And did the conventions ever return to Arizona? I suspect they didn't, so what did Arizona gain by changing? If Indiana realizes they'll likely still lose Gen Con no matter what they do, then what?
And when half the attendees choose to not attend a 'political' convention that conflicts with their beliefs, where will the Gen Con organizers be?
And when the Gen Con folks have to pay a penalty for breaking their contract, who will step up and cover the expense?
Turning a wildly-successful convention into a cudgel to beat the organizers political opponents over the head with will likely hurt the convention much more than it will influence Indiana's decisions on religious freedom.
"Gen Con brings in roughly 50,000 visitors each year, contributing $50 million to the local economy."
Every attendee drops $1,000 on Gen Con in the LOCAL economy? PLUS the money they spend at the vendors that come in from out of state, PLUS the money they spend on airfare getting to/from Gen Con?
Remember when then President-elect Obama promised to "put science back in it's rightful place"? I guess you just find it hard to believe that in President Obama's opinion the 'rightful place' for science is in the service of making foreigners feel better about themselves.
NASA should worry more about space exploration, the FAA should focus on commercial aviation, the EPA should worry more about air quality, and the NWS should worry more about the climate.
Just because something should be studied, doesn't mean every branch of government needs to be involved.
A few days ago, in Cairo, Bolden told Al Jazeera that when he became the NASA administrator, President Obama charged him with three things: "One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and engineering â" science, math and engineering."
Democrats said the earth would freeze... Then they said the earth would melt... Then they said the earth kept changing. And you know what the one constant in all of those conflicting positions was? SCIENCE told them it was so!
Once global climate change started making 'scientific decisions' based on consensus, they lost me. The history of science is chock-full of examples where one brilliant scientist proves something contrary to what 'every credible scientist knows to be true'.
'Everyone' knew the earth was flat.
'Everyone' knew the sun revolved around the earth.
First Democrats won the WH, the Senate and the Congress, and the GOP was in decline.
Then 2 years later the GOP won the House, Dems kept the Senate and Oval Office... And the Left said the GOP was in decline.
Then 2 years later the GOP kept the House, Dems kept the Senate, and Obama garnered fewer voters than in his previous election but retained office... And the left again said the GOP was in decline.
Last year the GOP kept the House and took the Senate, Obama was still in the White House, but few Democrats wanted to stand next to him as they ran for re-election... And the left again says the GOP is in decline.
"You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it does."
Not really. The really one remaining significant difference between the parties is that public shaming is still a career-ender in the Democratic party.
Defend. Please.
Clinton lied under oath in court while President - his career ended?
You seem to have forgotten that when it comes to the current administration and it's supporters, simply asserting something is in itself sufficient proof to support the assertion.
For example "There isn't even a smidgen of a scandal" at the IRS and it's enhanced interrogation of conservative groups. "It was a protest to an offensive video on YouTube" for Benghazi. Etc...
He never said to skip the legal process, he said that she should wind up in jail. I would enjoy watching that trial as it plays out during the Democrat Primary...
I suspect she'd have another one of those priceless Hillary moments "What difference, at this point, does it make..."
You sound like the apologists back in 2008 that excused Obama's lies on the campaign trail as 'something he had to do to win' - what?!?!
EVERY official communication email she sent originated from a non-governmental email server, and only those emails addressed to State a department workers were ever stored on federal email servers.
Why is that a problem? That means any emails she sent to anyone overseas, leaders of foreign nations, for example, were never stored on federal email servers, invisible to any FOIA request or Congressional investigation.
I further assume that the people around her are also smart, intelligent people, and not all political-appointees - didn't they think it odd to address their emails to the Secretary of State at pantsuit@hillary2016.org?
So, what the FCC should really focus on is... to open up the broadband market to more competition.
Except they don't have jurisdiction, AFAIK.
The problem is the voters have elected representatives that agreed to and enforced local monopolies to encourage investment in enabling infrastructure. Without the offer of a monopoly on the local market, how would the local government be able to ensure everyone has access to the services offered, not just those most likely to subscribe to the services offered? How many competitors would enter a market and invest in a parallel infrastructure to fight over a defined number of customers?
An infrastructure funded by the entire community, both those that sign up for high-speed Internet and those that don't. That sounds wonderful - free infrastructure for the providers, funded by taxpayers... Unless you are one of the folks that doesn't have an interest in high-speed internet access...
A sizable percentage of Americans that are offered high-speed internet service opt out, either for cost or lack of interest. 'Sizable percentage' is far from a majority, but in many communities that rate is about 25% (from memory), and includes people with access, but no interest in high-speed internet access.
A municipal Internet service, funded with tax-payer dollars, what could go wrong?
Gee, there isn't any chance some activist groups would file suits forcing the government to filter out hate speech, pornography, extreme violence, gun sales, etc on their "tax-payer-funded Internet"? No, that would never happen...
Oh wait, we already do that on taxpayer-funded Internet in our schools and libraries!
