Well, yes, by definition socialists are trying to take control of production out of the hands of large businesses and into the hands of the workers. That being said, Belgium is a pretty moderate country as far as Europe goes.
Please debate on the merits of the case, not on stereotypes and idealogical generalizations.
Re:An attempt to shut down Groklaw?
on
SCO Vs. Groklaw
·
· Score: 0
It's difficult to tell how much Hollywood is making because they try and hide their international ticket and DVD sales as much as possible. There's also the famous Hollywood accounting system where profits are juggled through intermediaries until the film isn't making money anymore. Overall it's pretty much impossible for outsiders to get an exact figure of how well they're doing, but judging by the fact that they are still cranking out very large budget movies by the dozen (many over $100 million and a few over $150 million) I would say that they are doing very well indeed.
5lb. bag of rice, 5lb. bag of beans, and some fruits/veggies. Cheap as hell and extremely easy/convenient to prepare a variety of different foods. People have enough time to make food. There are very few people anywhere that do not have 15 minutes to cook a simple meal. TV dinners really aren't that much of a time saver, and are expensive. More importantly, they are often absolutely horrible for you. Even fast food, when you take into account the time spent driving to/from the restaurant is not that much quicker than cooking.
I eat about 3-4 rice-based meals a week and it takes me a month to go through a ten pound bag which costs me $8. Stuff like beans, pasta, and fresh fruit and veggies are also extremely cheap and easy to cook.
Actually, I usually buy the NCAA Football and Madden games every year. There's nothing wrong necessarily with sports games, but it sucks when something with that little "substance" takes such a large share of the pie every single year. At least they're relatively good games, though. It's even worse when crap like Star Wars Episode 3, Spider-Man The Move, or *shudder* the Matrix games sell a lot only because of their title and graphics. Remember Masters of Teras Kasi or Episode 1: Pod Racer? God those were some awful games. Even Hollywood gets original movies in more often than the video game industry. Sure Happy Feet and Night at the Museum sucked, but at least they're not goddamned sequels.
That's the comment I got from various American youths. The music they are interested in has no long term value, unlike the Beatles/Stones/et al. Partly this has to do with the fact that most of modern pop is programmed on a cold computer and utterly devoid of real feeling; I get the feeling that while the kids are diggin' modern music at the same time they are unable to form a true connection to it, in the same way a human can't truly fall in love with a computer, because one knows it's an inanimate object at the end of the day.
Or perhaps you're old. Don't get me wrong, I dig the old groups as well, but to claim that music today has no soul is completely false. Rock and roll is still alive and well, if only mostly below the radar. People have been making this argument forever. No hard feelings, you just don't "get it." In the parlance of other times, you're a square. And just because something's produced with a computer doesn't mean it's cold. Remember, guitars and pianos are inanimate objects also.
Current electronically generated and produced pop has no real performances to speak of, or if there is one can't be sure whether it's a sample of some old record thrown into the mix.
Most of the Beatles later stuff was meticulously recorded with tons and tons of effects and redubs and a ridiculous amount of editing and shaping. There was little "performance" in that, as well. Whether it's made with electronic instruments shouldn't matter in capturing the feeling of a piece.
The record companies need to produce artists (and they are out there) who produce real music and do it well.
Again, the times they are a-changin'. Just because there isn't the large amount of phenomenally successful artists out there being pushed into the mainstream by the record companies as there was in the 60's and 70's (and to a lesser extent 80's and 90's) doesn't mean there isn't music worth listening to. It's there if you're looking for it, it's just not being pushed on you. To give you an example of what I listen to, here's a sampling of some of some current artists I listen to now that have more of a traditional rock/pop approach (all available in your local record store and P2P site of course): The Hold Steady, The Decemberists, Death Cab for Cutie, The Shins, and The Good, the Bad, and the Queen. I definitely listen to more types of music than this (more mainstream and less) but that's a decent sample of some damn good current rock/pop bands.
