₦airaland Forum

[quote author=Nigeria1@; link=topic=170177.msg2791354#msg2791354 date=1221226023]Ibime, the yorubas alone have the capacity to pull the whole of the south, including the igbo and south south out of nigeria. and president yar adua would only be president of the northern part of river niger.[/quote]We have been praying and waiting for that for decades.

wormedup:
bros,

like it or not, MIKEL is the closest we have to makelele !
mikel vs essien in a DM position ? MIKEL !
mikel vs essien as HOLDING MIDFIELDER ? MIKEL !

the game against portsmouth should tell u what mikel does in the midfield.
have we seen a repeat performance since mikel stopped playing ? NO !
Essien is at his best when he's allowed to move forward; his effects will be undermined if he's confined to the center line.
on your line up; Deco out there is hopeless ! how will he function

GBAM!

Dyabs, I thought you agreed that Essien is no holding midfielder. Mikel is the only correct one we have. I don't want to see my DM making pacy runs through the middle and leaving a big gap. Infact, my DM would barely cross the half way line.

Essien must fight with Ballack and Lampard for his shirt, not Mikel.

BTW, Chelsea have rejected Steve Clarke's resignation.

Phock that. . . . if America wants to come and try all our criminals for us, they should come. . . . . at least then, the Nigerian people will see justice meted out for once in their lives.

My guy, the Bush doctrine is one of these foreign policy theories that I expect every VP or President to know. It is studied in Political Science classes and taught in Universities. If I ask an economist for their view on Keynesian economics or a Republican for their view on Reaganomics, I expect an educated reply.

Look, the Bush Doctrine has its own wikipedia entry. . .

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


Anyway, just watched the 9/11 forum and I thought McCain was more composed than Obama.

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/34052


The 20 most corrupt Members of Congress

Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL)
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) Rep.
John T. Doolittle (R-CA)
Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL)
Rep. Vito J. Fossella (R-NY)
Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-LA)
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-CA)
Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV)
Rep. Timothy F. Murphy (R-PA)
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA)
Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM)
Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-NY)
Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY)
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Rep. Don Young (R-AK)


Dishonorable mentions

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN)
Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA)
Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH)

See the person wey dem won vote o!. . . . . education don miss road!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU


In her first major interview as the Republican vice presidential nominee, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was stumped when asked about the so-called "Bush Doctrine," unable to answer whether she agreed with the six-year-old U.S. policy of military preemption.

Asked by ABC News' Charlie Gibson whether she supported the Bush Doctrine, Palin stared blankly for a moment before turning the question back on Gibson. "In what respect?"

The ABC anchor responded, "Well, what do you interpret it to be?" clearly testing her knowledge of the policy that has been in place since September 2002, before the Iraq war.

Palin couldn't say, offering an answer that didn't even mention preemption. "I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent in destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better."

Gibson, who clearly felt he had not received a sufficient answer to the question he had asked, proceeded to define the Bush Doctrine for the governor. According to Bush's National Security Strategy from September 2002: "While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country."

Thus, Gibson pressed Palin. "The Bush Doctrine is we have the right to self-defense, pre-emptive strike against any country we think is going to attack us," he noted. "Do you agree with it?"

Finally, Palin came close to offering an opinion on preemption. "Charlie, if there is enough intelligent and legitimate evidence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country," she said.

[quote author=Aloy.Emeka link=topic=170177.msg2788347#msg2788347 date=1221171307]I think he meant the Yorubas crippled the economy during the "Oso Abiola" mayhem. I think the economy crippled because of civil unrest, the igbos migrated east from North and west; The Yorubas migrated west from North and East while The hausas migrated North from east and west. That kind of mass exodus is enough to cripple a weak economy, how much less a terrible economy like our own.[/quote]If 90% of the economy comes from crude oil, please explain how people in Lagos and Ibadan crippled the economy? They didn't shut production down so this argument is completely false. Even small Ogoni did more to disrupt the economy than the Yorubas did in the aftermath of June 12. The economy was simply ruined by bad fiscal governance from Abacha and the slump in the price of crude oil that occured during his reign.

Nigeria1 is the Yoruba equivalent of Quotasystem.

