FischerTal Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Did I say crooks came to meet Modi? I just said one of the members of the meeting had an ethics committee probe under him. I don't see how that makes Aaron Shock a "crook". I gave my opinion that the meeting was "unimportant" which even a staunch Modi supporter like Seedhi agreed with. I mentioned the facts - you created an impression of me based on those facts. Just in case, I was the first one to post that the 16,000 story wasn't real on this thread with a credible source. This, when Modi supporters were arguing taking into account that they were paid. Selective amnesia? By the same extended convoluted logic earlier - I should be a Modi supporter since I posted something in favorable for Modi. I have known you enough to know that comment was specifically aimed at casting doubt over the credibility of those US Congressmen,especially Schock. If you thought it was unimportant meeting, then why comment on the ethics investigation against Schock and mention it at all? then it shouldnt matter who came to meet Modi, but your objective perspective is once again cast under doubt because you seem to selectively target any news that has to do with Modi with information intended to show Modi in a bad light. Your passive agrressive comments on any Modi threads recently in my time on ICF leave me with nothing else to infer other than that you, while once in a blue moon, may give Modi a positive comment, share the opinion that Modi is not right for PM. Also, the word infer, look that up in the dictionary. You dont neccesarily have to say something for others to ascertain how you truly feel about a person. Im a more upfront in my posts.
FischerTal Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 The way I see is this - You made claim X. X : Gujarat is the ONLY 24x7 power supplying state Now, to back up your claim you should show us data from all states and their surplus/deficit in the power sector. IF you can't, your claim on Gujarat being the ONLY 24x7 power supplying state is thin air. You cast doubt on Gujarat to be the only 24x7 power supplying state without giving any evidence of other states having that capability. If you cast doubt, have the evidence to back up why you approach your rebuttal in that manner. Those pesky secular "objective" lens hold the key to that pattern of behavior.
Crookbond Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 I have known you enough to know that comment was specifically aimed at casting doubt over the credibility of those US Congressmen' date='especially Schock. If you thought it was unimportant meeting, then why comment on the ethics investigation against Schock and mention it at all? then it shouldnt matter who came to meet Modi, but your objective perspective is once again cast under doubt because you seem to selectively target any news that has to do with Modi with information intended to show Modi in a bad light. Your passive agrressive comments on any Modi threads recently in my time on ICF leave me with nothing else to infer other than that you, while once in a blue moon, may give Modi a positive comment, share the opinion that Modi is not right for PM. Also, the word infer, look that up in the dictionary. You dont neccesarily have to say something for others to ascertain how you truly feel about a person. Im a more upfront in my posts.[/quote'] Why mention Schock? Because he came to meet Modi. It is not like I am writing details about Tony Stark. Modi in bad light? Apparently, I am the one who praised Modi for his Jyotigram Yojna scheme and I am the first one to debunk the claim that the 16000 USD trip was not paid by the US Congressman. I called him a brilliant power sector administrator.This shows Modi in positive light. Another straw man argument?
Crookbond Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 You cast doubt on Gujarat to be the only 24x7 power supplying state without giving any evidence of other states having that capability. If you cast doubt' date=' have the evidence to back up why you approach your rebuttal in that manner. Those pesky secular "objective" lens hold the key to that pattern of behavior.[/quote'] The proof of burden is on the person making the claim to back up his claim by evidence. You can't make a claim out of thin air. The rebuttal in that manner is approached for you to give a complete opportunity to present your case. Currently, you seem to give no evidence.
FischerTal Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Why mention Schock? Because he came to meet Modi. It is not like I am writing details about Tony Stark. Modi in bad light? Apparently, I am the one who praised Modi for his Jyotigram Yojna scheme and I am the first one to debunk the claim that the 16000 USD trip was not paid by the US Congressman. This shows Modi in positive light. Another straw man argument? You yourself first say meeting is unimportant and then casually mention Schock, with the house ethics investigation part attached. IF you were interested in mentioning who came to meet Modi, then simply state who came. Whats the need of mentioning anything about their life? Apparently you dont understand passive aggressive behavior. The give and take policy you associate with Modi's governance is clearly visible to anyone who examines carefully that the primary objective of such behavior lies in the ultimate negative portrayal of Modi as an administrator and politician.
FischerTal Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 The proof of burden is on the person making the claim to back up his claim by evidence. You can't make a claim out of thin air. The rebuttal in that manner is approached for you to give a complete opportunity to present your case. Currently, you seem to give no evidence. same way you cant debunk a claim without providing evidence as to why you think it should be debunked. Do you want to keep going in circles?
