₦airaland Forum

Interesting interview. Looks like the same issues every family has besides the Press!

@davidyland,

arent you guys tired of a mad world? I'm bored of hearing about missiles and the UN and Russia, China, Obama . . . Iraq, Afghanistan! Chei!

What can person do? I no pity Obama at all. He won America with his charms. Let's see how far the same charm will carry him through this dangerous world.

@bawomolo,

Yes they do need to be given credit but obama rightfully sees pakistan, afghanistan and iran as bigger issues.

You cannot isolate NK from these. NK could easily help Iran extend its reach. The fact that they helped Syria with a secret Nuclear facility sugfests they cwon't mind selling whatever they have to any high bidding terrorist for use in the ME or elsewhere. Its very myopic to think Nk can be isolated from the mixture you mentioned above.

@bawomolo,

the problem with the assumption is that NK hasn't built a nuclear weapon that would fit on a rocket. Their nuclear test amounted to a TNT/Dynamite explosion. Iran is a bigger threat than those dwarfs. China should be pressured to stop giving NK a lifeline. China can put an end to this mess if it wants too.

No one knows for sure the full extent that NK has developed their nuclear capabiities. They set off aan underground and controlled nuclear explosion last year. They defied the world by showing they are able to deliver the explosion to reach virtually anyone who crosses their path. They are forming a very close alliance with Iran, and were obviosuly behind Syria's nuclear plant that Isreal destroyed last year.

You need to start giving these guys the credit they deserve.

Iran is the real evil axis that George Bush couldn't do anything to. I doubt Israel would get a go ahead from the US considering Obama is trying to be friendly with the muslims.

Obama has no choice but to back Isreal in a war scenario with Iran, even if Isreal attacks first without Washington's blessings. The keyword to the threat that Iran poses to Isreal is "existensial". Washington or not, Isreal will do what they have to do. I don't want to appear unnecessarily critical of Obama, but the eldorado world these liberals are always talking about will never happen. This is a dog-eat-dog world. So it was, now is and shall ever be, world with(out) end!

@bawomolo,

the range of the rocket is there but the accuracy and control of the warhead isn't there.

Let's assume for a moment that the accuracy isn't there. Let's also ignore the fact that pin-pointed accuracy is of little significance when we are talking about a nuclear warhead that is designed for maximum impact over as much area as possible. Iran has got the accuracy and NK has got the range. That sounds like a marriage made in hell. Want that hell transfered to earth?

North Korea is a bigger threat to itself than the rest of the world. You are playing into NK's hands if you keep on offering them free food and fuel.

Heads or tail, the world loses in this case. There is nothing anyone can do about NK for now. As for Iran, Isreal still holds the ace. Confrontation is inevitable. It's all a matter of time.

@bawomolo,

the missile launch was a failure.  the satellite is orbiting at the ocean floor

I wont be so quick to jump to that conclusion.  NK's intention isn't about going to space, but about influencing the earth and all that is therein. The missile was said to have fallen into the ocean after a flight of about 2,000 miles.  Do you know how many continents that puts in its range? Now consider the fact that Iran's longest range missile cannot go beyond about 1,200 miles and you will begin to see this from another angle altogether.

Iran is the only country that encouraged NK's right to conduct that test. With closer alliance and Oil money, technologies can easily be transfered. So not only will NK extend the reach of their military influence, so will Iran.  

You still think this was a failure?

NK is only a threat to itself.  It's about time the world let those fools rot.

I wonder why the rest of the world don't see it your way?!

@topic,

That picture is not enough to convict that old man. The money was not in any way abused which is the intention of the law. You no see how that woman quickly grab the money before it falls on the ground? No room for anyone to beat her to the dough if it falls on the ground.

@Davidylan,

if only Bush had used teleprompters, he wont have made so many gaffes.

Maybe, but at least he wasn't so hung up on teleprompters that he becomes a wreck without them as recorded by the British press recently.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/03/g20-barack-obama-nick-robinson-question

@topic,

I don't think the crew is a big deal. I bet it is just as large as any ever used by a former sitting president of the US. What I'll just like to know is this: how many teleprompters accompained him on the trip?

@bawomolo,

A woman should have control over her own body.

But the foetus should have no say over his/hers!

@Dr D-Welz,

Good discussion! However, I don't think I am prepared to continue with the back and forth. I look forward to reading from you on other threads. It would be a relatively short post this time around, mainly reiterating some main points.

I have enjoyed it too and look forward to more discussions on other threads.

I think your analysis of the main contributors to the current financial crisis is erroneous, or at best extremely narrow. You seem to simply dismiss the factors that a majority of experts would agree are major contributors.

Let me explain this in another way. There are at least two ways to look at a scenario in which a fourteen story house collapses after it was built on a foundaton that can only handle 2 floors. Someone can claim that the problem is the too many floors that were built. The house would not have collapsed if too many floors were not erected. This represents your position on the financial crisis. On the other hand, I see the problem as the foundation. If the foundation was strng enough, the house would stand, even if it was built up to 20 floors. So in effect, the superstructure may have been well built, but the foundation remains the weakest link.  The foundation for this financial mess was laid with the bad mortgages that the govt made the banks create. the superstructures would have stood had the foundation being well laid. That is my point!     

