Daniel

Why should the responsibilities of a company to it's employees change according to the beliefs of the owner?

That's all. I'm looking at one to buy but it's kind of off the table if I need to pay for premium gas on top of what is likely more expensive repairs.

I've got a vizio tv, less than a year old with two HDMI outputs in the back.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/iBUYPOWER+-+Desktop+-+...

That is the rig I bought.

I insert the HDMI cable correctly and power up both devices, but I get nothing for audio or visual. I tried reseating the graphics card, but nothing new happened. The wiring looks right, but I've never been great with PC hardware, hence why I bought a machine rather than built one.

Please, do not say something obvious like switch the input. I'm not a moron, I've just never done this before.

I make the connection from the video card to the tv via hdmi cable and set the input on the tv, but I don't get any picture when I turn the computer on. It's like the connection isn't right or maybe there's an issue with how the vid card is seated. Really, I just want to know if there's something obvious I missed.

I'm fairly convinced that the argument that these organizations who exist primarily to influence politics do not in fact reach the criteria to qualify for a 501(c)(4).

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopici03.pdf

Can you prove to me that all these organizations exist to promote social welfare? Can you prove to me that all these organizations are an association of employees? I mean, it's a cynical and broad look to say that all these political ads are for social welfare.

I'm getting a new PC, a non-wi-fi desktop, and there's about 60~ GBs of data I need to transfer from the old one, a wi-fi capable laptop. Could I connect an ethernet wire to one of the extra jacks on my wi-fi router and use the network to transfer the files?

We have maximum security facilities and a functional criminal justice system. What is wrong with letting either our system or the international court actually give these people a trial, let the innocent ones go home? Don't delude yourself, there are innocent people being detained at Gitmo, a few very unlucky ones for more than a decade. If you've held someone for more than a decade, suffice it to say, you know every single damn thing about them, including if they are a terrorist.

I never hear anyone arguing for knives the same way people argue for guns. Is this because the gun manufacturers have better lobbyists?

Also, don't get me wrong, I'm not for banning any form of firearm. I do, like most people in the U.S. support mandatory background checks.

Now, it's my understanding that you are worried about the government trying to take away your guns. However, it's also my understanding that you think the government is incredibly incompetent at pretty much anything it tries to do. If the government is so incompetent, why are you afraid of them?

Expounding on that, even if they could get all police officers, there is a massive amount of guns in the U.S. Every agency even somewhat related to law enforcement would have to be involved, maybe even with military help. Now, I'm more than passingly familiar with a lot of cops(my father is a cop). He would follow no such order and neither would most of his friends. There isn't the support structure there to do a mass gun confiscation.

This game of politics in the U.S. merely distracts us. It's become a national sport for people who fancy themselves smarter than the average. Arguing between ourselves when it's patently obvious that both parties have been bought gets us nowhere. You can vote however you want, but the same people still call the shots and write the bills. See through this false dichotomy of democrat and republican and demand some real choices in government.

I offered a differing opinion and this little *** promptly blocked me. Just thought you all should know that this "brave" conservative doesn't have the courage to defend his/her beliefs.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

Please, bear with the article. From what it says though, the only presidential candidate who was any kind of different from the others was Ron Paul. All the rest of them might as well be the same person. Democrat, Republican, it all has no meaning in this election. Conservative and liberal still have meaning, but liberals, like myself, should realize that it's entirely pointless to support the democratic party and especially Obama. He does not represent what you believe in, especially not economically though the occasional social bill goes through like repealing DADT.

You can't ask a serious question without having talking points parroted at you incessantly, which, while an interesting study of the occasional hive mind like qualities of politics, hardly makes a good discussion.