Nobel Prize, World Bank Chief, anything is possible for R3

[Joe Shearer]

If you and me do it, it is criminal.
BUT
If PM of a country uses his power to do it, it's an executive decision.

I have seldom come across such ignorance.

There is no provision for executive overturn of a judicial decision. Ask a lawyer or a political science authority who has even an elementary familiarity with the constitution. The Prime Minister certainly has no authority to go contrary to a court decision, and the higher body, the Cabinet, also cannot do anything about it.

Only Parliament can, and that too within the framework of the 'broad structure of the Constitution'. Any legislation beyond that can, and has been struck down by the Supreme Court.

That's why I gave the Shah Bano case as example.
Was Rajiv's decision on shah Bano case criminal as well? Definitely it went against the SC.
So, what's Locus stand on this?
You need to brush up your knowledge.

A bad, downright ignorant example.

The Shah Bano case constituted an appeal to the courts by a Muslim woman. The courts found for her, and against the principles of Muslim Personal Law. Those who had vested interests in Muslim Personal Law then started agitation. Rajiv Gandhi then took to the legislative route, NOT the executive, to counter the court's decision.

Read this again: THE MINISTRY PASSED LEGISLATION AFFIRMING THE DEMANDS OF THE MUSLIM LAW INTERPRETERS AND AGAINST THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT. IT DID NOT TAKE EXECUTIVE ACTION.

It is astonishing how little you know and what broad, sweeping assumptions you make based on that little knowledge.

NOPE...you are wrong. Executive decision can be challenged but can not be criminal.

In this case, it was not executive action, it was an action by a politician through clandestine channels, it was not an ordinance or a government order, it was the highest executive authority pressurising the local executive authority to break the law. It was downright criminal.

Executive decisions can be challenged and have been challenged. The Bofors case is a case in point. The executive decided to purchase an excellent gun, but there were constant rumours of irregular financial transactions. When these were investigated, not by the government machinery, but by private investigators and by journalists, the rumours turned out to be embarrassingly close to the truth. The ministry fell because criminal prosecution along with impeachment in Parliament was imminent.

The same thing happened with the coal allocations with UPAII.

We can keep debating on this but you can not prove me wrong, unless there is an FIR or a case against Rajiv on this - which you don't have.
So, all you have is talk and your position of what's right and what's wrong than a constitutional position.

If you had even the slightest knowledge of the position of the Constitution on these matters, and if you had a sound grasp of the events, you would know, first, that the action taken was clandestine, second, that it was in defiance of the court, third, that the executive even acting officially is not immune from prosecution, fourth, that Rajiv Gandhi and his government not facing criminal proceedings does not in any way affect the criminality of the proceedings.

I am not going to spoon feed you on this as this is a side track to our main argument.
if you want to know the british court's judgement on this, kindly do some research.

In other words, you are wrong, you know you are wrong, and you do not want to admit it in public. That's all right, that is true of your entire position.

Actually, the opposite is true - especially if we go by SC judgement.
Again you are alluding violence to a position taken by me and you have the moral courage to give my posts negative rating!!
Actually the way I see it after the recent SC judgement awarding the land to Ram Lalla is that your position of denying a section right to worship is - Criminal.

The Supreme Court adjudicated on the ownership of land. It did not retrospectively condone - it could not have condoned a breach of the law - all the breaches of law that the partisans who were out-of-court supporters of the Hindu litigants committed. Giving a small portion of the land - about one-third - to Ram Lalla does not mean that the previous breaches of law and order were justified. Ask any lawyer.

And my position is that no section has a right to worship after breaking the law to acquire that law. Then there would be no more law left, as is exactly the position according to bhakts: that religion, the majority religion, supersedes law.

I am not a pseudo Liberal. I meant exactly what I said.

All you are, far from being a liberal or a pseudo-liberal, or even remotely associated with liberal ideals and notions, is what you confess you are: a proud Chaddi Sanghi Bhakth. Everyone recognises that, and your arguments reinforce that.

 

[DesiGuy1403]

I have seldom come across such ignorance.

