₦airaland Forum

rezzy:
@Kimoni , welcome back. I really missed your contributions

Sagamite:
Kimoni, and you will say that Isale Oko Primary School, Remo Secondary School and Sagamu Institute of Technology did not produce a genius!

https://www.nairaland.com/2940812/hardest-challenge-ever#43209638

Mo gbona fele fele.

sayoberry:
rice as want to finish o

beedam:
Kimoni fit chop ban as she is all over NL but mytestimony no dey pass here.

uprightman:
I am here to say Thanks to @kimoni .There is advise you give me by 5:53pm July 20 2015.I thought about it and i made a move. This is the outcome of that advise: </href>http:///1UR5ls. http://www.uhuakpu.com

I wrote this to make people understand that God can use any body as mouth piece. God can speak through anyone. But the problem is you may ignore it because you don't expect advise from such person.I pray that God will bless every good thing you put your hand this year. In Jesus Christ name. Amen.

damiso:
He is not the government so should not be BLAMED for under development. Governments are accountable for infrastructure and economic/growth of regions they oversee.


That said, ( without using the over used Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates analogy) wealthy black people need to feel a sense of responsibility to give back. Yeah you worked hard( not always sef some wealthy people in Nigeria made mega big bucks with some sort of govt patronage/monopoly/influence ) for your money and its your right to spend it how you wish but I don't get how people are comfortable having soooo much ( half of which you don't even NEED) in the midst of so much squalor and poverty. In the west it is possible to be insulated from poverty to an extent if you are very rich ,but in Nigeria except you are ferried around in helicopters all the time it will confront one way or the other from time to time.

Give me 10 Tai Solarins anyday to certain 'rich,powerful, and influential' Nigerians.

TV01:
...that ain't no weakness bro'...not unless you act recklessly as a result

TV

TV01:
Why not? That is the nature of a comprehensive union - such as the one of Will and Kate, whose vows I noted in my initial post on this thread.

My only beef is with the concept of no-fault divorce. If the woman wants to stay, but the man insists on leaving her, where she has done no wrong, certainly. If however, she just wants to leave, and he has done nothing wrong, certainly not, and vice-versa (depending on who is the main source of the wealth, which by marriage becomes communal).

She should get 50%, then a further percentage as punishment, then a lien placed on any future earnings and further garnishing of his pension .

A40:
Sorry to butt in but are you implying that the man does not have a role to play in raising these kids? What compensation is due the man for his efforts and who pays it? Women pay for sex too you know. Unless there is clear evidence that she was actually earning money before you people met I don't see how her marriage could be explained as a potential impediment. She could get a job or a thriving business before getting married as any other reasonable person would do

Only a greedy person would demand half of the property of someone he or she wants nothing to do with. I'm not of the opinion that either spouse gets nothing in the event of a divorce but by God not 50%

Do you believe Elin is entitled to half Tiger Woods wealth? Or I married Serena and we broke up 10years down the line am I entitled half her money?

damiso:
Don't mind me jare.


Keeping up santa is work joor someone has to be wrapping presents in the night after they have slept, be hiding gift all around so lets just get it over and done with ojare.

Fun room is so quiet. Everyone is chasing that paper abi is it pepper. Abeg make una share reach my side

Timbuktou:
I'm just a sweet guy. I was born in a honeycomb. Any woman who marries stands the risk of suffering diabetes.

Kimoni, you missed.

Sagamite:
Fck me!

You still don't get it?

Divorce settlements is not about judges looking at what any party benefited from the union.

They don't (and should not) give a fck if you benefited or not.

If you like, let them fck you well in marriage, if you like, make dem no fck you well. That na your wahala.

They are there to divide the financial assets made.

So how should they divide that sensibly?

By actually contribution or but some lunacy of assumption?

taryour:
Eyan mi nothing do you jor. Open your face jare. I perfectly understand o. Trust me i really do. How you doing and all yours? And * Y * also.

taryour:
Mama bawo ni, How family and work? Eku ojo meta.

RoyalRoy:
[color=#000033] Lmao.....I have been observing them since ystday. Seems their reggae don dey turn to blues o!!!
Lmao. [/color]

Timbuktou:
Lol. I'm truly unavailable though.

