₦airaland Forum

denex:
Wow! I thought Benue was a CHRISTIAN State? Is that not where my friends kate ijigba, comfort onoja, innocent idibia and even the new Senate President David Mark are from?

How Islam and Arab take enter this thread?

You didn't see Karaye's posts?

If the bridge disaster is proof of a "divine curse",what are we to make of the disasters that occur regularly in Africa?Are we in Africa not also cursed?

karaye:
mess u ,it seems u are an ignorant person dominated buy a religion of dancing huggin ladies durin worship with a holy book that has been doctored by selfish shits.go and read nigeria is a muslim state and member of oic,so go and eat your self.go and read what is islam were is it now but not to allow your shits to rapped u with all sort of lies.look at the internet and see were is islam.so continue to mess your sisters like animals in the name of civilization.damn u.idiot

This is the calibre of reasoning we are dealing with.Incoherent,ignorant and inebriating Islamo-imbecillitty.We should not in be in the same country with these kind of people.

debosky:
Arsenal are going to kick ass this season, the premier league should watch out!!

The triumph of hope over experience I think Arsenal will pull off a 3rd place finish in the league.That is as far as they will go.Arsenal are not ready yet to challenge the top 2

somze:
Hate to break the party mood, but the real challenge is up ahead.

Can't blame them.This is where their season ends tophywise   No challenges ahead. . .apart from finishing in the top 4. What do you expect from fans looking forward to yet another trophyless season.

Nowadays. . . you need a punany to win trophies in an Arsenal jersey(the Ladies team)

PTH:
The season hasnt even kicked off and Fergie's disciples are already feeling the heat?  
you just wait for your 50 million pound flops to disappoint you.

Hey. .we all know that these pre-season trophies are the only ones you will win. We finished top of the table without the "£50 million flops" .Remind us again where you finished.

We are only going to get stronger.Arsenal have nothing to play for all season.Pre-season is their best chance of glory.Wenger hasn't bought well this season and Arsenal will pay.

RVP stretchered off?Fantastic news  

PTH:
Welcome to the Islamic Republic of Nigeria. Time to get my family out before hijab becomes the national dress code for females.

Hijab? By the time the "Moral Police" have finished,you will need a burqa to walk the streets of Nigeria

It is.It limits importation to encourage local production.Problem is. .Nigeria is no way near having a cost competitive manufacturing sector due to our poor infastructure.The result is that local cement will continue to be dearer than imported cement.This acts as a tax on the construction industry as they  buy cement at a premium.

You know what happens when competition is restricted.Prices never really come down.The only people who will benefit are the local manufacturers,"the industry players".Strange thing is. .because the locals benefit from import restrictions,they won't be as efficient as they would have been in a highly competitive market.So in the long run,nobody actually benefits.

History tells us that import substition rarely works.Its been proven time and again in different countries across different eras.It is probably wise to learn from history

I went to Nigeria.Came back empty handed £59 in the bank and that barely covers my internet/TV subscriptions.Abeg make una donate to the I-man Appeal Fund.

@Debo
Import substition has been tried unsuccesfully before. . way before you were born.What makes you think it will work this time?Presumably,if we keep repeating old failed policies. . .we will eventually get it right!

Did you say that "industry players" support such measures?So local manufacturers of cement want restrictions placed on importation. . .what a surprise!

presido1:
From your analysis US buys more than half of their oil need from OPEC which means that they can not afford to boycott the OPEC nations. If they do OPEC nations will surfer less and US will surfer more in the sense that it will give China the leeway to overtake them with a reasonable margin and beleive me China will buy the the % that US use to buy before and keep them as reserve. Its high time they realise that muscle flexing is nolonger in their favour.

This is bewildering.I was hoping that after my brief hiatus off NL,the posts will get more enlightened.It seems to be getting worse.If OPEC were to stop selling oil to the US,oil prices will get uniformly expensive across board.The US will try to find other suppliers of oil,most of the oil supply in todays markets come from non-OPEC nations.

The result will be an instant spike in oil prices followed by a global recession as poor countries come to grips with high prices.Even China will be seriously damaged.The idea that China will simply replace lost US demand is hugely uniformed sentiment.Even more silly,is the idea that the buyers of oil can be charged markedly different prices.

