₦airaland Forum

@Ibime,

Is US GDP not inflated by borrowing?

Part of GDP is made exclusively from the budget (which is running at deficit).

Isn't this what I have basically implied all along? And isn't this why we are in the mess we are in today? Creditors are calling for their money which we have used to create an illusion of prosperity. The Keynes approach by the current administration is only trying to sustain this illusion.

Come up with another excuse or just admit to using the wrong terminology.

Okay you win. I admit I used the wrong terminology (even though I am still trying to figure out if "eat deeper into" is a technical economic terminology). I don tire going around in circles.

I trust you will go to bed happy now, shei?

@Ibime,

You tire me out with this your argument. But I think I am beginning to see where our differences lie, and it appears it is based on ideology.

GDP to me, should be guaged based on the products and not just the spending. You Keynsians (If I may use that term) will definitely love to look at this only from the perspective of spending. A financial conservative like me will surely look at it only from the perspecive of real products made, sold and consumed in the society (basically in that order).

Spending money that has not been made is no measure of real prosperity. Again if I may use the credit card analogy. That I buy more stuff with my crdit card does not make me richer than one who buys half of what I buy each month even though he makes ten times as much. My prosperity in this analogy is based on debt while the other person's is based on reeal wealth. I doubt you will agree, but that is the case from my perspective.

@Ibime,

Nah bruv. . . . drop all these circumlocutory arguments. . . . you never meant to express Govt production as a percentage of GDP. . . . you meant to express Govt expenditure as a percentage of budget. . . . any revision is a practice in self-deceit.

Na wah for you o. So now you know what I meant to say? It's funny that you are now talking about revisions only after settling down to understand what I said in the first place.

I can see that you got hung up on the phrase "eat deeper into". Tell me, is that phrase a technical economic term? If it is not, why then didn't you ask for explanation before going a-swearing on a tangent? Try chill out next time, okay?

@Ibime,

You must be joking bros. . . .you made an erronous statement of healthcare spending eating into something. . . . .you were obviously talking about expenditure, not production. . . . but erronously used GDP instead of budget.

Let me put this in a simple way that even you will understand. The best way to understand the cost of a product is to compare it to production. The cost of my health insureance premium needs to be compared to my wages, and not the money I will spend that month from my salary as well as my credit cards. Comparing the entitlement cost to GDP represents the former while comparing it to the budget represents the latter.

@Ibime,

And you wonder why I always dismiss your rants in customarily curt fashion. . . .nucca, you need to disambiguate in ya mind the difference between GDP and budget. . . . what you mean to say is that the expenditure eats deep into the budget. . . . FFS, any extra Government expenditure increase GDP, not eat it up.

I'm not an Economist but I know BS when I smell one.  YOur swearing does not make you right you know?

I very well know the difference between budget and GDP.  To a smart person who is interested in real cost and not a made up one, the right way to judge any govt program should be on the backdrop of the GDP.  Budgets are based on an estimated guess of govt income and can be propped up by borrowing.  GDP on the other hand gives a better idea of the prosperity of the nation.  That should be pof greater concern to anyone.

And by the way, here is a quote by an expert who I'm sure knows better than you.  He rightly compares the cost of those programs to the GDP and not the budget.

Peter Orszag is no conservative ideologue. The head of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was a scholar at the liberal Brookings Institution before being picked for his current position by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Yet, Mr. Orszag recently warned that the rising cost of federal entitlement programs, particularly Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, poses a grave threat to America's economic future.

According to Mr. Orszag, without dramatic reform, the cost of those three programs alone will rise from 18 percent of GDP today to 28 percent by the middle of this century and as much as 35 percent soon thereafter.

That means that just three federal government programs will be consuming between a quarter and a third of everything this country produces. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/33579

@4Play,

That may be so in general but on the specific issue of healthcare, the US will surely benefit from a little state intervention.

There is nothing little about what Obama is proposing. This is nothing but another entitlement program. Last I checked, entitlement programs have eaten deep into the GDP. Even if the status quo is maintained, these programs are forecast to eat even deeper. Imagine what will happen with this entitlement monstrosity called universal healthcare.

