smartsingh24

Guy, there isn't any hype. Obama is a good man that knows what he is doing. He doesn't vote based on what looks good, he votes with sound moral and ethical decisions. Clinton and McCain are virtually the same and that's utterly useless. For the past 28 years there has been either a Clinton or a Bush in the white house, do you really expect us to keep that going? Furthermore, McCain has all but promised that he won't bring an end to the Iraq war, and is even threatening to close in on Iran. Our economy is lagging, the dollar is depreciating, and the U.S. in the global spotlight is suffering. What you keep suggesting is irresponsible, because neither of these two candidates are doing enough to help America as a whole. McCain is a warhawk that will cause the death of millions more people if he gets elected, and Hillary is too caught up in a power struggle to look at what she's become. It's sad that McCain practically has the republican nomination now, but there is no way he can be allowed to win.

Stop thinking neo-con, start thinking progress. http://thinkprogress.org/

I think mccain will make pretty good president if one chance given to him.. He was POW and he got experience. I will switch party and vote for mccain if we have mccain vs. obama. You know its pretty sad that black community voted for obama just because he is black regardless of the fact that bill clinton was once called as "Black president" because he did soo much for the african american community.. But anyway thats the way it is.

My predictions will be that:

TX, OH will go to Clinton for sure while Washington most probably go to obama..

I mean how Oprah bring 32 million to Obama in a month? As an individual you can only donate 2300 for primary and same amount for general elections.. So i don't know how she brought that much money to obama party and i am pretty much sure that? Also, i don't know why endorsements by rich celebrities should matter in elections and these are the bad habits and shows how candidate will later become slave of corporate lobbyist in washington.

As to the first point, he is relying too much on the fact that he is a POW. I understand the horrors that he withstood, but he is not the right person to become president. It doesn't bother you that he'd be willing to stay in Iraq another 100 years and ruin the dollar even more than it is right now? or that he's eyeing Iran as another possible target when we're still in Iraq and Afghanistan?

As to the black community, you'd be surprised to find that they don't factor quite as much as you'd think. They're called a minority for a reason. Black people make up something like 15% of the total population in the u.s., but I could be wrong on that. What I am right on, is that Obama won the Iowa caucas, a state where 95% of the population is white. This talk of the black vote is ridiculous. What about the woman's vote? How can that not be helping Hillary? I'd bet that there's more women than there are Black people. But does that mean that all women are voting for Hillary? Similarly, all black people are not voting for Obama. You'd be surprised to find that there a sizeable portion voting for Clinton just because she's married to Bill.

Also, I wouldn't be so sure about Texas and Ohio. If you look at the states that Hillary won on the 5th, you'd find that she won the ones in the traditonally liberal corridors of the country, i.e., the always liberal states. If you look at the states Obama won, you'll find that they're mostly Middle America, i.e., the red states. When they say he unites right and left, they really aren't kidding.

Finally, Oprah throws parties for Obama at various places (her mansion, hotels, etc.,), that amount to nothing more than fundraisers. The more people she drags in, the more people that can donate. And you don't want to get me started on how much of a puppet Hillary is for Corporate Interests.

As an aside, I'd like to point out that this shouldn't really go in Sikh Politics, since these are American politics, and sikhi shouldn't come into view here, othern than affecting your moral capacity.

Well.. My vote did count and Clinton got the winning ticket from cali :D thats all matters

Obama's healthcare policy DOES NOT cover every single american while clinton policy does. Regarding the war, He wasn't even senator nor anywhere in Washington which makes his anti-war stance a bit weak. However at the same time, he repeatedly voted for war funding once he got to the Senate 05, 06 & 07.

If you guys remember.. during early 90's clinton fought very bravely for the universal healthcare for all americans but was defeated very badly by corporations and republicans. She tried to fight against the corporations but wasn't much successful. Yeah now she does get endorsements, checks from the same companies (who doesn't).. Now tell me how obama getting $32 million in campaign fund that that only in one month? (Jan 2008) while clinton only got 13$ mil. something?

Now let see how the delegates gonna divide up and the pending primaries of some 20 leftover states.

Super tuesday - Clinton winning over obama by 100 delegates..

None of them are best candidate but i would choose clinton over obama anytime...

What scares me about Clinton is the fact that she's flip-flopped too many times. At this point it really looks like all she's doing is trying to win, and she doesn't have the same solidarity in issues. She did fight bravely before for universal healthcare, but she dropped it quickly when it looked bad for her. Also, the majority of the money obama got in that month is thanks to one Oprah Winfrey, who is doing some major work for his campaign. Also, I duno when you checked your numbers, but in terms of delegates(not super delegates), Obama is winning by 4. Not alot, but you also have to consider that he won 14 states versus clinton's 8.

