Apparently, the article sparking this discussion topic fails to note the additional VoIP traffic: streaming audio from Fox News. For all of last night, Fox News Radio was available for free to anyone who clicked on the link prominently displayed by Yahoo! on its Yahoo! News web site.
Yahoo! is the premier search engine and news database. Thanks, Yahoo!
The PATRIOT Act is a violation of civil rights and invades people's privacy. We would not even need the PATRIOT Act if we were willing to profile people on the basis of nationality. Allow me to explain.
The problem of terrorism is due to almost exclusively people who are not American citizens. Increasing surveillance and intruding on the privacy of foreigners is the right way to go and does not violation the Constitution. The Constitution is, after all, only for American citizens. Swifting deporting foreigners would eliminate the need to violate the civil rights of citizens in the war on terrorism.
We need to have the guts to treat citizens and non-citizens differently.
Unfortunately, in the USA, we have cheapened citizenship so much that there is almost no difference in privileges and rights claimed by non-citizens and a citizens in the USA.
O'Reilly cannot win even if he garners a majority of the votes because
most states require even write-in candidates to register their candidacy.
Nonetheless, O'Reilly can have a "Perot Effect". If he garners a large
enough percentage of the vote, then the dominant political parties will
adopt his ideas. After Perot lost the race for president, the Republicans
adopted most of his ideas for the "Contract with America", of which most
became law.
Here is what O'Reilly supports.
affirmative action on the basis of economic status, not ethnicity
putting the national guard on the border to defend it (note: many European
countries use the military to defend the borders from illegal aliens)
using air power to stop despots in countries where the population is hostile to
Western culture (i.e. never again sacrifice American lives for ingrates like
the Iraqis)
allowing homosexual couples to adopt kids
the minimum wage
strong legislation to protect the environment
bottom line: Bill O'Reilly for President
Let's Rebuild America: O'Reilly and Bruce
on
Election Day Discussion
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
If you care about this country, the USA, then write the following on
the November ballot.
president:
vice-president:
O'Reilly cannot win even if he garners a majority of the votes because
most states require even write-in candidates to register their candidacy.
Nonetheless, O'Reilly can have a "Perot Effect". If he garners a large
enough percentage of the vote, then the dominant political parties will
adopt his ideas. After Perot lost the race for president, the Republicans
adopted most of his ideas for the "Contract with America", of which most
became law.
Here is what O'Reilly supports.
affirmative action on the basis of economic status, not ethnicity
putting the national guard on the border to defend it (note: many European
countries use the military to defend the borders from illegal aliens)
using air power to stop despots in countries where the population is hostile to
Western culture (i.e. never again sacrifice American lives for ingrates like
the Iraqis)
This attempt by the Chinese to conduct a 5-day space mission will cost
billions of dollars. Yet, millions of Chinese live in poverty,
and the World Bank continues to provide cheap loans to the Chinese
to build their infrasture. We Americans are the principal investors
in the World Bank.
What is the net result? We are subsidizing the expensive Chinese programs to
launch satellites and space telescopes and militarize space. While we give
more than $40 billion
to China for development, the Chinese initiate massive space and space-militarization programs,
including nuclear-weapons development. All activities in the space
program of China occur within its military agencies. By contrast, NASA in the USA is a civilian organization.
We should immediately cut China off of the World Bank lifeline.
By contrast, when Japan was impoverished in the 1950s, the Japanese
spent almost no money on space programs or nuclear weapons. The Chinese
are playing Americans for a bunch of fools.
The tape released last week did not have a direct quote stating that Osama supports Kerry. Rather, Osama took the same strategy that the terrorists used to influence the elections in Spain. The terrorists accused incumbent of supporting the USA in Iraq and committed a terrorist act to show the price of supporting the USA. The Spaniards then voted for the challenger's party.
Now, Osama blames Bush Senior and Junior for "causing" the terrorist act on September 11 and warns that more terrorist acts will follow. In short Osama is trying to convince voters to support Kerry.
