₦airaland Forum

@Ibime,

All that one na story.

Like Yu Yongding said, can any of you show us the arithmetic that favours the crazy spending going on in Washington? By the way, before you embark on that, you might want to include the trillions of dollars they still plan to spend on Universal Healthcare in the equation.

@Sissy,

Can you provide the context in which she made the comment? Do you know it at all?  'Cos if you do, you wouldn't even come up with this pretext of context! Like Gingrich said, would a White man get away with such a statement if he made it in reverse?  I don't really think so.

bawomolo:
Tayo-D are you sean hannity's black in-law? talk true brother

You no know? No mind all those drive-by media. Bad belle no gree dem carry the wedding. You wonder why they are in business if they wont even carry such a huge celebrity wedding.

@oyinda,

the point is that birds of the same feather flock together.

How do these birds flock together when they have never met?  Davidylan said he never watched the guy's video and you attribute Rick Warren as the source of his statement. Now where is the logic you were talking about?

@iniguy,

Whats your take?

Wanna start by telling us the rational behind each of the swaps you proposed?

@Ibime,

The Chinese have expressed the same concern as Putin. No one wants to see the US repeat the same mistakes we see in history.

June 1 (Bloomberg) -- Another global financial crisis triggered by a loss of confidence in the dollar may be inevitable unless the U.S. saves more, said Yu Yongding, a former Chinese central bank adviser.

It’s “very natural” for the world to be concerned about the U.S. government’s spending and planned record fiscal deficit, Yu said in e-mailed comments yesterday relating to a visit to Beijing by U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

The Obama administration aims to reduce the fiscal deficit to “roughly” 3 percent of gross domestic product from a projected 12.9 percent this year, Geithner reaffirmed today. The treasury secretary added that China’s investments in U.S. financial assets are very safe, and that the Obama administration is committed to a strong dollar.

It may be helpful if “Geithner can show us some arithmetic,” said Yu. “We need to know how the U.S. government can achieve this objective.”

The deficit is projected to reach $1.75 trillion in the year ending Sept. 30 from last year’s $455 billion shortfall, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The U.S. needs a higher savings rate and a smaller deficit on the current account, which is the broadest measure of trade, or “another financial crisis triggered by a dollar crisis could be inevitable,” the Chinese academic said.

The U.S. current account deficit fell to $673.3 billion or 4.74 percent of GDP last year from $731.2 billion, or 4.91 percent of GDP, the year earlier.

Global Currency

China is the biggest foreign holder of U.S. Treasuries with $768 billion as of March. Premier Wen Jiabao called in March for the U.S. “to guarantee the safety of China’s assets.” Central bank Governor Zhou Xiaochuan has proposed a new global currency to reduce reliance on the dollar.

Yu said U.S. tax revenue is not likely to increase in the short term because of low economic growth, inflexible expenditures and the cost of “fighting two wars.”

China wants to know how the U.S. will withdraw excess liquidity from its financial system “in a timely fashion so as to avoid inflation” when its economy recovers, said Yu, now a senior researcher at the government-backed Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

He questioned whether there would be enough demand to meet U.S. debt issuance this year.

Referring to the Federal Reserve “as the world’s biggest junk investor,” and to Chairman Ben S. Bernanke as “helicopter Ben,” Yu said the Fed has dropped “tons of money from the sky since the subprime crisis.”

“The balance sheet of the Federal Reserve not only has expanded like mad but is also ridden with ‘rubbish’ assets,” he said. - http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aCV0pFcAFyZw

Are the Chinese in on the conspiracy as well? Our media houses are so in the tank for Obama that we now have to rely on foreign govts and media to let us see the larger picture.

@Ibime,

This is a discussion of Obama's policies, not Russia's. If you are interested in Russia's, you might want to start a thread to discuss the issues. Trying to deflect attention to the issues raised is not gonna work.

Here's another source basically saying the same thing with the one I first posted. Us is on the road to doing exactly what failed in Russia.

Russian Prime Minister Vladamir Putin has said the US should take a lesson from the pages of Russian history and not exercise “excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence”.

“In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute,” Putin said during a speech at the opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.” - http://www.therightperspective.org/2009/02/11/putin-warns-us-about-socialsm/

@Ibime,

Do you know how to read? The warning was handed down to Blair and Obama by no other than Prime Minister Putin. You think he listens to Rush Limbaugh too?

