To souper12:
Wait - so you are advocating that we artificially restrict the maximum price that a private party can charge another private party for an optional product that is purchased based on a consumers free will? So, should we also restrict the maximum price for sodas, Cirque shows, hotel rooms, and alcohol on the Strip, or elsewhere for that matter?

Even if it costs $50 for a hot dog, if someone wants to buy it, let them buy it. If you don't like it, don't buy it. If you're jealous that you're not selling hot dogs for that much, then open a competitor, grow your business to that level where people will pay $X for a hot-dog, and start your own stand on the Strip.

Until then, I think you should probably let that real world concept of allowing the demand for an optional product purchased by a willing and able consumer determine what its price should be.

Re: SgtRock
If you're going to rip something that you don't like, at least don't misrepresent the actual facts. The Volt is a plug-in HYBRID not an all-electric car. So if you don't recharge it, big deal, you just fill up with gas at any local gas station.

I agree with you on the dollar/month work-out though. I ended up buying a new truck instead of a high-MPG car because the break-even point was about $6/gallon with my commute with the reduced cost of a non-hybrid truck. It wasn't worth buying a more expensive car to 'save money' on gas so I could pay 2x the monthly car payment.

Excellent news.
The long time Las Vegas attorney who did the majority of the heavy lifting in this case for Steel Engineers Inc (SEI), with MGM's attorneys usually just joining in on this attorney's filings, was Robert Kurth, Jr. of the Kurth Law Office (Google to find him).
It was a great win for not only SEI and MGM, but for all self-insured employers in Nevada, including multiple city governments, automobile dealerships, and other very large employers capable of handling the requirements of being self-insured.

Great work!

Dang - we still can't get past using a truncated and out-of-context version of the Shakespeare quote... Come on 'bdover' - it was a compliment to lawyers when Shakespeare said the first thing we should do is kill all the lawyers, because he was talking about how to take away people's rights, and before being able to trample on people's rights, there cannot be lawyers to defend those rights.

As to the Vegas drivers, I moved to Vegas from Houston and I think everyone drive's great here :-) It's a matter of perspective.

To ZeddyBear@10:24am:

If you're going to quote Shakespeare, don't quote him out of context. The line was spoken to state how they were going to eliminate people who would stand in the way of a possible revolution - i.e. who would be the ones that would protect the rights of the people the most, and eliminate them as to avoid resistance of the revolution.

So when people say "The first thing we need to do is kill all the lawyers" and think it means what you think it means, I take it as a compliment and just laugh at their ignorance.

LVcharlie,
Regarding the statement that we're not using our real names - Do a google search for 'wdevine' (the name on my posting) and 'las vegas' and all but about one of the results that comes up is me. First name 'William' in case you're curious. You can even find my home address and phone number on the first page of google results including my resume if you're really curious.
Am I to presume that anytime you don't like what a politician is doing, or don't agree with electing a particular candidate, that you run out and campaign to replace them? If not, then please don't tell me that I should do the same (re: cyber bullies putting name on ballot)
My statements would be "Sour Grapes" if I wanted to run for the position that is being discussed here and was unable to do so. (See "Aesop's Fables - The Fox & The Grapes") Seeing as I have no interest at present in running for that position, then I can honestly tell you that my statements have nothing to do with 'sour grapes'. My statements are merely my observations and opinions about what I have heard and read about Augustine, and what I personally know about Ohrenschall.
I fully support your right to comment on my and others comments, but if you are going to make a blanket statement calling me, and others, cyber bullies, please make sure you are on solid ground when doing so Pot.

William Devine, II
Kettle

I'm not in Augustine's or Ohrenschall's district, and cannot vote for either of them. I also personally know James Ohrenschall, so take my comments however you want.
Were I in their district, even with my mostly Republican views, I could not in good conscience vote for Republican Dallas Augustine. I believe that one's past is a good reflection of one's future. When one looks at Ms. Augustine's past, it does not appear that she has done much to prepare herself to represent others in any true capacity. Granted she has worked at retail outlets, and has some college, but does not appear to have had much personal or professional success. By all means, correct me if there are some successes I have missed. She cares so much about Nevada that she hasn't lived here for over a decade, and now that she has returned, she believes she knows how to fix the problems in the district where she used to live.
Compare her past to Ohrenschall's past - just Google 'James Ohrenschall' and view his legislative biography and you'll see what I mean - honors, merit scholar, excelled in history, math, political science - they go on and on. He's been in Nevada this whole time, went to UNLV (and finished...) and represented his district this last session.

Well, as I said, I do not live in their district so am unable to vote for any of them. But if I did, and my choice was Dallas Augustine for my mostly Republican views, or James Ohrenschall in the Democratic party for which I share some but not too many views, my vote would have to go to Ohrenschall.

Whoops... 'Although I was not accosted...'

Although I was not been accosted at the DMV a couple weekends ago, I did witness a group of three or four people asking people if they were interested in registering to vote. When I said I was already registered they turned and approached the next person. I suppose had I not been registered and gone to do so that they might have inquired as to which political candidate I supported and attempted to lead me to the path of their candidate.
Just as I support the political parties' right to ask people if they want to register to vote, I also support the right of those to gather signatures for petitions regardless of whether I support the underlying petition.
Similarly, if petition supporters are permitted to gather signatures on DMV property then I think it just for opponents to also be on DMV property to verbally oppose the petition gathering.
The difference though, is that the opposition is using tactics that are not intended to permit a person to make an educated decision but are geared towards making the person uncomfortable and want to leave to avoid the continuous verbal 'attack' of yelling before before signing the petition.
Although I am a supporter of first amendment rights, I believe that a person's first amendment rights to generally say whatever they want to say end, or at least become able to be regulated or restricted, when the person begins yelling and screaming at me as a personal attack. Witness the personal attack by the Republican registering voters against Johnathan (12:17pm) above. If the people registering others to vote are going to attack bystanders walking by them who have no interest in participating in what they're selling or doing, then they should either be banned from the DMV property, or there should be a process whereby the bystander can report that person's behavior and have them removed.
Same goes for those disrupting the petition gathering. I will definitely NOT vote for an increase in taxes just on gaming when an across the board tax could bring in the same revenue and not unfairly target the financial engine driving the Vegas economy. The person or persons advocating the same position should not be permitted to come up to me and start yelling at me to tell me I should not sign because of X and Y. They clearly should be permitted to be there and explain their position and handout fliers or information that explains their position, just as the petition signature gatherers are doing. Surely, if the disruptions keep the petition from going through ultimately the result is a good thing - the gaming companies aren't taxed unfairly, but the tactics are inexcusable.
There are many illegal things a group could do to keep someone from running for office or getting a bill passed, but that does not mean they should do it. But just because it can be done, does not mean it should be done this way.