if another 2002 erupts under his watch, his future will go up in smoke.

by Rishi Mon May 12, 2014 8:23 pm

Perhaps liberals think it is honourable to be seen as speaking up for Muslims and self-serving to speak up for themselves. But a Modi government is likely to be far more of a threat to liberals than it would ever be to Muslims for the simple reason that Modi never wants to have another situation like 2002 on his hands. He might have had no change of heart, he might never apologize for having failed in his duty as a chief minister during the riots, but he knows that if another 2002 erupts under his watch, his future will go up in smoke.

Read more at: http://www.firstpost.com/politics/who-is-afraid-of-modi-its-intellectuals-not-muslims-1479347.html?utm_source=ref_article

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue May 13, 2014 10:09 am

Commies and Congress (i) will do EVERYTHING in their power to stir trouble and create riots. They are experts in that field.

Count on them and get ready to count until Modi puts them down with an iron hand - again the RSS police will be there in addition to the regular police to play "peace".

by Kris Tue May 13, 2014 10:23 am

Rishi wrote:Perhaps liberals think it is honourable to be seen as speaking up for Muslims and self-serving to speak up for themselves. But a Modi government is likely to be far more of a threat to liberals than it would ever be to Muslims for the simple reason that Modi never wants to have another situation like 2002 on his hands. He might have had no change of heart, he might never apologize for having failed in his duty as a chief minister during the riots, but he knows that if another 2002 erupts under his watch, his future will go up in smoke.

Read more at: http://www.firstpost.com/politics/who-is-afraid-of-modi-its-intellectuals-not-muslims-1479347.html?utm_source=ref_article

>>>There is work to be done and Modi knows it. Nothing suggests that he is going to focus on attacking minorities and he would be foolish to do that. My bigger fear is these "intellectuals" from the left who are going to end up like a dog with a bone who won't let it go. In that sense, they could turn out like the "birthers" in the US, only on the other side of the political spectrum.

by SomeProfile Tue May 13, 2014 10:33 am

Kris wrote:My bigger fear is these "intellectuals" from the left who are going to end up like a dog with a bone who won't let it go. In that sense, they could turn out like the "birthers" in the US, only on the other side of the political spectrum.

EXACTLY! Couldn't have said it better. Some genius here was asking a few days ago why Indians lean left when in America and lean right when in India. This is the obvious answer - in India, the left-leaning groups are the equivalent of the crazy regressive Tea Party fringe.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue May 13, 2014 5:01 pm

SomeProfile wrote:
Kris wrote:My bigger fear is these "intellectuals" from the left who are going to end up like a dog with a bone who won't let it go. In that sense, they could turn out like the "birthers" in the US, only on the other side of the political spectrum.

EXACTLY! Couldn't have said it better. Some genius here was asking a few days ago why Indians lean left when in America and lean right when in India. This is the obvious answer - in India, the left-leaning groups are the equivalent of the crazy regressive Tea Party fringe.

yes i asked the question and was looking for honest answers from those who hold such contradictory beliefs. uppili who is the poster child for this sort of thing didn't touch the thread. i know the answer and it is a simple one -- just crude self serving hypocrisy is the reason. when they find themselves in the majority, these folks have no problems lining up with the folks who want to inflict the worst kind of violence on minorities and covertly encouraging and abetting it. but when they are in the US where they are in the minority, they want to line up with the party that has a better record of protecting and championing minority rights.

by Guest Tue May 13, 2014 5:07 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:
Kris wrote:My bigger fear is these "intellectuals" from the left who are going to end up like a dog with a bone who won't let it go. In that sense, they could turn out like the "birthers" in the US, only on the other side of the political spectrum.

EXACTLY! Couldn't have said it better. Some genius here was asking a few days ago why Indians lean left when in America and lean right when in India. This is the obvious answer - in India, the left-leaning groups are the equivalent of the crazy regressive Tea Party fringe.

yes i asked the question and was looking for honest answers from those who hold such contradictory beliefs. uppili who is the poster child for this sort of thing didn't touch the thread. i know the answer and it is a simple one -- just crude self serving hypocrisy is the reason. when they find themselves in the majority, these folks have no problems lining up with the folks who want to inflict the worst kind of violence on minorities and covertly encouraging and abetting it. but when they are in the US where they are in the minority, they want to line up with the party that has a better record of protecting and championing minority rights.

You need to get out of your megalomania, the 'I am so ok and morally superior. Everyone else who don't agree with me is bad and evil' mindset.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue May 13, 2014 5:09 pm

Kinnera wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:
Kris wrote:My bigger fear is these "intellectuals" from the left who are going to end up like a dog with a bone who won't let it go. In that sense, they could turn out like the "birthers" in the US, only on the other side of the political spectrum.

EXACTLY! Couldn't have said it better. Some genius here was asking a few days ago why Indians lean left when in America and lean right when in India. This is the obvious answer - in India, the left-leaning groups are the equivalent of the crazy regressive Tea Party fringe.

yes i asked the question and was looking for honest answers from those who hold such contradictory beliefs. uppili who is the poster child for this sort of thing didn't touch the thread. i know the answer and it is a simple one -- just crude self serving hypocrisy is the reason. when they find themselves in the majority, these folks have no problems lining up with the folks who want to inflict the worst kind of violence on minorities and covertly encouraging and abetting it. but when they are in the US where they are in the minority, they want to line up with the party that has a better record of protecting and championing minority rights.
You need to get out from your megalomania, the 'I am so ok and morally superior. Everyone else who don't agree with me is bad and evil' mindset.

it's not like the people who i am responding to are any kinder to people on my side. so the disrespect is mutual. civility is a two way street.

by Guest Tue May 13, 2014 5:14 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:
Kris wrote:My bigger fear is these "intellectuals" from the left who are going to end up like a dog with a bone who won't let it go. In that sense, they could turn out like the "birthers" in the US, only on the other side of the political spectrum.

