Contentious bill banning “ghost gun” assembly kits sees heated hearing. [TNI]
A fourth defendant pleads guilty to damaging the federal courthouse during protests last May. [DOJ]
Innovation Zones aren’t entirely dead yet. [Nevada Current]
MLB gave the Oakland Athletics permission to explore relocation–with Vegas being high on the list. [RJ]
Meanwhile, Bill Foley and Golden Knights announce they’re bringing an Indoor Football League expansion team to Henderson’s Dollar Loan Center. [Fox5Vegas]
Anybody been hit by a ransomware attack? I got hit by a "jojoencrypt" in March. Even with everything on backup, it took me about 3 weeks to "build back up." I refused to negotiate and rather spent the money to replace equipment and buy new law practice software.
My wife was hit with ransomeware attack. I just threw the computer out and bought her a new one. It is scary out there. Good for you for not buckling under.
Apple products are not immune. If your device is compromised and you take it to a Genius, they will give you the same advice as 11:42 – throw it out and buy a new one. Coincidentally, that is also their solution for bad chips on the motherboard, poor solder, and pretty much every other repair.
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2021 5:06 pm
I love sports and think it would be great if Vegas had more professional teams (particularly NBA). But we've got to stop giving tax payer dollars to these insanely wealthy franchises additional money to relocate here for 10-20 years. And we can't steal the another team from Oaktown.
The public got screwed by the Raiders. They've now received well over a BILLION in public funds. It's so gross I just can't get past it to become a fan. It's one of the reasons I will vote against Sisolak so long as the Republicans nominate any sane candidate.
After Ben Davidson subjected Joe Namath to a "cheap shot" decades ago, my parents hated the Raiders and would have been furious to learn that Las Vegas is supporting them.
11:24–that was way, way back in 1967(a year or two before Namath's amazing performance in the Super Bowl vs. Baltimore).
Davidson was viewed by many as the No.1 cheap shot artist of his time. These days he would have been penalized, probably ejected, and quite possibly suspended as well.
Your parents had every reason to resent him for that hit.
@ 11:11, public funds or not, that Raiders stadium will bring in billions in revenue, sales, and occupancy taxes over the next ten years alone, not to mention the increase in property values across the board due to living in a metropolitan area with a professional football team.
I do not support any public money being used to bribe professional sports teams to relocate to Las Vegas, and I include tax breaks in that. Los Angeles did so well with the Raiders!
Has it helped Las Vegas to have Oakland Raider fans pour into the city as tourists to support their team? Has that gone down well with our other visitors? Do the Oakland fans bring lots of money to spend, and help elevate the cultural ambience of our home? How much has violence and crime on the Strip increased since "Raider Nation" took over?
I would prefer not increasing the number of Oakland fans visiting Vegas! So I don't want the A's here!
Cities have never seen a net benefit from stadium subsidies. This will be especially true in Vegas, where the raiders cannibalize other entertainment dollars.
I'm just not sure that "room taxes" qualify as "Public Money". These taxes aren't really being paid by Nevadans and tourists pay it regardless. Lost of whom are traveling to see said professional sporting events. That said, if we want the perquisites of locally based Professional Sports franchises (and we all do, whether we are fans or not), we HAVE to pay what other markets are paying.
State of the art stadiums built by tax dollars are top of the list. Get used to it. If its not LV, it will be someone else ready to pony up. This is how the free market works
It's Vegas. An NFL Stadium here means big dollars for everyone who lives here. Your house is now worth more (unless of course you're still renting) because of the stadium. Workers make more tips with more tourists and game visitors. When we host a Super Bowl (which will be soon) the stadium will pay for itself.
This stadium and having an NFL team in town legitimizes Vegas as a metropolitan city. Quit your complaining about "muh taxes" and just enjoy the benefits.
Does this story sound familiar: a sports team pleads poverty and gets public funds to build a new stadium. A few years later, that same team changes hands at a massive valuation. A decade or two later, the team gripes about the stadium and leaves town. To the dismay of local fans and politicos, taxpayers are stuck with a tenant-less stadium and a sizable bill.
Ask St. Louis what it's like to continue to pay for a stadium that has no football team playing in it.
If Las Vegas at all interested in arms' length negotiations it would have demanded a share of the the door, as well as trademark and merchandise until the stadium is paid off.
Let's not forget that no Raiders game has been played here with a full crowd. When Raiders Nation actually gets to experience a capacity game at a new stadium with only 2500 parking spaces, they will likely stop coming to games or burn Las Vegas to the ground. Yeah, let's build a new baseball stadium on the strip!
Raiders have a "plan" to use UNLV parking, and bus Raiders fans to and from parking. Let's see how a bunch of drunk Raiders take to waiting for a bus. Or simply decide to roam the strip. I for one will be avoid the strip on game day weekends.
Even if we could park ALL cars offsite, does anyone really think that the city of Las Vegas and/or Clark County can handle the traffic and logistics to move 65,000 people in and out of Allegiant Stadium?
I have a buddy who has an office on Reno just east of Valley View (North of Hacienda). He was told that the streets will simply be closed down on on game day. (not that he loves working on sundays, but at least he had the option.
