₦airaland Forum

Romney is kicking buttttttttttt!

What I don't understand is why we try so hard to copy other people's culture. Don't we have ours?

@Pres-elect,

anyways, dontchange the topic, dont confuse me with terminologies. these are simple questions

Change the topic ke. Wasn't the liberal with the talking point continuing the comparison between Reagan and Obama? The talking point has been that Reagan raised taxes. What I have asked you to confirm for me, while providding you the necessary data is this: "What was the marginal increase or decrease in taxes during Reagan's administration?" Please answer this simple question.

did he, or did he not raise taxes?

Marginally, he reduced taxes. Even today, the taxes we pay are less than what was paid prior to Reagan taking office.

did he, or did he not cut and run from lebanon after hundreds of marines were killed?

That's a historical fact. You call it "cut and run", I call it "tactical retreat" .

did he or did he not do dirty deal with iran?

What dirty deal? The same that Obama is doing now with Pakistan?

did he or did he not grant amnesty to millions of undocumented immigrants in the united states

He granted it based on a wbroader arrangement to secure the border. Of course the Democrat-led congress implemented the amnesty but didn't secure the border as agreed. This is one reason why there is a continued gridlock in Congress today over immigration reform. Democrats are truce-breakers and they cannot be trusted to do the right thing. This experience has taught us that we must agree to secure the border first before regularising the illegals.

this is a case of yes he did or no he didnt. dont confuse me with terminal abi marginal economics

No you tell us, was the marginal rate increased or decreased through Reagan's administration?

All in all, Reagan was not perfect as Rush pointed out. He had to deal with a Democrat controlled congress. He can no more be accused of being liberal as Clinton could be accused of being conservative. We all know that the balanced budget and the welfare reform that happened under Clinton wasn't because of Clinton. It was because of the Republican controlled congress. Newt Gringrich should really be credited with all that. Same principle applies to Reagan.

@Pres-elect,

I can see that you are back. I've missed you so much sha. I miss you like a sickle cellar misses his crisis .

Anyway, I noticed you went on sabbatical after I asked you a question you couldn't answer. Now that you have popped up again, I would ask you the same question. What was the marginal tax rate just before and immediately after Reagan's Presidency? Answering that question would go a long way to help you begin to understand the conservative's view of Reagan.

I will help you here a little. Reagan was president from 1981 to 1989. marginal income tax rate was 70% in 1980, 69% in 1981, 50% in 1982, 28% in 1989, and 31% in 1990. The rate is 35% today and has remained so since 2003. [url]http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213[\url]

With this information, can you now tell us if Reagan was a tax raiser or cutter?

@Dis_Guy,

The fence you show is for a Substation and it only makes sense to cordon it off because people can do harm to both it and themselves if easily accessible. Transmission lines on the other hand are far removed from people. The dangerous part is the live conductor and not the supporting structures that people have easy access to. Adequate clearance is typically provided to ground to maintain safety of pedestrians beneath it. Those people were safe and would have remained safe if the conductors had stayed up.

The problems was that something happened that caused those conductors to fail mechanically and so led to them falling. I suspect that the cables didn't just fall without giving any indications of trouble brewing. Likely there would have been sparks around the weak point on those conductors over time and people just ignore them. It so happened that it finally failed and the rest is history.

@Dis_Guy,

Dis Guy: explain oga, Why are tranformers in estates fenced off, why are even smaller generating sets kept in an enclosed area of factories, where in the world do you see power companies allowing access under these sort of cables transmitting electricity from one region to the other. You dont just allow people build shacks underneath transmission lines, what are health and safety officials employed at PHCns for? to protect their staff only?

First, do you want to point out to us all where in the picture you attached the transmission line is fenced off so no one could stay underneath it?

Second, are you sure you want to have this discussion with someone who designs and builds transmission lines for a living? Are you sure you know jack about what you are talking about?

@Dis_Guy,

it's PCHN responsibility to ensure their cables/sites are cordoned off so people cant trade under them! juts like train companies would get the blame for not blocking off acess to their train tracks, you build things with safety in mind not the other way round expecting people not to go there

This is perhaps the most st*upid statement I have ever come across on nairaland. Going by how many of such stupid statements I have seen on this site, Dis_Guy has really achieved something special.

davidylan: More leftist claptrap. Jihadists hated America well before any marine stepped foot on islamic soil. they hate you for the sin of daring to exist in open defiance to allah.
Have you seen videos of how jihadists treat abducted Americans? Dont watch... you may be unable to eat for days.

