Newt...athiest nation run by Islamist? Confused...

[TruthSeeker]

Well the truth didnt set them free.

And the American people are paying those price for these moron clowns

Thanks, steveox. I almost went blind looking at those photos of the "confederacy of dunces".

 

[TruthSeeker]

I am a slave to ...logical thinking...logic says that what Newt says was...misstated...or stupid and impossible...

You are a slave to hypocrisy, PFOS. I could get into a urinating contest with you by posting a sizable sampling of the stupid things that your leftist heroes have stated over the years........like Obama and his "57 states" comment........but I won't take the bait.

 

[PLC1]

You are a slave to hypocrisy, PFOS. I could get into a urinating contest with you by posting a sizable sampling of the stupid things that your leftist heroes have stated over the years........like Obama and his "57 states" comment........but I won't take the bait.

Excellent. Your response to an absurd statement by a Republican is "Your guys do it to, nya, nya, nya!"

No, Republicans don't have any corner on stupid statements.

And this one has to be right up there with the best of them.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You are a slave to hypocrisy, PFOS. I could get into a urinating contest with you by posting a sizable sampling of the stupid things that your leftist heroes have stated over the years........like Obama and his "57 states" comment........but I won't take the bait.

you know what the difference is? I would not support them and say no they are right and then make up the Bull that is spread on this thread about how Yes a Atheist Secular nation will be run by the powerful Islamic fundamentalist...

And as for the 57 states thing...Yes he said it, and I laughed about it...however I also did not take the stupid view that he actuly thinks there are 57 states, and took the rational view of he misspoke as happens on a long campaign trail. Also I did not think that McCain thought that there was a a Iran Afghanistan Border.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Excellent. Your response to an absurd statement by a Republican is "Your guys do it to, nya, nya, nya!"

No, Republicans don't have any corner on stupid statements.

And this one has to be right up there with the best of them.

what does it say when you screw up what you ment to say like that, but your drones will still try to find a way to make it true rather then admit it was dumb? lol

 

[TruthSeeker]

you know what the difference is? I would not support them and say no they are right and then make up the Bull that is spread on this thread about how Yes a Atheist Secular nation will be run by the powerful Islamic fundamentalist...

And as for the 57 states thing...Yes he said it, and I laughed about it...however I also did not take the stupid view that he actuly thinks there are 57 states, and took the rational view of he misspoke as happens on a long campaign trail. Also I did not think that McCain thought that there was a a Iran Afghanistan Border.

So Obama gets a pass for misstating something, but Newt gets lambasted and ridiculed and criticized for misstating something. Sounds like a typical example of leftist philosophy.

PLC, the whole point I tried to make here was to show the blatant hypocrisy that the leftists use as a tool in everything they say and do, and this is a perfect example.

But since "you people" believe that hypocrisy is a virtue and a source of pride, I'm know I'm wasting my time.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

So Obama gets a pass for misstating something, but Newt gets lambasted and ridiculed and criticized for misstating something. Sounds like a typical example of leftist philosophy.

PLC, the whole point I tried to make here was to show the blatant hypocrisy that the leftists use as a tool in everything they say and do, and this is a perfect example.

But since "you people" believe that hypocrisy is a virtue and a source of pride, I'm know I'm wasting my time.

whats sad is you still don't see the problem here..you notice the deffence by the right on here was not that he misspoke...but that he was right...even though what he said was impossible and dumb.

And I did not sit and try to say no there are 57 states....
And I defended McCain for his Iraq Afghanistan border one.

Newt says so many dumb things he truly believes, its hard to know sometimes if he just said something dumb or believes it...who knows maybe did think some athist Islamic fundamentalist nation was going to rise...your friends her Gipper and the rest did not seem to find that impossible, and seemed perfectly fine to believe thats just what he ment.

I make a joke about a dumb thing said....the right defends the dumb statement as true.

 

[PLC1]

So Obama gets a pass for misstating something, but Newt gets lambasted and ridiculed and criticized for misstating something. Sounds like a typical example of leftist philosophy.

PLC, the whole point I tried to make here was to show the blatant hypocrisy that the leftists use as a tool in everything they say and do, and this is a perfect example.

But since "you people" believe that hypocrisy is a virtue and a source of pride, I'm know I'm wasting my time.

I believe I referred to what Newt must have meant in an earlier post: We'd be run by atheists or Islamic fundamentalists.

Even when the misstatement is corrected, the idea that we're going to be run by either one is absurd.

What is even more absurd is the "you people" mentality: If one of "my" guys makes a silly statement, then it has to be pointed out that one of "your" guys did it too.

This is not a sport's rally in which we trash talk "your" team and cheer for "my" team.

Personally, I don't have a team. Deal with that if you can.

 

[BigRob]

you know what the difference is? I would not support them and say no they are right and then make up the Bull that is spread on this thread about how Yes a Atheist Secular nation will be run by the powerful Islamic fundamentalist...

