₦airaland Forum

@Lagosboy,

The overiding concern of Isreal is not a Palestinian State but their survival.  Same is true of every nation.  If a Palestinian State poses an existential threat to Isreal, they will be stupid to allow it.  Besides, no nation will ever allow that and will go to war to protect its soveeingty. 

Instead of addresing all the issues that will bring about the elusive peace, you are making a political grandstanding. It's funny how you have nothing to stay about the possible threat that a militarised Palestine poses to Isreal. You guys are no real partner to peace.  Isreal withdrew from Gaza Strip a few months ago, what they got was not an acknoledgment of their desire to gradually change the status quo but a barrage of rockets from the same Gaza Strip.  Why blame them if they proceed cautiously now?

@Afam,

Your overiding assertion is that the Western Press is guilty of always misrepresenting facts. To buttress your point, you provided an example with Saddam.  Or isn't that why you mentioned Saddam?

You might want to take back that example 'cos it is a very poor one. Mentioning Saddam as a victim of the Western Press only goes to show you have either forgotten histroy or you choose to ignore it.  Saddam was no victim of the Press!

@Afam,

Do you have a muslim in the US House of Representatives?

Yes! And what does that have to do with this?

@Lagosboy,

Can you compare Irans develeopment and technological advancement with Nigeria Iran has a large population as well .

Iran has ben on the technological road long before Ahmad came into power. What Ahmad has done is pay greater attention to offensive weapons and nuclear bomb.

I don't know how you can exmplify the moral standing of racial bigot like Ahmad!

@Lagosboy,

Haven't you read my responses?  I am with you on this. I certainly wish that Ahmad did not win, but the people who matter the most say otherwise.  There is really no proof that the election would have gone the other way.  It's all been conjecture.

I only mentioned Saddam because Afam said the western media demonized him. Get it now?

@Lagosboy,

Iran has the sort of leader you want for Nigeria and yet it is not developed. What is your point?

@topic,

Demilitarized is not the same thing as having no law enforcement.

Netanyahu's call is very reasonable considering recent history. Isreal unilaterally left the Gaza Strip and it became a launching pad for more rockets into Isreal.

America is arguably the strongest country in the world.  Yet it was brought to its knees by 19 men on 911.  So forget the story of Isreal being the 4th strongest military in the world.

Isreal can run them over anytime with or without them being militarized. So forget that argument.

So Saddam is now a saint? How do you demonize a devil?

@Afam,

We are here talking about Jew - Arab dichotomy as well as other racial biases because of Richy's statement. Which one is the Christian/Islam twist you are now putting on this? How is that relevant? IS the Christian you talked about a Persian, Jew, Black or Latino governing in a mostly Arab Iraq?

And by the way, Latinos are a sizeable percentage of the US population. No Latino/Latina has ever been on the US Supreme Court! Instead of acknowledging the good that an Arab on the Isreali Supreme Court represents, you just have to find every way to condemn the Jews. You care to answer the question I posed to Richy as well?

Do you think Arabs care anything for Black Africans?

You think African-Americans give a hoot about the home grown Africans?

Do you suppose the White man cares anymore for the African?

And finally, do you think any of  the above can be excused but the Jew to Gentile dichotomy cannot?

@Richy,

At least a black man is today the president of America. When would an Arab be the prime-minister of Israel?

Isreal is the youngest sovereign State in the ME. Perhaps their Arab nations will show them some examples by electing a Jew as the leader of any of their nations! Fair conditions, Richy?

In any case, I guess I'll take your side-stepping of the questions as a tacit agreement that your diatribe against Jews in particular is at best a clear manifestation of your bigotry.

@na2day,

I appreciate your answers. At least you were honest!! Hope others will accomodate the same perspective when dealing with these kind of issues!

RichyBlacK:
The result of over-pampering extremist racists who really don't see anything good in Gentiles.

Questions:

Do you think Arabs care anything for Black Africans?

You think African-Americans give a hoot about the home grown Africans?

Do you suppose the White man cares anymore for the African?

And finally, do you think any of  the above can be excused but the Jew to Gentile dichotomy cannot?

