Gingrich says he fears an atheist country dominated by radical Islamists

[Progressive Realist]

I fear a Christian country dominated by radical Teabaggers.


Oh, wait.

[pbrower2a]

isn't  gingrich an atheist...or does he just live like one in real life?

How can one 'live like an atheist'?  There is no such 'way' - atheists live all sorts of different ways.  Really there's very little connection between atheism and way of life.

The only "ism" that Newt Gingrich seems to practice is "opportunism".

[realisticidealist]

isn't  gingrich an atheist...or does he just live like one in real life?

How can one 'live like an atheist'?  There is no such 'way' - atheists live all sorts of different ways.  Really there's very little connection between atheism and way of life.

The only "ism" that Newt Gingrich seems to practice is "opportunism".

Plus can't-keep-it-in-his-pants-ism.

[pbrower2a]

This election increasingly starts looking like 1972. Few liked Nixon but he won in a landslide because his opponent was perceived as batsh**t crazy.

Maybe we have become too fussy in our politics to appreciate what we have.

We want quick fixes for the economy -- even if those are impossible. We are not going to have any economic boom for a long time, and that is probably all for the better. The cure for our recent binge of myopic greed is acceptance of the long-term, low-yield investments that none can sell off quickly.  Building capital and bleeding the profits contradict.

Economic management is a legitimate concern of voters, but economic results may beyond the power of politicians to deliver. In the 1930s, Americans seemed content with FDR because even if economic conditions were awful they were getting better. In the 2010s, Americans have yet to show such a wholesome attitude.

If people are unhappy with President Obama as shown in the 2010 election, then they are no less impatient with  the Republicans who won in 2010 and have not caused the milk and honey to flow as they promised (except arguably toward their cronies).

As for military realities -- Americans have developed distrust of the Presidency because of the bungled wars of George W. Bush. The effort to thwart a likely series of slaughters by the Libyan dictator has used much the same language as that used to rationalize invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Likewise, our President has no military experience; he has left war to the generals and admirals, as he is a politician and not a soldier by training.  Never mind that the invasion of Iraq had a foundation of lies and the intervention in Libya seems factually unassailable; we remember getting burned because of the callow leadership of Dubya and expect much the same now.  Some of us almost expect the President to fly onto an aircraft carrier bearing a large banner "Mission Accomplished!" much like his predecessor. Of course if we see the swift demise of the long-time dictator of Libya that looks more like Gulf War I or the invasion of Grenada, then we might see changes in opinion.    

The President still exhibits clarity of purpose that Dubya never showed. He remains a stickler for diplomatic and  legal niceties. Such bodes well, but we can't see the results yet. Good results will be that Qaddafi ends up dead or under arrest, or that he takes flight -- and the US is not entangled in a war after such an event.

We need remember that Libya is a defender's nightmare. The country is thinly populated. The terrain offers no good defensive points and little cover because it is mostly desert or near-desert. Libya has comparatively few cities; those are easily bypassed and besieged. The Germans and British fought over eastern Libya and western Egypt with rapid advances and retreats during World War II until the Battle of El Alamein, after which the British Eighth Army made a swift and inexorable advance through Libya into Tunisia, country which  offers good defensive positions and more cover.  Tunisia is already liberated, so the current Libyan Revolution stops at the Tunisian border.

But then there is the obvious: President Obama is BLACK. Many Americans are never going to accept a black man as President because such violates what they consider the Natural Order of Things -- that America is a white man's country. Maybe a parallel matter applied to Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Mercifully, racism and male chauvinism are in decline.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

/facepalm

Atheism != Islam

how many virgins do the radical atheists get?

Gingrich says he fears an atheist country dominated by radical Islamists.

This man could confuse steam and ice and see nothing absurd in doing so.

Meltdown!

i've thought about translating his statement down to your level over the last week, but it's been too much fun watching you make a fool out of yourself

[TexasGurl]

how many virgins do the radical atheists get?

72, but they're all male teenagers who have just read Dawkins for the first time.

Works for me.

