It's not all of them, of course. But the fact that nobody stops them must be indicative of something. I don't see anyone decrying the violent barbarians and demanding that they be brought to justice for violating their respective countries' diplomatic agreements in regard to embassies and diplomats. Just a lot of crying about some weirdo's free speech that nobody has heard or cares to hear.

We don't kill other nations' diplomats and attack their embassies, even when they're a bunch of wankers. The height of hypocrisy is Libya doing this after we ridded them of Gaddafi. They want freedoms. They want help getting those freedoms. They just don't want too many freedoms. And they'll murder your diplomats if some unknown weirdo from that same nation--of hundreds of millions--makes an unseen film you don't like. While it's not all of them, the fact is it's many and the rest of their society doesn't do anything about it.

Justinian I,

How much greater must salaries be than an area's mean/median incomes to qualify as significant enough to "attract better talent?"

In addition to their cushy benefits, they have a very consistent advancement structure based on years. Not only are they getting paid far more than average private workers, they have a path to dependably achieve even higher pay than that average regardless of performance.

Bacchus,

We don't know the specifics. These negotiations are all conducted behind closed-doors.

http://ideas.time.com/2012/09/10/chicago-teachers-strike-why-negotiations-must-be-open-to-the-public/
"according to one senior Chicago official with direct knowledge of the negotiations with the union reps,

Exactly, Little Paul.

But "progressive" has been abused for more than a century now. The word cannot be un-hijacked now.

You_Fool concluded that, CLEARLY, Progressives the must have "progressive" positions because they hijacked the word and gave it a new definition with a capital "P." It was so stupid that I feared it might not be trolling but ignorance of a previously unimagined magnitude.

I obviously have no problem with using the word "progressive" to mean its original, generic, general meaning. But pretending that "Progressive" necessarily means "progressive" is just idiotic and stupid.

It could be a horrible and dishonest article leaving out significant information, which literally any respectable journalist would include. But, in the absence of any evidence of this being the case, we're left with Best Buy having no comment and the police saying OOPS. All available information suggests Best Buy and the local PD may actually have gone THAT overboard.

I don't know if he'll protect my second amendment rights or believe it reasonable to limit the crap out of them.

I don't know if he's for doctors choosing not to care for babies that survive abortion like Obama. I don't have the most strict anti-abortion stance because trash will find all kinds of ways to do it anyway (though I'm not for using violence to cover-up mistakes, which is what abortion is), but I'd still like to know what the guy thinks. I wish he had the balls to say. Or, more honestly (and accurately), I wish the Amerikan people weren't so dense and stupid that it obviously polls better for him NOT to say.

The average Amerikan voter is so stupid and valueless that he'd rather a candidate openly have no position, openly pander for votes with absolutely no promise of policy, position, or advocacy, than have a position which some people partially disagree with.

I'd rather support a candidate whose positions I don't fully agree with than a candidate who essentially has no positions. But I'm obviously in the minority. As it turns out, most people are suckers.

The RNC is leading Amerika in being just a little bit less bad than Obama. They attack personal freedoms, just like Democrats. They support big government, cronyism, and bribery, just like Democrats. They support pointless foreign wars (worse yet, warfare for foreign nations who aren't even allies--gotta please the NWO!), just like Democrats.

You can't conduct foreign affairs that anyone in the world respects when you're corrupt, valueless trash. Bush was often hated; Obama is constantly laughed at. Neither was/is remotely competent and capable of handling foreign affairs.

What's the big difference? There isn't one. They just have slightly different focuses of their attacks on freedom and expansion of federal powers. They just have areas of slightly less pitiful rhetoric in defense of freedoms; rhetoric which they inevitably fail to back up when defense of those freedoms is actually necessary.

If they were that awesome, I might like them.

Best Buy doesn't, and neither do many government agencies: He should sue the agencies, not individuals. It's the agencies' fault this nonsense happens, and the elected/appointed people in charge need to be held accountable. Ultimately that means the people of the area paying, and that's what I'm getting at: The people need to stop electing morons, and be held to account when they do.

Even agencies which cannot be sued can have claims of damages filed against them, though I think that's just for protected federal agencies. Either way.

I'm not disagreeing that many people have no actual grasp of what it's being used to mean today, or how it's being used to mean much more/different from its original/generic meaning. We're talking "progressive" vs "Progressive," and many people are too ignorant to know the difference.

But I am stating very clearly that every politician proclaiming that he/she's a "Progressive" means it with a capital P and none of them are referring to the generic definition of progress, advancement, and "forward" changes.

As well he should.

They don't have the nerve to stand behind their decisions, Paininside: So "no."

So should stupid people. But they're a majority, so we let it slide. The result? Fat people.

Stupid is the problem. The weak must die.

There's no issue with his taxes. No matter what, he didn't pay enough.

Socialists/communists/progressives are just waging class warfare. Crying about his taxes is a way of reminding people he's been wildly successful. For those idiots on welfare convinced that rich people stole money they never earned or had, it's a clear conviction on the charge that Romney stole their fictional stuff just to mention that he has stuff.