TheDevilsBride: Is it out of the realm of possibility, for a leader to be repulsed by his subordinates' poor judgement, but still maintain, with his ten toes down, that there was no anti-Catholic crusade being staged? I'm sorry, but nothing was destroyed here. You just seem to be having a hard time, making nuanced distinctions between certain positions.
Actually, the FBI director acknowledging wrongdoing on his agents' part, only reinforces my point in spectacular fashion, as it inherently demonstrates pure evidence of institutional accountability, as opposed to institutional bias. When you can identify a specific problem, honestly admit it, and take wilful steps to correct it immediately, that is the very definition of responsible governance, and that's why I scoff at any narrative/s of persecution, being peddled with this case.
This is a drastic oversimplification, lmao. You are committing reductio ad absurdum. The only mistake those FBI chaps made, was to take a legitimate investigation into one specific individual with extremist ties, and broaden the scope too widely. I hope you can understand the distinction here.
Okay, and this is exactly why the memo was immediately rescinded. The FBI recognized this overreach and killed it asap, so no matter how many times you wish to quote it, it's not the smoking gun you want it to be. Which part of "promptly removed and disavowed" isn't registering for you here?
The only thing "not making sense here", is your odd interpretation of what organizational accountability is. When a leader acknowledges a mistake and corrects it, then it exemplifies honesty and integrity. Just because I recognize the situation as an error that was rectified, instead of some sinister plot, doesn't conflict with the director's regret, at all.
I'm sorry, I don't follow. Do you also find it "funny", that firefighters use waterhoses to put out fires? The method of investigating is not the problem here, it was their framework of analysis. Are you familiar with research methodology?
No wahala. But don't forget that executive orders don't solve problems instantly and/or magically overnight, and they can be modified, or reversed faster than you can turn your head.
Stop being dramatic. A policy mistake is not a criminal act.
Because the "punishment" has been meted out already, via institutional correction and revision of policy. Do you lock up your kids in their rooms, or toilets, and deny them food for days, when they mop your kitchen, without sweeping it first? Must everything be a witch-hunt with you lot?
Again, you're not getting the full picture. Yes, the role of a military chaplain's role is indeed both official AND religious, and it is precisely for this same reason, that they must serve ALL service members, without exception! If indeed, they struggle to fulfill both aspects of their duty, then I'm sorry, but they might as well consider a different career path. It's the bitter truth. You surely don't expect waltz right into the military, and decide to pick and choose which soldiers deserve your service, as if it's a buffet of religious beliefs.
You're having way too much fun, with this merry-go-round logic, lol. Some clergy WILL perform same-sex marriages, but it doesn't justify discrimination by those who won't. You folks need to understand, that the military has never been, and can never be your local church potluck. It is a federal institution with equal service requirements, and it will remain that way.
Honestly, I don't think the army has any fúcks to give about your religious feelz. Like I noted earlier, if your religious beliefs prevent you from treating ALL soldiers equally, then beat it. Find another job that will cater to your religious needs. It's really not that complicated, my dear.
If an Imam happens to join the military chaplaincy, then he is agreeing to serve ALL soldiers, as it is literally in the job description. Lobatan!
The military accords due respect to every, and all religious beliefs, of individual service members practicing their faith. That being said, the moment you put on that uniform and accept that government paycheck, you have implicitly agreed, without hesitation, to serve the entire military family. Your religious freedom doesn't trump the rights of other soldiers to fair and equal treatment under the federal law.
If you wilfully joined the military, knowing that it requires equal service to all, then act all surprised when you're simply asked, to serve everyone equally, then I'd just tell you to grow a pair of balls and suck it up. It's like joining a swimming team, and crying about getting wet. Like, duh... what did you have in mind lmao?
...in the First Amendment. You forgot about equal protection being covered in the Fourteenth, lol.
Yes, JWs are exempted from military service entirely, because their beliefs actually prevent them from fulfilling any military duties. But they don't join, and then turn around, to demand special treatment. That's the fundamental difference you missed. Perhaps you should have left JWs out of this, because you've started scoring own goals against your own position in this debate.
Mate, just do your job without having to discriminate against other people. If serving all Americans equally feels like persecution, perhaps public service should not be your calling.
Go back? Have I left my position?
In what way? I must confess, I'm thoroughly unimpressed with your weak grasp of democratic principles, as you've demonstrated thus far. Do you think democracy is just about majority rule? What about the protection minority rights? What about ensuring equal treatment under the law?
This is such a terrible, and unnecessary hyperbole. Demands for equal service, being likened to North Korea? What ?!