Besides, the old bands are still around and making good music. The Who, The Stones, Dylan, Elvis Costello, Jerry Lee Lewis, Elton John, Springsteen, Paul McCartney, and other great old artists have put out good albums lately. You might not even have to get into any new groups to find some great new music. There's a lot of it out there to be found, you just have to look!
Licensing, licensing, marketing
on
Why Do Games Sell?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
2006 top ten: Madden NFL 07 - PS2 New Super Mario Bros. - DS Gears of War - Xbox 360 Kingdom Hearts II - PS2 Guitar Hero 2 Bundle- PS2 Final Fantasy XII - PS2 Brain Age: Train Your Brain - DS Madden NFL 07 - Xbox 360 Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter - Xbox 360 NCAA Football 07 - PS2
2005 top ten: Madden NFL 06 - PS2 Pokemon Emerald - GBA Gran Turismo 4 - PS2 Madden NFL 06 - Xbox NCAA Football 06 - PS2 Star Wars: Battlefront 2 - PS2 MVP Baseball 2005 - PS2 Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith - PS2 NBA Live 06 - PS2 Lego Star Wars - PS2
2004 top ten: GTA: San Andreas - PS2 Halo 2 - Xbox Madden NFL 2005 - PS2 ESPN NFL 2K5 - PS2 Need for Speed: Underground 2 - PS2 Pokemon Fire Red - GBA NBA Live 2005 - PS2 Spider-Man: The Movie 2 - PS2 Halo - Xbox ESPN NFL 2K5 - Xbox
Out of the thirty possible, there are only three games that are not sequels or licensed content: (Halo, Brain Age, and Gears of War). 1/3 are EA Sports titles. That's pretty sad.
Well that's certainly not the response I expected:) Sorry for the strong language, I just get a bit angry by people acting like the US is turning into some backward country where we don't even respect basic human rights. Stuff like the PATRIOT Act, Guantanamo and the like are horrible and should be gotten rid of, but speaking in relative terms they really aren't that bad. We're still an extraordinarily free society, even if we're constantly having to fight idiot laws and policies to keep that freedom.
It's working just fine, thank you. The PATRIOT Act has nothing to do with free speech. Absolutely nothing whatsoever. The objections to certain articles of the PATRIOT Act have to do with invasion of privacy and a perceived lack of judicial oversight for certain provisions.
When you say that Norway is at the top of the list, the United States is not far back. And this is a completely unscientific, opinion-based, qualitative ranking that you are citing. The survey is wildly erratic and, with the US at least, . The US fell over 20 places in Reporters Without Borders for, according to them, the decisions made in the Judith Miller case. That had absolutely nothing to do with her being censored or deprived of the right to speak or publish her opinion in any way, shape, or form. She was arrested for contempt of court. If she has facts that are related to a specific trial, she has a legal obligation to give up those facts. Whether you are a journalist or a private citizen, you simply can't ignore a grand jury summons. By refusing to testify when she had valuable information, she undermined the integrity of the court case. You do not, and should not, have the right to withhold information from a jury.
For an example, El Salvador was ranked ahead of the United States last year. Can you honestly tell me that you would feel safer criticizing the government in El Salvador? That El Salvador has more societal and governmental assurance of a free press?
I know US-bashing is in fashion and the OP was wrong, but please shut the fuck up. We've had asshole presidents, moronic legislatures, and stupid, pointless wars before and we'll have them again. That doesn't change the fact that we have a long and proud history of freedom of the press.
One of my favorite gaming moments was playing some crappy Starcraft match (3v3 BGH!!!) where everybody was pretty bad (myself included I was fairly young and inexperienced at the time). My teammates sucked and got killed after about 20 minutes, but I managed to stick around and make it competitive. I was pinned inside my base with a crapload of tanks and bunkers/missile turrets and they couldn't break in (like I said they were pretty bad). Occasionally I would get an expansion up for more resources and slowly move my defenses over to the new base. We literally used up every resource on Big Game Hunters and I won because I successfully kept them from expanding. The game probably lasted over an hour and a half and it was unbelievably fun.