Get your point, 2:12 and am sympathetic, but the answer but gaming companies who charge for parking and have many parking garages right in walking distance of said multi million dollar stadium with a parking lot were clearly in their right mind. Also, I think building the stadium was a travesty, at least with public funding, when politicians don't care about funding education.
Get your point, 2:12 and am sympathetic, but gaming companies, who control the state and who charge for parking and have many parking garages right in walking distance of said multi million dollar stadium(s) without a parking lot were clearly in their right mind. Also, I think building the stadium was a travesty, at least with public funding, when politicians don't care about funding education.
What Allegiant Stadium says about its parking on its Website is hilarious:
"Las Vegas Stadium Events Company, LLC (StadCo) has developed a first-class, comprehensive Parking and Transportation Program that offers many parking, transportation and tailgating options. . . . StadCo is working with Parking and Transportation Group – Las Vegas (PATG-LV), the same company that helped to create the traffic plan for T-Mobile Arena. . . . The Program will include ample space for rideshare (Uber/Lyft), taxi, shuttle and limousine pick-up and drop-off. Special fan experiences will include the ability to walk from the Strip (Las Vegas Blvd.) to the Stadium across the Hacienda overpass. . . . The goal of the Program is to make getting there a part of the gameday experience."
In other words, walk or take an Uber.
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2021 6:23 pm
Liz Cheney could not lead when she didnt agree with tut he basic principles of conservatism ie be responsible, help the downtrodden, strong defense, and capitalism. She is a marxist at heart. So glad she is gone.
Liz Cheney was ousted for one reason only: refusing to profess undying loyalty to Donald Trump. The two-time popular vote loser, twice-impeached, facing numerous federal felonies, hundreds of millions in debt, violent overthrow of the government-attempting, thrice divorced, cheating on his pregnant wife with a porn star, cancer-charity theiving, anti-democratic, Big Lie-pushing, morbidly obese, pathological liar.
You know you're pushing horsesh*t. Find a QAnon chatroom and leave this blog to people who aren't in a fascist cult.
Liz Cheney was and is right. You are killing our party and any chances of responsible and decent government that the GOP used to bring. She did not turn against responsibility. The heart of responsibility and accountability is that you own your mistakes, apologize, and make amends. We lost by fielding a sociopath as Commander in Chief. We all know that the Emperor had no clothes, and I suspect you do also.
Sorry. Liz is out of step with the majority of R's and Wyoming residents. She is toast there too. Like it or not. Trumpers are the base of the new GOP. Slander them with "Qanon," "fascist cult" and other nonsensical labels at your own peril.
Zero chance that Trump and his followers are done on the national public stage, regardless of what happens with "election audits". I know you hate that, but suck it up or leave the GOP. There really isn't any other choice. If you think that Mitt, Pence and Liz Cheney are in fact, the future of the GOP, you're the one being laughed at.
OP back – 12:31 u are a typical woke regurgitator of personal attacks on Trump, if every thing u said is correct it diesnt change the fact that ANY leader of ANY thing should agree with the principles of the goals of who they are leading, once again sorry to have pulled the string on the chatty cathy doll
@ 1:21 P.M. Lolz. Trumpers are "the base" of the new GOP. Al Qaeda literally means "The Base," and now Trumpers are the "Y'all Qaeda" of America. Those folks are really doing their grandparents proud. And it's only slander if it isn't true. Most of us learned that in law school. I'll call a Nazi a Nazi "at my own peril" any day of the week, and the same goes for people swearing fealty to a fascist authoritarian.
@ 1:24, what does "ANY leader of ANY thing should agree with the principles of the goals of who they are leading" supposed to mean here? That Liz Cheney should kiss the ring of a failed autocrat because he keeps pushing the Big Lie that he DIDN'T lose by 3 million votes in 2016 and by 7 million votes in 2020? That a minority of GOP voters refuse to acknowledge reality and want to be lied to by their representatives so they feel like big strong 'Mericans who are superior to Dems in every way? Please. Liz Cheney dared to tell the truth and Republicans can't acknowledge it for fear of retribution from Cheeto Benito and his Russian hackers. Utterly pathetic.
And yet, you fail to acknowledge that ol' Liz is finished with the Republican party and in the State of Wyoming, as is ol' Mitt in Utah.
Actually, what I learned in law school was that truth is a defense to slander. Technically speaking. However, cause you sayin' it don't make it true. Name calling instead of actual factual debate is called an ad hominum attack and rarely works. I learned that in undergrad. At this point, I'd advise sticking to J.Ct and LVMCt., where your abilities are most effective.
Boiled down. Liz and Mitt are done politically. The GOP no longer tolerates the old establishment ways. RINOs are dead to them. I know you hate it, but that doesn't change a thing.
@ 1:21. "Name calling instead of actual factual debate is called an ad hominum attack and rarely works." First it's "hominem," not "hominum."
Second, I'm not name-calling. Your knee-jerk reaction is to feel like I'm calling Trump names because it hurts your feelings to hear what he truly is.
It is a fact that he is a two-time popular vote loser. Lost by 3 million, then by 7 million. That's not name calling.
It is a fact that he was twice-impeached.
