₦airaland Forum

Kalatium:
In Nigeria, bus conductors are known for their exceptional kindness and respectfulness before you board their bus. They greet you with friendly titles like "Oga," "Sir," "Madam," "Senior Man," "Suwa Kawo?" or "Aunty Sabo Express?" Their initial demeanor is nothing short of warm and accommodating.

You must be talking about some conductors in some village somewhere and you haven't travelled much.

Can someone tell this individual what conductors in cities like Lagos and Ibadan are like please.

ono:
I generally don’t insult people. I dislike those who do. But I also appreciate that sometimes, you’d be forced to make insults after reading some response to your posts. I’ve been on this forum for years - since 2005. Some of you in here will most likely be kids at the time. Anyways.

So, sentiments aside, marriage is good for every and any society. If you read that article to the end, you’d see the negative implications of a society that refuse to procreate and replenish themselves. Is this what you wish for the US ? The writer gave cogent examples - with facts and figures of how the US population is aging and appears there’s no end in sight and that it won’t end well at the rate they’re going. Me I’m tired of typing.

You can't force people to do what is good for society. Damn, you can't even force people to do what is good for themselves.

But if you want people to marry and have kids, perhaps make baby food and education till 18 free. Though, I've heard that's not the US way.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10049131/

IjeBos:
The Trump's team plan is to turn the US into a Christian nation.

I think they want to impose their perverse version of Christianity on US. It is the same sort of intolerant religious uniformity they fled Europe to avoid, and is what is practised in Iran.

I figure I'll just post this here to see what is made of it.

The Global Distribution of STEM Graduates: Which Countries Lead the Way?

ono:
Ah…it’s you buda. How is it I didn’t see that ? I thought it was Ijeshit.

Anyways, please read that Federalist article on marriage in the link shared and come back with your views. Thanks.

You not insulting me did make me go look at it.

While people may be better off in marriage, some may still choose not to marry, and you can't force them to marry if they don't want to.

Its the same as not robbing banks may be better off for people, but some still want to rob banks.

The article lists benefits of being married and having children. You can't force people to enjoy benefits that they decide they don't want to.

IjeBos:
I'll just assume you are being somewhat facetious.
This isn't about letting people decide, this is about Christian Fundamentals deciding their religion allows them the ability to determine other people's rights.
If it were about allowing people to decide, Republicans wouldn't be fighting to prevent abortion amendments to be put up for vote.

Christian fundamentals are people. And I do believe you can see that I'd rather not have those imbeciles decide anything for me.

Unfortunately for Repuglicans, the United States is a democracy where the people do get to decide. And I can't wait to see them up their game and try to abolish democracy. Now, that would be a hoot.

And before you say it, I have seen what I would call evidence of some trying to abolish democracy already and turn USA into its own version of the Islamic Republic of Iran. And my response while facetious is full of wonder that some people could so ignorantly be turkeying for Christmas while some in Iran are trying to my body my choice.

ono:
Useless views. It is these types of views that’s causing the terrible changes we see in societies in the US and the Western World in general. Your type should be castrated and locked up in a hell hole - with the keys thrown into the Pacific Ocean.

I guess this is why you'd like to abolish the constitution and democracy and appoint king dump, and why it pleases me to constantly see you fail.

raumdeuter:
Everyone has the right to life and It has been argued by anti-abortion people that a foetus is already human and killing the foetus is denying it the right to life

Arguing a thing does not make it so. There is after all ongoing argument that a foetus is not a life, but you wouldn't therefore accept that killing a foetus is not the denial of life. Or would you?

raumdeuter:
Comparing abortion to slavery is super dumb

Its not exactly comparing. Slavery went through the same sort of arguments and process abortion is going through today, and that is very comparable.

IjeBos:
It's like saying Biden "failed on executive ordering" the end of climate change.

If Biden executive ordered the end of climate change and climate continued to change, then Biden obviously failed at ending climate change, I'd say, and I'd laugh at Biden thinking he could executive order the end of climate change and climate change would be executed. I in fact wouldn't want him to be president because he's shown he's not exactly smart at all.

Biden knew he couldn't executive order my body my choice, and therefore didn't. Instead, he executive ordered what he could, and he's out there saying vote Kamala and vote Democrat senators and representatives so Blue has majorities in both houses and can legislate my body my choice.

Even then, I'd still expect some states to find ways to 'my body state choice', state in this case not being We the People. But they will fail in the end, I hope, or throw women in jail for aborting and be the butt of wrath.

IjeBos:
He didn't fail. He was limited by what he could do and that wasn't much.

It is my opinion that President Biden failed on executive ordering my body my choice due to being "limited by what he could do and that wasn't much".

So, the battle continues until every state in the USA accepts my body my choice.

IjeBos:
Again, a president can't use an executive order to override states on Abortion.