Because wired Internet service so often is a natural monopoly, there are all kinds of situations in which towns or villages or even small neighborhoods find themselves cut off from any service by a company that simply does not feel it worthwhile to extend service to that market.
Really, because the "company simply does not feel it worthwhile to extend service to that market"?
They decline to extend services to areas that they don't think will be profitable, see they are a profit-driven enterprise in most cases.
Now, what we'll see is taxpayers absorb the losses extending services to areas that were otherwise unprofitable to service - that's a great step forward, I can just see your local taxpayer having no problem running fiber cable for miles down a rural road to offer high-speed internet service to the seven farms over 20 miles of county road...
How so, deductions are a part of the tax code, put there for a reason. It is the government saying you owe us X% of your income above a certain amount, but if you have a mortgage you don't owe taxes on the money you spent on interest, if you have children we know they can be very expensive, so keep some of that money you were going to pay in taxes to cover the expense of your children, etc.
Deductions is the government telling you what money it is not entitled to, not 'taking money from the government'...
Because Democrats really, really want it (whatever it is - have yet to actually know what's in the 300+pages), no laws can stand in their way.
Obamacare was so good, they had to pass it in the dead of night in a rushed manner because Republicans had a chance to stop it.
The Loans to Solyndra were so important that they ignored repeated warning of the company's flawed business model and right before it finally imploded (exactly when it was predicted to, BTW), the administration had to put private investors ahead of the American taxpayers for recovery after bankruptcy, violating federal law - but they really, really wanted solar panels made in a half-billion dollar factory in Silicon Valkey to succed!
They were so sure that straw gun sales were happening along the southern border that they had to force gun shops to make the sales, so they could record them on video tape and then, inspector Clousseu-like, sit by and watch the guns slip across the border I to Mexico, with no one on the other side of the border knowing what was going on - they just really, really wanted to stop the gun sales!
The President really, really wanted to fill some vacancies I the NLRB with friends of big labor, but darn it, the Congress wouldn't go on recess - so he just decided they were in recess and made his appointments. Then the Supreme Court told him he couldn't do that, but it was too late.
See, a deeply-rooted belief that something is needed trumps all laws.
Slashdot Mirror
And did the conventions ever return to Arizona? I suspect they didn't, so what did Arizona gain by changing? If Indiana realizes they'll likely still lose Gen Con no matter what they do, then what?
And when half the attendees choose to not attend a 'political' convention that conflicts with their beliefs, where will the Gen Con organizers be?
And when the Gen Con folks have to pay a penalty for breaking their contract, who will step up and cover the expense?
Turning a wildly-successful convention into a cudgel to beat the organizers political opponents over the head with will likely hurt the convention much more than it will influence Indiana's decisions on religious freedom.
Every attendee drops $1,000 on Gen Con in the LOCAL economy? PLUS the money they spend at the vendors that come in from out of state, PLUS the money they spend on airfare getting to/from Gen Con?
That's a good try, but the White House stood behind the NASA Administrator's words - it wasn't the 'conversational puffery' you want to portray it as...
Remember when then President-elect Obama promised to "put science back in it's rightful place"? I guess you just find it hard to believe that in President Obama's opinion the 'rightful place' for science is in the service of making foreigners feel better about themselves.
Not according to President Obama's own directives to his NASA Chief
NASA should worry more about space exploration,
the FAA should focus on commercial aviation,
the EPA should worry more about air quality,
and the NWS should worry more about the climate.
Just because something should be studied, doesn't mean every branch of government needs to be involved.
Source
It's a shame that politics is interfering with NASA's primary objectives from President Obama...
Democrats said the earth would freeze... Then they said the earth would melt... Then they said the earth kept changing. And you know what the one constant in all of those conflicting positions was? SCIENCE told them it was so!
Once global climate change started making 'scientific decisions' based on consensus, they lost me. The history of science is chock-full of examples where one brilliant scientist proves something contrary to what 'every credible scientist knows to be true'.
'Everyone' knew the earth was flat.
'Everyone' knew the sun revolved around the earth.
Etc.
First Democrats won the WH, the Senate and the Congress, and the GOP was in decline.
Then 2 years later the GOP won the House, Dems kept the Senate and Oval Office... And the Left said the GOP was in decline.
Then 2 years later the GOP kept the House, Dems kept the Senate, and Obama garnered fewer voters than in his previous election but retained office... And the left again said the GOP was in decline.
Last year the GOP kept the House and took the Senate, Obama was still in the White House, but few Democrats wanted to stand next to him as they ran for re-election... And the left again says the GOP is in decline.
"You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it does."
Defend. Please.
Clinton lied under oath in court while President - his career ended?
Bush was a millionaire when he entered office (both Bushs).
Clinton was not a millionaire when he entered office - I think his gig as Gov. Of Arkansas netted him a cool $35K in salary.