So, yes, Osama Bin Laden supports Kerry, and so do the Chinese. That Osama and Beijing support Kerry is a little disturbing. Ditto for the fact that Korean intelligence agents are rallying the Korean-American community to vote for Kerry and funneling money into Kerry's campaign.
O'Reilly obviously cannot win even if he gets more than 50% of the vote because the rules of most states requires write-in candidates to register their candidacy. Nonetheless, if O'Reilly garners enough of the popular vote, he would have the "Perot Effect". Whoever is president would be forced to listen to O'Reilly and his supporters, altering the direction of the country for the better.
You wrote: With a population density like they have thats not so surprising. (Sidenote: If I recall right, there where similar opinions in iraqi polls.) Considering further the shining example of a democracy, oops sorry federal repulic;), the US are right now, it might well add up to that.
Japan also has a high population density, but the Japanese fully support the civil right to lobby, to demonstrate, and to speak in public. The Japanese are Westerners, but the Chinese in Hong Kong are not.
The population density in Iraq is substantially lower than that Hong Kong. The Iraqis prefer Islamic fascism and have demonstrated their preference by holding demonstrations condemning the Americans for liberating (!) the Iraqis from Saddam.
I certainly hope that the USA is not degenerating into another China. In the latter country, numerology and ancestor worship are quite popular.
Nonetheless, the parent article made me wax nostalgic. Economists of old have an old wives tale: as the skirt rises so goes the economy. In other words, as the economy grows faster, the average distance from the ground to the bottom of the typical woman's skirt rises, revealing more and more leg.
Anyhow, this election is still too close to call. I would bet good money that it will end up in court again. Both the Republicans and the Democrats have already hired lawyers to prepare briefs challenging the results.
As Westerners, we can face history and understand its truth. So, we would not shun it.
The same cannot be said of, say, the Chinese. The reality of 1895 Shanghai is that, under Western domination, the city prospered. For the first time in its history, people enjoyed codified laws that police fairly enforced. The rest of China was a pig sty: warlords controlled vast stretches of land and ruled by whim.
If we created an accurate virtual reality of 1895 Shanghai, the Chinese would be up in arms, crying "racism", "bigory", and "Western oppression". They would accuse us Westerners of distorting history.
Thank you for your sanity. Only a loon would equate Chinese society and Western society.
In the USA long after the Patriot Act was enacted, huge numbers of demonstrators packed the streets to protest the Iraq War. The American government, reflecting the will of the American people, defended their civil right to protest.
By contrast, if huge numbers of demonstrators packed the streets of Beijing to protest the rape and slaughter of Tibetan nuns, then the Chinese police and the regular Chinese people would kill the demonstrators.
One additional point is worth noting. After a speech by a scholar from the Rand Institute, I went up to the scholar to give him a word of advice: "Never base your analyses about Korea, China, etc. on interviews with Chinese, Koreans, etc. They never admit the negative elements of their societies."
He agreed with me.
The regular Chinese will do just as much as the Beijing government to deny any wrongdoing by Beijing. Such is the nature of Chinese people.
Interestingly, the majority of Chinese support the actions of their government. Consider the fact that more than 50 percent of Hong Kongers prefer social order over democracy despite the fact that the Hong Kongers have full knowledge of the evils of China. More than 60% of the Hong Kongers enthusiastically supported the unification of Hong Kong and China.
The latest action by the Beijing is a thinly veiled attempted to use "smut" as a pretext to censor. Such is the nature of Chinese culture.
The fundamental question is whether a fool should vote or deserves to vote.
If you know nothing about the issues, then your vote is a wasted vote. You might as well just write a computer program to randomly select the candidates and the propositions (in the state referendum) to support.
Furthermore, there was nothing fundamentally wrong with the paper ballots. The problem is not the ballots. The problem is the fool who cannot understand the simple instructions about how to properly complete the ballot. Because the fool did not follow instructions in 2000, the tallying committee discarded the fool's ballot.
If a voter is so stupid that she cannot complete a ballot properly, then the loss of her vote is no loss to democracy.
Of course, anyone who is committed to unfettered immigration feigns the inability to understand how unfettered immigration increases population.
