₦airaland Forum

I want Ivory Coast to reach the Final so that Drogba,Toure and Eboue can stay longer

Nigeria should be knocked out in the Q/F

Manchester United are on the verge of announcing a significant increase in annual turnover, with the total figure believed to be close to £245m.

A season that saw United regain the Premier League title and reach the semi-finals of the Champions League has contributed to the latest surge in revenue, which completes a £70m increase the last five years.

Four months ago Arsenal reported a turnover of £201m, in the process claiming to have become Britain's richest club. United's announcement reveals the depth of the club's irritation: for the first time its shirt sponsorship deal with Nike has been factored into the equation. As a result United are once again the unquestioned No1 in the Premier League rich list, and have hurdled back into second place behind Real Madrid in the global

[url]http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2236711,00.html[/url]

£244m compared to £201m!That is a whopping 21% difference in turnover!

So much for the premature ejaculation by financially illiterate Gayners claiming to be the richest club on the basis of results announced before Utd had announced theirs.

What is it about Gayners and premature celebrations?

Manchester United are on the verge of announcing a significant increase in annual turnover, with the total figure believed to be close to £245m.

A season that saw United regain the Premier League title and reach the semi-finals of the Champions League has contributed to the latest surge in revenue, which completes a £70m increase the last five years.

Four months ago Arsenal reported a turnover of £201m, in the process claiming to have become Britain's richest club. United's announcement reveals the depth of the club's irritation: for the first time its shirt sponsorship deal with Nike has been factored into the equation. [b]As a result United are once again the unquestioned No1 in the Premier League rich list, [/b]and have hurdled back into second place behind Real Madrid in the global rankings.

[url]http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2236711,00.html[/url]

Are Gooners financial illiterates or what? When their result first came out,they failed to take into consideration,the fact that others haven't announced theirs!

What is it about Gooners and prematurely celebrating events?

[url]http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2236711,00.html[/url]
Manchester United are on the verge of announcing a significant increase in annual turnover, with the total figure believed to be close to £245m.

A season that saw United regain the Premier League title and reach the semi-finals of the Champions League has contributed to the latest surge in revenue, which completes a £70m increase the last five years.

Four months ago Arsenal reported a turnover of £201m, in the process claiming to have become Britain's richest club. United's announcement reveals the depth of the club's irritation: for the first time its shirt sponsorship deal with Nike has been factored into the equation. As a result United are once again the unquestioned No1 in the Premier League rich list, and have hurdled back into second place behind Real Madrid in the global rankings.

The claims that Abiola,formerly an ITT VP,was involved in financing coups is interesting when you recall that ITT has similarly been accused of financing coups in Chile-http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/USA-Chile.htm There were accusations that it was acting as a CIA front.

@Kobo

Such deals are de rigueur in the petroleum sector,but I don't get why the poster seems to believe that this particular one will bring "progress" to Nigeria.

darfur:
300 people dead is too much a price for any form of liberty . . . . that may even install another ''rogue in power''. the people could have used other means . . . .such as, total strikes, no transport, market, no banks, no schools, sit at homes for days, weeks, months etc the govt would break down and the leaders will talk.

Surely it takes less effort to achieve the above than going around killing and raping innocent people.

Comparing the civil war to ethnic cleansing is pointless.A war between 2 armed factions is different from sporadic acts of violence aimed at innocent civilians. Why are we even debating whether ethnic violence is good for Kenya?

Bankole01:
Black have not been as exposed in these nations as they are in America.
America is also more urban than Nigeria. Nigerians are also less mobile and cling to ancestral homes more than Americans,

These are just excuses.The statement you made is incompatible with the reality of our world.

If you said America is the most racist,amongst the most "urban" nations on earth,that is a different issue.Racism is not just about black-white relations.How ethnic Russians treat Chechens tells us a lot about their own racial prejudice,just as much as how whites treat Blacks in America.

In Nigeria,someone from Enugu LGA will find it virtually impossible to defeat someone from Udi in Udi.Wetin you go call that one? When Ife-Modakeke,Aguleri-Umuleri,e.t.c can't live together,you dey complain about America

The American civil war is different from ethnic cleansing.Going around finding members of a particular ethnic group to rape and kill has never been the best way to fight injustice.

If raping and killing where what Africa needed,we would be the most prosperous continent at the moment.

The genesis may have been a desire to resist tyranny but the means with which you seek to achieve an end is as important,if not more,than the end you seek to achieve. What this violence has done is sow the seeds of instability and ethnic discord for generations to come.