Obama is so full of.. well you know what. He gets on my nerves. Btw why do they keep referring to him as Black when he is half white? He's playing the race card if ever there was one. I watched his speech and it was just hot air. No policies just rhetoric 'I believe in change..blah blah blah' The member who said that Obama reminded him of JFK is right, if you read beyond the sugary sweet liberal fairy tales about JFK, you will realise that he was a deeply flawed individual. If he had lived then Clinton might not have been the first US president to be impeached because of his antics in the white house. Most of the Obama thing is a hype created by the US liberal media and the usual anti-war loonies of the left. I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't a few 9/11 truther idiots working to get him elected. What really get's my goat is what the hell is Robert De Niro doing supporting him? As Kevin Keegan said about Alex Ferguson "He's gone down in my estimation". Of course I would love it if McCain beat Hillary or Obama!

S1ngh as always is right. Hillary is the best Democrat and McCain is the best Republican candidate. I predicted a Bush win in 2004 and I have a strong feeling that McCain might win in 2008. The American people for all our stereotypes of them being fat and ignorant are not stupid enough to elect Obama.

Btw did any of you guys notice the Singh with a big red pagh just in front of hillary after her speech. He came in and out of camera shot for a good 5 minutes. He was quite animated in his support for Hillary, just remember all you Obama supporters by voting for Obama you're letting a fellow Bhaji down

The race of a politician should not matter, but everyone in the older generation has made a huge deal out of it. The fact of the matter is, is that people aren't thinking about the policies, and can't get past the race issue, which is childish. It doesn't matter if he's half white, half black, half red or whatever. He is passionate about his beliefs and is unwavering in those. Before you go saying who said what about Obama, you should know that various members of the Kennedy family, including JFK's own daughter, have come out in support of him, and JFK's daughter even wrote a nice piece about him in the NYtimes, which really puts things in perspective.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin

I just read the rest of what you posted. I believe I should stop talking now, because I can't believe there's a Sikh backing McCain. You need to do some serious soul-seaching brother.

firstly, http://whoisronpaul.com/

secondly, Ron Paul has stated he is in it to win it. I doubt he's going to leave the race any time soon, because he has enough money to go on for a while. As for the debate times... He is being treated really unfairly. He's incredibly smart, and is probably the person that's most qualified to be President. Besides being a Congressman, he is also a practicing Doctor (delivered hundreds of babies), an astute Economist, and a Real Republican, not like the neo-cons that are running around today.

This video pretty much sums up what kind of a guy Ron Paul is -

Sikhi isn't supposed to be a religion that actively goes about converting other people, but allows people to convert if they wish. To put it in laymens terms, "It's alright with me if you are who you are, but if you want in, you're in". Conversion isn't a major concern for a Sikh, because the only person one needs to convert, is oneself.

I don't say this often, but S1ngh is wrong. John McCain and Hillary Clinton are horrible choices for the American people, and would do nothing more than protect corporate interests and keep America in Iraq forever. Clinton is getting desperate and entering herself in races where delegates don't matter just to say she won (Florida and Michigan). McCain has publicly stated that the american people don't care whether or not they stay in Iraq for another 100 years. Plus both of them aren't talking about how they'll fix American policies internationally, and aren't doing much to fix the crises at home.

The economy, social security, and border security are big issues that the next president will need to deal with, and republicans are just sweeping those under the rug and misleading people with a false war on terror. Hillary for her part, isn't doing much different than the republicans, other than entering as a democrat.

The only person worth voting for in this election is Ron Paul, but if we can't get him, I'm more inclined to vote for Obama than anyone else.

Apple didn't buy macromedia, Adobe did. Apple did make one famous acquisition from Macromedia, and that was Final Cut, which has put them in a tremendous position with Hollywood, seeing as most of the movie industry uses it as their editor of choice. Apple hasn't taken over Adobe yet, but there have been various rumors over the years, and alot of people just think it's gonna be a matter of time (not me, i'd be shocked if that happens ).

As far as the windows 7 rumors go, I can tell you that MS has already come out saying that the earliest that they're going to release it, is 2011. And MS has a huuge history of delaying things, so even that seems a little off.