There is no provision for executive overturn of a judicial decision. Ask a lawyer or a political science authority who has even an elementary familiarity with the constitution. The Prime Minister certainly has no authority to go contrary to a court decision, and the higher body, the Cabinet, also cannot do anything about it.

Only Parliament can, and that too within the framework of the 'broad structure of the Constitution'. Any legislation beyond that can, and has been struck down by the Supreme Court.



A bad, downright ignorant example.

The Shah Bano case constituted an appeal to the courts by a Muslim woman. The courts found for her, and against the principles of Muslim Personal Law. Those who had vested interests in Muslim Personal Law then started agitation. Rajiv Gandhi then took to the legislative route, NOT the executive, to counter the court's decision.

Read this again: THE MINISTRY PASSED LEGISLATION AFFIRMING THE DEMANDS OF THE MUSLIM LAW INTERPRETERS AND AGAINST THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT. IT DID NOT TAKE EXECUTIVE ACTION.

It is astonishing how little you know and what broad, sweeping assumptions you make based on that little knowledge.



In this case, it was not executive action, it was an action by a politician through clandestine channels, it was not an ordinance or a government order, it was the highest executive authority pressurising the local executive authority to break the law. It was downright criminal.

Executive decisions can be challenged and have been challenged. The Bofors case is a case in point. The executive decided to purchase an excellent gun, but there were constant rumours of irregular financial transactions. When these were investigated, not by the government machinery, but by private investigators and by journalists, the rumours turned out to be embarrassingly close to the truth. The ministry fell because criminal prosecution along with impeachment in Parliament was imminent.

The same thing happened with the coal allocations with UPAII.



If you had even the slightest knowledge of the position of the Constitution on these matters, and if you had a sound grasp of the events, you would know, first, that the action taken was clandestine, second, that it was in defiance of the court, third, that the executive even acting officially is not immune from prosecution, fourth, that Rajiv Gandhi and his government not facing criminal proceedings does not in any way affect the criminality of the proceedings.



In other words, you are wrong, you know you are wrong, and you do not want to admit it in public. That's all right, that is true of your entire position.



The Supreme Court adjudicated on the ownership of land. It did not retrospectively condone - it could not have condoned a breach of the law - all the breaches of law that the partisans who were out-of-court supporters of the Hindu litigants committed. Giving a small portion of the land - about one-third - to Ram Lalla does not mean that the previous breaches of law and order were justified. Ask any lawyer.

And my position is that no section has a right to worship after breaking the law to acquire that law. Then there would be no more law left, as is exactly the position according to bhakts: that religion, the majority religion, supersedes law.



All you are, far from being a liberal or a pseudo-liberal, or even remotely associated with liberal ideals and notions, is what you confess you are: a proud Chaddi Sanghi Bhakth. Everyone recognises that, and your arguments reinforce that.

WOW..Now legislature is not part of executive.
You are teaching new lessons in governance

I will keep repeating the point on criminality, prove it or shut it.
Oh when I say prove it, I don't mean your illogical rants but FIR's or court decision stating the act was criminal or the act was ever considered criminal and hence investigated.

As far as the loose motion you spew in your last paragraph, well sir, what I see in you is a bigot with no tolerance to other's ideas. You have no ideology except self-serving. I would gladly be a proud bhakth than what ever the hell you are.

Now coming back to debate, I keep asking to prove Rajiv's criminality and all you can show is YOUR WORDS?? Come on, show some proof or people will think you are a bluff master like Kejriwal.

 

[Joe Shearer]

WOW..Now legislature is not part of executive.
You are teaching new lessons in governance

No, legislature is not part of the executive.

That I need to say this to an adult (you are one, I hope) shows how ignorant you are. Read the Constitution.

I will keep repeating the point on criminality, prove it or shut it.
Oh when I say prove it, I don't mean your illogical rants but FIR's or court decision stating the act was criminal or the act was ever considered criminal and hence investigated.

NO court decision is needed to say that a court's orders MUST be obeyed, by the executive.

As far as the loose motion you spew in your last paragraph, well sir, what I see in you is a bigot with no tolerance to other's ideas. You have no ideology except self-serving. I would gladly be a proud bhakth than what ever the hell you are.