Low oil prices and Abacha ruined the economy, my man said that Yorubas ruined the economy. 

My sister, don't worry yourself with that guy. Future no dey there, whether financially or romantically.

[quote author=Nigeria1@; link=topic=170177.msg2787669#msg2787669 date=1221161734]So the reason you create state is different tribes in a state. Then the senate should merge river state and bayelse state since the Ijaws are in both state. their are not different tribe now, abi,[/quote]If you don't know, there are more non-Ijaws in Rivers State than Ijaws. At most, it is 50-50.

Mikel was gonna hold first team shirt whether Essien is fit or not.

There is no need for state creation except there is no peace within different tribes in the state.

Is he a footballer?

[quote author=Nigeria1@; link=topic=169933.msg2787140#msg2787140 date=1221154656]any meeting that does not have asari dokubo and his militia who are the one creating the problem is a waste of time. i did not see dokubo name on the list. ever vice president jonathan can not speak for the people of the niger delta.

you can not pick some people who the govt have enrich from contract and now tell us they are the representative of the niger delta.[/quote]Oga kpata kpata!

The truth is that Hillary would have brought home the marginal states. People in Michigan are saying that Obama would have walked Michigan if Hillary was on his ticket. A lot of people still have love for Bill Clinton and Obama would have profited from having these two giants on his ticket.

Anyway, polls are not everything. Lest we forget, young people mostly use mobile phones and polls are conducted by landline therefore a large part of Obama demographics are being ignored.

People will also tire of the Sarah Palin campaigning with time as they see more and more that the media is going into overdrive and not concentrating on her politics.

On the other side, we will see that many people who claim they will vote for Obama will not vote for him. When polling day comes, fowl nyash go open.

[quote author=Negro_Ntns link=topic=167941.msg2786101#msg2786101 date=1221144075]Ibime,

Where did you get all that information you put here, give reference to the web site or the publication. Your analysis is a mix of apples and oranges. You take budgetary analysis and lumped it together with market projections on trade index. C'mon! Give reference to the website please.[/quote]Market projections on trade index? Where? I said that Government should not cut taxes during a boom period. Nobody needs market predicitons on trade index to tell you when you have a boom period. After a year of solid positive growth, you should know you are in a boom. The average economic cycle is 7 years so that gives you good room for error. You don't even have to withdraw tax cuts in one go when you enter a boom, you can withdraw them incrementally and see how the market reacts. All I looked at was Bush and Clinton's budgetary analysis.

This is not PHD dissertation but a forum. I would be happy if you could check the factual accuracy for me. Some of the info is from George Bush wikipedia entry such as the value of tax cuts at $1.35 trillion till 2012. . . another said he has expended 800+ billion of that to date. . . that is why I did those comparison for the amount of jobs created. Also on his wikipedia page, I sourced the deficit he inherited, the deficit now and the average level of GDP growth. The info about Clinton creating 19 million jobs - on one website it said 18 miliion, another said 22 million, the official Al Gore campaign website said 19 million so I stuck with that. On George Bush's job creation, I saw websites saying he has created less than 5 million net, others 4 million net, another said an average of 500,000 + a year - so I used 4.5 million. I am open to be challenged on that. It would be in your interest to argue that Bush's job creation record would be better if not for job losses from 2001-2003. But even accounting for that, his record would still be far off Bill Clinton's. Increased outsourcing may also be a factor but it is up to you to prove it is significant enough to explain Bush's performance. Anyway, that is the only information I have worked with.

Kobo,

Who is throwing tantrums? You better believe foul language is not alien to me. I specialise in turning the air blue when the mood takes me.

Anyway, back to you . . . The purpose of debate is to sharpen minds. Writing down incoherent moral edicts on how I should conduct myself on a public forum does nothing for me. Neither does ROFL your ass off all over the thread. The value of any communication with you is measured in the amount of information you bring. If I want to engage in trivial frivolities, I will take myself to the Romance section - and if I want to engage in banter, I will be in the football section - so shut the Hare Krishna up and stop distracting me like Republicans do Obama. 



Anyway, back to the issue. . .  out of a geuine spirit, I grossly misrepresented the level of US debt. . . . however, all my economic arguments still stand. . .