Here is the explanation. The population in the USA is still growing, primarily due to the children of illegal aliens. Without unfettered immigration, the American population would decline gradually.
Population decline is not the biggest problem facing developed countries. The biggest problem facing developed countries is the fact that the 3rd world is brimming with angry people who want to flood into the 1st world.
Advocates of unfettered immigration play this strange spin game in which they insist that the only way for the 1st world to continue to enjoy a good standard of living is to constantly grow the population. Note that such a scenario is not sustainable. Nonetheless, these advocates continue to "invent facts" because they need such invented "facts" in order to support their agenda.
Anyone who refuses to admit that a larger population is more environmentally damaging than a smaller population is a bigot and should be ignored. There is plenty of such bigots in LaRaza.
The obvious unstated point is that the human population is a catalyst for global warming. If we reduced the size of the population by a factor of 10, then we would reduce the net overall generation of CO2.
These issues were raised last year at the Sierra Club, but unfortunately, LaRaza and various other racist groups began tagging the concerned members (of the Sierra Club) as "racists" or "bigots". As a result, the Sierra Club voted down a proposal to designate population growth and unfettered immigration as an environmental concern.
Anyone who supports unfettered immigration is basically feigning concern about the environment and is a hypocrite who should be ignored.
"The Economist" is moderate in an "averaging sense". This journal advocates open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens and also favors the use of H-1B workers. Yet, the journal also condemns Chinese society for violation of human rights and condemns Korean society for xenophobic racism (e.g. unleashing snakes in movie theaters showing American films).
So, the journal supports both extremely liberal positions and extremely conservative positions.
By contrast, the Fox News Channel is moderate in a pervasive sense. For example, Bill O'Reilly supports using the national guard to protect the borders yet supports allowing a limited number of Mexicans to enter the USA as migrant workers under the stipulation that they must return to Mexico at the end of their stint.
This project by the Chinese to launch a massive space telescope costs millions of dollars. Yet, millions of Chinese live in poverty, and the World Bank continues to provide cheap loans to the Chinese to build their infrasture. We Americans are the principal investors in the World Bank.
What is the net result? We are subsidizing the expensive Chinese programs to launch satellites and space telescopes and militarize space. While we give more than $40 billion to China for development, the Chinese initiate massive space and space-militarization programs, including nuclear-weapons development.
We should immediately cut China off of the World Bank lifeline.
By contrast, when Japan was impoverished in the 1950s, the Japanese spent almost no money on space programs or nuclear weapons. The Chinese are playing Americans for a bunch of fools.
My mind boggles when I hear that a court supports electronic voting without a paper trail. Currently, the Chinese (in both mainland China and Taiwan) have an army of hackers.[1] They work relentlessly to hack into American computer systems and would attempt to alter the results of an election to throw the win to the politician willing to sacrifice American interests in favor of Chinese interests. Without a paper trail, how could anyone contest the results of a tampered election?
Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with a paper ballot. The problem in Florida is unrelated to the "paper-ness" of the ballot; the problem is that some voters are so incompetent that they cannot follow the simple instructions on a paper ballot. Frankly, if you are so stupid that you cannot follow simple instructions targetted for a high-school audience, then the loss of your vote is no loss to democracy.
[1] Li Thian-hok, a Taiwanese living in the USA, wrote a threatening opinion piece in the "Taipei Times". He warned that 600,000 Taiwanese holding American citizenship would vote against any politician who favors American interests over Taiwanese interests.
In an indirect way, Steve Balmer shows that open source works in the West. He, like the rest of us, knows that the issue is cost. So, he immediately attempts to criticize the total cost of ownership (TCO) of Linux.
The single biggest reason for the proliferation of open source software like Linux and Apache is that they are free to own. Most Westerners are relatively honest and do not pirate commercial software; the piracy rate is only about 15%. The sheer high cost of commercial software thus creates a market for free software like Linux and Apache.
Now, consider China (which includes Taiwan province and Hong Kong). The Chinese steal what they do not want to buy; the piracy rate is about 95%. In China, there is no market for open source software like Linux, for all software is free. Windows XP is "free".
