MinnnD it, Rascala!

by confuzzled dude Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:14 am

and we will do just what America does to us and others i.e. sell advanced arms used in our Shakhas to America.

by Guest Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:25 am

I like Narendra Modi.

by confuzzled dude Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:34 am

Vidya Bagchi wrote:I like Narendra Modi.

He is no match to Kareena Smile

by Guest Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:35 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:I like Narendra Modi.
He is no match to Kareena

hain?

by confuzzled dude Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:38 am

Vidya Bagchi wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:I like Narendra Modi.
He is no match to Kareena
hain?

Just comparing the last two pictures posted by MD.

by smArtha Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:39 am

Me thinks Modi will refuse to apply for US Visa even if he becomes the PM. Actually, I'm appalled at the GoI for not summoning the US Ambassador and issuing a note of protest regarding the diplomatic Visa rejection to a duly elected CM of the Indian Republic.

by Merlot Daruwala Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:05 am

smArtha wrote:Me thinks Modi will refuse to apply for US Visa even if he becomes the PM. Actually, I'm appalled at the GoI for not summoning the US Ambassador and issuing a note of protest regarding the diplomatic Visa rejection to a duly elected CM of the Indian Republic.

One third of Lok Sabha's members face criminal charges, with around 12% facing serious criminal charges (rape, murder etc). Would you invite these duly elected representatives of the people of the Republic of India for dinner at your residence?

by Merlot Daruwala Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:10 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Dear NRI Patriots, your deafening silence is most disappointing. You can't go groundhog like those sickular fukular CONmen when your ~~Supreme Leader~~ God issues profound statements like this. Gird up your loins and make some noise. Let's hear it for the ~~Supreme Leader~~ God.

by bw Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:20 am

it's time they introduced some order at indian consulates. a queue or line is definitely a good start. hope they work on making the paper work simple next.

by confuzzled dude Wed Sep 18, 2013 9:07 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Dear NRI Patriots, your deafening silence is most disappointing. You can't go groundhog like those sickular fukular CONmen when your ~~Supreme Leader~~ God issues profound statements like this. Gird up your loins and make some noise. Let's hear it for the ~~Supreme Leader~~ God.

may be they are finding it hard to believe that their favorite leader sounds like a slithering snake oil salesman.

by Propagandhi711 Wed Sep 18, 2013 9:37 am

you had a point with that post to expect a response or where you just expecting deafening wah wahs followed by applause?

by smArtha Wed Sep 18, 2013 9:44 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
smArtha wrote:Me thinks Modi will refuse to apply for US Visa even if he becomes the PM. Actually, I'm appalled at the GoI for not summoning the US Ambassador and issuing a note of protest regarding the diplomatic Visa rejection to a duly elected CM of the Indian Republic.
One third of Lok Sabha's members face criminal charges, with around 12% facing serious criminal charges (rape, murder etc). Would you invite these duly elected representatives of the people of the Republic of India for dinner at your residence?

Why don't you say if you would go to their homes - invited or not? If you are living or even staying as a guest at any of the states or districts these elected representatives and their appointed bureaucrats are in the reign, it is as good as staying at the homes of such 'criminals'. And this is responding on the same line as the question.

Now the response - Modi, whatever be his personality, ideology or philosophy, is part and parcel of the Government of the Sovereign Republic of India with whom the United States has a Diplomatic Relationship (please read about what it means to establish a diplomatic relationship with a soverign nation if more clarity is needed). And it is not an accepted diplomatic convention to reject Visa on the grounds of arbitrary application of local laws. While the United States may have all rights to exercise such choice, it is the duty of the GoI to express their disapproval of the same through established channels. If the Cong run govt had not carried out its GoI responsibilities on political compulsions then someone like a Modi, if he ascends the throne, can pay back one or both of the Cong and the US in not so very pleasant terms. And this may include impounding the passport of Madame/Prince or turning down the Visa request of say the President of United States on the pretext of some archaic rule or law from within India's own very complex and convoluted set.

by confuzzled dude Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:12 am

smArtha wrote:
Now the response - Modi, whatever be his personality, ideology or philosophy, is part and parcel of the Government of the Sovereign Republic of India with whom the United States has a Diplomatic Relationship (please read about what it means to establish a diplomatic relationship with a soverign nation if more clarity is needed). And it is not an accepted diplomatic convention to reject Visa on the grounds of arbitrary application of local laws.

I thought his visa was rejected on the basis of petition filed by Indians.

by smArtha Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:25 am

confuzzled dude wrote:I thought his visa was rejected on the basis of petition filed by Indians.