All TayoD was stating is the obvious.I don't know why people on this forum engage in spurious inane arguments totally unbecoming of "educated" people

I have £59 in the bank

The old import substituition argument.This is the 21st century,everyone knows now that it does not work.The only rationale for implementing such policies is to protect "special interests".

The US consumes 40% of the World's oil output.Oil producers need them more than they need us.If you are in the bussiness of selling a product,your customers are extremely important to you,especially the biggest of all your customers.That is why most of the major oil producers are US allies.Hence any arrogant posturing smacks of shameless ignorance

What particular laws do the Police claim these women have breached?

Same old stuff. . .

@Razorr-Ikoyi. . be back to England on Friday.If I wasn't so pressed for time ,I would have come see you to find out who is the person giving me so much trouble

Lurking around in your backyard for that matter. . .I'm in Lagos

What's up? Just came back in time to NL to cheer my team

Why would Wenger want to sign a midfielder?The team is full of midfielders.What Arsenal needs is a striker and perhaps. . a centre-half.

Fergie should  never have signed Nani. . .he should have used the money instead to sign a striker.We would have had more leverage financially if we hadn't wasted money on Nani.Saha should stay,he is a good striker to have in your team. . .coming off the bench.If we don't sign Tevez,we might have to go with only one upfront.Selling Rossi shows Utd are confident of signing a striker before the deadline,so I'm still optimistic that Tevez is joining

How can the dignity of a woman be tied to the state of her hymen.It is simplistic and inane to reduce the concept of dignity to the question of sexual activity or lack thereof in a woman.

Islander:
@topic,
I will slap his ass back, call the cops then sue him for every cent he's not worth, And I am dead serious

Of course. . if you slap him back,theoretically,you have committed a crime and will have lost your opportunity.

babyosisi:
Should he be suspended too?

In some respects,he has been suspended. . .suspended from the thought processes of the apologists.

@Denex.Many tax paying UK residents and citizens dey use this thread.Mind your business When you dey do seminars on G.W Bush,nobody stopped you.Are OBJ and T.Blair on the same level in respect of influence,power and prestige?

Nigeria is a country of fit and starts.We had a short period of growth between 1960-1966,a brief civil war,then back to growth between 1970-1979.Economic stagnation took over from 1980-2000.Now is another period in a never ending cycle of boom and bust.

The economic growth is mainly down to the tripling of oil prices since the 90s.As at 1999,oil prices were at $9 per barrel,now its approaching $70 barrell.We have been through this same sequence many times before and this is no different.Enjoy it while it lasts!

Maybe the pious ones will be saved from entering hell ab initio.

Nuclear attacks? Let Nigeria develop first before we can start worrying about Niger or Benin Republic declaring nuclear war on us.

Muslims inevitably see this kind of issue as an attack on Islam.Perhaps,there is some element of snobbery in it.However,the essence of the thread is to highlight a law imposed by Muslims in the name of Islam-Women should not drive.

It is not infidels that made up this issue.It is not a fabrication.Had this been a fabrication,one can rightfully say that it is an attack on Muslims.However,this issue was created by the islamic state called S.Arabia and justified by Islamic scholars on grounds of Islamic Law.Shouldn't the anger of Muslims be directed at Saudi Arabia instead of non-Muslims for rightfully seeking answers to what they regard as a comical legal provision?

What a surprise Denex is in denial.It is all a conspiracy according to him.Untill the culprits are identified,we can't be certain.However,in the recent attack on Glasgow Airport,the culprits were South Asian(probably Pakistan).

I doubt very much those behind the attempts in London were Southern Baptists or Jehova Witnesses

I can see clearly your issue is with taxation. I showed clearly measures of economic success (ie interest rate and unemployment) and what you have added is per capita income growth from (1979 - 1997) nearly two decades of booms and recessions an era of gross fiscal indiscipline. Inaddition i clearly don't see the need of the variable because in real terms GDP growth reflects the per capita income growth i.e. GDP per capita is GDP divided by total population so assuming that population doesnt grow at phenomenal rates the two variables capture the same thing.

