J.C.MacSwell

Okay. Thanks Zap. I have to go but will try to reply tomorrow.

I'm not certain what you are asking. Who are the impoverished that the Democrats have sacrificed? Who are the deserving of pity Democrats that have been sacrificed? Something else? honest questions

Not in the same sacrificial sense.

I understood that. And don't disagree. Rich Democrats that tow the party line...for starters

By the Democrats as pawns...and ignoring that poverty is by far the greatest factor...

Most recently and most obviously Maxine Waters. Pelosi might seem less overly disappointing, given her track record.

I'm not sure if this statement is true or false. I do think they align more with Democrat values, and I think that's a good thing. Based on that, maybe it's just that the integrity of the Democrats most featured in the news seems overly disappointing.

That may be true, but you can always ask. They might surprise you with some good advice or guidance.

If you had liquid hydrogen in outer space, you could configure it's evaporation to produce thrust, if that is what you are asking. It would not be a very efficient use of the "fuel" but with no oxygen available it might be the best "McGiver" available. It's not free lunch, the entropy of your system increases. You still have the latent heat of fusion to work with, as a source of energy. Just make sure to save some of the hydrogen snowballs produced...throwing them might give you more thrust.

+1 for the effort but any discrepancy in the scale readings from what they would be due to simple calculations of Newton's laws will no doubt be due to the idiosyncrasies of the scale, assuming the test was otherwise accurately performed. In both cases described it should drop...after it rises first. You simply cannot elevate from rest without some force acting with greater force than your weight, nor lower from rest without the net force being lower. Either would violate conservation of momentum.

In "theory", that's dependant on favourable business conditions. You force unemployment on many who would not have moved on otherwise and they are scooped up by better options. In "practice" you can also create a situation where you have businesses folding and a local economy collapsing like a house of cards, creating less incentive for any replacement start ups. Edit:That's referring to what I bolded at the bottom of Ten Oz's post.

No. But being in different geographical areas does make for different markets for that food, and along with other factors the ability to pay for that labour. If you're paying attention, it does and it doesn't. Even "successful" unions, that allow the company to remain competitive, can limit available jobs to some extent to the advantage of their members. Good luck unionizing a company that doesn't have a natural (or otherwise) advantage to exploit, and then maximizing wages.

About 90% of those on death row use all available appeals they are allowed. That indicates to me they would prefer to be off of it and stay alive. Whether that means they would actually suffer less is another thing entirely.

Agree. For most I suspect it might alleviate some suffering though.

At the very least, capital punishment should require guilty beyond any doubt, not just reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors. That would keep many innocent people off of death row.