Because fraud may have been committed? Investigating crimes is one of things Attorneys General do.
Fraud? This is roughly equivalent to charging a 10 year old dressed up as a policeman with impersonating a police officer because he says "Your are under arrest!" or closing down the 12 year old's lemonade stand because they don't have a retail permit and are not paying sales taxes.
Who got defrauded here? Somebody clogged up some public comment process with garbage spam? So? It may technically be fraud, but I'm going to bet there are more serous cases for the DA to be going after. The only reason the DA is doing this is for the PR value.. Which in my book is using the DA's time and the state's money for campaign purposes, which sorta smacks of fraud too, maybe even campaign finance violations...
What it actually ended up being was the creation of a HUGE regulatory organization at the FCC that was going to required a lot of money, people and resources it didn't have budget to acquire.
A huge regulatory organization... other than the FCC? How many people did the FCC hire for this? How many resources did it budget for enforcing network neutrality? I mean, heaven forbid the FCC does the job it's supposed to do.
But of course in 2016 the GOP slashed their budget by $69 million, about 20%. If you're complaining that they didn't have the budget for it, the GOP is to blame.
Nice spin there.. Slam the other party for cutting costs for programs you like and slam them for running up the debt because they spend too much.. You do get how overtly partisan all that is right? Maybe not. Oh, and this was the budget PROPOSAL which was 20% less than REQUESTED by the FCC, and knowing NN wasn't going to be continued, this makes sense.:) In actual fact the FCC's budget only got hit by a few % of an actual cut, but you are going to quote me a number that includes the baseline increase too.. Forget it...
I notice you don't argue that this created a brand new large bureaucracy at the FCC to manage all the countries ISPs and the complaints they would receive. Unless you don't drive and never got a driver's license, maybe you don't understand how inefficient government bureaucracies can be, but I have worked for the DOD and dealt extensively with the FCC so I can assure you, it's an absolutely great way to throw good taxed money after bad if you are so inclined.
Your argument about making ISP's into common carriers isn't as clear cut as you imagine. The ramifications of ISP's being common carriers are far reaching and raise some really complicated issues that I don't think NN proponents have fully thought through. It's a mess if you do this. Also, I've heard well versed people on both sides of that issue debate the legal basis for that idea and it sure doesn't seem likely to be legal with the current wording of the applicable laws. Of course the courts would have to make this call, but what kind of mess will we have if they say nope to common carrier status? It's a dammed if you do and dammed if you don't kind of situation. Net Neutrality would be a HUGE mess in either case using your common carrier argument.
But hey, if you want this, go get enough seats in congress to get it passed into law. Keep those political campaigns running on the issue if you like. I'm not supporting it. I don't think it's necessary, I don't think it is helpful, and all it would really accomplish is to spend money we don't have for no benefits. But hey, politics trumps all I guess.
I don't understand how a normal person can be against net neutrality. Can someone explain?
First thing you need to understand is the name isn't all that descriptive of it's actual effect or it's reason for being. Net Neutrally would have had some effects you wouldn't expect from it's name. It did little for networking and was anything but neutral about granting access. What it actually ended up being was the creation of a HUGE regulatory organization at the FCC that was going to required a lot of money, people and resources it didn't have budget to acquire. The whole system was set up to be rife with corrupting influences between the FCC and the big ISP's they where regulating, and really looked for all the world as a way to get payoffs and bribes more easily hidden.
The network routing rules where going to be a huge disruption to network performance, drive up costs for customers and lower performance by not allowing data filtering, requiring equal priority and treatment of packets regardless of the payload. It was basically routing rules written by people who didn't understand how network routing worked.
It had it's good points, but in what I think was a fair analysis, the bad outweighed the good. Your mileage may vary I suppose, but just don't take the name at face value. Names of laws hardly ever convey an accurate picture of the actual content of the law/rule.
Take the ACA (Affordable Care Act) [aka Obamacare] as an example. It didn't lower healthcare costs or make healthcare more affordable, quite the opposite. In the end it added costs by mandating a minimum coverage which was over and above what average people had, AND part of the law took money from one group (as in a tax, but not a tax) and paid insurance coverage costs for others. This is certainly NOT implied in the ACA's name.
