?

I have a "green" or "smart" powerstrip. I have a networked printer that I can plug into it so it gets "unplugged" whenever my computer turns off. It's extremely rare that anybody uses it when my computer isn't on, so that's not a concern.

Left plugged in, the printer costs something like $10 a year in electric bills. I'm curious if anybody knows if having it cycle on/off because of the power being cut off when my computer goes to sleep will shorten its life.

Please include any links to articles or information on your answer if at all possible.

A relative got a red light ticket in Santa Cruz county. If she goes in to fight it are they going to charge additional fees for going in to court?

Now that the jerk public employees are sucking down so much of our tax money to fund their pensions state governments are charging us for stuff that should be covered by our property taxes and the state legislature let local municipalities tack tons of "fees" on top of base tickets to prop up their budgets, so I'm wondering if they're not charging some BS fee for physically going in?

I saw that in the requirements for the PC version of Batman: Arkham Asylum GOTY, which I'm probably not going to get because it has that evil SecurRom copy protection that infests your computer. Anyway, I'm familiar with what the Nvidia 6600 is, but what does the SM3 mean?

If a person is here illegally, should they be getting welfare, free food in schools, free non-emergency medical care, etc.? Or should they be sent to the country they have citizenship if they cannot support themselves here and those resources used for poor citizens? If they should stay, then why?

"It's right" and "It'd be mean." are useless emotionally based argument of no real help. Please be logical and descriptive for the benefit of people who may not agree with what you're saying without some kind of proof or argument to back your statements up.

If the person is a non-native child of an illegal immigrant who has grown up here, why is it wrong for us as a country to deport them just because their parents put them in the situation of being here and not growing up there? Why consider their circumstances in preference over a sick child in a country that we could take in instead; while they've enjoyed the benefits of our health and education system illegally for years and the sick child in the other country has illegitimately taken support from us?

Please Note: This is NOT including people being FORCED into servitude. I'm referring to people that are here of their free will and have the means or could be given the means to transport themselves back to their country of origin (e.g. leaving themselves or deportation). In the case of children, their parents being able to make that choice for them as their legal guardians.

"MSNBC.com reported that “Byrd’s success on the national stage came despite a complicated history on racial matters. As a young man, we was a member of the Ku Klux Klan for a brief period, and he joined Southern Democrats in an unsuccessful filibuster against the landmark 1964 Civil Rights.” - Reporting on Democratic Senator Byrd.

And a little time line...

In 1854, Democrats pass the Kansas-Nebraska act, opening up those territories to slavery, thus exceeding even the limits of the Missouri Compromise.

In 1854, the Republican party is formed to end slavery. Six of the nine planks in their fledgling platform statement deal with civil rights issues.

In 1861, Abraham Lincoln is inaugurated, and the anti-slavery Republican Party now controls the Executive Branch. The Democrat Party, in complete control of the South, splits the nation asunder and causes a war in order to maintain slavery. Innumerable horrors and 650,000 deaths are required to free the slaves and restore the union.

In 1865, Republicans pass the 13th Amendment, ending slavery.

100% of Republicans vote for it.

Even among northern Democrats, it receives the support of only 23%.

In spite of the 13th Amendment, Southern Democrats continue to deny blacks their citizenship rights, so...

In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed, establishing citizenship and equal protection for all in Federal law.

100% of Republicans vote for it.

0% of Democrats vote for it.

In spite of the 14th Amendment, Southern Democrats continue to prevent blacks from enjoying the real fruits of this citizenship, especially the right to vote, so...

In 1869, the 15th Amendment is passed, establishing the right to vote for all people, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

98% of Republicans vote for it.

3% of Democrats vote for it.

In 1892, Democrats take control of the White House and the Senate, and they keep control of the House. They immediately begin establishing Jim Crow laws and repealing all civil rights legislation passed by the Republicans. Any laws or amendments they cannot repeal, they skirt with poll taxes and literacy tests.

