Ian D

I have a laptop (Windows 7) hooked up via HDMI cable to my Insignia 50" LCD flat screen TV with a digital coaxial cable running from the TV to a stereo receiver for additional audio. Everything works fine except when I play a DVD in the laptop. The DVD plays fine, I can see it on the TV and hear it through the TV's internal speakers, but the audio won't play through the stereo receiver. In fact, the receiver's VU meters are dead and no audio signal is being sent to it. All other audio sources (mp3, mp4, yourtube, streaming movies, etc) coming from the laptop and through the TV play fine on the receiver, except for the DVD player. Anyone have any ideas as to why? Perhaps an internal audio setting in the laptop or in the TV?

If not, what is it about nihilism that Christianity identifies with? If so, will you put politics ahead of your faith and support conservatives who embrace her pseudo-ideology Existentialism?

1) There is no biblical mention of it.

2) No credible theologian accepts the idea of it.

3) A 19th Century liar named John Nelson Darby came up with the screwy concept.

4) It leads people away from the rue meaning of Christianity.

5) Anyone who interprets scripture in such a manner is ignorant.

If you are an Evangelical end of days cultist, tell me who Jesus was speaking to,in Mathew 24.

Are you really that brainwashed? http://www.bible.ca/rapture-shoes-raptured-gone-jo...

Are you guys really that ignorant? Does extremism really have to involve brainwashing and lying about your opponents?

Here is an article about a very well known celebrity democrat defending capitalism.....

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/alec-baldwin-de...

Only hardcore Marxists call for an end to capitalism. There are very few of those people in this country. Normal democrats, especially moderate ones, love capitalism and how it made this country great. We just want a few more reasonable rules in the financial markets that you do, so it's not a free for all greed fest. The unwinding of Glass Steagal 12 years ago along with other deregulation is what caused this messed up economy.

Why can't you see that democrats love the capitalism? We just don't love the post 1999 brand of deregulated capitalism you espouse.

I just bought some potted herbs........ basil, oregano, thyme and rosemary. I repotted the rosemary to a bigger pot because it seemed big and the roots were growing out the bottom. I also repotted the basil cause it looked big too, but the roots weren't growing out the bottom yet. When repotting, a neighbor said I should mix up equal parts potting soil, peet moss and some soil from the plants that are doing well in my front for the new pots. I did that and used larger plastic pots. I put some stones and lava rocks on the bottom to help with drainage. I get 4 hours of direct sun on my porch in the morning and 4 hours of direct sun in my backyard. My questions are this....

1) Do they all need direct sun? If so how much? Would moving then from porch to backyard be a good idea if they need more than 4 hours of sun?

2) How often should I water them and when?

3) Do some of the herbs need different care?

4) Did I do anything wrong? Any other tips or advice?

5) Should I wait to prune the bottoms of the rosemary and basil?

Thanks!

According to Leviticus, he did. An agrarian society, the Jews in the Promised Land divided land equally among families. Land, of course, was the means of providing for oneself and one’s family. There was ownership, inheritance, private property. Some gained much wealth; some lost what they had.

But there was a remarkable (even radical, to modern minds) twist: every 50 years the land returned to its original owners. Every 50 years, every family had equal access to the means of producing wealth. Those who had gained much knew it was only for a time. Those who lost everything knew they’d get another try. No family would get too rich; none would get too poor. No dynasties; no underclass.

It is neither socialism nor capitalism (which are modern distinctions), but a mix of the benefits of ownership with limits for safety. Those limits prevent people from becoming either too rich or too poor (un-American, isn’t it!) But this will seem more familiar: it’s result would be a thriving middle class. Few would become rich and powerful; few would pass poverty through generations. For each family would have a relatively equal access to the means of producing wealth every fifty years.

Fellow Christians, do you think God would be OK if we did the same thing in the US? After all, it was right for His chosen people, why wouldn't it be right for us?

1) Muhammed Ali - Too fast and skillful for his size. In his prime from 1966-1968, none of the greats would beat him, though other skilled boxers with size such as a Larry Holmes or a Lennox Lewis would give him trouble.

2) Joe Louis - In his prime he beats most of the greats. He would not beat the likes of Riddick Bowe or Lennox Lewis, too big and fast.

3) Larry Holmes - In his prime from 1979 - 1981, he beats all the greats except Ali and Frazier.

4) Joe Frazier - Beats all the greats who had anything less than a great jab, great footwork and great chin.

5) Lennox Lewis - Too big for everyone except Ali. I think Foreman in his youthful prime beats him too.

6) Evander Hoylfield - From 1990-1992 he's right up there with the best of all time.

7) Rocky Marciano - He's too small and slow to deal with the large and fast heavyweight greats that came before him, but you gotta give it to a guy he went 49-0.