Hello Davidylan. So you still roam these parts?

See that babe shout "Oh My God" live on TV.

Maybe this will help RVP in his decision. That he plays well at Arsenal does not mean he'll do same in another team.

Is the name boateng german or ozil?

Na you sabi?

Mario Gomez. Is this not a case of mistaken identity? shouldn't he be playing for Mexico and not Germany with that name?

Gomeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz is on fiiiiiiireeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!

Wow. that could easily have been 2 nil.

1:0 Germanoooooooooooooo

Gooaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Goaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!

Ronaldoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow. Nobody there to finish off for Russia.

What a screameeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer!

Na wa o. this France team sabi foul sha. abi na fowl make I talk!

tunnytox: Poor 1st half performance from England, I see them getting beaten by the French who are technically superior.

Who are you....TB Joshua?

rasputinn: @ Tayo D

I'm waiting for you to be ready so we sign our own power civil infarcstructure deal.You know the power sector in Nigeria will soon be fully deredulated with the much anticipated unbundling coming up in November this year

I am open to the idea in principle. Let's hope they actually come up with real reforms that will make power generation, transmission and distribution a market driven endeavor. The investment in the power sector world over is breath-taking at the moment. Naiaj should not be left behind.

@Kobojunkie,

~$15 dollars daily and you have not computed that you are probably better off switching over to 100% solar at that point?

How does the economics work out?

Anyone, or company that spends more than $2.50/day on electricity ought to switch immediately to renewable source, rather than continue to pour money down the drain.

$2.50/day? Are you serious? My home electric bill in the US is about $180/month on the average. That is $6/day on the average. How can you run an industry on $2.50/day?

HNosegbe: I have said it so many times, the problem with our power sector is our continued dependence on a central power grid. Do you know how many MW of generated electricity that is lost in the process of transmission, due to an inefficient centralised power grid? Our power sector is like our political structure: Rigid, unwieldy and over-centralised.

My Info Tech teacher in secondary school told me that for every kilometre of power transmission, 1.6 watts (or thereabouts) of generated power is lost. Multiply this by the length of our transmission network, and you have an estimate how much of the little power we generate is frittered away due to a grossly inefficient transmission network.

The solution: DECENTRALISE THE POWER SECTOR. The law is currently being amended to allow states to generate, transmit and distribute power by themselves. Therefore we must press these states to generate and distribute the level of power that can meet their needs. We need to stop depending on the FG for everything. Our power problem is better tackled when each state can generate its own power.

There is nothing wrong with having the so-called central power grid you are talking about. Your teacher taught you enough to be dangerous. Losses are inevitable in the transmission of power. Getting rid of our transmission network is like saying we should get rid of all machines because their efficiencies are always less than 1.

There are many things that can be done to mitigate, not eliminate power losses. Amongst the many options is the proper sizing of conductors, increase in transmission voltage and by implication use of a direct current transmission when ac becomes inefficient. The problem is not engineering because the expertise is there. After all, theNorth American power grid with the central power grid you describe was determined to be the world's no 1 technological wonder.

Bello555: why must we always give foreigners our money. Our engineers are better

Do you know this for a fact or you are just an overzealous patriot? I have worked as a transmision line engineer in the US for the past 8 years with experience engineering and building up to 345kV line. I have looked into it and tried to find allied Naija professionals to address this problem and I could not even find one.

You will do your nation proud if you can name two, nay one competent transmission line engineer in Naija.

@topic,

Let's see, what can $200 million buy you? With installed cost for a 345kV transmission line running up to $1.5 million per mile, this investment will do very little to solve our problem. Perhaps, it can help on a reginal capacity, but it pales in comparison to what is needed to turn around the failing power sector for good.

@Kay_17,

This wasn't your prior position, which was that marriage was the preserve of the State, consequently marriages without State approval are not marriages in effect.

I don't know if you are deliberately misquoting me to win an argument or that you have basically misunderstood my position all along. I have said times without number that freedom of association is a right. What I do not subscribe to is saying that any association has a right to demand a license from the State. Remember my analogy with the Doctors and Herbalists?

Individuals make their decisions on account of so many reasons, moral consideration could be one. However that's not in issue. Morality of a community doesn't have superiority over human rights.

I agree. Where we differ is you ascribing the issuance of a marriage licencse to rights! There is right to freely associate and sleep with whoemever or as many people as you want as long as it is consentual. What you don't have a right to is insist that the State grant you marriage status by issuing you a license when you do not meet the set criteria.

