Guest dada_rocks Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 No mate. If I'm an atheist' date=' I dont believe in religion. Even if the tradition is to do, if I dont believe in it, I have all the rights not to. True atheist would not be pressurized into doing something that attaches him to a religion when he clearly does not believe in it. You are confusing an atheist with an agnostic.[/quote'] Nobody saiud you have no rights but you are posturing for sure and you are not ahtiest if you do so you are anti-hindu.. there is a huge difference.. ahtiest don't give a damn which book they are swearing on..
Ram Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 People have stopped taking your nonsense seriously...... First get a history book and read before vomitting nonsense.... Yes Mr.Double Doctorate...:cantstop:
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Oh really. Here's your post from less than 24 hours ago; By your own admission, more people were killed in riots under the Cong regime than the corresponding number during Gujrat 2002. So, all of a sudden all those Cong leaders who orchestrated the Sikh massacre( and mind you, I am going strictly your own words :D) were all Muslims? Now, I may not be that fluent in religious names, but whichever you cut it, the name ‘Jagdish Tytler’ does not sound Muslim to me, nor does the name 'Sajjan Kumar'…:haha:...Unless of course you're saying the massacre of Sikhs does not come under 'ethnic cleansing'...:haha: Nor does the name Indira Gandhi or Sanjay Gandhi does… After all, they imposed emergency for two years and committed heinous crimes right? Another classic case of a Saffron Brigade member going head over heels to bash a community, not even contemplating if what they type is self contradictory.. :cantstop: Besides, the whole point of this thread( or atleast how it developed) isn’t about who killed whom anyway. It was about P.Chidambaram insisting on taking the oath on a copy of the Indian constitution, which he was 100% right to do. But one of your own fails to see such simple logic and converts it into the usual ‘Psec’ issue and as your group’s policy, none of you guys take the time to point out the absolute fallacy of that argument.:cantstop: I think time to go back to dictoanry and look-up the word ethnic-cleansing.. some cleansing we have where numbers of those cleansed keeps getting up..
cowboysfan Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Roberts quoted the whole text..... Obama stopped at 'I ....as president will execute...' why? Because he forgot the next set of words. http://blogs.abcnews.com/liveblogging/2009/01/chief-justice-r.html the initial flubbing was done by roberts and it went bad from there.
Lurker Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Nobody saiud you have no rights but you are posturing for sure and you are not ahtiest if you do so you are anti-hindu.. there is a huge difference.. Arre bhai ek bande ko tumne kah diya ke people have stopped taking him seriously. Doosre ko that he is posturing and anti-Hindu. Aaj kya poora ICF ko judge kar dena hai kya? :blink:
Holysmoke Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Nobody saiud you have no rights but you are posturing for sure and you are not ahtiest if you do so you are anti-hindu.. there is a huge difference.. ahtiest don't give a damn which book they are swearing on.. No. Agnostics dont give a damn what book they are staring on. Atheists are anti-religion. You're right, there is a huge difference. Get your facts straight.
Centrino Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 We can all but speculate if he is like Tony Blair, JFK, Lincoln or a failure but only time will tell how Obama fares as the President of United States. Though past all the Obama mania lot of good things that happened today which are worth noticing: Bush is no longer the president: Whatever the case, Bush is no longer the president, Cheney no longer the VP. It was almost poetic justice seeing Cheney leave the office in wheel chair. No matter how Obama performs we know that he won’t be Bush and for me that’s a relief. -Clean Transfer of Power: Though it all looks easy here but it is a huge deal and is a barometer of how successful is the democracy. In India its never easy, though we have government changes there is always heavy politics, In Pakistan we all know the history of power transfers. -Change has already taken place: There are new people heading almost every single key department in the administration. And the choices he has made so far has been applauded by both the left and the right. And to me that already shows a big shift from Bush administration when he was surrounded by idiots with Cheney pulling the strings. -I thought by using his middle name “Hussein†he made an effort to connect to Middle East and Muslims. The statement which I thought was one for the history books “Your people will judge you for what you can build, not what you destroy†was a pretty direct message Anyway just my take on Obama presidency, his speech and actions thus far.
Holysmoke Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 People have stopped taking your nonsense seriously...... First get a history book and read before vomitting nonsense.... :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Pehle aap spellcheck laiye, sirjee:haha:
Lurker Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 What happened in Gujrat ? Why didnt the torch bearers of Secularism file cases based on the evidence from Tehelka ? The Nanavati commision went to extreeme steps to request people to come forward and depose in front of it . Why didnt anybody turn up ? Do you know that the Congress and the Muslims had appointed lawyers on its behalf in that commision ? The torch bearers of Secularism didnt come out because they were pi$$ed at the impotency of the bhagwa brigade in nearby Maharashtra. The same state where the "Hindu Hridaya Samrat" is thinking of making suicide squads,is also the state where Dawood's confiscated property (for 2 decades now) doesnt get sold because of lack of buyers. Yep agar Thackeray saab 2-4 ghar khareed lein Pakmodia Street and Temkar Mohalla then Secular folks would come out. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Centre_yet_to_sell_off_Dawoods_properties_/rssarticleshow/3854568.cms Point being, you are smart enough to realize how the process works in India. People fear those who have power, be it politicians or gangsters. If you dont beleive that then you need to learn a bit about India. xxx
Ram Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 No. The question is about why a certain community gets in the limelight for the wrong reasons. And they dont have any compunctions in basing their acts on their religion . Unlike congress. What happened in Gujrat ? Why didnt the torch bearers of Secularism file cases based on the evidence from Tehelka ? The Nanavati commision went to extreeme steps to request people to come forward and depose in front of it . Why didnt anybody turn up ? Do you know that the Congress and the Muslims had appointed lawyers on its behalf in that commision ? I can also very easily resort to childish name calling and sprinkling a bunch of smilies. If you want to debate lets debate. Ask away to your hearts content. But if history is anything to go by I can guarantee you that you will resort to the usual hit and run or invoke the "No Religious discussion clause" before long to save your skin. There's no point trying to debate with people living in denial, which is why it is pointless to engage you guys and no one ever rarely does that. Even hardly any Cong. leaders were convicted for the Sikh riots. So what does that mean? They’re all innocent? Don’t give me the ‘not convicted, therefore innocent’ argument.