It is a fact that he is facing numerous federal felonies.
It is a fact that he is hundreds of millions in debt.
It is a fact that he encouraged a violent overthrow of the government after he lost the presidential election.
It is a fact that he is thrice divorced.
It is a fact that he was cheating on his pregnant wife with a porn star.
It is a fact that he and his family stole money from their cancer charity.
It is a fact that he is anti-democratic. See, e.g., expecting the courts to overturn an election that he plainly lost due to baseless allegations of fraud, and repeatedly and directly refusing to accept the outcome of a democratic election.
Is it a fact that he is pushing the Big Lie, in that he continues to insist "fraud" cost him an election, rather than acknowledging that he is the first president to never have a positive approval rating, whose actions resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans, and who made the majority of Americans his personal enemy.
It is a fact that he is morbidly obese.
It is a fact that he is a pathological liar.
If these facts seem like vicious name-calling to you, maybe worship someone whose traits and actions you find less offensive.
Hey, nobody chose to worship the Cheeto Jesus. But once he won the primary choice went out the window. Along with autonomy and self-respect. It isn't about anything more than self-preservation. Their echo-box won't allow anyone but their chosen one to win. Goes back to not being able to win an election on merits. Gotta find some way to win. After all, thats what matters.
Hey, 2:20, you toss around the epithet RINO as if it means something. What, precisely, does it mean to be a True Republican these days? I mean, previous presidential nominees of the party from 2 elections ago are apparently not Republican enough these days, so I'm wondering exactly what it takes to be assured that Y'all Qaeda won't call me a RINO.
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2021 7:12 pm
11:23–I'm not debating whether she is some of those things or not, or what she does or does not believe, as that had nothing to do with the actions taken against her.
She would simply not fall in line with the narrative that the election was stolen, etc.
She was not removed for the basic philosophical/political opinions she held. After all, everyone knew she held those views when he was elevated to leadership.
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2021 7:35 pm
As far as this ghost gun issue, I don't wish to get sucked into any broader debate about gun control.
I do believe that we may need to be more proactive about assuring that guns don't fall into the wrong hands, but most proposals are not rationally geared to accomplish such purpose.
Also, despite my acknowledgement that some changes are called for, I don't want these gun control politicians on my side as they seem to know nothing about the guns they seek to regulate.
As for "ghost guns', watch the video wherein Cal. Rep. Kevin de Leon , with all required macho posturing, presents a "ghost gun", and then commences to make a series of gross miss-statements which prove he knows nothing of which he speaks.
On a broader point, most democrat politicians who advocate for greater restrictions have great difficulty in explaining the simple, basic distinctions between automatic and semi-automatic weapons(makes me, a life-long democrat, cringe)to listen to such nonsense.
They all appear to insist that automatic weapons are fully legal and readily available for purchase. They insist they could walk right into any gun store, and providing they have no felony restrictions or other similar preclusions, that they could walk out of that shop with a fully automatic weapon.
So, I submit this inquiry to them: Please identify the Las Vegas gun stores that are openly stocking, and selling, automatic weapons. Can't name one? I thought not.
So, allowing that there needs to be an intelligent dialogue about steps we can take to greatly improve matters and prevent this horrific carnage that keeps occurring, we don't need to listen to people who know absolutely nothing about the firearms they seek to regulate. Remaining so willfully ignorant will lead to no meaningful changes.
I don't expect expertise. I don't even expect a substantive degree of knowledge about various firearms. But I do expect someone who does not immediately lose any and all credibility by insisting that they are good and sick of gang-affiliated teenagers walking into gun shops and walking out with machine guns.
The amazing part is not necessarily that these politicians are that ignorant. The amazing part is that they teams of paid advisers, and apparently those people are equally ignorant, as well as quite lazy as they won't even conduct the most basic inquires about firearms.
Just the other day some politician, with full pomposity and self-righteousness, didactically lectured us about how he was holding "a completely legal assault rifle that has a magazine clip that enables it to fire 90 round in a second!"
For someone who doesn't want to get sucked into a debate…that is an amazingly lengthy diatribe. TL;DR Politicians undermine their own credibility when they exaggerate and/or don't know what they're talking about.
12:40–True, pretty lengthy for someone who didn't want a debate.
But it's an issue that does not lend itself to short,glib posts.
Don't agree with all what of what 12:35 offers, but do agree with the basic point that those politicians who advocate for greater controls think that they need have no knowledge of what they seek to regulate.
That seeming willful ignorance could be caused by the same rationale book banners use. When asked if they read the book they seek to restrict or ban, they invariably say "I would never read such filth!"
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2021 7:45 pm
You cant make this up:
11:11 (make a wish): Will vote against Sisolak "so long as Republicans nominate any sane candidate."
11:23: Liz Cheny is a "marxist at heart."
12:31: Calling a spade a spade. Is that phrase now racist?
Liz Cheney is my new hero. Apparently all but one Republican representative walked out on her while she was making a statement. Republicans don't even want to listen to other Republicans that have an opposing view.
Here's the super ironic bit:
Liz Cheney's replacement holds positions that are nearer the "marxist" view than Liz's. Liz is and has been a reliable conservative vote. She just refused to bend the knee to Cheeto Jesus. And that is unforgiveable to the MAGAts.
