"Do you or anyone else know how many minutes it is (prior to the 1:25 p.m. landing at Edwards) the shuttle breaks the sound barrier and we'll hear the sonic boom?"

The boom isn't because it is breaking a barrier...it is because it is already moving faster than sound and the shockwave from it's passing has intersected with your location on the ground.

Once the velocity falls below sonic speeds, no sonic boom.

congrats Phillies...if it couldn't be my Red Sox then I'm OK with this outcome!

Well, I guess I have found the one advantage I have to being a single father not in any sort of relationship at the present. I have absolutely no one pressuring me to go and get snipped...so the only thing that I have to worry about in that direction is that they might atrophy from the lack of use.

"well I tell you what

right now I wouldnt care what the sex was called..........."

Well for once I find myself in total agreement with BL2. Miracles happen.

LISA!!!! Glad to see you!!!

"And the historical consensus is that Jesus did live, die and raise from the dead."

I challenge you to provide one single non-biblical contemporary reference to Jesus of Nazareth even existing, not to mention being resurrected. I am a former ministerial student in an evangelical church and can tell you that there is none. There is no neutral historical consensus other than that the story of the resurrection and other miracles are all myth.

There is more evidence for the existence of King Midas than there is for Jesus...Midas' remains have even been found and very clearly the story that his touch turned everything to gold is just a legend.

Much of the story of Jesus resembles other myths, such as the pagan god Tammuz, worshiped by some Israelites in northern Israel. Tammuz was born to the virgin Myrrha and called Adon ("Lord") by his followers. There are also elements of the sun god, Osiris, worshipped by the Egyptians.

Great piece on this topic here :

"Your excerpt validifies my point regarding the similarities between religious groups and groups like AARP - what's good for the goose and all that."

Jeff :

This isn't really a good comparison. AARP is a more complex organization than the typical church and I don't beleive that they are a 501(c)(3), though I may be wrong. The parent organization is an advocacy group; there is a charitable foundation as well as a for profit business. Each of these organizations are under the AARP umbrella but seperate legal entities.

A church can advocate as much as they want, there is no restriction on their speech at all. In order to qualify for tax exempt status, which is special, they have to follow certain rules. If they don't want to follow the rules, they'll pay taxes. The rules are laid out for anyone to see and they shouldn't be crying foul when they know them right up front. Tax the churches for all I care, frankly.

"Wright is a detractor of all whites. He declares them to be Devils and incapable of reform. Rev. Wright applauded the deaths of some 3000 Americans on 9/11 as deserved, and he cries for the damnation of "all" white Americans. The black liberation theology primer that reiterates this thesis has long been promoted for sale in the Chruch with its revised editions, continuing to advocate bad ends for whites, and black preference and privilege."

----

Why don't you provide full, in context, quotes for the above? You can take some one liners out of context to justify these claims but the fact is that you are wrong.

I wonder how many people would be voting for McCain if they realized that he would elminate the exclusion from taxable income we currently have for health benefits.

""Does anyone still read the excessively long and usually racist rants of Johnson???"

No. I have named the scroll wheel on my mouse after him."

So you have a spinning Johnson....

Now that's a talent...

"If abortion were illegal, the punishment could reside on the doctor performing the illegal operation instead of the woman. There, "problem" (as in fake dilemma designed to stifle debate on the subject) solved."

No, it's not solved. In fact you'd open a whole legal dilemma for women who had miscarriages...was it REALLY a miscarriage or did she get her hands on RU-86. Did the doctor perform the D & C for legitimate therapeutic reasons or was it a secret abortion? Was the fetus actually dead before the doctor did a late term abortion to remove it? Was the mother's life really in danger?

I understand what you are saying about the fact that illegal behavior will still continue and that doesn't mean we should condone it. But don't minimize the implications of making abortion illegal, these side issues are real and serious legal landmines that would occur in real life.

That's why "safe, legal...and rare" is a good position for people who are pro choice and pro life.

"Don't you just hate sound-bite politics?
Selectively edit to the point of misrepresenting what has been said.
It's stupid."

Yes, I despise it and it has become the norm. From my perspective that seems to be the vast majority of what we get from the other side. One misspoken sentence and you have a whole blizzard of attacks.

"The issue can be settled easily by not referring to miscarriages as abortions. Not a difficult concept."

Yes it is. Because if you outlaw abortion then each miscarriage becomes suspect. A woman could conceivably be required to defend herself and show that the miscarriage was unintentional or she could be convicted of murder. She would have to defend herself against allegations that she didn't do everything she could do to prevent the miscarriage or she could be found guilty of (at least) child neglect or perhaps even manslaughter if her lifestyle wasn't so great.

Do you think we should go there?

"So when does possible President Obama think human rights begins? Or does it not matter as POTUS?"

I don't know. I don't think it matters in the big scheme, either. It's a philosophical question, frankly. My --- guess ---- would be at the point of viability. Others may differ.

So far as I'm concerned abortion is about 1,000th on my list of issues. I'd like to see fewer of them, outlawing it is pointless and wrong, and the fact of the matter is that we had less under Clinton than under Bush or even Reagan. Go figure.

"I never understood why this was considered a "gaffe" or whatever. I immediately understood it to mean simply that the question is so metaphysical and theological in nature that it is beyond the capabilities of a human to give "the" correct answer."

And the people harping on this statement either didn't listen to the entire interview or are intentionally quoting out of context. He made his views very clear during the interview and they were well thought out and reasonable. I watched the entire thing and he did well.