₦airaland Forum

@topic,

For those clamouring for universal health care, here's a model from Hawaii. Talk about unintended consequences of misguided actions. http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/usnews/ci_10743946

HONOLULU—Hawaii is dropping the only state universal child health care program in the country just seven months after it launched.

"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program."

@away4real,

@ Tayo how on earth can you attempt to predict the character of Obama based on what Sarah Palin, Bill O reailly & Co have said. The guy served on a board with Bill Ayers so what, Bill Ayers is his friend, bombed when he was 8 and in 2001 said he didnt do enough, was it Obama that said that. I expected a bit more from you Tayo, this arguement doesnt pass the "common sense" test.

I don't know what Bill O'reilly says because I have not listened to him this year, excerpts of his interview with Obama which I saw online.

Let me tell you what doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense that Obama's associations are radicals. Accepted, Ayers was actively bombing when Obama was 8, but is he repentant now? The answer is No. It's like telling me that my children can easily mingle with Bin Ladin in 40 years time if he stops his active armed struggle today. That Ayers is not actively involved in an armed struggle today does not mean he is a different man. It just means he is probably finding other means to achieve his planned objectives. His statement after 911 reveals just as much.

Will you serve on the same Board with Bin Ladin under any circumstances? Will you? Will you allow an unrepentant terrorist to hold a meet the candidate fund raising event for you in your living room? And why the attempt to cover up that association?

When a hate-monger like Rev Wright is your mentor for 20 years, and you have associations with unrepentant terrorists like Bill Ayers, while someone like Luis Farrakhan calls you the Savior, I have every reason to be weary and suspicous of you.

@away4real,

@ Tayo, this is becoming unacceptable, how can you attempt to do this. The argument is lame, please read about ACORN on the link below.

No one doubts the fact that ACORN does a lot of good stuffs and offer good social services to the community. Are we to now ignore their fraudulent actions just because of these?

Shouldn't their tax-exempt status be questioned considering the fact that they are definitely in the bag for the Democrats? Shouldn't they be fined and prosecuted for identity theft for registering an entire football team to vote without their knowledge? Are we to ignore the fact that they registered not only Mickey Mouse but dead people to vote? Should we turn the blind eye that they registered one person 75 times by offering him cigarettes?

Do you realise that they've registerd over 200,000 people who participated in the early voting in Ohio and those voter registration are questionable? Do yuo realise that Bush won Ohio at the last election by less than 200,000 votes? That was the election that gave him the presidency. And do you realise that Obama has given them over $200,000 from his campaign contribution. And even though Obama tried to minimise his association with ACORN, facts are emerging that he is more tied to them.

Are we to ignore this knowing that Obama's prior elective victories were not without some electoral shenanegans? Abeg, open yah eyes.

And tell me, are they not to be held responsible for their part in the mortgage fall-out and especially the fact that they lobbied with the help of Democrats, to get more money from the bail-out? This coming froom the group that can be directly held responsible for the mortgage wahala and the credit crunch now experienced globally.

@away4real,

Can we keep at the issues, tayo when you argued on issues i enjoyed debating with you, now its becoming something else.

Take it easy my guy. At this point, I have chosen to see and take part in the humorous aspect of this election. My statement was meant to be light-hearted and not an argument for or against the topic. Get it?

@BigB1,

Obama represents one of the most incredible entities around today.
I admire his unique ways, his natural wisdom and the authentic chemistry he has with the middle class in United States.

The middle class is his biggest problem. Where are you getting this gist from?

Regardless of the outcome in Nov 4th, the man is a champion in my book.

Finally. We agree on something. Regardless of policies, I really admire what he has achieved. No doubt he is a great man, and may he remain so. I do wish him well, and if he becomes the president after the elections, I will proudly call him My President.

@topic,

After Luis Farrakhan declared Obama the Messiah, it shouldn't be surprising that faithful subjects are now falling over themselves to pay him homage!

@texazzpete,

If you really want to 'wonder'. . . I wonder why the illogicality of this is lost on you. Obama has gone through a serious probe during the Democratic Primaries. Hillary Clinton did all she could to dig up dirt on him, yet nothing like this came out. McCain's men have been searching for ages, no dice. The man has two books written in which he details his early life pretty well. The statements there are easy to check out. Why has no one found anything incriminating?
Instead of reading websites like 'exposingliberallies', read his books and the books people have written about him and make your conclusion.

Perhaps you need to wonder why despite Clinton's attempt to bring attention to Bill Ayers, Americans are just beginning to learn about him about 3 weeks to the Presidential election. Until this past week, what did you know about ACORN? Why is all that information just coming out now? Have you ever wondered? Perhaps the reason why no one paid attention is because the Press chose not to delve into it. Or could it be because of fear of being labelled a racists just because you oppose the most viable aspiring black president of the USA?

Yeah right. because even Right-wing media like Fox News are sympathetic to Obama, eh? You can bet there has been an insane amount of digging. Fame, fortune and a pulitzer await anyone who can bring down a candidate. No one has.

Perhaps they'll rather take their risk with Obama than to see Republicans retain the White House. Perhaps they see in Obama, a candidate most aligned with their agenda. Do you know how many attacks Joe the Plumber has been through just today because he considers Obama's tax plan un-american? Be ready for an all out counterattack by the Pres if you intend to touch their anointed one.

Bill Ayers was active when Obama was 8.

So Obama was 8 after 911 when Ayers wrote in the NY Times that he wished he had done more?

Obama has never been shown to have lied concerning his relationship with Ayers.

Oh. From just declaring that Ayers was just someone living in his neighborhood, we have since found out that Ayers actually held a "meet the candidate" fund raising event in his home for Obama. Now, is that just a guy who lives in my neighborhood?

ACORN enjoys a better working relationship with the Democratic party, true. But that in no way points to any fraud on Obama's part.

