doG

Me thinks those rooftops might see more sun than wind....

It looks like you are determined not to learn anything about it either since you are more determined to point out things as wrong because you don't understand them instead of listening to why they seem to go against the things you think you know.

Or you could say they voted for mercy since death would be far less torture than what child rapists will face in prison or you could say the court ruled in favor of child rapists instead of their victims...

That still doesn't explain how you come up with the court being "Bush-packed"...

What has any of that got to do with the opinions of the justices on the court?

Bush-packed? With only 2 Bush nominees on the court that would seem to be a misrepresentation of the court's actual composition.

Which is it? The velocity of the flag pole relative to each of the cars is relative to it's own velocity with Earth and the relative velocity of each of the cars.

Yes but, if you want to ask a question as you did where you expect an answer that considers the rotation of the Earth then it matters whether it is n-s, e-w or some other direction.

Does this road run north-south, east-west, or on some other angle relative to the Earth's rotation? Me thinks you have not provided enough data to get the answer you are looking for.

Can people of faith, that are true to their faith, keep such issues separate and still be true to their faith? If a decision is a hair splitting issue should such a justice err on the side of faith or the rule of law? There are many cases where faith is an obstacle to rational thinking and rational thinking should take precedence on the highest bench in the land.

Well, the first example that comes to mind was the Roe v Wade case which was really a case about privacy, not abortion. If it happened again I would want the case decided on the merits of the privacy issue and not the underlying abortion issue which a majority of Catholics might give an elevated consideration to based on their pro-life beliefs. Not that they would, but they might. I am opposed to a majority of any faith on the court.

I would characterize it as too Catholic so I would have qualms about any further Catholic appointments from either of them...

I can do that as well. All I have to do is go to any thread you've started where people are still waiting for you to support your claims and I will find dozens of questions without answers.

A related news piece:

I think we'd all be better off with about a third of what we have now. We're not doing a good job at feeding what we have now or keeping them busy with productive lives.

Nothing derogatory intended. I was only looking for a term to describe someone which heroically strays from and evades the truth

How about Biggest Prevaricator

Is it too late for me to nominate Mike for the Most Unsupported Proclamations Award or something similar?

Why? They only generate revenue if we click on them. Are you saying we should feel guilty for not looking at them or for not looking at them and clicking on them?

Threads like this let me know that my adblock extension is doing a fine job. I don't see any ads on the site on any page

Mike, I think you really need to work on getting your work published. Perhaps Baen would be interested...

And you're claiming that joule·seconds divided by mass is a length?

I realize that. I was simply pointing out that another way of expressing it is as a product of energy and time and dividing that product by mass does not yield a length. It was not my intent to argue over which is the best expression or not. It's just another way of illustrating how absurd Mike's claim is.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/PlancksConstant.html

Planck's constant can also be expressed in joule·seconds but you still end up with the same problem, joule·seconds over mass still is not a length. This thread really doesn't even fit under pseudoscience, it's more like anti-science.