₦airaland Forum

@JeSoul,

I approach this much like God's response to the Israelites demand for an earthly king to lead them...God agreed not because it was right, but because of their sinful nature and He wanted them to face the consequences of their actions. Abortion is not right, but I think people should be allowed to make the choice and then face the consequences of their actions.

So why don't we apply the same rule to all other vices as well? Killing, embezzlement etc are not right, but our Government should make laws to encourage their practices because of the clamor for them, right?

Anyway, your analogy to Israel's request for a King is not appropriate. Do you think God would sanction murder if the people desire to practice it? I believe in the principle of God's Good, Acceptable and Perfect Wills. What Israel wanted wasn't God's perfect will but falls under the jurisdiction of His "Acceptable Will". That is the only reason why God would sanction the call for an earthly king like other nations. He would not sanction anything that is evil and against His righteousness.

@Pres,

What's your definition of assault? What difference does it make to the dead whether they were shot with a machine gun, hand gun or shakabula?

The point is why should his children be protected by gun-totting soldier-ants and you and my kids don't deserve same kind of protection? I am not stupid enough to think that wishing away evil in the world will actually make it go away. Apparently, so does Obama believe, hence the guns that protect his kids and himself.

As for the funding you request from Congress, why don't we just use it to castrate all liberals? It would be cheaper than taking care of their babies.

@Pres-elect,

I see we now have a full house of nairaland foreign section's trinity. This always makes for an interesting discussion.

Yes, pres-elect. I would accept your compromise on one condition. That the so-called responsible leader lead by example by first confiscating the guns of his secret service as well as the guns of those guarding his children in school. After all, what is good for the citizens must also be good for the president, right?

Dearest JeSoul,

Compliments of the season to you as well. How is family? I trust you are on you way to adding enough arrows to fill your quiver. How is the Oga doing?

I differ with you on the right to abort a baby willy-nilly. If your stance that government should not wade into moral matters is right, then what is the need for laws? Morality and righteousness are the underpinnings of societal laws. In the same way you said abortion is a moral issue, the shooting of those kids too is a moral issue. Why then are they trying to prevent such from happening in the future?

Stealing, killing, rape, incest, ponzi schemes, assault are all moral issues. Perhaps our government should steer clear of laws to eliminate or ban them because they are all a reflection of morality or lack thereof? I don't think you want to go there.