Whenever I play Warcraft 3 I play FFA's. At one point I had an absurd FFA record (something like 30-30), partially because I would never quit on large maps. I would always run away in a corner away from where the real fighting was taking place and build up a main base with one or two expansions and then try and strike at opportune moments. I've won many matches where most people would've just given up.
I guess Apple subsidizes the development of Mac OSX with the hardware sales (price premium?). Now if Apple were to let OSX to be distributed independent of the hardware, the software would have to be sold at a higher price.
I'd say that it's more that Apple uses OSX to drive hardware sales. If you remove OSX from Apple-only hardware, you remove a large amount of the incentive for people to buy Apple's hardware. Apple doesn't want to be in the software business, they want to be in the hardware business. Also, it's much easier to design an OS when you know exactly which hardware it's going to be running on.
Are there municipalities in Oregon that have sales tax? I lived there when I was younger (Eastern OR), and none of the places I knew had sales tax. It would seem to make sense, though, because the Portland-area cities especially really love public works and in other states it's very common to fund local projects through slight increases in sales tax. Do they just cover it with property/income taxes?
This has to do with many, many other factors. Taxes are fairly far down on the list of reasons why buying things off the internet is superior. Companies like Amazon, eBay, NewEgg, Dell, etc. probably wouldn't exist without the internet, and if they did they definitely wouldn't be as successful. This has more to do with their business models than with the tax differences. Even in areas with no sales tax internet retailers are still killing brick and mortar stores.
If you don't read climate science papers and keep up with the subject it is just idiotic for you to evaluate the merits of his theory. Instead you have to compare the credibility of the vast vast majority of the scientific establishment and a few dissenters.
Here's a thought: if someone presents a seemingly valid hypothesis and you aren't expert enough to assert if it is false or not, you either attempt to gain more knowledge or you reserve judgment. I know the appeal to authority thing is always in vogue, but that is not the rational reaction. Science is always wrecking accepted viewpoints. Very often those "few dissenters" prove the established majority wrong. You shouldn't dismiss arguments solely on the basis of current popularity. Climate change is still very much a science undergoing constant changes and revisions. It is very possible that many of our current theories are false. I'm not saying he's right or anything, but that is horrible, horrible argument you're making.
You always, always, evaluate the merits of the theory. If you can't and are incapable of making that judgement, then you shouldn't.
You could really say the same about any issue. A president is never going to be able to institute a policy that Congress is stongly against, and he/she'll never be able to stop a policy that Congress is strongly for. In between those two, however, there's a hell of a lot that the President is responsible for. If the original poster seriously thinks that protecting the second amendment is supremely important then he shouldn't vote for Obama, plain and simple. Assuming a bit about your political beliefs, if you thought that a presidential candidate was very strongly anti-abortion rights, would you vote for him, even if that is something that they had relatively little control over? Oftentimes single issues do sway voters, especially in primaries.
Can you only admire a person of your own race, surely not, do you then suggest that blacks are not capable of admiring a person of another race?
True, but on another level people need someone who is similar to them (in background, appearance, culture, whatever) to provide a positive role model. If you are a black child and live in an inner city, crime-ridden environment and all the people you see in the media look and speak differently than you do, it reinforces a feeling that it is beyond your ability to do what those people do. Go to a predominantly poor, black neighborhood and see how many high-school age kids want to go to college and become a lawyer, businessman, scientist, programmer, doctor, journalist, etc. Then see how many want to become professional athletes or musicians. You'll find that it's much more extreme than in "white" areas. There is a feeling that they simply aren't able to succeed at other things.
It is important to people to have role models that they can relate to. Whether Obama is one of these people is another question, but the fact of the matter is that it is not racist to suggest that black children need black role models. In the US, black is more of a cultural distinction as a racial one. That is one reason why a lot of "people of African descent living in America" do not consider Obama "black".