[BushKenya]

I disagree with Gingrich.  I doubt it'll get that bad here, but it'll get close.  We'll probably have some atheist presidents in our future, but I don't see radical Islam taking root in America.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I disagree with Gingrich.  I doubt it'll get that bad here, but it'll get close.  We'll probably have some atheist presidents in our future, but I don't see radical Islam taking root in America.

not what he meant.....next

[BushKenya]

I disagree with Gingrich.  I doubt it'll get that bad here, but it'll get close.  We'll probably have some atheist presidents in our future, but I don't see radical Islam taking root in America.

not what he meant.....next

Oh, oops, that's what I get for not reading the entire thread and/or article.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Oh, oops, that's what I get for not reading the entire thread and/or article.

dont worry, apparently, the others didnt understand either.  This is what Newt said:

"I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time [my grandchildren are] my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."

of course, Newt's timeline is way off, for Newt may not have to wait more than 10 years for his fears to come true.

[BushKenya]

Oh, oops, that's what I get for not reading the entire thread and/or article.

dont worry, apparently, the others didnt understand either.  This is what Newt said:

"I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time [my grandchildren are] my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."

of course, Newt's timeline is way off, for Newt may not have to wait more than 10 years for his fears to come true.

I have a funny feeling we're already there minus the radical Islamists.

[Yelnoc]

Oh, oops, that's what I get for not reading the entire thread and/or article.

dont worry, apparently, the others didnt understand either.  This is what Newt said:

"I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time [my grandchildren are] my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."

of course, Newt's timeline is way off, for Newt may not have to wait more than 10 years for his fears to come true.

I have a funny feeling we're already there minus the radical Islamists.

Don't worry, we're not.  I get whacked with a bible if I take ten steps outside my door.

@jmfcst: I still hold by my statement that atheism != Islam or, to put it more eloquently, a firmly secular nation a la the Czech Republic is no breeding ground for radical Islam or any sort of radical religion.  I don't know why you think that will apparently happen in 10 years when such a logical conundrum seems next to impossible.

[BushKenya]

Oh, oops, that's what I get for not reading the entire thread and/or article.

dont worry, apparently, the others didnt understand either.  This is what Newt said:

"I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time [my grandchildren are] my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."

of course, Newt's timeline is way off, for Newt may not have to wait more than 10 years for his fears to come true.

I have a funny feeling we're already there minus the radical Islamists.

Don't worry, we're not.  I get whacked with a bible if I take ten steps outside my door.

@jmfcst: I still hold by my statement that atheism != Islam or, to put it more eloquently, a firmly secular nation a la the Czech Republic is no breeding ground for radical Islam or any sort of radical religion.  I don't know why you think that will apparently happen in 10 years when such a logical conundrum seems next to impossible.

I can see your point, Yelnoc.  The words athiest and Islam have the same difference as athiest and Christianity.  The point is that the two cannot coexist in the same level of dominance.  Either we will be an athiestic nation, or a Christian nation, or an Islamic nation, or [insert religion here] nation.  We cannot be dominately more than one.

Right now, I think we're a Christian nation, but the athiest "movement", for lack of a better word, is quickly rising.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

@jmfcst: I still hold by my statement that atheism != Islam or, to put it more eloquently, a firmly secular nation a la the Czech Republic is no breeding ground for radical Islam or any sort of radical religion.  I don't know why you think that will apparently happen in 10 years when such a logical conundrum seems next to impossible.

all it takes is for the Dems to view the small group of Muslims as the swing vote and kowtow to their wants.  we've seen it with other groups in the past:  the gays, the Zionists (which include me), teacher unions, etc, etc.   but the difference is that with Islam, you have something that at its core, doesn't believe in the freedom of religion/speech/press....so he wasn't equating atheism and Islam, or confusing steam and ice....he was simply saying what I had been saying the whole week before he made his comments.

[GMantis]

Is trying to appear insane a compulsory part of being a Republican presidential candidate?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Is trying to appear insane a compulsory part of being a Republican presidential candidate?

Ι think it's called "pandering".

[GMantis]

Is trying to appear insane a compulsory part of being a Republican presidential candidate?

Ι think it's called "pandering".

Well, they have to show that they are close to a key demographic group in the Republican party...

[Yelnoc]

@jmfcst: I still hold by my statement that atheism != Islam or, to put it more eloquently, a firmly secular nation a la the Czech Republic is no breeding ground for radical Islam or any sort of radical religion.  I don't know why you think that will apparently happen in 10 years when such a logical conundrum seems next to impossible.

all it takes is for the Dems to view the small group of Muslims as the swing vote and kowtow to their wants.  we've seen it with other groups in the past:  the gays, the Zionists (which include me), teacher unions, etc, etc.   but the difference is that with Islam, you have something that at its core, doesn't believe in the freedom of religion/speech/press....so he wasn't equating atheism and Islam, or confusing steam and ice....he was simply saying what I had been saying the whole week before he made his comments.

