Intolerance - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

dacia · #1 07-15-2007, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gurkha

At US$350 a month, do you really expect them to be in the upper echelons of service industry

I expect them to speak the freaking language!
That amount is a lottery win for them.

Alex

Gurkha · #2 07-15-2007, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dacia

I expect them to speak the freaking language!
That amount is a lottery win for them.

Alex

Trust me when I say, its not a lottery win for them, its chump change they use to get booze and stuff for themselves, about the language, its relative, most outside US don't understand Americans either when they speak their version of English and how many in US do speak the language? I can't make anyone out from ghettos or boondocks, for that matter anywhere from hick towns, point is, greedy corporates let the standard of call centers down day by day to lower it to this level, its atrocious, now they don't even screen for legibility etc. anyone is fair game. By the way, most who are in call centers here are on the lowest rung of graduates getting out of schools, most don't have the faintest chance of getting into college here and therefore get these jobs to sustain their lifestyle.

t walgamuth · #3 07-15-2007, 06:19 AM

That is about what I was thinking, but in I was thinking with less detail.

Thanks, Gurhka.

Tom W

dacia · #4 07-17-2007, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gurkha

Trust me when I say, its not a lottery win for them, its chump change they use to get booze and stuff for themselves.

I beg to differ.
India is a country where people routinely, and horribly, maim their children so they can be better beggars, where families live on sidewalks, where people don't have enough money to buy firewood so the dead are thrown into the Ganges half burnt, where people still practice female infanticide because girls are a liability to the family (obliged to give huge dowry when they get married), where the cast system is still alive and well, etc, etc.
An interesting movie to watch is Shocking Asia, a German documentary (not a recent production, however time is moving in a snail's pace in a few Asian countries).

"While India's growth makes it an economic and political player to watch in the next decades, the country remains desperately poor. Almost a quarter of India's 1.1 billion people live on less than $1 a day; 700 million more live on less than $2 a day.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/08/opinion/edhughes.php"

"According to the 1996 Human Development Report, 53 per cent of Indian children under five were underweight. 67 per cent of Indian births were unattended by health personnel. 64 per cent of Indian women were illiterate. Average these to get our Capability Poverty Measure (CPM): 61.5. That made us 89th among 101 developing countries the HDR ranked that year by their CPM."

"Income Levels and Poverty:

With over a quarter of the world's poor concentrated in India, poverty is the government's biggest priority.
Classified as a "low income" country by the World Bank with a GNI (gross national income) of $450.
Great inequality in the distribution of wealth: the richest tenth of households hold 33% of wealth, while the poorest tenth only hold 3%
29% of the population lives below the poverty line; 70% of these people reside in rural areas
86% of the population lives under $2 per day; 44% lives under $1 per day
25% of the population does not have enough money to eat adequately"

"Trafficking in persons:
current situation: India is a source, destination, and transit country for men, women, and children trafficked for the purposes of forced or bonded labor and commercial sexual exploitation; the large population of men, women, and children - numbering in the millions - in debt bondage face involuntary servitude in brick kilns, rice mills, and embroidery factories, while some children endure involuntary servitude as domestic servants; internal trafficking of women and girls for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation and forced marriage also occurs; the government estimates that 90 percent of India's sex trafficking is internal; India is also a destination for women and girls from Nepal and Bangladesh trafficked for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation; boys from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are trafficked through India to the Gulf states for involuntary servitude as child camel jockeys"
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html

"Focus (1): India

As John-Thor Dahlburg points out, "in rural India, the centuries-old practice of female infanticide can still be considered a wise course of action." (Dahlburg, "Where killing baby girls 'is no big sin'," The Los Angeles Times [in The Toronto Star, February 28, 1994.]) According to census statistics, "From 972 females for every 1,000 males in 1901 ... the gender imbalance has tilted to 929 females per 1,000 males. ... In the nearly 300 poor hamlets of the Usilampatti area of Tamil Nadu [state], as many as 196 girls died under suspicious circumstances [in 1993] ... Some were fed dry, unhulled rice that punctured their windpipes, or were made to swallow poisonous powdered fertilizer. Others were smothered with a wet towel, strangled or allowed to starve to death."
"A study of Tamil Nadu by the Community Service Guild of Madras similarly found that "female infanticide is rampant" in the state, though only among Hindu (rather than Moslem or Christian) families. "Of the 1,250 families covered by the study, 740 had only one girl child and 249 agreed directly that they had done away with the unwanted girl child. More than 213 of the families had more than one male child whereas half the respondents had only one daughter." (Malavika Karlekar, "The girl child in India: does she have any rights?," Canadian Woman Studies, March 1995.) "
http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html

So you are either purposely misrepresent the facts to protect the image of India (not the first time somebody from a third world country would do that even if you live in the US; if you were born in America you would have little reason to distort the truth unless India is more important to you than the US) or sadly misinformed.
Which one?