I heard somewhere that sugar beets would surpass corn as the main source of ethanol because if we ever actually do move toward ethanol as a main energy source. Does anybody know how efficient sugar beets are for making ethanol vs. corn? Was wherever I heard it from just making things up?
If you want to see something interesting related to this, watch Street Fight. It's about a guy, Cory Booker who ran for mayor of Newark. Throughout the film, his opposition (who is also African-American), makes slurs against him claiming that he isn't black, simply because he is light skinned, well educated, and well spoken. His parents were extremely active in the civil rights movement and were from the inner city, but he grew up in the suburbs and attended Standford, Oxford (Rhodes Scholar), and Yale. It's really interesting (and scary as hell). I don't know how much Obama would lose because of sentiments like this since he isn't running against a "blacker" candidate, but it's definitely out there.
That's great if you agree with his convictions, but if you don't then why would you vote for someone you don't agree with? I'm pretty sure Pat Buchanan is not just playing politics and would actually try to do what he promised when elected, but why the hell would I vote for him?
"Orthodox" Christians are Trinitarian and follow the Nicene Creed. Mormons do not, therefore they are not "orthodox" Christians but heretics as defined be the universal catholic church (by this I mean the Roman Catholic Church, the Coptic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, and most Protestants). Mormons follow a prophet and holy texts that contradict large sections of the New Testament and who are specifically rejected by the universal catholic church as frauds.
Could you point out which part exactly of the Nicene Creed Mormon teachings contradict? Mormons believe in the Trinity. They believe Jesus was the son of God and the savior. They just don't acknowledge other churches legitimacy and want to restore the "ancient church." Even if their beliefs do contradict the Nicene Creed, who's to say that doesn't make them Christians? Were the people that believed in Christ before the year 315 not Christians? If they didn't agree with the creed when it was instituted, were they instantly not Christians when it was declared?
Other churches just hate the fact that there is a documented history of how goddamn stupid the founding of the LDS church was and want to distance themselves from it. They say, "Oh no, that church is crazy, but we're legit!" Any rational person looking from the outside can see that Mormons are Christians and that petty semantic differences are completely fucking ridiculous. Guess what, Shiites and Sunnis think that the other group is completely wrong about certain beliefs. But guess what, they both believe that Muhammad is the last true prophet of God, and they're both Muslim. It's just plain silly to claim otherwise. It's just a pissing contest to feel like your faith is superior.
By your phrasing you seem to allude in your post that the Constitution grants you the right to free speech. That is a natural right and is not granted to you by the Constitution. The Constitution simply acknowledges that natural rights exists and forbids the government from infringing upon them. Sorry to pick nits and restate something you probably already know, but so many people miss this distinction that I don't think it can be stated too often.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the indie labels (approx. 30% of sales) already do want their music sold without DRM.
Well, yes, by definition socialists are trying to take control of production out of the hands of large businesses and into the hands of the workers. That being said, Belgium is a pretty moderate country as far as Europe goes.
Please debate on the merits of the case, not on stereotypes and idealogical generalizations.
I can.
It's difficult to tell how much Hollywood is making because they try and hide their international ticket and DVD sales as much as possible. There's also the famous Hollywood accounting system where profits are juggled through intermediaries until the film isn't making money anymore. Overall it's pretty much impossible for outsiders to get an exact figure of how well they're doing, but judging by the fact that they are still cranking out very large budget movies by the dozen (many over $100 million and a few over $150 million) I would say that they are doing very well indeed.
5lb. bag of rice, 5lb. bag of beans, and some fruits/veggies. Cheap as hell and extremely easy/convenient to prepare a variety of different foods. People have enough time to make food. There are very few people anywhere that do not have 15 minutes to cook a simple meal. TV dinners really aren't that much of a time saver, and are expensive. More importantly, they are often absolutely horrible for you. Even fast food, when you take into account the time spent driving to/from the restaurant is not that much quicker than cooking.
I eat about 3-4 rice-based meals a week and it takes me a month to go through a ten pound bag which costs me $8. Stuff like beans, pasta, and fresh fruit and veggies are also extremely cheap and easy to cook.