Personal abuse again? Tch, tch, tch...

Now coming back to debate, I keep asking to prove Rajiv's criminality and all you can show is YOUR WORDS?? Come on, show some proof or people will think you are a bluff master like Kejriwal.

Not really. I can show you the law of the land, which, again repeating every earlier post, is that a court order cannot be violated.

 

[DesiGuy1403]

No, legislature is not part of the executive.

That I need to say this to an adult (you are one, I hope) shows how ignorant you are. Read the Constitution.



NO court decision is needed to say that a court's orders MUST be obeyed, by the executive.



Personal abuse again? Tch, tch, tch...



Not really. I can show you the law of the land, which, again repeating every earlier post, is that a court order cannot be violated.

Actually you are wrong factually as well.
Fact check - Rajiv Gandhi govt went to Court to get it opened, the Allahabad district court ordered the gates top be open for Hindus to worship inside.
So, you are factually wrong.

@waz @Slav Defence please look into this. Joe has been consistently giving me negative rating not for abuse but for a position I have taken which is not to his liking. The fact that in this matter Indian courts ruled as I stated. Joe has been lying and abusing his position pettily.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-11436552

Please check the event in 1986, the decision was taken in consultation with courts.
Joe has been wrong on all counts.
My original post was balanced and based on facts. Since Joe did not like my views, he started giving negative rating, which I see here to be an obvious abuse of power he has been given.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Actually you are wrong factually as well.
Fact check - Rajiv Gandhi govt went to Court to get it opened, the Allahabad district court ordered the gates top be open for Hindus to worship inside.
So, you are factually wrong.

@waz @Slav Defence please look into this. Joe has been consistently giving me negative rating not for abuse but for a position I have taken which is not to his liking. The fact that in this matter Indian courts ruled as I stated. Joe has been lying and abusing his position pettily.

You seem to have a selective memory.

This is what @The_Showstopper wrote:

Rajiv Gandhi opening Babri Masjid gates to appease the Hindu extremists by going against the Supreme Court order.

And this was your reply:

That was a good thing.
Not everything is black or white. If there is one good thing Raviv did, it was opening of Babri gates to Hindus.
As long as old crimes are not addressed, justice can never be done. Sickulars can not hide under the garb of crime having happened long back, especially since the justice being demanded by Hindus is one of balance in terms of getting our gods property back to our lord.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/nobel-prize-world-bank-chief-anything-is-possible-for-r3.435828/page-2#ixzz4CN9epEia

It was precisely for this, and for nothing else, for justifying a breach of the law and denigrating the Constitution, that you got your FIRST negative rating.

You got the others for personal abuse.

 

[DesiGuy1403]

@Levina @Sky lord @ranjeet Just trying to get your attention to this discussion.

Does having a difference of opinion here is ground for negative rating?
My post had no abuse, no support for violence and no offensive images.

The only premise that Rajiv went against court order has also been proven to be false. Still the negative ratings continue!
Can't imagine the eco system where difference in views are not "tolerated"..

Oh the irony

You seem to have a selective memory.

This is what @The_Showstopper wrote:

Rajiv Gandhi opening Babri Masjid gates to appease the Hindu extremists by going against the Supreme Court order.

And this was your reply:

That was a good thing.
Not everything is black or white. If there is one good thing Raviv did, it was opening of Babri gates to Hindus.
As long as old crimes are not addressed, justice can never be done. Sickulars can not hide under the garb of crime having happened long back, especially since the justice being demanded by Hindus is one of balance in terms of getting our gods property back to our lord.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/nobel-prize-world-bank-chief-anything-is-possible-for-r3.435828/page-2#ixzz4CN9epEia

It was precisely for this, and for nothing else, for justifying a breach of the law and denigrating the Constitution, that you got your FIRST negative rating.

You got the others for personal abuse.

Nonsense. You were very clear in your posts.
You have been harping for 2 pages that Rajiv went against court orders. Now that has been proven to be false.

regarding personal abuse, perhaps you should re-read your posts regarding the same. I have quoted your posts where you abused me as well. So, why crib?