Its not just about fraud. ACORN is deeply involved and responsible for the present mortgage crisis. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/acorn_obama_and_the_mortgage_m.html,

"Obama was part of a team of attorneys who represented the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in a lawsuit against the state of Illinois in 1995 for failing to implement a federal law designed to make it easier for the poor and others to register as voters." (Mike Robinson, "Obama Got Start In Civil Rights Practice," The Associated Press, 2/20/07)

"Misrepresented" The Group's Work To The FEC. "U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign paid more than $800,000 to an offshoot of the liberal Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now for services the Democrat's campaign says it mistakenly misrepresented in federal reports. An Obama spokesman said Federal Election Commission reports would be amended to show Citizens Services Inc. -- a subsidiary of ACORN -- worked in 'get-out-the-vote' projects, instead of activities such as polling, advance work and staging major events as stated in FEC finance reports filed during the primary." (David M. Brown, "Obama To Amend Report On $800,000 In Spending," Pittsburgh Tribune Review, 8/22/08)
- [url=http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/rnc-obama--acorn-fact/story.aspx?guid=%7B29569FA1-136D-4B95-9D51-4EF9E87ED547%7D&dist=hppr]http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/rnc-obama--acorn-fact/story.aspx?guid=%7B29569FA1-136D-4B95-9D51-4EF9E87ED547%7D&dist=hppr [/url].

I must admit that i've had far better estimation of your intellect before your unfortunate post.

Excuse my inability to excuse all these facts. If my suspicion of Obama means a lower level of intelligence to you, the so be it. I am not blind to these facts. Obama has being lying and he continues to do so.

@plus_Queen,

haha   the guy is really cute. He gives me and my sister goose bumps sometimes

OMG, you mean McCain is giving you heart palpitations at his age    ? You probably would have suffered a heart attack if he was younger!  

@topic,

And here are some bumper stickers I've seen around:

1. Support our OOPS - McCain/Palin

2. At least the War on global warming is going good.

@topic,

I wonder why the poster did not bring up the issue of Bill Ayers, ACORN and the likes. He/She did not bring up Obama's lies to cover up the associations.

You all will need to wake up. There is a huge cover up in the media regarding Obama. I wonder why many people are not seeing this.

@karmamod,

Why did Jesus object to the execution of the woman caught committing adultery when the law recommended that she be put to death?
True that. Over to you, Tayo-D and toshmann

@RichyBlack,

So what's your point?
That Jesus didn't want the woman stoned to death, but would bless and praise us if we caught another adulteress and stoned her to death?
Jesus was clearly against any law that required taking the life of the offender as punishment.
Don't forget that Baba Jesus also blessed and forgave a condemned robber. The death penalty is anti-Christian!
An eye-for-an-eye cannot be considered a Christian teaching. However, many in the Christian Right would conveniently ignore Christ's teachings and go to the darkests corners of the Old Testament to uproot instances of God-sanctioned mayhem, infanticide and genocide.

I will respond to both questions as one, though the answer wont come easy.

I think the an eye-for-an-eye is the most misunderstood phrase in the entire Bible. People have used it to mock our faith and try to prove inconsistencies where there is not. Of course, this is nothing short of a lack of understanding of what the bible is all about.

I will relate this phrase to a contemporary principle adopted by the United States and Britain. I'm sure you've both heard of cruel and unusual punishment. This is exactly what an  eye for an eye is all about. It is about the punishment fitting the crime. If you kill, you must be killed in return - plain and simple.

Now please be aware that the power to kill is invested only in the government. This is why the mob did not just stone the adulteress until they get the go-ahead from an authority figure - Jesus. This is why modern law also ensures that a person has a right to defend themselves before the authority before they are punished. This practiced is enmeshed in biblical law.

Now there is a caveat I need to bring our attention to. There are laws and there are higher laws. For instance, Paul talked about faith, hope and love, and yet declared that love is greater than all. Same way, God declares that He will have mercy over sacrifices. Does that mean sacrifices are no longer required? No. It means while offering sacrifices, never overlook the importance and the need to not violate mercy. This explains Jesus' decision on the Adulteress.

Regarding death penalty, I pointed out earlier in the Romans that God establishes govt and gives them the power to execute judgement. The judgement must of course follow His eye-for-an-eye principle (otherwise known as no cruel and unusual punishment principle). Based upon this, I have no aversion to death penalty where it is clearly proven that the intial intent was to kill. That is why our laws make a distinction between murder and manslaughter. While both are punished, they are not punished in the same way.

@RichyBlack,

Your argument is fickle at best.

Your opinion.

You agree that voting is a right yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the US Constitution explicitly state that voting is a right. After two centuries, the Voting Rights Act was passed, and all the fickle debates ended. I'm sure people like you were the ones arguing against voting as a right, pointing to documents that can be interpreted in myriad ways.

Go read the Declaration of Independence again. The govt must be instituted through the consent of the governed. What more do you want? So what are you advocating? An ammendment that establishes healthcare as a human right? In which case, the govt will be given extraordinary powers to ensure you are healthy? Men, that thought is scary!

Now on health care, you are waiting to see "health care is a right" explicitly stated in either the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution to consider it a right, even though you never saw "voting is a right" explicitly stated. What double standard!

Voting as a right is exclusively staed. Here it is again: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

@away4real,

I didn't plan to get involved here today because I am so busy. But there seems to be so many interesting points here that I fell the need to responde, albeit breifly.

I totally agree with you that the constitution allowed for civil and voting rights. I never disagreed on the fact, i was pointing to the intent, it didnt literally state it but it suggested it, but the imperfect men that interpret the constitution chose to ignore it.

The Declaration of Independence clearly stated that the government must be institued through the consent of the governed. That is a direct refernce to voting. Voting gives people the opportunity to express thier consent or dissaproval of tjheir government. What more proof do you want?

Reverse, what part of the documents clearly contradicts health care being a right?

The principle is clear in the Declaration of Independence. Whatever is God-endowed and common to all men through creation is the key. Poverty and riches are not God-endowed, neither is health-care. Do you get it?

As well you have not shown where the constitution and declaration shows health care as a responsibility?