The public comment process at the FCC is absolutely not a poll. That's not it's purpose. NOBODY at the FCC counts up the number of public comments on each side of an issue because that's not the information the public comment process is designed to get.
I think the issue here is not bunker oil, but sulfur content of said fuel.
Right now, I understand that the use of low grade high sulfur fuel outside of territorial waters is common for financial reasons as no single country can unilaterally ban it's use in international waters. I believe what's happening is countries are starting to band together to stop the sale of these fuels or prohibit passage of ships though their territorial waters that carry it in their tanks, even if they don't use it and they are working with the UN on a treaty about this.
Bunker oil isn't going away anytime soon, in fact it's a common fuel in undeveloped countries setting up quickie electrical power generation plants for industrial or commercial use. What may be happening is refiners may have to process it a bit more to remove the sulfur, and it will cost more as a result, but it's way to cheap and efficient of a fuel to just stop using.
You can't just go around claiming all comments you disagree with are fake. How do YOU know your grandmother doesn't have strong feelings about net neutrality? You didn't even talk to her when she was alive, have you asked her about it since she died? Thought not. Grow up and realize nobody likes net neutrality.
Regards, Jefferson Airplane.
But my Grandma started voting Democrat after she died... I make sure she get's her ballots in on time! We are going to win because the ends justifies the means and we got good memes....
That is not what the New York AG is investigating.
The investigation is into whether or not the anti-network neutrality comments involved fraud.
Why waste time with that? FCC comments are not some official polling device nor some way to throw a wet finger in the air and see what way the wind is blowing.
The FCC public comment process is for information gathering purposes only, nobody tabulates the pro/con counts at the FCC. What matters is the unique information or novel perspectives being presented in these comments, not the number of comments. Also, in this case, I'm told that the FCC public comment process isn't required to *remove* a regulation anyway. The only time the process is required is when enacting new ones.
The NY AG is wasting their time and NY's money.... And we all KNOW the reason and it has nothing to do at all with the FCC actions here.
You see, the problem is when you don't have enough agreement in congress to pass a law, all you can do is resort to the phone and the pen, which unless you can control the next phone and pen user, they can totally undo things done by the previous user.
Unless, of course, you can control the courts and get the judges to come up with some way to cobble up a right or plausible set of mashed together laws to mandate your views, regardless of what the written law actually does or doesn't say.
Rolls Royce also launched a battery system that can power ships. They are really thinking ahead.
Ah shucks sparky.. Batteries are so not environmentally friendly, and you have to haul a huge pile of them to generate the 100,000 horse power currently available on large container ships today for the days on end it takes to sail from one port to the next.
What we need to do is SAIL and skip any reliance on power, electrical or fossil fueled for the bulk of the transit (outside ports and narrow passages, in the open ocean). And Yes, I mean the old time mast, ropes and canvas contraptions driven by the wind and currents, albeit with some modern updates to do away with the ropes and canvas. Environmentally, this seems to make the most sense to me and it would make economic sense should fuel costs get high enough and it didn't add too much time to each transit.
Although I doubt it's worth it as Fuel is incredibly cheap for these ships, often being "bunker oil" which resembles asphalt and is almost a throw away byproduct of crude oil refining and is so thick you have to heat it above 120 F to make it flow enough to use.) And "time is money" especially in the shipping business and in the grand scheme of things, shipping emissions are no more than a rounding error compared to aircraft transport.
Agreed, like sending out a billion dollars of computerized vessel and cargo to automatically sail the open seas without a human on board would be a costly mistake.
Where I think it might be good for efficiency to "automatically" sail, I'm guessing the loss of just one of these things when the automation fails in a way a human could easily fix will get at least one or two humans on board the next ship they send.
Yes, I'm pretty sure about this, no I don't have the data.
IF you want to prove this assertion wrong, go GET the data and do it. However, the law of this country is pretty clear on this so if you find information on actual votes cast by an individual, any individual, a crime has been committed that needs to be investigated and somebody needs to be charged and convicted for it.
