Well, first, thanks for an admission that her article was over-the-top.
I’m still pondering if I even care to respond to your comments in the other thread.
My gut-reaction to the “Canaanite” part was “Hey, at least my party doesn’t enshrine offering salted/dismembered babies to Moloch in its platform…
Mammon-worship, maybe, but not Moloch-worship!:D”
Ah, the true philosophy of a Christian - “we claim we’re not as bad as the other guys, so we can lie, cheat, steal, kill, and redefine words to make the other guys look worse than we are.”
I missed that verse of the Bible in my readings. Can you tell me what book and chapter that one’s in?
Thanks for the reminder as to why I didn’t have any interest in responding to you.
I expect a “Distinguished Professor” at the U. of Chicago Divinity School to be able to express herself concisely and precisely, especially when she’s writing for a national audience. Where, additionally, she can read and edit before she posts. I guess standards for professors have dropped considerably since my day. She can spout any nonsense she wants and people will just brush it off.
Why don’t you ask Doniger? Like, how she’s redefined “woman”? She’s actually a “Distinguished Professor” at a divinity school! I’m sure she’d be the one to know.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080914/COL01/809140385/1009/NEWS07
Heres a nice level commentary on Palin by Mitch Albom of the Detroit Free Press. His claim is she presents a very thin background and almost no information on real world problems.
IOW, your brand of Christianism is indefensible as Christianity.
One thing I was wondering earlier: you evangelicals are in love with Palin, and are fervently embracing her as One Of You. But you also have to know that she lies like a rug - about the Bridge to Nowhere, about earmarks generally, about selling the state plane on eBay, about visiting Iraq, just for starters.
That’s who you guys have embraced and blessed.
Now, my question: if we can’t trust you evangelicals with respect to things of this world, why in God’s name would you expect anyone to trust you about things that aren’t of this world?
Just wondering, you know?
Well, it was Limbaugh who came up with the phrase “Halfrican-American.”
Which is one Limbaughism I’ve thought was in poor taste, though it’s not quite the same thing and has a “level of deniability” (it could easily be explained as saying he’s not American enough). If one insists on the racial angle, it could also be explained as a comment spoofing the “he’s not black enough” complaint.
I’m not defending this one. Just saying that it’s a seperate thing.
You asked for a cite that a Republican said he wasn’t black enough. I gave you one. Two, actually, if you read the entire link.
Must we have threads about every trival piece of crap about Palin or the ellection in general. I echo the words of my chosen candidate.
ENOUGH!!!
Did Ed Zotti hold a gun to your head and make you open the threads in question? I’m hardly Ed’s biggest fan, but somehow I doubt it.
Right now, there’s only 3 threads on the front page of this forum with ‘Palin’ in the title. I see a fourth one that’s about her, but without her name in the title. There’s 6 Palin threads on the front page of GD.
Yeah, that’s a lot, but it’s not like there aren’t still plenty of other threads.
The number of threads about the election altogether is a bit larger, but what would you expect? We’re in the homestretch.
No he didn’t, he got it published in the Washington Post. 
I think you missed the thrust of my post. You’re correct that I don’t have to waste anymore time in this thread. Have fun.