cooks spoils the foods,” he said.

Laloko lauded the idea behind the project and appealed to Siasia not to stay away from those managing the academy. “It is very important that Siasia personally oversees this project. If it must succeed then, he must be able to impact a lot of discipline in the boys. If he is too far away from the academy, he might not be able to give his input and that would affect the quality of his products.

I implore Siasia to produce players who are better than himself because that would ultimately be the yardstick to measure the academy,” he added.

Subice, thanks a lot. People like Tayo-D would not recognise when someone is inciting a hate-mob until that hate-mob burns his house down. Bringing up this Bill Ayers link is a joke. It is a tenous link at best. Bill Ayers has worked with many established Democrats and Republicans on education reform. But here's some copy and paste for all since people keep playing this nonsense guilt by association game:


"My government is my worst enemy. I'm going to fight them with any means at hand."

This was former revolutionary terrorist Bill Ayers back in his old Weather Underground days, right? Imagine what Sarah Palin is going to do with this incendiary quote as she tears into Barack Obama this week.

Only one problem. The quote is from Joe Vogler, the raging anti-American who founded the Alaska Independence Party. Inconveniently for Palin, that's the very same secessionist party that her husband, Todd, belonged to for seven years and that she sent a shout-out to as Alaska governor earlier this year. ("Keep up the good work," Palin told AIP members. "And God bless you."

Here is the video of Sarah Palin addressing the AIP:


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

AIP chairwoman Lynette Clark told me recently that Sarah Palin is her kind of girl. "She's Alaskan to the bone ,  she sounds just like Joe Vogler."

So who are these America-haters that the Palins are pallin' around with?

Before his strange murder in 1993, party founder Vogler preached armed insurrection against the United States of America. Vogler, who always carried a Magnum with him, was fond of saying, "When the [federal] bureaucrats come after me, I suggest they wear red coats. They make better targets. In the federal government are the biggest liars in the United States, and I hate them with a passion. They think they own [Alaska]. There comes a time when people will choose to die with honor rather than live with dishonor. That time may be coming here. Our goal is ultimate independence by peaceful means under a minimal government fully responsive to the people. I hope we don't have to take human life, but if they go on tramping on our property rights, look out, we're ready to die."

This quote is from "Coming Into the Country," by John McPhee, who traipsed around Alaska's remote gold mining country with Vogler for his 1991 book. The violent-tempered secessionist vowed to McPhee that if any federal official tried to stop him from polluting Alaska's rivers with his earth-moving equipment, he would "run over him with a Cat and turn mosquitoes loose on him while he dies."

Vogler wasn't just a blowhard either. He put his secessionist ideas into action, working to build AIP membership to 20,000 -- an impressive figure by Alaska standards -- and to elect party member Walter Hickel as governor in 1990.

Vogler's greatest moment of glory was to be his 1993 appearance before the United Nations to denounce United States "tyranny" before the entire world and to demand Alaska's freedom. The Alaska secessionist had persuaded the government of Iran to sponsor his anti-American harangue.

That's right ,  Iran. The Islamic dictatorship. The taker of American hostages. The rogue nation that McCain and Palin have excoriated Obama for suggesting we diplomatically engage. That Iran.

AIP leaders allege that Vogler, who was murdered that year by a fellow secessionist, was taken out by powerful forces in the US. before he could reach his U.N. platform. "The United States government would have been deeply embarrassed," by Vogler's U.N. speech, darkly suggests Clark. "And we can't have that, can we?"

The Republican ticket is working hard this week to make Barack Obama's tenuous connection to graying, '60s revolutionary Bill Ayers a major campaign issue. But the Palins' connection to anti-American extremism is much more central to their political biographies.

Imagine the uproar if Michelle Obama was revealed to have joined a black nationalist party whose founder preached armed secession from the United States and who enlisted the government of Iran in his cause? The Obama campaign would probably not have survived such an explosive revelation. Particularly if Barack Obama himself was videotaped giving the anti-American secessionists his wholehearted support just months ago.

Where's the outrage, Sarah Palin has been asking this week, in her attacks on Obama's fuzzy ties to Ayers? The question is more appropriate when applied to her own disturbing associations.