Oh just because one forummer says "Hindu extremists" does not make supporters of Ram Lalla "extremists"...that's his opinion.
Me replying to him does not mean I support his view. In fact it's the opposite of that. I didn't support his view and hence my rebuttal.
And what ever I have said was backed up by the order fro court.

My original post did not contain abuse. Please do read it carefully.

It's now very obvious. You are shifting goal posts. few posts back it was Rajiv going against court order. Now that I have proved that is not the case, you are shifting you imaginary goal post.

Since my position is based on court order, how am I going against the constitution.

Any lawyers here? Can anyone explain how me supporting court decision and govt decision is unconstitutional?!!!
It's getting weirder and weirder here!!

Did you even read the post? Court ordered the opening of gates based on recommendation from Rajiv Gandhi govt.!!

@Joe Shearer
Here are the incidents where you have insulted me..but surprisingly you seem to have little tolerance when some one gives it back to you.

Wash your mind out with yellow soap, improve your attitude, get rid of your Islamophobia and you might start writing good posts.

What do you call this Joe? You called me a islamophobe, insulted quality of my posts and make some crude jokes about soaps...should I laugh? Or may be you expected "others" to laugh at my expense.

It would take a genius like you to take a refusal to take your reading habits into consideration as a sign of interest in your reading habits.

There you go again...sarcastic, adds nothing to topic, except some cheap laughs at my expense.

I can go on...but sure get the gist..

 

[Guynextdoor2]

That was a good thing.
Not everything is black or white. If there is one good thing Raviv did, it was opening of Babri gates to Hindus.
As long as old crimes are not addressed, justice can never be done. Sickulars can not hide under the garb of crime having happened long back, especially since the justice being demanded by Hindus is one of balance in terms of getting our gods property back to our lord.

Sitting in Australia bhakt brays about sickular, executive, judiciary, babri, Rajiv etc.

 

[DesiGuy1403]

Sitting in Australia bhakt brays about sickular, executive, judiciary, babri, Rajiv etc.

What's your point?
What has my sitting or sleeping in Australia got to do with anything.

I am sure your tolerance just took a hike....

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Levina @Sky lord @ranjeet Just trying to get your attention to this discussion.

Does having a difference of opinion here is ground for negative rating?
My post had no abuse, no support for violence and no offensive images.

The only premise that Rajiv went against court order has also been proven to be false. Still the negative ratings continue!
Can't imagine the eco system where difference in views are not "tolerated"..

Oh the irony




Nonsense. You were very clear in your posts.
You have been harping for 2 pages that Rajiv went against court orders. Now that has been proven to be false.

Of course I have been very clear in my posts. You very clearly supported what you thought, at the time, was a violation of court orders and an illegal opening of the premises. It was long afterwards that you thought of going to the records and citing one of several lower court judgements on the matter. Your basic premise was that the executive can do anything that it pleases so long as it satisfies the majority's demands, and so long as an historical wrong was set right. It is this support of executive action in violation of the courts that you articulated in your first reply to The_Showstopper that showed your mental make-up, and that called out the negative.

My telling you about the court order initially barring the premises was to underline that the executive has no power to act on these matters without court direction; your very late discovery points exactly, precisely in that direction.

regarding personal abuse, perhaps you should re-read your posts regarding the same. I have quoted your posts where you abused me as well. So, why crib?

I shall gladly leave it to others to judge if the terms used were equivalent. Even a neutral outsider reported you for abuse.

Oh just because one forummer says "Hindu extremists" does not make supporters of Ram Lalla "extremists"...that's his opinion.
Me replying to him does not mean I support his view. In fact it's the opposite of that. I didn't support his view and hence my rebuttal.

How is this relevant?

And what ever I have said was backed up by the order fro court.

My original post did not contain abuse. Please do read it carefully.

It's now very obvious. You are shifting goal posts. few posts back it was Rajiv going against court order. Now that I have proved that is not the case, you are shifting you imaginary goal post.

Since my position is based on court order, how am I going against the constitution.

Any lawyers here? Can anyone explain how me supporting court decision and govt decision is unconstitutional?!!!
It's getting weirder and weirder here!!

Did you even read the post? Court ordered the opening of gates based on recommendation from Rajiv Gandhi govt.!!