Now I've not seen anybody charged for this kind of thing and you know it would be HUGE news if it happened, so I'm about as sure of my claim as I am that the sun will rise in the east this morning. (Even though I may not see it because its raining cats and dogs here.)
So I went and looked.. RCP has this race at about 3% edge for Kemp, so I was right on #1. You don't address #2 and you totally missed my point about the child abuse claim. In the child abuse thing, I'm saying INVESTIGATE and charge him if necessary, but until that's done, shut up about it because it really smacks of political mud slinging which isn't very effective in the long term and turns off about as many voters on both sides at best and carries huge risks for the mud thrower should the claims look petty (and in this case, they do). My prediction is Kemp wins with somewhere north of 5% margin maybe as high as 10%, so get used to it.
Sadly I do have U-verse TV and internet. Seemed like a great deal for 1Gb internet service. Service at the house has been down since 10:30 this morning. They won't even attempt to provide an ETA on repairs or service restoration. What kind of tech company doesn't have a redundancy plan? Ohhhh, AT&T isn't a tech company. My bad.
I just heard a local report on this.. Apparently the building burned pretty badly and the Roof collapsed. Unless they have a totally redundant system in some other location, which I find improbable for a host of reasons, it's going to be a LONG time before this gets fixed. IF customer wiring goes though this building (which I find HIGHLLY likely) I'm going to guess it is going to take a lot of time to rewire everything to some new location.
In short.. I'd be asking AT&T to let you out of any contracts based on their inability to provide services and find another provider in your area BEFORE the rush starts. (I.E. Call Spectrum, NOW, before they run out of equipment.)
Well with directv as long as you have power and clear view of the sky you have TV.
Yea, but why? Even with a thousand channels, there is never anything good on any more.
Personally, I just have a DVR full of interesting stuff and a drawer of DVD/Blu-ray disks for when the internet happens to be down. Not to mention the book shelves full of good lit books from our "home schooling the kids" phase that just ended. I literally have a life time or two of entertainment...
How about just banning ALL posts about such information, right or wrong. Allow users to point to reliable sources of such information (say the state or county's website), but just don't let anything stay that hints at what the rules are..
So... A "Remember to get registered before it is too late!" (with a pointer to the local county's elections page) is Great, but "It's too late to register after the 9th!" is not.
"You can vote starting TODAY!" is NOT OK, but "Check out when and where you can vote!" (With a link to the county's election page) is fine.
That way, Facebook doesn't need to make any fine value judgments or know all the rules for every state to keep this under control.
A way to vote for something you want or don't want.
The number of comments entered into the system has zero impact on the decision. Nobody at the FCC is counting them, nor should they. This isn't some official opinion poll being conducted here.
The PURPOSE of the public comments at the FCC is to obtain INFORMATION from the public that the FCC may not already have. So unless you are providing a unique prospective or some unique facts about the question being considered that you entered some unique comment into the system your opinion of the question doesn't mean anything. If you are just voicing an opinion in your comment, figure it gets round filed and you just wasted your time and the time of the poor slob at the FCC who's job it is to read and classify all these comments.
I'm sorry if you don't like this, but that's how the FCC works (actually not just the FCC, but other government "public comment" processes too). Most government processes don't care about doing opinion polls, that's the role of the political appointees anyway. So if you didn't like this result, or if you did, you need to vote accordingly.
Where I have no idea what the facts actually are here, I'm going to make two guesses (let me know if I'm wrong.)
1. Brian Kemp is ahead in the race.
2. There is a legal reason each these registrations have been held up/rejected which is clearly defined in the laws of Georgia.
As to the allegations of being a child abuser, these need to be investigated by the police. If there is sufficient evidence to charge he needs to be charged, otherwise, this is nothing more than political mud slinging by the opposition who is likely behind and has no choice but to go low..
Now, I've made my predictions based on years of observing political campaigns. Am I right or not?
Keep in mind, that the "voting history" in the summary is easy to sensationalize. In most cases it only means you were issued a ballot, and possibly for mail-in ballots that you returned it. No state has a history of what actual voting selections were made.
You hope.
