₦airaland Forum

[quote author=Gold*Finch link=topic=150539.msg2496085#msg2496085 date=1215824347]Yes, darling, am taking notes.

Tell him that he's too young o, you're old enough [/quote]Oh. I don't know yet. I can't wait to get my license. It's hard parking a Lamborghini in front of my driveway and not being able to drive it.

dreeldee:
@ch3coo wow that's pretty close, mine is 13th. nice to know that bro.




i hope some day you don't blow your guts out

4real 4real? that's good.  I am 2 days older than you.  
Finch, take note.

day 11

I'm a scorpio too.

[quote author=Gold*Finch link=topic=150522.msg2495986#msg2495986 date=1215821387]CH3COO
haaaaaaaaaaaaa!!
cheating? with dreeldee?
hehehe, the man is married[/quote]see your life. you could have enjoyed the sweet thrill of riding along with me in my lamborghini. Now you're stuck tapping palmwine with dre in the village.

Okay here's a shorter reply. There's no gain in stertching this beyond readable limits, or repeating already expressed perspectives. We have digressed too far from the primary focus of the thread; perhaps we shall continue this war of "Acts" on a more appropriate thread. It's not like I'm attacking you for airing your views. I just disagreed, politely, with the wording of one or two sentences you typed from that previous page. I understand and agree with the message you wanted to pass across - unification is better than division. Our argument lies therein your interpretation of the American people.

she was to spend it with me. not that i found out she's cheating, it's over. you can have her.

So this is where you are? slaving powerlessly for unreturned love, selling your soul for cheap to dreeldee, yet consistently barking to me about your worth? What worth, i don't even see it.

The example I provided was there to show you that the Acts do aim to curb existing discrimination. In opposition to your position that they hurt more than they help, so yes, it is more than a valid contribution to this (our) discussion.

Some white guy back then thought otherwise, and decided to challenge the status quo based on, you guessed it, the Constitution.

Before I come back to discuss your post in its entirety, I'd also like to point out to you that there are those things called "amendments to the constitution" which allowed Brown vs. BOE to even be welcomed in court.

michelin89:
CH₃COO^-, is not an acid but a mere ion, negative too!

Who stole your H⁺?

And even if you were an acid, you would still be so weak. I bet you can't even react when in contact with the almighty H₂SO₄! Ahahahaha! Poor thing!

Gamine stole my H+ . . . and you're wrong, I don't even know where to begin. Let's save that one for chemistry lecture.

While you ladies are at it, kindly post your ages too, pllease. It's for purposes of authenticity.

Orimili:
The creation of the US constitution, with the idea that All people were created equal, is the primary reason why you have a roof over your head. The constitution allowed people to fight for the rights that they already had, rights which were present in writing, which couldn't be denied. No acts, targeting specific groups, were necessary.

Take Affirmative Action for example. Ideally, this was to give minority groups equal opportunities in jobs, schools, etc. Mind you that this right is already present on page one of the US constitution. If anyone had a problem with it, the supreme court would let them know. Is such 'equality' the case today? Not at all. Affirmative action has caused further problems by shifting racism towards whites. That, my friend, is not equality, nor is it a curb on political corruption. You have succeeded in contradicting yourself.

Lol.  You literally got me rolling on the floor with this one.  Must I force it upon myself to hammer it into your head that Blacks weren't considered people, once upon a time ago.  The supreme court is fit to interprete the constitution the way "it sees" fit, not the way the people think it ought to be.  Bhaghat Thind Singh vs. the US. is a good example to show you that the supreme court does not always agree to the right decisions.  If you aren't considered a person there is nothing for you to fight for, and these so called inalienable rights that you rush to hug and embrace were not applicable to you.  The white man was dead set on not letting you have it.  The affirmative action you oppose, not that I have a problem with it, was instituted to slow down the educational imbalance that rendered Blacks into institutional confinement; and other minorities academically unqualified to proportionally enter certain schools.  It is the reason so many institutions have amended th eir rules of admission to take into effect several parts of a person's qualification, not just focusing on GPA. The contradiction is in your explication that it is not the job of the president to focus on Blacks, Asians, Whties, etc only to focus on on the whole. But you fail to realize that the whole is made up of these several parts.

Orimili:
Those Acts have caused more problems than they solved. You think that they actually curb political discrimination? Keep dreaming, if anything, they actually promote it further. What good has recognizing that the population are just different groups done?

That's about the silliest thing I've heard all day.  They have curbed more political discrimination than you can ever imagine. If you are persently residing in America, some of these acts have kept a roof over your head. Must I remind you of America's racist and slavery past?  It is a disrespect to all immigrants and civil libertarians to even suggest that those Acts have caused more problems than they solved.
Besides, you said it yourself, "recognizing that the population are different groups".  The country was founded upon this recognition of differences.  The purpose of most of the Acts are to correct that unstable foundation and to supress the oppression that was prevalent.  Without those rights you would never even be allowed in America, nor would you have a right to vote.  Stop dreaming, please.