Every New Year comes with promises of hope for better things especially in a nation like ours where majority of the masses engage in daily struggles for survival as if they are living in a war front.
As we confront the stark realities of a democracy that has only yielded dividends for the ruling elite; the venal rich who control the levers of state power and the vast resources, most Nigerians traditionally pin their hopes on divine providence, not government policies, for better life in a new year.
God rules the affairs of men. As a preacher, that’s a truth I teach regularly; relying on him for divine direction is the right thing to do as we begin a new year. The trouble is, due largely to the superficial knowledge of the word of God people do not often know the distinction between man’s responsibilities and God’s. Beset by seemingly intractable problems, there’s always the tendency for us to abdicate our responsibilities and lay them squarely on the host of heaven or some unseen supernatural forces.
The popular verse, Righteousness exalts a nation (Prov, 14:34), is one of the most misunderstood passages in the bible. The righteousness mentioned here is not about the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ that takes the Christian believer to heaven. It speaks of a forensic rightness; a moral rectitude and perpendicularity in the management of the affairs of men. You may call it good governance in our current political context. Then, the righteousness of Christ that we receive at new birth is what takes us heaven. This does not necessarily guarantee paradise on earth. Very often these two variants of righteousness are used by many people interchangeably, but they actually mean two different things. They point to two different directions: One to heaven, the other to the earth.
Thus a nation, regardless of its religious bias will be exalted if its leaders do the right thing. That is why non-Christian nations like China, Malaysia, and India excel economically even when they are predominantly Buddhist or Muslim; while a multi-religious nation like Nigeria is down the lowest rung of the human development index.
That said, while we pray for God’s mercy in dealing with the complex and explosive issues ahead of us in 2013, we expect a comprehensive projection of government’s policies and plans by the federal government for the New Year just begun, in line with international practice. So far, we’ve seen nothing of such.
The London-based publication; The Economist, publishes special editions dedicated to detailed projections of the Global Political and Economic Outlook of nations every year. In its latest edition of “The Word In 2013” several nations, big or small are showcased. It serves as an investors’ guide and the compass for global leaders in charting the course of action best suited for their policy directions.
The magazine’s brief summary on Nigeria in 2013 makes interesting reading: “Goodluck Jonathan, the president, will pass the mid-point of his term facing many challenges but none that threatens his political survival. Boko Haram, a loosely organised Islamist militant group, will channel northern resentment of Mr Jonathan and the Christian south, obstructing development projects and investment plans. The economy will enjoy another year of 6%- plus growth”. Not cheering news. The logical inference from this brief is that we should expect business as usual in 2013.
The Nigerian government has not told us what it has in store for our people in 2013. A thorough articulation of government policies ought to herald the New Year to reassure the nation and other stakeholders around the world that the short comings of the last year in all spheres would be addressed decisively this year. In the absence of a New Year resolution by government, the stage is usually left for soothsayers or prophets to make predictions on the fortunes of the nation.
What we are served in the media are forecasts on natural disasters, threats of war, air crashes, and impending deaths of prominent individuals, including governors and ministers. Then, Nigerians are implored to pray to avert these misfortunes. Of course, men ought to pray always. However; history has shown that disasters are bound to occur because these are part of the vagaries of nature and signs of the end times.
It is the responsibily of our government to take pre-emptive measures to contain or where possible, avert some of these disasters. Nigeria should not be reduced to a nation like Haiti where voodoo or superstition shapes the people’s world view. We are a civilised nation, with an elected democratic government in place. What is required for our leaders is to live up to their responsibilities.
In Japan, the new government of Prime Minister Shinjo Abe plans a stimulus package of $117 billion dollars to recharge the economy that slowed down last year due to the tsunami, and earthquakes that devastated the country. Mexico’s newly elected president, Enrique Pena Nieto has promised that in 2013, he’d launch a series of political and economic reforms to help achieve three overarching national goals that will improve the well-being of the people.
Britain’s deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg says part of his government’s priority in the New Year is to welcome individuals who wish to make a contribution to his country in the area of trade and investments. And he explained in details what incentives await such class of people. Mr Jonathan, just what are your plans for this country in 2013?

Tomorrow marks the 40th anniversary that no one in their right mind will love to celebrate. 40 years ago, our Government provided the legal cover that has resulted in the killing of the weakest amongst us. Some estimates say up to 55 million babies have been aborted since Roe v Wade.

Some will claim the law only provided the woman a right to do what she wants with her body. But that is only one side of the issue. What about the right to life of that baby? Why should the exercise of someone's right infringe on another's right to life? I am of the school of thought that "Your right end where mine begins". If only same rule can be applied in this case.

Today, the same Government is trying hard to infringe on our basic rights to protect ourselves. They are riding a wave of sentiments because of the dreadful shooting of some kids in our schools. They don't care about the kids. They only care about their political advantage and expanding the ability of Government to do whatever it wants with limited or ineffective opposition. If they cared about the kids, they will protect them irrespective of their stage of development.

More than guns, abortion has killed a lot more babies. It is the big elephant in the room that everyone has chosen to ignore. Through Roe v Wade, we now have daily killings that number more than the count on 911. This is nothing but genocide of infantile proportion.

More than life, our Government promotes death. This is such a shame.

@topic,

You cannot argue against success, and Yak is a success story by all standards. He may not be flashy or a skillful player, same can be said of Yekini by the way. However, when it comes to goals, he is one of the best in the business.

The reporter rightly pointed to the fact that the Yak has even scored more goals than Drogba and Eto'o in the chinese League. How can you argue against that? The WC miss is unfortunate. It was just a bad day at the office in my opinion.

This is a very interesting article about our own Yak. I think the writer is silent about one main reason behind his woes - the perception that he is much older than his official age. I do remember a Premier League Manager saying that the Yak's official age is his "Nigerian age". That says a lot about what many may think of him. Enjoy the article.