I know.... Seriously. The "Secret ballot" will remain so and unless you can somehow infer from the precinct results and list of who voted a specific ballot that was cast (Say for instance, EVERY vote cast was the same in a precinct, and YOU voted, so I can determine how you voted). But those situations are extremely rare. If you vote in a precinct where the votes cast isn't unanimous, you are safe from exposure of your unique vote.
Climate change actually means more rain. Warmer seas means more evaporation, and if that water goes into the air it has to come down again too, which means more precipitation. Of more concern that the amount of rain is where it goes - shifting patterns mean certain regions could still get dryer even as global rainfall grows, and if those regions happen to be major agricultural areas, famine is certainly a possibility.
Wow, and here I was thinking history was about to repeat itself and we where headed towards another "dust bowl" like drought. As I recall, there was a similar period of above average rainfall and abundant water in this area just before the skies dried up and everything started blowing around. Now you tell me that climate change (which really didn't exist prior to the dust bowl I guess) is just going to keep the rain coming here in Texas and that we needn't worry about the natural variations of the amount of water falling from the sky because it's going to increase. Good to know..
However, I'm just a wee bit skeptical about this, because you KNOW if we had a massive drought again the climate change narrative would be it was being caused by climate change, just like the current over abundance of water is blamed on it. It's what they do with ALL negative weather events you know, because nothing good could ever come from climate change.
Also not beer if made with wheat, corn or rice sugar (looking at American can piss).
Beer is made with malted barley, water, hops, yeast and NOTHING ELSE.
There is a bit of heat involved in boiling the wart.... Not to mention that even the more common verities of beer contain all sorts of "other" types of starch. Many use corn, rice, plain barley and even wheat. Some use various kids of wood and bark during aging too. Sometimes this is for taste, but mostly it's done to make the ingredients cheaper, adjust the alcohol content and/or generally make more money.
Slashdot Mirror
Why waste time with that?
Because fraud may have been committed? Investigating crimes is one of things Attorneys General do.
Fraud? This is roughly equivalent to charging a 10 year old dressed up as a policeman with impersonating a police officer because he says "Your are under arrest!" or closing down the 12 year old's lemonade stand because they don't have a retail permit and are not paying sales taxes.
Who got defrauded here? Somebody clogged up some public comment process with garbage spam? So? It may technically be fraud, but I'm going to bet there are more serous cases for the DA to be going after. The only reason the DA is doing this is for the PR value.. Which in my book is using the DA's time and the state's money for campaign purposes, which sorta smacks of fraud too, maybe even campaign finance violations...
What it actually ended up being was the creation of a HUGE regulatory organization at the FCC that was going to required a lot of money, people and resources it didn't have budget to acquire.
A huge regulatory organization... other than the FCC? How many people did the FCC hire for this? How many resources did it budget for enforcing network neutrality? I mean, heaven forbid the FCC does the job it's supposed to do.
But of course in 2016 the GOP slashed their budget by $69 million, about 20%. If you're complaining that they didn't have the budget for it, the GOP is to blame.
Nice spin there.. Slam the other party for cutting costs for programs you like and slam them for running up the debt because they spend too much.. You do get how overtly partisan all that is right? Maybe not. Oh, and this was the budget PROPOSAL which was 20% less than REQUESTED by the FCC, and knowing NN wasn't going to be continued, this makes sense. :) In actual fact the FCC's budget only got hit by a few % of an actual cut, but you are going to quote me a number that includes the baseline increase too.. Forget it...
I notice you don't argue that this created a brand new large bureaucracy at the FCC to manage all the countries ISPs and the complaints they would receive. Unless you don't drive and never got a driver's license, maybe you don't understand how inefficient government bureaucracies can be, but I have worked for the DOD and dealt extensively with the FCC so I can assure you, it's an absolutely great way to throw good taxed money after bad if you are so inclined.
Your argument about making ISP's into common carriers isn't as clear cut as you imagine. The ramifications of ISP's being common carriers are far reaching and raise some really complicated issues that I don't think NN proponents have fully thought through. It's a mess if you do this. Also, I've heard well versed people on both sides of that issue debate the legal basis for that idea and it sure doesn't seem likely to be legal with the current wording of the applicable laws. Of course the courts would have to make this call, but what kind of mess will we have if they say nope to common carrier status? It's a dammed if you do and dammed if you don't kind of situation. Net Neutrality would be a HUGE mess in either case using your common carrier argument.