And the democrat's are SO inclusive and tolerant? LOLing at YOU.
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2021 7:49 pm
12:35–a few years back(and it is available on YouTube) CNNs Don Lemon appeared on FOX as a guest via video feed, along with another guest, and insisted that within days of a mass Colorado shooting, he was able to walk into a Colorado gun shop and was able to purchase a fully automatic weapon.
The host asked him to identify the firearm, and after he did the host explained that such firearm was a semi-automatic and that no automatic weapons have been legally sold since 1986, etc.
When Lemon aggressively and dismissively insisted the host was simply indulging in "semantics" and then proceeded to aggressively babble on about the point he was trying to make, the host would have none of it.
The host explained it was far more than "semantics" and that it is in fact a big deal as to whether we are discussing automatic vs. semi-automatics, as, just for starters, it was a matter of either breaking the law or not breaking the law.
Also, check out Tucker Carlson interviewing political candidate Pat Davis who ran a "F**k the NRA" ad. Mr. Davis knows even less than Mr. Lemon.
And yes that Kevin de Leon matter is priceless. He had high-ranking officers and sheriffs standing behind him in full-uniform, to enhance the supposed credibility and seriousness of his presentation.
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2021 10:00 pm
Ohhh man, some guy said something stupid on CNN years ago and its on Youtube? And whooo your boy Tucker made someone look stupid? Thats all I need to know on where I stand on gun issues. Thats what matters most. Yeah boy!
3:00, you can be glib and sarcastic if you want, and true that 12:49 could have made the point a lot more effectively by not resorting to isolated interviews on news stations that are clearly in the tank for one of the two major political parties.
So, I am with you on that, and that it makes a point ineffective if it is so colored by a polarized political position based on the network and/or host be referred to.
So,the method 12:49 uses to make a point leave much to be desired, but the point being attempted may have some arguable merit.
I have heard a lot of these discussions over the years, and they still persist, and I think the position of the gun regulation contingency is harmed if they can be constantly discredited when they make clearly false statements about firearms.
So, I'll pose this to you 3:00: Don't you think it is somewhat problematic, or at least ineffective, if someone goes on and on about how we need to regulate or prohibit the sale of automatic weapons, when they are then instructed that such guns have in fact been illegal for private individuals to own for several decades now?
And I get that politicians constantly speak on issues they have no extensive substantive knowledge on, and I don't expect a deep dive on technical issues surrounding guns.
But thy should at least know what is legal and what is not, before they go on a mission to render certain guns illegal to own, which in fact have been illegal to own for many years.
5:11-they should make some effort to learn the basics.
But, quite unfortunately, it doesn't seem to matter much since no matter how well-informed, or no matter how ill-informed, advocates on both sides of the issue are, no one ever changes anyone's mind.
In fact, no one ever even seems to concede a single point.
The gun debate is like the abortion debate–no one ever persuades the other side to any extent whatsoever.
It's been like that for decades.
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2021 10:09 pm
11:23 is just a troll. Why are you feeding the trolls? Staaaaap.
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2021 10:41 pm
Hey, anyone else have any more crazy judge stories? That was the highlight of yesterday's blog.
Allf went unhinged on an attorney a few weeks ago. Her niceness was short lived.
Guest
Anonymous
May 13, 2021 12:25 am
4:36–most of us are concerned with disturbing patterns of behavior in judges–not very general isolated anecdotal references. Almost any judge will lose their cool on occasion.
I'm not defending Allf, but if she is your main source of complaint, concerning your RJC experience, I respectfully suggest that your RJC experience is not that extensive.
If you can't find someone worse in that building to complain about, I feel very badly about the rude awakening that awaits you.
My comment got removed so let me rephrase it because perhaps it was the word choice. Some judges actually get nicer on the Bench. One example was Gloria Sturman who has become much more pleasant since she joined the judiciary.
9:33–Being a lawyer obviously includes a great deal of stress, worries and responsibilities, such as having to intensely prepare cases, advocate those cases, deal with constant strict deadlines, chase clients for the money(often, unsuccessfully), deal with very difficult clients, deal with contentions opposing counsel, deal with judges who seem to make the wrong call times, etc.
So, once someone leaves such(often nightmarish) situation, and gets paid a decent salary with benefits, to serve as a judges and issue decisions on other people's cases that the court has absolutely no stake or involvement in, obviously it is not a surprise if such judge seems a lot more pleasant, and a lot easier to deal with than they may have been when in private practice as an attorney.
Anybody been hit by a ransomware attack? I got hit by a "jojoencrypt" in March. Even with everything on backup, it took me about 3 weeks to "build back up." I refused to negotiate and rather spent the money to replace equipment and buy new law practice software.
My wife was hit with ransomeware attack. I just threw the computer out and bought her a new one. It is scary out there. Good for you for not buckling under.
Does anyone know if Apple really is relatively immune? I am so tired of Windows 10.
Apple products are not immune. If your device is compromised and you take it to a Genius, they will give you the same advice as 11:42 – throw it out and buy a new one. Coincidentally, that is also their solution for bad chips on the motherboard, poor solder, and pretty much every other repair.