Actually, I usually buy the NCAA Football and Madden games every year. There's nothing wrong necessarily with sports games, but it sucks when something with that little "substance" takes such a large share of the pie every single year. At least they're relatively good games, though. It's even worse when crap like Star Wars Episode 3, Spider-Man The Move, or *shudder* the Matrix games sell a lot only because of their title and graphics. Remember Masters of Teras Kasi or Episode 1: Pod Racer? God those were some awful games. Even Hollywood gets original movies in more often than the video game industry. Sure Happy Feet and Night at the Museum sucked, but at least they're not goddamned sequels.
Or perhaps you're old. Don't get me wrong, I dig the old groups as well, but to claim that music today has no soul is completely false. Rock and roll is still alive and well, if only mostly below the radar. People have been making this argument forever. No hard feelings, you just don't "get it." In the parlance of other times, you're a square. And just because something's produced with a computer doesn't mean it's cold. Remember, guitars and pianos are inanimate objects also.
Most of the Beatles later stuff was meticulously recorded with tons and tons of effects and redubs and a ridiculous amount of editing and shaping. There was little "performance" in that, as well. Whether it's made with electronic instruments shouldn't matter in capturing the feeling of a piece.
Again, the times they are a-changin'. Just because there isn't the large amount of phenomenally successful artists out there being pushed into the mainstream by the record companies as there was in the 60's and 70's (and to a lesser extent 80's and 90's) doesn't mean there isn't music worth listening to. It's there if you're looking for it, it's just not being pushed on you. To give you an example of what I listen to, here's a sampling of some of some current artists I listen to now that have more of a traditional rock/pop approach (all available in your local record store and P2P site of course): The Hold Steady, The Decemberists, Death Cab for Cutie, The Shins, and The Good, the Bad, and the Queen. I definitely listen to more types of music than this (more mainstream and less) but that's a decent sample of some damn good current rock/pop bands.
Besides, the old bands are still around and making good music. The Who, The Stones, Dylan, Elvis Costello, Jerry Lee Lewis, Elton John, Springsteen, Paul McCartney, and other great old artists have put out good albums lately. You might not even have to get into any new groups to find some great new music. There's a lot of it out there to be found, you just have to look!
2006 top ten:
Madden NFL 07 - PS2
New Super Mario Bros. - DS
Gears of War - Xbox 360
Kingdom Hearts II - PS2
Guitar Hero 2 Bundle- PS2
Final Fantasy XII - PS2
Brain Age: Train Your Brain - DS
Madden NFL 07 - Xbox 360
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter - Xbox 360
NCAA Football 07 - PS2
2005 top ten:
Madden NFL 06 - PS2
Pokemon Emerald - GBA
Gran Turismo 4 - PS2
Madden NFL 06 - Xbox
NCAA Football 06 - PS2
Star Wars: Battlefront 2 - PS2
MVP Baseball 2005 - PS2
Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith - PS2
NBA Live 06 - PS2
Lego Star Wars - PS2
2004 top ten:
GTA: San Andreas - PS2
Halo 2 - Xbox
Madden NFL 2005 - PS2
ESPN NFL 2K5 - PS2
Need for Speed: Underground 2 - PS2
Pokemon Fire Red - GBA
NBA Live 2005 - PS2
Spider-Man: The Movie 2 - PS2
Halo - Xbox
ESPN NFL 2K5 - Xbox
Out of the thirty possible, there are only three games that are not sequels or licensed content: (Halo, Brain Age, and Gears of War). 1/3 are EA Sports titles. That's pretty sad.
Well that's certainly not the response I expected :) Sorry for the strong language, I just get a bit angry by people acting like the US is turning into some backward country where we don't even respect basic human rights. Stuff like the PATRIOT Act, Guantanamo and the like are horrible and should be gotten rid of, but speaking in relative terms they really aren't that bad. We're still an extraordinarily free society, even if we're constantly having to fight idiot laws and policies to keep that freedom.