Well there were representations for and against his visit.

by confuzzled dude Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:47 am

smArtha wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:I thought his visa was rejected on the basis of petition filed by Indians.
Well there were representations for and against his visit.

If someone petitions to the US consulate requesting them to deny me visa based on my acts in the past, wouldn't it raise a flag?

by smArtha Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:45 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
smArtha wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:I thought his visa was rejected on the basis of petition filed by Indians.
Well there were representations for and against his visit.
If someone petitions to the US consulate requesting them to deny me visa based on my acts in the past, wouldn't it raise a flag?

Guess how many people in India would petition against Jr. Bush or for that matter any President of US, if such an option of denying diplomatic visas based on mass representation, is made a norm? I can bet that no leaders or officials from any country will be able to go to another country, if this becomes the criteria. Look at the rationale of this process and act in the larger context to see the stupidity at work.

by confuzzled dude Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:57 pm

smArtha wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
smArtha wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:I thought his visa was rejected on the basis of petition filed by Indians.
Well there were representations for and against his visit.
If someone petitions to the US consulate requesting them to deny me visa based on my acts in the past, wouldn't it raise a flag?
Guess how many people in India would petition against Jr. Bush or for that matter any President of US, if such an option of denying diplomatic visas based on mass representation, is made a norm? I can bet that no leaders or officials from any country will be able to go to another country, if this becomes the criteria. Look at the rationale of this process and act in the larger context to see the stupidity at work.

Indian consulate may consider if a bunch of US Senators/House members sign the petition.

by smArtha Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:26 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:Indian consulate may consider if a bunch of US Senators/House members sign the petition.

Firstly, US senators/congressmen have a higher patriotism and self respect to ever petition another sovereign country regarding how it deals with one of their own representatives. So they will never do that for any of their Govt/Political/Executive/Judiciary personnel. Even if they ever did so, Indian consulates should not honor that unless the request comes from proper official and diplomatic channels of the US Govt.

Our MPs who signed such a petition have displayed a perfect third world mindset and their contempt for all wings of the Indian democracy and republic. I'm sure there are some laws they can be booked under - contempt of house or court etc. It is absolute shortsightedness on their part to have done that just to settle some domestic political scores. If the other side starts paying back on similar lines it'll one day spiral out of control and India as a Sovereign Republic will become a joke open for all and sundry to interfere and influence.

We are already seeing the ill-effects of appeasement of certain communities by one side of the political spectrum and how it can impact peace and life of people when the other side also resorts to similar community biased strategies. We don't want similar newer fronts opened for the domestic political conflicts to be played out, especially on the international theater.

by confuzzled dude Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:24 pm

smArtha wrote:
Firstly, US senators/congressmen have a higher patriotism and self respect to ever petition another sovereign country regarding how it deals with one of their own representatives. So they will never do that for any of their Govt/Political/Executive/Judiciary personnel. Even if they ever did so, Indian consulates should not honor that unless the request comes from proper official and diplomatic channels of the US Govt.

That may very well be.. NaMo is no GW at least not yet, he was/is a CM. Would India care much about a US state governor's visa issue?

smArtha wrote:
We are already seeing the ill-effects of appeasement of certain communities by one side of the political spectrum and how it can impact peace and life of people when the other side also resorts to similar community biased strategies. We don't want similar newer fronts opened for the domestic political conflicts to be played out, especially on the international theater.

Well the same might hold true for BJP albeit appeasement of certain other community with NaMo at the helm. As a matter of fact a certain community might feel alienated.

by smArtha Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:33 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:That may very well be.. NaMo is no GW at least not yet, he was/is a CM. Would India care much about a US state governor's visa issue?

Well the same might hold true for BJP albeit appeasement of certain other community with NaMo at the helm. As a matter of fact a certain community might feel alienated.

Not India, but US will care if we rejected the Visa for one of its state Governors on pretext of some local law. And my argument is so should India.

BJP is not in the appeasement game but in the retaliation of appeasement. Just that the impact seems more due to the side they are taking constituting the majority. If we stop all appeasement and 'more entitled' than others kind policies then the support for such retaliation will die down naturally and assimilation will replace the current alienation.

by confuzzled dude Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:51 pm

smArtha wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:That may very well be.. NaMo is no GW at least not yet, he was/is a CM. Would India care much about a US state governor's visa issue?
Not India, but US will care if we rejected the Visa for one of its state Governors on pretext of some local law. And my argument is so should India.