I also observe that your are completely unwilling to admit that there are possible ills from radical capitalism. You happily claim all the benefits  from the practice of capitalism and very readily ascribe the ills to 'government.' You also don't seem to think any problems can possibly arise for ardent pursuits of ones self-interest.

See, I would rather have unrestrained capitalism than unrestrained govt.  Capitalism and Statism (state-ism) share one thing in common, the desire to preserve itself. So while capitalism's self-preservation will benefit the society, Statism's self-preservation does not. It leads to tyranny.

I agree that the primary role of the government is to ensure fairness and justice. Under this role I would include tempering people's pursuit of their self-interest when it conflicts with the interest of society as a whole, or with another persons pursuit of his/her own self-interest. To me, fairness, justice and protection of civil society includes protecting basic human rights of the poor, protecting workers pay and entitlements even when it is in the self-interest of their employers not to, and ensuring adequate access to basic life necessities. Beyond the financial crisis, I would argue that the major failures of today's American society are from our oversubscription to radical capitalism. The failures include perpetuating socioeconomic inequalities and lack of access of  millions of people to basic healthcare; these failure do not represent a civil society.

If this discussion continues, perhaps I wll get to share with you what my ideal model is. The government does not need to overeach by coming to temper most of the things it is extending its hand into. For instance, the practice of engineering isn't regulated by the govt but rather its members. This can be done in every area of our life. The idea of a democracy is pople watching and tempering the govt, not the other way round.

By the way, the poor do not have any human right that is exclusive to them. Human rights are God-given and transcends race, status or religion. Any right extended to the poor must also be extended o the rich. It is not the govt's job to protect people's pay. Forces of demand and supply is able to do that perfectly. When the govt dictates and mandates a minimum wage, it affects the laws of supply and demand which is basic to economics.  And when the fundamentals are flawed, what can you build on it?

I could also not disagree more on your position on the Christian message. I am not advocating for a total disregard of one self-interests but instead a cautious evaluation and pursuit in the light of the interest of others. At the risk of beating a dead horse, I would emphasize that some overarching and radical messages of Christianity are self-sacrifice, selflessness and care for poor. Completely turning that message on its head and claiming all those are ultimately in the pursuit of self-interest, hmm, I think is completely misguided.

I can see that you have consistently ignored answering the asic questions that will clarify this issue for you. How can you look out for and meet other people's interest if you do not know and meet yours? Let's pick the virtues you listed one at a time.
Self-sarifice and sleflessness: My sacrifice changes me more than it changes you. If I give to you, I am more blessed than you are.  That is the Bible principle.
Care for the poor: I give to the poor with the knowledge that for ever dollar that I sow, I will receive a hundredfold return. Remeber what Jesus said about those who leave houses, lands etc for his sake? They will receive 100-fold returns. Again, I may sound monotonous, but I see self, in all this.  Not selfishness, but self-interest. When i am the best that I can be, the world is better for it.

Let me round this up by sharing the following with you.  I chose to become an Engineer not because I felt that is what the society needs, but because I knew that was my destiny. My self-interest trumps that of the society hands-down. But in serving my self-interest, my society has one of the best engineers they could ever ask for. Be honest, when you were thinking of a career, did you look at your society to determine what it needs best or did you look deep inside to find out what you have to do to live a happy and fulfilled life?  Your honest answer shoudl put paid to this back and forth. 

@naijaking1,

Late payment of pensions is one of the problems in Nigeria, and this guys' case should be no exception.

Can you please explain yourself here. If you were to ask me, I will say the payment of pension is actually one of our biggest problems in Nigeria. I have failed to see any reason why people in the public sector deserves to receive any form of pension while the economic engine, the private sector does not get anything. Are those in the public sector a higher class of citizens than the rest of us? We work all our lives and save up and invest for the time when we wont be able to work. Why can't those in the public sector do the same? Why should they remain a burden on the society even they they are never as productive as the private sector. Please help me understand your point! This public-private sector dichotomy is just something I do not understand!

@Texazzpete,

Lazy feller. Why does he believe the society owes him simply because his father was once a governor?

It's another facet of the entitlement mentality that has gripped many people across the world.  While he expects to be well-off simply because of his lineage, others expect to be taken care of simply because of their nationalities.  The effect is the same. Loss of initatives and lower standards of living.

@Dr D-Welz,

I will have to admit that I am beginning to find your arguments less and less compelling. I do not anticipate we'll be agreeing on any middle ground; we are on very different ends as you rightly noted.

But its good we are both articulatng our views without name-calling. That is the purpose of a debate.

Presenting ones opponent or his ideas in an extreme light, in my mind, serve a very similar purpose, as I mentioned in my earlier post. Your accusations against Al Gore, Biden and his cabinets on private jets, not paying taxes and seeing themselves as separate from the rest of us, are unfounded assertions; these speculations only serve to weaken your position. Even if your statements were entirely accurate, picking out a handful of personal contradictions is not sufficient reason to discredit an entire cause.