A lot of people have been talking nonsense about Obama and Bill Ayres. Most of these have not even taken time to investigate the facts. If you taint Obama with association with Bill Ayres, you will have to taint half of Chicago's Professors, Senators, Mayors and Governors because they all worked on the Annenbergh challenge. Mr Annenberg was a Republican, former ambassador to the UK, by the way. Obama was appointed to the board, not by Ayers but by someone else. So here are the facts:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge


The three co-authors of Chicago's winning Annenberg Challenge $49.2 million grant proposal were:

William Ayers, associate professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago; co-director of the Small Schools Workshop; co-director of the Chicago Forum for School Change—an affiliate of the Coalition of Essential Schools;[20] chairman of the Alliance for Better Chicago Schools (ABCs) coalition;[21][22] former Chicago assistant deputy mayor for education (1989–1990);[22] brother of John Ayers, executive director (1994–2004) of Leadership for Quality Education (an affiliate of the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago) and former associate director (1987–1994) of the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago; son of Thomas Ayers, former president (1964–1980), chairman and CEO (1973–1980) of Commonwealth Edison and former vice president (1980) of the Chicago School Board

Anne Hallett, executive director and founder of the Cross-City Campaign for Urban School Reform; former executive director of the Wieboldt Foundation (1986–1993); former executive director of the Citizens Education Center in Seattle (1983–1986); former executive director and founder of the Chicago Panel on School Policy (1982–1983); former chair, founder, and chief lobbyist for Citizens for Fair School Funding in Seattle (1976–1982)[21][23][24][25][26

Warren Chapman, senior program officer for education at the Joyce Foundation; former state coordinator at the Illinois State Board of Education for the Illinois Alliance of Essential Schools—a regional center of the Coalition of Essential Schools (1986–1992)[28][29]

On December 17, 1993, Ayers, Hallet and Chapman met to discuss how to win an Annenberg Challenge grant for Chicago. Hallett and Chapman were already informal pro bono advisors to the national Annenberg Challenge, and over the course of the following year they met repeatedly at Brown University with other Annenberg advisors and worked to ensure that Chicago would be one of the first cities selected to receive a grant.[19]

In Chicago, Ayers, Hallett and Chapman gathered a 73-member Chicago School Reform Collaborative Working Group from organizations involved in school reform to help them draft a proposal, with Hallett's Cross-City Campaign for Urban School Reform donating its headquarters and providing staff support to the Working Group.[19] In June 1994, Ayers and Hallett submitted a draft proposal to Gregorian on behalf of the Working Group.[30]

The presidents of the three largest independent foundations active in Chicago school reform:

Adele Smith Simmons, president of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (1989–1999); vice chair and senior executive of Chicago Metropolis 2020—a project of the Commercial Club of Chicago (1999– ); senior associate at the Center for International Studies at the University of Chicago (1999–2005); former president of Hampshire College (1977–1989); former assistant professor of East African history at Princeton University (1972–1977) and Tufts University (1969–1972); former dean of students at Princeton University (1972–1977); former dean of Jackson College for Women of Tufts University (1970–1972); Ph.D. 1969, University of Oxford; B.A. 1963, Radcliffe College[31]

Deborah Leff, president of the Joyce Foundation (1992–1999); president and CEO of America's Second Harvest (1999–2001); director of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library (2001–2006); president of Public Welfare Foundation (2006– ); former senior producer at ABC News (1983–1989); former producer at WLS-TV ABC 7 News in Chicago (1981–1983); former director of public affairs at the Federal Trade Commission (1980–1981); former civil rights attorney at the US. Department of Justice (1977–1979); J.D. 1977, University of Chicago Law School; A.B. 1973, Princeton University[32]

Patricia Albjerg Graham, president of the Spencer Foundation (1991–2000); professor of the history of education (1977–2006) and former dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education (1982–1991); former dean of the Radcliffe Institute (1974–1977) and vice president of Radcliffe College (1976–1977); former assistant professor (1965–1968), associate professor (1968–1972), professor (1972–1974) of the history of education at Barnard College and Teachers College, Columbia University; former assistant professor of the history of education at Indiana University (1964–1966); former high school teacher, Norfolk, Viriginia (1955–1956, 1957–1958), New York City (1958–1960); Ph.D. 1964, Columbia University; B.S. 1955, M.S. 1957, Purdue University[33]