I love sports and think it would be great if Vegas had more professional teams (particularly NBA). But we've got to stop giving tax payer dollars to these insanely wealthy franchises additional money to relocate here for 10-20 years. And we can't steal the another team from Oaktown.
The public got screwed by the Raiders. They've now received well over a BILLION in public funds. It's so gross I just can't get past it to become a fan. It's one of the reasons I will vote against Sisolak so long as the Republicans nominate any sane candidate.
After Ben Davidson subjected Joe Namath to a "cheap shot" decades ago, my parents hated the Raiders and would have been furious to learn that Las Vegas is supporting them.
11:24–that was way, way back in 1967(a year or two before Namath's amazing performance in the Super Bowl vs. Baltimore).
Davidson was viewed by many as the No.1 cheap shot artist of his time. These days he would have been penalized, probably ejected, and quite possibly suspended as well.
Your parents had every reason to resent him for that hit.
believe Namath's jaw was broken.
@ 11:11, public funds or not, that Raiders stadium will bring in billions in revenue, sales, and occupancy taxes over the next ten years alone, not to mention the increase in property values across the board due to living in a metropolitan area with a professional football team.
12:11 is enjoying the kool-aid…stadium projects, pro sports teams, etc have a long history of ripping off tax payers with similar promises. Google it.
I do not support any public money being used to bribe professional sports teams to relocate to Las Vegas, and I include tax breaks in that. Los Angeles did so well with the Raiders!
Has it helped Las Vegas to have Oakland Raider fans pour into the city as tourists to support their team? Has that gone down well with our other visitors? Do the Oakland fans bring lots of money to spend, and help elevate the cultural ambience of our home? How much has violence and crime on the Strip increased since "Raider Nation" took over?
I would prefer not increasing the number of Oakland fans visiting Vegas! So I don't want the A's here!
Cities have never seen a net benefit from stadium subsidies. This will be especially true in Vegas, where the raiders cannibalize other entertainment dollars.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/11/sports-stadiums-can-be-bad-cities/576334/
I'm just not sure that "room taxes" qualify as "Public Money". These taxes aren't really being paid by Nevadans and tourists pay it regardless. Lost of whom are traveling to see said professional sporting events. That said, if we want the perquisites of locally based Professional Sports franchises (and we all do, whether we are fans or not), we HAVE to pay what other markets are paying.
State of the art stadiums built by tax dollars are top of the list. Get used to it. If its not LV, it will be someone else ready to pony up. This is how the free market works
@ 12:36, The NFL Draft alone in 2022 is expected to bring in hundreds of millions in direct spending. Google it yourself.
"People planning to visit Las Vegas for the 2022 NFL draft can expect to pay up to three times as much for a night on the Strip compared with rates in May." https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/tourism/strip-room-rates-already-spiking-for-2022-nfl-draft-2346012/
"The 2019 NFL Draft in Nashville, Tennessee, resulted in a $224 million economic impact on that city with $130 million in direct spending calculated." https://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/nfl-draft/loss-of-nfl-draft-means-millions-wont-be-spent-in-vegas-in-april-1982923/
"Committees and the NFL claim that the game can spur 300 to 500 million dollars of spending in a host city. For example, in 2018 Minnesota's host committee reported that Super Bowl 52 brought in $450 million to its half of the Twin Cities." https://www.businessinsider.com/super-bowl-nfl-football-hosting-cost-worth-host-cities-2019-2#:~:text=The%20NFL%20and%20host%20committees,between%20%2430%20to%20%24130%20million.
It's Vegas. An NFL Stadium here means big dollars for everyone who lives here. Your house is now worth more (unless of course you're still renting) because of the stadium. Workers make more tips with more tourists and game visitors. When we host a Super Bowl (which will be soon) the stadium will pay for itself.
This stadium and having an NFL team in town legitimizes Vegas as a metropolitan city. Quit your complaining about "muh taxes" and just enjoy the benefits.
Does this story sound familiar: a sports team pleads poverty and gets public funds to build a new stadium. A few years later, that same team changes hands at a massive valuation. A decade or two later, the team gripes about the stadium and leaves town. To the dismay of local fans and politicos, taxpayers are stuck with a tenant-less stadium and a sizable bill.
Ask St. Louis what it's like to continue to pay for a stadium that has no football team playing in it.
If Las Vegas at all interested in arms' length negotiations it would have demanded a share of the the door, as well as trademark and merchandise until the stadium is paid off.
"Room Taxes" are diversion — if the room taxes fall short, the money comes out of the general budget.
Let's not forget that no Raiders game has been played here with a full crowd. When Raiders Nation actually gets to experience a capacity game at a new stadium with only 2500 parking spaces, they will likely stop coming to games or burn Las Vegas to the ground. Yeah, let's build a new baseball stadium on the strip!
Raiders have a "plan" to use UNLV parking, and bus Raiders fans to and from parking. Let's see how a bunch of drunk Raiders take to waiting for a bus. Or simply decide to roam the strip. I for one will be avoid the strip on game day weekends.
