Posted on 04/15/2006 7:08:03 AM PDT by Salo
SEATTLE (Reuters) - The first lavish dinner of China President Hu Jintao's historic visit to the United States next week will be in a big, secure house in Washington where the host is one of the world's most powerful men.
The White House? No.
It won't be in Washington D.C., but Seattle, Washington, and the April 18 dinner will be held at the $100 million lakeside mansion of Microsoft Corp. founder and the world's richest man, Bill Gates.
The approximately 100-person guest list is a who's who of the U.S. Pacific Northwest power elite, including Starbucks Corp. Chairman Howard Schultz and Washington state Gov. Christine Gregoire, said event organizers.
The guests will undergo strict security checks before entering Gates' lodge-style, 66,000 square-foot (6,130 sq meter) home overlooking Lake Washington with a reported seven bedrooms, six kitchens, 24 bathrooms, a domed library, a reception hall and an artificial estuary stocked with salmon and trout.
Gates and Gregoire are expected to introduce and welcome Hu, who will then offer a toast in front of the gathering.
The guests will be served a three-course dinner, starting with a smoked guinea fowl salad, a choice of either beef filet with Walla Walla onions or Alaskan halibut and spot prawns before a dessert of rhubarb brown butter almond cake, the event organizers said.
Like any good dinner guest, President Hu will not come empty handed. The Chinese government issued a decree two weeks ago that all PCs will need to have a licensed operating system software installed before leaving the factory gates in an effort to crack down on piracy.
As a result, three Chinese PC manufacturers announced plans to buy a total of over $400 million worth of Microsoft Windows operating system software over the next three years and Lenovo Group Ltd., China's largest PC maker, is expected to announce a similar deal on Monday, organizers said.
Why is his visit "historic"?
Guess who's coming to dinner! What, no Kim Jong-il?
I wish I could remember all the "Linux is communist" freepers and ping them to this thread.
How many illegals were in the U.S. when Bush took office in 2000, a problem already festering? ... How much do you think it would cost to round up and deport 13 to 18 million illegals of all races in America? [Remember to include the sudden jump in wage costs for businesses now employing illegals, in violation of current laws. Also include the cost in increased INS and such agents to track, record, arrest, and deport same illegals. Include the astronomical jump in court costs for the court appearances since you know 'due process' will be forced into the equation and nothing any pubby could do will prevent that. Factor in the gargantuan bureaucracy created and what to do with same once eighty percent of the illegals are rounded up and deported to countries of origin. Don't bother factoring in the cost to secure the Southern border since that is a first requirement in dealing with the illegal immigration from Mexico problem no matter which goal is taken. You should also factor in the criminal behavior and destruction which will be perpetrated by belligerent illegals when they realize they're being rounded up for deportation ... the L.A. riots of yesteryear will pale in comparison. You might also want to factor in the sudden loss of individual rights when the lawlessness breaks out and average Americans scream for order at any cost. I don't think your ilk could even contemplate the cost in human suffering, to the children born here of illegals or the effect of chaos and riots, so don't even attempt that factor. You might note, however, that those desiring to send Islamic terrorists and terrorists' 'weaponry' into the U.S. are and will continue using the porous, placid Northern border rather than chance getting caught up in the wildcard of illegals on the Southern border.]
If the above causes you to even pause to think, then realize any president wanting to actually work on the problem will have to approach this far more seriously than Reagna's amnesty only method. Your irrational hatred for this president and your blind screed methodology makes me so glad dolts like you aren't in power now at this crucial time in America.
1 Timothy 6:10
And even more have strayed from loyalty to the USA
imo
Did you have anything of substance to inject into the discussion or are you content to merely snipe from the bush-bash-bench?
He has never been to the United States.
That makes it historic? I don't thinks so.
They already have their talking points:
1. Microsoft is only dealing with the ChiComs because of linux.
2. The official OS of the ChiComs is Red Flag, which is a free copy of Red Hat.
3. Linus Torvold's parents were communists.
4. The money spent on Windows won't be spent on missles.
5. IBM helped the nazis.
BTW, shadow ace and n3wbi3 have ping lists that have the MS Flying Buttmonkeys in them, and incorrigible has already shown up.