But how do you show the hypocrisy of the movement, especially its leaders if you do not come up with real examples that can be verified? It is another matter if I make allegations that are not based on facts, but these can al be verified.

I have often wondered that if these people believe so much in the govt's ability to spend their money better than they do, why don't they give 70% of their income to the govt? Maybe I do not completely understand liberalism but what I see so far is nothing but a bunch of hypocrites. I say that not to call names, but to express the state of their being. As to them seeing themselves separate from the rest of us, I am still waiting for your example to illustrate how Obama has made the sacrifice he is asking from the rest of us.

About your take on the cause of the economic crisis, I think you've got a whole lot more home work to do. If there are any leading economists out there that share your position on the underlying reasons of the crisis, I would assure you they are certainly in the minority. The Subprime mortgages and government efforts to increase accessibility of loans and home ownership are not new ideas to me. I don't dispute these government efforts may have contributed to the crisis. However, the government did not 'force' and brokers or bankers to make loans.

Tell me, does the govt's effort to increase accessibility of loans make economic sense to you? If the banks werent forced through the force of law and the threats of lawsuits to make those loans, w wouldn't have the crisis. That is the root cause fo this wahala. That many do not shed light on it does not make it untrue. The only reason they are throwing more light on the complex derivatives is basically due to political leanings and ideology. I do stand to be corrected on that though.

These unscrupulous individuals and establishment in pursuit of their own interest plainly preyed on these vulnerable population. You must have heard of practices of lenders not vetting people's income, providing deceptive and misleading introductory rates, and engaging in other dodgy practices. My friend, in pursuit of self-interest, a quick buck and disregard of the interest of others, lenders and bankers made, by far, the major contribution to the current mess. As I mentioned previously, lack of adequate government supervision and oversight was another significant contributor. For you to deny these facts rather than address them head-on further weakens your position.

I am not denying theose facts, rather I am saying that situation would not have existed if the Bankers were not compelled to have acted in ways that violates theri self-interest. the govt set the ball rolling, and those guys atempted to make money because of the gov's guarantee.

As to preying on unsuspecting homeowners, I agree that situation took place but it has nothing to do with self-interest but selfishness and in most cases ignorance of the consequences of those actions. I have told you, when self-interest violates moral code, it becomes selfishness. Now do you believe the govt should be the one dictating our moral code? I think not. Now those homeowners would not have found themselves in that situation if the banks maintained their prior standard of asking for at least 20% down and verifying people's income. The community reinvention act eroded all these checks and balances that used to guide the banks actions.

And by the way, if you feel that the govt is complicit in the problem, what makes you think the same govt is the solution?

Obama's housing plan proposal to help mortgage defaulters, as you have rightly said may help some people who irresponsibly obtained mortgages. How would you propose distinguishing between the responsible and irresponsible ones after the fact? Many responsible people were caught in the trap and there are no full-proof ways of distinguishing them from the others.

Of course there are ways to know. Those facts can be easily verified wthout much ado. And by the way, how does bailing them out promote personal responsibility. What is personal responsibility without personal accountability, punishment and reward?

How about hard working families with both parent laid-off because the industries in their little town have closed? Should there be no safety nets to prop them up till they can regain their footing? Should they be left to lose their housing and healthcare coverage?

If you are asking that everyone should be bailed out, who will bail out the govt that keeps running up trillions of dollars in debt. Why should I continue to live in a million dollar home if I do not have an income. Why should the person who is working hard to pay his bills be forced to sustain my lifestyle which is still higher than his even though he has a job? You don't see any moral conflict here?

Your aversion to government is quite puzzling to me. Correct me if I'm misstating your position, but it seems your ideal world would have little or no role for the government, individuals would all be in the pursuit of their self-interest. That picture seems a little too close to an anarchic society to me. Take a close look at the progressive, prosperous, admirable and happy societies in today's world. Some Scandinavian countries including Sweden, Norway, Denmark, I'll argue epitomize the importance to striking the right balance between capitalism and government.

I am not an anarchist. The founding fathers were very sceptical of the govt which explains why they wanted the govt in as little contact with their lives as possible. The govt's role in the society is to ensure that nothing stands in my way in the quest of my self-interest. The govt is to ensure fairness, and justice and not to enforce equality or picking winners and losers in the society. As Mark Levin was quoted as saying: "government should exist only for the preservation of ordered liberty, or civil society."

The pursuit of self-interest has to be tempered by rules and regulations which are only enforceable under a governmental structure. Banks in these countries as well as US' northern neighbor, Canada, have been spared the worst of these worldwide crises mainly because of the regulations they had in place to temper radical capitalism. I am yet to see any logical, let alone convincing, arguments that exonerates radical capitalism as the principal underlying cause of our current crisis.

Capitalism gave us the greatest country ever in the history of the world. Capitalism is very pragmatic making room for boom time and austere time. Things are never ever going to be boom, boom all the time. That is a fact of life. The govt's insistence on creating a false reality by ensuring economic boom all the time is the cause of our present predicament. Capitalism has a way of correcting unsustainable models if left alone. Govt's actions will always create a bubble that will eventually burst by creating an artificial demand and sustaining unrealistic hopes in citizens whose drive and ambitions are tempered by govt regulations.