LOL.

You are reading back into the original situation. When the discussion started, you yourself very smugly approved of the terms that The_Showstopper used about the actions of the government? Don't remember? I have reproduced it for your ready reference.

NOW:

• Are you still of the opinion that an executive order violating a court order is justified by the wishes of the majority?
• Have you changed your mind? Are you now arguing that the government's actions were justified ONLY because it had taken court sanction for these actions?
• Are you saying that the court's orders are supportive of the Constitution, and that you base your justifications on these orders, not on unilateral executive action?

Think these through very clearly and answer, please.

About personal abuse: your original post did not contain personal abuse. True. You were also not rated negative for personal abuse on that original post.

@Joe Shearer
Here are the incidents where you have insulted me..but surprisingly you seem to have little tolerance when some one gives it back to you.

Wash your mind out with yellow soap, improve your attitude, get rid of your Islamophobia and you might start writing good posts.

What do you call this Joe? You called me a islamophobe, insulted quality of my posts and make some crude jokes about soaps...should I laugh? Or may be you expected "others" to laugh at my expense.

It would take a genius like you to take a refusal to take your reading habits into consideration as a sign of interest in your reading habits.

There you go again...sarcastic, adds nothing to topic, except some cheap laughs at my expense.

I can go on...but sure get the gist..

Two points - first, your Islamophobia is obvious, even in your signature. So what is abnormal about pointing to your own statement about yourself?
Second, after being informed categorically that your reading habits were of no interest, obviously because they were not relevant to the discussion, if you come back to the same topic, wouldn't anybody point out the contradiction? What is sarcastic about it?

 

[DesiGuy1403]

Of course I have been very clear in my posts. You very clearly supported what you thought, at the time, was a violation of court orders and an illegal opening of the premises. It was long afterwards that you thought of going to the records and citing one of several lower court judgements on the matter. Your basic premise was that the executive can do anything that it pleases so long as it satisfies the majority's demands, and so long as an historical wrong was set right. It is this support of executive action in violation of the courts that you articulated in your first reply to The_Showstopper that showed your mental make-up, and that called out the negative.

My telling you about the court order initially barring the premises was to underline that the executive has no power to act on these matters without court direction; your very late discovery points exactly, precisely in that direction.



I shall gladly leave it to others to judge if the terms used were equivalent. Even a neutral outsider reported you for abuse.



How is this relevant?



LOL.

You are reading back into the original situation. When the discussion started, you yourself very smugly approved of the terms that The_Showstopper used about the actions of the government? Don't remember? I have reproduced it for your ready reference.

NOW:

• Are you still of the opinion that an executive order violating a court order is justified by the wishes of the majority?
• Have you changed your mind? Are you now arguing that the government's actions were justified ONLY because it had taken court sanction for these actions?
• Are you saying that the court's orders are supportive of the Constitution, and that you base your justifications on these orders, not on unilateral executive action?

Think these through very clearly and answer, please.

About personal abuse: your original post did not contain personal abuse. True. You were also not rated negative for personal abuse on that original post.




Two points - first, your Islamophobia is obvious, even in your signature. So what is abnormal about pointing to your own statement about yourself?
Second, after being informed categorically that your reading habits were of no interest, obviously because they were not relevant to the discussion, if you come back to the same topic, wouldn't anybody point out the contradiction? What is sarcastic about it?

Can I say your Hinduphobia is obvious just like how you repeatedly said I am Islamophobic??

Or would that get a negative rating and ban as well.

2 points -

First, you have been proven to be false, So have some dignity and retract the negative ratings. Rajiv Gandhi's actions had backing of court and you have no leg to stand on.

Second, me being a Hindutva Bhakth does not make me Islamophobic. That's an absurd argument and again you are alluding things to me.
How is me supporting Ram Lalla makes Islamophobic? Do people supporting Palestine become anti-Semite? I guess then I am anti-Semite as well. Does supporting gay rights make one anti-Christianity? well, guess I am Christianophobic as well....

You continue making personal insulting remarks about me and take umbrage at remarks I made? **SLOW CLAP**

Oh my...what next Joe?

Posting my originall post here..