Beginning after the War, and thenceforward until 1935, ALL blacks elected to Congress are Republicans. In addition to those elected to Federal office, hundreds of blacks—all of them Republicans—are elected to state legislatures in the South.

In 1866, Democrats form the KKK with the express purpose of preventing the election of Republicans in the South. Democrats admit—under oath in Congressional hearings in 1872—that the Klan is a Democrat creation intended to restore Democrat control of the South. The Klan carries out this plan by means of a series of massacres at Republican Party meetings.

In the 1920s, Republicans propose anti-lynching legislation. The legislation passes the house but is killed by the Democrat-controlled Senate.

In 1947, Republican businessman Branch Rickey, owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers, hires Jackie Robinson (also a Republican), thus integrating Major League Baseball.

In 1954, Republican Chief Justice Earl Warren (appointed by Republican Dwight Eisenhower) authors the desegregation decision of Brown v. Board of Education.

In 1956, Democrats express their opposition to Brown v. Board of Education in the "Southern Manifesto." One hundred and one members of Congress—all but four of them Democrats—sign the manifesto.

In 1957, Republican President Eisenhower authors a Civil Rights Bill, hoping to repair the damage done to blacks and their civil rights by Democrats since 1892. Passage of the bill is blocked by Senate Democrats. When the bill finally goes through, it is significantly weakened due to lack of support from Democrats.

In 1960, Republican Senator Everett Dirksen authors a Voting Rights Bill, again, in an effort to undo the disenfranchisement of blacks by Democrats through poll taxes, literacy tests, and threats of violence by the KKK. And once again, Senate Democrats attempt (though in the end unsuccessfully) to block passage of the bill.

In 1964, Congress passes, and President Lyndon Johnson signs into law, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is essentially the law originally authored by Eisenhower in 1957. Democrats, including still-serving Senator Robert Byrd (a former KKK member), employ a filibuster of the bill. Once the filibuster is overcome, a larger percentage of Republicans vote for passage than do Democrats.

In 1965, Congress passes, and President Lyndon Johnson signs into law, the Voting Rights Act of 1964. This is the law originally authored by Eisenhower in 1959. A filibuster is prevented, and passage of this bill also enjoys support from a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/republicans-...

So I don't get it, why are Republicans considered to hate minorities?

I understand the economy is down right now, but they've extended unemployment to 99 weeks now, with more extensions possible. The idea behind unemployment is you pay in and your employer pays in and then if you're in between jobs you get some money to carry you over. However, it's way past what can be considered temporary cash to get by so shouldn't they just stop extending it and the people with no money go on welfare at this point?

Why should somebody here illegally get in state tuition in California, while a military service member stationed here can't because they haven't had residency long enough? Why should we be helping pay their tuition assist them in getting a path to citizenship (w/ the DREAM act) over people waiting outside the country? Why any social services at all aside from offering a bus/plane ticket back to the country they are a citizen of? Shouldn't they go back to where they are citizens and entitled to services?

Anyway, am interested in any point of view making a good point why we should care. I'm not interested in the pointless "you're racist!" or "it's right!" with no explanation why it would be.

I've so far not heard a really good argument on this. I'd be really interested in opinions. Please be specific and defend your reasoning and don't say "It wouldn't happen!" I'm not curious about how often something might happen, just if it logically could be allowed to be marriage. Also, please nobody get into name calling, insults, etc.

Marriage is defined as a union of two people of opposite sexes. If the "opposite" part is arbitrary and subject to people's feelings for each other. Why is the "two" portion sacrosanct? I always hear it just stated as a given that this is the case, but then it's always dismissed and nobody backs up the argument. If you do successfully conclude how/why it'd be limited to two people, then how about two of age siblings? Would that be OK since "unrelated" is also arbitrary and subject to feelings?

I'm just thinking, if the argument is love and feelings for each other, instead of traditional definition, how does one deny the wishes of consenting adults to enter into any relationship they want and have it be considered marriage with all the benefits?

Thanks.