I'm pretty sure you're the one who's been trying to justify selective discrimination against other members of your society, not me. So the only thing I'll say in response to you here is, go get a mirror, smh, lol.
This habit of you constantly putting words in my mouth, is so blatantly dishonest, I'm starting to wonder if you have an ulterior motive in this discussion. For the avoidance of doubt, I never said Muslims "should be made to perform gay marriages". What I said, was that IF any individual/s voluntarily join the military chaplaincy, they have agreed to serve ALL service members equally. Observe the word "voluntarily". It's like you're deliberately missing my point, and I'm wondering to what end. What's the goal here, hmmm?
For the 99,997th time today, nobody is being forced to do anything, however they're being asked to fulfill the duties they VOLUNTARILY signed up for. If that's what qualifies as "evil" to you, then maybe consider, that your moral compass needs recalibrating rather desperately.
Smh, more nonsensical strawmen fallacies, coupled with mind reading.
Religious requirements in a government institution, lol? Can you even listen to yourself? Military chaplains only serve in an official capacity, not running their own private congregations. The only standards they are required to meet here, are federal.
Irrelevant. Once again, nobody's forcing anybody to do anything.
I appreciate your attempts at having a civilized conversation, inasmuch as you kept twisting and turning my statements every which way, lol.
Well, <1> You're still hammering away at the drum of "punishment" for an administrative error, that has already been corrected, and <2> You're just championing an executive order that essentially serves to codify discrimination. But what more can I say? Do you, bro.
Of course, it's only fitting in a debate, where you've consistently taken my words, and re-arranged them to conjure up an entirely different argument, that you would conclude your post, with yet another strawman fallacy, smh. Let's make one thing clear: I do NOT oppose accountability in any government agencies, and neither do I oppose religious freedom. What I oppose, without remorse or pity, is turning religion, in particular, into a weapon for discrimination, but then again you've demonstrated countless times, that you have a remarkable talent for missing that particular distinction, with the precision of a blindfolded archer.
Let me summarize You see the FBI"s action as a simple misjudgement and I see it as bias and feel it should be punished. You believe that Chaplind who volunteer and sign up must go against the dictates of their religion while I believe that religious beliefs must be protected even in the army. I understand why someone with you point of view sees nothing wrong in forcing people to go against their religion just because they are volunteers but I hope you also understand why I believe in the protection of religious standards even in the army. Like must human beings faced with the same facts, you and I are persuaded differently. You are wrong but I perfectly respect your opinion.
TheDevilsBride: Who exactly, appointed you the Grand Illuminator of this thread, hmmm? Maybe instead of pontificating over my supposed shortcomings, you can actually just stick to providing the substantive information you're aiming to provide, alright?
Okay, so here are my findings on the FBI case. The very memo you cited, and are so exercised about, originated from the investigation of a kid named Xavier Lopez, who allegedly held extremist ideologies with religious elements. He described himself as a "Catholic clerical fascist", and was found with Molotov cocktails and illegal firearms, expressing intentions to "make total war against the Satanic occultist government". Plus, he was also a member of the SSPX (Society of Saint Pius X) -- a group that claims traditional Catholic ideologies, but are kept at arm's length, by the Vatican itself.
Early in 2022, the report says, he [Lopez] began attending a church that “associated with an international religious society that advocates traditional Catholic theology and liturgy but is not considered by the Vatican to be in full communion with the Catholic Church.” The “religious society,” identified as “Organization 1,” is clearly the Society of St. Pius X, or SSPX. The local church is identified only as “Church 1.” Our Lady of Fatima Chapel in Richmond, which is affiliated with SSPX, declined to comment and referred me to James Vogel, U.S. spokesman for SSPX. He didn’t return an email and phone messages. https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/anti-catholic-memo-wasnt
From this information, I believe we can parse that the FBI's involvement with the church was specifically targeted to Lopez's activities, not a broad surveillance of the SSPX, and definitely also not a broad surveillance of traditional Catholics, as a whole. Quite unfortunately, the subsequent memo's analytical failures created the unfortunate appearance of religious targeting, which is probably why the FBI's national office removed it promptly, and without further ado, then explicitly stated that it failed to meet their standards.
The F.B.I. has said numerous times that the intelligence product did not meet our exacting standards and was quickly removed from F.B.I. systems,” it said. “We also have said there was no intent or actions taken to investigate Catholics or anyone based on religion. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/us/politics/catholic-extremists-fbi.html
So I think we can conclude that this was NOT a deliberate, "anti-christian" witch-hunting, but simply a bureaucratic snafu that got corrected.
