₦airaland Forum

I understand that running a country is hard - but, compared to lots of other presidents, Bush has it easy. No matter what I may not like about the current government in Nigeria, I must admit they are doing pretty good with what they are working with and who is actually in it. Bush - is the president, his party rules the senate, and the house of representatives, the supreme court in the past ten years tends to rule towards the conservative side. This is one of the greatest times to be a republican president. And what good are we seeing come from that - very very little. I'm afraid that history will say that bush has squandered his presidency. There is so much that has happened, and so much that you can say is very well out of his control. But previous presidents have made a lot more progress against hostile opposition parties which were majority in the house or senate.

So, when we see this man taking a "vacation", yeah, we can understand that his job is a high stress job, we just don't think that he's been working hard enough to be stressed.

And sorry Vexxy, apparently I was still modifying my previous post while you were responding.

Huh, that doesn't make sense - saying that if Kanye's statements didn't hurt the victims, then it hurt them. That's like saying that since I didn't help a poor family starving in another country, I helped make sure they died. Or that because you didn't help stop the terrorists from getting onto a plane, you helped make the 9/11 attacks happen.

No, I don't think running a country is rubbish. However, the full time workers at the place I worked this summer don't get nearly the number of "vacations" president Bush seems to take. What do you think he was doing during Katrina? In DC working? Are you telling me he was so busy "running" the rest of the country, that Katrina just slipped his mind? This could have some vailidity if you could point to a general trend of good that Bush has done for this country. But I can't point to that. . .neither can Bush himself for that matter.

Aside for the bumbling idiot of a president - an evacuation plan would have places people could go for shelter? Not necessarily, an evacuation plan is just that, a plan to get people out, where they go, is still their problem. You can make places available, but it still depends on being able to get people there. There are plenty of logistical problems to such plans, but I won't attack here since you indicate that this is not what you meant.

As for what I've done, I've continued working hard in school - working towards my degree. The simple fact is, I have very little money with which I could do anything for anyone else. In fact, technically, at the moment, I have negative money. So, the best I can do is make sure I make the best of my education, so that in the future, I can have the resources to change the way things currently operate here (in the USA) and elsewhere (Nigeria is a great example) and slowly put an end to the foolishness that seems to permeate most of the upper levels in politics.

You're sad about seeing everyone make things racial . .hell, so am I. It doesn't change the fact that many things are. I'm not fully of the mind that Bush's sloth to action was racially motivated, but it is a pretty good suspect. As far as we being his own countrymen - bullshit. Nigerians will treat the brit or american tourist among them on average with more respect than their fellow countrymen. This is a characteristic of everyone, those who are closest to you tend to be treater worse. Not neccessarily a bad thing, but in this case, it was.

If only one percent of people of each race were racist - racism by whites is still a major problem in the United States for the simple reason that whites make up more than 75% of the population. I don't want to argue about racism or reverse racism here because we'll be on the same side for most issues, but there are times when there are few other (logical and reasonable) explanations.

Oh - I'm one of those who says Bush was slow to respond to 9/11. Maybe you've never seen the video of the man in florida reading some kids book with a class. The Secret Service guy steps up to him and whispers in his ear about the plane crashing into the tower. The man then stays in the classroom for a full 7 minutes before doing anything else. There was no HOLY SH*T, lets roll people, sorry kids, the president has to go. I'm sorry, but given the general competence that Bush tends to exude, each time something like this happens, it only further hurts him and makes it harder for you to say things like - well, maybe he was in shock or maybe he was strategizing with top officials. Cuz when the man opens his mouth, he says stupid things - and you know he actually means them.

Case in point - on a news channel a couple days ago - he's in TEXAS - yeah, his home state where he used to be GOVERNOR. He's asked a question about what he's doing down there. His response was something to this effect: I'm here learning about. . . about how the state government works and how they interact with the federal government. Yeah, I'm here studying this so I can know more.