I was correcting a misrepresentation of my post.I never said GDP growth averaged 2.7% under Labour as opposed to 2.4% under the Tories but that average income per capita growth averaged 2.4% under both parties.As you note,there is little difference between income per capita and the GDP as a whole,hence one can deduce from the per capita figures that the average GDP growth rate was effectively the same  under the 2 eras.

In addition a short coming of using GDP growth as a measure of economic success is that it does not provide an avenue to judge the efficacy of Monetary and Fiscal policies. It is not always difficult to make comparison in two eras as long as you are measuring like with like, you can clearly see changes positive and negative. My point doesnt fall short because i was comparing like with like i didnt just choose an arbitrary starting point of 1979 and compared to say 2002 (absolute values), i compared over a sample period for the two parties to provide an insight and establish a trend

My point was that when you assert for instance,that rates averaged 5.3% under labour as opposed to 8.9% under the Tories,this whitewashes the fact that the Tories had to bring down rates from 17% to get to that level.Labour only had to bring down rates from 7.05%.Which do you think was more applaudable?

My main agruement remains that "The British economy has in recent years seen the longest period of sustained economic growth for more than 150 years, and is one of the strongest economies in the world in terms of inflation, interest rates and unemployment, all of which remain relatively low" (its the record the Torys can't deny and celeberated by Labour)

Thanks for that well known oft repeated Labour soundbite.Problem with Labour soundbites are that they hide certain underlying truths.Think of this,that  point you just made equally applies to the US,Canada,Australia,New Zealand,Ireland and effectively most of the EU and indeed most of the world.Don't you think that there are certain forces at play transcending Blair's "management genius"?

The global economy as a whole,not just the UK,is witnessing an unprecedented period of economic expansion characterised with low inflation rates,low unemployment and low interest rates.This is particularly noticeable in the Anglo nations I mentioned.Blair happened to be PM at this most unique of  periods.

Correlation is not the same as causation.What particular policies of Blair can one claim to be responsible for the UK's economic expansion?You mentioned earlier the independence of the BOE.This single policy,applaudable as it is,cannot be the progenitor of the expansion.

Is it the higher taxes or ever increasing regulation?Is it the loss of competitivesness?Is it the mounting debt load of the Govt now standing at over  $1 trillion(43.5% of GDP).That last point about the debt is pertinent to the issue of wasteful spending in regards to the NHS.Government has to borrow to sustain all that spending.

Again on EU you misquote me, i said members of an alliance not members of the EU, i particulalry chose my words, i was attempting to show the advantages of Unions and Alliances. This debate is belated because even the Tories agree that being with the EU is beneficial its the extent of association they are against.

I fail to see where I insisted that the UK must pull out of the EU.My point is that Blair failed to adequately protect Britain's nationl interests in Europe even though the UK is not at the mercy of the EU.It is not in the same position as the likes of Poland,Hungary,Malta e.t.c .It can function adequately without the EU and hence does not need to sacrifice certain national interests.

Please NHS under the Tories you call improvements, i personally had an aunt in 1990 that was going to be on the waiting list till 1995 to receive surgery, luclkily her husbands firm had medical insurance, she imagines if they didnt what would have happened, today all that is history and you call that throwing money at a problem. Most of those that make such statements have medical insurance and so really don't care of the nitty gritty, they are complaining that the money spent is too much because of the huge taxes.

What does that tell us about the state of the NHS in the 70s?What you saw in 1990 was  actually a major improvement from the situation the Tories inherited from Labour.Each decade has seen major improvements from the past  decade.Had the Tories still be in power,the NHS would have been just as  improved,if not more, now compared to 1990.

You have not shown me any aspect of the country in which one can say would  have been worse had somebody other than Blair been PM.You pointed to the economy but I have noted that growth is essentially at the levels witnessed under the Tories, and is as much a symptom of the contemporary global economy as anything to do with Blair.Don't forget,Brown not Blair has been responsible for economic policy.This thread is about Blair's successes and failures not the Labour Government in general.

I am not refuting your statement. I am simply saying that since it would be impossible to deport those already here, why not capitalise on whatever skills they came with and benefit from that in the long run??

Because you will be rewarding criminals for their crime.Today its 12 million illegals,in ten years it would be another 12 million,where does it end?