I have watched the two videos you presented, tedious and boring as they were. I hope you watched them too, as I have a few things to contribute to the discourse therein. I'll start with the first one. Now, I want to begin by highlighting the fact that Josh Hawley's performance (and yes, I'm calling it a performance, because over the years, that's precisely what these congressional hearings seem to have devolved and regressed into), practically centers around a memo that: 1> Was created independently by one field office (Richmond, Virginia). 2> Was immediately rescinded after discovery, and... 3> Was explicitly disavowed by the FBI leadership.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I'd argue that the very fact that the memo was immediately rescinded, after it was discovered by FBI leadership, has already undermined the bizarre narrative of institutional bias that Hawley was desperately trying to construct throughout the video. The memo, as flawed as it was shown to be, was particularly focused on a splinter group that even the mainstream Catholic Church itself, is wishy washy on, towards their worldview, so his righteous indignation about "targeting Catholics" is about as authentic, as a three-dollar bill, lol. Also, maybe it's me, but I don't understand the outrage behind the use of undercover agents to investigate. As long as they're not inducing members of the society to commit criminal offenses, what is wrong with interviewing people who might have relevant information about potential extremist, or criminal activities? Abi is it only an issue if the people involved are wearing religious pendants round their necks?
The second video was about Jim Jordan, on his jacket off, sleeves rolled up, ready to tackle down the deep state persona, doing pretty much the same thing Hawley was doing. Pretty much the same submissions were made, absent the self-awareness to understand the fact that even the FBI had disavowed the memo. So, again I ask, what gives? Kilo shele gan gan?
Only thing I can see being clearly demonstrated here, is what I would simply term political transmutation, frantically trying to turn a corrected mistake into evidence of what you think systemic persecution is. Basically a tiny little molehill, being conflated with a gigantic mountain of inconceivable proportions.
It seems you're forgetting who has the burden of proof here? I'm not the one alleging anti-christian bias, you are. So far, you haven't really substantiated your allegations with concrete evidence.
The Establishment Clause is quite clear: the government does not have the power to endorse any particular religion, and my dear, that includes displaying any form of religious symbol/s on public property, as well as leading public prayers on behalf of a specific faith. So don't even bother trying to spin this, because the law is definitely not on your side, lmao.
Perhaps you can demonstrate to all of us, which category the LGBTQ+ symbols fall under: religious or civil rights? Let's find out who's falsely equivocating here.
I provided constitutional law, and you came back round, empty handed. No counterarguments, no evidence, no logic, no coherent thought process. Just complaints and misapprehensions about everything I've been saying. So you better appraise your own position more properly, before you start waffling about "substance".
You've either misunderstood my statements, or worse yet, intentionally twisted and misrepresented what I said to craft a spurious narrative. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume it's the former. Now, please go back and read my original post. When I submitted that military chaplains and government workers should "respect and serve all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation or identity", I was saying that they have a professional obligation, as public servants, to provide services, and support, and respect to virtually all individuals, including all those who identify as a member of the LGBTQ+ community.
It's just a basic expectation rooted in the principles of a democratic society like the US, which promote equality and justice. Same expectations are placed on government workers, so I don't see what calls for your outrage here. Stop pretending you're a victim, because you're not. You're just someone trying to justify and defend discrimination, and bigotry. By the way, I hope your "freedom of religion" extends to Muslims and Hindus, who respectively, refuse to serve alcohol, or handle beef, because if not, then you'd be a sanctimonious hypocrite. The First Amendment guarantees you, all the rights to practice your religion, but not to use it as a cudgel to vilify others, and deny them the very same rights, that you blissfully enjoy.
You and I just watched a video where the FBI director says he is repulsed by the actions of his men that alone destroys all the argument you made in red. If the FBI director under probe agreed that his boys were wrong then you clearly don't have a point here. We both can agree right?
Now you write that this was not deliberate? According to you, the FBI mistakenly investigated Catholics? How does that sound.
The FBI's Richmond Field Office memorandum painted so-called certain "radical-traditionalist Catholics" (RTCs) as violent extremists and proposed opportunities for the FBI to infiltrate Catholic churches as a form of "threat mitigation. If the FBI director in public says he regretted the action of his boys but you and the people you choose to quote from say the FBI did no wrong, clearly something is not making sense here. When you say you have no issue with the FBI actions, I find that funny. Anyway Trump's executive order will ensure that such action will not go unpunished next time. Remember, the officers involved went unpunished, it will not be so next time. So explain why you think such officers shouldn't be punished even when their boss is ashamed of their actions?