In terms of buying a mac, it really depends on what model you want. If you're looking for a laptop that isn't the macbook air, i'd wait about three months before buying one. If you're looking at a desktop, then now is an okay time to buy, but you're going to continue to kick yourself every time Apple releases a new product :D . That will never stop.

I'm guessing that the dual boot feature ur talking about is Boot camp, and that comes with every copy of Leopard, and it's just a simple matter of going to the utilities folder and setting up the proper size for partition. I've done it a couple of times, but I usually end up scraping the partitions because I never end up using Windows again .

WjkkWjkfateh all

iTech paji - interestin topic :D

Sorry to go off topic

just a question which is been on my mind for some time - is Apple looking at tryina enter the Corporate market? or have theyr already done so?

i.e. servers in Companys - equivalents to stuff like Exchange Server, Office Comm Server, Windows Server 2003 NOS etc..?

Apple's been trying to position themselves in the corporate world forever, but it just never worked out. Ironically, when Jobs came back to the company in 97 and brought it back to just making good pcs, it started to infiltrate Hollywood, where the visual aesthetic was appreciated, and big business, where the power and small package came in handy. Generally speaking of course, Apple hasn't been able to make any headway into offices, and establish themselves as a corporate pc.

1. Macs are PC's. Macs are Personal Computers. What you're confusing it with is OSX versus Windows.

Fact: Microsoft was started in order to code programs for the Mac platform, until Bill gates stole the idea for the original OS and old out to big brother (IBM). Watch Pirates of Silicon Valley, it'll show you everything you need to know.

2. Why is it that Macs are the fastest PCs that can run Windows? Check out PC World, and they've said the same thing.

Fact: Mac Pro's are some of the most powerful consumer PCs and Peter Jackson stocks his CGI firm Weta Workshop with them. The movie King Kong was made using Macs, and King Kong himself was made using an Apple application called Shake.

3. Watch any movie or Tv show, and you'll see Macs. This isn't a fact, it's a constant. You will see them everywhere if you look for them.

Macs are awesome, but seriously guys, chill out. Just cause Job and Gates aren't best friends doesn't mean the rest of us can't chillax.

Also Windows sucks

i'd give you a copy of parallels and tell you that not only can I now do everything a pc can do, I can run it on a mac and make it better.

Tommorrow you're going to be amazed with what Apple is going to come out with, Macworld 08 is going to rock :s

I can't speak about the symbian, but at the moment it's practically impossible to code for the iPhone, because Apple hasn't provided an SDK. Should be coming soon, but no guarantees...

Nokia N95 is widely available in states. Nokia has huge store in chicago, new york. All nseries phones including n95 comes unlocked. You can get nokia n95 from tiger direct, mobile planet, nokia store and any gsm mobile providers.

Yeah, but there's two big differences between my phone and your phone.

Number 1) You say widely available, but it's not offered by any US carriers, which will incur additional prices besides just buying the phone.

Number 2) The price is ridiculous. Cnet-

http://reviews.cnet.com/smartphones/nokia-...7-32085029.html

says the prices is anywhere from 560-775. Depending one what carrier you're going to, the first month that you pay for the phone and plan and everything, you could be paying newhere from 600 to 700 dollars. And that's the conservative estimate.

Aside from a couple of specs here and there, there's not that much difference here (i.e., 2 MP camera vs. 5 MP camera). But the big picture here, is that these are still just phones, and pieces of technology that will doubtlessly be replaced easily and quickly. Only spend what you can afford, and be prepared to use these things for a while. As a general rule, I go out and buy the best I can afford at the time, and hold on to it for as long as possible (in the case of phones, 2-3 years). The better a piece of technology is, or the more sophisticated it is, the longer you should hold on to it before replacing it.

you won't have fun trying to make it sync. You will live in fear of every firmware update. But (at the moment) you can have it work with the current firmware update.

I like my iPhone. Everyone I show it to likes it, and the n95 isn't available in the U.S., unless you want to unlock it, and then it'll cost more money. The best part of the iPhone is the fact that it IS an iPod. I don't need to carry around like 5 different things. Sure, the EDGE network isn't amazing, but half the time i'm using the internet on it, i'm at home with awesome WiFi, or the pages just load up like if I was on DSL. Hardly seems like a waste of money to me.