If you play a little closer attention to government that have become tyrannical, I would argue that the downward spiral resulted from each of their leaders pursuing their own self-interest and disregarding the interests of their populace and underprivileged. The pursuit of self-interest and its brainchild selfishness of individuals is one of the problems plaguing the African continent. I find it amusing that you make a connection between an individual pursuing his interest and acting neighborly, sounds contradictory to me.

There is nothing contradictory about both concepts at all. My pursuit of self-interst has so far brought me to a place where I am a more productive memebr of my society. I decided to be an Engineer, not because of my society, but because of my personal gols and ambition. To achieve that goal, I disciplined my appetites, avoided certains relationships, lived my life basically on a routine and lived a quiet and peaceable life wih my friends and neighbours. Though the primary concern is me, every one receives the benefit. What do you think will happen if all lived that way?

And by the way, you keep swapping self-interest with selfishness. I have explained the difference over and over again, but you just keep ignoring it. You mind taking that into consideretion next time? Believe me, many of the things you wrote here will not be necessary if you do.

I am taking aback by your explanation of the message of the Bible. You are saying that the bottomline is the individual. Think of yourself first; in everything you do, your interest must be paramount- is that the your understanding of the Bible message? I thought the defining characteristic of Christianity was selfless behavior as exemplified by Jesus. Can you please help me reconcile the ultimate pursuit of my self interest with Jesus' life. Are you saying Jesus could careless about the poor and sick? Did he ultimately act in his own self interest, and are we called to simply act in our own self interest?

Let me make this a little more global. As Christians, the center of our worship must be God. That is why the scripture says: In Him, we live and move and have our being. To go a step further, we will see that God acts in His own self-interests. If you think that God will do anything for you that does not bring the final attention to Him, you are simply mistaken.

Now to bring the ultimate glory back to Him, he create us to worship Him and have fellowship with Him. To each one of us, He gave a goal, a roadmap, a vision. That vision comes first before any other thing. God having a better view of the entire picture knows how everything will fit together to make the greatest harmony. In that regard, to make a better world, I have to follow His plan for my life and not any others. Let me illustrate with an example.

Remember when that lady broke that alabastar jar to put perfume on Jesus' feet? Remember what Jesus said to Judas who claimed the perfume should have been sold and the money given to the poor? "The poor you will always have with you, but this perfume is needed for my burial." (my paraphrase). Doesn't that sound cold to you? And doesn't Judas sound more to you like today's liberal? They cry more about the poor but they really don't care about them! (again that's my opinion based on the facts I see). Jesus was definitely motivated at that point by His self-interest to fulfill His Father's will. And fufilling His self-interest brought salvation to the entire human race.

And like I quoted from the Bible before, you can only love others to the extent that you love yourself. How can you be of use to otheres when you have not been of use to yourself? Please answer that question.

@Dr D-Welz,

Tayo, quite interesting reading your response.

Believe me, I enjoy yours as well.

You don’t think Limbaugh demonizes his opponents? By demonize, I mean he misrepresents and ‘extreme-ifies’ their position. Look at the piece you posted: “The president who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters.  He intends to be the master.  You're the slave.  You must sacrifice.”  Mr Limbaugh makes a jump from sacrifice, all the way, to slaves and masters. As in this piece, I have seen similar tactics in much of Limbaugh’s work. Presenting his opponents in such extreme and threatening ways, I think, makes him very popular with his base, but also makes it quite hard for liberal or even moderate opponents to engage in intellectual discussions with him.

I do see your point.  However, I think you have blurred the differences between demonizing a person and demonizing an idea/position. If I can quote Limbaugh correctly, I believe he said something like this: "on this programme, we try to illustrate absurdity by being absurd".  I think that explains exactly what he is doing right there.  You will recall that Limbaugh is not the author of that quote.  However, he used the quote to illustrate a point which I think is very apt.  I'll explain.

Obama has been talking of sacrifice.  Can you tell me one that he has made? They've been demonizing Executives who use private jets, and yet they go around in one. Al Gore has been crying global warming and still flies around in a private jet. Biden said paying taxes is patriotic, yet half of their cabinet wont pay. The truth is that they think of themselves as a separate class from the people.  The rules don't apply to them even if they insist that others keep them.  The list goes on and on and on.

I find your understanding of self-interest interesting. I would place self-interest somewhere on the spectrum from altruism to selfishness, hence my saying that it is one step removed from selfishness.

And one step away from altruism. The truth is that the path to both starts with self-interest. What determines where each ends is not a function of govt.

The degree of self-interest is clearly a spectrum; liberals and conservatives may fall on different ends of this spectrum.

Liberals tend to be at the lowest rung of the ladder, even though they claim they are at the top. This explains why they act as "Mr Nice Guy" with other people's money (taxes), but are so stingy when it comes to their har earned dough.

I don’t see how Obama’s policies advocates complete abnegation of ones self-interest. Please educate me on any of his policies I may be overlooking. He, however, calls for greater personal responsibility.