About the LGBT, the job of the Chaplin is both official and religions. It is clearly an abuse if a Chaplin who's religion is against gay marriages is forced to conduct such. There are many clergyman who allow and accept gay marriage so why punish one who it is against the principles of his religion to do such. Make that make sense. Is the army a place that forces men to go against their religion? Think about that for a moment. In your words, it is a professional obligation, as public servants, so judging by that, will you count it wise to ask an Imam to perform a gay marriage? Should the professional obligations of the army have zero regard and respect for religious beliefs? You seem to be saying that once we join the army, we need to forget those beliefs we held dear. But then you forget that religious beliefs are protected by the constitution. The US constitution is so heavy on religious freedom that Jehovah witnesses are not drafted into the army because their religion is against war. Their religion is protected. People with your school of thought will make us go against our religion to please LGBT.
Let's go back to your words. You claim that your argument is rooted in the principles of a democratic society. But your argument is clearly going against it. If a democratic society will force people to go against the dictates of their religion, how is that rooted in the principles of democracy. That's what you expect from china and north Korea.
Finally you brought in an unnecessary argument asking if these freedoms extends to Muslims and Hindus. I say it's an unnecessary argument because you are simply against religious freedom be it christian or Muslim. You believe that Muslims should be made to perform gay marriages in the army so don't act like you are advocating for them. I will hate the day I see a Muslim being forced to conduct a gay marriage in the army. It's evil and should not be celebrated.
On there other hand, you will celebrate the day Muslims are forced to wed gay men. While I will see it as a failure for democracy, you will view it as a great democratic success.
To qualify for a religious marriage, you need to meet the religions requirements. We shouldn't lower or change religious standards in the army and gay men have plenty of options. I am a Christian, I don't qualify for a Muslim marriage. And the army should not force me on them. Under Trump's executive order no religion with be forced to perform gay marriages if it doesn't align with their standards. I love your brilliant arguments, I respect them but I don't agree with them. I don't agree that the actions of the FBI officers should go unpunished and I don't agree that any religion should be forced to marry gay people that's why I support the executive order. I understand you don't want to see a law that would have made the FBI'S action a crime or that would make any religion reject gay marriage so you can never accept the executive order. Fair enough.
TheDevilsBride: This is not a full response to your latest comments, but I just thought I should note a few things down, as I haven't failed to observe that you're still wielding denial like a paper shield in a thunderstorm, while every fact I've presented to you sits readily available on the internet. I've only refrained from pepper-spraying you with the relevant links, because I don't want to trigger the crazy spam-bots, just in case.
Each point I made in my last response stands on its own merit, but if you really want to pretend as though I didn't do my due diligence, well, I'm happy that people reading will get to read for themselves, and be the judge/s.
I have seen your video manifestos by the way, and I've briefly skimmed through them. I'm already disappointed after watching a couple of minutes, but I'll reserve further judgement until I get home, and watch properly from beginning to the end.
It's seems this is vol 1 of your response. Let me wait for vol 2. But I hope it would not be shallow. The goal here isn't to make me look bad, it is to share and exchange ideas even when we disagree. I advise you spend more time selling your ideas and addresses that writing about me. And don't just say I am wrong, show it. Again, I remember you claim it's perfectly in order to force a clergyman to perform a marriage that is an abomination in his religion could you explain a bit better? Is it ok to force a Muslim Imam to marry 2 men?
DeepSightZ: Joker. Who wants their silly aid. You are deliberately trying to play dumb and change the subject. The subject is your disgusting hypocrisy. You said we should be grateful for the aid, and once he cancels USAID you then admit exactly what I was saying just to defend everything he does. So now that you say USAID was an instrument of regime change and terrorism sponsorship - IS THAT WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRATEFUL FOR? ? ? ? ? ? ?
You make me sick. You are an inferior piece of shit with no self respect whatsoever.
My boy we both know how this goes, for the next 10 post, we will keep insulting each other. We won't learn or gain anything. Let me leave you here. You don't have anything to offer
DeepSightZ: That's not the point. Its not about Israel or the US's right to do what it likes with its money. Its about your hypocrisy. I told you over and over again that the aid you said we should be grateful for was manipulative and you kept shouting that I am ungrateful and entitled. Now here you are, when it is convenient, simply to defend your god and master, Trump, you have switched to admit that their prime aid agency was a tool for regime change and sponsoring terrorism. Why didnt you acknowldge that when you were busy telling me to be grateful for their aid, and I was saying exactly that repeatedly.
You are just a filthy shameless disgusting hypocrite and slave who will defend the white man even if he raped your mother.
