[Perlstein]

<> I probably disagree with R.N. on that one, but I'd like to see the context. What, for one thing, does he mean by "pure religion." He was a scholar, so that could be a technical term. Anyone know what book it's from? My Neiburh bio isn't handy.

[Cogadh na Sith]

What, for one thing, does he mean by "pure religion." He was a scholar, so that could be a technical term.

No doubt it means technically:

"any non-western, inclusive, god/goddess worship that appears nothing like any eeeeeevil established religion--especially Christianity--especially as practiced by George Bush."

He's a scholar y'know....

[cake_crumb]

"I probably disagree with R.N. on that one, but I'd like to see the context"

Speaking of context, I'm still waiting to read why one interview with one anonymous conservative leader in Portland, who gave you the impression he was whining, is proof that conservatives are whiners. I stated in another post, which you probably missed on this fast moving thread, that without context, your assess carries no weight with anyone but you (you're the only witness)

You also didn't explain why you think we're all shallow. Only that you think Ann Coulter is vitriolic, and that Tommy Franks will do what no conservative would do: sit down with people he disagrees with and talks to them (which is odd, considering that most of us are honestly trying to debate with you.)