Regarding the religion issue, I wonder if the Indian Parliament would allow Christians to worship in the Indian House of Commons?

Alex

tankdriver · #5 07-17-2007, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dacia

I beg to differ.
India is a country where people routinely, and horribly, maim their children so they can be better beggars, where families live on sidewalks, where people don't have enough money to buy firewood so the dead are thrown into the Ganges half burnt, where people still practice female infanticide because girls are a liability to the family (obliged to give huge dowry when they get married), where the cast system is still alive and well, etc, etc.
An interesting movie to watch is Shocking Asia, a German documentary (not a recent production, however time is moving in a snail's pace in a few Asian countries).

"While India's growth makes it an economic and political player to watch in the next decades, the country remains desperately poor. Almost a quarter of India's 1.1 billion people live on less than $1 a day; 700 million more live on less than $2 a day.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/08/opinion/edhughes.php"

"According to the 1996 Human Development Report, 53 per cent of Indian children under five were underweight. 67 per cent of Indian births were unattended by health personnel. 64 per cent of Indian women were illiterate. Average these to get our Capability Poverty Measure (CPM): 61.5. That made us 89th among 101 developing countries the HDR ranked that year by their CPM."

"Income Levels and Poverty:

With over a quarter of the world's poor concentrated in India, poverty is the government's biggest priority.
Classified as a "low income" country by the World Bank with a GNI (gross national income) of $450.
Great inequality in the distribution of wealth: the richest tenth of households hold 33% of wealth, while the poorest tenth only hold 3%
29% of the population lives below the poverty line; 70% of these people reside in rural areas
86% of the population lives under $2 per day; 44% lives under $1 per day
25% of the population does not have enough money to eat adequately"

"Trafficking in persons:
current situation: India is a source, destination, and transit country for men, women, and children trafficked for the purposes of forced or bonded labor and commercial sexual exploitation; the large population of men, women, and children - numbering in the millions - in debt bondage face involuntary servitude in brick kilns, rice mills, and embroidery factories, while some children endure involuntary servitude as domestic servants; internal trafficking of women and girls for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation and forced marriage also occurs; the government estimates that 90 percent of India's sex trafficking is internal; India is also a destination for women and girls from Nepal and Bangladesh trafficked for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation; boys from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are trafficked through India to the Gulf states for involuntary servitude as child camel jockeys"
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html

"Focus (1): India

As John-Thor Dahlburg points out, "in rural India, the centuries-old practice of female infanticide can still be considered a wise course of action." (Dahlburg, "Where killing baby girls 'is no big sin'," The Los Angeles Times [in The Toronto Star, February 28, 1994.]) According to census statistics, "From 972 females for every 1,000 males in 1901 ... the gender imbalance has tilted to 929 females per 1,000 males. ... In the nearly 300 poor hamlets of the Usilampatti area of Tamil Nadu [state], as many as 196 girls died under suspicious circumstances [in 1993] ... Some were fed dry, unhulled rice that punctured their windpipes, or were made to swallow poisonous powdered fertilizer. Others were smothered with a wet towel, strangled or allowed to starve to death."
"A study of Tamil Nadu by the Community Service Guild of Madras similarly found that "female infanticide is rampant" in the state, though only among Hindu (rather than Moslem or Christian) families. "Of the 1,250 families covered by the study, 740 had only one girl child and 249 agreed directly that they had done away with the unwanted girl child. More than 213 of the families had more than one male child whereas half the respondents had only one daughter." (Malavika Karlekar, "The girl child in India: does she have any rights?," Canadian Woman Studies, March 1995.) "
http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html

So you are either purposely misrepresent the facts to protect the image of India (not the first time somebody from a third world country would do that even if you live in the US; if you were born in America you would have little reason to distort the truth unless India is more important to you than the US) or sadly misinformed.
Which one?