TCO is not even an issue in China because Microsoft will not support pirated software. Chinese pirates get support for, say, Windows XP from other pirates; the behavior is similar to Westerners getting support from other open source supporters for Linux.
In the West, people respect intellectual property. The rate of piracy of software is about 15%.
In this climate, open source software like Linux and Apache has a good chance of seizing a large chunk of their respective markets. Such software is free, and service is low cost due to a supportive community of geeks willing to offer free advice via various bulletin boards and chatrooms.
By contrast, Linux has little chance in China. In China (which includes Taiwan province and Hong Kong), all software is essentially free. The Chinese freely steal what they do not want to buy; 95% of software in China is pirated. Since Windows is "free" and Linux is free, there is no motivation for Chinese people to choose Linux over Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo! is the premier search engine and news database. Thanks, Yahoo!
Who cares if "electoral-vote.com" is down? Get the best news and analysis live (!) via the Internet.
The problem of terrorism is due to almost exclusively people who are not American citizens. Increasing surveillance and intruding on the privacy of foreigners is the right way to go and does not violation the Constitution. The Constitution is, after all, only for American citizens. Swifting deporting foreigners would eliminate the need to violate the civil rights of citizens in the war on terrorism.
We need to have the guts to treat citizens and non-citizens differently.
Unfortunately, in the USA, we have cheapened citizenship so much that there is almost no difference in privileges and rights claimed by non-citizens and a citizens in the USA.
president: Bill O'Reilly
vice-president: Tammy Bruce
O'Reilly cannot win even if he garners a majority of the votes because most states require even write-in candidates to register their candidacy. Nonetheless, O'Reilly can have a "Perot Effect". If he garners a large enough percentage of the vote, then the dominant political parties will adopt his ideas. After Perot lost the race for president, the Republicans adopted most of his ideas for the "Contract with America", of which most became law.
Here is what O'Reilly supports.
-
affirmative action on the basis of economic status, not ethnicity
-
putting the national guard on the border to defend it (note: many European
countries use the military to defend the borders from illegal aliens)
-
using air power to stop despots in countries where the population is hostile to
Western culture (i.e. never again sacrifice American lives for ingrates like
the Iraqis)
-
allowing homosexual couples to adopt kids
-
the minimum wage
-
strong legislation to protect the environment
bottom line: Bill O'Reilly for Presidentpresident:
vice-president:
O'Reilly cannot win even if he garners a majority of the votes because most states require even write-in candidates to register their candidacy. Nonetheless, O'Reilly can have a "Perot Effect". If he garners a large enough percentage of the vote, then the dominant political parties will adopt his ideas. After Perot lost the race for president, the Republicans adopted most of his ideas for the "Contract with America", of which most became law.
Here is what O'Reilly supports.
-
affirmative action on the basis of economic status, not ethnicity
-
putting the national guard on the border to defend it (note: many European
countries use the military to defend the borders from illegal aliens)
-
using air power to stop despots in countries where the population is hostile to
Western culture (i.e. never again sacrifice American lives for ingrates like
the Iraqis)
-
allowing homosexual couples to adopt kids
-
the minimum wage
-
strong legislation to protect the environment
bottom line: Bill O'Reilly for PresidentWhat is the net result? We are subsidizing the expensive Chinese programs to launch satellites and space telescopes and militarize space. While we give more than $40 billion to China for development, the Chinese initiate massive space and space-militarization programs, including nuclear-weapons development. All activities in the space program of China occur within its military agencies. By contrast, NASA in the USA is a civilian organization.
We should immediately cut China off of the World Bank lifeline.
By contrast, when Japan was impoverished in the 1950s, the Japanese spent almost no money on space programs or nuclear weapons. The Chinese are playing Americans for a bunch of fools.
The Fox News Channel (FNC) is available overseas in select countries: Italy, Australia, Japan, etc. In Australia, you will definitely want to investigate the following broadcast stations.
