You may want to check your math. We have been working on electric cars for closer to 170 years than 70 years. Electric vehicles started being developed only a short time after development of internal combustion energy devices.
In the U.S., the majority of that "subsidy" is tax credits which are available to any business. Most people think a subsidy is money given by the government to a business, not tax deductions that business can use to reduce their taxes. I agree with that definition.
As a general rule, subsidies are bad. Tax credits are much more varied.
Most of those billions are available to EVERY other industry as well (including "renewable" energy producers). The reason that the fossil fuel industries get more dollars than renewable for those is because the fossil fuel industries involve a lot more dollars overall.
Except that in 1867, no one was trying to FORCE people to stop using coal. To the extent that people stopped using coal (which really only happened in the 20th century), they did so because oil, natural gas, and their derivatives were a better solution.
However, for the most part, oil (and derivatives) was used for things which had not been done before because coal was a completely unsuitable fuel for those things.
It will be interesting to see how courts rule on the intersection between state laws which were passed by the legislature and explicitly address the situation and FCC regulations which are an interpretation of laws which were written before the situation existed.
Considering it took the FAA this long to come to this conclusion, I believe that judges should take a careful look at the logic they used in reaching their decision before agreeing with them. That being said, I would need to spend more time than I care to at this time to determine if the laws support the FAA or not.
The thing is, the "government" does not mention any religion at public meetings. Some PEOPLE (who have rights) may mention a religion in a public meeting.
I will not address the arguments on the other things you mention because they are complex issues and while I lean towards agreeing with your position on the point, I recognize that there are arguments which might cause me to support the other side.
Except that polls of Muslims who have emigrated to other countries shows that the majority favor instituting such discriminatory laws in the countries in which they now reside.
Anyone who votes for Democrats and earns between poverty wages and the 1% is voting against their own interests.
In the long run, Democratic policies only benefit the extremely wealthy.
Basically, you do not want to make the hard decision now..so, you want to ameliorate the problem in the short term while making it worse in the long term.
There are certain sources of information which the information from is always classified. Knowledge of the existence of some of these sources is classified. even if the information in question is mundane and in the public, it is classified because it came from these sources. Part of the reason it is classified is because revealing it may reveal information about those sources...information which may put lives in danger.
If Hillary did not know that these emails were classified, she was not qualified to be Secretary of State, let alone President.
You are overlooking that some of the emails that may not have been marked were classified by definition based on where the information they contained came from. A fact which Hillary would have been aware of.
Paypal decided not to open a global operations center in North Carolina because North Carolina has a law saying that a man dressing as a woman still has to use the men's room. But they still have their international headquarters in Singapore where having homosexual sex is a crime?
Assassination is a violation of U.S. law, which in my mind is a higher standard than International Law. Of course the definition of "an active enemy of the U.S." is "someone the President declares fits this category."
Yes, Democrats marched over this issue, and many others, and stopped as soon as a Democrat was elected President. There were Democrats protesting the rendition of American citizens captured fighting for our enemies when a Republican was President, but none protesting the assassination of American citizens ordered by a Democratic President. There are numerous similar examples where protesters disappeared as soon as the occupant of the White House changed to someone on "their" side.
Because after all, why would a woman prefer her children be the sons and daughters of a man with good earning potential (and thus more likely have good earning potential themselves) than the sons and daughters of a ne'er-do-well "alpha male"?
Why must I be tolerant of intolerance? If Trump wants to ban Mexicans and Muslims, why am I not allowed to try to ban every trace of Trump?
You are allowed to try to ban every trace of Trump...However, do not then attempt to claim that you are tolerant. By attempting to ban every trace of Trump, you are declaring that you are every bit as intolerant as Trump, just of different things.
I think it is funny that you say "even the Republicans would burn one of their own" because ONLY the Republicans would burn one of their own. The Democrats would make excuses for one of their own who ordered something which was clearly illegal and defined as an impeachable offense.
The worst part about this idea is that the reason they are trying to go this route is that the courts have rejected the traditional extortion scheme they based their business model on.
Slashdot Mirror
That assumes that the costs are real.
OK, so basically you are saying that "costs" I am unconvinced exist are subsidies
You may want to check your math. We have been working on electric cars for closer to 170 years than 70 years. Electric vehicles started being developed only a short time after development of internal combustion energy devices.