@pres-elect,

How can you call the anti-semitic guy a right wing nut? Isn't anti-setimism the exclusive preserve of you liberals?  That guy probaly sat under the teachings of Rev Wright than of Rush!  Was it not the same Rev who was accusing Jews recently?  The only guy you could try to connect to a right wing nutcase is the one who killed the abortion doctor.  But even that is a stretch.

As a conservative (which I assume you refer to as right wing), we do not believe that anyone should be deprived of his/her life without a trial by a jury of his/her peers.  In that light, both the Doctor and his killer are guilty of the same crime which we abhor! However, you can clearly make a case that while the Doctor's killer only took one life, the Doctor was probably responsible for taking lives in the hundreds!  I do not condone the action of any one of them, and I do hope both of them get what they deserve (though some might argue that the Doctor already got his)!!

@topic,

While some of us would certainly wish for a different outcome from what currently obtains, I certainly do not see any proof that the published result does not represent the will of the people.  The West may find Ahmad toxic, and rightly so, but same sentiments may not be shared by the populace - the people who matter and are eligible to vote.

The case of the Palestinians readily comes to mind. The West and every lover of peace would have wished for Hamas to lose the election, but their people felt otherwise. Hamas won, and the West and the rest of us have to live with that decision.

But elections have consequences. Electing Ahamad will eventually provide a different outcome to electing his reformist opposition. Electing Hamas provided the Palestinians with a different outcome than would have been the case had they elected the moderate opposition.  The question now is "are these people fully aware of the consequences of their actions/votes"?

To the propagandist who likes to twist facts, the West has no problem with the Palestinians electing Hamas.  Quite the contrary. The wish of the people is respected and the law of effect due to cause is what now obtains. If you elect a Party with a violent opposition to the values of the western world whose support you seek, you will only succeed in extending the clash that is centuries in the making and will take another century to die down.

tunku:
Not develop enough for its leader to trust its medical institutions with his life. So can we expect Yar'dua to die in Germany?

Why should he?  Even Abacha did not trust his amorous satisfaction to Nigerian Prostitutes.  He had to import from India (so the rumours go)! 

C2H5OH:
come on boys get a room

https://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r106/LutherFoust/Gay/381096257_l.gif

Isn't that the wisdom behind the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy in the Army? Can you imagine two gladiators who should be knocking the lights out of each other getting their groove on? You don't wanna see your soldiers doing the same in the field. What a distraction.

@biina,

Only 34 states in the US have constitutionally-defined, citizen-initiated, direct democracy governance components. The likes of Alabama, connecticut, Delaware etc dont have it. For further details, please see http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Forms_of_direct_democracy_in_the_American_states

This supports my earlier point that ballot initiatives are not the exclusive preserve of the legislature. Besides 34 out of 50 is still a mojority, innit?

and what has become of the liberty of those in prison or those executed? even military conscription is legal. The state can alienate your rights.

I have often stated on this forum that 'your rights end where mine begin'. As the D.O.I rightly stated that govt is instituted to secure people's rights. If one is in the habit of violating that right, then his can be restricted depending on the extent of violation. One who steals another's property cannot be punished as the one who takes another's life away.

@biina,

I lost my reply to your post earlier today. Got me so pissed of that I never bothered anymore. Anyway, let me make another attempt.

That which is not perfect, is it not then flawed?

Which is why I qualified my stance of disagreement. No one can expect anything that involves men to be perfect. However, democracy is still the best form of govt for men. It is a view to making it more perfect that checks and balances were introduced,

The weight of each vote did not correlate to the population or the distribution of opinion within the population it represented. There is nothing to ensure that the outcome reflected the opinion of the majority at the time.

Wasn't the use of the electoral college suystem that gave Bush a win over Al Gore? Don't some people still consider that a miscarriage of justice?

Anyways, I do not agree that the votes of each representative should be weighted based on the population. If that is the case, then one Senator or Rep in the House will be more equal than others. The Senate or House is a meeting of peers and equals and is a reflection of the equality of the States. If the votes of Reps are weighted would you say the votes of individuals too should be weighted based on some qualifications like say, amount of taxes paid? Apart from death, democracy is supposed to be the ultimate leveler. No matter your status, you are only entitled to one vote like every body else. The rich man has one vote just as the poor man, irrespective of the fact that the rich pay more to sustain the State than the poor.

