?

I own an Acer Aspire that took a flight and had an emergency landing. Now the LCD is cracked and I am looking at getting a replacement, but I also have another netbook (Dell Insperon 910) that no longer functions due to a bad hard drive, but the screen runs perfect. I've disassembled both displays (the warranty of my Acer didn't cover this damage and doesn't cover it now anyway) and have run into a roadblock, the data cable of the Acer is 2mm too wide to fit into the Dell's LCD data input port. (I'm writing this on an external screen). So, given that I already have a functioning screen that would physically fit into my now empty screen housing, is it possible to wire this LCD into my Acer? While I'm not so familiar with the electronics I know that gadget producers must design electronics to meet digital constraints so their applicanes may work with a variety of platforms, and as such it is more likely than not that if wired properly, this LCD will work just fine with my netbook.

I've googled this and can't find anyone who's done it. Everyone buys a new screen made for this laptop. Has anyone gerry-rigged theirs unconventionally before?

Because I am trying to look up help for a quest and his name has 4 or 5 As in it and is kept secret on the interwebs. Anyone know it right off because I can't find it.

Am I to understand that these sentiments are relatively mainstream?

"If you reject Yahweh and his son Jesus Christ, you will be forced to publicly confess Jesus (Phil 2:11) immediately prior to being cast into the lake of fire, where you will spend eternity with Satan and his demons – tormented day and night -- forever and ever -- in darkness -- with shame and regret.

… Our Lord does not care if you are a good person. His only concern on that day will be whether or not you accepted His son."

This was sent to a good friend of mine but I get this all the time myself, mostly from religious relatives. Am I to understand that good people will go to hell while sinners who hide behind the Church like some I know will go to heaven?

Consider for one moment that a State or group of States of these United States of America were to officially announce that the current system of government is destroying the State with overwhelming debt. The State cannot afford to fund excessive government stimulus and entitlement programs and the citizens are in an uproar over both the ongoing financial crisis and the overreaching government that turned out not to be a solution. The overreaching government is the problem.

Your state secedes from the Union in accordance with the will of a majority of it's citizens.

What do you yourself do? Are you still loyal to your State or will you leave for a home back within the jurisdiction of the US Federal Government. Where do your loyalties lie?

I'm a right winger and I know the Democrats that have supported Obama's unconstitutional policies deserve the boot, but why should we re-admit Bush-era Republicans to DC? The same people who gave us in $10 trillion gift wrap, two endless wars and increased wasteful entitlement programs and public spending projects, the American gestapo we call DHS, unwarranted spying, and so on want back in. If we will "remember in November" surely we can remember November 2000 and the false promises of those who want back into DC today?

My internet activity, my library record, my hobbies, my car make and model, my income, my whereabouts 24/7, my friends, my family, my whereabouts internationally, WHY does the government need to know everything about me when it hides itself behind "national security"?

I consider myself to be a conservative-leaning realist when I say that Arizona has every right to defend its sovereignty, on behalf of and not against the will of the people, from threats, be they foreign or domestic. 1070 shows bold resolve to defend Arizona from the economic and social burden of illegal immigration, as in an economic burden on the citizens of Arizona and an economic bonus for the corporations that control the DC government.

I do not believe 1070 is constitutional or rational for several reasons. Reason number one, it is the natural right of every person, not every "citizen", but every PERSON, to peacefully travel. Every person has the right to life, and to be alive you must exist, and to exist you must be located somewhere, and since motion is inherent in life you are always "traveling" from location to location, be they 10mm or 10 miles apart, thus you have a natural, "God-given" right to travel. "Papers, please" policies, which include mandatory possession of ID ready for inspection and DUI or drug checkpoints, are blatant violations of the right to unimpeded travel.

Now some will already have their axes out to cut off my head. Will the rational people here please restrain them so I may finish.

My second reason for opposing 1070 is this is not a solution. 1070 allows the State Government to crack down on illegals. The illegals are not the problem, they are the SYMPTOM.

The causes of illegal immigration include the unfair trade agreements, especially NAFTA and GATT, that flooded Latin America with subsidized farm produce, thereby destroying the local agricultural industries and forcing millions of Latinos to march north to find work.

Entitlement programs are another cause of illegal immigration, for someone who can jump the fence and pop out a kid can get a free ride and get a free ride for the child as well. Absent all emotional rants, that is the way it is.

SO, how can Arizona protect it's sovereignty from illegal immigration? Federal mandates and subsidies caused the problem, and only the nullification of Federal mandates and subsidies can end it. This may be done in two ways: one, the laws are repealed; two, the contract between Arizona and the United States is repealed. Arizona is bound to the Union voluntarily as long as the Union protects Arizona and her peoples' freedoms; when this agreement is not fulfilled, Arizona has the right to secede and arrange a new central government that will effectively protect the liberties of the people, including the right to travel peacefully without unwarranted searches and seizures. Yes, I said it, Arizona may secede.

