It's interesting to me that to come up with people that move around large amounts of cash, your one example is organized crime, and that's supposed to make me against a cashless society.

You missed my point entirely. I was responding to your argument that "if you find yourself on the wrong side of the powers that be for some reason they can simply deny you access to your wealth at their whim. " No one holds millions of dollars in 10's and 20's. Any significant movement of wealth is already electronically tracked; in fact, any significant movement of cash, usually over $10000, is tracked as well if you use a bank. Have you been completing a lot of transactions with $9,999 worth of cash? I haven't.

How is this different from now? How many people have great amounts of wealth stored entirely in cash? The situation you describe where "the powers that be (can) deny you access to your wealth at their whim" already exists, and we seem to be okay with it.

I'm not saying you should be entirely okay with it, or that it's the best possible system, just pointing out that going cashless isn't going to change the status of what you regard as freedom to do as you please with large amounts of wealth.

Yeah, that particular article doesn't mention the Maldives. Dozens of others do identify the Maldives as the site of the arrest, most of them quoting the Russian government calling his arrest in the Maldives a kidnapping.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/us-ac...

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.