Bush cut taxes by a large amount but still never managed to achieve the unemployment rates that Clinton left him with. . . Clinton created 19 million jobs net, Bush has created less than 4.5million net despite $1.35 trillion in tax cuts. . . based on this, it would take him more than $6 trillion in tax cuts just to create the amount of jobs that Bill Clinton created for free. . . . .divide $1.35trillion by 4.5million, lets see how much it takes to create one job. . . . that is almost $400,000 in tax cuts for every job created. . . . why didn't he just dash the 4.5 million people $400,000 each and let them go on holiday to Cancun?  . . . . even if we argue that the $1.35 trillion in tax cuts will not be fully expended till 2012, on current form, each job would cost more than $200,000 to create. . . . Clinton created jobs whilst raising taxes. . . . . . infact, you have to add job creation during Reagan, Ford and Bush Senior to equal Clinton alone. . . of course, Republicans don’t recognise this because they are mind programmed into worrying about abortion, moose hunting and such. . . .GDP growth on average under Bush was less than Clinton’s. . . poverty rates have increased under Bush. . . He has turned a $5.6 trillion deficit into a $9.7 trillion deficit. . . . take (9.7-5.6)/8 = 500bn. George Bush runs an average 500 billion budget deficit every year, all on a phony war and tax cuts which produce little jobs and GDP which does not grow as fast as Clinton’s did. . . .Clinton ran a budget surplus for the last 4 years of his presidency. . . .tick any box, the Republicans have committed enough sins to be voted out for another 8 years at least. . .  .

Applying Laffer’s model of tax cuts during the recession was sensible but Bush’s mistake was to extend those tax cuts to 2012. . . .the economy needed short-run stimulus without increasing the long-run deficit . . . . it has left George Bush little room to manoeuvre during the current crisis because taxes are already quite low and budgets quite strained. . . not to mention that the cost of borrowing to fund budget deficits has increased.

The truth is that fiscal policies such as tax cuts are supposed to work in a countercyclical fashion. . . . like everything else, tax-stimulus suffers from the laws of diminishing returns - especially as market saturation kicks in. . . .  . Obama wants to raise corporate tax which is wrong but McCain wants to keep corporate tax at Bush’s rates until 2012 (and then probably extend it) which is just as bad if not worse. . . . tax rates need to be cut in the short term and brought back up once the economy recovers. . . if there is anything I have learnt in life, it is that bullish economies take care of themselves and do not need Government tax cuts to help them. . . it is better for Government to save during a bullish cycle and spend during a bearish cycle as Okonjo-Iweala pointed out to Obasanjo. . . .George Bush failed woefully in this. . . . . unfortunately, politicians tend to take leave of common sense and tow partisan lines when it comes to the economy. . . .there is no such thing as a clear dichotomy between tax cuts being good and tax rises being bad as 4Play once suggested. . . . . .

In the end, every fiscal policy is judged on its performance. . . .so that leads me to ask: where is the value for money in the Bush tax cuts?. . . . the returns under the Bush administration do not justify the expenditure and his reign has been at worst, an economic failure, or at best, indifferent.

Biden is not doing his job properly. Why is Obama taking all the heat over Sarah Palin whilst Biden is hiding somewhere? Clinton would have made a good pick.

@ Kobo. . .


Should I get into an argument with you about how I appropriated miscorrect information from a News Network or should I ask for your forgiveness for misrepresenting facts due to a genuine error. . . .  or should I just ignore you so that you don't derail this thread as you usually do? I will do the latter.

You are quite good at cheerleading from the sidelines. The fact is that my incorrect information has been on the thread all day and you had not the nous to correct it. Therefore you are complicit in my crime just like I was complicit in Sean Hannity's crime who was also complicit in Chuck Norris' crime. It is only when a qualified man like 4Play shows up that you have mouth to talk. He is the only person I am accountable to for my mistake, not you.

Please just hold on until the big boys come back to play unless you have something factual to discuss. No need to derail the thread now.

If you do not see life as I do, then you must consider the Bush Presidency a success. Please feel free to expand on why you see Bush as a success instead of speaking in vague terms.