But hey, if you want this, go get enough seats in congress to get it passed into law. Keep those political campaigns running on the issue if you like. I'm not supporting it. I don't think it's necessary, I don't think it is helpful, and all it would really accomplish is to spend money we don't have for no benefits. But hey, politics trumps all I guess.
I don't understand how a normal person can be against net neutrality. Can someone explain?
First thing you need to understand is the name isn't all that descriptive of it's actual effect or it's reason for being. Net Neutrally would have had some effects you wouldn't expect from it's name. It did little for networking and was anything but neutral about granting access. What it actually ended up being was the creation of a HUGE regulatory organization at the FCC that was going to required a lot of money, people and resources it didn't have budget to acquire. The whole system was set up to be rife with corrupting influences between the FCC and the big ISP's they where regulating, and really looked for all the world as a way to get payoffs and bribes more easily hidden.
The network routing rules where going to be a huge disruption to network performance, drive up costs for customers and lower performance by not allowing data filtering, requiring equal priority and treatment of packets regardless of the payload. It was basically routing rules written by people who didn't understand how network routing worked.
It had it's good points, but in what I think was a fair analysis, the bad outweighed the good. Your mileage may vary I suppose, but just don't take the name at face value. Names of laws hardly ever convey an accurate picture of the actual content of the law/rule.
Take the ACA (Affordable Care Act) [aka Obamacare] as an example. It didn't lower healthcare costs or make healthcare more affordable, quite the opposite. In the end it added costs by mandating a minimum coverage which was over and above what average people had, AND part of the law took money from one group (as in a tax, but not a tax) and paid insurance coverage costs for others. This is certainly NOT implied in the ACA's name.
The public comment process at the FCC is absolutely not a poll. That's not it's purpose. NOBODY at the FCC counts up the number of public comments on each side of an issue because that's not the information the public comment process is designed to get.
Actually....
I think the issue here is not bunker oil, but sulfur content of said fuel.
Right now, I understand that the use of low grade high sulfur fuel outside of territorial waters is common for financial reasons as no single country can unilaterally ban it's use in international waters. I believe what's happening is countries are starting to band together to stop the sale of these fuels or prohibit passage of ships though their territorial waters that carry it in their tanks, even if they don't use it and they are working with the UN on a treaty about this.
Bunker oil isn't going away anytime soon, in fact it's a common fuel in undeveloped countries setting up quickie electrical power generation plants for industrial or commercial use. What may be happening is refiners may have to process it a bit more to remove the sulfur, and it will cost more as a result, but it's way to cheap and efficient of a fuel to just stop using.
You can't just go around claiming all comments you disagree with are fake. How do YOU know your grandmother doesn't have strong feelings about net neutrality? You didn't even talk to her when she was alive, have you asked her about it since she died? Thought not. Grow up and realize nobody likes net neutrality. Regards, Jefferson Airplane.
But my Grandma started voting Democrat after she died... I make sure she get's her ballots in on time! We are going to win because the ends justifies the means and we got good memes....
That is not what the New York AG is investigating. The investigation is into whether or not the anti-network neutrality comments involved fraud.
Why waste time with that? FCC comments are not some official polling device nor some way to throw a wet finger in the air and see what way the wind is blowing.
The FCC public comment process is for information gathering purposes only, nobody tabulates the pro/con counts at the FCC. What matters is the unique information or novel perspectives being presented in these comments, not the number of comments. Also, in this case, I'm told that the FCC public comment process isn't required to *remove* a regulation anyway. The only time the process is required is when enacting new ones.
The NY AG is wasting their time and NY's money.... And we all KNOW the reason and it has nothing to do at all with the FCC actions here.
You see, the problem is when you don't have enough agreement in congress to pass a law, all you can do is resort to the phone and the pen, which unless you can control the next phone and pen user, they can totally undo things done by the previous user.
Unless, of course, you can control the courts and get the judges to come up with some way to cobble up a right or plausible set of mashed together laws to mandate your views, regardless of what the written law actually does or doesn't say.