The principle clearly shows it is not a Right. Healthcare is purely a responsibility. It is my responsibility to see to it that my family has adequate healthcare. As long as the govt does not put any stumbling block in my way to obtaining that healthcare, then all is well and good. If healthcare is a right, doe that mean the govt has the powers to force you to take a shower and live a healthy lifestyle? Those are your responsibilities.

My point is that the interpretation of the consitution should be a fluid because the documents is a fluid document moving with time but the principles and guidelines should be static.

I agree with this statement in its entirety. The question now is, what part of the principles or guidelines mandates healthcare as a Right? Is healthcare God-given?

If the founding fathers were alive today based on the strength of the union what do you think they would want for the citizens in terms of healthcare. I think the declaration is clear on welfare and right to life, it depends on what interpretation we all choose to give it.

Of course you know what my answer will be based on my understanding of the documents they produced. There is no point belabouring this issue any longer.

You stated you couldnt afford health care in Nigeria but didnt deem it fit as a right, u didnt answer my question in America now if u can't affod it will your views change.

Why would my views change? Its all going to be a matter of priorities. I will most likely get a second job to get enough money to buy health insurance. I have a friend who works for an insurance agency and i know individuals do buy insurance from him. So I do not see that happening, really.

You took a shot at Liberals and stated you are a republican for lack of an alternative, i really don't get that. Bush big govt and all, Legislature being part of the govt, i was suggesting a check on the executive and hence limit of powers. I wont divert too much, lets continue from ur response.

By the way, the check is also vice versa.

@Ibime,

Tayo-D, not to belabour the point, but please name ONE major established political party in Europe which is more right-wing than Republicans with the possible exception of Italy.

In Austria, we have the Alliance for the Future of Austria and the Freedom Party. They are quite comparable to the RNC of today.

William Ayres is not a Democrat, nor is he representative of the Democratic viewpoint. Your whole argument that the Democrats are leftist because William Ayres is leftist is frankly laughable.

That was not my argument. I wasn't refering to the DNC as a whole but to Obama. You do not invite someone for a political fund-raising in your home except you have very closely matched ideology. They've also served together as Executives on at least 2 Boards. These are social organizations and not commercial ones.

The Conservative party of Britain is more left-wing than the democrats. There has been no left in America since the days of McCarthyism.

The fact is that the Democrats are moving more and more to the Left everyday while the RNC is moving to the center.

Please NAME ONE European country more right wing than Republicans. Stop ducking the issue. It's a simple litmus test. Or is the whole of Europe leftist as well? If so, what will you call South America? Leftest?

I have named one above. I'm sure you know how difficult it is to categorize a political party becuse of the different policies they promote. However, the point here is that they are left leaning and are moving more and more towards it.

As for race, lets agree to disagree. You are so far gone, there is no common ground between us. I challenge you to make a poll: "Has Obama played the race card in this campaign?". . . . and see how Nairalanders respond to it. That should show you how out of touch you are. Like I said before, Obama has shown great self restraint during this campaign.

Polls are not always a refelction of facts, but of personal preferences and prejudices. I have presented facts so far while quoting Obama and highlighting his history. You have not done same for either McCain, Palin or the RNC.

Until now, I used to think of you as an impassioned debater who considers facts to take a position. You have totally shatterd that image in your arguments on this thread.

@KarmaMod,

Perhaps they can tell us how is ok to terminate one life over the other and I'D like examples from the New Testament as well showing why the death penalty is ok.

Here is 5th ammendment of the US Constitution. Not it is the US and not the Republican Constitution -

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

As for the New Testament: Romans 13: 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

@Ibime,

I don't need to listen to Palin. I already know all her talking points.

Your arguments are looking more and more like a joke. You do not listen to, nor know what someone says and yet you jump to conclusions about that person. Does this seem logical and mainstream to you? So you are here condemning someone based on articles by others who cannot even produce a single racist staement that she made. Ibime, please redeem thyself.

The only Republicans I listen to are moderates like Ron Paul and John McCain. I have a natural disdain for anyone who the "Republican base" is enthused about. I know the kind of people that "Republican base" like and I disagree entirely with their ideology

You like McCain hen? Guess who Palin's No 1 fan is: McCain. I don't know what ideology you are talking about but I am more impressed by Palin than anyone else on this Presidential race. Let us apply your guilt by association principle to Barack as well. Should I have a disdain for Obama simply because Luis Farakkhan called him the Messiah? Should I condemn him because of the enthusiasm he has generated on the far-left as well, even as far as in Europe? I do not support him because of his policies, plain and simple.

Accusations of "palling around with terrorists" are nothing but race baiting.

If I may ask you. Is William Ayers, whom Palin was principally refering to White or Black? If you start asking reasonable questions, you will see that you are enraged for no reason at all. William Ayers is White and he is the terrorists that she was talking about. Of course CNN and AP wont tell you that.

According to David Gergen and Ed Rollins who both worked for Ronald Reagan's campaign, Sarah Palin's behaviour this week has no place in American politics.

What behaviour? What has she said wrong. She has only commadeered the same kind of rock-star status that Obama has been enjoying. Please understand that I do not just take people's words for it, I consider facts. Where are the facts in this case?

I don't need a psychology degree to analyse the effects of many of her statements. The notion that a highly educated, Harvard trained mixed race man is a risky pick is in itself offensive not to talk of more serious inferences.

Pardon people's suspicion of the man that could be their next president. As humble citizens, they should ignore the fact that his mentor for years is a hate-mongering racist preacher. They should look over the fact that he launched his political career in the living room of a convicted terrorist who said after 911 that he wished he had done more grievous acts of terrorism.

If you want to have an honest discussion about race, lets have it. Most people have pathological prejudices, both black and white. Most of these people are not racist in the normal sense of the word, but certain pathological fears can be tapped into by politicians. The fears McPalin planted in people's minds have manifested at their campaign rallies this week. The proof is in the pudding. Lets not get into semantics here.