8) Jack Dempsey - Cut from the same cloth as Marciano, ruthless guy with a iron chin and big punch.

9) Jack Johnson - Super talent, but boring as hell to watch. Enough size and awkwardness to give a few of the modern greats some problems.

10) Mike Tyson - If you take the 1987 version, only Ali, Foreman, Holyfield, Lewis and Holmes can beat him.

Honorable Mention:

Gene Tunney

Sonny Liston

Ezzard Charles

Jersey Joe Walcott

Max Schmelling

Jim Jeffries

Ken Norton

Riddick Bowe

Klitschko Brothers

What say you?

A question for those who are knowledgeable in the principles of logic.

Say for example, a person says he believes cigarettes are evil and should be abolished along with the cigarette companies who make them. Then you come to find out this person works in the factory at Phillip Morris as a Quality Assurance inspector. Would you consider his employment at a cigarette company to be a contradiction to his belief? Does his employment constitute a form for support (whether willful or not) for cigarettes? If so, is he in essence violating The Law Of Contradiction by being for something he is against? If not, please explain.

I don't know about you, but Tesla's 5 seater has it all over the Volt.

Here's why:

1) It is completely electric with a 300 mile range.

2) The fueling cost breaks down to one cent per mile compared to seven cents per mile for the Volt.

3) Zero emissions because it burns no gasoline.

4) Fewer moving parts, less maintenance because it doesn't have a gasoline engine.

5) Though no performance specs are available, I find it hard to believe that the Volt will best the Tesla's 5.9 sec 0-60 mark.

6) The 5 seat Model S is roomier with more storage space.

To be fair, GM has Tesla beat in the area of having a proven track record of building cars and backing warranties. Also, even though I think the Tesla is superior, if you compare the Volt to the current Hybrids on the market, it is vastly superior and appears to be quite impressive for a big automaker who has been reluctant to pursue electric technology.

What do you think? Volt or Tesla?

I live in CA where I have owned my house for 22 years. It is in my name only. Same with all of my real property and cars. I have had a live-in GF for 10 years, we are not married. Her name is not on anything and we have bought nothing together. Is there still any chance of her getting part of my house, car, etc, in a lawsuit should we break up? There is no such thing as common law marriage in CA, but I still wonder.

Any lawyers out there? I'm hoping to avoid legal consultation fee.

I have owned my house for 22 years. It is in my name only. Same with all of my real property and cars. I have had a live-in GF for 10 years, we are not married. Her name is not on anything and we have bought nothing together. Is there still any chance of her getting part of my house, car, etc, in a lawsuit should we break up? I live in CA.

Any lawyers out there? I'm hoping to avoid legal consultation fee for something that seems to be a simple answer.

I have a dear friend who I have known for a very long time. Recently, we have been discussing politics. In some of these discussions, he has gotten worked up in an angry tone ranting about how we have become too PC as a society and we have given too many breaks to blacks and mexicans at the expensive of the taxpayer, etc. He feels that lower income mexican and blacks are bogging down our education system (he is a teacher) and that their cultures teach poor values (a disregard for hard work and education, combined with a desire for a free ride). In addition, he does not like Obama and has used personal and derogatory language such as Black C*ck Sucker and The F*cking Black Robin Hood" to describe him.

Now, I get why hardcore conservatives don't like Obama's policies and I don't disagree that some of our social programs have went too far and enabled people to become unproductive. In addition, I understand his frustration as a teacher because our education system is a mess, but his anger, language and tone about these subjects brought me to question him about having some possible race issues. Was I wrong to question him? He got offended and is upset that I did. He is so insulted that he wants to end our friendship.

So my question is, was I wrong to question my friend about having possible race issues? Should I have left it alone? I've never known him to speak this way before we started discussing politics. I didn't question him in an angry tone, nor did I mean any malice. Did I over-react?

I am curious to hear feedback from far right conservatives. Do you use this type of language and tone when arguing about politics and Obama?

I have a dear friend who I have known for a very long time. Recently, we have been discussing politics. In some of these discussions, he has gotten worked up in an angry tone ranting about how we have become too PC as a society and we have given too many breaks to blacks and mexicans at the expensive of the taxpayer, etc. He feels that lower income mexican and blacks are bogging down our education system (he is a teacher) and that their cultures teach poor values (a disregard for hard work and education, combined with a desire for a free ride). In addition, he does not like Obama and has used personal and derogatory language such as Black C*ck Sucker and The F*cking Black Robin Hood" to describe him.

Now, I get why conservatives don't like Obama's policies and I don't disagree that some of our social programs have went too far and enabled people to become unproductive. In addition, I understand his frustration as a teacher because our education system is a mess, but his anger, language and tone about these subjects brought me to question him about having some possible race issues. Was I wrong to question him? He got offended and is upset that I did. He is so insulted that he wants to end our friendship.