That was a good thing.
Not everything is black or white. If there is one good thing Raviv did, it was opening of Babri gates to Hindus.
As long as old crimes are not addressed, justice can never be done. Sickulars can not hide under the garb of crime having happened long back, especially since the justice being demanded by Hindus is one of balance in terms of getting our gods property back to our lord.

Now people, please let me know which part of it is offensive, supporting violence, against court order in 1986 or 2016 or may be as a "senior member" keeps harping, points to my Islamophobia.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sitting in Australia bhakt brays about sickular, executive, judiciary, babri, Rajiv etc.

Can I say your Hinduphobia is obvious just like how you repeatedly said I am Islamophobic??

Or would that get a negative rating and ban as well.

No. It would get an immediate explanation that I oppose ALL religions, equally.

2 points -

First, you have been proven to be false, So have some dignity and retract the negative ratings. Rajiv Gandhi's actions had backing of court and you have no leg to stand on.

Deliberately ignoring the point will get you nowhere.

Second, me being a Hindutva Bhakth does not make me Islamophobic. That's an absurd argument and again you are alluding things to me.
How is me supporting Ram Lalla makes Islamophobic? Do people supporting Palestine become anti-Semite? I guess then I am anti-Semite as well. Does supporting gay rights make one anti-Christianity? well, guess I am Christianophobic as well....

You continue making personal insulting remarks about me and take umbrage at remarks I made? **SLOW CLAP**

Oh my...what next Joe?

Of course it does.

The basic tenet of Hindutva is that Dharmic religions are accepted, being native to India; followers of Abrahamic religions are to be exterminated or expelled, or forced to swear loyalty to Hindutva beliefs even if those militate against their religion.

 

[DesiGuy1403]

No. It would get an immediate explanation that I oppose ALL religions, equally.



Deliberately ignoring the point will get you nowhere.



Of course it does.

The basic tenet of Hindutva is that Dharmic religions are accepted, being native to India; followers of Abrahamic religions are to be exterminated or expelled, or forced to swear loyalty to Hindutva beliefs even if those militate against their religion.

From where I sit, it looks like you oppose one religion a lot more rigorously. Like you are biased against me, I could be biased towards you as well.

NO, it's you who is ignoring WILFULLY...Rajiv order was legally valid, so, what's your argument now! reverse my rating ASAP.

Which "brilliant" person gave you that as a position of Hindus? Because I support Hinduism means I want all other religions to vanish? If ever there was some weird logic....

Sorry, that's absurd. I am Hindu and I am entitled, constitutionally, legally, morally and liberally to be pro-Hindu, propagating my religion. That does not mean I am anti-other religions.
You are obviously smart enough to understand this simple logic.

If I use your logic, it would make each and everyone in this world a bigot towards one thing or other.

Coming to my signature, how is it pointing to my hating other religions? Did you ask me to explain my signature or you are pulling things out of thin air now?!

 

[Joe Shearer]

From where I sit, it looks like you oppose one religion a lot more rigorously. Like you are biased against me, I could be biased towards you as well.

From where you sit is hardly a recommendation, is it? If you had bothered to read, even in this thread, my opinion of the conservatives among Muslims who agitated against the Shah Bano judgement is clear. Unlike you.

NO, it's you who is ignoring WILFULLY...Rajiv order was legally valid, so, what's your argument now! reverse my rating ASAP.

The argument is exactly where it was when you first made that remark - that you thought that a court order had been transgressed and justified it.

Which "brilliant" person gave you that as a position of Hindus? Because I support Hinduism means I want all other religions to vanish? If ever there was some weird logic....

Sorry, that's absurd. I am Hindu and I am entitled, constitutionally, legally, morally and liberally to be pro-Hindu, propagating my religion. That does not mean I am anti-other religions.
You are obviously smart enough to understand this simple logic.

If I use logic, it would make each and everyone in this world a bigot towards one thing or other.

I am smart enough. It is when people are too smart that we have problems.

• I object to Hindutvavadis, not to Hindus.
• A Proud, Sanghi, Chaddi Bhakth is not a Hindu alone, he is that special kind, a member of the Sangh Parivar and ab initio a Hindutvavadi.
• The views of Hindutva have been articulated clearly enough first by Vinayak Savarkar, then by Hedgewar and others.