Regarding the religion issue, I wonder if the Indian Parliament would allow Christians to worship in the Indian House of Commons?

Alex

Have you ever been to India? Some friends of mine have gone there a few times doing charity work. We were talking about India over dinner, and I was surprised that even people who have been there had such a skewed view of the country. Like most Americans, they viewed India as full of terribly poor people and a few super rich. I was shocked when I mentioned something about India's middle class and one of them said, "really, there's a middle class? I didn't really see any." India's middle class is over 450 million people, 100 million more people than all of America.
American/Europeans go there prejudging, looking for what they want to find. And they'll find it. You can't have 1.1 billion people crammed into a space barely bigger than Texas and not run into poverty and the bad things poverty lends people to do. It also should be no surprise that there are plenty of uneducated people - if our government tried to provide education for a billion people it would collapse.
It's sad that any children are killed because of their gender. But that shouldn't paint all of India as a gender killing nation. Your article has 196 babies dying under suspicious circumstances in one year. While that is 196 too many, there were hundreds of thousands of children born, and the whole country has to bear the label of a few?
One of your citations also mentions that a 1/4 of the population is poor. That's 250 million people. The United States has 300 million people and is much richer than India. Naturally there are no poor people in America, right? People who write articles about Indians 'routinely maim their children' are absurdly stupid and ignorant. For the record, not one of my uncles/cousins/nieces/nephews (and in India, a cousin is a brother, a second cousin is a cousin -- I've got a big family) is maimed. Or begs. Or has killed a girl child.

I'm sure there's no exploitation of children in America either, considering how few people they have to police and the vast increase of resources relative to India. Rather than disdain India for not being as rich a country as ours, maybe trying to understand it before judging would be good.

As for the religion question, India is the 2nd most populous Muslim country in the world. There are many Christians, Jews, and every other faith in India, and there have been more prayers than just Hindu in Parliament. In fact, Christians are generally highly regarded in India for their charitable work with the poor. In India, there isn't really a concept of a dominant religion. Sure, Hinduism has it's ignorant fanatics like every other religion, but for the most part, Hinduism doesn't have a 'mine's the only right one and you better join me' attitude. Gandhi held prayer services with prayers from all religions.

dacia · #6 07-19-2007, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

Have you ever been to India? Some friends of mine have gone there a few times doing charity work. We were talking about India over dinner, and I was surprised that even people who have been there had such a skewed view of the country. Like most Americans, they viewed India as full of terribly poor people and a few super rich. I was shocked when I mentioned something about India's middle class and one of them said, "really, there's a middle class? I didn't really see any." India's middle class is over 450 million people, 100 million more people than all of America.
American/Europeans go there prejudging, looking for what they want to find. And they'll find it. You can't have 1.1 billion people crammed into a space barely bigger than Texas and not run into poverty and the bad things poverty lends people to do. It also should be no surprise that there are plenty of uneducated people - if our government tried to provide education for a billion people it would collapse.
.
.
.
One of your citations also mentions that a 1/4 of the population is poor. That's 250 million people. The United States has 300 million people and is much richer than India. Naturally there are no poor people in America, right? ...

Read the thread from the beginning. Gurkha made an assertion that $350 dollar a month is chump change for Indians. I called him on it and proved from a few different sources that that amount is a lot of money over there.

Quote:

“Classified as a "low income" country by the World Bank with a GNI (gross national income) of $450.”

Quote:

“Despite significant economic progress, a quarter of the nation's population earns less than the government-specified poverty threshold of $0.40/day. In addition, India has a higher rate of malnutrition among children under the age of three (46% in year 2007) than any other country in the world.”

www.wikipedia.org

That is not “poor” but destitute and hungry every day.

Quote:

“Almost a quarter of India's 1.1 billion people live on less than $1 a day; 700 million more live on less than $2 a day.”
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/08/opinion/edhughes.php"
“29% of the population lives below the poverty line; 70% of these people reside in rural areas
86% of the population lives under $2 per day; 44% lives under $1 per day
25% of the population does not have enough money to eat adequately"

So 700 million are dirt poor, living in abject poverty, the rest, 450 million, are middle class (according to you). Democracy and responsible government at work.

I have never been to India, my wife has and so have a few of my students (Japanese business men). They basically said the same thing as your friends.
I wonder why there is such a consensus?