Even if we could park ALL cars offsite, does anyone really think that the city of Las Vegas and/or Clark County can handle the traffic and logistics to move 65,000 people in and out of Allegiant Stadium?
I have a buddy who has an office on Reno just east of Valley View (North of Hacienda). He was told that the streets will simply be closed down on on game day. (not that he loves working on sundays, but at least he had the option.
Who in his/her right mind would build a multi million dollar stadium without a parking lot? Well, Las Vegas has two of them.
Get your point, 2:12 and am sympathetic, but the answer but gaming companies who charge for parking and have many parking garages right in walking distance of said multi million dollar stadium with a parking lot were clearly in their right mind. Also, I think building the stadium was a travesty, at least with public funding, when politicians don't care about funding education.
Get your point, 2:12 and am sympathetic, but gaming companies, who control the state and who charge for parking and have many parking garages right in walking distance of said multi million dollar stadium(s) without a parking lot were clearly in their right mind. Also, I think building the stadium was a travesty, at least with public funding, when politicians don't care about funding education.
What Allegiant Stadium says about its parking on its Website is hilarious:
"Las Vegas Stadium Events Company, LLC (StadCo) has developed a first-class, comprehensive Parking and Transportation Program that offers many parking, transportation and tailgating options. . . . StadCo is working with Parking and Transportation Group – Las Vegas (PATG-LV), the same company that helped to create the traffic plan for T-Mobile Arena. . . . The Program will include ample space for rideshare (Uber/Lyft), taxi, shuttle and limousine pick-up and drop-off. Special fan experiences will include the ability to walk from the Strip (Las Vegas Blvd.) to the Stadium across the Hacienda overpass. . . . The goal of the Program is to make getting there a part of the gameday experience."
In other words, walk or take an Uber.
Liz Cheney could not lead when she didnt agree with tut he basic principles of conservatism ie be responsible, help the downtrodden, strong defense, and capitalism. She is a marxist at heart. So glad she is gone.
Liz Cheney was ousted for one reason only: refusing to profess undying loyalty to Donald Trump. The two-time popular vote loser, twice-impeached, facing numerous federal felonies, hundreds of millions in debt, violent overthrow of the government-attempting, thrice divorced, cheating on his pregnant wife with a porn star, cancer-charity theiving, anti-democratic, Big Lie-pushing, morbidly obese, pathological liar.
You know you're pushing horsesh*t. Find a QAnon chatroom and leave this blog to people who aren't in a fascist cult.
Liz Cheney was and is right. You are killing our party and any chances of responsible and decent government that the GOP used to bring. She did not turn against responsibility. The heart of responsibility and accountability is that you own your mistakes, apologize, and make amends. We lost by fielding a sociopath as Commander in Chief. We all know that the Emperor had no clothes, and I suspect you do also.
Sorry. Liz is out of step with the majority of R's and Wyoming residents. She is toast there too. Like it or not. Trumpers are the base of the new GOP. Slander them with "Qanon," "fascist cult" and other nonsensical labels at your own peril.
Zero chance that Trump and his followers are done on the national public stage, regardless of what happens with "election audits". I know you hate that, but suck it up or leave the GOP. There really isn't any other choice. If you think that Mitt, Pence and Liz Cheney are in fact, the future of the GOP, you're the one being laughed at.
OP back – 12:31 u are a typical woke regurgitator of personal attacks on Trump, if every thing u said is correct it diesnt change the fact that ANY leader of ANY thing should agree with the principles of the goals of who they are leading, once again sorry to have pulled the string on the chatty cathy doll
Curse SCOTUS and the other cowardly courts who refused to step in on the largest election fraud in US history.
Trumpers are so wackadoo, it is impossible to tell if you are serious.
@ 1:21 P.M. Lolz. Trumpers are "the base" of the new GOP. Al Qaeda literally means "The Base," and now Trumpers are the "Y'all Qaeda" of America. Those folks are really doing their grandparents proud. And it's only slander if it isn't true. Most of us learned that in law school. I'll call a Nazi a Nazi "at my own peril" any day of the week, and the same goes for people swearing fealty to a fascist authoritarian.
@ 1:24, what does "ANY leader of ANY thing should agree with the principles of the goals of who they are leading" supposed to mean here? That Liz Cheney should kiss the ring of a failed autocrat because he keeps pushing the Big Lie that he DIDN'T lose by 3 million votes in 2016 and by 7 million votes in 2020? That a minority of GOP voters refuse to acknowledge reality and want to be lied to by their representatives so they feel like big strong 'Mericans who are superior to Dems in every way? Please. Liz Cheney dared to tell the truth and Republicans can't acknowledge it for fear of retribution from Cheeto Benito and his Russian hackers. Utterly pathetic.
@154
@121 here.
And yet, you fail to acknowledge that ol' Liz is finished with the Republican party and in the State of Wyoming, as is ol' Mitt in Utah.
Actually, what I learned in law school was that truth is a defense to slander. Technically speaking. However, cause you sayin' it don't make it true. Name calling instead of actual factual debate is called an ad hominum attack and rarely works. I learned that in undergrad. At this point, I'd advise sticking to J.Ct and LVMCt., where your abilities are most effective.