@biina,

Please remember my initial argument that democracy requires undemocratic actions to secure the interest of the minority.

But thje vice versa also holds true. How else will you explain how a minority (9 Supreme Court Justices) make decisions that is binding on the entire population?
Your initial argument declares that democracy is flawed. I said I do not completely agree. Every human institution can never be perfect. Heck, life isnt perfect so how can we expect perfection?

The declaration of independence was adopted by the continental congress, and there is no evidence that the adoption reflected the choice of the majority in the congress or the colonies as a whole. The opinon of the majority is now superseded by an undemocratic document.
This is often needed as evidence points that democracy cannot survive by always following the wish of the majority.

The Declaration of Independence was adopted after thorough debate and a vote. It could not have been adopted without the majority carrying the day. The document was fully democratic.

but the legislature then argues that their primary responsibility is taking this decision on behalf of the people. Ironically, the choice to send the decision to the ballot is to made by the same legislature that is unwilling to do so as it feels the move would weaken its position.

That is not true. Ballot measures are not necessarily an initiative of the legislature. Anybody can gfet any measure on the ballot box if they can have the necessary number of people supporting them through an appended document.

The definition of rights or interests is subjective. There are no rights that are absolute, and all are deferred from the state. Hence such right can be withdrawn when the state deems necessary. Inalienable rights is simply a misnomer as that which enforces your right can deny such right directly or indirectly by not enforcing it.

We totally differ here. Rights by my understanding and as expressed by the Declaration of Independence is not given by the State. The State was instituted to secure those Rights. What you are refering to are priviledges. Rights are God-given. The State did not give you life or liberty. It was instituted to ensure no one deprives you of both.

@Ibime,

To say I'm dissapointed in you will be an understatement. Gone are the days when dissent is met with superior argument, but that cannot and should no longer be expected from people like you. What is the point of the personal invectives? To silence dissent or to massage your ego?

I am still waiting for someone to respond to the articles with some salient points to refute the allegations levelled in the articles, buit it appears it aint gonna come. That's okay, 'cos I know none of you's got any answers.

And now that you've started the personal abuse, one can expect other dogs to follow suit. People who can't reason for themselves but depend on following the herd. I would have been surprised if they had kept quiet.

And please, you don't have to respond to my posts on nairaland. It is not by force. You have your proclevities and I have mine. Our paths have no need to cross if it does not beget mutual respect.

I have been gracious in my response to you so far. I really feel no need to do so any more.

adconline:
Tayo. Can you please define what is marxism?

You wanna ask the authpr of the post or Putin himself.

Even Chavez declares that he and Castro risk being more conservative than Obama - http://www.reuters.com/article/ObamaEconomy/idUSTRE5520GX20090603?feedType=RSS&feedName=ObamaEconomy&virtualBrandChannel=10441 Do all these mean anything to you?

Do you have any comment on any of the issues raised by both articles?

@topic,

There are so many facets to this story post that I don't know where to start.

Let's tackle the nuclear power first. Aint it funny that Obama said Iran has the right to use nuclear technology to produce power but won't let same be done in the US? Others can use the technology which is clean and cheap, but you have to subject your subjects, I meant citizens to the unreliable sources of power that costs even much more! I just don't get it.

As to the gay issue. I agree that gays have the right to be gay, but I am against gay marriage. Period. Trying to make this a case of human rights is to use a back door way to call mariages between gays a human right issue as well. The former is, the latter is not.

As to imposing American values on others, this is only an extension of the anomaly that the United States has become. The Federal Govt has become all too powerful and dictates its will on the States. That was never the intention of the founding fathers. The same FG is only extending the bullying beyond its borders to other countries. Granted this was not started by Obama, but he is obviously continuing in that footstep.

bawomolo:
my conscience

No good can come from that dark, slimy son of a gun!  

@bawomolo,

bawomolo:
who exactly decided marriage is a privilege and not a right?