Then both you and Gurkha got all defensive and blamed the British for India’s problems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

Surely you can't be serious. The Brits controlled us for 170 years. You can't be that ignorant of history. There was a time when 'the sun never sets on the British Empire'.
As for why they were unable to throw off the Brits, well let's look at the US and India. The founding fathers were not native people, lived in a resource rich land, had European support and equivalent weapons technology, and revolted before the Industrial Revolution. India on the other hand had a native population, no outside support, were not rich on vast resources, had inferior weapons technology, and most importantly were under British control before the Industrial Revolution. If you don't understand how a colonizing power can control the destiny of its colony by controlling industrial production, there's not much point in going any further.

What do you mean "us" half-white man? Just kidding.

Seriously, are you American or Indian, surely if you were born and raised in America then "us" could only mean US.

India didn't even exist as a country before the 20th century.
The land was colonized not by the British Empire but a commercial entity, the British East India Company (or Honourable East India Company).

As to the size and the natural resources, here is some info:
Size: India: 3,287,590 sq km seventh largest country in the world
Texas: 678,051 sq km

Natural resources:
India: coal (fourth-largest reserves in the world), iron ore, manganese, mica, bauxite, titanium ore, chromite, natural gas, diamonds, petroleum, limestone, arable land

US: coal, copper, lead, molybdenum, phosphates, uranium, bauxite, gold, iron, mercury, nickel, potash, silver, tungsten, zinc, petroleum, natural gas, timber
Courtesy of: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

That amount of coal, iron, petroleum and bauxit, in my mind, is a wonderful base to launch an industrial revolution from.
The native population in India, or in America for that matter, had exactly the same time through evolution (if you believe in it) to form a nation state, build ocean going ships, develop weapons technology, start and sustain an industrial revolution, explore and discover new lands and make use of their resources as the Europeans did. It didn't happen. It did in Europe. What can I tell you?

As to the shaking off the colonial rule, you brought a perfect example.
The circumstances seem similar, a colony an ocean away, British rule, feelings of being exploited. The US did just that (kicked British butt), but there was never a Boston Tea party in India. Lot of tea but no party.

It was the Indians' inability to put aside tribalism, form a nation and act in unison against an outsider. Had it not been for the British there may well be no India today for there was nothing there but a bunch marauding fiefdoms, warring kings and chieftains that the British so efficiently used against each other. Divide et impera.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

India is more than 100 years behind America in industrial production, in large part due to the occupation of the British. If you want to sit here and compare a country less than 100 years in control of its own destiny to a country that has had 300 years of control, control of its industry, 1/3rd the population, extreme richness of natural resources, and conclude that, 'Ha! We're better and you suck,' then it's hardly a surprise that America doesn't have a great reputation around the world...

As to what not a 100 but 50 years of incredible work habit, determination and
knowledge can bring here are two examples: Germany and Japan.
Both were bombed back to the stone age, especially Germany, had their countries in ruins, lost a large percentage of their male working population yet both were able to overcome the negative effects of defeat, the payment of incredible sums of war reparations and became the leading industrial nations of the world.
Something to chew on:

Quote:

Germany:
"After World War II, according to the Potsdam conference held between July 17 and August 2, 1945, Germany was to pay the Allies US$20 billion mainly in machinery, manufacturing plants. Reparations to the Soviet Union stopped in 1953. In addition, in accordance with the agreed upon policy of de-industrialisation and pastoralization of Germany, large numbers of civilian factories were dismantled for transport to France and the UK, or simply destroyed. Dismantling in the west stopped in 1950.

In the end, war victims in many countries were compensated by the property of Germans that were expelled after World War II. Beginning immediately after the German surrender and continuing for the next two years, the United States pursued a vigorous program to harvest all technological and scientific know-how as well as all patents in Germany. Historian John Gimbel, in his book Science Technology and Reparations: Exploitation and Plunder in Postwar Germany, states that the "intellectual reparations" taken by the U.S. and the UK amounted to close to $10 billion dollars. [1] German reparations were partly to be in the form of forced labor. By 1947, approximately 4,000,000 German POW's and civilians were used as forced labor (under various headings, such as "reparations labor" or "enforced labor") in the Soviet Union, France, the UK, Belgium and in Germany in U.S run "Military Labor Service Units"."

In addition, Israel exists thanks largely to the 10's of billions of deutsche marks paid by Germany as war reparation.