WTF is that. . the man was a freaking state governor. . .he should KNOW how state government works. . not only should he know, he was in his own freaking state. The best I can come to saying that Bush shouldn't be held responsible: The man is an idiot - there is no way you could expect anything better from him.

while you raise interesting points which may be valid in many cases, there are still plenty of problems. I just wanted an answer to my original question, which you still didn't answer but now you've just opened a huge can of worms.

- Original question: How did Kanye's statement negatively affect the victims of Katrina.

Everything else you said:

- The telethon did not start right after Katrina hit, it started more than a week later - despite the fact that everyone knew how bad the devastation was after day 1. So, even though at the time of the telethon Bush might have been helping, he was doing rubbish until then. If he could get up in the middle of the night for a braindead woman. . . what about the entire city of New Orleans? Also, Bush was NOT in New Orleans - not in the way you implied - he was flying over it, but as far as doing anything, he might as well have been watching the same video we saw on TV.

- Now, I understand that people being trapped in that situation can be blamed on a number of factors such as a lack of emergency preparation, people not evacuating despite the fact they live in a place that begs to be flooded at the slightest chance of a huge storm, etc, etc. So, yeah, you could blame the mayor and the state. . . but you can't blame most of the people. . . I don't know about you, but for me to travel somewhere requires planning and money - booking the hotel in advance and money to pay for it. For the lots and lots of poor people in New Orleans. . where the f**k would they have gone and how the f**k would they have paid for it?

- Kanye's busy dropping a new CD while the people suffer - so because he's doing nothing at that time, he can't say s**t. . .umm, what have YOU done for Katrina victims - I'm betting I can easily prove Kanye has done more than the aggregate of everyone registered on this forum.

FEMA isn't a first responder program - how is this a defense? New Orleans needed aid - which you rightly claim FEMA is supposed to provide, did FEMA provide it, NO. So, what is the point of saying this?


Let's say you have a kid. You warn the kid that if they play with guns, people could get hurt. You then goto work leaving your glock lying on the table. Your kid picks it up and shoots his friend. Guess who bares the most responsibility - you. Guess who should be responding as soon as they found out someone was shot - adults in the community. So, if your neighbors hear a gunshot in your house and do nothing, you will want them to have some responsibility for not responding in time to possibly save the kids life. You too as well are responsibile for not locking up the gun, despite your warning to a kid.

The mayor of New Orleans is at fault, the state of Louisianna is at fault, FEMA, and Bush. You cannot seriously make an argument that any one of those groups/people do not in some way share the blame for what happened before, during and after Katrina.

Now that we've established blame, the next thing to consider is motivation - you can blame the parent for being careless, but if the parent has left their gun unlocked lots of times before w/o any consequences - then you could say - they were lulled into a false sense of security. Bush on the other hand has not been this kind of slow responder - 7 minutes to respond to 9/11 (minutes, not days), quick to declare war on Iraq, quick to send millions to the tsunami disaster areas (within a couple days) and you want to seriously suggest to me that there was nothing wrong with waiting a week or more before actively doing anything for Katrina victims - BULLSHIT

So, what is it about this situation that makes Mr GW Bush's response different? The biggest thing that stands out - most victims are African American. Now, before you start anything about victim's of the tsunami not being waspish. . . just make sure you come with something good. . .

thanks for your honest answer, changes my esteem for ppl a little :-)

umm Vexxy. . . how did Kanye's statements "hurt" the victims of Katrina?

The gist of what Kanye was saying rings true in a lot of ways - and it's always better to have truth out in the open right?

Anyway, assuming that there is no way of being sure whether or not what he said is/was true, or even assuming that what he said was totally false - how did it hurt the victims?

I can provide at least one benefit to the victims: It would motivate bush to show he is helping to disprove what kanye said.

So, when you were dating this guy who was sleeping from couch to couch, you were saying to yourself, this is a relationship I see going somewhere?