The principle behind lessening state intervention and relying on private enterprise is that private enterprise promotes efficiency. However, the US health system in its present form has failed to achieve these objective. Not only is it incredibly costly but it has failed to serve its basic purpose, that of providing coverage for everyone.

We need to backtrack a little bit from your premise of its cost implication. Question is what has made it more costly than what it is now? What has limited competition? Could those be govt regulation?

By the way, if coverage for everyone is the goal, then the bill has failed even before it is enacted. There is no way coverage can be guaranteed for everyone. Isn't that why Obama and co now want to criminalise people who refuse to obtain insurance under their plan? If coverage is guaranteed, why the fines and threats of jail time? Isn't this part of the problem the article points out? You either follow the leading of the centralplanners with unquestioned loyalty, or you are criminalised for exercising you freedom of choice.

What metric do you use in determining that the Govt has gone too far? For me, if a privately run system is failing, it's time to try something that has worked effectively in other developed countries - state run healthcare.

Medicare, MedicAid and co are govt run programs. They are not in great shape too are they?

@posakosa,

maybe if Hassan had a WIFE, he would have put his anger on her p***y.

Nice theory, though I doubt it would have made a difference. The belief that he will be rewarded with at least 72 virgins for all eternity is enough to ignore the temporal pleasure of a single wife.

@bawomolo,

doesn't this tragedy say a lot about the mental stress on US troops?

I have heard about post-traumatic stress disorder.  Problem is that it does not apply to the terrorist Soldier of Allah (SoA), Major Hassan.  Are you trying to manufacture a pre-traumatic stress disorder?

Being a soldier sure isn't easy.

Absolutely. Especially when you have enemies from within like Major Hassan (SoA).

@Ikomi,

You sure have the unmistable traits of an Ayatollah - inability to do no wrong or be wrong! I can see you are also bogged down with pride. If only you had admitted your mistake when it was pointed out in the first place, we won't be herediscussing this anymore. Your continued attempt to justify your error only serves to expose more of your ignorance.

The keyword in your statement was TRIBE, and not an ETHNORELIGIOUS Group as you now want to twist it into. If you were concerned about ethnoreligious groups, how come you refered to Sunnis and Shiites (strictly religious groups) and Kurds (strictly an ethnic group) in the same subset? You are not debating with ignorant folks here. Let me give you an analogy of what you've said with something closer to home. Your statement is the same as saying Nigeria's main tribal groups are Christians, Moslems and Yorubas. Your statement is just as stupid!

And by the way, I am still waiting for you to point out the other errors in the same paragraph. If you are so confident of your knowledge as an Ayatollah, you should be able to declare that the entire paragraph is accurate or point out the fiction in it. Your other option is to ignore it because of your lack of confidence in what you wrote. I'm reproducing the paragrapgh for you again to critic.

Iran has from time wanted a domination of the middle east, that has always been there quest. And this aim runs from the tribal fact that from Iran to Iraq and Saudi Arabia there exists a tribe called the Shiate - hope I spelt there name correctly - who believe that since they are greater in number compared to the Sunnis and Kurds even in Kuwait, they should be in power and dictate what happens in this region.

@David,

the public option would be funded exclusively by premiums. I'm tired of arguing the same thing over and over again.

Just like Medicare and MedicAid is funded exclusively by premiums? What a joke!

This is senseless . . . sorry to use that word. Do you know how much treating tobacco-related disease costs the tax payer each yr? Its into the billions! Tobacco-related disease is going to be the world's largest killer by 2020 according to the WHO, lung disease directly related to smoking will be the 4th largest killer by that time. Why shld the government not try to use increased taxes to dissuade its use? Why shld i be taxed when i dont smoke nor purchase tobacco products?

So why not let people be held responsible for their action? People are aware of the consequences of smoking and still choose to smoke. That is what is called freedom of choice. Should the govt also control sex because many people are dying of AIDS? If you do not want to be taxed when you don't smoke, then tell the govt to hands off healthcare because you will be paying for these people's action.

What has taxes on tobacco got to do with healthcare products?