Boiled down. Liz and Mitt are done politically. The GOP no longer tolerates the old establishment ways. RINOs are dead to them. I know you hate it, but that doesn't change a thing.
The kids are watching.
@ 1:21. "Name calling instead of actual factual debate is called an ad hominum attack and rarely works." First it's "hominem," not "hominum."
Second, I'm not name-calling. Your knee-jerk reaction is to feel like I'm calling Trump names because it hurts your feelings to hear what he truly is.
It is a fact that he is a two-time popular vote loser. Lost by 3 million, then by 7 million. That's not name calling.
It is a fact that he was twice-impeached.
It is a fact that he is facing numerous federal felonies.
It is a fact that he is hundreds of millions in debt.
It is a fact that he encouraged a violent overthrow of the government after he lost the presidential election.
It is a fact that he is thrice divorced.
It is a fact that he was cheating on his pregnant wife with a porn star.
It is a fact that he and his family stole money from their cancer charity.
It is a fact that he is anti-democratic. See, e.g., expecting the courts to overturn an election that he plainly lost due to baseless allegations of fraud, and repeatedly and directly refusing to accept the outcome of a democratic election.
Is it a fact that he is pushing the Big Lie, in that he continues to insist "fraud" cost him an election, rather than acknowledging that he is the first president to never have a positive approval rating, whose actions resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans, and who made the majority of Americans his personal enemy.
It is a fact that he is morbidly obese.
It is a fact that he is a pathological liar.
If these facts seem like vicious name-calling to you, maybe worship someone whose traits and actions you find less offensive.
Hey, nobody chose to worship the Cheeto Jesus. But once he won the primary choice went out the window. Along with autonomy and self-respect. It isn't about anything more than self-preservation. Their echo-box won't allow anyone but their chosen one to win. Goes back to not being able to win an election on merits. Gotta find some way to win. After all, thats what matters.
I agree with you 2:57 but he is just twice divorced, Ivana and Marla, and thrice married, Ivana, Marla and Melania.
Hey, 2:20, you toss around the epithet RINO as if it means something. What, precisely, does it mean to be a True Republican these days? I mean, previous presidential nominees of the party from 2 elections ago are apparently not Republican enough these days, so I'm wondering exactly what it takes to be assured that Y'all Qaeda won't call me a RINO.
11:23–I'm not debating whether she is some of those things or not, or what she does or does not believe, as that had nothing to do with the actions taken against her.
She would simply not fall in line with the narrative that the election was stolen, etc.
She was not removed for the basic philosophical/political opinions she held. After all, everyone knew she held those views when he was elevated to leadership.
As far as this ghost gun issue, I don't wish to get sucked into any broader debate about gun control.
I do believe that we may need to be more proactive about assuring that guns don't fall into the wrong hands, but most proposals are not rationally geared to accomplish such purpose.
Also, despite my acknowledgement that some changes are called for, I don't want these gun control politicians on my side as they seem to know nothing about the guns they seek to regulate.
As for "ghost guns', watch the video wherein Cal. Rep. Kevin de Leon , with all required macho posturing, presents a "ghost gun", and then commences to make a series of gross miss-statements which prove he knows nothing of which he speaks.
On a broader point, most democrat politicians who advocate for greater restrictions have great difficulty in explaining the simple, basic distinctions between automatic and semi-automatic weapons(makes me, a life-long democrat, cringe)to listen to such nonsense.
They all appear to insist that automatic weapons are fully legal and readily available for purchase. They insist they could walk right into any gun store, and providing they have no felony restrictions or other similar preclusions, that they could walk out of that shop with a fully automatic weapon.
So, I submit this inquiry to them: Please identify the Las Vegas gun stores that are openly stocking, and selling, automatic weapons. Can't name one? I thought not.
So, allowing that there needs to be an intelligent dialogue about steps we can take to greatly improve matters and prevent this horrific carnage that keeps occurring, we don't need to listen to people who know absolutely nothing about the firearms they seek to regulate. Remaining so willfully ignorant will lead to no meaningful changes.
I don't expect expertise. I don't even expect a substantive degree of knowledge about various firearms. But I do expect someone who does not immediately lose any and all credibility by insisting that they are good and sick of gang-affiliated teenagers walking into gun shops and walking out with machine guns.
The amazing part is not necessarily that these politicians are that ignorant. The amazing part is that they teams of paid advisers, and apparently those people are equally ignorant, as well as quite lazy as they won't even conduct the most basic inquires about firearms.
Just the other day some politician, with full pomposity and self-righteousness, didactically lectured us about how he was holding "a completely legal assault rifle that has a magazine clip that enables it to fire 90 round in a second!"
What?!
For someone who doesn't want to get sucked into a debate…that is an amazingly lengthy diatribe. TL;DR Politicians undermine their own credibility when they exaggerate and/or don't know what they're talking about.
12:40–True, pretty lengthy for someone who didn't want a debate.
But it's an issue that does not lend itself to short,glib posts.
Don't agree with all what of what 12:35 offers, but do agree with the basic point that those politicians who advocate for greater controls think that they need have no knowledge of what they seek to regulate.