Agreed. He tried and obviously failed, as shown, which is why the hope is Kamala wins and Democrats have majorities in both houses.

If he could have used an executive order to override states on Abortion, it wouldn't be an issue in November.

No one wants to own one up on you Ijebos. You are not dump whom I'd love to own a lot up on.

IjeBos:
Listen, you should really read up on Federal powers and what laws the Federal government can make before having this argument. Because you are 100% wrong on the executive order part.
The most the Biden admin can do is write an executive order through the FDA expanding the abortion pill. Then they can wait and see if the Supreme Court overturns that.

Now, if you know different you are welcome to post how an Executive action trumps state laws when the issues are not part of Federal responsibilities as determined by the Constitution and interpreted by the Supreme Court.

You're on a tear today. Wrong Wrong Wrong.

See my previous on Biden's executive order. As said, "some states might have opposed his executive order."

IjeBos:
Clearly you didn't as you just now rewrote what I said after arguing against it for ~6 posts.

Here you go again, Ije. Enjoy.

raumdeuter:
Oprahs opinion should not supercede the opinion of majority of voters in State X or State Y. Oprah can want all she wants, If the voters in state A don't then it wont pass unless she decides to use the Executive order

IjeBos:
Here Budaatum, he said it again.

And he is currently correct. Though I'm certain some states might have opposed his executive order.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/07/08/fact-sheet-president-biden-to-sign-executive-order-protecting-access-to-reproductive-health-care-services/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/10/biden-executive-order-abortion-white-house

IjeBos:
You literally rewrote what I've said this whole conversation.
Congrats.

And yet you keep claiming I don't understand.

IjeBos:
I hope you are making that up.

Lol, its dump! Stupid slowpoke dump!

IjeBos:

Wrong!!!!
You may want to read the article and not just the headline next time.
An executive order will not provide abortion rights to states that have laws against it. Period!

You might as well claim an An executive order will not enforce anti segregation laws in states that have laws against it. Period!

For that to happen, a lot of history will need to be forgotten, and not everyone forgets so easily.

Besides, an executive order is not the only tool that could be used. The majority People may themselves democratically elect proabortion Reps and Senators and governors and president!

IjeBos:
He in fact did say that.


Because the only way a President can enforce their Personal beliefs on abortion is if the Legislature passes a law on it. So again, the Democratic elected President and the Democratically elected Congress passing a law means it's not Democratic? And because they pass it it affects everyone even those that don't share the same views or "culture".

Sorry, but you are not even clear on what you are saying.

The Democratic elected President and the Democratically elected Congress passing a law means it is not Democratic!

And "The only way a President can enforce their Personal beliefs on abortion is if" the majority of people first democratically elect that person as president! And the majority of people will only elect that person as president because they the majority share the same belief. Unless they are turkeys voting for Christmas, in which case their stupidity deserves to be roasted.

And yes, the minority who don't share that belief will get it imposed on them by the democratic majority and it will affect them, somehow.

For instance, if a minority are antiabortion and the majority elect my preferred proabortion president, we will impose proabortion on that minority, whether they like it or not, though they can decide not to personally abort and we wouldn't make them.

Do you see that you've provided your own response and claimed it was what Raum said?

I have posted your full response below.

IjeBos:
You typed this and probably didn't even realize the contradiction.

You are against Oprah and Congress who would be elected nationally enforcing their personal beliefs on places 'who don't share the same culture as her' but are for Governors and State houses who enforce their personal beliefs on people and places who 'don't share the same culture' as them.

You don't see the contradiction there? Why limit it to the states? Why do you think anyone should be forcing their personal beliefs on anyone else?

He did not say he was "against Oprah and Congress who would be elected nationally enforcing their personal beliefs on places 'who don't share the same culture as her'". He actually asked a question, and you've taken it as a statement.

But explain please how elected Oprah and elected Congress and elected Governors and elected State houses get elected by those who 'don't share the same culture' as the majority who elect them.

Would that not be like the majority voting for those they don't share beliefs or culture or policies with?

Below was also you.

IjeBos:
So, you are in fact comfortable with people enforcing their personal views on others as long as they are in the majority. Got it
But when the majority votes a PResident and a Congress who runs on Reproductive RIghts, it is wrong for them in that situation to enforce their personal views?

Gotta admit, you ain't making much sense.

Whether one is comfortable or not, "people enforcing their personal views on others as long as they are in the majority", is precisely what democracy does.

If the majority vote for a congress that runs on reproductive rights, then reproductive rights is what everyone gets. And its not anyone's "personal views", but the views of the majority.

IjeBos:
The discussion which you jumped in was Raumdateur arguing that it should be left to Sates to decide because only if States decide is it Democracy and not being dictated to people.