Increase taxes on tobacco is to control and limit its use. So for the govt to tax healthcare products, the unintended consequence will be to control and limit its use as well. Get it now?

@Davidylan,

911 service is provided from taxes right? So isnt that socialism that MUST be cancelled?

This is where you miss the point.  The services provided by 911 is directly linked with the role of the govt.  I have no problem with the govt raising taxes to fund its legitimate role. 

err so we shld stop taxing tobacco users?

Who said you should stop taxing them?  The question is why single out its users by taxing them more than everybody else?  The purpose of the taxes is to limits its use.  Why should the govt have the power to determine your habit by intentionally raising the taxes so you can kick the habit?  Is it not then safe to say that the proposed new taxes on medical devices and some healthcare products is a means to control their use?Taxing them is obviosuly not a means to providing them as 4Play implied.

Examples?

Seriously?

@4Play,

If the absence of Govt run social programs is the hallmark of individual liberty, countries like Nigeria would be a paradise.

You have totally missed the point 4Play.  This is about the role of govt in the society.  While the US govt has gone beyond its limit, Nigeria's hasn't got to the starting block.  Both govt are on opposite side of the divide.

How can you imply that Nigerians are models of individual liberty?  What is individual liberty when you have no govt to ensure your rights are not violated? And if violated, are there structures in place to seek justice?  This in my opinion is the sole responsibility of the govt.  The US before Obama, and more so with Obama, has reached too far!

@Ibime,

Nucca STFU!!!

Why am I not dissapointed by this response? Expecting better things from you is just asking too much!

@4Play,

This Obama is a socialist hogwash is just tiring.

You definitely can't call him a capitalist.  Obama is pretty clear that he is all about social justice (whatever that means).  I believe he and other Leftists of his kind are of the opinion that the equality envisioned by the founding fathers cannot be said to be actualised until there is equality in social and economic outcomes. They can't be more wrong.

The idea that the state centralising the provision of healthcare to its citizens is a slippery road down to tyranny is bizarre. If the absence of Govt run social programs is the hallmark of individual liberty, countries like Nigeria would be a paradise.

I disagree that this is about provision of healthcare, it is not. What they are attempting is the control of healthcare. You do not provide anything by taxing it.  We all know that taxing a product limits and controls its use.  Don't we see them doing it with tobacco? In any case, this is more than just about healthcare.

My key gripe with Obama's spending policies is that it is unsustainable in the long term. The long term costs far outweigh the short term benefits. Obama can be rightly accused of sacrificing the nation's long term needs for the Democrats' short term political expediency not of being a socialist.

I agree with everything you wrote here except the enboldened part. Nothing describes his approach and philosophy better than socialism, except maybe marxism!

@4Play,

So this rancid slowpoke called Ikomi is now masquerading as an expert on Islam? Don't tell me he thinks the Sunni/Shia divide is an ethnic divide?

He sure thinks so.  And to think that he calls me every name in the book when I point out his error.  I'll reproduce his post in my response to him below.

@Ikomi,

Who are you? All I ask is constructive argument based on facts, all that thing you wrote up there makes no sence to me. Come up with facts.

You want facts?  Below is what you wrote.

Iran has from time wanted a domination of the middle east, that has always been there quest. And this aim runs from the tribal fact that from Iran to Iraq and Saudi Arabia there exists a tribe called the Shiate - hope I spelt there name correctly - who believe that since they are greater in number compared to the Sunnis and Kurds even in Kuwait, they should be in power and dictate what happens in this region. - https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-276382.32.html#msg3938007

There is a lot of fallacy in the above statement.  But for now, we will concentrate only on the tribe called "Shiate" according to Ayatollah Ikomi.  To think he does not even know how to spell it right.  Is it too much to expect better from a self-proclaimed expert of the ME?

Try redeem yourself a little bit.  Please take a look at the paragraph and correct all the errors yourself.   It is unthinkable that an expert on the order of an Ayatollah like you can make so many glaring errors in one single paragraph.  Over to you, and show us some facts.

@topic,

I did a little research on the referenced book "The Road to Serfdom" (infact,I just bought a copy online). I like the following description of the contents of the book by the Mises Institute.