RichyBlacK:
You have a moral argument, not a legal one.

From the video you posted, Mut'ah marriages are legal in Bahrain. However, in Nigeria, the actions of Emeka Ezeugo (Reverend King) were criminal.

The 50-year old mallams marrying underage girls will not be prosecuted because Nigerian law (a composite of English common law, Islamic law, and customary law) grants them that right.

You don't have a legal argument, only a moral one.

Na you biko!You take your sophomoric posts to a whole new level. Supposing someone in 1987 was condemning slavery in Mauritania,how would it be a valid rebuttal to state that slavery is legal under Mauritanian law hence the person is only waging a moral argument and not a legal one?

Lets say I condemn apartheid in South Africa in the 80s,a white person retorts,''. . . . . . . but your argument is only a moral one for racial segregation is legal in S.Africa''

Nwando says mutah marriages are appalling,your retort is that what she finds appalling has been elevated to a lawful act in Bahrain. . . . .this of course validates her point that not only does immorality occur,but the state has given its backing to such immorality.

Telling us that it is legal will be like telling us that segregation is legal,hence her argument is invalid.

@bibiking

You miss the point. What has ethnic killings got to do with fighting against electoral injustice? Did the Americans turn against each other in their bid for independence?

You can have demonstrations against the Govt,civil disobedience,industrial action,e.t.c but simply targeting a certain tribe because they voted for the President doesn't further the cause of democracy.

Black America's biggest problem with Obama is that he is not "the descendant of slaves". Many don't see Africans as one of theirs.To a large extent,a lot of our racial solidarity with African-Americans is not reciprocated.

It is a fact that America as advanced as it is, is one of the most racist nation in the world.

Yes,coming from a continent and nation where tribalism reigns supreme.Obama won in Iowa,what are the chances of someone from Enugu state defeating rivals from Anambra in an election held in Anambra? Can an Ogun state indigene win gubernatorial elections in Lagos?

Make una dey cool down with your hyperbole.If you want racism, go to Russia and other Eastern European nations.Would a black or half-black man have any hope in India,China or Lebanon if he was a citizen of those nations?

Thats why Kenyans reacted in that violence manner. Whoever said here that its Luo and Kikuyu he is mistaken. Kenya has 42 tribes and all 40 except two Kikuyu(central) and Meru(eatsern voted for Raila.

Are you saying the Kikuyu haven't been specially targeted? I know that there are 40+ ethnic groups but the Luo and the Kikuyu seem to be the main actors in this mayhem,partly due to the fact that the 2 contenders are from those 2 groups.

Its unfortunate Kibaki rigged the election but there is absolutely no justification for targeting ordinary people,conducting ethnic cleansing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7172038.stm#map

Attempts are continuing in Kenya to solve the crisis which erupted after last week's disputed election. Hundreds of people have been killed in the largely inter-tribal violence which followed.

Mobs of youths belonging to tribes that had united under Raila Odinga had rampaged through the slum, picking out Kikuyu properties and setting them on fire.

She set off with a friend, a Kikuyu, and they drove towards the town. Soon after they took the Eldoret turning off the Naivasha-Kisumu road they encountered their first road block.

It was manned by four or five youths. Lucy said none of them looked more than 14 or 15 years old.

"Are there any Kikuyus in your car?" the boys asked. "If so we will kill them."

Lucy turned back to Nairobi.

In Kangemi, Martin says there is now a backlash aimed at his tribe and others who did not vote for President Kibaki.

If the above is okay by your reckoning because Kibaki rigged the elections,obviously this is the root of Africa's problem.

@doyin13

Don't mind these people,soon they will be asking the Govt to create a dating agency for the sake of egalitarianism

bawomol:
i don't see what significant tax increae u are talking about. basically the rich is getting richer and the poor is getting poorer. trickle down economics doesn't work. tax cuts have shifted the tax burden but haven't done much.

http://treas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm

You are missing the fundamental point.In the past,when top rates of tax were high,such as 77%,the rich bore a smaller proportion of the tax burden,with recent tax cuts their proportion has been going higher.Do you want to go back to the era when the poor bore a higher proportion of the tax burden?

Tax receipts have gone up higher than expected and are at an average historical high as a percentage of GDP,up 11% in fiscal 2006 alone.

@bawomol

You posted a link basically proving the point I am making and dismantling yours.Here is an excerpt from your link:

Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 90 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.

The President’s tax cuts have shifted a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2004, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.
The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 30.5 percent to 32.3 percent.

The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 16 percent as compared to a 12 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.

