BJP to alter Article 35A on permanent residents in J&K?

[StraightShooter]

Soumitra, there is only one national party in India which is aligned strongly to one Indian faith, at the cost of every other.

Cheers, Doc

So you chose to deflect and avoid answering @Soumitra question.

A vote to keep out a party that is blatantly communal, is a secular vote.

Cheers, Doc

Not true. You anti vote is as good or as bad as a pro vote of your opponents.

 

[padamchen]

So you chose to deflect and avoid answering @Soumitra question.

There is no deflection on my part.

I made a clear statement. There is one Indian national party that is blatantly communal, and not secular at all.

Soumitra in fact deflected using the oft employed tu quoque route by trying to say that no party is secular. Implying a level playing field divorced of degrees.

That won't wash with seasoned debaters or electorates.

Cheers, Doc

So you chose to deflect and avoid answering @Soumitra question.



Not true. You anti vote is as good or as bad as a pro vote of your opponents.

How is not voting for a communal divisive party as good or as bad as voting for a communal divisive party.

Voting is about a decision.

A choice.

It is as important to ensure the wrong guys lose as it is to pick the right guys.

Cheers, Doc

 

[StraightShooter]

There is no reflection on my part.

I made a clear statement. There is one Indian national party that is blatantly communal, and not secular at all.

Soumitra in fact deflected using the oft employed tu quoque route by trying to say that no party is secular. Implying a level playing field divorced of degrees.

That won't wash with seasoned debaters or electorates.

Cheers, Doc

Do you really believe that the party that you are voting believes in Secularism? I don't think so. Your vote is based on your greed to protect your thinking and interests. You vote a party because it is in your best interests.

How is not voting for a communal divisive party as good or as bad as voting for a communal divisive party.

Cheers, Doc

This is your line of thinking. And it is the same line of of thinking of your opponents too. You are not special.

 

[padamchen]

Do you really believe that the party that you are voting believes in Secularism? I don't think so. Your vote is based on your greed to protect your thinking and interests. You vote a party because it is in your best interests.

Greed. Self interest.

Absolutely!!!!!

What pray did you think voting was about?

It is in my strongest self interest to ensure that the BJP and the Sangh are booted out and never come back.

Cheers, Doc

 

[ito]

I support this move...if BJP changes Article 35A, it will have my vote in next elections and next next elections too even if doesn't perform at all.

 

[StraightShooter]

There is no deflection on my part.

I made a clear statement. There is one Indian national party that is blatantly communal, and not secular at all.

Soumitra in fact deflected using the oft employed tu quoque route by trying to say that no party is secular. Implying a level playing field divorced of degrees.

That won't wash with seasoned debaters or electorates.

Cheers, Doc

Well you made the statement that there is only one party which is communal. So I think it fair for some to ask you to prove your statement that others are not communal. Hence I conclude that you deflected and avoid the question. You could not defend the statement that you made.

Greed. Self interest.

Absolutely!!!!!

What pray did you think voting was about?

It is in my strongest self interest to ensure that the BJP and the Sangh are booted out and never come back.

Cheers, Doc

I have no problem with your stance and I respect your decision.

 

[salimpheku]

I made a clear statement. There is one Indian national party that is blatantly communal, and not secular at all.

Yeah, we have seen which party ran to Rajesh's parents when this Dalit was butchered by seculars in kerala.
LOL@ so called self proclaimed seculars.
Your secularism is worth less than a used toilet paper.

 

[padamchen]

Well you made the statement that there is only one party which is communal. So I think it fair for some to ask you to prove your statement that others are not communal. Hence I conclude that you deflected and avoid the question. You could not defend the statement that you made.

I do believe you either did not absorb what I wrote or are putting words in my mouth.

Kindly re-read my statement. It's very clear.

I work in a field where each word of mine is scrutinized and dissected and attacked by a fraternity of very highly educated international professionals.

I do not use words lightly. Even on an overkill platform like PDF.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Soumitra]

So you chose to deflect and avoid answering @Soumitra question.



Not true. You anti vote is as good or as bad as a pro vote of your opponents.

"secular" "liberals" dont answer these questions. it hurts their self image of being Holier than Thou.

He is not the first "secular" "liberal" to run away and wont be the last.

 

[StraightShooter]

I support this move...if BJP changes Article 35A, it will have my vote in next elections and next next elections too even if doesn't perform at all.

It will require 2/3rds majority which means lot of support needed from the regional parties.

 

[salimpheku]

Well you made the statement that there is only one party which is communal. So I think it fair for some to ask you to prove your statement that others are not communal. Hence I conclude that you deflected and avoid the question. You could not defend the statement that you made.

It's a classic secular strategy.
They are very similar to Mr Kejriwal, who incidentally is struggling to prove his statements against Jaitley in court and is literally on his knees.

Similarly, every secular fails the "logical test". Their only answer to any question us "communals" pose is that "you also do it"....
Yeah, they have similar IQ as a retarded monkey and it shows in their posts.

 

[ito]

It will require 2/3rds majority which means lot of support needed from the regional parties.

IMO Parliament is not the problem...when it comes to Kashmir, Parliament talks the same voice so getting 2/3 should not be a big problem. The problem is state assembly and the local parties: NC and PDP.

 

[salimpheku]

It will require 2/3rds majority which means lot of support needed from the regional parties.

Depends on how Govt chooses to place it.
If it's not placed as constitutional amendment, a simple majority would do.

Eventually, either way, this will be decided in SC by constitutional bench.

 

[salimpheku]

The problem is state assembly and the local parties: NC and PDP.

They have no say in these matters. They will have to fall in line.

 

[ito]

They have no say in these matters. They will have to fall in line.

But they can create law and order problem in the valley.