Rolls Royce also launched a battery system that can power ships. They are really thinking ahead.
Ah shucks sparky.. Batteries are so not environmentally friendly, and you have to haul a huge pile of them to generate the 100,000 horse power currently available on large container ships today for the days on end it takes to sail from one port to the next.
What we need to do is SAIL and skip any reliance on power, electrical or fossil fueled for the bulk of the transit (outside ports and narrow passages, in the open ocean). And Yes, I mean the old time mast, ropes and canvas contraptions driven by the wind and currents, albeit with some modern updates to do away with the ropes and canvas. Environmentally, this seems to make the most sense to me and it would make economic sense should fuel costs get high enough and it didn't add too much time to each transit.
Although I doubt it's worth it as Fuel is incredibly cheap for these ships, often being "bunker oil" which resembles asphalt and is almost a throw away byproduct of crude oil refining and is so thick you have to heat it above 120 F to make it flow enough to use.) And "time is money" especially in the shipping business and in the grand scheme of things, shipping emissions are no more than a rounding error compared to aircraft transport.
"humans ... can make costly mistakes." .
Agreed, like sending out a billion dollars of computerized vessel and cargo to automatically sail the open seas without a human on board would be a costly mistake.
Where I think it might be good for efficiency to "automatically" sail, I'm guessing the loss of just one of these things when the automation fails in a way a human could easily fix will get at least one or two humans on board the next ship they send.
Yes, I'm pretty sure about this, no I don't have the data.
IF you want to prove this assertion wrong, go GET the data and do it. However, the law of this country is pretty clear on this so if you find information on actual votes cast by an individual, any individual, a crime has been committed that needs to be investigated and somebody needs to be charged and convicted for it.
Now I've not seen anybody charged for this kind of thing and you know it would be HUGE news if it happened, so I'm about as sure of my claim as I am that the sun will rise in the east this morning. (Even though I may not see it because its raining cats and dogs here.)
I think you missed the joke...
So I went and looked.. RCP has this race at about 3% edge for Kemp, so I was right on #1. You don't address #2 and you totally missed my point about the child abuse claim. In the child abuse thing, I'm saying INVESTIGATE and charge him if necessary, but until that's done, shut up about it because it really smacks of political mud slinging which isn't very effective in the long term and turns off about as many voters on both sides at best and carries huge risks for the mud thrower should the claims look petty (and in this case, they do). My prediction is Kemp wins with somewhere north of 5% margin maybe as high as 10%, so get used to it.
Sadly I do have U-verse TV and internet. Seemed like a great deal for 1Gb internet service. Service at the house has been down since 10:30 this morning. They won't even attempt to provide an ETA on repairs or service restoration. What kind of tech company doesn't have a redundancy plan? Ohhhh, AT&T isn't a tech company. My bad.
I just heard a local report on this.. Apparently the building burned pretty badly and the Roof collapsed. Unless they have a totally redundant system in some other location, which I find improbable for a host of reasons, it's going to be a LONG time before this gets fixed. IF customer wiring goes though this building (which I find HIGHLLY likely) I'm going to guess it is going to take a lot of time to rewire everything to some new location.
In short.. I'd be asking AT&T to let you out of any contracts based on their inability to provide services and find another provider in your area BEFORE the rush starts. (I.E. Call Spectrum, NOW, before they run out of equipment.)
Well with directv as long as you have power and clear view of the sky you have TV.
Yea, but why? Even with a thousand channels, there is never anything good on any more.
Personally, I just have a DVR full of interesting stuff and a drawer of DVD/Blu-ray disks for when the internet happens to be down. Not to mention the book shelves full of good lit books from our "home schooling the kids" phase that just ended. I literally have a life time or two of entertainment...
Republicans vote on November 7th. Everyone else on November 6th.
Dead democrats must get their absentee in ballots post marked by the 8th.
How about just banning ALL posts about such information, right or wrong. Allow users to point to reliable sources of such information (say the state or county's website), but just don't let anything stay that hints at what the rules are..
So... A "Remember to get registered before it is too late!" (with a pointer to the local county's elections page) is Great, but "It's too late to register after the 9th!" is not.
