I can totally see why they want to keep her Pentacostalism under wraps...it gives most Catholics the willies.

Remind me again, what religion do most hispanics (the fastest growing demographic) practice?

There's a pret-ty big wedge issue to exploit if they were so inclined....just sayin'

p.s. to FranCB - I've gotten that"Catholics aren't Christians"line numerous times as well...I always found it funny. When I ask them why I'm not Christian they usually reply "you need to be born again to be Christian" which of course leaves me with the killer reply "no thanks, I got it right the first time". Kills 'em every time :)

When I ask them why I'm not Christian they usually reply "you need to be born again to be Christian" which of course leaves me with the killer reply "no thanks, I got it right the first time".

Mom would never go for it anyway.

No fair, you should've warned me not to read that post with a full mouth of coffee!

*wipes coffee off computer screen*

cheers!

So, exactly why does this story matter.

I went with a friend in the 80's when I was about 9 to a Pentecostal summer camp in East Texas. No one in my family really knew what Pentecostal was at the time, other than just "Christian". That is, until i came home at the end of the summer screaming and crying in Hysterics because my whole family was going to burn in hell for eternity due to "improper" baptisms. I draw the line on religions that insist that their proper brand of Jesus is the only genuine brand, while all others will be tortured for eternity due to their inaccurate interpretation of the fine points. That's fear mongering, plain and simple, and fear should not have such a dominant place in spirituality. In government, why not, but not in spirituality.

A 30 second PSA I just did in iMovie. Pay it forward.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUWLIsK7s0g

You guys kill me. What a stupid article. Where's the article and your concern about Obama's church, and what was preached there. I would have to say based on ACTUAL VIDEO there was some pretty extreme views being preached to a congregation. Where's your video of the preacher in Palin's church, are we just suppose to believe you, a Liberal writer who writes about their political beliefs and feeds it to liberal bloggers everyday.

Get real.

I don't know... I woke up today and everything seemed different. It seems that the Palin mania is subsiding and everything is going to be okay in November. Obama is going to win. Does anyone else feel this, or is it just me?

We don't need an ultra right-wing evangelical Christian whose relgious leanings will determine her every decision as an elected official.

There is a reason for a seperation of church and state: So we don't become a theocarcy. Sarah Palin and her supporters want America to become a theocracy and, officially, a Christian State. We need to stop those like her who run for public office so they can govern by their religious convictions.

Rev. Donnie McClurkin who said he's "in a war with homosexuality" and anti semitic pastor Hezekiah Walker....both featured in Obama's hate tour through the American south earlier this year.

You can start here:

http://www.wasillaag.net/all.html

There is a reason for a seperation of church and state

Churches in the South insisted on it as a condition for ratification of the Constitution. They didn't want to be dominated by larger, more established, more conservative churches in New York and Massachusetts.

Every state wanted strict limitations on the power of the federal government, and wanted them spelled out. My, my, how times have changed.

Where's the article and your concern about Obama's church, and what was preached there.

Obama has already countenanced Rev. Wright. Obama isn't a religious nutcase.

Otherwise you right-wing nitwits would love him. That's why you love Bush and Palin.

Next.

No fair, you should've warned me not to read that post with a full mouth of coffee!

Sorry.

Things like that severely demoralize wingnuts, so I went for it. I do try to minimize the collateral damage when I toss off something side-splitting, or otherwise gory.

Xanthro--The largest weapons ever made would have couldn't even take out a medium sized city.

Tell that to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those were considered tiny by modern standards. How stupid can you get, neocon?

It appears you are as ignorant of history as every other subject you have touched. You don't even know the effects of the weapons in question, or anything about them.

The Little Boy at 13 kilotons had a destructive blast radius of one mile, killing approximately 70,000. 45,000 in the initial blast, and 19,000 in the next four months. The closest known survivor was Eizo Nomura at 100 meters from ground zero.

The June Rice Rations for the city indicated a population of 255,000. See the Oughterson Commission study. Approximately, 25.5% of the population died in the first four months.