EXACTLY! Couldn't have said it better. Some genius here was asking a few days ago why Indians lean left when in America and lean right when in India. This is the obvious answer - in India, the left-leaning groups are the equivalent of the crazy regressive Tea Party fringe.

yes i asked the question and was looking for honest answers from those who hold such contradictory beliefs. uppili who is the poster child for this sort of thing didn't touch the thread. i know the answer and it is a simple one -- just crude self serving hypocrisy is the reason. when they find themselves in the majority, these folks have no problems lining up with the folks who want to inflict the worst kind of violence on minorities and covertly encouraging and abetting it. but when they are in the US where they are in the minority, they want to line up with the party that has a better record of protecting and championing minority rights.
You need to get out from your megalomania, the 'I am so ok and morally superior. Everyone else who don't agree with me is bad and evil' mindset.

it's not like the people who i am responding to are any kinder to people on my side. so the disrespect is mutual. civility is a two way street.

I am so glad a lot of educated indians are resisting the so called 'intellectual' leftists without the fear of being put down and being labelled. That's a new trend.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue May 13, 2014 5:35 pm

Kinnera wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:

EXACTLY! Couldn't have said it better. Some genius here was asking a few days ago why Indians lean left when in America and lean right when in India. This is the obvious answer - in India, the left-leaning groups are the equivalent of the crazy regressive Tea Party fringe.

yes i asked the question and was looking for honest answers from those who hold such contradictory beliefs. uppili who is the poster child for this sort of thing didn't touch the thread. i know the answer and it is a simple one -- just crude self serving hypocrisy is the reason. when they find themselves in the majority, these folks have no problems lining up with the folks who want to inflict the worst kind of violence on minorities and covertly encouraging and abetting it. but when they are in the US where they are in the minority, they want to line up with the party that has a better record of protecting and championing minority rights.
You need to get out from your megalomania, the 'I am so ok and morally superior. Everyone else who don't agree with me is bad and evil' mindset.

it's not like the people who i am responding to are any kinder to people on my side. so the disrespect is mutual. civility is a two way street.
I am so glad a lot of educated indians are resisting the so called 'intellectual' leftists without the fear of being put down and being labelled. That's a new trend.

i too am glad that honest debate and airing of differences, sometimes even in a contentious way is taking place. it is healthy for a democracy. so on that score i am with you. however, if you are calling for civility in debate, i'd hope you would want that from both sides. loony lefty, crazy fringe etc. are not exactly polite labels. i have no problems with people using it, but reserve the right to make up similar equivalently derogatory labels. if you on the other hand feel uncomfortable with the tone of debate, like you seem to, please ask both sides to tone it down.

by Guest Tue May 13, 2014 5:46 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

yes i asked the question and was looking for honest answers from those who hold such contradictory beliefs. uppili who is the poster child for this sort of thing didn't touch the thread. i know the answer and it is a simple one -- just crude self serving hypocrisy is the reason. when they find themselves in the majority, these folks have no problems lining up with the folks who want to inflict the worst kind of violence on minorities and covertly encouraging and abetting it. but when they are in the US where they are in the minority, they want to line up with the party that has a better record of protecting and championing minority rights.
You need to get out from your megalomania, the 'I am so ok and morally superior. Everyone else who don't agree with me is bad and evil' mindset.

it's not like the people who i am responding to are any kinder to people on my side. so the disrespect is mutual. civility is a two way street.
I am so glad a lot of educated indians are resisting the so called 'intellectual' leftists without the fear of being put down and being labelled. That's a new trend.

i too am glad that honest debate and airing of differences, sometimes even in a contentious way is taking place. it is healthy for a democracy. so on that score i am with you. however, if you are calling for civility in debate, i'd hope you would want that from both sides. loony lefty, crazy fringe etc. are not exactly polite labels. i have no problems with people using it, but reserve the right to make up similar equivalently derogatory labels. if you on the other hand feel uncomfortable with the tone of debate, like you seem to, please ask both sides to tone it down.

You are only looking at the labels that we are making, not the wild and ridiculous allegations that you are making on ppl from the other side. (btw, aren't you the one who first started it all by calling the others in a very derogatory term, the 'chuddies'. That's very disgusting. You also called them 'idiots')

by pravalika nanda Tue May 13, 2014 5:52 pm

Kinnera wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
You need to get out from your megalomania, the 'I am so ok and morally superior. Everyone else who don't agree with me is bad and evil' mindset.

it's not like the people who i am responding to are any kinder to people on my side. so the disrespect is mutual. civility is a two way street.
I am so glad a lot of educated indians are resisting the so called 'intellectual' leftists without the fear of being put down and being labelled. That's a new trend.

i too am glad that honest debate and airing of differences, sometimes even in a contentious way is taking place. it is healthy for a democracy. so on that score i am with you. however, if you are calling for civility in debate, i'd hope you would want that from both sides. loony lefty, crazy fringe etc. are not exactly polite labels. i have no problems with people using it, but reserve the right to make up similar equivalently derogatory labels. if you on the other hand feel uncomfortable with the tone of debate, like you seem to, please ask both sides to tone it down.