I am a bit confused here, you say that the aid your received was manipulative now the aid is gone, you should be telling Trump thank you for taking away the manipulation. And you should be rejoicing that the manipulation is going to Israel. I know you don't like Israel very much. My Yoruba friends will say Radarada.
DeepSightZ: Oh so when its convenient, you know this? What happened to your gratitude for the aid?
Can you see your hypocrisy?
Oga just read it was not aid to Israel. It was a trade. Also, remember, it is not your money or mine. The US is allowed to give its money to its allies. When did that become a bad thing? We don't choose for them who and who not to give money to. The elected a president for that purpose.
God1000: What happened to America first? What is this wasteful spending? I thought he figured out how to do this without American involvement. And USAID is a terror organization because they don't want these people dead. Sick on so many levels!
And Congress is no longer given the authority to approve or allocate funds. this is more transparency?
Oga America is selling weapons and making 7 billion from it. That is America first. Please read, understand, and then comment. And the USAID has sponsored many regime changes and paid terrorist organizations
TheDevilsBride: My dear, it's very possible to understand the broader context, while still seeking specific examples. They're not mutually exclusive, you know. I'm not sure what you were expecting, but this isn't the "gotcha" moment you seem to think it is. You always choose to misunderstand. I was not looking for a gotcha moment. My only purpose is to inform you and others on the thread. Learn not to assume.
Okay, so this is the first example you've presented. Now, I don't know how much research you actually carried, to verify all the information you've posted here, because firstly, the memo you mentioned was quickly disavowed and rescinded by the FBI itself. Not only that, but the memo wasn't even targeted towards Catholicism as a whole in the first place, but [b]potential extremist elements within the faith, particularly from one specific group which, get this, separated itself from the Catholic Church after the reforms of the Vatican ll Council.[/b] When you claim that I am spreading misinformation, You should provide sources if not, we only end up accusing each other of misinformation. Now Here are a few sources. Let's begin with a video of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. No evidence is better than video evidence [url] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zruwkoj040o [/url] [url] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6m4_F22CZc [/url] Also, I have an article from the mostly WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fbi-and-radical-catholics-a2021275
But this is a blatant [b]false equivocation you have committed. Smh, I already had my suspicions that a vast majority of your examples, will be chock full of misplaced outrage and aggression -- a very perfect illustration of the privileged mindset that right-wing glazers have. FYI, since some of you love to be ignorant, even in the face of available information, this is simply an enactment, of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, preventing the government from endorsing any particular religion, at the expense of another. I'm sure you can define terms for yourself, so please enlighten me, since when did LGBTQ+, become a religion? You mean you can't tell the simple difference between religious symbols, and civil rights symbols, lmao?[/b]
Same thing here. My dear if you are here to say I am wrong, you need to show that. Anyone with an internet connection and the ability to write some words can take the path you have chosen. I expect more from you. the First Amendment, preventing the government from endorsing any particular religion, at the expense of another but nowhere does the First Amendment prevent individuals from publicly displaying their religious symbols or from prayer. So when you talk about false equivocation you are the guilty one here. I read the rest of your defense and it's all the same you are wrong I am right argument without you coming up with any substance. You can do better.
You added that as a Christian whose religion is against Gay marriage, I should be forced to marry gay people? Make that make sense? Have you heard about freedom of religion? wow
Ojuntana: He can't He's daft And he's a lying birch
People like casualobserver have a very difficult job. They have to keep defending nonsense. I understand why the kid is so toxic and insecure. he has taken up an impossible task.
casualobserver: Your poor education led you to these conclusions. Those who read and have good English comprehension, are properly educated and are not hindered by political tribal or religious bias understood clearly what I said.
Now go and read again! If you still don’t get it then it is not a just question of poor education but are likely brain damaged
No wahala. We all know why you prefer to turn this into a contest of insult. All your points were dead on arrival so you have to turn it into a match of insults. But then you must have noticed that no one is buying you weak and pathetic argument. Your government is a failure and you choose to lick the ass of failures. What does that make you. Goodbye
casualobserver: People! Whatever you do in life make sure you give your children a good education. Don’t settle for just any school. Make sure it is a school where the well heeled send their children. If you don’t see children of the well heeled you are not in a good school o. ! You will end up producing village eediots like this chap above!
You choose to act like a 15-year-old girl arguing with a friend. Stop getting distracted and emotional. Show some maturity.
According to you: 1. GDP is a reflection of a nation's Forex. 2. GDP is calculated by the exchange rate.
This is APC economics. China has been caught severally devaluating their currency yet their GDP keeps improving. Forex only accounts for a very small size of our GDP. Other oil-exporting nations suffered the same oil price change but only Nigeria and Venezuela had a great fall in GDP. Lastly, how come the billions of dollars borrowed by APC leaders did not impact your GDP?
casualobserver: It is difficult to engage an eeediot without calling him by his name.