It's working just fine, thank you. The PATRIOT Act has nothing to do with free speech. Absolutely nothing whatsoever. The objections to certain articles of the PATRIOT Act have to do with invasion of privacy and a perceived lack of judicial oversight for certain provisions.
When you say that Norway is at the top of the list, the United States is not far back. And this is a completely unscientific, opinion-based, qualitative ranking that you are citing. The survey is wildly erratic and, with the US at least, . The US fell over 20 places in Reporters Without Borders for, according to them, the decisions made in the Judith Miller case. That had absolutely nothing to do with her being censored or deprived of the right to speak or publish her opinion in any way, shape, or form. She was arrested for contempt of court. If she has facts that are related to a specific trial, she has a legal obligation to give up those facts. Whether you are a journalist or a private citizen, you simply can't ignore a grand jury summons. By refusing to testify when she had valuable information, she undermined the integrity of the court case. You do not, and should not, have the right to withhold information from a jury.
For an example, El Salvador was ranked ahead of the United States last year. Can you honestly tell me that you would feel safer criticizing the government in El Salvador? That El Salvador has more societal and governmental assurance of a free press?
I know US-bashing is in fashion and the OP was wrong, but please shut the fuck up. We've had asshole presidents, moronic legislatures, and stupid, pointless wars before and we'll have them again. That doesn't change the fact that we have a long and proud history of freedom of the press.
One of my favorite gaming moments was playing some crappy Starcraft match (3v3 BGH!!!) where everybody was pretty bad (myself included I was fairly young and inexperienced at the time). My teammates sucked and got killed after about 20 minutes, but I managed to stick around and make it competitive. I was pinned inside my base with a crapload of tanks and bunkers/missile turrets and they couldn't break in (like I said they were pretty bad). Occasionally I would get an expansion up for more resources and slowly move my defenses over to the new base. We literally used up every resource on Big Game Hunters and I won because I successfully kept them from expanding. The game probably lasted over an hour and a half and it was unbelievably fun.
Whenever I play Warcraft 3 I play FFA's. At one point I had an absurd FFA record (something like 30-30), partially because I would never quit on large maps. I would always run away in a corner away from where the real fighting was taking place and build up a main base with one or two expansions and then try and strike at opportune moments. I've won many matches where most people would've just given up.
I'd say that it's more that Apple uses OSX to drive hardware sales. If you remove OSX from Apple-only hardware, you remove a large amount of the incentive for people to buy Apple's hardware. Apple doesn't want to be in the software business, they want to be in the hardware business. Also, it's much easier to design an OS when you know exactly which hardware it's going to be running on.
Not if you aren't selling it or trying to convince people that it's a real Apple.
Are there municipalities in Oregon that have sales tax? I lived there when I was younger (Eastern OR), and none of the places I knew had sales tax. It would seem to make sense, though, because the Portland-area cities especially really love public works and in other states it's very common to fund local projects through slight increases in sales tax. Do they just cover it with property/income taxes?
This has to do with many, many other factors. Taxes are fairly far down on the list of reasons why buying things off the internet is superior. Companies like Amazon, eBay, NewEgg, Dell, etc. probably wouldn't exist without the internet, and if they did they definitely wouldn't be as successful. This has more to do with their business models than with the tax differences. Even in areas with no sales tax internet retailers are still killing brick and mortar stores.
Here's a thought: if someone presents a seemingly valid hypothesis and you aren't expert enough to assert if it is false or not, you either attempt to gain more knowledge or you reserve judgment. I know the appeal to authority thing is always in vogue, but that is not the rational reaction. Science is always wrecking accepted viewpoints. Very often those "few dissenters" prove the established majority wrong. You shouldn't dismiss arguments solely on the basis of current popularity. Climate change is still very much a science undergoing constant changes and revisions. It is very possible that many of our current theories are false. I'm not saying he's right or anything, but that is horrible, horrible argument you're making.
You always, always, evaluate the merits of the theory. If you can't and are incapable of making that judgement, then you shouldn't.