On January 23, 1995, in a ceremony attended by Mayor Daley, Governor Edgar, and other dignitaries at Washington Irving Elementary School (where the 1988 School Reform Act had been signed), Walter Annenberg's daughter, Wallis Annenberg, presented a symbolic $49.2 million check from the Annenberg Foundation to 11-year-old Amanda Morado, who accepted it on behalf of the nearly 410,000 Chicago public school children.[11]

These programs provided by existing groups working with networks of schools became models for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge's grants which were to go to external partners—such as the Coalition of Essential Schools or the Algebra Project[36]—working with networks of 5 to 10 schools, as opposed to going to system-wide initiatives or going directly to individual schools.[19][35] The external partner could be anything from a school reform group to a teachers union to a community organization to a university to a local business.[35]

An 8-member Board of Directors made up of representatives of organizations that had no vested interest in Annenberg money was recruited to approve grants, hire an executive director and project staff, and determine which funds could count towards the required $98.4 million match.[19][35]

The Board of Directors was handpicked by Adele Smith Simmons, president of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, who was asked by Gregorian to "work with foundation leadership to create a board that would be diverse, including people from the community, business interests and civic leaders, and include no more than nine people."[19][35]

At a meeting with Simmons and Patricia Albjerg Graham, Deborah Leff suggested that Barack Obama would make a good board chairman.[37] After meeting and being impressed by Obama, Graham told Obama that she wanted him to be chairman of the Board of Directors.[37] Obama said that he would agree to serve as chairman if Graham would be vice chairman, to which Graham agreed

Board of Directors

The founding Board of Directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge as announced in 1995 were:[39]

Patricia Albjerg Graham

Barack Obama, civil rights attorney at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland; lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School; member of the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation and the Woods Fund of Chicago; winner, Crain's Chicago Business 40 Under 40 award, 1993; former president of the Harvard Law Review (1990–1991); former executive director of the Developing Communities Project (June 1985–May 1988)[25][40][41][42]

Stanley O. Ikenberry, president of the University of Illinois (1979–1995); member of the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago (1983–1995); former professor of education (1965–1971) and senior vice president (1971–1979) of Pennsylvania State University

Arnold R. Weber, president of the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago (1995–1999); member of the board of directors of the Arie and Ida Crown Memorial and the Tribune Company; former president of Northwestern University (1985–1994) and the University of Colorado (1980–1985); professor of labor economics and friend and colleague of George P. Shultz at MIT, the University of Chicago, and in the Nixon administration[43]

Ray Romero, vice president and general counsel of Ameritech; Chicago School Finance Authority board member (appointed in 1992 by Governor Jim Edgar); candidate in the 1996 Democratic primary for the 5th Congressional District of Illinois; winner, Crain's Chicago Business 40 Under 40 award, 1991; former Illinois Commerce Commission commissioner (appointed in 1985 by Governor Jim Thompson); former civil rights attorney as Midwest regional director of MALDEF where he was lead counsel for Hispanic plaintiffs in the 1985 Chicago ward remap[42][44]

Wanda White, executive director of the Community Workshop on Economic Development; former policy director of the Women's Self-Employment Project; former deputy commissioner of economic development under Chicago Mayors Washington, Sawyer and Daley

Elected to the board by the founding board soon after the creation of the first board were:

Susan Crown, president of the Arie and Ida Crown Memorial; vice president of Henry Crown & Company; daughter of Lester Crown[45]

Handy Lindsey, Jr., executive director (1988–1997) then president (1997–2003) of the Field Foundation of Illinois; former associate director of the Chicago Community Trust (1986–1988)

The final Board of Directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in 2001 were:

Patricia Albjerg Graham

Barack Obama

Edward Bottum, managing director of Chase Franklin Corp.; former president and vice chairman of Continental Illinois Bank[47]

Connie Evans, founder and president of the Women's Self-Employment Project

Susan Blankenbaker Noyes, former labor attorney at Sidley & Austin; daughter of Republican former Indiana state

Senator Virginia Murphy Blankenbaker; goddaughter of Patricia Albjerg Graham[48]

Scott C. Smith, president, CEO and publisher of the Chicago Tribune; former president, CEO and publisher of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel of Fort Lauderdale; former chairman of the South Florida Annenberg Challenge

Nancy Searle, consultant to the Searle Funds at the Chicago Community Trust

Victoria Chou, dean of the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago

John W. McCarter, Jr., president and CEO of the Field Museum

Jim Reynolds, Jr., co-founder, chairman and CEO of Loop Capital Services

I don't care if McCain wins as long as Palin's power is downgraded.