What semantics? To delve into semantics, you will have to present statements that can be used to argue one way or the other. You have so far failed in that quest. Do you think Obama has such prejudices as well? Would you think it is that prejudice that made him declare that Whites have an antipathy to people who do not look like them? Go figure!

so I don't know why you would accuse your fellow black man of imaginary race-baiting when you know he has nothing to profit from it. Did Jesse Jackson get anywhere with it? Are you out of your mind? Those of us with common sense know that it does not profit any black politician to make race an issue in an election. Sorry for the harsh tone, but your argument is frankly bizarre. Whoever said Obama played the race card IS playing the reverse race card. That's a popular trick these days.

Now that is classic race card you just played. This is the guilt that many of you are trying to put on us to support Obama, not because of his policies, but because he is a "fellow black man". To be honest with you, the sking colour makes no difference to me. If I think of anyone as my fellow, it is first "my fellow human". My guy, it depends on how RACE is used. Obama has now used it so succefully to incite hatred towards the Republicans. You are yet to tell us what McCain that caused Obama to declare that (my paraphrase) "they will try to make you scared of me by saying I have a funny name, and I do not look like all the other Presidents on the dollar bill." And besides, these were said before Palin came into the picture. Was she also responsible for these?

Obama was simply trying to assuage voter fears about his "difference". A difference which was accentuated by Hillary. He did not come out first and say he is different. He said it from a defensive position after all sorts of malicious rumours had been put out there about him being a muslim.

So is Hillary a Republican? Or is she Sarah Palin, Phase 2? Is it in defense of himself that he declared also that "Whites have an antipathy to people who do not look like them"?

For someone who claims not to have watched Fox News recently, you definitely are spewing all their talking points.

You are obviously more crazy about Fox News than I am. I have basic Cable which does not include Fox News. The only subscription above the basic that I have is Fox Soccer Channel.

As for Bill Clinton, he was doing all he could to win the primaries for Hillary. He was absolutely wrong but that is part of the game. Part of the game of politics is to fling accusations at your opponent and see what sticks. It's all politics.

In other words, you are saying Bill Clinton is racist! One thing is sure, Democrats are much more crazy about RACE than Republicans.

Campaign rhetoric should not be accepted as gospel truth - and we can apply that to Bill Clinton's statements in the primary. I have never taken Obama's accusations about McCain seriously. I have never called him McSame or anything like that. I have always respected him and I recognise he's a moderate. You should follow my example and stop swallowing rhetoric wholeheartedly about Obama playing the race card and other nonsense you come up with.

You should take your own advise and stop shouting racism just because some News Channel say so. Everything I have said about Obama here are either his words or his history which can be verified. So far, you have not produced any proof of Republicans using the RACE card. The Democrats have won that race (no pun intended), hands down.

I repeat: America has a centre and a right. There is no left-wing in America. Prove me wrong by using other civilised nations as a measuring scale!

I'm surprised by this statement. You determine who is on the right or the left by policies, not associations. True conservatives are at odds with McCain. Leftists with Obama. Hugo Chavez recently praised William Ayer's effort at education reforem. This is the same Ayers that served on an education board with Obama. The same Obama that was voted as the most Liberal Senator last year. It doesn't take much to put two and two together. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/william_ayers_and_hugo_chavez.html

The Associated Press is the only reasonable voice of America right now. Do you know that partizan advocacy amongst media organisations is illegal in the UK? It is a dangerous road and a threat to democracy. Lest we forget, all these rumours of Obama being a muslim started on Fox news. In Britain, you will never have a media organisation tell a factual untruth. Funny how everyone on Fox News believes that the mainstream media is for Obama. Is this some delusional paranoia? I have told you to stop watching Fox News so you can have a better outlook on life! Katie Couric, a softball journalist asks Sarah Palin a softball question and she blames mainstream media. Every single thing, the lunatics blame mainstream media. Do you know that the mainstream media are the only ones keeping this election process sane? If not for guys like CNN and CBS, this whole process would be a hate-filled, irrational slugfest that would manifest itself on the street. I made an important point earlier and I'm surprised you didn't pick up on it:

You are obviously talking about and idealism that does not exist. Where did you get you info about Sarah race-baiting? This you are claiming on the www without any iota of proof and you are saying the Press isn't biased? When you saw an out-of-context TV shot of McCain's rally of people who claim to be angry, do you know what it is they are angry about? Of course they won't show you the main reason. That clip was taken out of context in Wisconsin (our neigbours). The main reason was for the financial meltdown and the fact that McCain wasn't naming names. McCain responded by naming at least two Democrats who were responsible and he promised to do more. Of course you didn't knw that before because your so-called unbiased news outlet didn't want you to know.

These people are angry that the fictional viewpoints they imbibe from right-wing media are not being reinforced by mainstream media. This frustration is leading them to take their frustrations out at GOP rallies. This applies to you my friend!

Is Obama's ties to Ayers fictional? Is his work with ACORN fictional? Why aren't they reporting the fact that Obama was part of ACORN's legal team that sued Fannie Mae and forced them to give out risky loans? Is that fictional? Was Hillary spewing fiction when she said Obama's ties to Ayers need to be investigated? I've got news for you, now these New outlets are beginning to ask questions they should have asked long ago. This is causing some truths to be revealed. http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=307667123149723

At the Primaries, Obama caimed that Ayers was just someone who lived down the street. Now that the truth of his association with him is becoming clearer to the American public, he now claims as at this last week, that he thought Ayers was rehabilitated. We are getting to know the truth more and more now.

@Ibime,

Forums offer anonymity to say whatever people want to say that they wouldn't say in a real social setting. I have dissed Sarah Palin because I recognised the ideology she represented from day one. SHE is the race-baiter here. SHE is in the position of power to drive people's emotions. Right from the GOP conference, she started her race-baiting with "community organiser" inferences. We know what the phock she was trying to say. . . . and she has taken it to the next level this week.

Maybe you should start listening to what she has to say rather than reading meanings to her every word. Every non-biased observer knows that here inference to Community Organiser was in response to Obama's ridiculing of her experience as a Mayor. I can't even connect the dots to imagine in my wildest dream that she was race-baiting. Obama calls himself a Community Organiser. Is he race baiting too? Are all Community Organizers black? I mean Ibime, I consider you more intellectually honest and reliable than this.