Let me share one with you. The help for mortgage owners he has proposed requires that those who are deliquent should be resqued at all cost. Republicans tries to ensure that at least, those who lied to obtain such mortgages should be exempted, but Obama and co did not accept. Personal responsibility means you have to be allowed to enjoy the fruit of your labour and not be denied with the lessons of your failure. But what we are seeing now is that the successful people are demonized and the failures are propped up. We are being told that you must be a fool to be making sacrifices by paying your mortgage, and for your effort, you must pay the mortgage of those who are deliquent. How does that promote personal responsibility?   

Your analysis of the cause of the current economic and banking failures, I find quite troubling and frankly misguided. Majority of economists would agree that the primary contribution of the government to the failures was the lack of proper regulations. Banks, bankers and mortgage brokers went wild in the pursuit of their selfish interests; this was radical capitalism on steroids. The culprits pursued their interests at the expense of the welfare of others.

Have you ever heard of something called subprime mortgage? Do you know of the community reinvestment act?  These are the roots of the problem.  If these do not exist, there won't be any banking failures. What you've been told is nothing but symptoms of the real problem. Let me try and explain a little bit.

Banks were forced to make loans by the govt to people who can't afford them. Knowing this does not make for good judgement, they were promised that the loans will be guaranteed by the govt. The govt guarantee made investors see those loans as fool proof, and so created complex derivatives guaranteed by the shaky loans that the govt guaranteed. Now these loans would not have been made in the govt did not force the bank to do it, and without those loans the market would not e where it is today. The govt may try to demonise others for its mistakes, but it is the root cause of the problem.  To now think Obama has not learned any lessosn from this.  Now he wants to keep people in those houses who may never have the means to pay it back.  The thing tire me no be small.

I would hate to live in a world where radical capitalism is the order of the day. What would happen to people who cannot be productive? Disabled people, sick people, mentally retarded? What of when you are too old to be productive? It would be a truly hellish place if everyone simply pursued their own interests.

There seems to be a fundamental differnce between the two of us.  I believe more in the goodnees of my neighbour than I do of the govt.  I belive if left unrestrained, neighbors will be neighborly and the govt will become a tyranny. The private sector will never shirk its responsibility to its society and will act out of the goodness of its heart to help those in need. Govt on the other hand alwasy act to preserve a political advantage. You think Obama is targeting the rich because he cares for the poor?  No way, it is to take sides with those who give him the edge at the polls. I have one question for you: Do you think your money is better in the hands of the govt than in yours?

Thanks for the Bible lesson. But I am sure you know many dodgy people historically have found Bible passages that support and illustrate their ideas. My understanding of the overarching message of Jesus and the Bible is for people to sacrifice, care for the poor and act selflessly, all of which Jesus exemplified. Please let me know if you think I am completely misunderstanding these major tenets of the religion and what you think should be.

And I am sure you know many don't even understand what they read. You cannot sacrifice if you don't have something to give up. You cannot take care of the poor if you don't have the money. You do not misunderstand the tenets of the faith, you may not just rrealise what it takes to practice it.  If I give to the poor, it isn't just because I love the poor.  it is because my Lord commands me to do so, and I seek His favor. My self-interest is still paramount in all of these.  Check all the Bible priciples that involves giving (sacrifice).  It is always a cycle, that begins and ends with the individual.  Check these out:
Giving and receiving goes together.
Sowing and reaping are siamese twins
Cast your bread on the waters and you'll find it after many days.
So while you may be giving, sowing and casting your bread, your actions benefits you more than the recipient.  No wondre Jesus said "It is more blessed to give than to receive."

Just thought about this. When Jesus told the rich man to go sell all he has and give to the poor, do you think He said that for the sake of the poor? No, he said that for the sake of the rich man's self-interest. He wanted the rich man to be free of covetousness. The guy's self-interest was Jesus' primary concern. To the untrained eye, it may appear Jesus' primary concern at that point was the poor.

@Dr D-Welz,

A  few thoughts

Thanks for sharing them.

I really tried not to get sucked into this Limbaugh discussion, but I guess I could not resist,

The guy na one interesting individual.  Even Obama could not resist the tug.

First, we all have several pulls on our time. I chose to spend my time on things/people based on prior experiences and a bit of research. Limbaugh is certainly a long way down my list; I find him the least bit appealing nor do I think he is intellectually stimulating. I admit my views of Limbaugh may be based to limited information, but my encounters with him in news articles, interviews and even after reading the piece above give me greater confidence in my views.

I agree we are all biased one way or another. But for the sake of intellectual honesty, it will be good to lay out our basis for disagreeing with people and not use every opportunity to attack their person.  That is what Rush has been subjected to.

However, Tayo, I think your comments, about people tending to read/listen to people they agree with while relying on sound-bites to characterize the opposing view, are very true. Liberals and conservatives alike fall into the same trap. Taking that idea one step further, not only do people not really listen to opposing ideas, they set out to intentionally or subconsciously misrepresent, polarize and demonize their opponents. These tactics are frequently applied by Limbaugh and other ideologues.