What F.A. Hayek saw, and what most all his contemporaries missed, was that every step away from the free market and toward government planning represented a compromise of human freedom generally and a step toward a form of dictatorship--and this is true in all times and places. He demonstrated this against every claim that government control was really only a means of increasing social well-being. Hayek said that government planning would make society less liveable, more brutal, more despotic. Socialism in all its forms is contrary to freedom.

Nazism, he wrote, is not different in kind from Communism. Further, he showed that the very forms of government that England and America were supposedly fighting abroad were being enacted at home, if under a different guise. Further steps down this road, he said, can only end in the abolition of effective liberty for everyone.

Capitalism, he wrote, is the only system of economics compatible with human dignity, prosperity, and liberty. To the extent we move away from that system, we empower the worst people in society to manage what they do not understand.

Continues below:

I successfully informed my coworker of the irreparable crack in the foundation of socialist thinking, and he is now aware of the need to burrow beneath the surface of politics to find the roots from which the tree springs. We can't wait until the tree bears fruit to determine its worth. Fruit bears seeds, and seeds scatter. Better to tear it out as a single sapling now than to hew down an entire forest of diseased wood after it has poisoned the ground.


The Left will not willingly lay claim to the true legacy of socialism, so we will have to hang it around their necks. They have grown accustomed to shedding responsibility for the damage they have done, and are adept at shifting the blame. Traditional means of holding them to account are failing. Fellow travelers in the academy and media will not challenge even their most egregious lies, so howling about bias will gain us nothing.

If you doubt the effectiveness of the Left's methods, ask any ten people under the age of forty whether Hitler and the Nazis were a product of left-wing or right-wing ideology. The obstacle we face will become painfully clear. It is not enough that you know the truth. You alone are not likely to singlehandedly shape the outcome of an election. Everyone has to know the truth. We have to reclaim our younger generations from the wolf in sheep's clothing, or it won't be long before the wolf no longer needs the disguise.

Continued below:

How do you attain total commitment to a goal from a free people? Well, you don't. Some percentage will always disagree, even if only for the sake of being contrary or out of a desire to be left alone. When considering a program as comprehensive as a government-planned economy, there are undoubtedly countless points of contention, such as how we will choose the planners, how we will order our priorities when assigning them importance within the plan, how we will allocate resources when competing interests have legitimate claims, who will make these decisions, and perhaps more pertinent to our discussion, how those decisions will be enforced. A rift forming on even one of these issues is enough to bring the gears of this progressive endeavor grinding to a halt. This fatal flaw in the collectivist design cannot be reengineered. It is an error so critical that the entire ideology must be scrapped.

Von Hayek accurately foretold the fate that would befall dissenters from the plan. They simply could not be allowed to get in the way. Opposition would soon be treated as subversion, with debate shriveling to non-existence under the glare of the state. Those who refused compliance would first be marginalized, then dehumanized, and finally (failing re-education) eliminated. Collectivism and individualism cannot long share the same bed. They are political oil and water, and neither can compromise its position without eventually succumbing to the other. The history of the twentieth century is littered with the remains of those who became "enemies of the state" for merely drawing attention to this flaw. As Von Hayek predicted, the socialist vision would not be achieved without bloodshed.

So this is the challenge we face. My young coworker had no frame of reference by which to judge the events unfolding around him. He had been presented with only the intentions of socialism, not the inevitable results. He had been given the whitewashed fantasy of the Left, who never saw a failure that couldn't be rationalized -- or better yet, blamed on others. Our job, then, is to teach the lessons of history to those who fail to see the danger. We have to provide that all-important perspective to a generation that has been denied it. We have to do this one at a time, conversation by conversation. Tell your friends the truth; don't assume they know it. Become the person your friends and family consult when the subject turns to politics.

A very timely and thought provoking article by Joe Herring in the American Thinker. I am going to break up the article. It appears nairaland does not accept long posts anymore. The link is here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/whats_wrong_with_socialism.html

I recall a conversation I had with a young coworker in the latter weeks of Obama's campaign for president. Joe the plumber had just exposed the redistributionist bent of the candidate, and I expressed my assessment of Mr. Obama as a not-so-closeted socialist. My coworker then quite earnestly asked, "What's so wrong with socialism?"

