₦airaland Forum

carefreewannabe:
Polygamy is not African?

Polygamy embodies Africa as a whole in itself. It is what makes us African.

One man - many wives.

One woman - One husband or remain single.

TIA = This Is Africa!

carefreewannabe:
Obviously.

My three husbands say so too.

Abomination!

That is disgusting, sinful and unAfrican. It should be banned!

lalasticlala:
The burial of the late Dr Ifeanyichukwu Nwobodo, the first son of former civilian governor of old Anambra State, Chief Jim Ifeanyichukwu Nwobodo, scheduled to hold yesterday in Enugu State was aborted following the disappearance of the deceased’s corpse, LEADERSHIP Weekend gathered.

It was gathered that the two younger brothers of the deceased (Chukwudi and Uso) kept the corpse away from the reach of anybody when it became apparent that the former governor wanted the remains of his late son to be interred within the compound of a new bungalow he built in honour of his first son who died on November 14, 2014.

It was also gathered that Chukwudi and Uso, Jim’s surviving two sons from Mukosolu, his first wife, argued that if their elder brother was buried outside their father’s expansive house at Amaechi Awkunanaw, they would be denied the right to inherit the family house.

Several dignitaries including the deputy senate president, Ike Ekweremadu, Senator Gil Nnaji, Dr Nnia Nwodo and former governor of Anambra State, Mr Peter Obi, who came to commiserate with Chief Nwobodo left after failing to broker peace between the chief mourner and his two sons.

As at the time of filing in this report late yesterday, the duo of Chukwudi and Uso were yet to resolve the nagging issue of the appropriate place to inter the remains of the late Ifeanyichukwu Nwobodo jnr.

It was gathered that before yesterday’s incident, concerned elders of Amaechi Awkunanaw community had pleaded with the Nwobodos to resolve their differences to no avail.

When Chief Nwobodo reportedly concluded plans to bury his late son outside the family compound, Chukwudi and Uso drove to the mortuary and removed the corpse of their late brother to an unknown place.

source:

http://leadership.ng/news/393266/nwobodos-sons-corpse-missing-burial-postponed#respond

I love this story.

Please more mishap for this fuuktard crook.

kingthreat:
You cretinous cuntt. You have begun with your sacrilegious runts again

You are a cretinous fuuktard!

Your God is a cuntt.

jennykadry:
From like it will enter love. madam keep your emotions in check....I know I know...some things sagamilo sagamite says can be a turn on for some women...that's why the likes of Efemenaxy and busybody2 have decided not to back off

carefreewannabe:

Jenny darling, you wives fight too much, I am too sensitive to enter such a disharmonious .... er ... union.

EfemenaXY:
Don't let Jenny discourage you jor. It's way better to be one of his "favoured" wives than to be a side chick.
At least you'll get your very own mud hut, specially built by Sagamite himself. Now if that isn't a good perk, then I don't know what else is

Ladies, please lets practice polygamy in unity, harmony and the respects it deserves in society.

We all know it is the best form of marriage.

EnlightenedSoul:
That's just it. It doesn't apply to everyone. This: "...decides to pass a law banning EVERYONE from wearing make-up, wearing skirts, having long hear, wearing accessories and wearing any shoe with more than one-and-a-half inch hill in public, that is not a sexist law because it applies to everyone, according to your woman's logic? " ...applies to women.

Amsorry?

Are you saying there are no men interested in wearing high heels, accessories, skirts, having long hair, wearing accessories and make up?

Are you drowning in the ediot's ocean?

https://s3-ak.buzzfeed.com/static/campaign_images/webdr02/2013/6/14/10/4-of-drag-queen-latrice-royales-most-amazing-perf-1-17610-1371219274-17_big.jpg https://naijamayor.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Charly-Boy-b.jpeg

EnlightenedSoul:
A pescatarian actually. Much better than eating red-meat, and wayyy better than eating bones might I add



So that you tried to correlate MONEY with FEMALE PRODUCTS whilst claiming that your imaginary law would "apply to EVERYONE", doesn't suggest an extreme deficit, or complete and utter lack of comprehension on your part?