Pandering to teacher's unions did not turn us into a teacher union-dominated athiest country.  I'm not even sure why the Democratic Party would bother with "radical Islamists" (isn't the corrrect term "muslims"?) who...
a) make up a very small portion of the population
b) when pruned to those who vote are not a large enough voting bloc to matter (if they even vote as a bloc which is contentious)
c) would by definition be socially conservative, and thus seem to fit better into the Republican coalition anyway

[opebo]

all it takes is for the Dems to view the small group of Muslims as the swing vote and kowtow to their wants.  we've seen it with other groups in the past:  the gays, the Zionists (which include me), teacher unions, etc, etc.

You don't seem to mind the domination of the actual controlling group in America - the owning class.  All parties kowtow to them.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

@jmfcst: I still hold by my statement that atheism != Islam or, to put it more eloquently, a firmly secular nation a la the Czech Republic is no breeding ground for radical Islam or any sort of radical religion.  I don't know why you think that will apparently happen in 10 years when such a logical conundrum seems next to impossible.

all it takes is for the Dems to view the small group of Muslims as the swing vote and kowtow to their wants.  we've seen it with other groups in the past:  the gays, the Zionists (which include me), teacher unions, etc, etc.   but the difference is that with Islam, you have something that at its core, doesn't believe in the freedom of religion/speech/press....so he wasn't equating atheism and Islam, or confusing steam and ice....he was simply saying what I had been saying the whole week before he made his comments.

Pandering to teacher's unions did not turn us into a teacher union-dominated athiest country.  I'm not even sure why the Democratic Party would bother with "radical Islamists" (isn't the corrrect term "muslims"?) who...
a) make up a very small portion of the population
b) when pruned to those who vote are not a large enough voting bloc to matter (if they even vote as a bloc which is contentious)
c) would by definition be socially conservative, and thus seem to fit better into the Republican coalition anyway

     Islamists are to Muslims as Fundamentalists are to Christians. It's not a term that was just made up by Gingrich or anything.

[Sibboleth]

Why would anyone take anything this noxious hypocrite says at all seriously? Yeah, he'll say stupid and offensive things. Frauds generally do. American politics has a regrettable tendency to attract turds like a sewer, but Gingrich was always one of the worst. The man is a reprobate and anyone seriously tempted to vote for him needs electric shock therapy. Not, you must understand, to cure them. Not at all. But as punishment.

[Communists For McCain]

What?!

Is this guy for real?  Is this just a part of some sick joke by the GOP to see just how smurfing stupid it's moralsmurf base can be?

I mean really, where the smurfing Smurfistan did they come up with this smurfing smurfed up smurf, Batman!?  Why are these smurftards possibly running for the presidency when they could become godsmurfed billionaires being scriptwriters in Hollywood for the next Michael MotherSmurfing Bay film!!!!!?  I mean smurf the presidency Newt Gingrich!!!!  Why have fatsmurfing interns giving you the Blowsmurf when you can snort smurfcaine out of a 15 year old hooker's smurf in a Bel Aire Mansion!?

I smurfing give up!!!!

[/brain explosion]

[Fuzzy]

....

You might like this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOEiqqtc31g

[Mr. Morden]

What?!

Is this guy for real?  Is this just a part of some sick joke by the GOP to see just how smurfing stupid it's moralsmurf base can be?

I mean really, where the smurfing Smurfistan did they come up with this smurfing smurfed up smurf, Batman!?  Why are these smurftards possibly running for the presidency when they could become godsmurfed billionaires being scriptwriters in Hollywood for the next Michael MotherSmurfing Bay film!!!!!?  I mean smurf the presidency Newt Gingrich!!!!  Why have fatsmurfing interns giving you the Blowsmurf when you can snort smurfcaine out of a 15 year old hooker's smurf in a Bel Aire Mansion!?

I smurfing give up!!!!

[/brain explosion]

Look, I may not endorse the ban on profanity here, but I have to enforce it.  Because your post had so many expletives, I've taken the liberty of infracting you, and then editing your post with more appropriate words.  I believe I've managed to retain the substantive core of your arguments.

Strictly speaking, words like "cocaine" are fine, and I didn't need to replace it with "smurfcaine", but I thought the latter was funnier.

[Χahar]

Newt Gingrich will be the first with his back against the wall when the atheist Islamist revolution comes.