In November, Robin Van Persie scored in Manchester United's 2-1 win over Arsenal. It made headlines not just because he had found the net against his former club, but also because it meant he was one of two players to have scored against every single one of the 20 current Premier League teams.

So who was the other?

The answer took me by surprise. Not as much as the fact that this particular player finished as the fourth leading goal scorer in the league last year, despite playing for a club that was relegated. Or the fact that, despite being still just 29 at the end of the 2011-12 season, he moved to Guangzhou R&F in China for just over US $1.5 million, the value of his release clause.

Yes, I'm talking about Yakubu Aiyegbeni. He's now the answer to a trivia question and it's a good one because few players have been forgotten by the mainstream as quickly as he has.

His case also illustrates how the transfer market can work in mysterious ways. Van Persie is nine months younger. He scored nearly twice many goals as Yakubu last season. But he moved for more than 20 times as much and was pursued by half a dozen top teams around Europe. Meanwhile, nobody showed much interest in "the Yak."

This was despite the fact that, after Blackburn's relegation, he clearly said he didn't want to play in the Championship and was looking for a move. And he had a release clause in his contract, so there was no haggling on price.

Obviously he got a big payday at Guangzhou R&F -- around $7 million a season for three years, according to reports. And obviously, you tend to get a bit cynical when he tells you that it was all about "the challenge" of a new league and the "warmth and sincerity" of the Chinese people.

But it's not as if Yakubu would have earned substantially less had he found a club in a major European league. This is a guy who reached double figures in league goals in all but two of the past 11 years (and in one of those seasons, he missed seven months due to injury). Yet according to Yakubu, Guangzhou R&F were the only club to show genuine interest.

Why?

The answer may have to do with our prejudices. Yakubu's body type is such that he doesn't look much like an athlete. He also has -- rightly or wrongly -- a reputation for being lazy and not doing much off the ball. You can see why scouts would look at him and -- between the body type and the perceived work ethic -- conclude he wasn't worth the money.

Yet he has scored 96 Premier League goals. To put it in context, only three players younger than him have scored more: Darren Bent, Van Persie and Wayne Rooney. The latter two spent most of their careers at far better teams that score many more goals. A Moneyball devotee would suggest that, because goal scoring is so important, Yakubu's numbers, juxtaposed with his age, fee and salary would make signing him a no-brainer.

A traditionalist, who relies on the so-called "eye test," would be a lot more hesitant, precisely because he lacks the "tools" we so often associate with top players. A bit like some of the guys Billy Beane signed for the Oakland A's.

Personally, I'm somewhere in the middle. Yakubu's limitations are as evident as his record. But I can't help feeling that he got something of a raw deal. Nicolas Anelka and Didier Drogba also made big-money moves to China, of course, but their situations were a bit different. They're a bit older and, more importantly, they've played for big clubs throughout their careers. With a little nous, a number of teams could have put together a package (especially given the low fee) that Yakubu would have found more attractive than a move to China. And he could have helped someone this very season, whether in the Premier League or elsewhere.

The guys who get paid to make the big decisions at football clubs obviously felt differently. It's not as if he has torn up the Chinese league, but he nevertheless showed that the scoring touch is still there, notching nine goals in 14 games. I can't vouch for the quality of the Chinese league, but it's more than Drogba and Anelka scored, and presumably they were playing against the same standard of opposition.

At the very least, it's remarkable how a guy who has scored so much in the Premier League could disappear from people's radar screens so quickly.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/blog/_/name/espnfcunited/id/2656?cc=5901

On September 18, 1978, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin signed the so-called Camp David Accords, cementing the notion that land for peace would become the basis for a resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict. Their agreement led to a peace treaty the following year between Israel and Egypt. However the current fighting between Israel and Palestinian groups in the Gaza Strip ends, one thing is certain: the era of land-for-peace is over.

At first, Jimmy Carter’s land-for-peace formula looked promising. One in three Arabs lived in Egypt. Within the White House and at Foggy Bottom, presidents and diplomats believed that where Egypt went, so would go the Arab world. Hence, the precedent of trading the Sinai for peace became a source of hope.