Kobo, STFU if you have nothing significant to contribute. Where grown ups are talking, you should stay quiet. Go on youtube and find Hannity and Colmes show from yesterday if you think I am lying.

4 Play:
It could just be,just a thought,that the reason Negro can't explain why the Bush administration ''ran a $57trn deficit" is simply because,they never ran a $57trillion deficit. I mean,it's like wondering why someone can't explain why Chelsea finished 7th last season in the EPL. It's hard to explain fiction.

Don't blame me. I heard it on Fox News on Hannity and Colmes. It shows the level of journalism on Fox, that Sean Hannity could not correct that misstatement and allowed such disinformation to seep into the public domain.

On closer inspection, I think this is what they were alluding to:

As of September 2008, the total US. federal debt was approximately $9.7 trillion[2], about $31,700 per capita (that is, per US. resident). Of this amount, debt held by the public was roughly $5.3 trillion.[3] If, in addition, unfunded Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, etc. promises are added, this figure rises to a total of $59.1 trillion

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


Anyway, back to my point. Let us agree that US debt is circa $10bn or 37.9% of GDP compared to circa 35% inherited from Bill Clinton.

Having spent $1.35 trn on tax cuts, how many jobs did George Bush add to the economy? GDP grew at a slower rate under George Bush than Bill Clinton and September 11 not withstanding, Bush was never able to pull unemployment down to the 4.2% he inherited from Clinton. Infact, the best he managed was 4.5%. Lest we forget, Bill Clinton also took over in the immediate aftermath of a recession.

4 Play:
There was an interesting argument earlier about whether the Bush administration "inherited" a recession. A lot of it depends on how you define a recession. The NBER tends to define it as a significant decline across all sectors of the economy,as opposed to the pedestrian definition of 2 consecutive quarters of contraction.

Anyway,according to the NBER,the '01 recession began in March 2001. Unless you are a rabid Bush hater,you can't claim it was Bush's fault that the economy sank into a recession barely 2 months into his reign. By September,the US suffered the 9-11 attacks and the rest is history.

Nobody blamed George Bush for the recession. As I said before, markets control their cycles, not Government.

Coming back to your NBER definition, recession is widely recognised as a recession and that is 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth. Choosing NBER's definition to suit your views is a bit of a low blow and would not be recognised in a court of law. Are we in a recession now? Not while GDP is still growing although barely. Could we be in a recession next year? Quite likely. I understand where you are coming from. . . . but lets argue with worldwise recognise facts.

Infact the dotcom bubble did not cause the recession, September 11 did. The economy had shown signs of recovery and GDP posted positive growth in the second quarter of 2001 although a small percentage. No doubt the economy would have recovered but for Setember 11. Infact, a 1% drop in interest rates was all it took to stabilise the economy after the dot com bubble compared to the 3.25% cuts we have seen for the credit crunch with economic problems still pending. Infact, cutting interest rates for the dotcom bubble was what caused the irresponsible lending that led us to the crisis we see today. So getting back to politics, the significance of the dot com burst is understandable, but if not for September 11, it is unlikely that Republicans would be saying now that Clinton left in a recession.

Kobojunkie:
Yet again. Always easier to insult and condemn those who do not view the world through the same brand and type of goggles that you choose. ROFLMAO!!!

Why don't you defend George Bush's presidency instead of ROFLMAO. . . .the only ones still defending George Bush on Iraq are religious fundamentalists. Even Republicans don't want him at their convention anymore cos he is simply bad news. He ran a failed administration, therefore he was not qualified. QED.

[quote author=Negro_Ntns link=topic=167941.msg2783029#msg2783029 date=1221081863]*Government should support companies in financial crises*  How is that a free market?[/quote]lol. . . . you should argue that one with a communist like RichyBlack. . . . I am sure he will like to argue that one with you to prove that there is no such thing as a free market. . . .the truth is a free market is no longer a free market when it clashes with strategic national interests. . . .just ask the Dubai Group who wanted to take over the American ports. . . . .  and the economy is of strategic interest.