Whoever declared that marriage is a right and not a privilege?!!!

Ibime:
My friend, he nominated her so that bigots like you would raise up a stink, driving the latino vote into democratic hands. . . . the Republican party is finished!

I'm sure you'll agee with me that this is not one of your sensible posts on nairaland!

@biina,

On the contrary, the opinion given above is simply of yours and those of like minds, and unless the majority shares your view, there is no reason for that view to be imposed on all. But  you see if one continues along my line of argument, progress would be difficult. Hence the need for some undemocratic decision to accommodate the democratic ones.

I don't get you!  There is no reason to ensure the govt secures people's Rights? The Declaration of Independence clearly states that this is the role of govt.  

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

Coming back to the issue of gay marriages, it has been shown that gay marriage and other same sex unions are often approved by the legislature, but fail under popular vote. Then the question becomes who should decide on gay marriages: the representatives of the people or the people themselves.

The people should decide this because marriage is not a Right but a priviledge. While the legislature do get their fingers in such issues, it is only prudent to defere the decision to the people when it is so socially divisive.  There is no question that the govt in all its ramifications does not need to go to the people when the issue is on human rights.  I mean, that is the purpose why the govt exists - to secure these Rights.

The legislature approving gay marriages in California simply protected the interest of the minority at the expense of the majority, as was evident by the proposition 8 ballot.

See you are here talking about interests and not Rights. These are two diferent things. You will get things clearer if you do not muddle the two.

@biina,

No you are getting it wrong.  The purpose of a govt in the first place is to ensure that human rights of the citizens are protected. There is no greater purpose of govt than that. Human rights are not subject to vote! In other words, Rights by definition are God (or nature) endowed. They cannot be conferred on man by man! So to say others should vote on whether you should have some Rights is mute.

@biina,

The classification of majority and minority cannot be done in a vacuum, but rather must done in the context of a specific issue. Hence, the individual becomes a minority if only he holds a particular opinion on the issue at hand.

Every one has got an opinion on the issue. That is why they vote. You express your opinion through your vote.

To achieve democracy, the accepted tenet is one man - one vote, with all votes being equal, but then granting the minority veto powers contradicts this. Even in formalized systems, often the wishes of the majority is overlooked by the elected, so as not to marginalize the minority.

Which is why I have always advocated for a limited role for the govt. The govt's sole aim should be to ensure nobody's human right is violated. Human rights surpass any goal or desires of the majority. We must defer to uphold the right of the minority at any cost. This is the crux of the issue regarding gay marriages. Is marriage a Right? I disagree while others agree. If marriage is a God-given Right, then I will jusmp on baord and advocate for gay marriage.

@Ibime,

Yeah, that makes em Marxist. . . . . just like Britain and the rest of Europe!

In order words, you got no answer! Don't feel too bad, neither does Geithner!   

We are all in this by faith. Faith in the anointed one barack Obama to turn things around!!

@iniguy,

You still haven't answered my question. You will have to be specific and provide the rational for each sswap. You have not done any heavy lifting so far!

biina:
I think that is the inherent flaw in democracy: balancing the choice of the majority against the interest of the minority. To protect the interest of the minority often requires an undemocratic move, as the majority are often inconsiderate of the minority.

I don't necessarily agree it can be considered a flaw. Democracy functions only when you have a collection of people. The balancing act is to adopt rules that provide the greatest amount of good to the greatest amount of people, while preserving the soicety for the next generation. If we decide that the minority must have the last say, then I can personally veto any law that the State passes. Afterall, I am the smallest minority in the State. You can also make that argument for yourself.

But the majority you talked about making the undemocratic move is actually a collection of the smallest minorities. Each minority decides what is best for them and cast their votes based on that perception.

@TOH,

who gives a damn. Gingrich is a racist gay anyhow. Why isnt he dead yet

Asuming that Gingrich is a racist, does it excuse Sotomayor becoming a racist?

What I am finding out here is that people don't really midnracism. They only shout then because it was a White on Black racism. Something tells me if the roles were reversed, many of you would not even care.

Racism is racism and should be condemned in all its forms.