DemonSlayer's Posts
Nairaland Forum › DemonSlayer's Profile › DemonSlayer's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 (of 25 pages)
Politics! 😂😂 |
attackgat:No be Gadus be that? ![]() At first glance, if you're anything like me and my brothers on this thread, you might assume this poster is just another scam designed to stir emotion and guilt-trip unsuspecting oyinbo people into donating their hard-earned pounds. But if you're also like me, you'd take a closer look—examine the fine print, the format, the messaging. And that’s when you’ll notice something interesting: the mention of debt. So, what’s the connection? Here it is: Nigeria’s debt burden has skyrocketed in recent years. In the 2024 budget, over 50% of government revenue was allocated to debt servicing, while education received less than 10%. The more our debt grows, the larger the share of revenue required to service it, leaving even less for critical sectors like education, which means more out of school children and a worsen educational system. A portion of Nigeria’s foreign debt comes from UK commercial banks, the probable lenders referred to in the poster, who charge high interest rates. Now, take another look at the poster—it includes a petition link and a QR code. The call to action? Sign a petition for debt cancellation. On the surface, that doesn’t sound like a bad idea. But here’s the real issue: corruption. A significant portion of Nigeria’s foreign loans is stolen or mismanaged through a corrupt system. So, the critical question isn’t just whether debt cancellation would free up funds for education. It’s whether it would actually lead to greater investment in education—or simply enable a corrupt government to secure even more loans, only for the funds to disappear again. So, oyinbo before rushing to sign that petition, ask yourselves: Does debt relief solve the root problem, or does it just reset the cycle? |
iLegendd: ![]() This scenario is amazingly far fetched. You might have to contract boko haram to kidnap all 200+ million of us and force us to learn this new language, if not, kole werk! ![]() It's a nice but impractical idea. |
Waste of energy and impractical! Common new-old national anthem I have not learned, is it a whole new language that I'll learn? Do you know there are more English speakers in China than in England? |
Kaiser20:I believe you. Many European countries have a higher quality of life than the US. |
Xvideos go feel am! ![]() Religious country my arse! The government is being too intrusive—we’re not Afghanistan. I believe that many Nigerian pôrnõgraphic content creators are making money from that industry—money that constitutes foreign capital inflow. What about these sites drive data consumption, which means more revenue for telcos and eventually more government revenue from tax from telcos. Let’s objectively weigh the benefits and costs before implementing policies, and not be driven by sentimentality. Nigeria is a secular state, after all; any religious person is free to choose not to consume pòrnógraphy. They don’t need state support—they need the Holy Ghost! |
Kaiser20:You mean standard of living? |
I'm just curious what Trump's ultimate game plan is because I find it hard to believe he's actually as foolish as he projects. What's he really trying to achieve by isolating the US? |
Kaiser20:What does Europe have? |
Winnin009:What do you expect from a propaganda account? ![]() |
WriterNig:I don't support Trump nor his policies, but this comment is very misleading. 1. A single click will not throw the entire U.S. into darkness—this is an extreme exaggeration. While some states, such as New York, Michigan, and Minnesota, import electricity from Ontario, the OP mentions only 3 states. The U.S. has 50 states with a highly diversified power grid. The U.S. grid integrates multiple energy sources (nuclear, coal, natural gas, hydro, and renewables) before distributing power to consumers, meaning Canadian electricity accounts for only a small fraction of total supply. A surcharge on Canadian electricity might increase costs, but it would not cause entire states to go dark, not to talk of the entire country as you suggest. 2. Canada is not the biggest player in the region, the OP said Canada is more dependent on American exports than the other way round. The US economy is about $25 trillion while Canada's is at around $2 trillion, so the US economy is roughly 10 to 12 times larger. Most of Canada's exports, about 70-75%, goes to the US, meaning Canada relies a lot on American buyers, but the US, with its many trading partners, doesn't depend on Canada as much and has several other trading partners to turn to, that means Canada will suffer more in a trade war with the US, just as the OP has rightly stated. What Canada might do is to woo other partners, and be less dependent on the US, which will be more expensive logistically speaking. Trading with your partner across the border is smarter and cheaper than trading with someone across the ocean, you might lose competitive advantage when you include shipping costs and other logistics. All said, like I've said before, and will reiterate, Trump's foreign policy will ultimately have a significant negative impact on the American economy. |
jesusjnr2020:If God, Adam and Eve are all white, where we from come, we brown people of Africa? |