Polygamy is a right of a man upon securing the consents of the wives, and the State recognizes it as a right to association in Nigeria. As to a woman having many husbands, I feel it shares the same attributes with polygamy, BUT few men would want to share a wife despite having a right to do so.

The State does not recognize polygamy in Nigeria. I know people who wanted to remarry but had to divorce their spouses to do so. Traditionally, polygamy is accepted but not by law. Naija aside, are you saying that the US is trampling on the rights of polygamists by not issuing them licences?

@kay_17,

Good example from you. Customary marriages don't get issued marriage certs/licences, yet they have as much legal effect as a statutory one in inheritance, legitmacy, for adoption purposes, criminial law etc. Why is that? Because its the agreement between the parties that forms the relationship and duties/rights within it! NOT on government whims.

Not only are you proving my point here, but you are also giving more ammunition to Sagamite.

1. You talk about agreement between the parties. This is basic and everyone has a right to freely associate. This agreement by the parties is based on their morals like Sagamite explained. I will not agree to marry another woman when I am still married to my wife. It is against my moral code.

2. Customary marriages are valid as far as that community is concerned. That validity does not necessarily carry over into another custom. For instance, polyandry is an aceptable custom in some parts of india. That marraige, though recognized by that custom does not carry over to other customs in India talkless of Nigeria.

3. Going by the above, it is clear that marriages can take any form that it pleases the parties, but it does not mean they have a right to a marriage licence by the State. For instance, there are Somalis here in the US who are married to more than one wife in keeping with their Islamic faith. The State does not recognize that relationship but their community does. They are not asking for the State to issue them licenses for those marriages because it does not meet the state requirements. Is their civil rights being trampled upon because of this? Please answer the question.

Human rights is universally recognized.

But there is nothing like human right to a state-issued marriage licence, or is there?

You are sneaking in your assumptions. The general assumption is everybody goes into marriage for their individual happiness.

If we accept your assumption, why then should we be forced to issue licenses to people who through their own volition enter into a relationship?There are millions of people living together for the long term but have no State-isued marriage licenses. How does that detract from the relationship?

@Kay_17,

but polygamous marriages are accepted in Nigeria!!

Traditionally yes, but not the State. The Nigerian State does not permit polygamy.

Maybe human rights to dignity and life?!

The State's priority and allegiance is to its citizens, not the citizens of another nation.

Yea, that ONE option for gays. Marriage is another

For gay couples, marriage is nothing but an avenue to indoctrinate kids. They can help those kids by helping to strengthen heterosexual homes and not take advantage of the kids for their own self-interests.

@Kay_17,

Examples of reforms? Recognition of civil rights of women and blacks.

I didn't ask for examples of reforms. I mentioned earlier that chaos would ensue from expanding the definition of marriage. You made it sound as if that is not the case. What I request is what reform doesn't bring about chaos? Do you know how much chaos accompanied the civil rights movement?

First you haven't been able to show why a marriage is a privilege from the State. It can't arbitrarily withhold marriage certs. The substance of marriage doesn't flow from it, thus its role is restricted to rubberstamping.

In other words, you are saying that the State must also rubber-stamp polygamous relationships! Is that so?

I'm not denying that a family is not important to a society, but society shouldn't conclude that non child breeding relationship are against its interest. Gay marriages could use their resources both time and money to raise neglected, orphaned kids. In a time where overpopulation and declining resources is a major issue, more numbers isn't a priority.

If more numbers isn't a priority, then why are the same liberals calling for amnesty and basically open borders? But gays can still use their time and material resources to still help neglected and orphaned kids without having to get married. No be so?

@Kay_17,

The State doesn't have full discretion over the issuance of marriage certificates/licences, its role is merely that of registration/regularization. Just like Trade Unions, passport issuance, school registration, church registration/licences, land registrations/due processes, access to justice, etc.

You are here making my point exactly. Traditional marriages in Nigeria and even some religious marriages allow polygamy. As far as I know however, the State does not recognize the multiple marriages. People can get married all they want, but asking the State to issue licenses to them is conditional on meeting the definition of the State. Gay marriage does not meet the definition of the State and therefore not eligible for the State's license and privileges that come with that union.

Remember the analogy I gave earlier about the association of Doctors, Nurses and Herbalists? The State recognizes the two former but not the later. The State has a right to do that based on what it thinks best. What the State cannot do is say that Herbalists cannot form an association because that will be trampling on their rights.