Obama stepped into office a millionaire from book sales of his TWO autobiographies.
If Hillary becomes President, she'll step in as a multi-millionaire - probably richer than 'obscenely' rich Mitt Romney.
It will be an interesting exercise to compare the Bush Whitehouse Email Controversy' with Hilary's erupting email 'scandal'
You seem to have forgotten that when it comes to the current administration and it's supporters, simply asserting something is in itself sufficient proof to support the assertion.
For example "There isn't even a smidgen of a scandal" at the IRS and it's enhanced interrogation of conservative groups. "It was a protest to an offensive video on YouTube" for Benghazi. Etc...
He never said to skip the legal process, he said that she should wind up in jail. I would enjoy watching that trial as it plays out during the Democrat Primary...
I suspect she'd have another one of those priceless Hillary moments "What difference, at this point, does it make..."
Imagine the reaction on the Left if, for example, Dick Cheney had EXCLUSIVELY used a private, non-government email server his entire time in office.
You sound like the apologists back in 2008 that excused Obama's lies on the campaign trail as 'something he had to do to win' - what?!?!
EVERY official communication email she sent originated from a non-governmental email server, and only those emails addressed to State a department workers were ever stored on federal email servers.
Why is that a problem? That means any emails she sent to anyone overseas, leaders of foreign nations, for example, were never stored on federal email servers, invisible to any FOIA request or Congressional investigation.
I further assume that the people around her are also smart, intelligent people, and not all political-appointees - didn't they think it odd to address their emails to the Secretary of State at pantsuit@hillary2016.org?
Except they don't have jurisdiction, AFAIK.
The problem is the voters have elected representatives that agreed to and enforced local monopolies to encourage investment in enabling infrastructure. Without the offer of a monopoly on the local market, how would the local government be able to ensure everyone has access to the services offered, not just those most likely to subscribe to the services offered? How many competitors would enter a market and invest in a parallel infrastructure to fight over a defined number of customers?
An infrastructure funded by the entire community, both those that sign up for high-speed Internet and those that don't. That sounds wonderful - free infrastructure for the providers, funded by taxpayers... Unless you are one of the folks that doesn't have an interest in high-speed internet access...
A sizable percentage of Americans that are offered high-speed internet service opt out, either for cost or lack of interest. 'Sizable percentage' is far from a majority, but in many communities that rate is about 25% (from memory), and includes people with access, but no interest in high-speed internet access.
It makes no difference to a person in one municipality how many ISPs there are are in other municipalities...
Probably the most intelligent, logical, and well-reasoned argument I've seen on Slashdot in years!
A municipal Internet service, funded with tax-payer dollars, what could go wrong?
Gee, there isn't any chance some activist groups would file suits forcing the government to filter out hate speech, pornography, extreme violence, gun sales, etc on their "tax-payer-funded Internet"? No, that would never happen...
Oh wait, we already do that on taxpayer-funded Internet in our schools and libraries!
Really, because the "company simply does not feel it worthwhile to extend service to that market"?
They decline to extend services to areas that they don't think will be profitable, see they are a profit-driven enterprise in most cases.
Now, what we'll see is taxpayers absorb the losses extending services to areas that were otherwise unprofitable to service - that's a great step forward, I can just see your local taxpayer having no problem running fiber cable for miles down a rural road to offer high-speed internet service to the seven farms over 20 miles of county road...
How so, deductions are a part of the tax code, put there for a reason. It is the government saying you owe us X% of your income above a certain amount, but if you have a mortgage you don't owe taxes on the money you spent on interest, if you have children we know they can be very expensive, so keep some of that money you were going to pay in taxes to cover the expense of your children, etc.
Deductions is the government telling you what money it is not entitled to, not 'taking money from the government'...
Wheeler changed his position just as fast as Chief Justice Roberts did...
Because Democrats really, really want it (whatever it is - have yet to actually know what's in the 300+pages), no laws can stand in their way.
Obamacare was so good, they had to pass it in the dead of night in a rushed manner because Republicans had a chance to stop it.
The Loans to Solyndra were so important that they ignored repeated warning of the company's flawed business model and right before it finally imploded (exactly when it was predicted to, BTW), the administration had to put private investors ahead of the American taxpayers for recovery after bankruptcy, violating federal law - but they really, really wanted solar panels made in a half-billion dollar factory in Silicon Valkey to succed!
They were so sure that straw gun sales were happening along the southern border that they had to force gun shops to make the sales, so they could record them on video tape and then, inspector Clousseu-like, sit by and watch the guns slip across the border I to Mexico, with no one on the other side of the border knowing what was going on - they just really, really wanted to stop the gun sales!
The President really, really wanted to fill some vacancies I the NLRB with friends of big labor, but darn it, the Congress wouldn't go on recess - so he just decided they were in recess and made his appointments. Then the Supreme Court told him he couldn't do that, but it was too late.
See, a deeply-rooted belief that something is needed trumps all laws.