Or were you thinking, you know, if he gets his own place, we might become serious.

Or was it, if this becomes serious, he can come live with me.

Or you were just dating for fun?

I ask because I find it hard to believe anyone would seriously date a homeless guy

that is my point. . .

from the child's point of view, they wonder why you are forcing them to do something they feel is not right.

there are plenty of rooms that could fit this problem,

for example, 109 upside down looks like 601, 119 - 611. All are valid rooms.

Well, most people can bypass this issue entirely. . . at least in the US Army. In the US Army, if you are a conscientious objector to killing - ie it doesn't have to be just religion based, you may be against it for other reasons, while you may still be required to serve (in the case of a draft) or you can still choose to serve, you will not be put in combative roles. You will serve the army in roles where you will not be killing or potentially killing someone else.

As I'm sure many of you know, there are a lot of jobs in an army that do not require handling weapons.

there is a similar one where the nun says remember some other passage which reads:

ask and it shall be given unto you

umm. . wow. . . my ppl need more math. .

the lowest common multiple of 24 and 48 is rightly 48.
the highest common factor of 24 and 48 is 24 - 24 is a factor of itself.

factors of 24: 1,24, 2,12, 3,8,4,6
factors of 48, 1,48, 2,24, 3,16, 4,12, 6,8

you guys sure learned weird ways of doing stuff. . .

umm Seun. . i still think ppl think this is for real

there is a difference between a second wife and a mistress

. . . reverse question - what if your kid says to you, "I am straight" and you try to force them to date other ppl of the same sex. . . how do you expect your child to react?

Ok. .. so, other than the posts dealing with Seun's statement, please indicate any which may have shown some sort of sexual bias.

I didn't say the couple would get divorced; my comments were focused for those not yet in love, so, my question to you is:

Would you date a homeless man? Simple yes or no.

no point in a nigerian linux distro, or at least, nobody has brought up and good reasons why we should have one.

it is not wise to love a homeless man either. . .so what are you saying?

i can block ppl by ip address in windows - just a hell of a lot harder to do. No matter how security focused linux is, someone either has to set up the security or your machine has to be preconfigured. For the average computer user, if you get a linux box preconfigured for maximum security, they will be severely limited online because they won't know what to do. If they get a box that isn't configured for max security, then they will be open to attacks. There is no default security settings that work for everyone. Since security is something that people need to configure, and there is no easy way to do it without a lot of knowledge about your system, linux and windows are both crap when it comes to that for the average user.

Where windows succeeds is having an intuitive interface for ppl who have never used a computer before. Not only is it intuitive, it's also geared for non technical ppl. I don't mind sitting at a command prompt and hacking away, my mom - no way. Linux heads need to stop trying to prove they are better and work on actually getting better in the sector that most computer users actually care about.

actually, most people here answered the question for children - not daughters. The reason there was talk specifically about female children is because of Seun's post. So, there isn't any sexual bias in this discussion yet.

are we talking about the ideal world or the real world

Ideal world: love has nothing to do with money

- that is because everyone has all the money they want, everything they could possibly want they could get for themselves, anything they want to enjoy they can, except one thing, the love of another person

Real world: love has a lot to do with money

- most girls will not date a guy who is broke and living on the street with only one pair of shoes, you barely will give the bum money, let alone love

i was not saying that only geeks use Linux, I'm saying that only geeks have the kind of knowledge necessary to secure linux. . .and if they were using windows, they have the ability to secure it too. So, for the rest of people, who use both, Linux and windows have the same level of security.

Linux isn't that much more secure than Windows. I seriously hate when people go around making such false (or better misleading) statements.

What linux has over windows is an ability to fully secure your system by providing access to all OS functions - a functionality which is limited in Windows since it is proprietary technology.

However, you can secure your windows machine, server, or network to the point where only hackers of very very high sophistication who spend countless hours studying and attacking your system could break.