You are only looking at the labels that we are making, not the wild and ridiculous allegations that you are making on ppl from the other side. (btw, aren't you the one who first started it all by calling the others in a very derogatory term, the 'chuddies'. That's very disgusting. You also called them 'idiots')

and he called me bloodthirsty also.

by Guest Tue May 13, 2014 5:56 pm

pravalika nanda wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

it's not like the people who i am responding to are any kinder to people on my side. so the disrespect is mutual. civility is a two way street.
I am so glad a lot of educated indians are resisting the so called 'intellectual' leftists without the fear of being put down and being labelled. That's a new trend.

i too am glad that honest debate and airing of differences, sometimes even in a contentious way is taking place. it is healthy for a democracy. so on that score i am with you. however, if you are calling for civility in debate, i'd hope you would want that from both sides. loony lefty, crazy fringe etc. are not exactly polite labels. i have no problems with people using it, but reserve the right to make up similar equivalently derogatory labels. if you on the other hand feel uncomfortable with the tone of debate, like you seem to, please ask both sides to tone it down.

You are only looking at the labels that we are making, not the wild and ridiculous allegations that you are making on ppl from the other side. (btw, aren't you the one who first started it all by calling the others in a very derogatory term, the 'chuddies'. That's very disgusting. You also called them 'idiots')
and he called me bloodthirsty also.

Ya, how outrageous can that be! and all you did was asked why no one is talking about the innocent victims, the hapless women and children, who were burned alive in the Godhra train.

by pravalika nanda Tue May 13, 2014 6:03 pm

Rishi wrote:Perhaps liberals think it is honourable to be seen as speaking up for Muslims and self-serving to speak up for themselves. But a Modi government is likely to be far more of a threat to liberals than it would ever be to Muslims for the simple reason that Modi never wants to have another situation like 2002 on his hands. He might have had no change of heart, he might never apologize for having failed in his duty as a chief minister during the riots, but he knows that if another 2002 erupts under his watch, his future will go up in smoke.

Read more at: http://www.firstpost.com/politics/who-is-afraid-of-modi-its-intellectuals-not-muslims-1479347.html?utm_source=ref_article

congoons love what happened in gujarat 2002, it gives them the muslim vote bank. so sure if they have another gujarat 2002 they will lap it up with glee. another gujarat 2002 means congoons will win for another 50yrs and those varmints of priyanka gandhi will rule your world and your children's world. i am a hundred percent sure congoons will ensure that another H/M riot will take place.

by pravalika nanda Tue May 13, 2014 6:24 pm

modi is not a white catholic widowed by an indian man. so minorities and high-borns will not let him sleep if he makes any mistakes.

what would be amazing and funny and incredible is if suddenly sonia wins and modi loses. and the high-borns get what they asked for, another decade of the sonia fuckfest where she ruins the country so much that the stench of corruption and economic stagnation reaches 30000 feet above sea level where the high-borns live. unfortunately the middle and lower class masses have suffered too much and are too angry to allow that to happen. but if sonia should suddenly win i would totally relish the surpirse! until sonia burns them high-borns will do sonia and priyanka japam.

is anyone surprised that minorities and high-borns are trying to put an angle of religion esp hindutva to this?

by Guest Tue May 13, 2014 6:34 pm

pravalika nanda wrote:modi is not a white catholic widowed by an indian man. so minorities and high-borns will not let him sleep if he makes any mistakes.

what would be amazing and funny and incredible is if suddenly sonia wins and modi loses. and the high-borns get what they asked for, another decade of the sonia fuckfest where she ruins the country so much that the stench of corruption and economic stagnation reaches 30000 feet above sea level where the high-borns live. unfortunately the middle and lower class masses have suffered too much and are too angry to allow that to happen. but if sonia should suddenly win i would totally relish the surpirse! until sonia burns them high-borns will do sonia and priyanka japam.

is anyone surprised that minorities and high-borns are trying to put an angle of religion esp hindutva to this?

Ya. Hindutva has nothing to do with ppl supporting Modi. Ppl are sick and tired of the congress rule. All they want is some development and a good governance with minimal corruption. The only ones talking about hindutva are the high-borns. They are the ones who are trying to create paranoia and divide the communities, while ironically accusing Modi of divisive politics. And what Modi is talking about all the while is development.

by b_A Tue May 13, 2014 7:08 pm

pravalika nanda wrote:modi is not a white catholic widowed by an indian man. so minorities and high-borns will not let him sleep if he makes any mistakes.

what would be amazing and funny and incredible is if suddenly sonia wins and modi loses. and the high-borns get what they asked for, another decade of the sonia fuckfest where she ruins the country so much that the stench of corruption and economic stagnation reaches 30000 feet above sea level where the high-borns live. unfortunately the middle and lower class masses have suffered too much and are too angry to allow that to happen. but if sonia should suddenly win i would totally relish the surpirse! until sonia burns them high-borns will do sonia and priyanka japam.

is anyone surprised that minorities and high-borns are trying to put an angle of religion esp hindutva to this?

And I want utter utter utterly humiliating defeat to Sonia for what she did to AP.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue May 13, 2014 8:17 pm

pravalika nanda wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

it's not like the people who i am responding to are any kinder to people on my side. so the disrespect is mutual. civility is a two way street.
I am so glad a lot of educated indians are resisting the so called 'intellectual' leftists without the fear of being put down and being labelled. That's a new trend.

i too am glad that honest debate and airing of differences, sometimes even in a contentious way is taking place. it is healthy for a democracy. so on that score i am with you. however, if you are calling for civility in debate, i'd hope you would want that from both sides. loony lefty, crazy fringe etc. are not exactly polite labels. i have no problems with people using it, but reserve the right to make up similar equivalently derogatory labels. if you on the other hand feel uncomfortable with the tone of debate, like you seem to, please ask both sides to tone it down.