It was this example that Bill Clinton sought to capitalize upon in the 1993 Oslo Accords. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) agreed to recognize Israel and work toward peace in exchange for land in historical Palestine. I was in Bahrain in 1994 when PLO chairman Yasser Arafat entered the Gaza Strip to establish the Palestinian Authority. Enthusiasm was palpable across the region. Within weeks, Jordan had signed its own peace accord with Israel, and Persian Gulf emirates, Tunisia, and Morocco looked like they might follow suit.

The logic of land for peace became the basis for Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000. The formula of trading land for peace had already begun to unravel. Israel expected if not peace, then quiet. They had removed the last remaining dispute between Israel and Lebanon. Alas, Israel’s withdrawal foreshadowed greater conflict. Even though the United Nations certified Israel’s withdrawal as complete, Hezbollah laid claim not only to the Shebaa Farms – an Israeli occupied area which historically is part of Syria – but also seven villages in the Galilee, a region well within Israel’s recognized borders.

Peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority was also rapidly deteriorating. Certainly, when it comes to the Arab-Israel conflict, there are always mutual recriminations. What is clear, however, is that Arafat had voided his pledge to resolve future conflict with Israel at the negotiating table. Many commentators mark the beginning of the “Second Intifada” as Likud leader Ariel Sharon’s September 28, 2000 visit to the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif. But this is dishonest. On August 24, 2000, several weeks before Sharon’s visit, Palestinian Justice Minister Freih Abu Middein threatened, “Violence is near, and the Palestinian people are willing to sacrifice even 5,000 casualties.” Communications Minister Imad al-Faluji reportedly admitted to Palestinian radio that “Arafat ordered preparations for the current intifada immediately after the Camp David summit, as part of the negotiating process with Israel.” The Oslo Process and the land-for-peace formula that underlay it had begun to breakdown.

Many warriors transform themselves into peacemakers in the twilight of their lives, and Sharon was no different. In 2005, Israel undertook a unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Palestinians and Israelis might argue about Jerusalem, right of return, and other final status issues, but there were no longer land disputes in Gaza. What followed was a disaster: Whereas southern Israel was once free of violence, suddenly towns like Sderot became targets for hundreds of rockets and missiles. Southern Lebanon, too, became a forward staging base for ever more advanced weaponry, as Hezbollah would demonstrate in 2006. The more land Israel ceded, the more insecure it became and the more violence her citizenry suffered. Sharon did not gamble that Gaza would become the launching ground from which Israel’s enemies could strike Tel Aviv for the first time since Saddam Hussein’s Scud missile attacks in 1991.

The current violence will be the last straw for land-for-peace. Egypt’s withdrawal of its envoy convinces even Israeli doves that Arab countries see treaties as little more than truces. That the new Egyptian government appears complicit in smuggling weaponry to Hamas in violation of its commitment to police territory returned to it underlines this conclusion.

Palestinians hope for an independent state with the bulk if not the entirety of the West Bank as its core. But Israelis know that their country is less than 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. Forget heat-seeking missiles; withdrawal from the West Bank would put planes landing at Ben Gurion Airport within a terrorist’s rifle range. Most Israelis view their experience of land-for-peace in the same fashion that Native Americans consider their experience with the concept.

Diplomats may scramble for a ceasefire, but any quiet will be deceptive. Hamas’ decision to turn Gaza into a forward missile base rather than the engine for an independent Palestine condemns 35 years of peacemaking to history’s garbage bin and sets the stage for a conflict far more disruptive than anyone in the region has seen in a half century.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/15/why-land-for-peace-is-dead/?hpt=hp_bn2

Interesting article. Emphasis is mine of course.

This is such a hilarious video. I especially like the "brother's keeper" part of it.

http://youtu.be/_W57aBMYKvU

@topic, I think the best candidate in this field is Rep Paul Ryan. Since he is in the Romney camp, I'm voting Romney all the way!!!

..

@topic,

I agree that Joe Biden didn't do himself a lot of good with the interruptions and antics. While some will claim Mitt did same to Obama, it is clear that Mitt must have been more tactful because he didn't come across to anyone as rude and obnoxious, Biden did.

The funniest thing to me was when Biden looked in the camera and asked millions of Americans "who do you trust?" A couple of breadths later, he looked in the same camera and told Americans he never voted to send our troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, which were verifiable lies. Talk about increasing trust deficits.