Shebi you guys saw the black guy at McCain's rally begging McCain to go after Obama on Rev Wright and father Pfleger? Guess what, he's a motivational speaker and actually a fan of Obama. I wonder how much McCain paid him for his motivational speech at the rally. 

Check out his website:

http://www.jamestillumination.com/what.htm


and on his blog, he talks a lot of positive stuff about Obama:

http://nationalconversation.typepad.com/about.html


Hahahahaha. 


Incase you missed it, here is the guy performing his motivational speech at the McCain rally:


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

[center]John McCain rally in Iowa marked by partisan prayer[/center]

[b]Rev. Arnold Conrad, in delivering an invocation at a rally today for John McCain in Davenport, Iowa, apparently didn't get the word from the candidate about elevating the tone at such gatherings.

Conrad, who appeared before the crowd before McCain had arrived, offered a prayer that seemed to urge divine intervention to prevent Barack Obama from winning the presidential election -- and cast the outcome as a referendum on differing religions.

The Times' Maeve Reston was at the event, and she passed along the key passage from Conrad's words:

"I would also pray Lord that your reputation is involved in all that happens between now and November, because there are millions of people around this world praying to their God -- whether it's Hindu, Buddha, Allah -- that his [McCain’s] opponent wins for a variety of reasons.

And Lord I pray that you would guard your own reputation, because they’re going to think that their god is bigger than you, if that happens. So I pray that you would step forward and honor your own name in all that happens between now and Election Day.

Oh Lord, we just commit this time to you, move among us, make your presence very well felt as we are gathered here today in Jesus's name I pray."

Some in the crowd greeted the prayer with applause.

-- Don Frederick [/b]


What kind of people are these? 

There is a civil war in the Republican party. This is what happens when you pander to nutjobs in order to win elections. Those nutjobs will never allow GOP to be progressive. If you sow the seeds of intolerance, you must be prepared to reap the whirlwind.

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=181829.msg2928686#msg2928686 date=1223741660]In Austria, we have the Alliance for the Future of Austria and the Freedom Party. They are quite comparable to the RNC of today.[/quote]Those two party's are far right parties which just won 30% of the vote which caused uproar in Europe last week. They are new parties, not established and they are very far right. Claiming that they are similar to RNC is wrong. They are worse than RNC. If you think RNC is similar to them, then RNC would be just like Jean Le Pen's party in France which is a racist party.  .

I am glad you think they are comparable to RNC cos this is what they represent:

[center]Austria is stunned by right's election gains [/center]

[b]VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Austrians struggled Monday to understand the reasons behind a resurgence of the far right, a day after the country's two anti-immigration parties soared to almost 30 percent of the vote.

Some experts suggested the results Sunday reflected a deep-seated discontent with the outgoing governing coalition rather than a sign that Austrians were becoming more extremist.

The governing coalition between the center-left Social Democrats and the conservative People's Party collapsed in July after an 18-month alliance that hit snags over tax reforms and EU policy changes.

Two rightist parties _ the Freedom Party and the Alliance for the Future of Austria _ won a combined 29 percent in Sunday's balloting. Both parties advocate an end to immigration and the expulsion of foreigners and asylum seekers who commit crimes.

"Internationally, Austria is 'Naziland' yet again," an opinion piece in the Die Presse newspaper said. "That is the big failure of the grand coalition."

Peter Filzmaier, a political analyst, said the resurgence was not a question of ideology but a reflection of disappointment among workers and the lack of leftist parties to pick up the votes. Others questioned that view.

"Protest plays an important role, but why did all the votes go to the far-right?" asked Anton Pelinka, a professor at Central European University in Budapest, Hungary.

The success of the far right brought back somber memories of Austria's 1999 elections, when the Freedom Party _ then headed by Joerg Haider _ won 27 percent of the vote. The party's subsequent inclusion in the government led to months of European Union sanctions over Haider's statements, which were seen as anti-Semitic or sympathetic to Adolf Hitler's labor policies.