So my question is, was I wrong to question my friend about having possible race issues? Should I have left it alone? I've never known him to speak this way before we started discussing politics. I didn't question him in an angry tone, nor did I mean any malice. Did I over-react?

Before the Internet and when I was in HS, I remember hearing a story claiming how there was a first Statue of Liberty built by the French, but enroute to the US, it fell off the ship in the middle of the Atlantic during a storm. A second one was built, which is what is on Ellis Island today. I heard this story again from a different source. However, when I google, etc, I can't find any evidence of this story online.

Has anyone else heard this story? Is it true? Is it it folklore, rumor, old wives tale?

I'm mean no injury to them.

It's my wife's knees. She is 46 and 70lbs overweight. Obviously the weight is probably an issue, but it's odd both knees would do this. She has no real health issues and is not taking any medication other than an occasional pain pill for back pain. Both knees suddenly swelled up about a week ago. I thought maybe it's gout, but neither knee is warm to the touch. There's some pain, but the stiffness is more of an issue (she can't bend them very far). Her skin in the effected area feels weird too, really tight and elastic.

Any one have any ideas what this could be? She has been a bit fatigued over the last several weeks.

It's called Trojan.win32obfuscated.gx. A window keeps popping up asking me to order some anti-spyware, which I understand is a bad idea. I went into some forums and downloaded several recommended anti-spyware programs, nothing works. However, one forum did give me good intructions on how to locate the file that's causing the problem. I believe I found it.....it's called ausctv32a.dll and is in the windows folder. It's date and time stamped at the time I got the virus. The only problem is that it won't delete. An error message keeps coming up saying I have to close out of other progams to delete it. I've closed out of everything (that I know of), but it still won't delete. I went to change/remove programs in the control panel and it doesn't show up. I've rebooted, etc. Any suggestions on how to remove this?:

Obama is a Christian. Anyone who doesn��t know this by now is a fool and needs to check out...........http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp.

Why some people refuse to do 3 minutes of research to find out the truth is incredible. Instead, these fools will just buy into any old email rumor circulating on the Internet. Amazing.

For those that still want to believe this lie, can you offer even one shred of evidence from a reliable source such as a major newspaper or credible news source? Surely, if there was even a tiny shred or truth do this garbage, a conservative publication or conservative talk show host, political pundit, etc, would have come out with a quote somewhere. Where is it?

Where’s the proof?

A legal marriage is defined as a civil contract. It’s purpose is not to re-enforce vows, but only to establish rights of decision, and how property is to be dispersed when the marriage ends by a death or divorce.

So how is a legal marriage contract any more or less romantic than a Prenup? A prenup only defines the marriage contract with certain specifics, such as who gets exactly what and in what portion, should a marriage end.

If one partner objects to a prenup, , he/she should object to the marriage contract. They both represent the same unromantic topic of asset dispertion.

Those who want a true commitment based on romance should forgo both legal marriage and a prenup. Just have ceremony, right? All the stuff in a marriage contract can be done via a living trust and simple legal agreemen,t which a couple should have anyway.

Isn’t it true that the partner (usually the woman) only wants a state sanctioned marriage because of the financial benefit, should it ever end?

I’m sorry to burst everyone’s bubble of misconception, but men and women cannot have a legitimate friendship. Obviously, there are some exceptions to the rule (like one person being gay), but all of you who think you have a legitimate friendship with the opposite sex, do not.

Why? True friendship is a no strings attrached, honestly plutonic relationship with "no secret motives". In most of these so called “boy/girl friendships”, the guy secretly wants to bang the girl, while the girl uses him for things like free dinners, getaways, driving her to the clubs, etc ….and most important…. she uses him to satisfy her need for male attention. In this situation, the girl rarely has a serious boyfriend and when she gets one, she hardly ever calls her “guy friend” unless there's a break up or she's fighting with him.

The guy is usually clueless to this situation and is basically a DID... "dupe in denial".

Sound familiar? Do you disagree? If so why? Explain?

I have a friend who loves expensive sports cars (Porches, Ferraris, etc), but he can' t afford one. So from time to time he'll get dressed up in a nice suit, fake Rolex, go to an exotic car dealer and test drive a few. He tells them he's a commodity broker in the financial district, they buy it everytime.

Anyway, he decided to try this concept out on hot chicks and it works! He gets all decked out, trades a little overtime at work for use of his boss' Mercedes, and heads out to the clubs, where he makes his appearance as "Lance Simmons", commodity broker (no I'm not kidding!). Suffice to say, he's been known to take some of these fine ladys on a test drive (right to their place and he park's them on their beds). Next morning he's gone and never calls them. I've seen him do it a few times.

He would've never had a shot with girls like these before. He used to try and would get shot down everytime.

So, is this fair? Do you think these women are truly expecting anything more?