@Frosbel,

Central to your feigned confusion about the concept of the Trinity is your refusal to accept the divinity of Jesus. You are not the first to get your pants in a wad over this issue. Perhaps you forget that the damning evidence against Jesus that led to Him being crucified was his assertion that He was God. The Pharisees knew exactly what Jesus meant whenever He called Himself the Son of God. In any case, you may want to answer this same question that Jesus asked of the sceptical Phasrisses in Matthew 22:

41 While the Pharisees were gathered together , Jesus asked them, 42 Saying , What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. 43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying , 44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool ? 45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? 46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

I guess this message is applicable to Pres-elect and co.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi_KaZ53eDg

@Rossikk,

Use your brain. You seem blissfully unaware of the Republicans' warmongering habits and blind support for Israel and increased 'defence' spending. I wonder why you spend your time being dull instead of thinking. Better realise that Republican warmongering and trigger happiness means death and calamity for you and your family in the long run.

You are a dolt. How many wars has Obama started since he became President? What's the difference between his policies towards Isreal and that of the Republicans? Bush did not invade an African country but Obama devastated one while killing its long time leader. Ode buruku.

@ Violent,

Find 10 of "such birds" to kill and you already have 430 million dollars in savings, why is that unreasonable?

Abeg tell them joor? Many here just accept the things they hear on left-leaning media without even thinking about it. Sesame Street can never die if the Govt pulls its funding. I'm sure it'll have no problems finding sponsors to keep it on the air. Disney and the Cartoon Network are doing fine without a dime from Obama stash. About time that PBS does same.

And by the way, it's not just "birds" that need to be killed, we need to go after a lot of "pork" too.

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKY5uDWtWvE?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKY5uDWtWvE?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Now that you and you guy Obama have lost in the arena of ideas, the next thing is to embark on a fear campaign. I laugh in swahili.

On the View a fortnight ago, Obama claimed he was the eye candy. On the debate floor yesterday night, he was more of an eye sore. He was a man flustered by the confrontation of facts and the reality of his failed policies. People around him have not done him a lot of good by shielding him from the truth. Perhaps, its because of his demeanour when confronted with same. That much was evident last night.

On the View a fortnight ago, Obama claimed he was the eye candy. On the debate floor yesterday night, he was more of an eye sore. He was a man flustered by the confrontation of facts and the reality of his failed policies. People around him have not done him a lot of good by shielding him from the truth. Perhaps, its because of his demeanour when confronted with same. That much was evident last night.

Romney for President!

Romney won this debate

Hands down. It wans't even close.

Bo scores thr..."U jst dnt say I will seat dwn,u gotta have a plan"...dts Romney's wahala...wat r his plans..he has been attacking but not sayin wat he wants to do..

Were you dosing when he talked about how all he needs to do now is present framework for negotiation with the Legislators? Go to his website and read the details if you so care. This is not the forum for that.

Romney jst hit a blow below d belt thr.lol...wow "BO put 90billion $ on green energy to support those whu bankrolled BO's election" wow

It is the truth. A lot of the money went to his bundlers, and those companies went broke.

That is part of what is being said, you can hear Obama analyzing it just about now. By the way, What did you hear? just in case I didnt understand, EDucate me..... waiting.....

RomneyCare was done in a bipartisan manner.
It did not institute a Board to determine how to provide care.
It did not force people off their insurance
It did not cut money off Medicare
Romney made it clear that RomneyCare was a a pattern for State by State implementation, not Federal Government take over.

is dt hw u watching dis debate?

Don't you understand messages that are convened by body languages?

Obama can't even look up at Romney. He is cowering down.

If you have same model of Obama Care in your state and it is working well in your state why will Obama Care not work? ... Just because Obama did not consult Republican?
This sounded like ACN to me IMO

Is that all you heard? Like I said, many folks here are just jaundiced.

Curious that Obama is talking about paying Doctors based on performance but oppose same when it comes to the Teachers' Union.

Great answer by Romney on the difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare.

Obviously many jaundiced people here. Romney is kicking buttt. Obama is just mumbling, stammering and playing on emotions.