Did the GDP in Naira fall? You would think an intelligent man would see the connection. I have explained this thing many times I won’t repeat myself. Go back and read again.
You are translating the GDP in Naira to dollars, whether Oil sector is 1% of GDP or 100% is immaterial. To all intents and purpose it is your only source of official forex! it will therefore determine your exchange rate and how you calculate our GDP in dollars.
It is not about the oil sectors contribution to GDP but its contribution to the exchange rate.
A few months ago dollar was N2,000, today it is N1,500. Has our GDP suddenly gone up by 33%? You foooool!
Like I said not every educated person in Nigeria can think.
You don't see the connection. The GDP fell because you guys elected idiots not because the price of oil fell. You just said whether the Oil sector is 1% of GDP or 100% is immaterial. Are you joking? This is false but how would you know? GDP has very little to do with Forex. Oga you don't even understand what GDP is all about. You again wrote, A few months ago the dollar was N2,000, today it is N1,500. Has our GDP suddenly gone up by 33%? Oga are you drunk? You are not making any sense. Anyway, I understand kids like you. You must defend the madness you voted for even when it is killing you. Now to educate you, Except for Nigeria and Venezuela, No other major oil-exporting country had a similar fall in GDP over the same period. This should tell you that your economics is garbage. But then you don't see it because you are hell-bent on defending nonsense.
Again you said oil is our only source of official forex. No. Debt was a major source of Forex under Buhari and Tinubu.
casualobserver: Like I said you are daft and evidence that an educated man in Nigeria only means a man was able to remember what he was taught in an exam. In nigeria education is no proof that a man is able to think critically.
You will know a man who can’t think because he can’t engage without mentioning tribe , party or religion.
Even though it is clear you are a village eeediot, I am responding as I do because I know for every village eediot that responds there are many who read without commenting and who I can share my knowledge with.
That said, I repeat.
The price of Oil is the major determinant in the economy of Nigeria and it is not in the hands of any president. There is no policy or magic any Nigerian president can conjure that will affect the price of crude. He is a bystander.
What you can judge a Nigerian president by is how did you manage the excess in times of excess and what did you do to cushion the impact in times of low prices. On both counts all presidents 1999-2023 performed badly.
1999-2015 because they did not invest the excess for a rainy day either via infrastructure or reserves or the 2015-2023 regime because they carried on like we had money we didn’t have, refused to remove subsidy, continued to use the scarce forex to import petrol, and most importantly supervised over a fall in output from 2m barrels to 1m.
As far as you are concerned my interaction with you is now over. Have a good day!
You spent the time insulting me and repeating your excuses. But I will not do the same. Oil represents less than 20% of our GDP so why did the GDP fall by much more. Also, the shortage caused by falling oil prices was replaced by crazy borrowing so why did that not reflect on the GDP? Answer these 2 questions and try not to deflect with insults.
TruthU87: The evidence of Israel stealing land is as clear as daylight.
American soldiers should be ready to die for Israel because Palestinians will never abandon their land.
These maps are both insincere and stupid and here is why. History began before your silly maps were drawn. 2000 thousand years ago, the entire land was Israel. Also your maps do not show how the Arabs stole the land. The Arabs took Jerusalem in 638 CE, during the reign of Caliph Umar. Other lands stolen by the Arabs includes Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco and a few I must have missed out. Lastly, your maps do not indicate how the Arabs lost their lands. We don't see your Arab friends destroying Jewish settlements and stealing Jewish lands in the 1929 riots. We don't see your Arab friends starting a war in 1948 to destroy all the Jews. We don't see them making the same mistake in 1967 and 73. Your maps don't cover the 1st and 2nd Intifadas.
TruthU87: The evidence of Israel stealing land is as clear as daylight.
American soldiers should be ready to die for Israel because Palestinians will never abandon their land.
You know that under king David the entire land and more was Green for Israel and the Arabs stole all the land and more. Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Syria, Iraq Sudan these and more are examples of lands stolen by the Arabs So get your facts right and your maps too.
The school you learnt this from, should be closed immediately.
Very poor reasoning.
Again you can only insult because you are ignorant. Your gov gives you excuses and you are not intelligent enough to understand that it's all a bunch of garbage. If we ask you to explain academically how removal of subsidy negatively affects gdp you will be silent. But you are ready to take the APC excuse without questions. Use your education. Your good parents sent you to school for a reason.
casualobserver: I have explained to you. That our GDP is calculated in dollars. Dollars is dependent on your exchange rate. Exchange rate is dependent on oil income and since oil is our major source of forex. Our GDP will always fluctuate based on our income from Oil.