I can see why politicians and rich dudes are always so crappy.
The food would make anyone crap out.
Wheres the beef, with ketchup and fries?
Comments represent a new low, imho.
Gregoire will be gone by the end of the year.
How many illegals were in the U.S. when Bush took office in 2000, a problem already festering?
Answer: Irrelevant. Bush shouldn't have taken the oath of office if he intended to willfully violate the laws of the U.S. by not enforcing them (that includes his ICE director telling immigration officials to not attend the rallies this past month). There is also his constitutional duty to defend this country against enemies both foreign and domestic. That doesn't mean fight wars abroad while ignoring internal security. It isn't an either/or situation.
How much do you think it would cost to round up and deport 13 to 18 million illegals of all races in America?
Answer: Irrelevant. See preceding answer as to why. By way of further response, it will be cheaper than keeping them here, including the costs of free education, free medical services, welfare, free incarceration, and the costs of deporting the same individuals multiple times who hop right back across the open border until caught again.
Include the astronomical jump in court costs for the court appearances since you know 'due process' will be forced into the equation and nothing any pubby could do will prevent that.
Answer: That is incorrect. Congressional legislation can strip jurisdiction from the lower federal courts. Original jurisdiction would lie with the U.S. Supreme Court in such instances. You can be sure that it would be resolved by one case that acknowledges illegals are not vested with a full array of constitutional rights.
Factor in the gargantuan bureaucracy created and what to do with same once eighty percent of the illegals are rounded up and deported to countries of origin.
Answer: Wrong again. Draconian penalties on employers would do half the trick. Offering $ 1,000 bounty per head to be split between local law enforcement and citizens who report illegals will take care of the problem within 6 months and without a large bureaucracy.
Don't bother factoring in the cost to secure the Southern border since that is a first requirement in dealing with the illegal immigration from Mexico problem no matter which goal is taken.
Answer: Still cheaper than the current societal costs listed above. Mobilize the national guard in the Southern states to secure the border until the fence/wall/minefield is constructed.
You should also factor in the criminal behavior and destruction which will be perpetrated by belligerent illegals when they realize they're being rounded up for deportation ... the L.A. riots of yesteryear will pale in comparison.
Answer: You must be mistaking the South for the Northeast. Mexicans who tried this in most Southern border states would be filled with lead very quickly. As for California, mobilize the National Guard with orders to shoot to kill. As for the L.A. riots, the dirty little secret no one wants to talk about is that the blacks hate the illegals. You can be damn sure that if shooting started, blacks wouldn't be rising up in support of La Raza.
You might also want to factor in the sudden loss of individual rights when the lawlessness breaks out and average Americans scream for order at any cost.
Answer: Parade of imaginary horribles worthing of a liberal.
I don't think your ilk could even contemplate the cost in human suffering, to the children born here of illegals or the effect of chaos and riots, so don't even attempt that factor.
Answer: The children? Who are you? Hillary? As for the children, what about the children of U.S. citizens who have to put up with this current mess, will be burdened with taxes to support the illegals, etc.? Your compassion apparently is devoted to illegals.
You might note, however, that those desiring to send Islamic terrorists and terrorists' 'weaponry' into the U.S. are and will continue using the porous, placid Northern border rather than chance getting caught up in the wildcard of illegals on the Southern border.]
Answer: Irrelevant...red herring. The southern border is the primary issue right now. Secure it first...then work on the northern border.
If the above causes you to even pause to think, then realize any president wanting to actually work on the problem will have to approach this far more seriously than Reagna's amnesty only method.
Answer: Bashing Reagan? Ever thought that Reagan had little to work with given that both houses of Congress was ruled by Democrats throughout most of his two terms? .
Your irrational hatred for this president and your blind screed methodology makes me so glad dolts like you aren't in power now at this crucial time in America.
Answer: Your devotion to illegal aliens suggests that (a) you are one, (b) you're related to one, or (c) you profit from the status quo through cheap labor. You shouldn't be calling anyone 'dolt' until you look in the mirror first.
Which comments?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.