Open your eyes. You're no longer rafting, you're drowning



Because marriage is a legal contract. Everything brought into the marriage becomes an asset. So, unless you take certain steps, it is marital property! Why?

(1) Because not only are vows are taken in presence of witnesses (thereby already making it a verbal contract), but additionally, (2) in order to be legally married, a legal marriage license (*cough* written contract) is obtained from the government to recognize the union, and confer upon it the various rights, benefits, and protections marital status affords. Furthermore, (3) if/when a breach of contract occurs, either party has the right to take the other to civil COURT for it. (4) In order to sever the contract in the eyes of the law and government, the couple must go through a legal divorce. (5) In the event of such divorce, the aforementioned assets are divided, just as they are with the severance of any contract wherein assets were involved.

I will come to the rest of your rubbish latter, otherwise the ocean you are in would become too big for people to see and I like people seeing.

Find him and kill the fuuktard!

Pendusky, here is a place to take you mother if anything goes wrong. Not Germany, it is not meant for peeps like you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLUE45C6vOo

Dumb Monkeys.

Everything is a miracle and always looking for "miracle". It is the white man that has made us a shithole.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLUE45C6vOo

Bunsky:
God have exposed you.

So God was sitting on his heavenly arsse until he milked £100K out of people?

soroptimist:
JONATHAN AND ABACHA'S SON IN A CLOSE-DOOR MEETING


President Goodluck Jonathan on Friday met behind closed-door with Mohammed Abacha, a son of a former Head of State, the late Gen. Sani Abacha, on issues suspected to bother on the forthcoming primaries of the Peoples Democratic Party.

Abacha is a governorship aspirant of the PDP in Kano State.

Governorship primaries of the party hold nationwide on Monday.

At the end of the meeting held at the Presidential Villa, Abuja, the aspirant told State House correspondents that he was confident that the PDP would recover its stolen mandate from the All Progressives Congress in the state during the 2015 general elections.

He said he was hopeful that he would clinch the party’s ticket.

“We are hopeful; I wouldn’t want to say too much. I said it before that it was a PDP state; it was a PDP ticket. It was taken or converted or even stolen; whatever you want to call it, so be it. The chances of the PDP are still bright,” he said.

It will be recalled that the Federal Government had in June withdrawn the N446.3bn theft charges instituted against the younger Abacha.

The government had preferred the nine counts of stealing against him in February 2014.

The prosecution accused Abacha of unlawfully receiving about N446.3bn allegedly stolen from government’s coffers between 1995 and 1998.

Government later asked Justice Mamman Kolo of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, in Wuse Zone 2, Abuja, to strike out the charges on the grounds of “fresh facts” that just emerged concerning the case.

The government’s decision attracted criticisms from individuals and groups.

Those who flayed the action included prominent Lagos lawyers – Femi Falana, Jiti Ogunye, Fred Agbaje and Femi Aborisade – as well as the Chairman of the Coalition Against Corrupt Leaders, Mr. Debo Adeniran; and his Civil Society Network Against Corruption counterpart, Mr. Lanre Suraj.

While some of the lawyers argued that the government action had serious negative implications on the country’s anti-graft campaign, Adeniran and Suraj said it had a political undertone.


SOURCE:http://www.punchng.com/news/jonathan-abachas-son-in-closed-door-meeting/

GEJ is fighting corruption!!!

#BringBackGoodluckJonadaft #ForgetTheIrrelevantChibokGirls

GEJ till 6752.

masonkz:
@Bold, doesn't take too much to draw up a pre-nup


Anyway, these are straight people's problems, not mine

You will be shocked!

You never knew gaining homosexual marriage comes with its downsides?

Chiamaka01:
So i'm not free to wed the way i like. It's called being reasonable, there's nothing that'll make me swear in a shrine, so, i have to consider my kinsmen's beliefs, too.

So your reason for asking for a man to buy you is not because of customs as you claimed?

It is because you choose to have and participate in that belief?

EnlightenedSoul:
Oh, does it? Are we talking about a mysterious country that consists of women and drag-queens?

Oh, we are back to the question dodging now?

You don't want us to see you in the ocean?