Which leftist where? Did you hear this at an Obama/Biden rally - or do you want to attribute every nutjob black power statement to the Democrats like Fox News are trying to do with Louis Farrakhan. It is all over youtube.

Was it not Obama who at a rally (not once or twice) was saying I do not look like all those Presidents on the dollar bill? What more evidence of race-baiting do you want? Like I said before Bill Clinton claimed Obama was race-baiting. Was he delusional? So while you know there are nut-jobs out there, you prefer to ignore this when it involves the Republicans. And by the way, what about Harry Reid's racial comments this week? Should he also be considered an irrelevant nut-case?

The overwhelming majority of your party base are nutjob rednecks. First and foremost, Democrats are not leftists, they are centrists. Real leftist are the likes of Fidel and Hugo. I repeat: America has a right and a centre. There is no left in America.

There you go again with racism. Are you so blind to the fact that you guys are the once being racist here? I diagree with you. The Republicans are now Centrists while the Democrats are left-leaning. Maybe not fully left, but they are almost there.

Negro please! Obama has been the model of restraint throughout this whole process. Do you know how many times race has been used against Obama and he has not reacted? Please don't start! I don't even know where to start if I was to point out the examples where race or the fear of his race was used against Obama in this campaign - and he never reacted. His hands are tied behind his back because any strategist will tell you that a black man cannot win if the election becomes a debate about race. That is why Obama has never brought it up.

Obama model of restraint? Have you read his Book? He has continually used race in this campaign. Bill Clinton, the "first US Black President" said has much.  The same Obama who consistently declares he does not look like the other Presidents on the dollar? The same guy who said others have an anti-pathy to those who do not look like them? The same Obama who called his grandma a "typical white person"? My guy, I can see your reason is now beclouded by something else. My question: Was Clinton delusional to accuse Obama of race baiting?

The Associated Press said that Palin's statements are tinged with racism. I repeat: Associated Press. Democrats only spoke about it after AP released the statement about Sarah Palin.

Forget the Associated Press or any one of them.  They are all in the bag for Obama. You only need to show us any clip where Palin used racism. She's the most scrutinized person in the world and it shouldn't take you too much effort to prove this. For once, try not to take any of the press at their words. I want you to show us what those statements are.

@away4real,

Am pained i couldnt follow this debate, i am unable to take it point by point but will start from your own statement in bold. That statement alone has weakened your arguement, Richy raised a very important issue of semantics and interpretations, the word inferred you used there took more than 200 years for that right to be realised and not until the civil disobedience and civil rights had fought enough battles, must we wait another 200 years before we can see that citizens right to basic health care should be a right. Fillibuster after fillibuster the voting act was thrown away.

Richy raised a very important point earlier as well. The constitution and the declaration of independence are imperfect documents authored by imperfect people. What He didn't mention is that the same document is enforced and practicved by the same imperfect people. I only have one question for you. What part of these documents contradicts civil and voting rights? Infact, the document clearly sated that govt must only be instituted through the consent of the governed. That was clearly violated by the civil rights suppression. The question still remain - Is healthcare a human right? You have not proven this as yet.

Please Tayo i really don't know where to start if in 2008 we are debating seriously whether health care is a right or not, its like voting rights to blacks in 1776. The declaration and constitution are fluid documents in their interpretations its the intent and principles that are static.

How can health care be a Right? So is housing a right? Is poverty or being rich a right? All these are conveniences which the govt must promote. A right is totally different.

We can go on and on, interpretations here, semantics there, the simple test is this. Tayo if you couldnt afford a good health insurance what views would you hold? Honestly

I was without health insurance while in Naija and I never expected the govt to provide one. The truth is that healthcare is more expensive now because of too much govt interference. Let border restrictions and mandatory coverage be removed and you will see the prices fall.

Nobody wants a govt that the powers aint checked the legislature already ensures that, so this notion of big govt and all is just politics, Bush govt is massive, the difference between Obama and McCain spending plans is so minimal i don't get it, i can't imagine a president that would be worse that Bush in taking unilateral decisions.

Oh. So the Legislature is not part of the govt. Tell me, which branch of the govt gave us the mortgage crisis? That is why my support for the Republicans now is only due to lack of an alternative. While Bush cuased spending to go way out of hand, Obama is introducing more spending. McCain on the other hand has shown he fights against excessive spending. I hope he cointinues that in office.

Its just like the man that could vote in 1900 he just couldnt be bothered if others couldnt vote.

That we make a stand on pricnciples does not mean we do not care for others. Conservatives give more of their time and material resources to cater to the needs of the society much more than the liberals who mouth it the most. We understand our social and moral obligations and distinguish it from what is a right.

Obama declared recently at the Saddleback Church that Americans need to be their brothers' keepers. This is coming from the mouth of him whose step brother lives on less than $1 a day in Kenya. McCain adopted a child from Bangladesh. And while you may want to point to Obama's community service, you may want to find out who pays for those services - the govt.

My suspicion of the Leftist is this. The fact that they champion this social crusade is not because of genuine concern for the people. It is solely to build a political base. And to maintain that political base and advantage, they really have no incentive to ensure those people can survive and live independent of them. The fact that an able-bodied person can live on welfare for 20 years and counting in this land of opportunities should make us bat an eye. The question is: who is gaining from their poverty and dependence on govt? No one but the Democrats. Why then wont they maintain the status quo?

@Ibime,

Of course, astute guys such as we are, mapped their genome way back. I am just wondering what all our staunch Republican friends such as Tayo-D, Kobo, 4Play and Toshmann make of all this mess. I remember 4Play arguing hell for leather with me that GOP is not a redneck party. As for Negro Ntns, I don't have to ask. I expect he will be revoking his GOP membership card after the events of the last week.

First and foremost, I am not a Republican. That I tend to support one of two evils does not make me a part and parcel of the one I consider the lesser evil. The truth is that we are in a position to choose either head or tail and choosing one over the other is just a reflection of lack of alternatives.