Now, Osama blames Bush Senior and Junior for "causing" the terrorist act on September 11 and warns that more terrorist acts will follow. In short Osama is trying to convince voters to support Kerry.
So, yes, Osama Bin Laden supports Kerry, and so do the Chinese. That Osama and Beijing support Kerry is a little disturbing. Ditto for the fact that Korean intelligence agents are rallying the Korean-American community to vote for Kerry and funneling money into Kerry's campaign.
Here is the tally of the fascination.
-
The Chinese government has stated that it wants Kerry to win.
-
The Australian government has stated that it wants Bush to win.
-
The Russian government has stated that it was Bush to win.
-
Osama Bin Laden has stated that it (yes, "it") wants Kerry to win.
Based solely on the assessment of foreigners, for whom would you now vote?Maybe, the time has come for a real change in power. Write the following on the November ballot.
president: Bill O'Reilly
vice-president: Tammy Bruce
O'Reilly obviously cannot win even if he gets more than 50% of the vote because the rules of most states requires write-in candidates to register their candidacy. Nonetheless, if O'Reilly garners enough of the popular vote, he would have the "Perot Effect". Whoever is president would be forced to listen to O'Reilly and his supporters, altering the direction of the country for the better.
Japan also has a high population density, but the Japanese fully support the civil right to lobby, to demonstrate, and to speak in public. The Japanese are Westerners, but the Chinese in Hong Kong are not.
The population density in Iraq is substantially lower than that Hong Kong. The Iraqis prefer Islamic fascism and have demonstrated their preference by holding demonstrations condemning the Americans for liberating (!) the Iraqis from Saddam.
Nonetheless, the parent article made me wax nostalgic. Economists of old have an old wives tale: as the skirt rises so goes the economy. In other words, as the economy grows faster, the average distance from the ground to the bottom of the typical woman's skirt rises, revealing more and more leg.
Anyhow, this election is still too close to call. I would bet good money that it will end up in court again. Both the Republicans and the Democrats have already hired lawyers to prepare briefs challenging the results.
The same cannot be said of, say, the Chinese. The reality of 1895 Shanghai is that, under Western domination, the city prospered. For the first time in its history, people enjoyed codified laws that police fairly enforced. The rest of China was a pig sty: warlords controlled vast stretches of land and ruled by whim.
If we created an accurate virtual reality of 1895 Shanghai, the Chinese would be up in arms, crying "racism", "bigory", and "Western oppression". They would accuse us Westerners of distorting history.
Now, consider a virtual reality of 1951 Tibet when the Chinese armies were ransacking Tibet and pursuing the Dalai Lama to kill him. ...
You can use the innards from those carved-up pumpkins to make pumpkin pie. You can find a batch of recipes via Yahoo! Search.
The best desert in the world is pumpkin pie. It is tasty and nutritious, being packed with beta carotene from the pumpkin.
In the USA long after the Patriot Act was enacted, huge numbers of demonstrators packed the streets to protest the Iraq War. The American government, reflecting the will of the American people, defended their civil right to protest.
By contrast, if huge numbers of demonstrators packed the streets of Beijing to protest the rape and slaughter of Tibetan nuns, then the Chinese police and the regular Chinese people would kill the demonstrators.
One additional point is worth noting. After a speech by a scholar from the Rand Institute, I went up to the scholar to give him a word of advice: "Never base your analyses about Korea, China, etc. on interviews with Chinese, Koreans, etc. They never admit the negative elements of their societies."
He agreed with me.
The regular Chinese will do just as much as the Beijing government to deny any wrongdoing by Beijing. Such is the nature of Chinese people.
Interestingly, the majority of Chinese support the actions of their government. Consider the fact that more than 50 percent of Hong Kongers prefer social order over democracy despite the fact that the Hong Kongers have full knowledge of the evils of China. More than 60% of the Hong Kongers enthusiastically supported the unification of Hong Kong and China.
The latest action by the Beijing is a thinly veiled attempted to use "smut" as a pretext to censor. Such is the nature of Chinese culture.