Quote:

Japan:
"Treaty of Peace with Japan and the bilateral agreements, Japan agreed to pay around 1 trillion and 30 billion yen. For countries that renounced any reparations from Japan, it agreed to pay indemnity and/or grants in accordance with bilateral agreements."

So stop blaming Europeans for your problems, it is your work habit, inefficient and corrupt government, failing education system that gives you the headaches.

Quote:

(India:
Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 61%
male: 73.4%
female: 47.8% (2001 census)

Pointing out your shortcomings does not mean I hate you.
The billions of dollars India spent on developing nukes could have provided a few meals to the hungry, heck it would have been enough to build a few more schools, me thinks.

Alex

cmac2012 · #7 07-19-2007, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dacia

So 700 million are dirt poor, living in abject poverty, the rest, 450 million, are middle class (according to you). Democracy and responsible government at work.

I have never been to India, my wife has and so have a few of my students (Japanese business men). They basically said the same thing as your friends.
I wonder why there is such a consensus?

Then both you and Gurkha got all defensive and blamed the British for India’s problems.

India didn't even exist as a country before the 20th century.
The land was colonized not by the British Empire but a commercial entity, the British East India Company (or Honourable East India Company).

It was the Indians' inability to put aside tribalism, form a nation and act in unison against an outsider. Had it not been for the British there may well be no India today for there was nothing there but a bunch marauding fiefdoms, warring kings and chieftains that the British so efficiently used against each other. Divide et impera.

Pointing out your shortcomings does not mean I hate you.
The billions of dollars India spent on developing nukes could have provided a few meals to the hungry, heck it would have been enough to build a few more schools, me thinks.

Who knows why one civilization develops in an apparently faster way than others? It's a puzzle. A lot of the reason the US has done so well is we had a virtually clean slate to work with, after the humane dispatching of the bothersome natives, that is.

Digging up huge amounts of coal and other minerals was much easier here than it would have been in India at the same time because the population was much larger there and they had a lot of inertia in other directions.

European nations were in pretty hard shape most of the time during the several centuries that preceded the migrations to America. Being able to export sizable amounts of poor people helped.

We're way too cocky about our apparent prosperity here. We have a lot of people in America w/o adequate nutrition, medical care, and schools also and I don't here you complaining about the money we spend on arms -- an amount that seriously dwarfs India on an overall basis and really dwarfs India per capita. Then again, you're not a yank, are you?

We've been a prosperous, wealthy nation for how long? A very short time in historical terms. Stumbling blocks ahead.

tankdriver · #8 07-19-2007, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dacia

Read the thread from the beginning. Gurkha made an assertion that $350 dollar a month is chump change for Indians. I called him on it and proved from a few different sources that that amount is a lot of money over there.

It's not a lot of money over there. It's a lot of money to some people over there.

Quote:

I have never been to India, my wife has and so have a few of my students (Japanese business men). They basically said the same thing as your friends.
I wonder why there is such a consensus?

Maybe because visiting isn't really grounds for judging a whole country?

Quote:

Then both you and Gurkha got all defensive and blamed the British for India’s problems.

First, I'm not defensive. You made some poor judgements based on a few things you read, and I sought to set the record straight. Second, you clearly missed where I wrote that there is a difference between blame and acknowledging the impact colonialization had.

Quote:

What do you mean "us" half-white man? Just kidding.

Seriously, are you American or Indian, surely if you were born and raised in America then "us" could only mean US.

Like every other American, I am the child of immigrants. I don't see how it matters, but I was born, bred, and raised in the good ol' US of A.

Quote:

The land was colonized not by the British Empire but a commercial entity, the British East India Company (or Honourable East India Company).

Backed by the full weight of the Empire. Your point?

Quote:

That amount of coal, iron, petroleum and bauxit, in my mind, is a wonderful base to launch an industrial revolution from.
The native population in India, or in America for that matter, had exactly the same time through evolution (if you believe in it) to form a nation state, build ocean going ships, develop weapons technology, start and sustain an industrial revolution, explore and discover new lands and make use of their resources as the Europeans did. It didn't happen. It did in Europe. What can I tell you?

What can I tell you? Materials need to be extracted from the ground. It's hard to have an industrial revolution when those in control deny you access to technology and machinery. I suppose you are going to tell me India should have had its industrial revolution 100's of years before Europe and America, because when the Industrial Revolution was going on, the British denied them access through force.