I thought an intelligent person will adress the issues the guy mentioned. But as usual, it is an attack on personalities with a view to suppressing dissent and debate.

You are the one that needs to grow up!

This article was written by a Russian.  Funny how the Russianns are the ones now defending the beauty of capitalism. Enjoy the read.

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.
 
True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper, but a "freeman" whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left. 

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Stanislav Mishin - http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/

@bawomolo,

It's pretty hypocritical for gays to require your approval of their legal unions.

So how many unions should be made legal. Must we now start to legalise all forms of relationship? What makes the gay relationship so unique that it must be recognised by the State or anyone else for that matter?

Anyway this whole debate is silly. Gay marriage would be legal in most american states by the end of the next decade. it's already legal in 4 or is it 5.

See hypocrisy at work. Are you not the same person who declares we should take the chill pill and not bother to overturn Roe v Wade? Why tell us not to bother and yet support the gay community in their agbero mentality!

You cali us homophobes for resisting gaymarriage. So what are you going to call us for resisting heterosexual polygamous marriages?

@TOH,

ThiefOfHearts:
and what is wrong with her?

I never said anything was wrong with her! Would I nominate her, maybe not. As the poster said, it appears Obama may have nominated her because of her minority status.

She appears to be influenced by race and other preconceived ideas she may have had. Of five of her cases that got to the Supreme Court, she was overturned on three (60%); and in four of those cases (80%), the court faulted her interpretation of the law. This makes me extremely wary of her!

@topic,

Dem force you to take am!!!!!!!!

@C2H5OH,

are you saying uncle Obama is racist

Great question!!!!!!! Whatever happened to judge not a man by the colour of his skin but by the content of his character!!!!!!

@Tornadoz,

You are just going around in circles. You wondered if Mohammed hated Jews and calls for other people to do just that. I provided you with a hadith that testified to Mo calling for muslims to kill ALL Jews. In your attempt to deflect the statement he made, you begin to discredit the sources, and to put attention on others. You obviously don't seek an answer to your question. If you did, it was staring at you right in the face even if you choose to ignore it.

Book 041, Number 6985:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews. - http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/041.smt.html

Are you satisfied now or will you condemn Abu Huraira or the quoted hadith?

@bawomolo,

what should be illegal about an orgy or orgy marriage?

Now we are on the same page. Nothing should be illegal about orgy or an orgy marriage. Infact, nothing should be illegal about gay sex and gay marriage.

However, willing participants in gay sex/marriages and orgy/orgy marriages should not force the State to recognise those relationships. That is the crux of this whole matter. These are all issue that deal with sex and the govt has no business legislating or promoting one sexual preference over another. They can go marry themselves for all we care, but you can't force those marriages to be recognised by the State.

See, I got married in the traditional way before I went ot the courts. I would still be considered married if I hadn't gone to the court. If marriage is that important to gays and lesbians, let them set up their own system of marriage like we do our traditional marriages in naija. However, they should not force the rest of us to recognise it. Simple!

@C2H5OH,

haharotflmfaofuckinglolgbosa.  good one

No mind all these people who are just manufactring Rights left, right and center.

Rights by definition are God (or nature) endowed. They cannot be conferred on man by man! Marriage is a priviledge confered on some people by the State. It is up to the State to determine who it recognises.

@oyb,

consenting adults in full control of their faculties /ability to make choices

Consenting adults as in no limit on the number? Adults in an orgy session are also consenting. Should we wed them too?

When you limit this to adults? (16, 18 or 21), are you not discriminating against others who cannot be regarded as adults, even though some are capable of making more matured decisions than those regarded as adults?

By the way, aint the Prophet of one peaceful religion guilty of marrying an 8 year old girl?  Would you say that was an expression of his civil rights too?

@oyb,

well from a purely humane perspective, sex within your gender comes naturally to some people

Have you heard of objectophilia? So should we marry people and objects becuase of sexual and emotional relationships with the objects?

Bawomolo has declared his support for polygamy, and by extension polyandry.  I wonder if you share the same thought with him.  Exactly what or where is the limitation if any exists at all?

@bawomolo,

The article you posted is misleading to say the least. It certainly excluded the contet in which the documents were written. No wonder it arrived at erroneous conclusions like you usually do.