Crookbond Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 You yourself first say meeting is unimportant and then casually mention Schock, with the house ethics investigation part attached. IF you were interested in mentioning who came to meet Modi, then simply state who came. Whats the need of mentioning anything about their life? Apparently you dont understand passive aggressive behavior. The give and take policy you associate with Modi's governance is clearly visible to anyone who examines carefully that the primary objective of such behavior lies in the ultimate negative portrayal of Modi as an administrator and politician. Their life? Hello! I mentioned a pertinent professional (not personal) detail. Now, you were trying to give an impression that the US wants to make Modi the PM and is "waiting for clearance". In light of that, it was important to mention some details the people who came to meet Modi. Give & take policy? Your insecurities! :haha: Well, in the circles of mature discourse it is called - critique. If I like X, it doesn't mean all attributes of X are correct. There is a possibility that X can be wrong (even though he's my role model, etc.) and the critics make a thorough examination before accepting it.
Crookbond Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 same way you cant debunk a claim without providing evidence as to why you think it should be debunked. Do you want to keep going in circles? Well, since I have provided you the full opportunity to present your case and you have rejected it let me break the deadlock. According to Planning Commission Census 2011, 10.5% viz. 1,279,080 households of Gujarat do not have access to electricity. Surely, these are aliens residing in Gujarat. http://planningcommission.nic.in/data/datatable/1503/databook_265.pdf
FischerTal Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Their life? Hello! I mentioned a pertinent professional (not personal) detail. Now, you were trying to give an impression that the US wants to make Modi the PM and is "waiting for clearance". In light of that, it was important to mention some details the people who came to meet Modi. Give & take policy? Your insecurities! :haha: Well, in the circles of mature discourse it is called - critique. If I like X, it doesn't mean all attributes of X are correct. There is a possibility that X can be wrong (even though he's my role model, etc.) and the critics make a thorough examination before accepting it. Cant be insecure when you already know the behavior of the other person and are exposing them for their real attitude towards Namo :two_thumbs_up: I never gave impression that this meeting was aimed at US wanting Modi as PM. I said they were waiting for political hurdles to be cleared just like the UK and Germany governments did in interaction with Modi. They arent going to waste time meeting someone who isnt going anywhere. Clearly, foreign policy is not your forte. Even if you like X for a particular reason, when the bigger question comes up of whether X should be PM, you cast doubt at his ability to do that job. Again, this is give and take behavior that is aimed at ultimate rejection of X as an able administrator who cant handle the top job in the country.
FischerTal Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Well, since I have provided you the full opportunity to present your case and you have rejected it let me break the deadlock. According to Planning Commission Census 2011, 10.5% viz. 1,279,080 households of Gujarat do not have access to electricity. Surely, these are aliens residing in Gujarat. http://planningcommission.nic.in/data/datatable/1503/databook_265.pdf but you yourself before agreed to the fact that Gujarat has 24x7 electricity. First make up your mind on what you believe. The onus is on the government to provide the setup for 24x7 electricity, which in Gujarat is based on a PPP model. The government make sure hurdles are cleared that would impede in providing such a service, as is common in progressive states like TN, where earth day is celebrated everyday with power cuts. If citizens cannot afford the electricity, then how can one debunk the presence of 24/7 electricity for those in Gujarat who do have electricity?
The Outsider Posted April 1, 2013 Posted April 1, 2013 10 from Bihar :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Yeah, how many more are you expecting without JD-U's support? Now listen here. BJD and Amma have already said that they would support Modi. BJP doesnt need to win anything in Orissa and TN. BJD has said they will support Modi? Where? They broke ties with BJP, have done superbly on their own and have no reason to get BJP support. Quote for Amma? Waise bhi, anyone who believes Amma is an idiot. BTW remember BJP had 182 seats during NDA govt. Even though LK Advani and AB Vajpayee, who spearheaded the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, all the "secular parties" including Didi, Chandrababu Naidu, Nitish bhaiyya came rushing to be a part of the NDA. Even after 2002, Nitish remained railways minister. Vajpayee spearheaded the Ram Janmabhoomi movement? Are you on drugs? It was solely due to Vajpayee and his non involvement in the movement that BJP was able to get support of external partners. On the contrary, existing partners have dissociated themselves with BJP.
yoda Posted April 1, 2013 Posted April 1, 2013 Finally an Indian politician who can work the US system. Advantage India if he becomes the PM.
Swing_n_Speed Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 It is not desperate. It is how American politics works. It is called lobbying, albeit in a different format. Sure I do not agree with this, or Modi in general, but hey so long as they are not breaking rules and getting things moving for Modi it is all good. Maybe Indian diplomat could learn a thing here too and start spending money on lobbying instead of thinking US will support India because it is the right and often moral thing to do. +100 It's called Lobbying and everybody knows how it's done except our diplomats. Fact is USA is simply open to the highest bidder. Either that or our diplomats don't care and have decided to instead expend resources of the BRICS.
Recommended Posts