I don't think it would be that easy for US government to intervene, especially, when their senators signed a petition to reject certain state governor's visa who happens to fall on the other side of the political spectrum.

smArtha wrote: BJP is not in the appeasement game but in the retaliation of appeasement. Just that the impact seems more due to the side they are taking constituting the majority. If we stop all appeasement and 'more entitled' than others kind policies then the support for such retaliation will die down naturally and assimilation will replace the current alienation.

Two wrongs don't make it right.

by smArtha Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:56 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Two wrongs don't make it right.

Yes and neither does one wrong make it right. No-wrong is better than one or more wrongs. I'm talking of nipping the cause and you seem to be hinting at overlooking one.

by smArtha Wed Sep 18, 2013 3:28 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:I don't think it would be that easy for US government to intervene, especially, when their senators signed a petition to reject certain state governor's visa who happens to fall on the other side of the political spectrum.

FYI, US action was motivated by the MPs and other groups representing but the action itself was reportedly taken under a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act which makes any foreign government official who was responsible or "directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom" ineligible for the visa.

And for a country like India that has archaic laws from the 18th and 19th century still in the Statute, it is not difficult to pull out one or more laws that the US State Governors or Officials would have violated. And this can be the basis for such rejections even if represented by their law makers or not.

by Merlot Daruwala Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:12 am

smArtha wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
smArtha wrote:Me thinks Modi will refuse to apply for US Visa even if he becomes the PM. Actually, I'm appalled at the GoI for not summoning the US Ambassador and issuing a note of protest regarding the diplomatic Visa rejection to a duly elected CM of the Indian Republic.
One third of Lok Sabha's members face criminal charges, with around 12% facing serious criminal charges (rape, murder etc). Would you invite these duly elected representatives of the people of the Republic of India for dinner at your residence?
Why don't you say if you would go to their homes - invited or not? If you are living or even staying as a guest at any of the states or districts these elected representatives and their appointed bureaucrats are in the reign, it is as good as staying at the homes of such 'criminals'. And this is responding on the same line as the question.

Now the response - Modi, whatever be his personality, ideology or philosophy, is part and parcel of the Government of the Sovereign Republic of India with whom the United States has a Diplomatic Relationship (please read about what it means to establish a diplomatic relationship with a soverign nation if more clarity is needed). And it is not an accepted diplomatic convention to reject Visa on the grounds of arbitrary application of local laws. While the United States may have all rights to exercise such choice, it is the duty of the GoI to express their disapproval of the same through established channels. If the Cong run govt had not carried out its GoI responsibilities on political compulsions then someone like a Modi, if he ascends the throne, can pay back one or both of the Cong and the US in not so very pleasant terms. And this may include impounding the passport of Madame/Prince or turning down the Visa request of say the President of United States on the pretext of some archaic rule or law from within India's own very complex and convoluted set.

Dude, calm down. Like you correctly said, when your ~~Supreme Leader~~ God becomes PM and all those Americans, particularly the POTUS, queue up in our consulates, he can similarly deny them a "visa of India". Happy now?

by smArtha Thu Sep 19, 2013 10:45 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
smArtha wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:One third of Lok Sabha's members face criminal charges, with around 12% facing serious criminal charges (rape, murder etc). Would you invite these duly elected representatives of the people of the Republic of India for dinner at your residence?
Why don't you say if you would go to their homes - invited or not? If you are living or even staying as a guest at any of the states or districts these elected representatives and their appointed bureaucrats are in the reign, it is as good as staying at the homes of such 'criminals'. And this is responding on the same line as the question.
Dude, calm down. Like you correctly said, when your ~~Supreme Leader~~ God becomes PM and all those Americans, particularly the POTUS, queue up in our consulates, he can similarly deny them a "visa of India". Happy now?

And that is your response to a question that you raised and was deflected back with a semantically equivalent one!! Nice try.

by Merlot Daruwala Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:17 am

smArtha wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
smArtha wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:One third of Lok Sabha's members face criminal charges, with around 12% facing serious criminal charges (rape, murder etc). Would you invite these duly elected representatives of the people of the Republic of India for dinner at your residence?
Why don't you say if you would go to their homes - invited or not? If you are living or even staying as a guest at any of the states or districts these elected representatives and their appointed bureaucrats are in the reign, it is as good as staying at the homes of such 'criminals'. And this is responding on the same line as the question.
Dude, calm down. Like you correctly said, when your ~~Supreme Leader~~ God becomes PM and all those Americans, particularly the POTUS, queue up in our consulates, he can similarly deny them a "visa of India". Happy now?
And that is your response to a question that you raised and was deflected back with a semantically equivalent one!! Nice try.