Orimili:
Bullshit. NOLA has no place in this discussion, but I'll elaborate on that. Differentiation is exactly the reason for the slow response to Katrina. When you are catering to specific special interest groups and large corporations, rather than the American people, what is a "group of niggers" to you? Besides, there were also a sizable amount of white people in New Orleans around the time. Where was Bush for them? A person who is genuinely concerned about the American people WILL have seen Katrina as an issue that had to be attended to quickly. "All of the people" = saving Americans from a natural disaster. Your argument is invalid.

Ewo! That's stupid talk. It is every bit accurate. Nothing you presented nullifies my argument that Bush might have been hiding behind your impossible concept of focusing one immovable mirror on  "people of America" to seclude the people of NO.  The context in which you have chosen to present differentiation differs paramountly from the context I explained.  There's an overwhelming concentration of Black Americans residing in New Orleans hence the mendacious shouts of racism chanted by the Black public in expression of their condemnation of the way government handled the proceedings.  You don't know if Bush is racist.  Being the president doesn't cleanse you from being considered racist.  You may think the government is wholistically picking apart the problem of the people, but if you have one under-satisfied group among them it will lead to a big ass charade and loud outcry of racism that will spread in tantamount proportions to other parts of the country.  It doesn't take much to get Americans to start shouting racism; believe me, I know.  There's no such thing, yet, as an "evenly distributed" focus on all people.

God forbid it?  It's true and has happened in previous years.  It's the reason we have so many Acts in place; to curb all the outrageous madness of political discrimination.


My dissolution is not to favor one group over another.  Just recognize they are groups with different agendas.

This kind of chipped thought process is what exonerates presidents like Bush from being held tactically responsible for the horrors of Hurricane Katrina.  He was too busy worrying about other concerns of American people that he would rather leave the niggers to perish in their ghettos in NOLA.

"All of the people" have dis-similar needs.  Differentiation is necessary.

RedHotChic:
Question: Why the proliferation of Nigerian men online looking for a spouse when they have an overflow of their women at their doorstep?

Odefunmi! Quantity is not synonymous with quality. We are all in search of that golden gem to settle down with, aren't we?

Well, the difference between the two is that Cosby is not running for president of the United States. As the US president, your concern is not the concerns of black people, or the concerns of whites, asians, or specific races. Your concern is with the American people.

ten kobo junkie, what is so excellent about this contradictory statement?  How can you not be concerned about whites, asians, and other specific races but still boast to be concerned about targeting the needs of American people?  Who are the American people if not these people you have highlighted. These and many others groups are the people that comprise the American public, no?  Part of catering to the whole is addressing the needs of each group.  It is the responsibility of any U.S. president to understand and honor the diversity of this great nation.

lol.

Sisikill:
How love how we can talk about innocent childhood games and then shuck eh with mass fuckery, hymen breaking and gay sex in the next breath.

I don't know about you but I think it's a testament to how enlightened we are.

What else do you expect on nairaland. Without the sideline entertainments it would be very dull and boring. All this riff raff is just to paint it colorful.

Don't play victim.  See how you people abused him on page one. _{you should all fight}

kokoye:
Well now, everyone is enjoying the thread.

and some idiots (italian asewo michelin89 and jek_kad) asked if the poster was retarded for bringing it up.

you sef ya mouth sharp  

why cry?
Even if one sentence is zeroed on and blown out of proportion, it's well blown. If you're going to get married and still plan on entertaining thoughts of philandering about, why marry in the first place? Totally against the concept of marital sanctity and commitment.

Different strokes for different folks, whatever.

Isn't Uniben also one of 'the rest'? Am I missing something

As long as you let your wife know before you do it and she says it's okay.

Will Smith reckons it’s healthy to fancy other people when you're married and has no qualms telling his wife when he does.

The actor – who tied the knot with Jada Pinkett Smith 11 years ago – is determined to be honest about how he feels. ‘Our perspective is, you don’t avoid what’s natural and you’re going to be attracted to people,’ Will explains.

‘So sometimes we have the discussion: “Wow, this or that girl is freaking gorgeous”. I’m not going to say anything to my buddies that’s any different than what I say to my wife.’

And Will, 39, reckons he'll tell Jada - and she'll tell him - if they ever feel the need to have sex with others. Each will say: 'I’m not going to do it if you don’t approve of it,’ he says.

http://www.mediatakeout.com/25005/explosive_confession_will_smith_opens_up_to_uk_magazine_about_his_unorthodox_relationship_with_jada.html