Again I agree with your presmis even though I disagree with the conclusion regarding Limbaugh.  I started listening to him last year because of Obama's paid lying advertisement that were directed at the gentleman. I've heard all sorts of things about him and my conclusion is that many of them are outright false. I don't agree that Limbaugh demonizes people.  That is the exclusive preserve of the Liberals. They never attempt to provide a superior argument, but they aim to destroy the people who pose a threat to their goals. Unfortunately, Obama falls in this category as well.

For instance, you have articulated here what you consider a better argument to what Rush posited, but you have not called him names nor make up stories in order to destroy his person.  That is way differnet than what I have seen in many discourses, including here on nairaland.  And for this, I applaud you and welcome the breathe of fresh air.

In the piece above Limbaugh repeatedly jumps to wrong conclusions about the intended results of some of Obama's policies. Nobody is advocating to ridding individuality. Nobody wants to jettison individual rights. I find it difficult to see how an intellectually rigorous person could come to such conclusions.

What other conlusions can you arrive at? Tell me, all of Obama's actions since he took office, which one enhances individual freedom?  We might think highly of Obama, but his actions and the results of those actions are detrimental to individual freedom! Look at the budget, the spending, the unholy alliance with the Labour Union, the quest to equalise individual outcomes and success.  None of these enhances freedom, but rather restricts it.  And for what purpose if I may ask? 

Self interest. In my mind, I see self-interest as one step removed from selfishness and self-centeredness. I guess the degree of self-interest varies on the spectrum from altruism to selfishness.

Self-interest is far diferent from selfishness. Self-interest is the reason why you went to school, it is the reason why you work several hours a day to take care of your self and your family.  You cannot provided anything of interest to the society if you have not taken care of your own interest. If you do not take care of what should be your interest, you become a burden on the society that may find itself propping you up. Self-inerest is good, selfishness is not.  So you see, I agree that self-interest is closer to atruism than to self-centerdness.

There are clearly benefits from acting in ones self-interest but there are also major problems. No one would dispute that the current financial collapse was fueled, in part, by the pursuit of self-interest and disregard for others.

I beg to dispute.  The current crisis was fueled by the govt's plan to equalise all outcomes.  It was birthed when the govt decided that those who are too lazy or lack sufficient slef-interest to pursue the American Dream must be given those benefits even when thy do not earn it. The banks acting in their self-interest would not have given those loans to people who can't keep them.  The govt forced them to act contrary to their self-interests by gving out subprime mortgages contrary to which they would be flouting the law. Self-interest didn't cause the wahala, it was govt selfishness that did. And that is why I am agaisnt govt getting involved in things that shouldn't be their business.  A govt's job is not to act in self-interest (which is always selfishness), but to ensure that everyone is not hindered in their pursuit of their self-interests.

The position held by Limbaugh appears incredibly shortsighted. I would argue that the blind pursuit of self-interest for immediate fulfillment and gratification is one of the major ills threatening the fabric of today’s society. What happened to the discipline forgoing little benefits today for greater ones in the future?.

Self-interest does not seek immediate fulfillment and gratification.  If self-interests does that, then I wouldn't have graduated from College.  My self-interest propelled me to wake up early in the morning, stay up late at night and pray twice as hard to be where I am today. My relentless pursuit of my self-interest made me a valuable and responsible memebr of the society.   

Any reasonable person would be aware of the terrible ills the Limbaugh version of capitalism has caused the world; irresponsible exploitation of natural resources and people are just two

One thing that is lost on you here is that self-interest is undergirded by morality. I will not pursue a course that violates my moral code even if I think it is in my self-interest. When I violate my morale code, it becomes selfishness. The beauty of capitalism is that it is not a respecter of persons.  It rewards the producers and punishes the non-producers.  That is the way it should be. Capitalsim teaches that if you want more, you got to produce more. And your quest to produce more will not only better your lot, but the society's. A society where entitlement is the order of the day kills initiatives, and when initive is destroyed, the society suffers. What is wrong with that?

Another larger point is the inconsistency in the arguments as presented by Limbaugh conservatives. I would suspect many of these conservatives are Christian. I see deep inconsistencies when one touts the teachings of Jesus on one had, and on the other radical capitalism. I think the Bible and the predominant Christian doctrine repeatedly calls for sacrifice, care for the poor, and selflessness.

First, let me point out to you that Conservatives have been proven over and over again to be far more generous that Liberals.  There are statistics out there to support this fact.  Rush you are talking about gives millions to charity every year, compare that to someone like Al Gore whom it was revea;led only gave a few hundreds to charity in a certain year.

As for Christian teaching, you totally misunderstand the Good Book. Let me wal you through a few scriptures.

1 Tim 4:16 - Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee. - This teaches before you can save others, you gotta save yourself first.

Matt 22:39 -  39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Can you see that you can't love your neighbour until you love yourself first?  How can you love others whne you haven't loved yourself?

Whichever way you look at it, people can only benefit from you to the extent that you have benefited yourself.  You cannot give what you do not have, and you can never have until you pursue your self-interest.  Simple.

@topic,

I thot I'll share this with y'all. It was part of the broadcast yesterday. Perhaps this will provide you the avenue to give us some more superior argument.