You are only looking at the labels that we are making, not the wild and ridiculous allegations that you are making on ppl from the other side. (btw, aren't you the one who first started it all by calling the others in a very derogatory term, the 'chuddies'. That's very disgusting. You also called them 'idiots')
and he called me bloodthirsty also.

i did not call you that.

by SomeProfile Tue May 13, 2014 8:20 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:
Kris wrote:My bigger fear is these "intellectuals" from the left who are going to end up like a dog with a bone who won't let it go. In that sense, they could turn out like the "birthers" in the US, only on the other side of the political spectrum.

EXACTLY! Couldn't have said it better. Some genius here was asking a few days ago why Indians lean left when in America and lean right when in India. This is the obvious answer - in India, the left-leaning groups are the equivalent of the crazy regressive Tea Party fringe.

yes i asked the question and was looking for honest answers from those who hold such contradictory beliefs. uppili who is the poster child for this sort of thing didn't touch the thread. i know the answer and it is a simple one -- just crude self serving hypocrisy is the reason. when they find themselves in the majority, these folks have no problems lining up with the folks who want to inflict the worst kind of violence on minorities and covertly encouraging and abetting it. but when they are in the US where they are in the minority, they want to line up with the party that has a better record of protecting and championing minority rights.

What kind of idiotic nonsense is this? Like Indians in the US ever needed any kind of minority rights championed by the left! Please name a single law or policy followed by the Democratic left in the US that helps Indians. If anything, in recent decades, successive Democratic administrations have been detrimental to Indians and India - whether it is immigration policies or global politics - when compared to Republican administrations. So, no, Indians don't support the liberal left in the US for any minority rights that will help them. They support it for the principle of it... the same reason that they support the right in India.

The reason your petty brain is confused is because of the labels "left" and "right". The concept of "left" in America is not exactly equivalent to the Indian concept of "left", and the same applies to the "right" as well. What Indians appreciate in the US is the capitalistic economy and the social liberal values, the very same things that the so-called "right" in India stands for. This might come as a surprise to you - Hinduism is much more socially liberal than Islam or Christianity will ever be. So, it's no surprise that Indians prefer a pro-Hindu party, rather than parties that are pro-Islam and pro-Christian.

Weren't you the same guy who has been claiming for a better part of a decade that a majority of Indians will never accept a pro-Hindu party, and especially not its pro-Hindu monster Modi? LOL! Hope you are stocked up on enough Burnol for Friday morning.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue May 13, 2014 8:21 pm

i believe the term chuddy was first introduced to sulekha by merlot. lots of people have used it since then. i introduced the word thirsty (as a noun) to counter the adjective/adverb secular which has been nounified on SUCH. i don't believe i have used it as a pejorative against pravalika specifically.

by SomeProfile Tue May 13, 2014 8:23 pm

pravalika nanda wrote:
Rishi wrote:Perhaps liberals think it is honourable to be seen as speaking up for Muslims and self-serving to speak up for themselves. But a Modi government is likely to be far more of a threat to liberals than it would ever be to Muslims for the simple reason that Modi never wants to have another situation like 2002 on his hands. He might have had no change of heart, he might never apologize for having failed in his duty as a chief minister during the riots, but he knows that if another 2002 erupts under his watch, his future will go up in smoke.

Read more at: http://www.firstpost.com/politics/who-is-afraid-of-modi-its-intellectuals-not-muslims-1479347.html?utm_source=ref_article
congoons love what happened in gujarat 2002, it gives them the muslim vote bank. so sure if they have another gujarat 2002 they will lap it up with glee. another gujarat 2002 means congoons will win for another 50yrs and those varmints of priyanka gandhi will rule your world and your children's world. i am a hundred percent sure congoons will ensure that another H/M riot will take place.

I think there are a few people here would be happy another big communal riot happened under a Modi administer for the sole reason that they can come here and say, "I told you so", and continue another decade of Modi-bashing.

by SomeProfile Tue May 13, 2014 8:24 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i believe the term chuddy was first introduced to sulekha by merlot. lots of people have used it since then. i introduced the word thirsty (as a noun) to counter the adjective/adverb secular which has been nounified on SUCH. i don't believe i have used it as a pejorative against pravalika specifically.

Chaddi was introduced by Merlot? "Secular" has been "nounified on SUCH"? LOL! Frog lives in a well and knows only what happens in the well. I hope the rest of the people here go out and peruse the bigger world from time to time.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue May 13, 2014 8:26 pm

SomeProfile wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:
Kris wrote:My bigger fear is these "intellectuals" from the left who are going to end up like a dog with a bone who won't let it go. In that sense, they could turn out like the "birthers" in the US, only on the other side of the political spectrum.

EXACTLY! Couldn't have said it better. Some genius here was asking a few days ago why Indians lean left when in America and lean right when in India. This is the obvious answer - in India, the left-leaning groups are the equivalent of the crazy regressive Tea Party fringe.

yes i asked the question and was looking for honest answers from those who hold such contradictory beliefs. uppili who is the poster child for this sort of thing didn't touch the thread. i know the answer and it is a simple one -- just crude self serving hypocrisy is the reason. when they find themselves in the majority, these folks have no problems lining up with the folks who want to inflict the worst kind of violence on minorities and covertly encouraging and abetting it. but when they are in the US where they are in the minority, they want to line up with the party that has a better record of protecting and championing minority rights.