Timbuktou:
My babe na Mopol o, biko don't put me in trouble. Abeg, I can't do frog jump till daybreak o.

Sagamite:
Why can't the state establish the utility both partners "bring" (not derived) to the union?

What is so hard about that?

You used "derived". You are mistaken. The courts are not there to compensate on they utility derived from the union. They are there to separate the financial utility contributed to the union.

And why do the states have to share such 50:50 when they can establish each's contribution?

baby124:
Please stop trying to discuss sense to someone who is hell bent on not seeing it. Find something else to do with your time abeg. He does not have anything to say, he doesn't even know what marriage means. He needs to calm down and understand carefully what it means to be married and its attendant responsibilities. Ladies reading, thread carefully and enter with your eyes wide open abeg. There are human beings and men like TV alive. That's all from me on this matter. If you vex untop wetin I write.
I no kuku call anybody name or their Sagamu village in this write up. So if pepper body de hotting you. Continuooo.
As for me, 50:50 of what I can see all the way. We all know everyone hides what they can and only discloses what they can afford to lose. So who is fooling who. Hehe. But the law is clear that the property must be shared. . Anybody that does not like it can bury themselves in a swamp with a ton of weights holding them down.

Sagamite:
The question is why should he face that potential liability or risk?

No, the state cannot force people to marry anyone but in an event where there is a dispute between couples and the state cannot readily establish the utility both partners derived from each other during the course of the union or the worth of the alternatives they both had to forgo, how best does the state share their combined assets other than a ratio that nearly equates to 50:50?

Sagamite:
Why do Nigerian women sign the piece of paper when they know they can be thrown out with just the clothes on their back and a few peanuts?

There is some utility they are benefiting from marriage, so if that happens to them it is okay.

If they sign it, then if that happens, then that is their fault and we should accept it that way.

Why do they even sign the paper with a Nigerian man knowing the risk of them being beaten up and he having multiple concubines?

Why do they now open their stuuuupid mouth to complain when those happen to them?

I am just appplying your logic here.

Sagamite:


What is not logical about marriage?

Are you saying people like Dangote should only fall in love with other billionaires? That is your justification for moronic laws? The state should put up laws that force people to marry certain types of people, not who they are attracted to?

Is it China or even North Korea?

Do you know what a "legal partnership" is? How is marriage a "legal partnership"?

njokusboy:
So you no know say we be misogynist before?
We have also been called bitter, frustrated and heartbroken... anywhere you see frustrated NL males in dis section, na we be dat oh

njokusboy:
It's amazing how somme people think a man's hard earned money automatically become theirs becos they signed a piece of paper proclaiming them man and wife...
What sort of mentality is dat

ronald4lif:
Hahaha, I dey laugh o, like Baba Sege.

A fool and his money is easily parted. What did he expect before venturing into the state sanctioned legal enslavement christened marriage, even moreso without acceding to a pre-nup.

The institution called marriage is nothing but a humbug designed to tyrannize, enthral and limit human's unflinched right to freedom, independence and social liberty. It's scripted to be lopsided on both sides and financially advantageous to women. What is more depressing is the fact that Western liberal left politicians keeps pandering to women's demand for higher alimony defrayals.

The idea that one party has to forfeit a huge chunk of their hard earned wealth to another, is obdurate, cruel and despicable in all ramifications. For fvck sake a man's acquisition is theirs and shouldn't be tempered with even after a divorce. This is a clear act of banditry and must be condemned by not only the male folk but by everyone who believes in justice and fair play.

After a split everyone should move on with their individual assets and the only hinged interest should be the welfare of the kids. For humanity sake, no be me born you. Whoever enacted alimony legislation must have been mentally imbalanced and a p*ssy. What a sick world we dwell in.

veave:
Welcome to my world. I'm 27. No date no relationship. No friends. I'm nice to everyone both male and female. But as soon as a guy picks interest in me, I become rude, abusive and aggresive to him. No matter how hard I try to be nice I just can't be. When he finally leaves I start wondering why I put up all the attitude in the first place. I wonder if I'll ever get married.

mummy2be:
beedam been ages o,where u enter?abi oga don knack u another shot ni,hows my son?regards