This is about the smallest minority on earth. Any of you want to take a guess what that is? I bet you'll never get it right. Rush is simply brilliant on his take on this. Enjoy:

RUSH: Folks, we have got to drive these people out of office. We have to start now. The Republicans in Congress need to start throwing every possible tactic in front of everything the Democrats are trying to do. This is getting absurd. Listen to this. Henry Waxman and Edward Markey are putting the finishing touches on a 648-page global warming and energy bill that will certainly finish off this country. They're circulating the bill today. The text of the bill ought to be up soon at a website called globalwarming.org. The bill contains everything you'd expect from an Algore wish list. I don't know how this will not raise energy prices to crippling levels; finish off the auto industry as we know it, 648-page global warming and energy bill. I have a quick question. What would happen to these people -- and I think it's already been done -- but let's just pretend, let's pretend that there was incontrovertible evidence that global warming is not happening. Let's say there was incontrovertible evidence that the whole thing is wrong and that the scientists who have been touting it for decades, years now, let's just pretend they came out and said, "You know what, we're wrong about this. In fact, there is no global warming, there's global cooling," I wonder how Washington politicians would react.

My guess is they would say, "We can't trust this, this is too important," and they would move ahead with all of this freedom-limiting legislation anyway because that's what this is about. Pollution controls, they're so greatly enhanced now to the point that these mini-engines that are on these fuel-efficient cars, these little three-cylinder cars, they're so overwhelmed they could barely move phone booths, they can barely move themselves. You put two people in them and you're basically ticking along. I think one of the things that's at the root of this, think of the combustible engine and what it has meant to the development of this country. People able to go anywhere in the woods, in the tundra, wherever they had to go to develop things, to build things, the American automobile is one of the greatest illustrations of human freedom. You get in it and you go where you want to go, and that's what's irritating to people. The fact that you can't go any further than 300 miles without stopping for 45 minutes or an hour to charge your electric car is a boon. T[b]he less you travel, the more that you are inspired, motivated to take mass transportation, public transportation, the more that you are conditioned to live in places where you won't have to drive, that is what these people are after. [/b]

As I said, we have a gigantic new audience to this program, the tune-in factor is just through the roof. For those of you who are new to the program, I want you to please understand that the criticism of the Obama administration here and the disagreement with practically every element of his agenda is based on one thing. We do not want to lose the liberty and freedom that we were born with in this country and that has made this the greatest country on earth, that has given us the greatest, most prosperous lifestyle any of population of human beings in the history of the planet. It has been liberty; it's been freedom; it has been the ambition and desire to use that freedom in the concept of self-interest. I want to spend more time on this in a future program. But this notion of sacrifice that the president talked about yesterday is just over the top. Liberals always talk about sacrifice, Obama, every time he opens his mouth, mentions the need for people to sacrifice. We all must suffer. We all have to jointly suffer in order for all of us to somehow be the same, and self-interest, selfishness is condemned. And self-interest is not selfishness. Self-interest is what built this country.

Somebody starting a business did it in his self-interest. He didn't start a business so that there would be jobs and health care in the community. He started a business because he loved the business that he was in. He loved the business that he wanted to build. He had a product or a service that he thought would improve the lives of people. He wanted to sell it to them; he wanted to make it available to them. Everybody wins when everybody's acting in self-interest. Selfishness is a different thing. Self-interest is excellence; self-interest is what's desired; self-interest is what makes people want raises; self-interest is what makes people want their families to be secure; self-interest is what makes parents want their kids to be properly educated; self-interest is what propels the United States military to victory. Not sacrifice. Not the concept of sacrifice. Sacrifice is giving something to somebody you don't know to make yourself feel altruistic. You're not sacrificing. It doesn't make you great. But giving something to your family because you provided it for them, that is good. But if you run around just giving people who do nothing for you, who are just worthless, don't have anything to do with you, you're cheating them out of their own self-interest.


When you vote for politicians who take from your back pocket to give to others, you think it's compassionate, you think it's caring? It's not. It's depriving the recipient of his own quest for self-interest. The brilliant writer and novelist, Ayn Rand, has written about this. Let me give you a couple quotes from Ayn Rand on this. "It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master." That is President Obama. "Where there is sacrifice, there's somebody collecting the sacrificial offerings." What does it mean? President Obama says, "We all need to sacrifice," for this reason or that reason. What it means is we all need to pay more; we need to have less affluent lives; we need to dial down our prosperity, and we need to give the money to him, not a charity. He's going to eliminate, for all intents and purposes, the tax deductibility, it's going to be 28 cents for every dollar, charitable donations. He wants to be the distributor of the charitable donations. He wants to be the distributor of the goods because he wants the glory.

"So it only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's somebody collecting the sacrificial offerings." Who is it that's talking about sacrifice? President Obama. Who's going to collect your sacrificial offerings? President Obama and his government. And "where there's service, there's somebody being served." There's no sacrifice in service. The president who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters. He intends to be the master. You're the slave. You must sacrifice.