Are you that daft that a simple concept eludes you or are you so far gone in your political or tribal views you have lost any capacity to grasp simple concepts?
Look my friend you will never hear me say Buhari was a good manager of the economy because that would be a lie but he did more for infrastructure that any president before him since 1999 despite having less than they did.
The argument here is an academic one. Your economy can grow in your local currency but your dollar based GDP can fall because your exchange rate fell. The oil sector is less than 10% of our economy but it has the most impact because it determines our exchange rate. Did Buhari perform poorly in the oil sector yes! Primarily because of his failure to sign the PIA in time and because he oversaw the fall in output from 2m barrels to 1m. But that’s not the point. The international price of crude which determines our exchange rate and hence our Dollar GDP calculation is not in the hands of ANY president! The questions that an educated person should ask is when providence favored you with high oil prices what did you do with it? When they were low how did you manage the slump?
Some of you people just talk like uneducated eediots! One cannot have a fact based discussion without turning everything to politics or tribe or religion.
Jesus wept!
Again you keep failing You know nothing about GDP. Oil contributes less than 20% of the Nigerian GDP. Under Jonathan, it was less than 14% at one time. Your GDP is falling because all sectors not only oil is falling. Manufacturing is failing, The service sector is failing, Oil prices was lowest understand Obasanjo. Oil price is actually good under Tinubu. Again if you understand economics you would have know that borrowing adds to your GDP. How come all the borrowed dollars under Buhari and Tinubu did not reflect in your GDP.
The Government under APC has become the government of excuses. Like a 5 years old kid, they would rather blame everyone else than themselves. You have become like APC, lazy and irresponsible. You are an adult, learn to take responsibility.
casualobserver: You are daft! Oil price during Buhari’s regime was always lower than what he met. Growth is a relative concept! Oil during Buhari’s period was always lower than Jonathan so for a country dependent on oil for forex and for an economy that is dollar based GDP was always going to be lower. I am not saying Buhari manages the economy well, but compared to OBJ and GEJ he did more with the little he had than OBJ-GEJ did with the much they had. You can point to roads, rail etc that Buhari did.
The point is NIgerias GDP is largely dependent on the inflow of forex from OIL. Forex inflow determined exchange rate, exchange rate determines dollar calculation of our GDP. At no point in Buhari’s regime was the OIl price 80% of the level under GEJ.
Below is the oil price for the period
What was the price of oil under Obasanjo? A bad workman always quarrels with his tools. True oil price fell under Buhari and that was his good excuse for crazy borrowing. What was done with the borrowed money. Why didn't the borrowed billions impact on the GDP? Now under Tinubu, oil prices have been mostly above $80 yet the borrowing continues and the poverty continues. The GDP is falling yet your guy is able to buy a new jet for himself. Oil prices were down yet under Buhari, every single budget was padded. Make this make sense.
TheDevilsBride: I think you're missing the forest, for the trees here, as executive orders like this are almost wholly inseparable from the political context, in which they are given. Maybe if you could shed some light, and demonstrate the existence of this supposedly rampant "anti-Christian bias" in a nation where Christianity has always been, and remains the dominant cultural and political force, then we will not be having any misapprehensions about "understand[ing] the law", as you say.
So, can you properly enumerate, what are those specific protections Christians are currently lacking in America, that this executive order should meaningfully address? I'd love for you to fill me in on this, as I need to be sure exactly what is being contended here.
Clearly, you are acting in bad faith. You began by saying that I am missing the forest, for the trees then you went ahead to ask me to enlighten you on the subject.
Now to the answers you asked for.
In 2023, a leaked FBI memo revealed that the agency was monitoring traditionalist Catholics, particularly those who attend Latin Mass, under the justification that they could be linked to "radical traditionalist" ideologies. The memo suggested that so-called "radical-traditionalist Catholic ideology" could be a breeding ground for extremism. Many saw this as a blatant attempt to criminalize deeply held religious beliefs, while similar scrutiny was not applied to other religious groups.
Christian prayers and symbols removed: While other religious and secular symbols (such as LGBTQ pride flags) are widely permitted in schools and public institutions, Christian symbols like crosses, nativity scenes, or even voluntary public prayers have been repeatedly challenged.
Students punished for faith expressions: Cases such as high school students being reprimanded for praying before football games or wearing Christian symbols highlight what many see as an unfair suppression of Christian beliefs.