Ilamina:Make videos about how you're an awful failure that can't get anything right and post on YouTube, it's a whole genre there. You'll get all the pity you want and possibly make some money while at it. |
Cutezt:I'm not an Akpabio supporter—in fact, I dislike the man. I used to like Natasha, but for the sake of setting the record straight, we shouldn't ignore the key differences between Natasha’s situation and Akpabio’s during Saraki’s tenure. At the time Saraki indicted Akpabio, there was no enforced sitting arrangement. If you watch the full video, Senator Lawan gave a lengthy speech on the need to establish and enforce a structured seating arrangement in accordance with Senate rules. Saraki agreed and instructed that a structure be drafted—but this happened after the Akpabio incident. Another key difference is how Akpabio handled the aftermath of his outburst. Despite his initial foolish reaction, he allowed himself to be calmed by colleagues, who persuaded him to apologize to the Senate on the same day, during the same sitting. Both Akpabio and Natasha acted rashly, but unlike Akpabio, Natasha continues to insist she was in the right. Despite being given ample time to apologize and multiple attempts—both within and outside the Senate—to mediate and resolve the issue, she has refused to back down. That the case of sexual harassment only came up after the threat of punishment for contravening the Senate standing rules raises concerns about the timing and motivation behind the allegation. The fact that it surfaced only after she faced consequences for violating Senate rules suggests that it may have been a strategic move rather than a genuine pursuit of justice. While it doesn’t automatically mean the claim is false, but the timing makes it harder to separate legitimate grievances from political tactics, in this case, an intentional deflection of attention away from her misbehavior to Akpabio's alleged advances. |
Ilamina:And what will the pity do for you? |
Morbeta11: |
You vandalize and set a car on fire, so what? Lame. E be like say you don change your director. Lame, boring concept. Still love your art bro, from day 1. |
purples25:I'm glad it didn't cause resentment between you. Some women might see living in such a harsh neighborhood as a result of their husband's inability to provide a better quality of life. That kind of resentment could poison the relationship, making them even more miserable. I'm glad it never reached that point for you. |
purples25:Always insightful to read your personal stories. Sorry for the awful experience in that neighbourhood. How has this situation affected your relationship with your husband? I'm curious. |
Mercisharelove:Did you plan your life before birth? |
Ilamina:What exactly do you want us to do with this information? Pity you? |
Head of HR—a whole Head of HR oo—yet seems out of touch with their own terms of service and procedures? Doesn't know if his office is the proper channel of communication or not. You're responsible for personnel management, where do you think their letters should follow. Continue grappling in the dark for answers and asking random internet people, this man will chop correct damages on your head and he'll deserve every naira of it because he did his homework and you're looking to copy answers. |
What stands out about Natasha’s modus operandi is her power of bluff. I should clarify that this analysis of her personality is purely hypothetical. I don’t know Natasha personally, so my assessment is based solely on her public actions—assuming, of course, that this letter is legitimate. Natasha is the kind of person who, if offended, will drag the matter into the public eye with a lawsuit. But her real weapon isn’t the lawsuit itself—it’s the reputational damage, or the mere threat of it, that makes it effective. She is adept at playing the victim, fully aware that public opinion tends to favor an "injured" woman, especially one perceived as attractive. This brings to mind the case of Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. Depp endured years of abuse while Heard meticulously laid traps, collecting "evidence" in preparation for an eventual public lawsuit. When Depp finally threatened to expose her, she reportedly taunted him, saying: "Tell them, 'I, Johnny Depp, am a victim of domestic abuse'... and see how many people believe or side with you." I’ve come to recognize a pattern in how some women wield defamation as a post-relationship litigation strategy. Natasha’s letter is filled with serious accusations but offers little to no supporting evidence. The emotionally reactive mind won’t stop to question this lack of proof before jumping to vilify the accused—that’s the real potency of this tactic. We have the letter, we have the claims, but we have no evidence. And that’s where the story ends. Here’s a list of the accusations and the evidence that remains conspicuously absent: 1. Poisoning/Feticide Allegation - No toxicology reports - No medical documentation - No police reports - No witness statements from others at the dinner 2. Assault Claims -No medical reports documenting injuries - No photographs of injuries - No police reports - No third-party witness statements 3. Financial Loss/Appropriation - No bank records showing transfers - No loan agreements - No business contracts or partnership documents - No evidence of consulting work performed 4. Imprisonment/Servitude Claims - No police reports - No witness statements - No documentation of restricted movement 5. Ectopic Pregnancy & Related Injuries - No medical records - No hospital documentation - No physician statements 6. Loss of Business Opportunities - No contract terminations documented - No evidence of external interference in her business affairs 7. Forced Cohabitation - No evidence of coercion in living arrangements 8. Armed Guards Restricting Movement - No witness statements - No photographic or video evidence If this man is truly the monster she portrays, why did she agree to marry him after everything she claims he put her through? |