No doubt the Declaration was edited several times. Scores of alterations were made and hundreds of words were eliminated.  Most importantly, the document was subjected to a vote that was approved by the majority.  So while the link tries to claim that the word "Creator" was an after thought, it fails to state that the last sentence of the Declaration proclaims the following: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." Tell me, will a bunch of Deists willingly proclaim an active participation of the Divine in their daily affairs such that he offers them protection?  I don't think so.  Besides, didn't the first settlers escape Europe to escape religious persecution? Were they persecuting Deists too?

The founders may have been men of many denominations and beliefs, but they were united in the belief that the Creator was the origin of their existence and a willing participant in their future and fortune. Here is what George Washington wrote in his Farewell Address: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable results, And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion."

Separation of Church and State as envisioned by the Founders was a means to ensure that the prevalent practices of the separate States in those days do not hold sway in the new Union. Many States were in the habit of promoting religion with taxes and land grant. Infact, some States required officials to swear an oath to particular religion or sect. So in essence, the Declaration was a declaration of political and religious liberty.

@bawomolo,

lies, see how you chose to ignore guys like madison and lafayette? TayoD done come again.

There is no concluding evidence that these two were Deists. If for the sake of argument we agree that they were, 4 out of 56 still makes them an almost insignificant minority. You are the one that should watch the lies you are propagating here as truth. How 2 or 4 (fo the sake of argument), become a majority out of 56 still baffles me. Mind to rephrase your earlier assertion?

@bawomolo,

are you attracted to your roommate, do you love him/her?

Which is why I said previously, there are certain conditions that merit a State recognition of the institution of marriage. So should the State recognise polygamy or polygandry simply because children can be born through that arrangement providing there is consent of all parties?

Would you call it discrimination that the State recognises monogamy and not polygamy?

@oyb,

one wonders what a self professed true christian is doing in a godless , vain competition that celebrates beauty

So why don't you ask Queen Esther?  Through the beauty contest, she ended up saving a whole nation!!!!

@bawomolo,

THE US was founded mostly by Masonic Deists.  attempts by christian extremists to paint this country as some theocratic one is bogus.

You wonder why a Christian nation would condone slavery and segregation. oh wait,

Of the 56 people who signed the Declaration of Independence, only two - Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were known to be Deists. Since when did the minority become the majority? So now is the time for you to bend facts because you cannot produce a superior argument. Una do well.

No one ever claims the US is a Theocratic State.  You just make false assumption all the time.  No wonder you are always wrong. Democracy and Theocracy are mutually exclusive. You must know something that the rest of us do not know if you are trying to equate the two.

why not make in vitro fertilization illegal then?

why not ban barren or infertile heterosexuals from marrying?

You guys are hypocrites

You just keep jumping from one ship to another. It appears you adopt such a strategy when you run out of ideas. My position is based on principles which you know cannot be faulted. To now appear like you know what you are saying, you start coming up with different scenarios.  So if the ability to have a baby thru vitro fertilization qualifies for marriage, why shouldn't we always wed the donor and recipient then? Because every thing that should make for a marriage is not present in the relationship. Is that too difficult to grasp?

what if they adopt kids.

So if my roomate and I jointly adopt a kid, is that a proper ground for mariage?

marriage for an adult should be a civil right.

Oh yeah?  Because you said so ehn? What use is the relationship to the society that we are burdened with the request to recognise it?

@SeanT21,

This is not a religious issue, and don't let people make yout feel it is. First, I think you need to dismiss the notion that marriage is a Right. It most certainly is not. It is a priviledge for the State to recognise your relationship as a marriage. The State can grant such priviledge to any association it deems fit to give it to.

There are different unions that seek recognision from the State. You have heterosexual unions, homosexual unions, polygamous unions, polyandrous unions (I hope that word makes sense) etc. The question is, which of these unions makes sense for the State to recognise and promote?

Please note that the State is not against any of these unions per se. A man or woman can sleep with whomever they want and with as many multiple partners as they like without the State being involved. As long as these sexual, social and emotional relationships are carried out with a voluntary participation of all the parties concerned, all is well and good. The question now is, why should the State take a step further to recognise one or more of these unions while ignoring the others? What interest does the State have in promoting any of these unions?