How would this be good for Arizona? If I could list the reasons, I would include the following: the Federal mandates that encourage illegal immigration would be null and void; Arizona could nullify all subsidies that ensnare farmers of plant and livestock alike to serve major food corporations like Monsanto and Smithfield (watch "Food Inc."); Arizona could ban Monsanto's GMOs from the state and not be bound to the will of ex-Monsanto corporate officers in the FDA pretending that GMOs have a positive effect on the world; Arizona citizens would (still) not have to pay Federal Income taxes and fund illegal wars overseas; Arizona's troops could FINALLY come home; Arizona would not be bound to pay for the US Federal Debt (for those of you who decry Obama's adventurous spending, I hope I now have your attention); Arizona could eliminate government entitlement programs that are more akin to buy-off programs; ARIZONA COULD NULLIFY POLITICAL PARTIES!

Those, especially that last one (God forbid we have to vote for a candidate based on his POLICY rather than his color, red, white, black, or blue!), should do for now.

How can 1070 work when it is a violation of the human right to travel peacefully (this does not include drug-smugglers or individuals who have appeared in the news assaulting rural farmers)? How can a band-aid on an infected wound be expected to cure the infection? Do we not have to strike the infection at the source, the incentive, the infection of unConstitutional legislation, and not at the scab or pus of the wound?

Because a news article in the States will say a "Muslim" woman killed her daughter or a "Muslim" man did this or that. Is religion relevant in any sense or are we being conditioned to associate "Muslim" with criminal (or terrorist) nature by the corporate-owned-and-filtered news agencies?

http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=...

Apparently a police officer cannot be recorded "without his consent." On the other hand we INNOCENT-until-proven-guilty citizens are recorded day in and day out, when we go to the store, to the bank, to the ATM, to school, to work, to the cafe for coffee, and to the burger joint for lunch! Did we consent to these recordings? No!

If I am caught on tape mugging someone, can I simply say, "I did not consent to that recording," and be acquitted for lack of evidence?

It's not possible to be a "Christian nation" and also be a free country, for national religion in itself is a form of suppression and indoctrination. SO are we really a free country of many people and many religions or are we a "Christian nation" that hates religions like Islam with a passion...unconditionally, something that is against the very teachings of Christ.

LIBERTYPOST.ORG - Muslim Mother Who Strangled Daughter Won't Be Jailed, Judge Rules

Magomadova was acquitted by LoVecchio in October of second-degree murder and found her guilty of manslaughter in the death of 14-year-old Aminat. The judge placed her on probation for three years with several conditions, including taking counseling for grief, depression and anger management, the Vancouver Sun reports.

READ MORE: http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=...

OH, WAIT, so she "won't be jailed." If you read the article, you'd know her 2nd degree murder charge was replaced by a Manslaughter charge, and the counseling suggests it was a result of her mental imbalance being addressed rather than assuming she thought out and planned, in good conscience, the murder of her daughter.

Your thoughts on this and why people try to associate this with "mainstream" Islam? Are we being made to hate Muslims unconditionally by those who filter our news? (yes the title of the question was intended to incite thought and if you got this far you may be confused. Give the question another read.)

Throughout history the US Army has composed mostly of Southerners - the military tradition runs deep. The Virginian regiments were the most successful of the Continental Army during the first Revolution, the Texans fought alone for their independence from Mexico and defeated Santa Anna despite the overwhelming odds, the majority of the Army joined the South in the Civil War years later (as again, most of it was Southern), and the Southern men, once again, re-enlisted when their country called in the First and Second World War. Even today the Army is full of Southerners.

So if the Southern men have always fought for American freedom, how are they evil and hateful racists, as described by the people comfortably not in the middle of a war zone created to "defend American freedom?"

So the Feds filed suit against Arizona claiming the law is unConstitutional.

http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=...

The Constitution is a contract, between the people, the States and the Government. A violation of contract voids it. Therefore, due to the enacting of unConstitutional legislation like the Patriot Act (blatant violation of the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment protections) and Obamacare (no authority given to the Federal Government to require the citizenry to purchase a product) and the creating of unConstitutional wars overseas (without official declarations of war as required by the Constitution), the contract we call the Constitution of the United States of America is made null and void.

Therefore, the Federal government cannot have jurisdiction in this case, claiming not only that it has power over Arizona but also that it has authority granted to it by the very same Constitution it has voided?

Your thoughts:

Or all they all just the herding of the sheeple?

All those who don't read the below or uncontrollably wish to spit Civil War sound bytes need not answer.

"I pledge allegiance

To the Flag

Of the United States of America

And to the Republic

For which it Stands

One Nation

Indivisible

With Liberty and Justice for All"

This is probably one of the least scrutinized forms of "patriotism" we have today in our 50 United States. How many of you know anything about your Pledge or what "for which it stands"?

"Under God" is omitted here because it was not introduced until 1954 and thus cannot be a part of the "original" pledge (from 1892, by Francis Bellamy, a Christian Socialist who wanted the government to rule the economy using the strategies laid out by the Military Industrial Complex), even if people still run around upholding that by saying "preserve the original pledge."

SO LETS LOOK AT IT.