What kind of idiotic nonsense is this? Like Indians in the US ever needed any kind of minority rights championed by the left! Please name a single law or policy followed by the Democratic left in the US that helps Indians. If anything, in recent decades, successive Democratic administrations have been detrimental to Indians and India - whether it is immigration policies or global politics - when compared to Republican administrations. So, no, Indians don't support the liberal left in the US for any minority rights that will help them. They support it for the principle of it... the same reason that they support the right in India.

The reason your petty brain is confused is because of the labels "left" and "right". The concept of "left" in America is not exactly equivalent to the Indian concept of "left", and the same applies to the "right" as well. What Indians appreciate in the US is the capitalistic economy and the social liberal values, the very same things that the so-called "right" in India stands for. This might come as a surprise to you - Hinduism is much more socially liberal than Islam or Christianity will ever be. So, it's no surprise that Indians prefer a pro-Hindu party, rather than parties that are pro-Islam and pro-Christian.

Weren't you the same guy who has been claiming for a better part of a decade that a majority of Indians will never accept a pro-Hindu party, and especially not its pro-Hindu monster Modi? LOL! Hope you are stocked up on enough Burnol for Friday morning.

the civil rights movement was championed by the brothers kennedy and finally signed into law by lyndon johnson, all democrats.

by Hellsangel Tue May 13, 2014 8:28 pm

MLK Jr belonged to what party?

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue May 13, 2014 8:31 pm

Hellsangel wrote:MLK Jr belonged to what party?

i don't think he officially signed on to either party and criticized both of them. a lot of time has passed since MLK Jr's death. the post MLK Jr history of this country is there for all to see. why is it that when you see a GoP convention you see so few non-white faces? why does the republican party have such a problem with all minority communities -- african american, hispanic, and asian? why is it that even the relatively wealthy asian community is made up of mostly democratic supporters? why is it that on a national level the GoP is losing the demographics game?

by confuzzled dude Tue May 13, 2014 8:34 pm

SomeProfile wrote:
pravalika nanda wrote:
Rishi wrote:Perhaps liberals think it is honourable to be seen as speaking up for Muslims and self-serving to speak up for themselves. But a Modi government is likely to be far more of a threat to liberals than it would ever be to Muslims for the simple reason that Modi never wants to have another situation like 2002 on his hands. He might have had no change of heart, he might never apologize for having failed in his duty as a chief minister during the riots, but he knows that if another 2002 erupts under his watch, his future will go up in smoke.

Read more at: http://www.firstpost.com/politics/who-is-afraid-of-modi-its-intellectuals-not-muslims-1479347.html?utm_source=ref_article
congoons love what happened in gujarat 2002, it gives them the muslim vote bank. so sure if they have another gujarat 2002 they will lap it up with glee. another gujarat 2002 means congoons will win for another 50yrs and those varmints of priyanka gandhi will rule your world and your children's world. i am a hundred percent sure congoons will ensure that another H/M riot will take place.

I think there are a few people here would be happy another big communal riot happened under a Modi administer for the sole reason that they can come here and say, "I told you so", and continue another decade of Modi-bashing.

That's very true however, all of them happen to be his fanboys. Go check their posts you will realize.

by SomeProfile Tue May 13, 2014 8:36 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:
Kris wrote:My bigger fear is these "intellectuals" from the left who are going to end up like a dog with a bone who won't let it go. In that sense, they could turn out like the "birthers" in the US, only on the other side of the political spectrum.

EXACTLY! Couldn't have said it better. Some genius here was asking a few days ago why Indians lean left when in America and lean right when in India. This is the obvious answer - in India, the left-leaning groups are the equivalent of the crazy regressive Tea Party fringe.

yes i asked the question and was looking for honest answers from those who hold such contradictory beliefs. uppili who is the poster child for this sort of thing didn't touch the thread. i know the answer and it is a simple one -- just crude self serving hypocrisy is the reason. when they find themselves in the majority, these folks have no problems lining up with the folks who want to inflict the worst kind of violence on minorities and covertly encouraging and abetting it. but when they are in the US where they are in the minority, they want to line up with the party that has a better record of protecting and championing minority rights.

What kind of idiotic nonsense is this? Like Indians in the US ever needed any kind of minority rights championed by the left! Please name a single law or policy followed by the Democratic left in the US that helps Indians. If anything, in recent decades, successive Democratic administrations have been detrimental to Indians and India - whether it is immigration policies or global politics - when compared to Republican administrations. So, no, Indians don't support the liberal left in the US for any minority rights that will help them. They support it for the principle of it... the same reason that they support the right in India.

The reason your petty brain is confused is because of the labels "left" and "right". The concept of "left" in America is not exactly equivalent to the Indian concept of "left", and the same applies to the "right" as well. What Indians appreciate in the US is the capitalistic economy and the social liberal values, the very same things that the so-called "right" in India stands for. This might come as a surprise to you - Hinduism is much more socially liberal than Islam or Christianity will ever be. So, it's no surprise that Indians prefer a pro-Hindu party, rather than parties that are pro-Islam and pro-Christian.

Weren't you the same guy who has been claiming for a better part of a decade that a majority of Indians will never accept a pro-Hindu party, and especially not its pro-Hindu monster Modi? LOL! Hope you are stocked up on enough Burnol for Friday morning.

the civil rights movement was championed by the brothers kennedy and finally signed into law by lyndon johnson, all democrats.

