[MT] ARE YOU HAPPY WITH MODI's WIN ...AGAIN ? - Page 12

Originally posted by: Morpankh

Sau baat ki ek baat the only reason they hate bjp is because its perceived to be a pro hindu party.

Baaki riots aur hindu-muslim, hindu-sikh toh congress ne hi jyada karwaya hai. Inko yeh log clean cheat de rahe hai aur sara blame bjp pe daal rahe hai. Aisa koi bina agenda toh nahi karega. Hum itne nadaan toh nahi hai ki unka agenda samaz hi na paaye

Bhai sidha bol do hinduo se problem hai...baat khatam. Yeh gol gol kyu guma rahe hai baat ko

If you have come across that modi meme

"In reality

They are not after me

They are after you"

Thats exaxtly what it is all about if you k ow what i mean.

Yup i know.

However I'm getting a little disappointed in Modi ji.

He speaks on so many little things but stayed mum on Reasi or the train accident.....

Chalo.... If action is being taken then still okay but NEET case is also being mishandled. I'm not happy with that either.

Originally posted by: CuckooCutter7

just one source. It's a bit analytical, so might be hard to follow along. But do try to get through it if you can. You shouldn't rely on just superficial wiki stuff that the leftists have been busy revising.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html

Coming back to this now Did you not say that you were not referring to hitler but the entire party? Now you are providing articles on hitler alone?

I have mentioned the article is from 1998 because I really have not seen any news article which is that old. Secondly, I am surprised that you chose an article from 1998 even though there are multiple articles which have invalidated these claims. Also did you not mention that you mentioned about nazism and not hitler alone but you have provided an article of Hitler alone?

Quoting few lines from the article:

That is a devastating remark and it is blunter than anything in his speeches or in Mein Kampf.; though even in the autobiography he observes that his own doctrine was fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason that it recognised the significance of race - implying, perhaps, that it might otherwise easily look like a derivative.

This is like saying even though there is a fictional character, the book is a non fictional book. The point is the book becomes a fictional book if there are fictional characters. The entire principle of socialism works on egalitarianism. Hitler and his party believed in one race is superior, business benefited from nazism. How are two contracting things possible at the same time? The article mentions it was "National socialism", how is it socialism if they only supported one race and were anti left? If we say one party is socialist by the name then North Korea is also called Democratic people's republic of Korea.

The majority of people Nazis killed were socialist and communist for being socialist or communist. They might be turning in their grave reading hitler was a socialist.

Quoting from various sources:

"Indeed, most supporters of Nazism embraced the party precisely because they saw it as an enemy of and an alternative to the political left. " (Granieri, 2020)

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/05/right-needs-stop-falsely-claiming-that-nazis-were-socialists/

"Instead of controlling the means of production or redistributing wealth to build a utopian society, the Nazis focused on safeguarding a social and racial hierarchy." (Granieri, 2020)

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/05/right-needs-stop-falsely-claiming-that-nazis-were-socialists/

"Opposition ranged from non-compliance with Nazi regulations to attempts to assassinate Hitler. Among the earliest resistance to the regime was the political opposition organized by leftist parties such as the Social Democratic Party and the Communist Party of Germany. However leftist opposition within Germany proved ineffectual, as the Security Police (Sipo) crushed the leftist political organizations by force."(Ushmm, 2024)

Link: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/german-resistance-to-hitler

"Nazism arose in a very specific — and very German — political environment. To begin with, Germany had a long history of socialist and Marxist political organizing even before the First World War, which launched in 1914. (So no, Rep. Brooks, the Nazi Party was not the “socialist” party of Germany — that would have been the Social Democratic Party, or perhaps the Communist Party of Germany.)" (Coaston, 2019)

Link: https://www.vox.com/2019/3/27/18283879/nazism-socialism-hitler-gop-brooks-gohmert

"Their sole motive was to construct a reliable force to smash workers’ organisation and the left parties. Eventually they decided that the Nazis were the only mechanism to deliver that. Prominent among the elite manipulators were General Kurt von Schleicher and the right wing media owner Alfred Hugenberg."(TTE, 2024)

Link: https://socialistworker.co.uk/features/takeover-a-new-book-shows-how-adolf-hitler-was-lifted-to-power/

"While Communists abetted the destruction of German democracy, seeing it as a way to eventually produce the revolution they wanted, the only German political party that consistently resisted Nazi arguments, the Social Democratic Party (SPD), offered another sign of the discontinuity between socialism and Nazism."