While the devastation was horrible, the vast majority of the population survived.

You talked of roaches not surviving, atomic-bombs couldn't even reach a 50% human kill ratio under near ideal conditions. Even dropping a score of such bombs on Hiroshima would not have killed 100% of the population.

Xanhtro--There was no accidental nuclear detonation, which is quite frankly something that can't happen by accident.

As if you know anything about it:

I know far more about it than you'll ever be able to look up on the internet.

You lack even basic knowledge about nuclear power, so you present "evidence" which you think advances you case, when it actuality it defeats it. That is because you are too ignorant to know how to interpret the data you present.

Ural Mountains Radiation Pollution

1957 Kystym Explosion

http://www.american.edu/ted/ural.htm

The Kystym explosion is not a nuclear detonation. As I stated, you can get heat, and radiation release, but you can't have an accidental nuclear denotation. Notice, I didn't say explosion. One could argue that blowing up a granite countertop is a nuclear explosion, because radiation will be released.

At Kystym heat built up and caused an explosion, not a nuclear detonation. Notice the yield, "The resulting explosion had a force of 75 tons of TNT." Even the earliest nuclear weapons were measure in kilotons of TNT. The little boy was a 13,000 tons weapon. You might notice that 13,000 is a substantially higher number than 75.

If you took all the weapons grade material in the World and placed it in a pit without cooling, eventually the heat would build to the point where the mass would explode. This would in no way be considered a nuclear detonation.

Xanthro--No, in fact, both US and Russian space agencies are currently suffering from an acute shortage of plutonium. Russia has almost all the remaining stockpile, measured in a few kilograms, and that stock pile will be depleted in a few years.

As if you know anything but your own lies - 34 tons is all the US State Department will admit to the Russians having:

Russian Plutonium Poses Major Risk

U.S. efforts to dispose of excess plutonium were closely tied to those in Russia, which also declared 34 metric tons of plutonium as excess to weapons needs

http://www.forbes.com/business/2007/10/17/us-plutonium-disposal-cx_1018oxford.html

Boy, don't you feel stupid.-- Godot..

I overestimated your intelligence, an error I won't make again. I thought that perhaps you'd actually search "space plutonium" but that seems too difficult for you.

A brief primer is in order. There are various types of plutonium, they are listed by isotope number. Such as Plutonium-238 which is a specific type of non-weapon grade plutonium. It is used in 'radioisotope thermoelectric generators' (RTGs) of some cardiac pacemakers, space satellites, navigation beacons, etc. This is what I was talking running out of. The US hasn't manufactured any since the 1980s. Only a few kilograms are left in the World, and they are in Russia's hands.

There are many types of Plutonium.

Plutonium is a by-product of certain types of nuclear power plants. Plutonium 239 and 240 is most commonly produced. 240 has a high rate of spontaneous fission which makes it highly unsuitable for use in nuclear weapons, but good for reactor fuel. In fact, it is the ratio of 239/240 that determines Plutonium's usage. 239 with less than 7% 240 is considered weapons grade, greater than 19% is considered reactor grade. Reactor grade can't be used effectively in nuclear weapons, the aforementioned spontaneous fission is the problem.

Also, 241 is produced, which when it decays produces Americium which interferes with MOX (mixed-oxide fuel) production. MOX is used in certain reactors as a fuel source. The US has 3 such reactors I believe.

BTW, there aren't 34 tons, or 69 tons off ALL types of Plutonium, but thousands of tonnes.

A 1,000 MWe light water reactor (LWR) produces about 300 kilograms of Plutonium yearly. There are far more than 4 such reactors in the World.

I had hopped that you'd actually research, and educate yourself at least a tiny bit, by peaking your interest in how the US Space Program is running out of Plutonium, but in this I have failed.

To end, no, the United States can't end all life on Earth, no can the spent fuel and waste stored in Russia actually detonate in an actual nuclear blast.