[quote author=dtw_sola link=topic=103487.msg1821790#msg1821790 date=1199493117]Democrats do not support abortion. They support a woman's right to choose. Most democrats even find the practice morally wrong.[/quote]Please,can you explain the difference?  

bawomol:
the democrats under bill clinton actually scaled back a few welfare programs.  the idea of tax-cut boosting the economy has little to no merits.  increasing minimum wages to account for inflation is realistic in my opinion.

Clinton was not the US Emperor but he did scale back welfare in collaboration with the GOP

Tax cuts have no merit?You prefer when the top rate of income tax was 77% under Carter? What then is the explanation for the significant increase in tax receipts and the proportion of the tax burden borne by the rich as illustrated in the links I put up?

Most of the violence has simply been one of ethnic genocide-hundreds dead and a 100,000 refugees.I have no problem with people conducting anti-Govt demonstrations but killing innocent people and burning down churches full of civilians is hardly going to help anybody.

@Ndipe

If what you want is the economic bubble of the 90s,then support Clinton.The Democrats per se,don't have a reputation for economic competence.Clinton's era was an exception but even then,it was a post-Cold war bubble economy and we are seeing the results today.

It is odd to praise Clinton's management of the economy and still support Obama against Clinton.Obama comes from a different school of thought to Clinton,I daresay, the branch of the Democratic party that once brought Americans fuel scarcity and rampant inflation.

What America needs is "divided Govt".One party controls Congress,another controls the White House.Clinton's popularity was in the mid 30s when the Democrats ran Congress in his first 2 years.It was only until the GOP took over in 94 after the landslide elections did things take a turn for the better.Having one party control both branches of Govt has always proved a failure.

Ndipe:
As much as I don't support some of the policies of the democratic party vis a vis, their support of abortion, I would vote for them over a republican, because of their interest in working for the masses.

Rhetorically,Democrats claim to work for the masses,but some of their policies undermine such claims.Minimum wages lead to higher unemployment,higher taxes lead to tax avoidance,welfarist policies encourage single parenthood and benefit scrounging,e.t.c

The republicans potray themselves as a Bible thumping organization when in reality, they cater to the interest of the rich. Come, who benefits from tax cuts in the society? The rich of course.

The economy benefits from tax cuts.The top rate of income tax used to be 83% in the UK,now its 40%,the result has been an increase in the proportion of the tax burden borne by the rich-http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_tax/table2-4.pdf Same phenomenon applies to the US-  http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/04asastr.pdf
Tax avoidance goes up when the top rates of income tax are too high.High tax rates have never done any good to any economy.Besides,the rich are not some sui generis segment of society isolated from the economy.It is the enterprise and innovativeness of the wealthy drives the economy.

Why is it that, (in the past decades or so) when a republican assumes office, the economy is in doldrums, but with a democrat, the economy would be in an upswing?

That is incorrect.During the 80s under Reagan,the US economy experienced an economic boom.Under Carter,there was stagflation,things were so bad at one point that there was fuel scarcity in some parts of the states!Given that the Republicans have dominated the White House post-WWII,the American economy won't be the largest if what you just claimed was even half-true.

The link between the president in office and the state of the economy is even tenous but that is another matter.

The violence in Kenya is of an ethnic nature,Luo attacking Kikuyu tribesmen and vice versa.Of course,if ethnic violence ensued in Nigeria after the 2007 elections,that might have brought the world's attention on our deplorable electoral process, but at what price?

How is Raila Odinga any different from Kibaki.Are the lives of hundreds of innocent citizens worth putting a man,who is as much a part of the corrupt elite as any,into power?

Kenya has lost hundreds of citizens,that is child's play compared to the loss of confidence and trust between the various ethnic groups.If the violence was a medicine intended to cure the ailment of electoral rigging,I am afraid,the medicine is worse than the disease.

Have you guys forgotten the Russian Lada?

@RichyBlack

Why you no go obtain that "extra degree" yourself? Thanks for pointing out my error but the point still stands.

Huckabee is an embarrassment to Republicans. Even Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Guliani.I'm sure his campaign is going nowhere.He has neither the financial resources or the endorsement of the GOP establishment to go anywhere.

Please,never underestimate the Clinton electoral machine.This is not the 1st time the Clintons lost Iowa,we all know what happened the last time.

RichyBlacK:
See this guy, you're arguing about MBA? Abeg leave story!

You made a comment on academic credentials and I showed you a valid but imperfect comparison. Imperfect because they graduated 16 years apart from HLS.