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/05/right-needs-stop-falsely-claiming-that-nazis-were-socialists/

Also an entire article on how the businesses were benefited from nazism: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/may/18/nazi-billionaires-book-hitler-bmw-porsche

Can provide several more articles if needed.

Originally posted by: CuckooCutter7

How about ideas? Have you never seen ideas that are old? Newton's laws? Anything in chemistry, sociology, literature, physics, biology, math, economics, geography, history? If not, then that's very sad. Old established ideas are worth knowing about. Ask for refund from school.

Copy pasting it here too, I have mentioned the article is from 1998 because I really have not seen any news article which is that old. Secondly, I am surprised that you chose an article from 1998 even though there are multiple articles which have invalidated these claims after that.

Originally posted by: Kyahikahoon

read this article. Also read towards the end when n expert says the same point posted by one poster here. Need of good faculty n quality infra. Also this is a 2020 article. Latest info is also available on google

https://www.factchecker.in/factchecking-pm-modis-claims-on-setting-up-iits-aiims-in-india/

Copy pasting from the Link:

“This government focuses on large buildings that allow you to issue large contracts and tenders and hence it is very visible. There are around 1.5 million schools in the country but half of them don't have teachers and that's exactly the model we’re replicating in higher education institutions in the country where we go into the frenzy of building campuses without having sufficient faculty,”

All I am saying is you cannot say reservations are taking away jobs from talented people and there is no one to take the job in the same breath. If there are no teachers, whose responsibility is to change that? is it not govt's duty?

EDIT: With around 1.4 billion people it is clearly not that we do not have enough people,

Originally posted by: CuckooCutter7

this is a good post for kchaims to read. It is one thing to pontificate and theorize about need for reservations sitting in the comfort of one's home, quite another to see the disasters these lead to

I cannot comment on this because I know nothing about the post and why none of the students got qualifying marks and why It is classified as best among failed students. I am assuming they will be trained after the viva test. Those are my assumptions but the easiest way is to ask the respective office why the regular cutoff was not followed. . I said there needs to be reservation, I cannot give you answers why a specific case happened somewhere. IDK how this post validates your reservation is bad point.

Originally posted by: kchaims

Coming back to this now Did you not say that you were not referring to hitler but the entire party? Now you are providing articles on hitler alone?

I have mentioned the article is from 1998 because I really have not seen any news article which is that old. Secondly, I am surprised that you chose an article from 1998 even though there are multiple articles which have invalidated these claims. Also did you not mention that you mentioned about nazism and not hitler alone but you have provided an article of Hitler alone?

Quoting few lines from the article:

That is a devastating remark and it is blunter than anything in his speeches or in Mein Kampf.; though even in the autobiography he observes that his own doctrine was fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason that it recognised the significance of race - implying, perhaps, that it might otherwise easily look like a derivative.

This is like saying even though there is a fictional character, the book is a non fictional book. The point is the book becomes a fictional book if there are fictional characters. The entire principle of socialism works on egalitarianism. Hitler and his party believed in one race is superior, business benefited from nazism. How are two contracting things possible at the same time? The article mentions it was "National socialism", how is it socialism if they only supported one race and were anti left? If we say one party is socialist by the name then North Korea is also called Democratic people's republic of Korea.

The majority of people Nazis killed were socialist and communist for being socialist or communist. They might be turning in their grave reading hitler was a socialist.

