bhai india is in deep trouble shalee Cong. know is they r not going to win in comming Elctions so they pleyed a game collect as money as u can and let the other Govt . sufffer with problems
I am in a big setback after knowing that BJP is not supporting N-Deal. Is BJP is doing this only because of opposition party. Now i feel guilt to support BJP blindly from last 20 years.
RE:I am in a big setback after knowing that BJP is not supporting N-Deal.
by a a on Jul 03, 2008 07:27 PM Permalink
bwakuf , after deal india can't work on nuke boom not even any nuke wepone , china se tere dad bacheeyegi kya
RE:I am in a big setback after knowing that BJP is not supporting N-Deal.
by peearen on Jul 03, 2008 07:59 PM Permalink
So you oppose the deal in fear of China! The Real fact is that you want to appease China.
RE:We all want to humiliate Congress
by arp on Jul 03, 2008 06:28 PM Permalink
Now indian voters will humiliate UPA and his supporter Left Front in coming election.
RE:We all want to humiliate Congress
by seshasayee on Jul 03, 2008 08:38 PM Permalink
Excellent! There can't be a better way to reply to these useless coalition govt.
"Once Pranab had said that Hyde act will not b applicable. After that there was statement of an American saying that Hyde act will b applicable. UPA is not telling the truth and sharing all points with Left or BJP."
The fact is both Pranab and the US are telling the truth. Why?
It is the 123 Agreement, wherein India & US appended their signatures, that binds both nation.
The Hyde Act is a domestic Act of the US and because it is so, is non-binding on India. However, technically, the Hyde Act binds the US (not us) while implementing the agreement. India likewise can have our own domestic laws that bind us not the US while implementing the agreement. So if each nation is adamant, it creates a gridlock. In practice and otherwise, international treaties supersede domestic laws.
The US-China Nuclear Agreement also contained certain clause sensitive to the Chinese. e.g. The President has to certify each year that China respects human rights in Tibet. The Chinese keep violating human rights, the US President keeping certifying.
Here I find that most of the mails r hate commie type.
Capitalism & Communism r two different systems. Both hv their pros and cons. None of them is perfect in real life.
Capitalism is good as it encourages competition and personal reward for achievements. But in reality there is no fair competition, bcz of personal reward combined with greed and selfishness. See even Ambani brothers don't see eye to eye and blame each other accusing of malpractices, though their father was instrumental in raising the Ambani empire.
Communism on the other hand is good as it promises equal opportunity for all without discrimination on the basis of religion, caste, economic condition of the individual etc. But it creates lethargy as there is no competition. Moreover again due to selfishness and greed of the Communist leaders, their is discrimination in favour of the leaders and their families.
Hence a combination of these two systems with best of the two systems is desirable.
Developed countries hv adopted many communist ideas like unemployment dole, free health and education etc. in their own countries after they saw the threat of communism looming large on the borders.
China, though still a communist country has allowed capitalism in the industry thereby introducing competition. I was in China last yr on a business tour of a fortnight tour and found that almost all of the big industries r in public sector. But there r many new private sector companies.
RE:Capitalism & Communism
by K Srikrishna on Jul 03, 2008 06:10 PM Permalink
Thats what my friend, Socialism was followed by Nehru which is combination of Capitalism and Communism. But its not effectively carriedout afterwards................
RE:Capitalism & Communism
by Closo on Jul 03, 2008 05:50 PM Permalink
You are right Ram, Communism, capitalism etc do not matte much, we need a universal nism which is "HUMANISM"
RE:Capitalism & Communism
by prabhat mohanty on Jul 03, 2008 06:41 PM Permalink
- The middle ground was called "Socialism". And practiced it in its initial years of development.
RE:Capitalism & Communism
by Good_man on Jul 03, 2008 10:09 PM Permalink
Ram Sharma has started a significant thread. We have to know this “NO SYSTEM IS IMMUTABLE” In market economy, COMPETITION must benefit the consumer. System however, grows clever by each minute. Take for example the telecom sector. The 'plans' offered by various players are nothing but a determined effort to confuse the customer. Competitors here collectively are able to squeeze hell out of the customer. Communists, in name of 'proletariatism', penalized the very own people for whose benefit they erected the elaborate system that disallowed any scrutiny. Today, corporate world hides behind elaborately designed 'customer care' and 'electronic response' systems. There is no way a deceived customer can redress grievances. Deception is in small doses, but on continuous basis. It is in form of shameless undeclared levies and penalties which is many times more than declared almost alluring tariffs. Unlike communist system which took away liberties violently, the new capitalist system has entire populations held by ‘invisible’ leashes. So if you thought Information Technology will liberate average citizen and bring prosperity to masses, the mighty muscles controlling the 'software' and ‘framework’ development have already decided against such possibility. What is the remedy? It may only lie in defining TOTALLY NEW SYSTEMS, with determination to serve the interest of all of ~10 billion human beings, while simultaneously preserving
RE:Nothing can Humaliate congress
by Ram Sharma on Jul 03, 2008 05:41 PM Permalink
Congress party is by the Congressmen and of & for the Sonia parivar only.
RE:Left should be absolutely left
by Ram Sharma on Jul 03, 2008 05:43 PM Permalink
They r all elected representatives. Some of them may b anti socials, as is the case in all parties. In some other parties there r many known criminals.