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America"

That means you pledge your life, your liberty, and your property to...a political union? "The United States of America", absent fascist or statist propaganda, is a political union. The greatness of a country is not found in flamboyant banners or patriotic jingles, it is found in the greatness of each individual citizen, each town and each city thriving in freedom. Swearing allegiance to central political unions allows for the growth of Empires and the death of the sovereign individuals and families that made the country great in the first place. By swearing allegiance to a central power, be it a King or a Congress, you betray your home and your roots, no?

"And to the Republic, for which it stands"

We do not stand for government, government stands for US. We do not serve government, government serves US. I do not find it ironic that an avowed Socialist thought inverting the roles of the ruling people and the servant government was a good idea. Socialism and Communism require as a rule servant people and ruling government.

"One Nation, Indivisible"

This is treason. We are 50 States. Fifty independent states that joined the Union voluntarily. As much as it is the right of a State to elect to join the Union, it is a right of the State to elect to leave the Union and only a fascist or dictator would say otherwise. In the Constitution neither is the power for the Federal Government granted to fight secession nor is the right of a State to secede barred. Therefore, a State may come or go as it pleases. "Indivisible" pretends otherwise and suggests we are a forced Union, unable to leave if that Union threatens liberty. There is no liberty in forced Union.

Again, we are 50 states, 50 little countries just as independent and diverse as, in theory, the many nations of Europe or those of Africa.

Anyone who disagrees with the right of a State to secede should re-read the Declaration of Independence: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." --Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

"With Liberty and Justice for All"

There is nothing I know of that is wrong with this statement. This was a founding principle of the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Let it further be noted that the only other country I know that has a "pledge" is the UK, and that is "God Save the King." I'll let you imagine what that one teaches kids about the sovereignty of the people.

SO, is this seemingly innocent phrase we used to say every morning in fact undermining our very liberty by giving us the impression we are a Union, not a free country, and we serve the government rather than the government serves us?

http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=...

When proposed with the building of a mosque in Tennessee, the locals protested because they didn't want a "terrorist training facility" in their town.

SO, government propaganda absent, why do Americans unconditionally hate Muslims?

Why do people think Muslims are all terrorists? Lets be realistic, the Muslims fighting our troops in Iraq are fighting to drive out a foreign invader. They've done this with every foreign invader since the Crusades in Palestine during the Middle Ages. Nothing has changed with their resolve to defend their own homes. If you disagree with that ask yourself if you would open fire on Chinese soldiers marching down Main Street. Try not to be hypocritical.

I don't believe the "religion of peace" theory, Islam is just a religion. Like any religion, it's members will fight to defend their own. No matter how self-righteous you may feel, American forces conquered Iraq allegedly to liberate the Iraqi people from the dictator (that we, through the CIA, put in power decades before), yet never left Iraq when he was gone and eventually captured. We stay there allegedly to keep the peace but the reason for the violence is our presence. They don't want us there and they are fighting us to end our occupation.

The Bush era falsehoods that Muslims hate us for our freedom hold no water and only one who has not studied 9/11 still believes it was a Muslim plot to destroy the United States.

SO why do Americans hate Muslims so much?

Lets face it:

Neo-Conservative Administrations just ignore the Constitution.

Liberal Administrations pretend the Constitution is a fluid document, that "yes" sometimes means "no" when it is convenient.

Clearly the Constitution needs replacing. What shall we do to "bring it into the 21st Century"?

Some suggestions I've heard:

* Remove gun rights (you peasants just can't be trusted with them, only the Officers of the Enlightened One get those

* Eliminate the Tenth Amendment (if the Federal government wants more power we can't have THAT limit them)

* Declare that all rights of the people come from the revised bill of rights (and replace all instances of "unalienable rights" with "granted rights" so any rights we don't deserve can be taken away with the stroke of a pen)

* Police the Internet (Communist China's got that down real good, we should follow their example)

* Establish military tribunals for all (justice is inefficient!)

* Regulate anything that moves

* Tax anything that doesn't

Any other suggestions?

When all the unConstitutional policies of the Bush Administration that Obama endorsed and continued to use come back to bite him when voters see him for what he was, a fraud just like the white guy before him, will he continue to blame his failures on Bush?

Oil spill aside, as there has been no investigation to determine whether that was an accident or not, BP is dumping erroneous amounts of Corexit 9500, a substance 4x more deadly than oil which changes state and joins water vapor to form toxic clouds and thus toxic rain that is currently raining all over the Southern United States. The oil burning is also releasing astounding amounts of toxins into the atmosphere that are also raining down on places like my home in Florida. The oil spill will spell doom for millions and millions of good people who live on the coast of the Gulf and even the east coast of Florida, many of which will take their own lives as some of the big shrimp kings in Louisiana have taken the liberty of doing.

SO, since BP has launched a major attack against us, would it not be prudent to, say, fire a couple cruise missile back at them? Sink a few of their (empty) tankers, maybe? Shoot down a few of their Corexit dumping planes before they can rain poison on us? I mean, we're being pummeled down here, shouldn't we shoot back?

And after we freeze and seize BP assets and remove all memory of its existence we can maybe clean this spill up using the Coast Guard, Navy, and foreign aid resources that BP has been BLOCKING from aiding in the cleanup?