Well; first you said 'killing people from a community' without a reason. When I pointed out a reason, you say 'is it okay to kill someone?' First make up your mind and then argue. I pointed out a factual error in your argument. Keep your sentiments away and analyze the problem objectively. You seem to have a serious problem comprehending my posts. Where did I justify the riots? It was bad. All I'm asking is - why is no one talking about the state-sponsored attack against Sikhs which was much worse than Godhra riots? Because the victims were Sikhs? And how exactly is Godhra special? Because the victims are Muslims?
Of course that is no reason man (how can you justify a reason to kill some one ) If you can read my replied im aganist killing any one muslim or hindu or sikhs whats ever and we replied aganist modi because there was topic on modi .I never said we support other riots Btw reply like an indian not like Al Qaeda (giving a reason or justifing to kill ) Please Harsha
FYI, I'm agnostic. I don't give two hoots about religion. That apart, I don't try to justify any killings. The main problem I have with Indian media is that they are utterly biased against Hindus. Anything done against Muslims is blown out of proportion, whereas anything done against Hindus or Sikhs hardly gets noticed. So, I don't justify Godhra riots just as I don't justify the Sikh killings. Both are wrong. But all I ask for is unbiased reports from our media, which is not happening right now in the country.
Okay America was attacked by terrorists keeping no profit in mind but Iraq was attacked keeping in mind the OIL factories by which US could make huge profits...
Back on topic in the OT. Best and Honest politician? Someone I would trust besides myself to run the United States? Well, my number one pick would be one of the smartest, most well read, and probably insane, presidents ever. Theodore Roosevelt. He literally read thousands upon thousands of books - while still hunting bears, having boxing matches (he went blind in one eye from it) and living the strenuous life. He also took down corrupt business like he was the Goddamn Batman. Trust buster, but still pro business. Now, how about today? My answer is obvious. Out of what choices we have now... I would say Ron Paul. He predicted the fiscal mess, he predicted based on his knowledge of economics (he is very well trained in the Austrian school along with economic history) and his belief that (which I also believe - trust means nothing) a currency like ours, which is basically based on trust and not backed by gold or other bullion, is weak. But, nope, not enough people wanted to hear the truth. So, what do we get? John McBraingone and Sarah Bush- I mean Bailin- I mean Palin. Bailouts are going to prolong this economic correction - not fix it. The way you fix it is you follow the 1919 (fifth largest crash ever) way. You let the markets correct. You let bad businesses die, bad assets get sold, and bad (insert item here) get liquidated. From the ashes of the old, come the ashes of the new! By 1921 the economic crisis was over and we had the roaring twenties. But when the next correction rolled around - we tried to stop it. Thus began crash after crash that became the Great Depression. Had we allowed for liquidation of bad assets, credits, and what have you, then good assets would be left. Sure, the economy would have taken a massive hit - but it wouldn't have taken until 1955 to recover! Bah!
Very good post Jackuul, you are absolutely correct about the bailout, all it is doing is delaying the inevitable. Whilst we are temporarily out of trouble at the moment it will come back even harder at a later date.