I initially assumed he must be joking, although his face gave no indication. I stared at him dumbfounded, only later realizing I must have looked like a palsied old man -- my mouth working wordlessly, the incomprehension as evident on my face as the sincerity on his. It eventually dawned on me that he really didn't know what was wrong with socialism. I began reciting the litany of horrors: the crimes of the Holocaust, the purges of the Soviets, the thuggery and inhuman brutality of the statist regimes of the last century. The Nazis, for crissake! How could he not know about the evil of the Nazis? He listened to all of this, nodding his understanding as he recognized some of the events I described, but I could still see a question behind his eyes. While he had been taught of the existence of these atrocities, he had not been clued into the one commonality they shared. They were all perpetrated by the adherents of various forms of socialism. Indeed, such crimes were the only outcome possible.

In the late 1930s, the noted economist Friedrich Von Hayek wrote his landmark pamphlet "Road to Serfdom," laying bare the diseased skeleton of socialist/utopian thought that had permeated academia and the salons of his day. With an economy of words that showcased the significance of his conclusion, he pointed out the Achilles heel of collectivist dogma: for a planned economy to succeed, there must be central planners, who by necessity will insist on universal commitment to their plan.

A very timely and thought provoking article by Joe Herring in the American Thinker.

I recall a conversation I had with a young coworker in the latter weeks of Obama's campaign for president. Joe the plumber had just exposed the redistributionist bent of the candidate, and I expressed my assessment of Mr. Obama as a not-so-closeted socialist. My coworker then quite earnestly asked, "What's so wrong with socialism?"

I initially assumed he must be joking, although his face gave no indication. I stared at him dumbfounded, only later realizing I must have looked like a palsied old man -- my mouth working wordlessly, the incomprehension as evident on my face as the sincerity on his. It eventually dawned on me that he really didn't know what was wrong with socialism. I began reciting the litany of horrors: the crimes of the Holocaust, the purges of the Soviets, the thuggery and inhuman brutality of the statist regimes of the last century. The Nazis, for crissake! How could he not know about the evil of the Nazis? He listened to all of this, nodding his understanding as he recognized some of the events I described, but I could still see a question behind his eyes. While he had been taught of the existence of these atrocities, he had not been clued into the one commonality they shared. They were all perpetrated by the adherents of various forms of socialism. Indeed, such crimes were the only outcome possible.

In the late 1930s, the noted economist Friedrich Von Hayek wrote his landmark pamphlet "Road to Serfdom," laying bare the diseased skeleton of socialist/utopian thought that had permeated academia and the salons of his day. With an economy of words that showcased the significance of his conclusion, he pointed out the Achilles heel of collectivist dogma: for a planned economy to succeed, there must be central planners, who by necessity will insist on universal commitment to their plan.

How do you attain total commitment to a goal from a free people? Well, you don't. Some percentage will always disagree, even if only for the sake of being contrary or out of a desire to be left alone. When considering a program as comprehensive as a government-planned economy, there are undoubtedly countless points of contention, such as how we will choose the planners, how we will order our priorities when assigning them importance within the plan, how we will allocate resources when competing interests have legitimate claims, who will make these decisions, and perhaps more pertinent to our discussion, how those decisions will be enforced. A rift forming on even one of these issues is enough to bring the gears of this progressive endeavor grinding to a halt. This fatal flaw in the collectivist design cannot be reengineered. It is an error so critical that the entire ideology must be scrapped.

Von Hayek accurately foretold the fate that would befall dissenters from the plan. They simply could not be allowed to get in the way. Opposition would soon be treated as subversion, with debate shriveling to non-existence under the glare of the state. Those who refused compliance would first be marginalized, then dehumanized, and finally (failing re-education) eliminated. Collectivism and individualism cannot long share the same bed. They are political oil and water, and neither can compromise its position without eventually succumbing to the other. The history of the twentieth century is littered with the remains of those who became "enemies of the state" for merely drawing attention to this flaw. As Von Hayek predicted, the socialist vision would not be achieved without bloodshed.