Haider since has toned down his rhetoric and comes across as more moderate _ he did not emphasize the anti-foreigner angle too heavily during the election campaign.

But it was quite the opposite for the other leading rightist, Heinz-Christian Strache of the Freedom Party, whose campaign has been laced with anti-Islamic statements such as "the minaret has no place in Austria."

The rightists did particularly well with blue collar workers and the Freedom Party was the most popular party among those 30 years old and under, according to GfK Austria, a market research institute.

"Once again, it's the failure of the main parties and a growing group of rightist voters," he said. "It's a bit of both."[/b]


I agree. RNC is just like the two parties mentioned above. Finally, we agree on something!


However, these are not established parties, they are new parties. Give me an established major party please!

Tayo-D, not to belabour the point, but please name ONE major established political party in Europe which is more right-wing than Republicans with the possible exception of Italy.

William Ayres is not a Democrat, nor is he representative of the Democratic viewpoint. Your whole argument that the Democrats are leftist because William Ayres is leftist is frankly laughable.

The Conservative party of Britain is more left-wing than the democrats. There has been no left in America since the days of McCarthyism.

Please NAME ONE European country more right wing than Republicans. Stop ducking the issue. It's a simple litmus test. Or is the whole of Europe leftist as well? If so, what will you call South America? Leftest?

As for race, lets agree to disagree. You are so far gone, there is no common ground between us. I challenge you to make a poll: "Has Obama played the race card in this campaign?". . . . and see how Nairalanders respond to it. That should show you how out of touch you are. Like I said before, Obama has shown great self restraint during this campaign.

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_4264535,00.html

[center]Buck - even Blues not safe[/center]

[center]Chelsea chief backs Abramovich to steer club through credit crunch[/center]

The credit crunch is a very big issue that we are all going to have to deal with, certainly in the middle term, even with a benefactor like Roman Abramovich.

Uefa have revealed European football's governing body is looking at addressing the number of clubs who are succeeding on borrowed money as the current economic crisis threatens the game.

There is even talk clubs could be excluded from European competitions if they fail to manage their debts.

The funds owner Roman Abramovich has loaned Chelsea have allowed the London club to grow into European giants, and chairman Buck is confident the debt to the owner will be available for years to come.

But he also admits the Blues will start to feel the pinch in the coming months.

"No one is immune to the credit crisis, even football," he told Sky Sports News.

"I don't think any club is feeling it (the credit crunch) immediately but I think we all will feel it in the relatively near term.

"I think when season ticket renewals go out in May and when people start thinking about Christmas presents, I think we're going to have a more difficult time in our megastore and with corporate hospitality and our season ticket sales.

"The credit crunch is a very big issue that we are all going to have to deal with, certainly in the middle term, even with a benefactor like Roman Abramovich.

"If we think revenues are going to go down a bit we will have to look at our expense side and see if there are areas we can save a little bit and that is something we are doing at the moment. "

But Buck also believes the club can continue to rely on Abramovich during the current economic uncertainty.

He said: "We're very comfortable with the debt we have from Roman Abramovich in terms of its viability, its importance and its long-term availability."

Uefa are expected to focus on clubs who are struggling under the weight of debts which require servicing, and they are to undertake a radical review of their own club licensing system.

Uefa general secretary David Taylor said: "This is an attempt to find greater financial stability, especially at a time when banks are failing.

"Governments might bail out banks but they are not going to bail out a football club."

He explained: "We will not flinch if we have to exclude clubs from Europe's elite competition."

Former Scottish FA chief executive Taylor said: "We cannot let things stay as they are. There would be forms of communication, even warnings, even reprimands before one would ever get to a situation of exclusion but it's absolutely possible.

"It won't happen overnight or even next season but it is the ultimate sanction."

Guys, we may be in some trouble:

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1076302/Roman-Abramovich-loses-12billion-Russian-share-plunge.html


[center]Roman Abramovich loses £12billion in Russian share plunge[/center]
Roman Abramovich has lost £12billion on the Russian stock exchange, it was revealed today.

The Chelsea FC owner has seen his fortune shrink as Russia's Micex Index has gone into freefall.