Granted, some rhetorics that we've seen this week are extreme. But if I may ask you guys in all sincereity. Do you think this is limited to the Republicans? The vitriol of hate is home to the Democrats far ahead of the Republicans. Where were you all when the Leftists were calling for and even made a movie about the assassination of President Bush? On this forum alone, people have been calling Sarah Palin all manner of names just because she holds a different point of view and is a threat to their desires.

Was it not the Leftist who said on record recently that Sarah Palin shouldn't come to Chicago because she will be gang-raped by hefty black brothers. Where was the rage here?

If anybody has been inciting hatred, it is the Barack camp. Racial hatred to be exact. Didn't Bill Clinton claim that Obama played the race card on him and the memos he recovered indicate Obama planned to play that card all along? What could incite public unrest more than racism? Even the Democratic Senate Leader this week made some outragious claim of racism. Can anyone show me and prove that any Republican Leader ever used Race in this election to divide people?

One of Obama's recent ad in spanish was another racial bait which was full of lies. He twisted Rush Limbaugh's words to divide and encourage suspicion among the different races.

If we are to be objective in this issue, we cannot but acknowledge the nut-cases on either side. But while I see McCain encouraging and correcting the wrong notion in the heads of his supporters, I have not seen Obama do the same on his part.

@Negro_Nts,

We are not talking about God or Jesus, we are talking about social and political issues at the conscious dimension of humanity.

I think this is the first time I've witnessed you write something I totally find outrageous. The reason we do not bring religion into this discourse is because of the rules of the forum. It has nothing to do with the impracticability of one's faith to real life issues. Afterall, what is religion if their is no impact on our day to day life.

I will encourage Darfur to desist not only because he is breaking the rules of this forum, but because he was totally wrong in his submission. I cannot disagree more with the balderdash he wrote about Democratic ideologies being more godly than the Republicans', at least based on biblical principles.

@RichyBlack,

The statement in bold is open to debate. But what is not open to debate is that the US Constitution is an imperfect document, subject to the interpretations of imperfect souls, and its tenets executed by imperfect men. This in itself is self-evident! Hence, we must recognize the limitations of the document and avoid being excessively constrained by either the US Constitution or it's less important sibling, the Declaration of Independence.

Anything done by man is imperfect. As imperfect as these documents are however, they have created the freest, most prosperous and the most powerful nation in the history of our world. And by the way, I hope you will consider your interpretations and conclusions subject to the human imperfections you have so glowingly declared here.

Based on the self-evident imperfection of both the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence (where the above quote came from), the quote you cite was meaningless to many men living in America then. Even after the Fourteenth Amendment clarified the status of these men, it took another hundred years for them to fully exercise their right to vote. How did that happen? The Voting Rights Act! Why did it take nearly 200 years (1776:Declaration of Independence to 1965:Voting Rights Act) for them to exercise their right? Some people were playing with words like "promote", "secure", "creation", "God endowed", "criteria", na so them just dey yarn sotaay 200 years waka go.

That is why I mentioned that govt if unchecked, is a greater force for evil than good. This is why I am for a limitation of govt to its barest and most reasonable minimum. The principle for equal rights are evident in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The ruling majority felt it was a threat to them which is why we experienced the evil you talked about. It is the wanton disregard for the constituion that causes these problems, just as we witnessed with Freaddie mac and Fannie Mae. When you try to turn a social issue into a human right and vice versa, you have problems.

Explain how voting satisfies the criteria of being "God endowed"? I'm sure you can't but try let's see.
You know very well that you'll lose a lot of credibility if you make any utterance that suggests that "voting is not a right", hence you stayed away from that line of argument - smart move! You have to reconcile your assertion above and your admission, no matter how tacit, that voting is a right.

The declaration of independence clearly says that govt must be through the consent of the people. That is a reference to voting. The will of the people must be expressed by how the govt is constituted. It is God-endowed because it directly relates to freedom. Freedom of association as well as freedom of choice. These are God-given because it promotes a man's will and not suppress it.

This simple construction shows that one way of promoting B is to fund B. If you disagree, please point to the step in the above construction that you disagree with.

No doubt it is one way to promote B. However, when I am forced to pay for a social welfare, then it violates my human right. What I disagree with is this. You may promote B by funding it, but give me the choice to contribute to that funding or not. If Obama says today that he will provide Universal Healthcare on one premise; that only those who are willing should contribute to it, I will support him fully. Going that route secures my right while promoting a social welfare. Did you hear during the debate when he said he will force parents to buy insurance for their kids? Do you realise he will be fining those who don't? Do you think the govt knows what is best for your childrn more than you do?

This is simply hilarious. Can you belive this coming at a Democratic Rally: "Please welcome the next Vice President of the United States, John McCain" .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0qUMQN0Cn4&feature=related

@RichyBlack,

Just for the sake of moving this discussion forward in a constructive manner,. I will ignore your childish insulats.

From the meaning of the word "among", there is no doubt that the Declaration of Independence, which must not be confused with the US Constitution, only stated some of the "unalienable" rights, not all. Some but not all! Hence, the Declaration of Independence cannot be relied upon for an ultimate list of these rights.

Indeed the list was not exhaustive, but the principle for determining what falls in the list is clearly stated. Such must be through creation, nature or God endowed. Anything that does not meet this criteria falls short of their intentions.

Where do we go from here? The much more superior and much more important document to look at is the US Constitution.

I agree.

From the preamble of the US Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Can you see the difference in the highlighted words? The idea is to promote the general welfare. Having govt provide universal healthcare goes beyond promoting the welfare of the society. The govt's role is to ensure and promote such a socirty that we can get the healthcare we want.

Definition of welfare: Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being. Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/

The next project after the healthcare I believe is to wipe out poverty right? Some will claim that poverty or riches are a part of welfare and therefore a human right. No wonder welath redistribution is in the Leftists agenda. While I want everyone to be rich, the way to go about it is not to rob from the rich and give to the poor.