[quote author=Negro_Ntns link=topic=167941.msg2783029#msg2783029 date=1221081863]Beside, what do you call tax exemption on exports, as well as tax incentives for business expansion, how about write offs on capital depreciation, what about tax waivers on offshore assets, ;what should we call these benefits to American enterprises?[/quote]The success of these policies are measured in the unemployment rate and the GDP. . . . for example, is it worth spending say $10trn in return for an extra 1 million jobs?

4-1 to England.

See how well England kept the ball in midfield? Gerrard is shit!

Fashola, Donald Duke, Alfred Diete Spiff, Yar'Adua.

norsman:
@ibeme, what has d subject got 2 do with S.V.C? u no go mind your self!!!

lol. . . .bros, no vex!

Kobojunkie:
roflmao!!!! Obama now more qualified than Bush?? LOL!!!

What is George Bush's IQ? If not for nepotism and illiterate voters, can George Bush even smell the White House? Anyway, the evidence of what we have seen shows George Bush is unqualified to be President. We have seen the greatest annual deficit of any presidency with America owing $350,000 for each of its citizens, an erosion of America's political leverage in international politics and an increase in Terrorism attacks around the Western World. Great job George! This is what you get when you elect a President with an IQ of 91, the lowest of any American President in the last 50 years. I doubt Sarah Palin's IQ is much higher.


Intelligence is highly underrated. Infact, it is the first criteria of qualification.

England leading Croatia 3-1 in Zagreb.

Shows you how rubbish Gerrard and Beckham are.

Take them out of the team and England suddenly look like a decent team.

Gerrard cannot keep the ball well enough to succeed at International level.

[quote author=Negro_Ntns link=topic=167941.msg2782301#msg2782301 date=1221072538]Its complex and there is no one rule that can fix it all.  Here is the problem - the government will love to regulate all companies, private or public, however the constitution says that privacy of individuals and entities must be respected and the government cannot intrude into it.  

Well, if I set up a private company like a ABC.com, then I am expecting that my dealings, outside of declared and published profit and loss reports are completely out of reach of the government.  So there is a loop hole and what I choose to do in the privacy of my business and how I run it can be legal-proofed against the intrusion of government.  I can scam the public and use legal language to legitimize what ordinarily is a fraud.  

When you have companies from ABC.com to XYZ.com decend on the free market with false claims smartly wordsmithed to evade consumer scrutiny, then you have to wonder who is looking out for the consumers?  This is where consumer advocate groups come in and the news media and the community faith based organizations to educate and raise awarenes.

I agree with you to a point, the government cannot be blamed.  This is free market at play.  But again, tehre are ways, without intruding into company privacy that government can regulate them and protect consumer.[/quote]. . . all this stuff you have typed does not explain why Government ran a $57trn deficit. . . .it is simply bad Governance. . . if the market crumbles, that is the markets making. . . . neither Republicans nor Democrats can do anything about that short of cutting interest rates. . . .still, Governments should have strong enough receipts to support companies in financial crises by handing out tax rebates or loans at a federal funds rate which is much lower than the LIBOR rate. . . .  the American Government has handed tax rebates to the tune of $170bn, but with borrowed money. . . .all I want to know is what did George Bush spend $57trn on, to the point he even has to borrow money from Mexico?

[quote author=Negro_Ntns link=topic=167941.msg2782301#msg2782301 date=1221072538]Ibime, I applaud your interest in that subject. This is an issue that the politicians must talk about but what they are doing is lying to the populace.  They say too much regulation will suffocate economy; lie, lie, lie!  It will shift the powers of demand and supply and the consumers will have the upper hand in demanding what they want,  how they spend, where they spend, and can collectively boycut a company that doesnt meet their needs by using dollar power to shut it down.  In all of that there will be a lesson for producers to give us what we want for its value, instead of enslaving us to their greed for profit and unaccountability.[/quote]If I am correct, regulation is more of a Democratic tenet than a Republican tenet. . . . .Republicans always favour less regulation, which is why we must always have a boom and bust scenario before they see the need to tighten regulation.

Negro, calm down. Obama is more than intelligent enough to be President. He is certainly more qualified than the incumbent George Bush. Sarah Palin on the other hand lacks the intelligence to be President. . . .that is why she is a scary thought.