The decline in value of two of his companies on the Moscow-based index, steel maker Evraz and mining company Highland Gold, has left the 41-year-old tycoon £11.9billion worse off.

It comes just four days after details emerged of the £200million super-yacht Abramovich is having built - set to be the largest private yacht ever constructed.

The massive bill for the boat amounts to just a 60th of today's gargantuan losses for the Russian oligarch.
Abramovich's woes come on a disastrous financial day for London's Premiership football clubs, with the owners of Arsenal and West Ham also suffering from the effects of instability in the markets.

Arsenal's part-owner Alisher Usmanov has lost £7billion on the Micex index, which has declined 61 per cent since its peak in May.

West Ham's Icelandic owner Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson also said he may sell the club after losing £230million.

Abramovich's losses will set alarm bells ringing in the football world and the City.

It comes after Chelsea chairman, Bruce Buck, suggested this week that the club could sell players to survive.


I wonder why Abramohvic would leverage himself only in a few specific stocks. Did nobody tell him to diversify his portfolio?

I am not going to address all your points. . . . but these I will address:


[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=181829.msg2926617#msg2926617 date=1223690662]Maybe you should start listening to what she has to say rather than reading meanings to her every word.[/quote]I don't need to listen to Palin. I already know all her talking points. The only Republicans I listen to are moderates like Ron Paul and John McCain. I have a natural disdain for anyone who the "Republican base" is enthused about. I know the kind of people that "Republican base" like and I disagree entirely with their ideology

Accusations of "palling around with terrorists" are nothing but race baiting. According to David Gergen and Ed Rollins who both worked for Ronald Reagan's campaign, Sarah Palin's behaviour this week has no place in American politics. 

I don't need a psychology degree to analyse the effects of many of her statements. The notion that a highly educated, Harvard trained mixed race man is a risky pick is in itself offensive not to talk of more serious inferences. If you want to have an honest discussion about race, lets have it. Most people have pathological prejudices, both black and white. Most of these people are not racist in the normal sense of the word, but certain pathological fears can be tapped into by politicians. The fears McPalin planted in people's minds have manifested at their campaign rallies this week. The proof is in the pudding. Lets not get into semantics here.

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=181829.msg2926617#msg2926617 date=1223690662]Was it not Obama who at a rally (not once or twice) was saying I do not look like all those Presidents on the dollar bill? What more evidence of race-baiting do you want? Like I said before Bill Clinton claimed Obama was race-baiting.[/quote]Can you remember how Nairalanders were so angry at Hillary Clinton for playing on the race issue? Many of us were incensed by Hillary's games and felt that Obama was put in a no-win situation once race came into play. If you remember correctly, Obama was winning everything till Hillary brought up the race issue. After that, he barely managed to limp over the finishing line. Has playing the race card ever got Tayo-D anywhere in life? - so I don't know why you would accuse your fellow black man of imaginary race-baiting when you know he has nothing to profit from it. Did Jesse Jackson get anywhere with it? Are you out of your mind? Those of us with common sense know that it does not profit any black politician to make race an issue in an election. Sorry for the harsh tone, but your argument is frankly bizarre. Whoever said Obama played the race card IS playing the reverse race card. That's a popular trick these days.

Obama was simply trying to assuage voter fears about his "difference". A difference which was accentuated by Hillary. He did not come out first and say he is different. He said it from a defensive position after all sorts of malicious rumours had been put out there about him being a muslim.

For someone who claims not to have watched Fox News recently, you definitely are spewing all their talking points. As for Bill Clinton, he was doing all he could to win the primaries for Hillary. He was absolutely wrong but that is part of the game. Part of the game of politics is to fling accusations at your opponent and see what sticks. It's all politics.

Campaign rhetoric should not be accepted as gospel truth - and we can apply that to Bill Clinton's statements in the primary. I have never taken Obama's accusations about McCain seriously. I have never called him McSame or anything like that. I have always respected him and I recognise he's a moderate. You should follow my example and stop swallowing rhetoric wholeheartedly about Obama playing the race card and other nonsense you come up with.

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=181829.msg2926617#msg2926617 date=1223690662]I diagree with you. The Republicans are now Centrists while the Democrats are left-leaning. Maybe not fully left, but they are almost there.[/quote]This is a simple litmus test - The Conservative party of Britain is more socialist than the Democrats. Can you name one major right-wing party in Europe which is more in favour of the free-market than Democrats? If you compare them to Europe, you will find that left-wing Europeans are to the left of the Democrats and right-wing Europeans occupy the same political space on the spectrum as the democrats do.