My friend, answer.

Is that sexist considering it would apply to everyone?

EnlightenedSoul:
I'd suggest you eat the meat from now on. A more nutritional diet might help along your reasoning!

I can't promise, but I'll quote you when/if I can.

Meantime, I'll leave you with something:

1) Time is money

2) Google 'separate property'. Separate property isn't touched by divorce. You'll quickly understand how couples can 'manually' separate their assets to avoid personal losses in case of a divorce.

So you must be vegetarian then.

You are too thick to comprehend my question or your drowning in the ocean and lack of meat is affecting your comprehension?

Why can't the law not separate the assets made during marriage instead of calling it marital property?

EnlightenedSoul:
Heh. Well, you're rafting in IDI.OT waters now.

You just made a comparison between makeup and money. Is this what you'd call man-logic?

My friend, answer the question. You think it is Sagamite you can attempt diversion with?

Is that sexist considering it would apply to everyone?

We will see who is swimming in the ediot ocean when you answer.

EnlightenedSoul:
This requires an in-depth answer I don't have the time for ATM. A little research would help. And maybe watch the aforementioned show(?) you were talking about. You might learn a few things.

When will you have the time.

I am a patient dog. I eat FAT bones.

I can park it in a bank until you are ready.

EnlightenedSoul:
No, it's actually not sexist. It's all about the money! High-earning women are also made pay alimony, child support and what have you to their ex-husbands. That the former is more common doesn't make it 'sexist' if the opposite sex is capable of being hit the same way when the roles are reversed.

Ohhh, really?

Thank you EnlightenedSoul for helping me prove my point about logic and women having a brick wall between them.

So if, lets say a Nigerian parliament, decides to pass a law banning EVERYONE from wearing make-up, wearing skirts, having long hear, wearing accessories and wearing any shoe with more than one-and-a-half inch hill in public, that is not a sexist law because it applies to everyone, according to your woman's logic?

EnlightenedSoul:
The thing is, it can be made separate. Just not at the time of the divorce. Too late! Which is why it's important to know your stuff.

Where did I say it was OK? So now using your logic against you in the context of this story means that I support the so-called 'sexist' law?

You need to clear your eyes.

So why is the law not separating it?

EnlightenedSoul:


The last bit totally went over my head. The law is "biased" against the higher earner.

Oh! Really?

So your argument is that the law is not sexist?

And who is mostly the higher earner?

What is the genesis of the law?

EnlightenedSoul:
With divorce, there are two types of property: marital property and separate property. Your problem is that you're viewing all the $ in the marriage as separate property, which is usually not the case (though that's easily amendable if it's the course you wish to take).

When considering marriage, it's up the two individuals to make sure they're aware of their state laws, and prepare for themselves for possible failure.

Why is it not the case that it is separate property?

Why is it not separable?

Is this your woman's logic to argue that the law is okay the way it is?

Chiamaka01:
Osanobua! You said, 'so in Bini customs, a wife is seen as equal to her husband?" and i said "No". Does 'No' have two meanings

Ahhh! Lar-ray, so that was what your "No" meant?

Chiamaka01:
You don't expect my relatives who are animists to come for a church wedding, do you?

Why not?

Or, you feel the necessity to follow the "wedding customs", why not go where the customs state the wedding should take place?

Chiamaka01:
No, i'm only concerned about the wedding customs. And the wedding is the ceremony, not how i'm expected to live after the ceremony. Whew.

Huh?

First of all, you are lying that in the Bini wedding customs, a woman is not expected to be subordinate?

Secondly, how come you are only insisting of following certain wedding customs and not marriage customs?

Chiamaka01:
I now see your problem. Where did i say that? @bolded.

So you are saying in Bini customs, a wife is seen and expected to be an equal with her husband?

crackhaus:
That is what it means, I'm surprised the bipolar is not admitting it that you're sexist, ergo, superior and anti-women.

She must really like you.

Yes, she does.

Now shut up and let me chat with her.

EnlightenedSoul:
Can't recognize your own logic?

