What's happened to the price of houses since 2008?

yeah, really, when an oil company sees people making ridiculous blanket statements, for free, about how gas will ALWAYS be the main fuel for vehicles, why would they want to hire him?

Judging by his comments on inflation above, I'd say that's a remote possibility.

Since 2008, inflation has been 3.0% or lower every single year. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, but if it was "inflation is out of control!!" then you're obviously not reading about the history of inflation over the last 50 years.

Well, someone selling a red T-shirt with the word REDSKINS on it in yellow, without the team logo, for $15 in a store in the DC suburbs, for example. It's not Redskins fans that would find the word offensive. They just want to support the team. If the NFL doesn't get a cut of that T-shirt sale, they're going to legally go after the person selling it. Without the registered trademark, it becomes more difficult to make their case that the seller is infringing on their trademark.

You could come up with example after example that's similar to that. And in the end, that's why the NFL will ultimately force the change - once the bottom line is affected enough, and they see they're going to lose more money by the Redskins keeping the name than by dropping it, the pressure will mount.

I have a feeling this one is a self-fulfilling prophecy for a guy like you.

Not completely meaningless. While the registration of the trademark being gone doesn't strip the trademark, it does make it more difficult for the Redskins go after people in court for infringement.

I googled right after I typed that last part, because the whole thing gets complicated, but here's the key sentence - "cancellation makes it more difficult to enforce exclusivity under federal law since the Redskins lose legal presumptions, customs and counterfeiting remedies."

from this link - http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c...

Yeah, you missed my point completely. The GP said the Egyptians are handling their revolution better, and you went off on your tangent of "why does everyone hate America!" by sarcastically belching "oh yeah the US did it worse no matter what it is".

Even as you're walking it back now by claiming "no I didn't say that, I said SOME ASSHAT will proudly say we're doing it worse", it still has nothing to do with the fact that he made an interesting point: many Americans like to claim that the savages in the Middle East can't handle or don't deserve democracy, while forgetting (or maybe they never learned) how messy our own revolution was. If you don't want to debate that point, fine, but your knee-jerk counter-point that abhors any criticism of 'MURRICA! is off-topic, adds nothing, and sounds like Archie Bunker.

Your automatic extrapolation from "The Egyptians are handling this better" to "The US did it worse no matter what or where" is a knee-jerk reaction that shows off your ass-hattedness.

That wasn't the AC's point. So your sarcastic libertarian-based tangent, while technically accurate, has nothing to do with the counter-point I was making.

You're right, those employees generally make less money than the private industry union members. I should know, I'm one of them (IBEW, thanks very much, we do pretty well), and I'm just a freelancer to boot.

If you really believe, as the original poster stated, that the police union has the power to install mayors and city council members in every municipality across this country, you're either very bitter, very stupid, or both.

Boy, isn't the citizen in this case that we're talking about lucky? Apparently she only had a 1% chance of winning her lawsuit! According to you, that is.

Maybe not directly, but it's coming out of the pockets of the town, which employs the police. So if you're the mayor or councilman or whatever, and you want to make sure chunks of your budget aren't flying into the hands of people being harassed by the police, you're damn sure going to tell the chief to tell his cops he's not arresting people anymore for filming cops. I have a feeling they'll get the message.

There's more responsibility than that placed upon the police, which you would've seen if you'd done a 5-second search instead of just read a shitty slashdot summary:

"However, a police order that is specifically directed at the First Amendment right to film police performing their duties in public may be constitutionally imposed only if the officer can reasonably conclude that the filming itself is interfering, or is about to interfere, with his duties."

You can read even more (imagine that! read to educate yourself!) here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

yeah, we COULD accomplish these things. Problem is, we wouldn't. Except in that one country where there's no government and they have clean water and clean air and electricity, and yes, even roads that you can safely drive 70 mph on. Where is that again? RIght, in the figment of an AC's mind.