On the other hand, you will find NO GOVERNMENT in the rest of the civilised world as right wing as the Republicans. There are no neocons in Europe except in fringe parties. So how can you claim the centre-ground? Again, you are just spewing talking points from neocon shows. Your assertion has absolutely NO basis in reality. On any simple litmus test, you are wrong.

If you are 4ft tall and the rest of the World is 6ft, it is not because you are average height and they are tall. It is because they are average height and you are short.

I repeat: America has a centre and a right. There is no left-wing in America. Prove me wrong by using other civilised nations as a measuring scale!

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=181829.msg2926617#msg2926617 date=1223690662]Forget the Associated Press or any one of them.  They are all in the bag for Obama.[/quote]The Associated Press is the only reasonable voice of America right now. Do you know that partizan advocacy amongst media organisations is illegal in the UK? It is a dangerous road and a threat to democracy. Lest we forget, all these rumours of Obama being a muslim started on Fox news. In Britain, you will never have a media organisation tell a factual untruth. Funny how everyone on Fox News believes that the mainstream media is for Obama. Is this some delusional paranoia? I have told you to stop watching Fox News so you can have a better outlook on life! Katie Couric, a softball journalist asks Sarah Palin a softball question and she blames mainstream media. Every single thing, the lunatics blame mainstream media. Do you know that the mainstream media are the only ones keeping this election process sane? If not for guys like CNN and CBS, this whole process would be a hate-filled, irrational slugfest that would manifest itself on the street. I made an important point earlier and I'm surprised you didn't pick up on it:

Ibime:
These people are angry that the fictional viewpoints they imbibe from right-wing media are not being reinforced by mainstream media. This frustration is leading them to take their frustrations out at GOP rallies.

This applies to you my friend!

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=181829.msg2926513#msg2926513 date=1223686475]On this forum alone, people have been calling Sarah Palin all manner of names just because she holds a different point of view and is a threat to their desires.[/quote]Forums offer anonymity to say whatever people want to say that they wouldn't say in a real social setting. I have dissed Sarah Palin because I recognised the ideology she represented from day one. Would I and others do that at a rally? No! SHE is the race-baiter here. SHE is in the position of power to drive people's emotions. Right from the GOP conference, she started her race-baiting with "community organiser" inferences. We know what the phock she was trying to say. . . . and she has taken it to the next level this week.

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=181829.msg2926513#msg2926513 date=1223686475]Was it not the Leftist who said on record recently that Sarah Palin shouldn't come to Chicago because she will be gang-raped by hefty black brothers. Where was the rage here? .[/quote]Which leftist where? Did you hear this at an Obama/Biden rally - or do you want to attribute every nutjob black power statement to the Democrats like Fox News are trying to do with Louis Farrakhan. It is all over youtube. The overwhelming majority of your party base are nutjob rednecks. First and foremost, Democrats are not leftists, they are centrists. Real leftist are the likes of Fidel and Hugo. I repeat: America has a right and a centre. There is no left in America.

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=181829.msg2926513#msg2926513 date=1223686475]If anybody has been inciting hatred, it is the Barack camp. Racial hatred to be exact. Didn't Bill Clinton claim that Obama played the race card on him and the memos he recovered indicate Obama planned to play that card all along? What could incite public unrest more than racism? .[/quote]Negro please! Obama has been the model of restraint throughout this whole process. Do you know how many times race has been used against Obama and he has not reacted? Please don't start! I don't even know where to start if I was to point out the examples where race or the fear of his race was used against Obama in this campaign - and he never reacted. His hands are tied behind his back because any strategist will tell you that a black man cannot win if the election becomes a debate about race. That is why Obama has never brought it up.

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=181829.msg2926513#msg2926513 date=1223686475]Even the Democratic Senate Leader this week made some outragious claim of racism. Can anyone show me and prove that any Republican Leader ever used Race in this election to divide people?[/quote]The Associated Press said that Palin's statements are tinged with racism. I repeat: Associated Press. Democrats only spoke about it after AP released the statement about Sarah Palin.