We have a lot of people who love to talk about minorities, do we not? The minority is put upon, needs special consideration, special rights, the minority is put upon by the majority. The minorities are not granted equal treatment, and minorities need special considerations, it's not fair that they're a minority. What is the smallest minority on earth? This is not a trick question. What is the smallest minority on earth? Mr. Snerdley, I will start with you. Nope. The smallest minority on earth is not wealthy people. Dawn, do you want to take a stab at what is the smallest minority on earth? You'll never get it, but when I tell you what it is, you will think it's brilliant. Strawberry blondes are not the smallest minority on earth. Brian, you want to take a stab at it? Don't tell me owners of Spanish speaking radio stations. What is the smallest minority? You're never going to get it. The white male is not the smallest minority on earth. People would never get this 'cause we're not conditioned to think this way.

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. We are all different. We are all individuals. We are being told to sacrifice our individuality. We're being told we must assemble in other groups of victims. Well, not all of us because some of us are the victimizers. The smallest minority on earth is the individual and thus those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. This administration claims to be a minority administration, first black president, historical nature. This administration is out to destroy the whole concept of individual rights under the guise of sacrifice, pay equalization, equalization of outcomes in other areas. But the smallest minority on earth is you, as an individual. You have individual rights, as granted by God, who created you, and our founding documents enshrine them: Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Those rights don't come from other men or governments or women. They come from our creator, God. Higher power, whatever, however you want to look at it.


The smallest minority on earth is the individual, and I dare say that in this country today there's no one looking out for the individual, other than me. Nobody is looking out for the individual. In fact, in this country, just as it happened in Soviet Russia, just as it happens in North Korea, as it is happening in Venezuela, and as it happened in Cuba, the individual must be stamped out, the individual must be stomped upon, the individual as a concept must be done away with, and, as such, there go individual rights. You don't have individual rights nearly to the degree that you once did, not when you have been forced by either guilt or stigma to buy a car that you don't really want. When you're buying a car because you think it will get you less criticism, when you buy a car because you think people will think you're wonderful, but not because you want that car, you have sacrificed your individual rights. You have said, "My worth as an individual, my worth as who I am doesn't count anymore. I am going to define my worth by what somebody thinks of me. I'm going to define my worth by how little criticism I will get. I'm going to define my worth by how much I can make people think I care," based on the tug of popular sentiment each and every day.

When any of you decide to do away with pursuing what you want in your best self-interest, you are sacrificing who you are. You are giving up control of your essence, and you are saying, I would rather be a member of a group that is approved by people so that I don't get criticized or so that I'm thought of as enlightened or so that I'm thought of as advanced. In the process, you are helping to destroy the very foundational building blocks of the greatest country on earth, the country in which you happen to be born and the country in which you happen to live. So giving up your individual identity, giving up who you are, sacrificing your passions and your desires and your own self-interests for the so-called common good, who gets to define the common good? I would define the common good as everybody acting as an individual, born as he or she is, pursuing self-interest. That's the common good. That built cities; that built a great country; that built railroads and engines. It built airplanes. It built everything. People denying who they are did not.

When you deny your individuality, when you give it away for acceptance into a subgroup of people, you are harming the country; you are letting the country down; you are not pulling your weight. You are seeking approval, self-love and acceptance from all of the wrong sources. You're giving up the greatest gift you ever had, and that's who you are. And we have an administration that wants you to willingly and excitedly, eagerly give up who you are for a common good they define, a common good that requires you to deny who you are, your individuality, what makes you different from everybody else, whether you're not as good or whether you're much better at certain things. You will become a number. You will become a robot who can be programmed and inspired and motivated to behave in approved ways, and you will be taught to think you are virtuous when doing so, when all you've done is sold yourself and your country out. You give up your individuality, you sacrifice who you are, you allow that to be taken away for some mythical status as a member of a group, you are giving up your passion to become a moderate, or worse. People without passion never built anything. People without passion never got one thing done. People without passion are drags on achievement and accomplishment. That's what this administration wants you to become. - http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_033109/content/01125110.guest.html

@pres-elect,

let me understand you tayo, rush says obama should fail . . . . that was manufactured by the liberal media right?

Have you listened to the context? What exactly was he driving at? You are smart enough to know that soundbites don't tell the whole story!

now to encourage me to listen to your godfather, you first of all use such outlandish mannerism like ''lowdown'' , ''yellow-bellied'' , ''lily-livered'' etc, boy you are really learning from rush.

This is so typical. You still fell for the bait by calling names. By the way, I did not make the statement you attributed to me.

i listened to the first I0 to 20 mins of his speech at cpac,(watched it on cspan) he made no sense. just an imbecillic man prancing about like a retarded bully, talking without brains, a form or ''oro-cerebral disjuntion'' with ''verbal diarrhoea'' and his disciples were cheering.

Again you validate my point. You have not listened to the guy but here you are agian calling him all sorts. You can't provide a superior argument, and you quickly start calling people names. This is so childish. Is 10 or 20 minutes enough for you to judge a guy?

oops, i forgot, cspan is also part of the ''drive by media'' he was talking about.

Wrong. CSPAN is not. You sure don't know much.

tayo change topic abeg

You should change this attitude of villifying those you don't agree with, even though you have no clue what they stand for.