And of course, the founding fathers wanted to keep the church and the state separated, and they wanted no monarchies.

You do realize the prohibitions regarding the ESTABLISHMENT of a federal religion were intended to let the colonies keep their own state religions, the federal government wouldn't try to take the place of the colony/state's religion.

The 'separation of church and state' argument was in response to a letter to Thomas Jefferson from the Baptist ministers from one of the colonies that was afraid the new federal government was going to force the baptists to adopt a new STATE religion.

Pretty sure England was soaking the colonies to help pay for it's war with France...

Then there was that whole 'taxation without representation' thing...

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?

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.

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."

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."

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?

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..."