Pharaoh4rin:.. |
I've grown to dislike this woman over the course of this case. Her stubbornness is of the most foolish kind—causing all this drama simply because of her overblown ego. It was an absolutely legitimate request to change her seats, yet she chose to put on a public display of irrationality. Were you the only one whose seat was changed? No. Yet somehow, you're the only one claiming to be sexually harassed and bullied. You acted foolishly—rather than apologizing and moving on, you dragged your personal baggage with the SP into the matter. If you have receipts, publish them and put an end to these antics. But no, you’d rather play the victim. Take your suspension in silence and stop disturbing the peace. This is not the kind of representation women in politics need. It only reinforces the misogynistic belief that giving a woman a little power leads to unnecessary drama and confusion. Meanwhile, we have women like Prof. Moji Adeyeye risking their lives to safeguard ours, yet it's this one, with all her theatrics, who gets the most attention. |
Which one be Lamba-di again? Abeg park one side! |
E don dey sub, WWIII loading... world don dey end. |
Samantha125:That makes sense, and it’s an interesting perspective. I can see how a woman who has become addicted to the validation and admiration that comes from projecting an image of marital bliss—being every lady's "couple goals"—would fight to preserve that. I think many tie the apparent success of their relationship to their self-worth and desirability, so when it falls apart, it can feel like a personal failure. That said, a woman who gets cheated on often has the world's sympathy. In her best interest, she could choose to throw her husband and his "small chops" under the bus of public opinion, further eliciting pity for herself. It doesn't even matter who she's calling out, as long as she's the victim. That’s the strategy I think is at play here. The side piece is trending? Perfect—let me use the opportunity to get my 15 minutes of fame by crying foul while posting the hottest picture in my gallery. I’m a survivor. |
Samantha125:Yes, but why is that? Why the preference to confront the side piece instead of the husband? Share your perspective on what the reason could be. To my mind, it all comes down to resource guarding. What the husband supplies is what gives him value. When an outsider is perceived as a threat to that source of resource—whether she arrived through seduction or entirely by the man's initiative—the instinctive response is to fight off the intruder and secure what is yours. Turning against the source of resources could risk pushing him farther out of your territory, which is why the focus remains on eliminating the perceived competition. I don’t think women fight over men because of any genuine, deep love for their partners, but rather due to a primal, territorial instinct tied to resource protection; to remain the sole beneficiary of all that the man can supply. Did you notice how fixated the wife is on the jewelry her husband gave the side piece that she felt was supposed to be hers? That is possibly more painful to her than all the intercourse the two must of had. At the end of the day, why fight the supplier and risk completely losing what he supplies if you can secure it for yourself alone? Which you're not likely to achieve by simply sitting your husband down and giving him a piece of your mind. That’s my take—what’s yours? |
Samantha125:Good point. It doesn’t sound like she’s sparing him, though—she called both of them out. Why do women get upset with the side chick while letting their husband off the hook? Let’s look at it this way: Imagine a business has a very valuable employee who generates huge profits, and other businesses naturally try to poach him. When that employee is successfully poached by another company, wouldn’t we expect the original business to be more upset with their competitor, the poacher, than the poached? The employee is still potentially valuable and they wouldn't want to risk permanently alienating him, the competition is still the competition and remains a real threat, worthy of attack. |
What do you mean by faith in God exactly? Belief that God exists? Belief in a religion that brokers your access to the Divine? Belief that you'll have a good life guaranteed by the Divine's particular interest in you? |
ItisWell22:You make a very sensible point, I'm wont to believe that's the case too; a publicity stunt and nothing more. The whole thing is ridiculous. |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 (of 25 pages)

Life has two sides, now and after