So this is the challenge we face. My young coworker had no frame of reference by which to judge the events unfolding around him. He had been presented with only the intentions of socialism, not the inevitable results. He had been given the whitewashed fantasy of the Left, who never saw a failure that couldn't be rationalized -- or better yet, blamed on others. Our job, then, is to teach the lessons of history to those who fail to see the danger. We have to provide that all-important perspective to a generation that has been denied it. We have to do this one at a time, conversation by conversation. Tell your friends the truth; don't assume they know it. Become the person your friends and family consult when the subject turns to politics.

I successfully informed my coworker of the irreparable crack in the foundation of socialist thinking, and he is now aware of the need to burrow beneath the surface of politics to find the roots from which the tree springs. We can't wait until the tree bears fruit to determine its worth. Fruit bears seeds, and seeds scatter. Better to tear it out as a single sapling now than to hew down an entire forest of diseased wood after it has poisoned the ground.

The Left will not willingly lay claim to the true legacy of socialism, so we will have to hang it around their necks. They have grown accustomed to shedding responsibility for the damage they have done, and are adept at shifting the blame. Traditional means of holding them to account are failing. Fellow travelers in the academy and media will not challenge even their most egregious lies, so howling about bias will gain us nothing.

If you doubt the effectiveness of the Left's methods, ask any ten people under the age of forty whether Hitler and the Nazis were a product of left-wing or right-wing ideology. The obstacle we face will become painfully clear. It is not enough that you know the truth. You alone are not likely to singlehandedly shape the outcome of an election. Everyone has to know the truth. We have to reclaim our younger generations from the wolf in sheep's clothing, or it won't be long before the wolf no longer needs the disguise.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/whats_wrong_with_socialism.html

@No2,

I don't blame you for your not so veiled attempt at "trying your luck" with JeSoul. It shows you know and fully recognise a good woman when you see one.

Only one other lady on nairaland has made the kind of impression on me as JeSoul. Her name is pilgrim1. Both ladies are something else, believe me.

@Ikomi,

You can call me whatever you want, I know what your discussions with me has done for you. I still remember my first topic with you, when you blamed Mo for everything in the Midle East, you even blamed him for not been able to put on your own pants properly.

Please explain to me what our discussions has done for me. One thing I know it has not done is to enlightene me. I rememebr my first discussion with you was to condemn your dismissing someone else's input on a topic. I went on to show that you have little understanding of the issues you implied you are a master of. Or how do we explain someone who calls himslef an expert on ME affairs and yet do not understand that a Shiite is not a member of an ethnic tribe but a believer and meber is a particular sect of Islam? An expert you are indeed. Which explains my alling you an Ayatollah, tongue-in-cheek.

Now your view of events has gone above how you started, you dont talk like that anymore, and the thank you I get is name calling.

Do you even know what my views are? You have now gone from being an expert in ME affairs to being able to read people's mind? You try my guy. If you don't want me calling you by your title, why did you even bring me into this conversation? Why the mention of my name in the first place? Why sow the seed when you do not want the fruit?

I bet you have never read the Koran before and you claim to know about Islam.

I've had a copy of the koran since back in my undergraduate days. I had a muslim for a roomate in my 100L and we were always involved in lively discussions. I have read the koran time and again, even though I have not attained to the level of an Ayatollah like you. You sure made a lousy bet didn't you?

@Ikomi,

You stink, I cant stand you sometimes, ad kindly take on Tayo-D as a basket case that he is due to ignorance of the Islamic faith, than your own dogged believe in stupidity.

You see why I call you Ayhatollah now? You have summarily dimissed others as ignorant of the Islamic faith. The implications is that you are the all-knowing one whose views must not be questioned. I doff my hat to the Ayatollah.

@Ikomi,

You never take your time to get the point in any conversation, you always pick write ups at the middle, disect it and run away with the one that sweets you the most like a boy that was given his first candy.

I took the time to follow the conversation here before jumping in. Unlike Obama, I have enough sense to not condemn one of the parties of acting stupidly before knowing all the facts. That I do not condone a "beer summit" is enough reason for me to take this approach.