If you have the courage to write what you did in your signature, have the courage to defend it when challenged.

 

[DesiGuy1403]

From where you sit is hardly a recommendation, is it? If you had bothered to read, even in this thread, my opinion of the conservatives among Muslims who agitated against the Shah Bano judgement is clear. Unlike you.

I could say the same thing about you, considering where you sit...And if you had read my posts at all, you would see I am only pro-Hindu. That does not make me anti-other religions.
But hey, you are entitled to your bias.

The argument is exactly where it was when you first made that remark - that you thought that a court order had been transgressed and justified it.

It was you who brought in the legality and criminality of Rajiv's order and not me.
I kept saying, it was not criminal and you kept saying, he did not get courts permissions.
Now that I have proven he did get courts permissions, even the legality and criminal part of it you had claimed have been proven to be nothing but lies..Like I said, you have made an error in judgement or were not informed on this, happens to best of us. Just accept it and move in.
the more you drag this, the more people will read this exchange and the more you will be exposed.

I am smart enough. It is when people are too smart that we have problems.

• I object to Hindutvavadis, not to Hindus.
• A Proud, Sanghi, Chaddi Bhakth is not a Hindu alone, he is that special kind, a member of the Sangh Parivar and ab initio a Hindutvavadi.
• The views of Hindutva have been articulated clearly enough first by Vinayak Savarkar, then by Hedgewar and others.

If you have the courage to write what you did in your signature, have the courage to defend it when challenged.

What nonsense. have you even been to a RSS shaka? perhaps you are confusing us with VHP and Bhajarang Dal.
There is a muslim wing in RSS....
Your lack of education about us is not my problem.

Please don't hide your bias with your absurd reasoning of us. if you have doubts about my opinions, ask me

 

[Levina]

@Levina @Sky lord @ranjeet Just trying to get your attention to this discussion.

Does having a difference of opinion here is ground for negative rating?
My post had no abuse, no support for violence and no offensive images.

The only premise that Rajiv went against court order has also been proven to be false. Still the negative ratings continue!
Can't imagine the eco system where difference in views are not "tolerated"..

Oh the irony




Nonsense. You were very clear in your posts.
You have been harping for 2 pages that Rajiv went against court orders. Now that has been proven to be false.

regarding personal abuse, perhaps you should re-read your posts regarding the same. I have quoted your posts where you abused me as well. So, why crib?

Oh just because one forummer says "Hindu extremists" does not make supporters of Ram Lalla "extremists"...that's his opinion.
Me replying to him does not mean I support his view. In fact it's the opposite of that. I didn't support his view and hence my rebuttal.
And what ever I have said was backed up by the order fro court.

My original post did not contain abuse. Please do read it carefully.

It's now very obvious. You are shifting goal posts. few posts back it was Rajiv going against court order. Now that I have proved that is not the case, you are shifting you imaginary goal post.

Since my position is based on court order, how am I going against the constitution.

Any lawyers here? Can anyone explain how me supporting court decision and govt decision is unconstitutional?!!!
It's getting weirder and weirder here!!

Did you even read the post? Court ordered the opening of gates based on recommendation from Rajiv Gandhi govt.!!

@Joe Shearer
Here are the incidents where you have insulted me..but surprisingly you seem to have little tolerance when some one gives it back to you.

Wash your mind out with yellow soap, improve your attitude, get rid of your Islamophobia and you might start writing good posts.

What do you call this Joe? You called me a islamophobe, insulted quality of my posts and make some crude jokes about soaps...should I laugh? Or may be you expected "others" to laugh at my expense.

It would take a genius like you to take a refusal to take your reading habits into consideration as a sign of interest in your reading habits.

There you go again...sarcastic, adds nothing to topic, except some cheap laughs at my expense.

I can go on...but sure get the gist..

Things are turning ugly, and you should consider taking this discussion to GHQ. Both of you are good members and I'm sure this can be resolved amicably.
Btw Joe sir is a senior person, so that should be considered as well.

Regards