People in America often vote against their economic interests in support of their religious views.

The fact is that Republicans have been in power for a cumulative 20 years since Roe vs Wade, have done nothing about it and will never do anything about it.

I am also a Christian, but I'll be damned to let 'abortion' be the only issue which wins my vote and I'll be damned before I support an intolerant party just because my religious views are in line with theirs. In the wide scope of things, abortion is lower down my list abeg.

Hannity is one of Kobojunkie's favourite presenters. God help her. This calls for serious fasting and prayer.

I have never seen prime-time hatred as I have seen in Hannity's shows.

By the way, many people in England have complained that Fox News licence should be revoked. They are calling Fox News a serious threat to democracy. Thank God partizan advocacy is not allowed by media organisations in the UK.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia10-2008oct10,0,783115.story?track=rss



[center]Fox News' faux documentary sets new low[/center]

Sean Hannity's Sunday report, 'Obama and Friends: The History of Radicalism,' relied on innuendo and guilt by association to label the Illinois senator a dupe of the shadowy forces of the left.

Now and then, Fox News makes a stab at living up to its "fair and balanced" tag line.

At other times, the cable network's operatives throw off all pretense, let their neatly trimmed hair down and do what they seem to love best -- blame all of the world's evils on those pointy-headed, America-hating liberals. Like, say, Barack Obama!

Fox host Sean Hannity and his producers served up a heaping portion of just such red meat Sunday night on "Hannity's America." And they've since been making lame defenses of the faux documentary, which bore the subtle title: "Obama and Friends: The History of Radicalism."

Fox's hourlong screed is just the kind of media coverage that has contributed to the increasingly angry and irrational tone on the campaign trail. Even by the low standards of this election's advocacy journalism, the program plumbed new depths -- relying on innuendo and guilt by association to paint the Illinois senator as a dupe of the shadowy forces of the left.

Much of Hannity's report was based on interviews with half a dozen partisan commentators, whose main qualification seems to have been a previously expressed disdain for Obama.

James Rainey has been a Los Angeles Times reporter for more than 20 years, focusing largely on politics, government and the news business. His opinion columns focus on the media.

Near the top of the program, the host introduced one of them, Andy Martin, as an "author and journalist." But reporters in his Chicago hometown know Martin better as a perennial political candidate and serial litigant.

The Chicago Tribune has spent some time examining Martin's past. He was refused entry to the Illinois bar in the 1970s, in part because his Selective Service records showed his thoughts exhibited "a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character."

In a 1983 personal bankruptcy case, he referred to a judge as a "crooked, slimy Jew." And a federal judge noted his history of "vexatious, frivolous and scandalous" lawsuits.

When he ran for Illinois governor two years ago, Martin quoted a nearly 30-year-old Tribune editorial that called him "an absolutely brilliant campaigner" when he was running for a Senate seat. He didn't mention that the same editorial said he "has no more business in the US. Senate than an elk has in a phone booth."

The producer of the Hannity program declined to be interviewed, so it's impossible to determine whether Fox didn't know about Martin's history or just didn't care.

Perhaps the producers relied on the gadfly's own website, which assures us he is "a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk-show host, broadcaster and media critic." And expert in all things Barack Obama.

So when Hannity wanted to know what Obama did as a young community organizer, Martin was ready with a pithy answer: "I think a community organizer, in Barack Obama's case, was somebody that was in training for a radical overthrow of the government."

Martin offered no evidence. None. But, when I called him, he helped me understand why this was not a problem.

"I do involve with the facts," he began, "but when the facts aren't all there, and the perpetrator has concealed all the facts and is basically refusing to testify, you are allowed to draw an adverse inference."

It sounds to me as if he's saying: When you can't prove something, you're allowed to make stuff up. And does that also mean you might as well assume the worst? I asked.

"The proof of the pudding," Martin responded, "is that they are on the verge of taking over the government."

So, if Obama is elected, that would constitute a "radical overthrow"?

Well, Martin conceded, "maybe I should have changed my words around to say there would be a change of the government that would put a radical in charge."

During the program, Martin floated other wild theories, including one based on Obama's association with 1960s radical William Ayres.

He noted that Ayres had spoken fondly of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who, in turn, "learned from Fidel Castro of the Cuban revolution."