The answer is not far-fetched at all. The State like every institution, seeks self-preservation and stability. No doubt, the only union that is in the best position to make this happen is the one betwen heterosexual couples. Here, children are born into the family by natural means. The children are raised up by their biological parents who provide a sense of belonging and unconditional love necessary for a healthy growth and assimilation into the larger society. The State feels the need to promote and in some cases subsidise this institution. Back in my social studies class in secondary school, the nuclear family was described as the smallest unit of the society. In order words, the heterosexual marriage is the building block of the society. You cannot say the same for homosexual marriages.

If this discussion continues, I might feel the need to expand what I have said so far and buttress my position with more salient points.

@bawomolo,

Exactly where and when did Davidylan defend or excuse bigotry? Let's try to keep this discussion not only civil, but honest.

@Tornadoz,

The Hamas charter quoted Mohammed. Why are you side-stepping the quote attributed to Mo? Are you saying that quote is not really Mo's?  Hamas charter is just my source.  Okay let me provide you with another source if Hamas Charter has become a stumbling block!

The killing of Jews is a mandatory religious obligation established by Islam's founder Muhammad, according to a Muslim academic who spoke on Palestinian Authority television.
"Muhammad said in his Hadith: "The Hour [Day of Resurrection] will not arrive until you fight the Jews, [until a Jew will hide behind a rock or tree] and the rock and the tree will say: 'Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!'" said Hassan Khader, founder of the Al Quds Encyclopedia.

Khader spoke during a lecture, broadcast Sunday, on what he describes as the war of the Jews against Palestinian "trees."

The program was monitored by Palestinian Media Watch, or PMW, an Israel-based group.

PMW director Itamar Marcus says Khader's statement was one of many instances in recent years of Palestinian religious leaders teaching publicly that this Hadith – part of Islamic traditions attributed to Muhammad – is a current obligation of Islam.

Marcus says these teachings challenge the common belief that the premise for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians is over borders.

"Palestinian religious and academic leaders publicly teach that the Israel-Palestinian conflict is part of Islam's irreconcilable religious war against the Jews," he says.

"To justify this view," he adds, "Palestinians repeatedly cite Islamic sources to demand as religious doctrine, that Jews be hated, even demanding the killing of Jews as the will of Allah."

Marcus says "the continued expression of this PA worldview is most ominous."

"For by depicting redemption as dependent on Muslims' murder of Jews, the murder of Jews is being presented as mandatory religious obligation," he says. - http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33569

And for your information, I support a two-state solution. My hesitation, like Isreal's I believe is hinged on security. You cannot live peacefully side by side with a nation whose leaders and people are taught ideologies that promote your annihilation. Until the issue of security is dealt with, the peace will be a mirage!

@blackspade,

There is nothing like a right to marriage - heterosexual or homosexual for that matter. Your natural right does not impose a burden on others. You cannot force the State to formally recognise your union when it does not favour the State to do so. Of what use is homosexual marriage to the society - none! That is not the case with heterosexual marriage, where the society depends on it for its perpetuity and stability.

The State will not be violating anybody's rights if it decides to not recognise any marriage at all.

ThiefOfHearts:
last one

I guess as much too.

I disqualified Chelsea Dry Gin knowing it's not yet friday. Our joint shayo only takes place on friday.  And besides, we graduated from Chelsea Dry Gin long ago.

I didn't think it was Chelsea Clinton 'cos I know you're not that kinda gal. You're a lady for the guys and not the girls, right?

As for Chesea football club, I can imagine you getting a kick from seeing millionaires in shorts running on a field chasing after a single ball. Makes you wonder what's wrong with theirs!!!

ThiefOfHearts:
Up Chelsea!

Which one?

Chelsea Dry Gin

Chelsea Clinton, or

Chelsea Football Club!!!!!!

bawomolo:
Yes can we say sex education but aren't you against that too?

Egbami. Where did you get that notion I am against sex education?

Tell me, what other misconcptions do you have? It appears you oppose me on many topics based on your idea of what you think I believe in. You are way out of line my guy!!!!!!!!!! I'm a conservative, that means I believe in common sense and personal responsibility. Common sense and personal responsibilities are rooted in knowledge. knowledge is accumulated through education. So how can I be against education??

bawomolo:
peaceful iran that supports militants in Iran, Lebanon and Palestine.

Yea very peaceful.

According to Richy, these are mere allegations that have no substance in reality.