Ok, take a look at 1947. The big problems that were going on then, was the fact that India wanted independence from Britain. So since India was getting independence, a huge gathering of Muslims asked for Pakistan, and Britain gave it to them, sensing that there would be unfair turmoil inside India if they left it as is. So while everyone else was bickering over who gets what when and where, Britain offered us Khalistan. Which would have been perfect because everyone else was too busy getting everything else in order by then. 1984 would have been a similar situation. In June we could have exposed what they'd done to us by going Global and really spelling out the atrocities, but that never quite took hold. In November after the assasinations we could have done more showing what had happened. But it would have had to have been then because the events were still fresh.

I wish I could say. Partition seemed opportune? Do we really need something like '84 to spur us into action again? I don't know. But the opportune time seems to be when the Indian subcontinent is disarray...

these topics really are useless. Does it matter what people think? at this point in time khalistan isn't feasible without creating a conflict. 1947 would have been a good time, but people were too stubborn to accept the british offer to create a land with Britain still having their feet in the subcontinent. And really, what are a bunch of kids on the internet going to do about this? This topic has been talked to death, and i'm really quite sick of it. I vote no.

___________

LAME EXCUSE

You asked for a reason, ridicule those that don't give one, and then bash the reason given? At this point, I don't think you're looking for a reason, but for a reason to say it's wrong to say anything but yes. I state again, the only way to have Khalistan now is to incur conflict. Diplomacy will fall on deaf ears, and the time has passed. At this point people can do nothing but wait for another opportunity. Starting a fight for land is useless and, in my opinion, against sikhi.

these topics really are useless. Does it matter what people think? at this point in time khalistan isn't feasible without creating a conflict. 1947 would have been a good time, but people were too stubborn to accept the british offer to create a land with Britain still having their feet in the subcontinent. And really, what are a bunch of kids on the internet going to do about this? This topic has been talked to death, and i'm really quite sick of it. I vote no.

the system process is Lsass, not Isass, and i'm pretty sure it's a network process. Try going into safe mode without networking, and doing a system restore or something. If all else fails (and I mean ALL else), then you might have to wipe the drive and start over . Good Luck <_<

But this isn't a religion. It's a cult. It's insulting to put this pyramid scheme in the same league as Sikhi. It's well documented that L. Ron Hubbard was just putting this stuff together for the money. One of the 'Tenants' of Scientology are that the IRS is evil (probably because Hubbard owed them tons of money) and that psychiatry and drugs are a sham. Scientology should not be taken seriously and should be exposed for what it is, a cult and a pyramid scheme that robs people of the proper chance for salvation. If people want a religion, then let them find one that's real, and not this sham.

To the above three repliers- Two things.

1. It is not our place to judge her and say she isn't a sikh or isn't. She's doing an incredibly brave thing in trying to keep her kara, and who knows about her kesh? You could simply be mistaken, there could be some outstanding circumstance, or other unique causes. The first thing that should go through your head when you meet someone isn't how much of a sikh they are, because appearances, more often then not, are decieving. Furthermore, if she didn't feel some connection to sikhi, she would have just taken it off and we wouldn't be here discussing this. Not only that, but now that we are talking about this, say that she came across this site and you people were talking about her in such a way. She might get discouraged, and you'd be turning her AWAY from Sikhi.

2. Even if she does cut her kesh, then, legally speaking, so what? Say this goes before a judge, and no one supported her because she wasn't enough of a sikh. Say the judge rules against her and says she has to take it off. What happens, when down the line, an amrithdhari girl gets in the same situation, and the school tells her to take it off. The legal system uses precedents, and this would be called up, case closed. No one is going to let an amrithdhari girl keep her Kara now just because she's supposedly, "more of a sikh". This isn't about one specific girl taking a stand for her kara. This is about sikhs in general taking a stand for their karas.

Just something to think about the next time you decide to post as to whether or not a person is a sikh.

I think the topic title is a little bit misleading. The votes don't really count for anything, and it looks as if the people managing the hospital are leaning towards giving Guru Nanak Dev Ji's name to the wing. I did like this article there though,

http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/sur...n/11386041.html

Kind of compacts everything in the topic into an easy to read argument.

The software is called parallels, but quite frankly, I find I rarely fire it up anymore . Mac's rock, and it's just like the commercials say, it just works. If you need help with setting one up, just PM me, I've got everything to make a new Mac a real contender :lol:

Sorry to tell you, but you don't really have much of a case here. For one, they're an airline company, of which you were a customer. I'd bet good money that if you looked up the Terms of Service taht you agreed to when you bough your ticket from them, they have random screenings in there. Plus, they're a private company, not the government. And Private companies are allowed to discriminate, and the government can't do that much about it. That and the fact that there was a gora guy with you pretty much destroys much of the argument you might have.