When Carefree said her piece, this is what you had to say:

"You are an adult, you can choose not to enter into a situation where you will be worse off. That is your responsibility"

Divorce laws are common knowledge. People get married knowing about the 'risk', and the division of marital property in case of divorce. Sir Hohn could've chosen not to enter into a situation where was worse off. Sir Hohn could've been more responsible. Sir Hohn could've opened a DAPT, or irrevocable trust.

Oh, so your "woman logic" came to the conclusion that since I said that then it makes sense and it is acceptable for laws to be openly bias against one sex?

Sorry, I meant ".....bias against men?" since that is the only thing acceptable to a feminist like you.

Chiamaka01:
No, i'm not. Tell me what constitutes the wedding customs, then.

In you customs, all the other things I asked you are part of it.

It is a joke and an insult to everyone's intellect to say only dowry is part of Bini culture.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm9AObgTA2k

You need to apologise now to everyone reading for such a lame lie.

carefreewannabe:
Stop!

I never said that being anti-women or feeling that one is superior to someone else based on gender is not se*xism.

I just said that you don't necessarily have to be anti-women to be se*xist or to make se*xist remarks and I said that your slogans on this thread are se*xist and they are.

If I write something like:

Black or white people I BRICK WALL I Intelligence then I am being ra*cist.
Most black or white people would freak out. I would even have to pay a fine in Germany for sharing such ra*cist remarks.

Your slogan was really offensive, biased and unfair.

I disagree.

If my slogan is true, then it is not sexist.

It might be uncomfortable and offensive, but it is not sexist.

If women say husbands are mostly promiscuous/unfaithful or men are the ones that leave a woman with the baby, you would not say that is sexist, and it is not sexist. It is an observable fact!

carefreewannabe:
I didn't say you are trying to be superior when you are s*Exist and I didn't say you were trying to be superior when making such statements about Americans. I haven't yet mentioned the motives behind this kind of statements.

So the question is redundant for now.

What you do when you say so is to assume based on a very limited perspective and experience and what you do is to be offensive by making American people appear to be more ignorant than other nationalities.

Talking about the obvious then, are your statements an objective truth or your subjective perception?
And how will you determine that Americans are more ignorant than Turkish people?

Okay, I am a bit confused now.

So what is the definition of sexist if it does not mean:

- anti-women
- being superior to women

Keep on blaming the white man for you failures.

It is the white man that makes fuuktards vote for useless leaders that organised their (i.e. the local common enemy) killing so he can stop himself from facing justice?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30347019

Dumb black monkeys!

Chiamaka01:
Yes, it's only payment of dowry that's part of the wedding customs.

You are a LIAR!

carefreewannabe:
You don't have to be anti-women to be se*xist.
I don't have to be anti-white-people to be a racist.

I can say, like many people do, I have white friends so I am not racist but majority of them are evil.
So I am not against ALL white people but I make offensive and racist remarks about majority of them.

This is what you do with women. This is se*xism.

No need to split hairs, though.

The question I asked remains:

So if I say Americans are ignorant people, does that mean I am trying to be superior or I am speaking the obvious?

carefreewannabe:
How is this question relevant?
Have I said you were anti-women?

No!

And you are not anti-American. You are prejudiced.
Most people are. It is more comfortable, isn't it?

So Sagamite, you are not anti-women and I NEVER said so, you are biased, se*xist, in the same way the laws are for their own reasons.

Huh?

Okay. Maybe you are helping improving my English then.

So you are saying sexism is not anti-women?

I am assuming then that you mean it is a mechanism for being superior then?

So if I say Americans are ignorant people, does that mean I am trying to be superior but I am speaking the obvious?

EnlightenedSoul:
Is this logic specific to women, or does it also apply to Sir Chris Hohn?

Huh??

Is that more woman logic?

cococandy:
I stopped doing that a while back. It is usually exhausting and a complete waste of time because the two sides never agree. If carefreewannabe couldn't convince you, I won't bother trying.

Do it again instead of all this story na.

I have never been over it with you.

carefreewannabe:
And Nigerian or Polish or Japanese people are less ignorant? How do you know?

That was not an answer for my question:

Does that make me anti-Americans or anti-Yankist?