Lurker Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Is that why the Tehelka reporters are still alive and kicking ? Do you realize that a lot of the Gujrat hearings were transfered outside of Gujrat ? Do you realize that people like Teesta Setalwad bribed Muslims to make false claims ? Do you realize that the Nanavati Commision conducted its business in open and mostly during the times when Congress was in power at the centre. ? Itna bhi banana republic nahi hai yaar apna desh. Phir wahi baat? Dawood's property was confiscated both by State and Central. His property was put on "auction" online and available across the country. A fellow from Delhi volunteered and was promptly silenced by Chotta Shakeel. Kind of reminds me of that line from the RGV movie Satya - Aur underworld ka sabse khatarnaak hathiyar bana cell phone. People fear for their life, simple. No we arent a banana republic but when it comes to those in power we are not far off either. heck Laloo Yadav is one of the "good" ministers of India these days!
Lurker Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 who got silenced in this case ? As far as I know nobody. if anything the secular messaihs did their damndest to bring Modi down by filing false charges and bribing people to talk so as to suit their case. Are you for real?? Need I remind you what happened when Aamir Khan merely "criticized" Gujarat Govt for Narmada Dam? He was tagged anti-development, his movies was banned in Gujarat, his producer(Yash Chopra) had to go meet Modi saab and lo and behold suddenly Aamir was all pro-development! Kudos to Aamir that he shunned Modi and refused to apologize. Aur aapki shikayat hai ke kyun nahin aam janta ne Modi ko phaansi pe latka diya. Bhaai saab thora to samjha karo bhai.
Macj Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 http://blogs.abcnews.com/liveblogging/2009/01/chief-justice-r.html the initial flubbing was done by roberts and it went bad from there. You are CORRECT, I stand CORRECTED. I proved to be the doofus.
Lurker Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 The entire media has been going gung-ho after Modi nearly 7 yrs after the even and none of them have been targeted. Is this not true according to you ? heres evidence : http://www.dailypioneer.com/144856/Godhra-riot-witnesses-got-Rs-1-lakh-each.html That depends on your definition of targetting really. If you mean journalists are alive and kicking then yes you are right. If you however checked how the journalists are verbally assaulted I am sure you would yourself admit how the media has been tagged everything from pinko to haters to psec to whatever whatever. I dont know much about the Amir Khan event you are talking about but I will take your word for it but it has nothing to do with the Riots case. Aamir Khan had supported Narmada Dam, was promtly tagged as Modi hater in the garb of anti-development and his movie Fanaa was banned in Gujarat, unofficialy of course. Yash Chopra went and met Modi saab and everything was solved pronto.
Aditi Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Much as I like Obama....I wonder who is footing the $170 MILLION bill for his inauguration when the country is in a recession?
Macj Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Much as I like Obama....I wonder who is footing the $170 MILLION bill for his inauguration when the country is in a recession? He collected close to a Billion dollars during the campaign phase, im sure Soros and co can cough another 170m. I think democratic national committee puts that amount.
triam Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 “We know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers.” That is a big deal in the US.
cowboysfan Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Much as I like Obama....I wonder who is footing the $170 MILLION bill for his inauguration when the country is in a recession? the main cost has to be security to more than a million people at the inauguration .they cannot not provide the security.
Brainfade Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Much as I like Obama....I wonder who is footing the $170 MILLION bill for his inauguration when the country is in a recession? It's probably the DNC, and that is OK. I read that the actual festivities cost $50 mil, and the rest was for security. Well worth it, IMO. There is an article today on cnn.com showering praise on Mrs. Obama's "dance gown." The dress was designed by some Jason Wu, and has all kinds of baroque handiwork including Swarovski crystals etc. Well-deserved, of course. This is a once-in-a-lifetime event for them - they earned it. But, the same press roasted Sarah Palin over the coals for an expensive suit that she wore during the convention. The RNC paid for it, and she was slated to return it after the event. But she was not afforded the same courtesy that Mrs. Obama is getting today. While there is no denying Mrs. Palin's political ineptitude, there really was no excuse for the press' treatment of her as a person. These inconsistencies, and peoples' inability to see through them irk me.
Brainfade Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 You are CORRECT, I stand CORRECTED. I proved to be the doofus. Well, there's a bit of both of them flubbing. Pres. Obama interrupted CJ Roberts before he could complete the sentence - flub. Roberts misplaces the word "faithfully." - flub. And then Obama stops as if to prompt Roberts to say it right this time ... and then Obama misplaces the word "faithfully." All the while, Mrs. Obama is smiling thinking to herself "dang these stupid men, this takes the grace of a lady."
Recommended Posts