Romney getting an extra degree is not necessarily evidence of superior academic credentials. Why are you avoiding the magna c um laude Obama got.

Also, Obama was elected president of the Harvard Law Review! Ol boy, forget talk, no be beans!

You are clutching at straws.An MBA at HBS is a fantastic achievement and combining it with a JD at the age of 28 is more impressive than Obama's. Anybody will be proud to have a HBS MBA and to be dismissive of it is ridiculous."Extra degree" indeed!as if say na mickey mouse degree.

To the extent that Romney got his JD in 75 while Obama got his in 91,that is only relevant when you appreciate grade inflation since then.You defeat your own argument by comparing a 1991 JD to a 1975 JD.If you appreciate the extent of grade inflation in Western universities over the past few decades,you would not raise those comparisons in the first place

davidylan:
lol @ I-man . . .
Academic credentials may not count at this point. Please leave our Shagari alone . . .

Does anyone think Huckabee can go far?

In comparing academic credentials,someone who has both an MBA and a JD from Harvard at the age of 22 is better than one who achieved only a JD at the age of 30 because he "chose" not to obtain an MBA.To the extent that we are comparing academic credentials,Romney's "choice" makes his more impressive.

Of course,academic credentials don't really matter that much in the Presidential race though,just correcting RichyBlack who impulsively googles info without carefully scrutinising it.

I can't stand Huckabee!I'm sure many Democrats are secretely wishing that he will win.He has nothing to offer in terms of foreign policy or economics .His popularity lies in being culturally conservative but the US President has no effect on the culture of the nation.

The best he can do is appoint conservative judges but Rudy,Thompson and Romney will do that anyway.

Did I add that Romney finished his MBA at HBS and JD at HLS at the age of 22? Obama finished at HLS at the age of 30! There are people on this thread who would have finished their PHD long before the age of 30,never mind JD.

RichyBlacK:
This is how Republican sycophants try to distort the issues. For the records:

* Obama: Havard Law School, Juris Doctor, magna c um laude , 1991
* Romney: Havard Law School, Juris Doctor, c um laude, 1975

Romney also got an MBA from Harvard but Obama chose not to. Their Harvard Law School background is the only institution-degree commonality between them.

So the questions is: How is it that "Romney matches and surpasses Obama's academic credentials"?

_{For those not familiar with Latin honors, c um laude translates to "with praise", while magna c um laude translates to "with great praise"}

Brigham Young University, where he graduated as valedictorian, earning his Bachelor of Arts degree summa come laude in 1971. In 1975, Romney graduated from a joint Juris Doctor/Master of Business Administration program coordinated between Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School. He graduated come laude from the law school and was named a Baker Scholar for graduating in the top five percent of his business school class.[10]

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

Romney graduated summa cum laude in his undergraduate degree while achieving cum laude in a joint in a joint JD and MBA program while graduating in the top 5% of the HBS class

Doing one MBA at HBS or one JD at HLS is tough enough,combining both is remarkable!Obama chose not to do an MBA?Well,Shagari also chose not to go to University.

@davidylan

Obama won in Iowa partly because he was the underdog.Iowa is largely insignificant anyway. Didn't Bill Clinton lose overwhelmingly in Iowa?I don't think the Democrats even held primaries in Iowa in 1996.McCain took Iowa against Bush for the 2000 elections

There is enough inherent racism in America to stop Obama.His bandwagon will only continue for as long as he isn't the leading candidate.Once he becomes one,many white and latino voters will recoil at the thought of putting an African-American in the White House

Its sad but my consolation is that he wouldn't have made a great president anyway.

toshmann:
keep liverpool out of this
wetin dey worry you

americans don't want the republicans anymore. . . . . . . . . edwards is the next president

and not the f-cking republicans

Yes f. . .cking Republicans like Lincoln helped end slavery,same Republicans in Congress voted for the Civil Rights Act at a higher proportion than their Democrat counterparts.

What America needs is "divided Govt". When Clinton was in the White House and Democrats controlled Congress,his popularity fell to the mid 30s.Same thing has happened to Bush during his tenure.

If you have one party controlling both the executive and legislative branches,things always take a turn for the worse.

toshmann:
you guys will be decieving yourselves if you think that americans will watch a black man with a black wife and black kids . . . . complete black family . . . come to live in the white house

How is someone whose mother is white a black man? At best,he is half-black.

toshmann:
in other words. . . you are a republican

Compare and contrast CVs,lets stop being parochial in these things. You agree Obama's credentials are not as inspiring as Romney and Rudy and I will agree that Liverpool can finish in the top 4