You can't use a document that clearly stated its incompleteness to determine what rights should be protected. Based on your incomplete logic, voting is not a right! Did the Declaration of Independence state voting as a right? Your line of reasoning pushes you into a definitive cul de sac.

You probably need to read the rest of the document which adresses what you are stating here in ignorance. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

First off, how do you define burden? The meaning of the word burden from a social/psychosocial perspective is, at best, amorphous, talk less of using "burden" as a basis for a constitutional argument! . Whose burden? Do you know that some people in America consider your very existence a burden to them?

It is not only in America but all over the world. Can you tell me how I am a bvurden to anyone? Just claiming burden without proof won't stand in a court of law. I can claim burden for those who rely on my money to secure their welfare. Theri rights to wlefare ends where mine begins.

The investors and speculators who have run Wall Street aground exercised their right to the pursuit of happiness (making money), but now the government is using tax-payer money to bail their asses. Isn't that a burden to Joe six-pack in rural Ohio?

You clearly omitted the fact that it is govt intervention that brought about this problem. Govt intervening in what should be determined by market forces is the alpha and omega of the problem. Is it not an irony that the same one who messed it up is now posing as the messiah? Had they not insisted on giving mortgages to th unqualified, we wont have the credit crunch.

Your poorer neighbor who pays less tax than you nearly lost his house to fire, probably because he smoked some weed, was high and careless one Saturday night. Fighting the fire was expensive and cost your city's Fire Department thousands of dollars. Isn't that a burden on you? Did your favorite document, the Declaration of Independence, guarantee the right from getting your house burnt down? Have you gone to complain to your city why they should place such a huge tax burden on you by maintaining a Fire Department to fight fire indiscriminately?

What you fail to realise is that the Fire Dept is there to promote the publuic welfare. Without them, insurance premiums will sky-rocket. Why do you think insurance agencies consider your neighborhood to give you a quote?

See who was complaining about extremes

That is the implication of your conclusion of healthcare being human rights. What is the role of the UN if they cannot secure human rights?

plus_Queen is a confused Republican who wants to be a Democrat, and she's among those that have some money and are afraid that affordable health care for all will mean taking her money and giving it to poor people who refuse to be rich because either they are just lazy or they are not serving a Living God.

I'm sure plus_Queen can defend herself.

See how far dead-end reasoning takes you. Government-sponsored programs? And you're not up in arms about "burden"?

That tells you of your lack of understanding of my position. There are social welfare programmes that the Govt does participate in. Healthcare is one of them. Let it be regarded as what it is - a social welfare designed to help those who through no fault of theirs are unable to help themselves. But refering to healthcare as a human right is calling it what it is not and it opens the door to a whole lot of implications.

Isn't the government funding such programs using your money? We know why you're not up in arms. We know, okay. It’s because there are no such programs for poor, especially minority (particularly black or African American –a group of people that you clearly detest) adults. At least you tried to admit this by stating "especially for children".

If making me out to be the devil makes your day, then please indulge in such fantasies. I have always being so amused by socialists who mouth how much they love to help the oppressed but do very little with their resources to help them. IThey are ready to tax and spend other people's money, but never put their money where their mouths are. To them, it is all a matter of being politically correct. http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

@All,

I do not understand why you all are clamouring for Nigeria1 to be banned. Haven't you all learned that every tree has a "nut" on it? Thank goodness we now know the "nut" on nairaland's tree and it is best to just leave him alone. Afterall, if we pluck him and throw him away, the chances are there for this "nut" to germinate and grow so many nut-fruits. I doubt we have enough bandwidth to handle such an explosion of nut-cases.

kellys4u,

oga tayo,i don hear u.i will patiently wait for the ride,but i can,t pay 1.7m oh.we will bargain better when the suv arrives the country.

Expect it to arrive Decemebr. No problem with the bargaining as long as you will offer at least 50 kobo above the N1.6m offer I have already.

@kells4u,

tayo d,i think i love the ride,but i will appreciate it more if u give me more details about the ride,all i knw at the moment is that it is proir salvage,bad cd player but promise to replace it with a dvd,the vin number,and am afraid thts all i knw,commom give me more details.honestly am intrested.waiting for your reply

I don't know what further information I can give. Do you want to be more specific? What you see is what you get.

I should be shipping it next week and hopefully will be in naija by December.

I know MN is off-route but some companies provide transport services or at least have partners who could transport to the ports.

@Davidylan,

We've argued, quarreled and exhibited more knowledge of the issues than the candidates themselves . . . its time to crack a few ribs on the road to Nov. 4.

I finally agree with you on something here. As far as I am concerned, heads or tail, we lose in this election. This is a bunch of the most unqualified people for presidency I can think of.

I totally lost interest in this election after watching the second debate. I had little hope with McCain, but now, I see him as no different than Obama. I wonder what America has done to deserve either of these two clowns.

Here are some cartoons anyways:

@BigB1,

I think the funnier side is the sudden disappearing of TayoD, AKA Noise Maker.
Before going out naked to support absolute rubbish (you clearly do not know), it is always clever to first ask yourself if you would be willing to put your money where your mouth is!
Mr TayoD forgot to follow this step.
I say, rest in peace!

I have decided to leave you guys to enjoy your delusions concerning Obama. Afterall, why should I give you a reality check when the ethereal rocks your world to its foundations?

@away4real,

I work in the power sector and I do like the model I see, even though some aspect will have to be improved upon if we are to apply same model to the health sector.

Power is provided by the Private Sector with the Govt providing legislation that guides their operation. The govt is not involved in the day to day running which is done abolutely by the Private Sector.

The Private sector regulates itself per the govt standard and they do it much better than the govt would have done. Mybe we can discuss this model as we go along.

@away4real,

@ TayoD i understand your arguement and the technicality therein.

Good.

Please ignore the insults its all in the passion of debate.

I try to as much as possible, but some people just choose to always reduce the levels of a debate without any constructive contributions.

When the founding fathers of the US constitution talked about the "right to life" my question to you what were the intents of that right?