And as for the 57 states thing...Yes he said it, and I laughed about it...however I also did not take the stupid view that he actuly thinks there are 57 states, and took the rational view of he misspoke as happens on a long campaign trail. Also I did not think that McCain thought that there was a a Iran Afghanistan Border.

There IS an Iran/Afghanistan border.

 

[BigRob]

"I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're 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."

so the nation will be dominated by Radical Islamist...who are Athesit?

Does newt even try to make sense when he talks anymore? or does he just throw in a mad lib attack speech and fill in the words Atheist, Secular, Islamic, terrorist or Liberal in there at random?

His statement is not as absurd as your misrepresentation of it...

Just what is a "secular" state? It is a state that is officially neutral in matters of religion, and does not endorse religion or a lack thereof.

I think it could easily be argued that the United States is currently a secular society dominated by Christianity.

His point is clearly that his children may be facing a secular society (which many far right people view as atheist) in which the dominant group is radical Muslims.

Additionally, look at his audience...he made the comment in church, and if he is going to overcome his past issues, he is going to have to connect with the religious right on another issue...it seems he is making this that issue in an attempt to gain favor among a select group that is very important in a Republican primary.

What he said has nothing to do with the country suddenly being run by "atheist radical Muslims.". He is speaking (in a nuanced way) to a select audience that he is going to have to connect with to make a serious Presidential bid.

This is just political pandering 101...the only amazing thing is that no one here seems to see that.

 

[PLC1]

His statement is not as absurd as your misrepresentation of it...

Just what is a "secular" state? It is a state that is officially neutral in matters of religion, and does not endorse religion or a lack thereof.

I think it could easily be argued that the United States is currently a secular society dominated by Christianity.

His point is clearly that his children may be facing a secular society (which many far right people view as atheist) in which the dominant group is radical Muslims.

Additionally, look at his audience...he made the comment in church, and if he is going to overcome his past issues, he is going to have to connect with the religious right on another issue...it seems he is making this that issue in an attempt to gain favor among a select group that is very important in a Republican primary.

What he said has nothing to do with the country suddenly being run by "atheist radical Muslims.". He is speaking (in a nuanced way) to a select audience that he is going to have to connect with to make a serious Presidential bid.

This is just political pandering 101...the only amazing thing is that no one here seems to see that.

So, he was speaking to the Christian right, who see a "secular state" as tantamount to a state "run by atheists," and he has to connect with that group. OK, that makes sense. How, then, does a candidate say one thing to one group, another to another group, and not have the two compare notes?

The US is a secular state, but trying to say it isn't will gain votes from a particular group. No wonder candidates from both parties make absurd statements.

 

[BigRob]

So, he was speaking to the Christian right, who see a "secular state" as tantamount to a state "run by atheists," and he has to connect with that group. OK, that makes sense. How, then, does a candidate say one thing to one group, another to another group, and not have the two compare notes?

The US is a secular state, but trying to say it isn't will gain votes from a particular group. No wonder candidates from both parties make absurd statements.

Candidates make stupid statements because they are continually talking to different audiences. Gingrich's commets will be jumped on as idiotic by Democrats, but keep in mind it is not Democrats who really vote in the Republican primaries..and without being able to connect with the religious right, Gingrich's campaign is already over.

 

[PLC1]

Candidates make stupid statements because they are continually talking to different audiences. Gingrich's commets will be jumped on as idiotic by Democrats, but keep in mind it is not Democrats who really vote in the Republican primaries..and without being able to connect with the religious right, Gingrich's campaign is already over.

Yes, they do tailor their comments to the audience, no question, and of course the task now is to get the support of the Republicans.

So, how do we know where any given candidate really stands on the issues when they say different things to different groups according to what they think the audience wants to hear?

 

[BigRob]

Yes, they do tailor their comments to the audience, no question, and of course the task now is to get the support of the Republicans.

So, how do we know where any given candidate really stands on the issues when they say different things to different groups according to what they think the audience wants to hear?

Ask their Chief of Staff....lol.

It is difficult I guess, you just have to look at their record and statements and make a judgment call.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I believe I referred to what Newt must have meant in an earlier post: We'd be run by atheists or Islamic fundamentalists.

Even when the misstatement is corrected, the idea that we're going to be run by either one is absurd.

What is even more absurd is the "you people" mentality: If one of "my" guys makes a silly statement, then it has to be pointed out that one of "your" guys did it too.

This is not a sport's rally in which we trash talk "your" team and cheer for "my" team.

Personally, I don't have a team. Deal with that if you can.

Personally, I don't have a team, either. I am more than happy to expose the lies and hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle.

That's why this country is so fu**ed up. We can't trust 95% of the politicians in D.C., and that percentage isn't a helluva lot better on the state and local levels.

Deal with that if you can.