The discussion was here in public, and "only if States decide is it Democracy" is not what I understood from reading the argument.

Point however is that the (corrupt) Scotus, and not Raumdateur, has decided that states must decide, and states decide by the majority in the state electing legislators to pass legislations the majority vote for.

As for the Federal Government deciding, that is on November's ballot where the people get to decide if they want pro choice or state choice legislators. And I am delighted it is on the ballot because it is more a Blue win and a loss for those Repugs.

IjeBos:
Yet Democracy though the majority of people in a Country dictating what people can do with their bodies is not actually Democracy and not OK.

But the majority of people have not dictated what people can do with their bodies.

Now, if they do dictate what people can do with their bodies by electing legislators who legislate, that would be democracy. The majority did after all dictate that no one shall be slaves, and that was democracy too, despite needing to be enforced by war.

IjeBos:
The United States is a collection of states run by the Federal Government. The Federal Government's laws hold Supremacy over the State laws.

The right to an abortion is not a federal law, yet, unfortunately, so States can make their own laws regarding abortions, Scotus has devided. States can't however make slavery laws because there are Federal laws (Constitution) against slavery.

IjeBos:
This is somewhat convoluted. The majority refers to the majority of the electorate or the majority people making the laws. You are jumping from State to Federal in an odd way.
By your similar logic the Majority of the US wouldn't be deciding for you as you can just immigrate to another country.

The question is why you consider a State deciding through a majority of voters, Democracy. Yet the Collection of States(Federal Government) deciding for the Country through elected officials not democracy and not good.

I can not only "immigrate to another country". As I said, I can also stay in the country and break the law!

Your "Collection of States" is not the Federal Government"! And that's just not what the current (corrupt, my opinion) Scotus has decided should be done. And to be honest, I get to laugh at their stupidity, since no state so far has decided "my body state choice". And if/when any state does say "my body state choice", I'd be delighted to see what they'd do to the woman who says fuq the state and aborts.

feedthenation:
---JD Vance is truly weird---

JD Vance had a very awkward visit to a donut shop in Georgia earlier. Trust us, it’s worse than you even think. pic.twitter.com/Fnohh0bKUf

— MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) August 22, 2024

He donut make sense.

IjeBos:
You keep talking about sending it out to their voters to decide but that is not how lawmaking works in any state. The elected legislators would decide, just like on the Federal level.

What?! Do the voters not decide who the elected legislators are, so by proxy, the voters do decide?

Do voters in America not decide between dump and Harris, and therefore the Federal laws that are made?

There's a debacle involving a Chinese company and Ogun State where the Chinese company is selling off Nigerian assets. The people of Ogun State haven't realised it yet that they are responsible for electing the stupid legislators who put them in this debacle, but they will when the Nigerian government starts recouping what it lost through the incompetence of the Ogun State legislators that the people elected.

IjeBos:
So, you mean you want the states to dictate what they do with their body?

He said, "They (as in, the people in the state), should decide in their states and whatever they decide is good". That, after all, is democracy, as in, we the (majority) people decide. And yes, it is against my body my choice, since the majority should not be deciding for me whether I abort or not. But the majority are not deciding whether I abort or not. At best, they are deciding if I can abort or not in that one particular state.

One might then ask if we the majority should decide if blacks should be slaves or not. The answer technically is yes. I'd even argue the historical answer is yes too, since the more powerful army (and I assume by people and money) abolished slavery in the first place.

But what if an individual state wants to legalise slavery, one might ask. Well, they'd likely be a lone few states, and the rest of us can boycott what they produce so they reconsider or go bankrupt. Thankfully, there's an amendment.

The "state" is not deciding. We the majority in the state are deciding for our state, but if the majority decide against my choice, I can easily say fuq the majority and its state, just as I would if the state says "don't steal" when I want to steal. I can lobby for the law to be changed or break the law or deprive the state of my labour and tax and go steal where stealing is legal.

Gbadugbakun:
Abeg these useless discos should let us rest. We that are recharging our prepaid meter every 2 weeks, do we have light?

But how can you have light when your state government that uses far more light than you refuses to pay its light bill?

Just imagine you have a shop and the person who buys like 80% of what you sell refuses to pay. How much money would you have to pay the rent for the shop and restock your shop for those who pay?

Kobojunkieee:
Producing what though?

Producing money for its owner.

greenermodels:
Nigerians no even send,if they would seize Amosun join, better.

But they won't seize Amosun.

Nigeria government, though they participated in this debacle by arresting and rescinding the visas of Zhongshang Fucheng officials, will blame Ogun State and sequester the assets of Ogun State, which belongs to the citizens of Ogun State, to pay for their loss.

In effect, it is Ogun State citizens that will end up seized, economically. Their leaders, the leaders the Ogun State people elected, would have effectively sold them as slaves.