As for why they didn't develop weapons, you got me. Nobody else in the world but the Europeans were as quick to develop technologies for killing people and then put them to use. Fortunately for Indians, they didn't end up like American Indians, but they were conquered. You got me, Indians are inferior by dint of conquest. Indians had different goals and outlook than expansionist conquest and they paid for it.

Quote:

As to the shaking off the colonial rule, you brought a perfect example.
The circumstances seem similar, a colony an ocean away, British rule, feelings of being exploited. The US did just that (kicked British butt), but there was never a Boston Tea party in India. Lot of tea but no party.

It was the Indians' inability to put aside tribalism, form a nation and act in unison against an outsider. Had it not been for the British there may well be no India today for there was nothing there but a bunch marauding fiefdoms, warring kings and chieftains that the British so efficiently used against each other. Divide et impera.

I did bring the perfect example, but you seem to have ignored the vast differences. And I dispute your characterization that Indians were a bunch of marauding idiots. This country was a few hundred years ahead of Copernicus, invented the concept of zero, and - though called Arabic numerals - gave you and me the numbers we use today. Yes, they were decentralized. There was never a giant force like the Romans that united by the sword.
Also, one of the differences I mentioned between the British rule of the US and India was that Indians were a native population. The Brits were able to create factions and rivalries as you mentioned. They did it to great effect in Africa as well. Last, I would like to point out that India was under control of the British for less time than America was. The conquest of India to freedom was maybe 40 years longer than British ownership of America.

Quote:

As to what not a 100 but 50 years of incredible work habit, determination and
knowledge can bring here are two examples: Germany and Japan.
Both were bombed back to the stone age, especially Germany, had their countries in ruins, lost a large percentage of their male working population yet both were able to overcome the negative effects of defeat, the payment of incredible sums of war reparations and became the leading industrial nations of the world.
Something to chew on:

In addition, Israel exists thanks largely to the 10's of billions of deutsche marks paid by Germany as war reparation.

Do you know who paid most of Germany's (and France's and England's and everyone else in Europe's) debt? We did. We loaned them our money to pay us back with. Then helped in the rebuilding. Funny how no one lent India billions of dollars.

Quote:

So stop blaming Europeans for your problems, it is your work habit, inefficient and corrupt government, failing education system that gives you the headaches.

My inefficient and corrupt government, failing education system... I forget, are we talking about America or India now? And you obviously know nothing about the Indian work ethic, I'm not even going to bother with that. It clearly doesn't match Americans', which is why everyone buys American cars.

Quote:

Pointing out your shortcomings does not mean I hate you.
The billions of dollars India spent on developing nukes could have provided a few meals to the hungry, heck it would have been enough to build a few more schools, me thinks.

No, it doesn't mean you hate me. But it's awfully easy to point out shortcomings. I could start on America's and go on for weeks. Your smug superiority galls me. First you say they should've advanced in weapons technology earlier, now when they catch up you say they shouldn't waste their money. As for providing meals to the poor and a few more schools I say again, India has 3x the population of the US, and the US still has hungry mouths and stupid people. Given the extreme amount of money in this country and the sparse population, shouldn't both be completely abolished - that is what you expect of India. Get your own house in order before you criticize others.

cmac2012 · #9 07-17-2007, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dacia

I expect them to speak the freaking language!
That amount is a lottery win for them.

I've had mostly good luck with tech support people with an Indian accent.

Gurkha · #10 07-17-2007, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

I've had mostly good luck with tech support people with an Indian accent.

cmac,

His original reply purely indicated his hatred toward Indians in general, specially the Rat worshipper types

his subsequent posts just clarified his hate further.

aklim · #11 07-17-2007, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gurkha

cmac,

His original reply purely indicated his hatred toward Indians in general, specially the Rat worshipper types

his subsequent posts just clarified his hate further.

I don't know. Sounds like a pretty fast move for a bunch of rat worshippers. Could I make millionaire if I started worshiping rats? If so, count me in. Put it this way. For enough money, I'll dance around a fire at midnight with a chicken tied to my head.

Gurkha · #12 07-17-2007, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I don't know. Sounds like a pretty fast move for a bunch of rat worshippers. Could I make millionaire if I started worshiping rats? If so, count me in. Put it this way. For enough money, I'll dance around a fire at midnight with a chicken tied to my head.

Good one aklim