"You can vote starting TODAY!" is NOT OK, but "Check out when and where you can vote!" (With a link to the county's election page) is fine.
That way, Facebook doesn't need to make any fine value judgments or know all the rules for every state to keep this under control.
Thank the maker I don't have AT&T as my ISP, but it remains to be seen if I have internet at home.
However, given AT&T's past transgressions, Somehow it makes sense that the Maker is mad with ATT and struck them with lighting.
A way to vote for something you want or don't want.
The number of comments entered into the system has zero impact on the decision. Nobody at the FCC is counting them, nor should they. This isn't some official opinion poll being conducted here.
The PURPOSE of the public comments at the FCC is to obtain INFORMATION from the public that the FCC may not already have. So unless you are providing a unique prospective or some unique facts about the question being considered that you entered some unique comment into the system your opinion of the question doesn't mean anything. If you are just voicing an opinion in your comment, figure it gets round filed and you just wasted your time and the time of the poor slob at the FCC who's job it is to read and classify all these comments.
I'm sorry if you don't like this, but that's how the FCC works (actually not just the FCC, but other government "public comment" processes too). Most government processes don't care about doing opinion polls, that's the role of the political appointees anyway. So if you didn't like this result, or if you did, you need to vote accordingly.
Oh boy, really?
Where I have no idea what the facts actually are here, I'm going to make two guesses (let me know if I'm wrong.)
1. Brian Kemp is ahead in the race.
2. There is a legal reason each these registrations have been held up/rejected which is clearly defined in the laws of Georgia.
As to the allegations of being a child abuser, these need to be investigated by the police. If there is sufficient evidence to charge he needs to be charged, otherwise, this is nothing more than political mud slinging by the opposition who is likely behind and has no choice but to go low..
Now, I've made my predictions based on years of observing political campaigns. Am I right or not?
Keep in mind, that the "voting history" in the summary is easy to sensationalize. In most cases it only means you were issued a ballot, and possibly for mail-in ballots that you returned it. No state has a history of what actual voting selections were made.
You hope.
I know.... Seriously. The "Secret ballot" will remain so and unless you can somehow infer from the precinct results and list of who voted a specific ballot that was cast (Say for instance, EVERY vote cast was the same in a precinct, and YOU voted, so I can determine how you voted). But those situations are extremely rare. If you vote in a precinct where the votes cast isn't unanimous, you are safe from exposure of your unique vote.
AC, I so wish I had mod points today...genius!
Climate change actually means more rain. Warmer seas means more evaporation, and if that water goes into the air it has to come down again too, which means more precipitation. Of more concern that the amount of rain is where it goes - shifting patterns mean certain regions could still get dryer even as global rainfall grows, and if those regions happen to be major agricultural areas, famine is certainly a possibility.
Wow, and here I was thinking history was about to repeat itself and we where headed towards another "dust bowl" like drought. As I recall, there was a similar period of above average rainfall and abundant water in this area just before the skies dried up and everything started blowing around. Now you tell me that climate change (which really didn't exist prior to the dust bowl I guess) is just going to keep the rain coming here in Texas and that we needn't worry about the natural variations of the amount of water falling from the sky because it's going to increase. Good to know..
However, I'm just a wee bit skeptical about this, because you KNOW if we had a massive drought again the climate change narrative would be it was being caused by climate change, just like the current over abundance of water is blamed on it. It's what they do with ALL negative weather events you know, because nothing good could ever come from climate change.
Man, these people really are nuts!
You will NOT take our beer away!
Don't worry.. We obviously have a pro-beer Justice on the Supreme court now. We can get a "right to beer" case up there in a few years...
No, not beer.
Also not beer if made with wheat, corn or rice sugar (looking at American can piss).
Beer is made with malted barley, water, hops, yeast and NOTHING ELSE.
There is a bit of heat involved in boiling the wart.... Not to mention that even the more common verities of beer contain all sorts of "other" types of starch. Many use corn, rice, plain barley and even wheat. Some use various kids of wood and bark during aging too. Sometimes this is for taste, but mostly it's done to make the ingredients cheaper, adjust the alcohol content and/or generally make more money.