If you know nothing about the issues, then your vote is a wasted vote. You might as well just write a computer program to randomly select the candidates and the propositions (in the state referendum) to support.
Furthermore, there was nothing fundamentally wrong with the paper ballots. The problem is not the ballots. The problem is the fool who cannot understand the simple instructions about how to properly complete the ballot. Because the fool did not follow instructions in 2000, the tallying committee discarded the fool's ballot.
If a voter is so stupid that she cannot complete a ballot properly, then the loss of her vote is no loss to democracy.
Here is the explanation. The population in the USA is still growing, primarily due to the children of illegal aliens. Without unfettered immigration, the American population would decline gradually.
Population decline is not the biggest problem facing developed countries. The biggest problem facing developed countries is the fact that the 3rd world is brimming with angry people who want to flood into the 1st world.
Advocates of unfettered immigration play this strange spin game in which they insist that the only way for the 1st world to continue to enjoy a good standard of living is to constantly grow the population. Note that such a scenario is not sustainable. Nonetheless, these advocates continue to "invent facts" because they need such invented "facts" in order to support their agenda.
Anyone who refuses to admit that a larger population is more environmentally damaging than a smaller population is a bigot and should be ignored. There is plenty of such bigots in LaRaza.
These issues were raised last year at the Sierra Club, but unfortunately, LaRaza and various other racist groups began tagging the concerned members (of the Sierra Club) as "racists" or "bigots". As a result, the Sierra Club voted down a proposal to designate population growth and unfettered immigration as an environmental concern.
Anyone who supports unfettered immigration is basically feigning concern about the environment and is a hypocrite who should be ignored.
So, the journal supports both extremely liberal positions and extremely conservative positions.
By contrast, the Fox News Channel is moderate in a pervasive sense. For example, Bill O'Reilly supports using the national guard to protect the borders yet supports allowing a limited number of Mexicans to enter the USA as migrant workers under the stipulation that they must return to Mexico at the end of their stint.
What is the net result? We are subsidizing the expensive Chinese programs to launch satellites and space telescopes and militarize space. While we give more than $40 billion to China for development, the Chinese initiate massive space and space-militarization programs, including nuclear-weapons development.
We should immediately cut China off of the World Bank lifeline.
By contrast, when Japan was impoverished in the 1950s, the Japanese spent almost no money on space programs or nuclear weapons. The Chinese are playing Americans for a bunch of fools.
Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with a paper ballot. The problem in Florida is unrelated to the "paper-ness" of the ballot; the problem is that some voters are so incompetent that they cannot follow the simple instructions on a paper ballot. Frankly, if you are so stupid that you cannot follow simple instructions targetted for a high-school audience, then the loss of your vote is no loss to democracy.
[1] Li Thian-hok, a Taiwanese living in the USA, wrote a threatening opinion piece in the "Taipei Times". He warned that 600,000 Taiwanese holding American citizenship would vote against any politician who favors American interests over Taiwanese interests.
The single biggest reason for the proliferation of open source software like Linux and Apache is that they are free to own. Most Westerners are relatively honest and do not pirate commercial software; the piracy rate is only about 15%. The sheer high cost of commercial software thus creates a market for free software like Linux and Apache.
Now, consider China (which includes Taiwan province and Hong Kong). The Chinese steal what they do not want to buy; the piracy rate is about 95%. In China, there is no market for open source software like Linux, for all software is free. Windows XP is "free".
TCO is not even an issue in China because Microsoft will not support pirated software. Chinese pirates get support for, say, Windows XP from other pirates; the behavior is similar to Westerners getting support from other open source supporters for Linux.
In this climate, open source software like Linux and Apache has a good chance of seizing a large chunk of their respective markets. Such software is free, and service is low cost due to a supportive community of geeks willing to offer free advice via various bulletin boards and chatrooms.
By contrast, Linux has little chance in China. In China (which includes Taiwan province and Hong Kong), all software is essentially free. The Chinese freely steal what they do not want to buy; 95% of software in China is pirated. Since Windows is "free" and Linux is free, there is no motivation for Chinese people to choose Linux over Windows.