Haha..no sir, I just didn't want to prolong a discussion with someone whose idea of "semantic equivalence" was too funny to dignify with a response. Anyway since you persist, let me break it down for you. An Indian visiting the US does so at the pleasure of the host country. It could be you, me or your Supreme Leader God. It doesn't matter what's the title or position the person holds. The US has a sovereign right to decide who enters its borders. An analogy would be what I wrote i.e. you or I can decide whom to invite over to our homes for dinner.

A MP or MLA on the other hand is not a host. He is merely an legislative representative of a people in a particular location. He is voted to that position for a particular tenure by those people but he neither owns the consituency nor is he a boss of anybody. If you're still unable to make this distinction, you are better off living in, say, Saudi Arabia, where your residence will indeed be at the pleasure of the King. Clearly, democracy is too complex a concept for you to grapple with.

by smArtha Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:47 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Haha..no sir, I just didn't want to prolong a discussion with someone whose idea of "semantic equivalence" was too funny to dignify with a response. Anyway since you persist, let me break it down for you. An Indian visiting the US does so at the pleasure of the host country. It could be you, me or your Supreme Leader God. It doesn't matter what's the title or position the person holds. The US has a sovereign right to decide who enters its borders. An analogy would be what I wrote i.e. you or I can decide whom to invite over to our homes for dinner.

Too funny!! Let's see who threw such a stupid and not a dignified analogy out. A country like US can be reduced to someone's home and it's Govt officials are the owners and thus arrive at an equivalence of Diplomatic Visa process to a dinner invite. But the logical extension on these lines - a State or constituency in India being the home of its Govt Officials is not 'semantically equivalent'?!! Is this because by some weird 'madrassa school of logic' -you seemed to have attended- US officials have a higher entitlement to call their country home than those of India? Or as Tenali Rama said - 'ganjAyi tAgi turakala sanjAthamu chEta kallu chavigonnava'!

The US has a sovereign right to decide who enters its borders.

I had already mentioned in this thread that even though the US may be well within its rights to decide on this, the GoI is well within its diplomatic privileges as well as bound by the sovereign duty to protest the same using the available channels. My concern is that GoI didn't respond strongly enough on this one.

That US had taken cover under the said local law is very evident in that they had hosted multitude of Israeli and Palestenian leaders,as State Guests, whose direct role in the religiously motivated Middle East violence is universally established. And this is what the GoI should have cited in its strong protest.

by Merlot Daruwala Sat Sep 21, 2013 4:17 am

smArtha wrote:A country like US can be reduced to someone's home and it's Govt officials are the owners and thus arrive at an equivalence of Diplomatic Visa process to a dinner invite. But the logical extension on these lines - a State or constituency in India being the home of its Govt Officials is not 'semantically equivalent'?!!

The extension looks logical only to you because you don't seem to know the difference between the rights of the citizens of a country and those of foreigners visiting that country. Your touching belief in the value of a "diplomatic protest" only accenturates your ignorance.

by truthbetold Sat Sep 21, 2013 2:07 pm

Denial of visa to modifies is a childish act by us govt under bush.
why would modifies or bjp care about it?
is it hurting modi's chances of collecting money?
otherwise why do modi's supporters rake it up?
visa is a political decision and modi is just a easy target.
us allowed gaddafi and Castro to come to usa .

by Merlot Daruwala Sun Sep 22, 2013 1:19 am

truthbetold wrote:Denial of visa to modifies is a childish act by us govt under bush.
why would modifies or bjp care about it?
is it hurting modi's chances of collecting money?
otherwise why do modi's supporters rake it up?

I don't think funding is the issue. NRI Patriots are thrilled sufficiently to open up their wallets if they see a hologram / live telecast of the ~~Supreme Leader's~~ God's visage.

The denial of visa just fits the traditional, limpwristed chaddi narrative about how Hindus are victims, forever at the receiving end of all manner of cruel injustices and how the whole world is out to get them (and their leaders). Hence the non-stop hysterical breastbeating over this non-issue.

by truthbetold Sun Sep 22, 2013 1:45 pm

Auto correct: Modi becomes modifies.
Lazy ass becomes lady ass.

by Sponsored content

MinnnD it, Rascala!

MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!

Re: MinnnD it, Rascala!