In the U.S., the majority of that "subsidy" is tax credits which are available to any business. Most people think a subsidy is money given by the government to a business, not tax deductions that business can use to reduce their taxes. I agree with that definition.
As a general rule, subsidies are bad. Tax credits are much more varied.
Most of those billions are available to EVERY other industry as well (including "renewable" energy producers). The reason that the fossil fuel industries get more dollars than renewable for those is because the fossil fuel industries involve a lot more dollars overall.
Except that in 1867, no one was trying to FORCE people to stop using coal. To the extent that people stopped using coal (which really only happened in the 20th century), they did so because oil, natural gas, and their derivatives were a better solution.
However, for the most part, oil (and derivatives) was used for things which had not been done before because coal was a completely unsuitable fuel for those things.
It will be interesting to see how courts rule on the intersection between state laws which were passed by the legislature and explicitly address the situation and FCC regulations which are an interpretation of laws which were written before the situation existed.
Considering it took the FAA this long to come to this conclusion, I believe that judges should take a careful look at the logic they used in reaching their decision before agreeing with them. That being said, I would need to spend more time than I care to at this time to determine if the laws support the FAA or not.
The thing is, the "government" does not mention any religion at public meetings. Some PEOPLE (who have rights) may mention a religion in a public meeting.
I will not address the arguments on the other things you mention because they are complex issues and while I lean towards agreeing with your position on the point, I recognize that there are arguments which might cause me to support the other side.
Except that polls of Muslims who have emigrated to other countries shows that the majority favor instituting such discriminatory laws in the countries in which they now reside.
Anyone who votes for Democrats and earns between poverty wages and the 1% is voting against their own interests.
In the long run, Democratic policies only benefit the extremely wealthy.
Oh come on, everybody knows that the Democrats love poor people...that is why they work so hard to make more of them.
Basically, you do not want to make the hard decision now..so, you want to ameliorate the problem in the short term while making it worse in the long term.
There are certain sources of information which the information from is always classified. Knowledge of the existence of some of these sources is classified. even if the information in question is mundane and in the public, it is classified because it came from these sources. Part of the reason it is classified is because revealing it may reveal information about those sources...information which may put lives in danger. If Hillary did not know that these emails were classified, she was not qualified to be Secretary of State, let alone President.
You are overlooking that some of the emails that may not have been marked were classified by definition based on where the information they contained came from. A fact which Hillary would have been aware of.
Valerie Plame's name was released by Richard Armitage, which the special prosecutor knew before he questioned Scooter Libby.
For example, Valerie Plame was an operative whose name was leaked by Scooty Libby, for which he was thrown in jail.
The only problem with this is that Scooter Libby did NOT leak Valerie Plame's name...that was Richard Armitage.
Paypal decided not to open a global operations center in North Carolina because North Carolina has a law saying that a man dressing as a woman still has to use the men's room. But they still have their international headquarters in Singapore where having homosexual sex is a crime?
Assassination is a violation of U.S. law, which in my mind is a higher standard than International Law. Of course the definition of "an active enemy of the U.S." is "someone the President declares fits this category."
Yes, Democrats marched over this issue, and many others, and stopped as soon as a Democrat was elected President. There were Democrats protesting the rendition of American citizens captured fighting for our enemies when a Republican was President, but none protesting the assassination of American citizens ordered by a Democratic President. There are numerous similar examples where protesters disappeared as soon as the occupant of the White House changed to someone on "their" side.
Because after all, why would a woman prefer her children be the sons and daughters of a man with good earning potential (and thus more likely have good earning potential themselves) than the sons and daughters of a ne'er-do-well "alpha male"?
Why must I be tolerant of intolerance? If Trump wants to ban Mexicans and Muslims, why am I not allowed to try to ban every trace of Trump?
You are allowed to try to ban every trace of Trump...However, do not then attempt to claim that you are tolerant. By attempting to ban every trace of Trump, you are declaring that you are every bit as intolerant as Trump, just of different things.
I think it is funny that you say "even the Republicans would burn one of their own" because ONLY the Republicans would burn one of their own. The Democrats would make excuses for one of their own who ordered something which was clearly illegal and defined as an impeachable offense.
If Brennen refuses an order from the President (whether the President is Republican or Democrat), he is out the door. Which is as it out to be.
Except that it was not Richard Armitage who was prosecuted.
The worst part about this idea is that the reason they are trying to go this route is that the courts have rejected the traditional extortion scheme they based their business model on.