Yep, that's so so relevant to the majority of right-leaning-in-India desis who have moved to the US since the 1990s. Why not rewind a few year back to the time when those other Indians were getting killed in large numbers on this continent? Perhaps, a few left liberal words were spoken against that genocide in the privacy of a few restrooms. We can connect the dots from those other Indians to those left liberal words to the present day desis, and form a grand narrative about how the American left has been fighting for the rights and security of the Indians for a few hundred years and so desis lean left liberal in America!

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue May 13, 2014 8:38 pm

if you don't think the civil rights movement is not relevant to the presence of large numbers of legal immigrants who lead free and productive lives in the US, then you and i have very little to talk about. our understanding of american history is so far apart that we are unlikely to have a meaningful discussion about it.

by Guest Tue May 13, 2014 8:43 pm

In which direction is this discussion going? Where's the image of the pretzel? Gotta post it here.

The point is, the american liberal left are poles apart from the desi leftists. The word 'left' is confusing the hell out of someone here.

by Rishi Tue May 13, 2014 8:47 pm

Hellsangel wrote:MLK Jr belonged to what party?

He was registered as a Republican.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue May 13, 2014 8:49 pm

Rishi wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:MLK Jr belonged to what party?
He was registered as a Republican.

i don't think so.

by Guest Tue May 13, 2014 8:49 pm

Rishi wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:MLK Jr belonged to what party?
He was registered as a Republican.

Abe Lincoln?

by Rishi Tue May 13, 2014 9:08 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rishi wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:MLK Jr belonged to what party?
He was registered as a Republican.

i don't think so.

by Kris Tue May 13, 2014 10:15 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:if you don't think the civil rights movement is not relevant to the presence of large numbers of legal immigrants who lead free and productive lives in the US, then you and i have very little to talk about. our understanding of american history is so far apart that we are unlikely to have a meaningful discussion about it.

>>>But legal immigrants were and are not the intended beneficiaries of the 'civil rights' movement. If there is some indirect benefit, that happens to be happenstance and does not warrant ongoing loyalty to any particular party. If you are talking about Indian immigrants specifically, if anything, things like affirmative action championed by the democrats has actually hurt them i.e. education of the second generation. The Indian immigrants who came as professionals or came here for higher education in fact (in many cases) had to go though labor certification protocols to show that they were not displacing Americans (majority or minority) which is the opposite of getting any special rights. This country has had a troubled racial history. No question about it, but the Indian immigrant story here is different. A quick look at economic status by ethnicity reflects that.

by confuzzled dude Tue May 13, 2014 10:42 pm

Kris wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:if you don't think the civil rights movement is not relevant to the presence of large numbers of legal immigrants who lead free and productive lives in the US, then you and i have very little to talk about. our understanding of american history is so far apart that we are unlikely to have a meaningful discussion about it.

>>>But legal immigrants were and are not the intended beneficiaries of the 'civil rights' movement. If there is some indirect benefit, that happens to be happenstance and does not warrant ongoing loyalty to any particular party. If you are talking about Indian immigrants specifically, if anything, things like affirmative action championed by the democrats has actually hurt them i.e. education of the second generation. The Indian immigrants who came as professionals or came here for higher education in fact (in many cases) had to go though labor certification protocols to show that they were not displacing Americans (majority or minority) which is the opposite of getting any special rights. This country has had a troubled racial history. No question about it, but the Indian immigrant story here is different. A quick look at economic status by ethnicity reflects that.

Whether or not Indians were intended beneficiaries, what do you think would be our fate if not for civil rights movement, If I were to take guess, would've been similar to that of blacks.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue May 13, 2014 11:13 pm

For the record, I am no longer a supporter of Obama. of late, I dont like democrats much. I dont like Tea Partyers either. But, if Jebbie stands, I am all republican except the gun business.

(Today, there was a scuffle at work with security down and I was threatened as well by the attackers. cops came. A gun was available and could well have been used. Things might have been different....)

by confuzzled dude Tue May 13, 2014 11:26 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

For the record, I am no longer a supporter of Obama. of late, I dont like democrats much. I dont like Tea Partyers either. But, if Jebbie stands, I am all republican except the gun business.

(Today, there was a scuffle at work with security down and I was threatened as well by the attackers. cops came. A gun was available and could well have been used. Things might have been different....)

WOW! sorry to hear that man, glad everything is alright. How are you feeling.

by Kris Tue May 13, 2014 11:31 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:if you don't think the civil rights movement is not relevant to the presence of large numbers of legal immigrants who lead free and productive lives in the US, then you and i have very little to talk about. our understanding of american history is so far apart that we are unlikely to have a meaningful discussion about it.

>>>But legal immigrants were and are not the intended beneficiaries of the 'civil rights' movement. If there is some indirect benefit, that happens to be happenstance and does not warrant ongoing loyalty to any particular party. If you are talking about Indian immigrants specifically, if anything, things like affirmative action championed by the democrats has actually hurt them i.e. education of the second generation. The Indian immigrants who came as professionals or came here for higher education in fact (in many cases) had to go though labor certification protocols to show that they were not displacing Americans (majority or minority) which is the opposite of getting any special rights. This country has had a troubled racial history. No question about it, but the Indian immigrant story here is different. A quick look at economic status by ethnicity reflects that.
Whether or not Indians were intended beneficiaries, what do you think would be our fate if not for civil rights movement, If I were to take guess, would've been similar to that of blacks.

