What you can do is line the border with koreans so that you have to step on a Korean to get into the country.
Yeah but Starving Artist knows what he MEANT to say. He can read Newt’s mind.
That works in Korea: you have so many Koreans on the border that no one can go from north to south, or from south to north. If it works there, it can work in Arizona too.
The statement “we’re a [description of the nation that plays to your audience] potentially dominated by [description of a bogyman that scares your audience]” is not inherently contradictory.
I don’t agree with Newt’s statement, nor see it as much more than book-selling/speaking tour-promoting pandering, nor do I see it as remotely plausible. However, it’s not a contradiction.
Say candidate JimmyJohn Bakkerfallwellgrahmphelps is running extraordinarily high in the polls, particularly among the extremely motivated fundamentalist/evangelical segment of the population. Extremely motivated doesn’t translate into an actual majority of the populace, but an actual majority of the voting population. His opposition (no incumbent that year) is Alfred E. Snoopynewman, who as election day approaches commits gaffe after gaffe and turns out to be an incompetent campaigner.
So someone here makes the statement that America is founded largely on secular principles, but it’s potentially about to be dominated by fundamental Christians. They back this statement up by pointing to the likelihood (at that time) of three Supreme Court vacancies and the candidate’s previous administration (as governor) habit of appointing hard right/bible-based idealogs to positions of power.
“The government of our mostly secular population is about to be dominated by fundamental Christians.”
Versus
“[Liberalism is winning over our children; we’re losing our faith and will become] a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists [because without any motivation to vote good Christians into office, the government is susceptible to being taken over/run by people of a different faith]”
Again, I’m not defending the rather repugnant ideology behind it or the likelihood thereof, or saying that such blatant scare tactics are not worth pitting themselves, but am saying that as intended, there is no contradiction.
Right. Secular liberals are such cowards and pussies that when they take over, a small cadre of radical Muslims will be able to walk in and push them around.
Of course, if Liberals are such cowards and pussies, how the fuck are they going to take over the country? Won’t a large cadre of radical Christians be able to walk in and push them around?
Of course, the answer the the conundrum is that conservatives don’t believe people are actually secular. They think liberals just hate Christianity. And so the idea that secular atheist liberals would team up with radical Muslims makes perfect sense, because secular liberals hate Christians and radical Muslims hate Christians.
Said, schmed. You want rational analysis or something?
You’re talking to Starving Artist here, and there is no conservative dribble so tortuous or insane that he won’t slap a bow on it and add it to the mounting pile of evidence that liberals have been destroying America since the 1960s.
Why pay attention to what Gingrich actually said, when it’s so easy to simply create what you want him to mean out of whole cloth? I mean, it’s not like Gingrich is one of the few nationally-prominent politicians with a Ph.D., so he can’t be expected to be articulate enough to express his thoughts in actual words and stuff.
The USA is a very Christian nation, practically unique in the West for taking religion seriously in fact.
A nation of christians about to be dominated by fundamentalist christians does not translate into ‘nation of christians (or even athiests) about to be dominated by radical islamists’ as an analogy.
He was talking purposeful, button pushing idiocy for political gain.
I agree. No, wait … we’re in the Pit. Lemme try that again.
No shit Sherlock!
Ahem.
I wholly agree that the underlying premises are problematic and that he’s fearmongering to sell books and tickets to the latest Newtaganza. What I disagree with is that his statement is inherently contradictory as many of the earlier posts suggested. The analogy easily falls apart if you lose sight of its intent, but then that’s a straw man.
I’m starting to wonder if he IS Newt.
Quote:** Steve MB**
:D:D Thanks, I needed a new keyboard anyway…and the coffee stains will come off the monitor eventually…
This could be written about a number of potential Republican predsidential candidates. Bachmann and Palin are two others who spring immediately to mind. It should be made into [insert name here] flyers and plastered all over the red states.
There’s a man from the funny papers we all know! (Newty Newt Newt…Newt…NewtNewt)
Brain turned to cheese a long time ago! (Newty Newt Newt…Newt…NewtNewt)
He spreads lies on the radio! (Newty Newt Newt…Newt…NewtNewt)
Then he’s the slime from your video! (Newty Newt Newt…Newt…NewtNewt)
The difference is that Newt actually has a reputation for intellect, which makes his scare-pandering about the Secular Theocratic Atheist Muslim Menace stand out from the more run-of-the-mill examples of political cynicism.
I know the other direction exists: atheists are really worshiping Satan.
And 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 partly theocratic country, potentially one dominated by radical evangelists. And I already know it will suck for them.
Only half true, in my opinion. In the current climate getting your talking head covered on the news means you have say something more outrageous than the last boob, to get on CNN.
Sarah kind of ratcheted up the outlandish, raised the stupid bar so high, that the rest of the field is just trying to catch up.
Why? Because even if you hate the speaker, and all they stand for you’ll tune in, with disbelief, to hear it with your own two ears. That increases ratings, which raises advertising rates and income for the networks. The stupider, more outrageous, more egregious, the better.
Sadly it’s not the bonehead talking head that’s driving it, it’s us. It works on us, we’re all talking about it, the news heads will talk about it, back and forth, milking it for all it’s worth. Pointing out it’s idiocy or condemning it, makes no difference, in the end. It worked, as long as it gets a rise out of us.
News channels no longer care one iota if it’s true, newsworthy, accurate, or meaningful, as long as it drives ratings, there is nothing they won’t cover. Witness the Westborough Baptist Church, 12 people at most, talking nothing but stupid, hateful, nonsense = endless coverage!
I can’t wait to see what shit Sarah’s going to have to come up with to get some attention!
That’s the beautiful thing about static: listen hard enough and you can hear anything you want.
Even Newt (or his people) recognized the idiocy of his comment. Later, his spokesman Rick Tyler claimed that Newt simply left out the word “or”. What he intended to say was that either secular atheists or Islamic fascists would be in charge.
Since this is the Pit, I am safe to go ahead and say you are a fucking moron for your bizarro interpretation.
Only thing that changes is the atheists and Islamists fighting it out over who gets the Volvo.
OK, who’s job was it to tell Otto to stay away from the brown acid?