If you had been following the thread right from the begining, the point we have been trying to make is that a terrorist is a terrorist period, classifying him as an Islamic terrorist is not right. Then your friend Konbojunkie insisted that it must be in this case, since the word Allah Akbar was voiced out. I gave the instance of a man at the level of defence secretary who used a quote in the bible as a defence in his argument to go to war in Iraq, why dont we tag him a christian terrorist?

And if you had taken the time to read thoroughly, you would have discovered where I expanded the debate by declaring that every terrorist is inspired to carry out those acts. The motivation of the terrorists must be known before you can tackle the problem. The common denominator that inspires Osama, the 19 hijackers and this Major is Islam. If the inspiration from Islam is not there, they will not do what they are doing. This is very simple and clear.

Now you come up with the idea of you building a mosque in Iraq, who cares if you built a Hindu shrine. The major point is that the invasion of Iraq is wrong and if the mindset of the men in power at the time is anything to go by, the defence secretary at that time can not be left out.

It is very convenient to forget the CIA report or the violation of the UN No Fly Zone in order declare that theoveriding motivation to go to Iraq was to propagate Christianity. That is what is known as intellectual dishonesty. The Secretary of Defense did not declare war, Powell did not say the war was to promote Christ when he made the case at the UN. Your accusation is a stretch at the most.

You took the word instigate for decide, stop trying to deny that, and I asked you to go get a dictionary, you claim thats an insult, well if you call good advise an insult, you leave me no chance Tayo-D

You've lost me totally on this. I quoted you before responding to your submissions. I really have no clue what you are talking about.

@princekevo,

What is wrong in passing a bill that gives every citizens access to an affordable medical health care.

Letmedealwith this in the very juvenile way you made your post.  Tell me, what is wrong in giving the Native Americans free food, free water, free clothes, free houses, free education and free everything under the sun? Like I alluded to earlier, some people don't mind selling their souls for the assurance of receiving hand-outs from a govt.

By the way, nothing is free. Someone, somewhere is paying for what others are receiving free. No one has the right to deprive me of my hard-earned money and freely give the money to others to gain political advantage. If I make my money, I must have the freedom to spend it and give it to whomsoever I choose to give it to.  Even God does not force peopl'smoney out of their pockets.

@Ikomi,

Are you now trying to tell me that the secretary of defence briefing classified top secret has no bearing on the presidents decision?

Can you tell us the direct correlation between that scripture and the WMDs that Bush sought out in Iraq? If anything, it was the burden of proof (apparently false) provided by the CIA that put Bush over.

Moreover I have often used the word instigated, how does the word instigate mean decide.

So the overiding reason why Bush went to war was to propagate Christianity? If I recall, the US helped to rebuild a mosque that was bombed in Iraq. Is there any record that we did same for any church?

Go to your local library and ask them for a dictionary. You are not doing very well.

Now you've started again with some personal invectives. Could you please stay on point. Soon you will say someone else is getting personal.

Tayo-D try again.

No you should try again. Please try and prove to us how many innocent civilians have been blown up in the name of christianity. I am waiting.

@naliakar,

The Health Reform bill barely passes in House: 220-215. A major hurdle passed. I wonder how Tayo-D feels

Let me put yours and other people's wonderment to rest by sharing with you my first thought when I learnt that the bill passed the House.

The first thing that came to mind was a quote by a Native American Indian Chief (his name escapes me now).  The Chief declared the following when he was asked about other Indians who just signed away their land to the White man and chose to move into Reservations: "Indians? What Indians?  I am the only Indian left".

The Native Indians were in most part receptive of the White man who stepped on their land.  History teaches us that the first surviving colony in North America would not have made it save for the Indian tribes that taught them survival techniques.  Over time, the White man continued to migrate into Indian territory, displace the Native people, destroy their way of life and eventually take all of their land from them.