>>>This is an academic point. If Indians were going to be treated badly, would we have come here? Suppose this country had an apartheid system, would we have applied to grad school here? This idea of a nation like America joined at the hip to a fixed position on racial politics is also questionable. I am not disputing the change that came about because of civil rights, but this country is also pragmatic. As an example, it would have been dumb in the 21st century if they didn't hire engineers in Silicon Valley because they were brown. And it would be rather strange for those engineers to behave like they were immigrants with nothing to offer who washed ashore on Ellis Island.

by SomeProfile Wed May 14, 2014 12:23 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:if you don't think the civil rights movement is not relevant to the presence of large numbers of legal immigrants who lead free and productive lives in the US, then you and i have very little to talk about. our understanding of american history is so far apart that we are unlikely to have a meaningful discussion about it.

What you and I think is not the subject of this discussion. The subject of this discussion is what do those left-leaning-in-America and right-leaning-in-India desis think. I can assure you that they are not left-leaning-in-America because of the civil rights movement or any other movement, nor due to any minority-friendly policies or entitlement practices of the Democratic administrations. Contrary to what you might believe, a large number of young Indians are not tied to any ideology, other than "what works". They understand that capitalistic economy with liberal social practices works - whether it is the US or India. And in both places, they naturally support the parties / groups which swing this way. They don't even care about labels like "left" and "right". It would be a grave mistake to ascribe such labels to them.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed May 14, 2014 12:54 am

In erstwhile Soviet Union, The hardcore commies who wanted to jail and control the people who fought for free speech were called extreme right wingers.

Hence right wingers can be defined as people who believe in extremism of a generally accepted philosophy of a Govt. By that definition the right wingers in India are the Congress (i) who are taking their "secularism" to its extreme form of self-flagellation.

by Kris Wed May 14, 2014 1:22 am

SomeProfile wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:if you don't think the civil rights movement is not relevant to the presence of large numbers of legal immigrants who lead free and productive lives in the US, then you and i have very little to talk about. our understanding of american history is so far apart that we are unlikely to have a meaningful discussion about it.

What you and I think is not the subject of this discussion. The subject of this discussion is what do those left-leaning-in-America and right-leaning-in-India desis think. I can assure you that they are not left-leaning-in-America because of the civil rights movement or any other movement, nor due to any minority-friendly policies or entitlement practices of the Democratic administrations. Contrary to what you might believe, a large number of young Indians are not tied to any ideology, other than "what works". They understand that capitalistic economy with liberal social practices works - whether it is the US or India. And in both places, they naturally support the parties / groups which swing this way. They don't even care about labels like "left" and "right". It would be a grave mistake to ascribe such labels to them.

>>Yep. It is not so much indifference as it is a case of these politics and undercurrents being peripheral to a recent Indian immigrant's life. As a newcomer, this is not part of the immigrant's baggage anyway. That is what I was trying to convey in my post to CD although I probably did not articulate it that well. You can choose sides on a matter of principle, but that is a different matter and is not the same as being driven by personal benefit from policies.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed May 14, 2014 5:35 am

Kris wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:if you don't think the civil rights movement is not relevant to the presence of large numbers of legal immigrants who lead free and productive lives in the US, then you and i have very little to talk about. our understanding of american history is so far apart that we are unlikely to have a meaningful discussion about it.

>>>But legal immigrants were and are not the intended beneficiaries of the 'civil rights' movement. If there is some indirect benefit, that happens to be happenstance and does not warrant ongoing loyalty to any particular party. If you are talking about Indian immigrants specifically, if anything, things like affirmative action championed by the democrats has actually hurt them i.e. education of the second generation. The Indian immigrants who came as professionals or came here for higher education in fact (in many cases) had to go though labor certification protocols to show that they were not displacing Americans (majority or minority) which is the opposite of getting any special rights. This country has had a troubled racial history. No question about it, but the Indian immigrant story here is different. A quick look at economic status by ethnicity reflects that.

my point is whether or not the civil rights movement was intended for indian immigrants they have benefited from it. yes affirmative action has hurt indians, but in multiple election cycles, indian immigrants overwhelmingly support the democrats. why is that? i am well aware of the indian immigrant story. i am one myself and have undergone the rigors of the immigration process that you describe. regardless, indian immigrants correctly view that despite causing them certain disadvantages, the democratic party overall represents their value system better and that includes the protection of the rights of the minority.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed May 14, 2014 5:36 am

SomeProfile wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:if you don't think the civil rights movement is not relevant to the presence of large numbers of legal immigrants who lead free and productive lives in the US, then you and i have very little to talk about. our understanding of american history is so far apart that we are unlikely to have a meaningful discussion about it.

What you and I think is not the subject of this discussion. The subject of this discussion is what do those left-leaning-in-America and right-leaning-in-India desis think. I can assure you that they are not left-leaning-in-America because of the civil rights movement or any other movement, nor due to any minority-friendly policies or entitlement practices of the Democratic administrations. Contrary to what you might believe, a large number of young Indians are not tied to any ideology, other than "what works". They understand that capitalistic economy with liberal social practices works - whether it is the US or India. And in both places, they naturally support the parties / groups which swing this way. They don't even care about labels like "left" and "right". It would be a grave mistake to ascribe such labels to them.

you can write reams or you can look at voting patterns. that says it all for me.

by Guest Wed May 14, 2014 8:19 am

Most american desis are centrists. I voted for Obama at the center and a mixture of both reps and dems at the local elections, based on the candidates' credentials and what they are promising to offer us. I don't vote blindly for either parties. Nor do i vote blindly for the desi candidates (we did have some)

by Kris Wed May 14, 2014 9:10 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kris wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:if you don't think the civil rights movement is not relevant to the presence of large numbers of legal immigrants who lead free and productive lives in the US, then you and i have very little to talk about. our understanding of american history is so far apart that we are unlikely to have a meaningful discussion about it.

