A Quote by Subramanian Swamy

I had opposed the Jet-Etihad FDI arrangement on the ground of the disproportionate share of airspace given to Etihad, which is against the interest of domestic passenger traffic and also against national interest.
What I'd do is not have USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy working with U.S. taxpayers' money to knock off an elected government in Ukraine, which is what they did. I wouldn't try to force the people of Ukraine into a deal with NATO against their interest or into a deal with the European Union, which is against their economic interest.
The effect of the foreign direct investment of Etihad in Jet Airways and the implied bilateral agreement of air services between India and the UAE has primarily damaged Air India, which is a government-owned airline with huge assets that are extremely valuable.
What governments and people don't realise is that sometimes the collective interest - the international interest - is also the national interest.
Given that the president has not yet demonstrated why military action is in our best interest, given that the administration will not be constrained to keep boots off the ground, and given that there is no clear end-game, I am against the president's resolution to go to war in Syria.
There is no self-interest completely unrelated to others' interests. Due to the fundamental interconnectedness which lies at the heart of reality, your interest is also my interest. From this it becomes clear that "my" interest and "your" interest are intimately connected. In a deep sense, they converge.
The reality is the three gulf carriers - Emirates, Qatar and Etihad - are forces with which to be reckoned. Strategic investments by co-operative governments have given them large fleets and huge airports. They have created a flourishing environment while established carriers languish.
There are some circumstances in which the First Amendment interest comes up against another interest that is really important and in which we have to make a decision in a particular case as to which is more important.
I am a businessman, not a politician, but I am also a proud American who would never do anything against my country's national interest.
I am not interested in dry economic socialism. We are fighting against misery, but we are also fighting against alienation. One of the fundamental objectives of Marxism is to remove interest, the factor of individual interest, and gain, from people's psychological motivations. Marx was preoccupied both with economic factors and with their repercussions on the spirit. If communism isn't interested in this too, it may be a method of distributing goods, but it will never be a revolutionary way of life.
Never take a loan against your retirement! When you pay interest against your retirement, you cost yourself interest.
Marxism was the social creed and the social cry of those classes who knew by their miseries that the creed of the liberal optimists was s snare and a delusion... Liberalism and Marxism share a common illusion of the "children of light." Neither understands property as a form of power which can be used in either its individual or its social form as an instrument of particular interest against the general interest.
Tis against some mens principle to pay interest, and seems against others interest to pay the principle.
It is true that some have greater power of resistance than others, but everyone has the power to close his heart against doubt, against darkness, against unbelief, against anger, against hatred, against jealousy, against malice, against envy. God has given this power unto all of us, and we can gain still greater power by calling upon Him for that which we lack. If it were not so, how could we be condemned for giving way to wrong influences?
Let's build women's football from the bottom before we get to the top; it's not about building from the top to get to the bottom. We can talk about the Etihad and Man United's ground, the Theatre of Dreams, in a few years' time. Let's fill the Academy Stadiums, the Kingsmeadows, first of all.
The human interest, and the natural interest, and the spiritual interest of this planet need to begin to take a priority over the corporate interest, the military interest, and the materialistic interests.
Place three individuals in a situation wherein the interest of each depends on the voice of the others, and give to two of them an interest opposed to the rights of the third. Will the latter be secure? The prudence of every man would shun the danger. The rules & forms of justice suppose & guard against it. Will two thousand in a like situation be less likely to encroach on the rights of one thousand?
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!