The Biden administration has aggressively prosecuted pro-life activists under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, while at the same time, many attacks on churches and pro-life pregnancy centers have gone largely ignored.
After the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, dozens of churches and crisis pregnancy centers were firebombed or vandalized, yet few arrests were made.
When churches were attacked during the 2020 riots, many of the perpetrators faced little to no consequences. However, when a protest occurs outside of an abortion clinic or drag show, law enforcement often responds with heavy-handed arrests.
During the pandemic, many state and local governments imposed harsher restrictions on churches than on secular businesses:
In states like California and New York, churches were forced to close or limit attendance, while casinos, liquor stores, and strip clubs were allowed to remain open. Pastors who defied restrictions were fined or even arrested, while large-scale protests and other gatherings were often exempted.
Military chaplains have been disciplined or forced out for refusing to perform same-sex weddings or for sharing traditional Christian teachings on gender and sexuality.
Government workers have been fired or sued for refusing to use preferred pronouns or declining to participate in LGBTQ-related activities that contradict their faith.
Putindbutt: A bad leader that is rehabilitating the refineries and opened up the sector?. These bitter slowpokes did not even understand the reasons given in the article but talking foolishly because one Agulu fraud lost the election woefully. Una go wail till 2031.
You are clearly born yesterday. Every leader since Abacha claimed to be rehabilitating your refineries. Learn to use your brain. So to you, you decide who is a good leader by who rehabilitates your refineries Oga mention one thing that has gotten better for the ordinary Nigerian in the almost 2 years of rulership of your Lord and God Tpain? It's time you begin to use your sense boy.
Now let's give you sense. You have Dangote refinery, the biggest in Africa and yet, you can't supply the refinery with enough crude oil. Dangote is still buy crude from the US. Yet you think a second refinery is your problem? You spend $40 to drill one barrel of oil yet you don't know your priorities. You guys need help
By this time next year, the cost of oil production would be more than it is now. There is no way around this. You don't elect bad leaders and expect positive changes.
Golan007: I continue to state that Trump is showboating.
He is no Christian.
America is a secular state, and I like that each is allowed to practice their religion.
Yet, I am aware that some people use religion simply as a conduit for manipulation.
Such a person is Donald Trump.
By the way, Hitler also professed Chrostianity.
You are not getting it. I don't care if Trump is a Christian or an Ogun worshipper. By the way our last vice president in Nigeria was a pastor and that was the worse administration Nigerians have ever witnessed that's if this one doesn't beat it. The debate here is not about Trump or how you and I feel about him. It is about this particular executive order and how it affects the American people. Even if you feel Trump is a bad man, bad men sometimes make good laws. So forget the man and look at the law and it's impact on his people. We can't criticize a law without understanding it.
Golan007: My statement was clear from the very beginning.
Trump is simply virtue signalling.
He is NOT a Christian.
He needs his base to always be behind him, even when he storms the Capitol or he carries out racist acts.
There is nothing wrong with being a man of of Faith, but Trump is clearly not one.
He uses acts like this to appeal to the narrow-minded even when he carries out actions much against their very faith.
I don't care if Trump is a man of faith or not. I don't judge people by their religion. But if you refuse to read and learn more, it would be hard to have prolonged discussions with you.
For example, you qouted from the US constitution and I asked how Trump's executive order went against the constitution. If you had read the executive order, you might have been better prepared to answer the question. If we only argue and learn nothing, it's a waste. You don't need to agree with me but if both of us are constantly learning, out arguments will only get better and others on the platform will gain a thing or two from us.
How can someone that doesn't know what he is talking about defeat me. But then, you don't even get it. The point of Nairaland is not to defeat each other. If it were, there would be a ref. You can't be the opponent and the umpire at the same time. Leave it for the ref to decide who defeated who. But then, you quoted from the US constitution so let me ask you sir. In what what's does this particular executive order go against the things you quoted from the constitution. If you have a good answer to this, I would accept that you defeated me and you can finally rejoice.
ElSudani: Disaster upon disaster since Trump second term. He is destined to ruin the US beyond repair.
Nigerians and their stupid superstitions. If you could vote for Tinubu then it's clear that you love things getting ruined. If your Tinubu was American, he wouldn't even qualify for local government councilor. It's easy to understand why people like you must hate trump.
Do all of us a favor and educate yourself on the subject. You can tell that I am not a Biden guy but I was able to tell that his policies are garbage because I made time to educate myself. A wise man would not start a fight with an enemy he doesn't understand.
Foreign Affairs › Re: Trump Announces Executive Order To Eradicate Anti Christian Bias by tctrills: 3:22pm On Feb 09, 2025
?!