The same applies to linux. If you run your machine always logged in as the root user with programs that have open ports and can be remotely accessed and manipulated, a hacker can compromise your machine too.

If linux was in use by the typical user the way windows is, it would have just as many security problems. The main reason linux seems so secure is that its main core of users are computer literate. . in fact, you almost have to be in order to use linux comfortably. Windows - you don't need to know that much to use it.

For this reason, Windows will continue to thrive and while linux may see more adoption in enterprise and government applications, the typical user will still be a Windows or Mac (OS) user.

Now, as far as having a nigerian distro . . . what would be the point or advantage of having a special nigerian distro? It seems meaningless to me. If you want a Nigerian branded distro, you don't need to be that much of a genius or need that many people to create one, just replace start screens with Nigerian themed ones, etc. Same OS and function, just a different color.

I don't know if linux heads realize this, but Linux is moving towards becoming more like windows. In order to attract a huge base of customers, distros have to hide more and more of the base functionality and create a guis for the OS. I predict that within 10 years, Linux will essentially exist as an open source version of windows. In fact, there will be no linux or windows, or mac os and just a mishmash of the good aspects of all of them.

So, while windows, mac, and linux bash each other now, soon, all of you will be in the same boat. . .

Sometimes, the world seems so silly.

Did God intend for you to tithe by giving to the poor or needy? That is a simple question to answer: NO.

umm, while i find this thread an interesting read, I must note something disturbing. . .

essentially, the question posted which starts this thread is a rhetorical one, Nigeria's problems are large enough that we should treat is as a viable threat to the future stability of our country.

I can understand the need to defend the country and correctly indicate that we don't have it as bad as others think or as bad as others do, however, unless I'm mistaken, this is moving away from the original intent of the thread.

The original intent was to acknowledge that Nigeria has serious problems and propose solutions. Arguing the relative violence or lawlessness of Nigeria to other countries in similar or worse situations seems stupid to me.

If I have two very rotten apples in my fridge, I do not weigh the relative rotteness of the two to decide which to eat, I simply throw them both away.

maybe its just me but i see the topic reads Dr. (Mrs.) Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala. This suggests to me that she is married (a la the Mrs.). If she is good enough for her husband, then she requires no makeover because she has no real reason to impress anyone else physically.

Also, some of you have said that love should be unconditional

BTW Seun, good example, though still slightly wrong - a mom's love for her baby is not unconditional


There is only one love that is unconditional - God's love, everyone else has conditions

There is a couple ways to interpret/reasons for this:

1) God's love is for everyone, technically, we should love everyone, since we don't, our love is unconditional (BTW, we are ignoring the fact that the love we've been talking about is romantic love - and therefore cannot really be compared to God's love for us, or a mother's love for her child, or a brother's love for his siblings, etc

2) Hmm, this kinda goes back to #1, but - the fact that there is ONE person you are suggesting we should love unconditionally means there are lots of other people we don't love as well. Even iff we ignore that what I said in #1 is true, there is still a problem. The problem is the answer to this question: Why do you love person A and not person B. Any answer to that question would be of the form - there are more things about person A that I like than there are about person B. Well, if you love unconditionally, it means you love everything about person A. Unless person A is an alien or not a human being, they will have something in common with person B. So, by definition, for you to love one person unconditionally, you will have to love everyone unconditionally. Since this is not the case, ipso facto, we've proven that you cannot have unconditional romantic love for another person.

Love may be unconditional, but marriage is a contract. If it is my goal to father 2 sons, and my gf who I've been planning to marry tells me that under no conditions will she have any children and after trying a while, there is no way I can change her mind, then the relationship is over. There is no other reasons I love my gf that would compensate for my not having my kids. I can't understand how people think that once you love someone, nothing else should matter. . .its like these people live in worlds of their own. . . which would make them extremely selfish people or extremely naive.


Anyway, the guy said he's tried talking to the girl about her weight and his words fall on deaf ears.

xx

Jesus does say "render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to God what is God's"