No. No. No.
I admire the effort, but you can’t defend this one. Gingrich is clearly fretting about a country which is simultaneously secular and atheistic and dominated by radical Islam.
This is quite possibly one of the most addled bits of logic I’ve ever read on this board. Such a situation clearly is capable of existing only in your own mind (and perhaps that of Mr. Gingrich, although I think it’s much more likely he’s really just pandering to folks like you).
But hey, I’m willing to be convinced. Please walk us through the process of how a country with a poulation that is less than 1% muslim of any type (and therefore far less than that “radical islamists”) becomes magically “overtaken” by these notional radicals in 50 years or so. 'Cause I’m sure I speak for some others here when I say I’m having a little trouble following your chain of thought.
BTW, just so you know, I’m as liberal as they come, but if anyone ever happens to try to forcibly convert you to Islam, or even just make you submit to Sharia law, just give a shout and I’ll come running to protect you, good buddy.
I’m going to move this to the Pit, and not just so I don’t have to read it. 
I think it has to do with the mass immigration of Palestinian islamists through Mexico.
…and smacks it a couple times in a futile attempt to get it to show the Playboy Channel.
That would explain all those Koran Bibles being left around in Arizona.
This is looking like a game of Pass-the-Parcel: can it be moved to the Game Room?
Oh, and Newt is not an idiot, but he’s decided that the Republican Flavor-of-the-Month ™ is trying to look like an idiot, so that’s what he doing.
Sorry. It is accurate. It’s what he said.
No, you don’t understand. What Newt said cannot be considered stupid under the “Liberals Suck” clause.
I don’t like it either, but it’s unavoidable blowback from our being the source of all the world’s evil. SA’s argument, unlike his rectum, is airtight.
Newt Gingrich is too intelligent to believe the stuff he says to appeal to the religious right. He is intelligent enough to know that without the support of the religious right he cannot win the White House.
Secular humanists who fear the creation of a theocratic America should find something else to frighten them. The Republican Party exists in order to advance the economic interests of the richest ten percent of the American people. Anything else Republican politicians talk about is an effort to win the support of those who are hurt by their economic policies.
What irritates me the most about this nonsense is that Newt doesn’t believe it. It is crass manipulation of people’s emotions with high-octane language.
His insincerity, coupled with the fact that IT WORKS, make me so angry that I don’t even want to listen to or participate in politics.
Who wins: Radical Islamic Atheist vs Vatican Warlock Assassin*?
(Both sides injected with Tiger Blood).
Whichever one is gay.
Which country have you been in forthe last 40 years? Sweden?
Why do conservatives continue to insist they are some sort of small rag tag group of rebels fighting the monolithic liberal empire on the one hand and claim to represent the vast majority of Americans on the other?
I guess anything can happen but can yous seriously conceive of a future where America of all places replaces Christianity with Islam? If so, then you may be watching too much Glenn Beck.
As long as money is selfish, the plutocracy will never be socially dominated by liberals. Second, the highest estimates indicates that Muslims account for less than 3% of America’s population Christianity is soemwhere between 60% and 80% (depending on how you define Christian). Those seculraists youar e talking about come in a distant second with somewhere between 15 and 40% (again depending mostly on how you define Christian). So if anyone thinks we are two generations away from anything close to a muslims dominated secular society, you may be watchign too much Glenn Beck.
When your enemies are radical Islamic atheists, anything is possible!
Ah! So Mr Beck is the secular atheist gay Islamo-fascist. That explains a lot, including why Mr Gingrich is so worried about them taking over the country.
You miss the point, such as it were. Starkers relys on the proven fact of liberal effete pussification and corruption. A thoroughly liberal government could be taken over by a small band of militant Campfire Girls.
Congratulations - the negative crap has worked. The end game is to piss off voters like yourself so much that they don’t even want to vote anymore. Since you would probably have voted for his opponents anyway, the Newt wins!
Newt is a grifter. Nothing more or less. He’s intelligent enough to know how to get people to open up their checkbooks.
He will never actually run for the presidency. He will form exploratory committees (Do not have to report income) but always decide that the time isn’t right and not actually declare a himself a candidate (Do have to report income).
Pope tells catholics that slavery is forbidden (slaveholding catholics intepret this to mean that slave trading is bad but slave owning is fine. Indeed much of the drive behind the abolitionist movement was from Northern Christians (see Quakers).
I don’t think he’s saying that liberals (I prefer progressives) are cowards, I think he is saying that progressives are so touchy about political correctness they will let America turn into Afghanistan under the taliban or something. This in spite of the overwhelming support for the invasion of Afghanistan and more recently the bombing of Libya.
The conservative mantra used to be: the liberals will let the communists take over the country. now its: the liberals will let Islamists take over the country.
Its projection, by conservatives who are ideologues first and Asmericans second who believe that liberals are also ideologues first and AMericans second. To me it is clear that too many Republicans are Republicans first and Americans second. In fact they have trouble distinguishing between being Republican and being a REAL American.
If you are a rich white male, its not retarded.
Nor do they care that its either ineffective or a waste of resources in most cases.
I think that is unavoidable. Its happened in every country at every point in history.
These days conservatives will grudgingly admit that Jews and Asians are OK but it hasn’t been taht long since we had laws about excluding Asians (It was one of this nation’s first forays into controlling who entered America) and we were turning back boatloads of jews fleeing from nazi Germany. Jews were the wrong kind og people and Chinese men were apparently drugginh and then raping white women (sound familiar to anyone)?
English only is arguably a policy driven in part on racism. I think it can be defended by people whoa re not racists.