Actually that's (probably) legal in the US also. It's completely unenforceable anyway, so it's not like it matters, but I'm pretty sure it's legal.
You could really say the same about any issue. A president is never going to be able to institute a policy that Congress is stongly against, and he/she'll never be able to stop a policy that Congress is strongly for. In between those two, however, there's a hell of a lot that the President is responsible for. If the original poster seriously thinks that protecting the second amendment is supremely important then he shouldn't vote for Obama, plain and simple. Assuming a bit about your political beliefs, if you thought that a presidential candidate was very strongly anti-abortion rights, would you vote for him, even if that is something that they had relatively little control over? Oftentimes single issues do sway voters, especially in primaries.
True, but on another level people need someone who is similar to them (in background, appearance, culture, whatever) to provide a positive role model. If you are a black child and live in an inner city, crime-ridden environment and all the people you see in the media look and speak differently than you do, it reinforces a feeling that it is beyond your ability to do what those people do. Go to a predominantly poor, black neighborhood and see how many high-school age kids want to go to college and become a lawyer, businessman, scientist, programmer, doctor, journalist, etc. Then see how many want to become professional athletes or musicians. You'll find that it's much more extreme than in "white" areas. There is a feeling that they simply aren't able to succeed at other things.
It is important to people to have role models that they can relate to. Whether Obama is one of these people is another question, but the fact of the matter is that it is not racist to suggest that black children need black role models. In the US, black is more of a cultural distinction as a racial one. That is one reason why a lot of "people of African descent living in America" do not consider Obama "black".
They're talking about American soldiers. Your friend was probably working on civilians.
I heard somewhere that sugar beets would surpass corn as the main source of ethanol because if we ever actually do move toward ethanol as a main energy source. Does anybody know how efficient sugar beets are for making ethanol vs. corn? Was wherever I heard it from just making things up?
If you want to see something interesting related to this, watch Street Fight. It's about a guy, Cory Booker who ran for mayor of Newark. Throughout the film, his opposition (who is also African-American), makes slurs against him claiming that he isn't black, simply because he is light skinned, well educated, and well spoken. His parents were extremely active in the civil rights movement and were from the inner city, but he grew up in the suburbs and attended Standford, Oxford (Rhodes Scholar), and Yale. It's really interesting (and scary as hell). I don't know how much Obama would lose because of sentiments like this since he isn't running against a "blacker" candidate, but it's definitely out there.
That's great if you agree with his convictions, but if you don't then why would you vote for someone you don't agree with? I'm pretty sure Pat Buchanan is not just playing politics and would actually try to do what he promised when elected, but why the hell would I vote for him?
Could you point out which part exactly of the Nicene Creed Mormon teachings contradict? Mormons believe in the Trinity. They believe Jesus was the son of God and the savior. They just don't acknowledge other churches legitimacy and want to restore the "ancient church." Even if their beliefs do contradict the Nicene Creed, who's to say that doesn't make them Christians? Were the people that believed in Christ before the year 315 not Christians? If they didn't agree with the creed when it was instituted, were they instantly not Christians when it was declared?
Other churches just hate the fact that there is a documented history of how goddamn stupid the founding of the LDS church was and want to distance themselves from it. They say, "Oh no, that church is crazy, but we're legit!" Any rational person looking from the outside can see that Mormons are Christians and that petty semantic differences are completely fucking ridiculous. Guess what, Shiites and Sunnis think that the other group is completely wrong about certain beliefs. But guess what, they both believe that Muhammad is the last true prophet of God, and they're both Muslim. It's just plain silly to claim otherwise. It's just a pissing contest to feel like your faith is superior.
By your phrasing you seem to allude in your post that the Constitution grants you the right to free speech. That is a natural right and is not granted to you by the Constitution. The Constitution simply acknowledges that natural rights exists and forbids the government from infringing upon them. Sorry to pick nits and restate something you probably already know, but so many people miss this distinction that I don't think it can be stated too often.