That seeming willful ignorance could be caused by the same rationale book banners use. When asked if they read the book they seek to restrict or ban, they invariably say "I would never read such filth!"
You cant make this up:
11:11 (make a wish): Will vote against Sisolak "so long as Republicans nominate any sane candidate."
11:23: Liz Cheny is a "marxist at heart."
12:31: Calling a spade a spade. Is that phrase now racist?
Liz Cheney is my new hero. Apparently all but one Republican representative walked out on her while she was making a statement. Republicans don't even want to listen to other Republicans that have an opposing view.
Here's the super ironic bit:
Liz Cheney's replacement holds positions that are nearer the "marxist" view than Liz's. Liz is and has been a reliable conservative vote. She just refused to bend the knee to Cheeto Jesus. And that is unforgiveable to the MAGAts.
And the democrat's are SO inclusive and tolerant? LOLing at YOU.
12:35–a few years back(and it is available on YouTube) CNNs Don Lemon appeared on FOX as a guest via video feed, along with another guest, and insisted that within days of a mass Colorado shooting, he was able to walk into a Colorado gun shop and was able to purchase a fully automatic weapon.
The host asked him to identify the firearm, and after he did the host explained that such firearm was a semi-automatic and that no automatic weapons have been legally sold since 1986, etc.
When Lemon aggressively and dismissively insisted the host was simply indulging in "semantics" and then proceeded to aggressively babble on about the point he was trying to make, the host would have none of it.
The host explained it was far more than "semantics" and that it is in fact a big deal as to whether we are discussing automatic vs. semi-automatics, as, just for starters, it was a matter of either breaking the law or not breaking the law.
Also, check out Tucker Carlson interviewing political candidate Pat Davis who ran a "F**k the NRA" ad. Mr. Davis knows even less than Mr. Lemon.
And yes that Kevin de Leon matter is priceless. He had high-ranking officers and sheriffs standing behind him in full-uniform, to enhance the supposed credibility and seriousness of his presentation.
Ohhh man, some guy said something stupid on CNN years ago and its on Youtube? And whooo your boy Tucker made someone look stupid? Thats all I need to know on where I stand on gun issues. Thats what matters most. Yeah boy!
3:00, you can be glib and sarcastic if you want, and true that 12:49 could have made the point a lot more effectively by not resorting to isolated interviews on news stations that are clearly in the tank for one of the two major political parties.
So, I am with you on that, and that it makes a point ineffective if it is so colored by a polarized political position based on the network and/or host be referred to.
So,the method 12:49 uses to make a point leave much to be desired, but the point being attempted may have some arguable merit.
I have heard a lot of these discussions over the years, and they still persist, and I think the position of the gun regulation contingency is harmed if they can be constantly discredited when they make clearly false statements about firearms.
So, I'll pose this to you 3:00: Don't you think it is somewhat problematic, or at least ineffective, if someone goes on and on about how we need to regulate or prohibit the sale of automatic weapons, when they are then instructed that such guns have in fact been illegal for private individuals to own for several decades now?
And I get that politicians constantly speak on issues they have no extensive substantive knowledge on, and I don't expect a deep dive on technical issues surrounding guns.
But thy should at least know what is legal and what is not, before they go on a mission to render certain guns illegal to own, which in fact have been illegal to own for many years.
5:11-they should make some effort to learn the basics.
But, quite unfortunately, it doesn't seem to matter much since no matter how well-informed, or no matter how ill-informed, advocates on both sides of the issue are, no one ever changes anyone's mind.
In fact, no one ever even seems to concede a single point.
The gun debate is like the abortion debate–no one ever persuades the other side to any extent whatsoever.
It's been like that for decades.
11:23 is just a troll. Why are you feeding the trolls? Staaaaap.
Hey, anyone else have any more crazy judge stories? That was the highlight of yesterday's blog.
Allf went unhinged on an attorney a few weeks ago. Her niceness was short lived.
4:36–most of us are concerned with disturbing patterns of behavior in judges–not very general isolated anecdotal references. Almost any judge will lose their cool on occasion.
I'm not defending Allf, but if she is your main source of complaint, concerning your RJC experience, I respectfully suggest that your RJC experience is not that extensive.
If you can't find someone worse in that building to complain about, I feel very badly about the rude awakening that awaits you.
Allf is not the main source of my complaint, but she has a dark side from what I saw at the hearing.
My comment got removed so let me rephrase it because perhaps it was the word choice. Some judges actually get nicer on the Bench. One example was Gloria Sturman who has become much more pleasant since she joined the judiciary.
9:33–Being a lawyer obviously includes a great deal of stress, worries and responsibilities, such as having to intensely prepare cases, advocate those cases, deal with constant strict deadlines, chase clients for the money(often, unsuccessfully), deal with very difficult clients, deal with contentions opposing counsel, deal with judges who seem to make the wrong call times, etc.
So, once someone leaves such(often nightmarish) situation, and gets paid a decent salary with benefits, to serve as a judges and issue decisions on other people's cases that the court has absolutely no stake or involvement in, obviously it is not a surprise if such judge seems a lot more pleasant, and a lot easier to deal with than they may have been when in private practice as an attorney.
5:25 has a point.