The first ‘rich’ was meant generically – as in, vibrant, full, dynamic. There was no precise economic or social reality meant. Then, in response to De Moron-ay’s jab, I pointed out the obvious, using the term as HE had used it. The two uses were entirely distinct.

Carton is a more sinister individual… his goal is to reduce the SA population to buffoon status. Carton is the classic plantation owner: he wants to enjoy the fruits of the cheap/quality labor, but not accept them as Americans.

– Who do we contact to express our dismay at his selection?

Second item — why the HELL would we want a Al Sharpton? He’s a caricature constructed by the right-wing media. The right-wing trots him out (news shows, newspaper, magazines, etc.) to reduce the argument to buffoon status. The African-American community has MILLIONS of smart articulate individuals, but if the right-wing brings them into the discussion the contrast/histrionic value Sharpton brings is lost. Sharpton is a pawn of the media.

The Indian community has not found its voice… most of us are too immersed in the upper echelons of this society to realize that the vast majority of Americans (between the coasts and south of Chicago and north of Dallas) have an unformed/antiquated image of SAs. We have to use Jewish model, forming strong organizations will bring us the influence… The evolution of these organization is still several decades away… too many SAs are still tribal separating themselves by religion, language and class.

Don Imus said China is bad too. Not saying I agree but if Don Imus says it, right?

The loathsome “arseholes” are desis like you who keep insisting that India is rich, India is shining, the “world is in awe” of India and other such stupid brazen lies…..while the ground reality is that India is backward and impoverished even by third world standards and leads the world in hunger, malnutrition, human degradation etc.

It can mean vibrant, resource-rich, dynamic – any number of things. But being a goggle-eyed, belligerent, frustrated little nerd – you wouldn’t get that, would you

Nobody got that, because thats obviously not what you meant you lying fraud. Else explain why you tried to idiotically defend your claim that India is rich, with “‘Rich’ doesn’t equal ‘fairly distributed’”??

You are still making a fool of yourself because you are still not thinking rationally.

This Jersey guy needs to wear a white dunce cap and a white sheet.

The word ‘rich’ doesn’t have one meaning. It is not ALWAYS used in a manner consistent with ‘development economics’. It can mean vibrant, resource-rich, dynamic – any number of things. But being a goggle-eyed, belligerent, frustrated little nerd – you wouldn’t get that, would you Prema?

India is a “rich nation”?? LOL.

Not only are you seriously delusional but you are also pathetically illogical. If India is already rich why the caveat of “once India becomes…sufficiently affluent”? Try to think a little before posting and making a fool of yourself.

On the other hand, countries in which the majority (or modal) level of consumption is below the minimum necessary for a secure and comfortable existence are called “poor”. Lesotho is poor, Cameroon is poor, India is poor, etc. BTW the fact that some people in India are very wealthy does not change anything. Most, in fact nearly all, poor countries have an elite class and many of them have a prosperous consumer class as well, but the majority remains moderately to severely impoverished, thus justifying use of the term “poor country.”