Many of the tribes realise that the opportunity was no longer there to defeat the White man.  The White man in turn, "out of the goodness of his heart" decided to offer the owners of the land meagre portions where he can live.  These meagre acres of land are still refered to today a Reservations.  The White man will give the Indians portions of food, meat, heating oil, clothes and basic necessities of life.  Many Indians considered this a generous offer by the White man. Infact, many betrayed each other and killed each other just to find favor and receive extra portions from the White man.

Others, like the Chief I quoted above, realise that the concept of Reservations denies the fact that the entire land belongs to the Indians.  They were no longer free and are now unable to cater for themselves.  They are now going to be dependent on the White man for everything they provided for and by themselve before.  This is not freedom, it is slavery.

I feel America is now creating another Reservation.  They are taking away our freedom, and creating a dependent class on them. They will give us food, water, housing, healthcare etc as long as we give up something greater - our freedom.  Unknown to many, when you have freedom, you can have all that these people are offering.

Needless to say, I am heartbroken.

@Ikomi,

Then Terrorist and come back to answer my question about your a former secretary of defence using the highlited the words "Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him…To deliver their soul from death." from the book of Psalms, to go to war in Iraq.

I expect some better arguments from you. Pray tell, is it the Secretary of Defence who sends troops to war? Is he the one who declares war on behalf of the United States? So what has the unsubstantiate quote you attribute to this Secretary of Defense got to do with this?

Some arguments on nairaland just beggars belief.

@naliakar,

How are you? I thought I saw someone like you in the Michele Bechmann anti-reform demo on capital hill.

More liek anti-tyranny!

Now to your rejoinder above: tell if if Tiller's killer can be referred to wholesomely as a christian terrorist?

Tiller's killer didn't shout "Jesus is Lord" when he pulled the trigger, nor did he target innocent civilians who had no direct role in the issue at stake. He did not kill Tiller to protect the interest of Christianity or Christians. He killed Tiller to protect unborn babies who may have been born Christians, muslims, Hindus, Atheists or whatever.

We do not see a pattern of Christians killing abortionists as we see muslims do others. We did not see Christians rejoicing on the streets of Italy when Tiller was killed.

Bottomline is this. Tiller's killer deserves to be hanged with his scrotum as much as this cowardly Major. I find it hard to label Tiller's killer a Terrorist, much less a Christian one. However, if a group of Christians are indiscriminately killing innocent civilians to further the cause of Christianity, then I have no problem labelling them Christian Terrorists.

@naliakar,

NO. Repeat after me: "A terrorist who is a Muslim." The adjective must not precede the noun terrorist because then it implicates Islam in   the motive for terror. Let the accentuation be on "terrorist" first and let the reference to Islam be a trailing adjunct that explains more who the terrorist is but is inconsequential to the act.

Regarding the statement in bold, I believe it is safe to say that the motivation the guy had to commit the terror act was Islam.  Would he have done the same thing if he was not a muslim?  The answer is NO.

@Lawyer,

Can I please have your number? I will ask my Attorney in Lagos to get in touch with you.  I may be interested if he confirms this as a legit sale.  I will be in Naija this December as well and will visit the area if all looks well.

@JeSoul,

You know I got your back

Aint I blessed.  
 

In addition, I am certain Prez, Ibime, Ikomi and others will be more than happy to testify to the above for you too

Naa, it won't work.  None of those libs 've got any credibility.  The Supreme Court have already ruled in the case of "Joe 6 Pack vs Al Gore" that liberals suffer from an increasingly common disease rooted in mental deficiency.  The Court ruled that the testimony of 10 confirmed libs will count for just one valid testimony.  We will need a longer list than the one you provided.  

@pres-elect,

. . . . .   . . . . . . as a doctor my professional assesment will carry some weight

Yeah, the testimony of a liberal doctor carries 0.2 weight of a regular human being  

@JeSoul,

Lol . . . the natural pigs would take severe exception to sharing their name with those evil terrorists . . . infact we should be careful they don't sue for defamation . . . PETA was talking just last week of instituting legal council to guard the rights of individual animals who according to them are so often abused . . . no be Amerikka we dey?

Na true you talk o. I better take that back before PETA sues me as well. If they do, I'll probably plead innocence by reason of insanity. Will you be so kind as to vouch for my insanity in court?