>>>But legal immigrants were and are not the intended beneficiaries of the 'civil rights' movement. If there is some indirect benefit, that happens to be happenstance and does not warrant ongoing loyalty to any particular party. If you are talking about Indian immigrants specifically, if anything, things like affirmative action championed by the democrats has actually hurt them i.e. education of the second generation. The Indian immigrants who came as professionals or came here for higher education in fact (in many cases) had to go though labor certification protocols to show that they were not displacing Americans (majority or minority) which is the opposite of getting any special rights. This country has had a troubled racial history. No question about it, but the Indian immigrant story here is different. A quick look at economic status by ethnicity reflects that.

my point is whether or not the civil rights movement was intended for indian immigrants they have benefited from it. yes affirmative action has hurt indians, but in multiple election cycles, indian immigrants overwhelmingly support the democrats. why is that? i am well aware of the indian immigrant story. i am one myself and have undergone the rigors of the immigration process that you describe. regardless, indian immigrants correctly view that despite causing them certain disadvantages, the democratic party overall represents their value system better and that includes the protection of the rights of the minority.

>>>I think most Indians vote for the candidate, rather than a broad-based philosophy or even minority rights. This particular issue has been the bailiwick of the democratic party and may hold some appeal for disadvantaged groups like Hispanics and Blacks. The loyalties of recent immigrants is less black and white than that and that trend will continue. In some ways, I find the attitude of the democratic party patronizing which turns me off as much as the idiocy of the fringe elements in the GOP.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed May 14, 2014 10:38 am

Kris wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kris wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:if you don't think the civil rights movement is not relevant to the presence of large numbers of legal immigrants who lead free and productive lives in the US, then you and i have very little to talk about. our understanding of american history is so far apart that we are unlikely to have a meaningful discussion about it.

>>>But legal immigrants were and are not the intended beneficiaries of the 'civil rights' movement. If there is some indirect benefit, that happens to be happenstance and does not warrant ongoing loyalty to any particular party. If you are talking about Indian immigrants specifically, if anything, things like affirmative action championed by the democrats has actually hurt them i.e. education of the second generation. The Indian immigrants who came as professionals or came here for higher education in fact (in many cases) had to go though labor certification protocols to show that they were not displacing Americans (majority or minority) which is the opposite of getting any special rights. This country has had a troubled racial history. No question about it, but the Indian immigrant story here is different. A quick look at economic status by ethnicity reflects that.

my point is whether or not the civil rights movement was intended for indian immigrants they have benefited from it. yes affirmative action has hurt indians, but in multiple election cycles, indian immigrants overwhelmingly support the democrats. why is that? i am well aware of the indian immigrant story. i am one myself and have undergone the rigors of the immigration process that you describe. regardless, indian immigrants correctly view that despite causing them certain disadvantages, the democratic party overall represents their value system better and that includes the protection of the rights of the minority.

>>>I think most Indians vote for the candidate, rather than a broad-based philosophy or even minority rights. This particular issue has been the bailiwick of the democratic party and may hold some appeal for disadvantaged groups like Hispanics and Blacks. The loyalties of recent immigrants is less black and white than that and that trend will continue. In some ways, I find the attitude of the democratic party patronizing which turns me off as much as the idiocy of the fringe elements in the GOP.

i too have voted for GoP candidates in the past, but my comment is based on aggregate statistics of asian americans from recent national elections. your statement that the loyalties of recent immigrants is less black and white is not borne out by actual election results.

by Propagandhi711 Wed May 14, 2014 11:45 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kris wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kris wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:if you don't think the civil rights movement is not relevant to the presence of large numbers of legal immigrants who lead free and productive lives in the US, then you and i have very little to talk about. our understanding of american history is so far apart that we are unlikely to have a meaningful discussion about it.

>>>But legal immigrants were and are not the intended beneficiaries of the 'civil rights' movement. If there is some indirect benefit, that happens to be happenstance and does not warrant ongoing loyalty to any particular party. If you are talking about Indian immigrants specifically, if anything, things like affirmative action championed by the democrats has actually hurt them i.e. education of the second generation. The Indian immigrants who came as professionals or came here for higher education in fact (in many cases) had to go though labor certification protocols to show that they were not displacing Americans (majority or minority) which is the opposite of getting any special rights. This country has had a troubled racial history. No question about it, but the Indian immigrant story here is different. A quick look at economic status by ethnicity reflects that.

my point is whether or not the civil rights movement was intended for indian immigrants they have benefited from it. yes affirmative action has hurt indians, but in multiple election cycles, indian immigrants overwhelmingly support the democrats. why is that? i am well aware of the indian immigrant story. i am one myself and have undergone the rigors of the immigration process that you describe. regardless, indian immigrants correctly view that despite causing them certain disadvantages, the democratic party overall represents their value system better and that includes the protection of the rights of the minority.

>>>I think most Indians vote for the candidate, rather than a broad-based philosophy or even minority rights. This particular issue has been the bailiwick of the democratic party and may hold some appeal for disadvantaged groups like Hispanics and Blacks. The loyalties of recent immigrants is less black and white than that and that trend will continue. In some ways, I find the attitude of the democratic party patronizing which turns me off as much as the idiocy of the fringe elements in the GOP.

i too have voted for GoP candidates in the past, but my comment is based on aggregate statistics of asian americans from recent national elections. your statement that the loyalties of recent immigrants is less black and white is not borne out by actual election results.

if another 2002 erupts under his watch, his future will go up in smoke. Giphy

by Sponsored content