Let us take a look at the Declaration of Independence to get this gist. "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." It is clear that the rights that are mentioned and intended here are considered God-given, not State-given. The role of the State is to ensure that nothing is placed in the way of anybody enjoying these rights. Healthcare cannot be considered one of these rights because it is not constant with every human being. Some are born healthy and others are not, but the commone denominator for everyone, rich or poor, healthy or not is the fact that they have life, they were all born free and have the capacity to pursure happiness in whichever way they deem fit.

One thing you have to realise in all these rights is the fact that they do not impose a burden on others. My life does not impose a burden on you in any way, nor does my liberty or my pursuit of my life goals. However, when you claim the govt have to provide you with healthcare, you impose a burden on me as a tax payer. A burden which I may be unwilling to bear. You therefore deprive me of a means (money) to which I can pursue my own happiness.

You quoted the Universal declaration of Human rights i recall that there are about 3 conventions that breaks down each article properly. Please go back and read those conventions am sure the intent of health care being a right is clear.

If it was, then we should expect the UN to start invading countries that do not provide its citizens with universal healthcare. Afterall, isn't the UN meant to intervene in situations where human rights are being trampled upon? I can understand the UN intervening in the event of a genocide because people's lives are being wasted, but if we are to follow your logic, then we should expect same in the event of lack of healthcare.

Obama was a constitutional law lecturer do u honestly think McCain has the intellectual ability to distinguish the issue(s) better. Abinitio on this based on their careers i will listen to Obama's argument more closely put ideology or party affiliation aside can McCain intellectually argue this right vs responsibilty with Obama

I do respect Obama's education and I cannot speak for McCain. However, most decisions at the Supreme Court are split 4-3. Does that mean about half of the Justices are intellectually inferior? No it doesn't. It only means their philosophies are different. Obama's decisions are tainted by his social views and not just by the law or the constitution. Afterall, why would he support infanticide if he believes in the protection of "life"?

Deviating a bit from the issue of right or responsibilty, lets look at health care in itself as a service and a service provided by the priate sector. My arguement to you is this, the private sector is profit driven and sole aim centers on higher returns to share holders, should preservation of human life be tied to profits, we are not talking about car or home insurance here we are talking about preservation of human life.

Pilots hold human life in their hands when they are flying. Does that mean Airlines should be operated by the government? Commerce is a fact of life and their is nothing that we can point at that affects our daily living that does not involve commerce. Commerce gives you a choice and freedom that the government will never give to you. The private sector is such that you can ditch one and embrace the other in the event that you are not satisfied with one service. Tell me, what will you do when you can only relate with your government? A situation where you can only appeal from govt to govt with no alternative is a threat.

I read a phd thesis and one the arguments was that the private sector does not have in its genes any form of social responsibilty and rightly so, they have to be forced and coerced by the government. I will ask the guy if i can put it online, your argument on 100% private health care will seize.

I don't agree. My wife and I give nothing less than 15% of our income to social causes without any govt intervention. The Red Cross is managed by the Private Sector. So what is that thesis all about?

In my opinion there should be a solid government alternative and then let people choose.

There are government alternatives in the US already. In addition, there are a lot of private sector alternatives as well. What I am saying is that making it universal is absolutely wrong.

The british NHS still remains a model, they celeberated 60 years recently d same arguement u are making were exactly d same arguements made 60 years ago and today the NHS is a success, has its problems but is a success.

Amon its problems is the fact that you rob Peer to pay Paul. Plus_Queen had first hand experience with NHS and has mentioned them above. My opposition is based on principles. I'll accept I'm wrong if the principles are shown to be wrong.

The notion was simple health care on a need to basis and not based on affordability Did anyone here watch that BBC documentary?

Who determines the needs? I go to the clinic when I need to. I am not constrained by anyone. I used to travel about 25 miles to vist my denstist and my clinic is just about 7 miles from my home. I choose whom I will and I do not impose any burden on others for my healthcare.

I don't think Obama is totally against the private health care, but let the govt provide alternative plans.

The government already have alternative plans. Their are a lot of governemtn sponsored programs out there, especially for children. I know many who enjoy it. Why expand it when the private sector is doing well enough? Let the govt lose the restrictions that limit the private sector.

And since the free market handles every thing well lets just hand over everything defense, roads, street lights, councils, cities everything, we really don't need a govt or maybe an extremely lean govt that really can't do anything.

This is going from one extreme to the other. The idea is to find a middle ground. The founding fathers were very clear about the issue of national security and defense. I am not an anarchist who believes in no government.

This classical economics Adam Smith notion of the invincible hand has been debunked in academic cycles as far back as Keynes the notion that the market will regulate it self has been shown to be nonsense, i really can't understand how people still hold on to that ideology.

The academics may make as much conslusions as they like, but we have seen the abject failure of communism in Russia. I know the free market enterprise is under attack now by socialists all over the world, but so far, the free market hasn't failed as far as I know.

I have raised a lot of issues but the summary is that the motivations of private enterprise conflicts with that of the health sector, there are no emotions in private enterprise its all profits and again rightly so, but in health issues you need such flexibilty and human emotions and pity, you are dealing with human life, thats why government should be involved in that sector.

This is not true. I am a Civil Engineer, and even though I want to make profit, I am extrememly sensitive to safety. I've had projects that where I've had to make a loss just so as to provide the best design. Infact, no design will be approved unless it is considered to be safe first. This etiquette operates in the health sector as well. Afterall, we see Physicians operating in war situation where there is a collapse of government. This alone, indicates the fallacy of your statement.

And by the way, I believe more in Govt tyranny than I do in its compassion. Though the private sector is mainly driven my profit, the govt is mostly driven my politics. The advantage with the private sector is that failure to provide the best service at a competitive rate will result in the loss of profit. So while they may be motivated by profit, they will be guided by the consumer need and competition.

@Daddypearl,

When is your next shipping to Lagos and how much will you ship from Minnesota?

And by the way, hope say your ships no dey pass through Somali waters o. I no want make pirates kidnap my cargo.