.....

very shifty.Here's the sequence of events: I said at the start I was talking about the party. You started out about hitler, I responded with an article about hitler. Then you question me why I am posting about him.

Very conveniently too, you cherry pick aspects from the article to make your claims. Anyway, now that you accept the article, how come you skipped the conclusion it makes that he was a socialist at the end of the day? Sly. By your own observation of who hitler went after, he basically went after anyone who opposed him- he was a scoundrel after all. He went after the capitalists too, not just the workers in his own party.

all this aside, the point I was making was that it is socialists and people masquerading as socialists who have turned out to be the biggest thugs in history. Like hitler. It is sneaky to claim they were not true socialists because they grabbed power on the back of their pandering to their socialist masses.

So look out for pappu gandhi and that bannerji woman and the dravidian leaders who hate on hindus, and have displayed the biggest socialist tendencies. As a matter of fact, Pappu's grandmother is the only PM to have imposed emergency and taken on dictatorial powers. A lot of the socialists are basically wolves in sheep's clothing. Sanctimonious, hypocritical, sneaky, intolerant characters.

by contrast, Modi has been for sabka saath, sabka vikas. If only the BJP communicated that better, they'd be doing better. But that "sabka" is hardly a sign of fascism etc.

Originally posted by: kchaims

I cannot comment on this because I know nothing about the post and why none of the students got qualifying marks and why It is classified as best among failed students. I am assuming they will be trained after the viva test. Those are my assumptions but the easiest way is to ask the respective office why the regular cutoff was not followed. . I said there needs to be reservation, I cannot give you answers why a specific case happened somewhere. IDK how this post validates your reservation is bad point.

by your own admission above, you know nothing, you dont have answers. But you have conclusions. Wah ji wah,

Originally posted by: CuckooCutter7

very shifty.Here's the sequence of events: I said at the start I was talking about the party. You started out about hitler, I responded with an article about hitler. Then you question me why I am posting about him.

Very conveniently too, you cherry pick aspects from the article to make your claims. Anyway, now that you accept the article, how come you skipped the conclusion it makes that he was a socialist at the end of the day? Sly. By your own observation of who hitler went after, he basically went after anyone who opposed him- he was a scoundrel after all. He went after the capitalists too, not just the workers in his own party.

all this aside, the point I was making was that it is socialists and people masquerading as socialists who have turned out to be the biggest thugs in history. Like hitler. It is sneaky to claim they were not true socialists because they grabbed power on the back of their pandering to their socialist masses.

So look out for pappu gandhi and that bannerji woman and the dravidian leaders who hate on hindus, and have displayed the biggest socialist tendencies. As a matter of fact, Pappu's grandmother is the only PM to have imposed emergency and taken on dictatorial powers. A lot of the socialists are basically wolves in sheep's clothing. Sanctimonious, hypocritical, sneaky, intolerant characters.

by contrast, Modi has been for sabka saath, sabka vikas. If only the BJP communicated that better, they'd be doing better. But that "sabka" is hardly a sign of fascism etc.

When I mentioned hitler you said you are talking about the party and then when I asked for sources of your original point, you sent me a source for hitler. I asked you for source for your point. How am I being shifty while you are jumping from one thing to another? Please feel free to recheck my question "is the source about nazis still in the room with us"

I picked a line from the article which I did not agree with. I do not agree with the article so why would I agree with the conclusion?

@bold where did I say that I agree to the article, I literally gave you several articles correcting the claim you made.

You are free to believe whatever you want to.

Originally posted by: CuckooCutter7

by your own admission above, you know nothing, you dont have answers. But you have conclusions. Wah ji wah,

The cutoff marks for lower caste is less lower compared to general caste but how am I supposed to know how a specific post was allotted. I can only make assumptions based on the minimal data available on that post.

You will see multiple posts about caste based atrocities even if you just google Dalit but one case like this is where you draw the line. Surprisingly, you are still questioning all the lower caste people than just call the office and ask them the details.

Also feel free to believe that I do not know anything

EDIt: changed less to lower