I'm curious as to how one can be both "Nazi-like" and "Stalinist" at the same time. It seems to be even more contradictory than "Compassionate Conservative". Didn't we just have a long thread about how Hitler's Nazi ideology and Stalin's Communist ideology were so antithetical to each other that the war between the two was inevitable?

Its becauce you use the methods of one, and the ideolgy of the other, or vice versa, what ever it takes at the time to get the job done.

mabee it's evolution, lol.

Nazi-like, Stalinist, HSers (or Shers)and America-haters

I'm curious as to how one can be both "Nazi-like" and "Stalinist" at the same time. It seems to be even more contradictory than "Compassionate Conservative". Didn't we just have a long thread about how Hitler's Nazi ideology and Stalin's Communist ideology were so antithetical to each other that the war between the two was inevitable?

Way to go! You got in a double Godwin and an all Muslims are evil America haters in just one comment and even threw in a blatant misreading to boot.
Thanks for showing your true colors in all their glory. I now know exactly how much weight to give anything you post;.

People like you, who label all those with whom they disagree as hating America, being Nazi, Stalinists, etc, are poisoning political discourse in America. This does far more harm to our country than any of your imagined excesses of the Left.

Well, I'll be! You got it exactly basackwards! Those who are Nazi-like, Stalinist, HSers (or Shers)and America-haters are spoiling not only political discourse, but also daily life in this nation. Those are the ones that I label enemies of the nation, and it isn't just MY opinion, it is the opinion of most Americans. Again, you complain when you cannot refute the argument in my syllogism.

HS = Humanists/Secularists,or Secular Humanists, whichever you can understand.

Have you been tracking what Muslims have been demanding here, in Sweden and in the UK and Canada? It starts small with demands for foot baths in all bathrooms so they can wash their feet before prayers. Next, they have demanded their own Islamic schools, then it is permission to build a large Islamic facility in a dominantly Christian town, including a mosque, and then they turn to demanding Sharia in their neighborhoods. Not hard to guess the next steps. All of these steps have occurred now, and their tempo is increasing.

We rightly exclude certain citizens from voting or holding office, including criminals, although there is another leftist trick being pursued to gain votes... Anyone who advocates overthrow of our government and way of life should not be allowed to vote or hold office. That is what Muslims are dedicated to do by their adherence to Islam.

Let me see....oh, using very careful wording, I left open the question of allowing abortion for involuntary pregnancies, as well as the question of whose life should be saved in a medical emergency. Sometimes, these issues must be handled on a case by case basis.

This is getting hilarious! We now have an admitted atheist here. It is clear that you are speaking for a very small minority, and would indeed resent not being included in any leadership positions. But, you see, how can the majority trust you, since you think they are fools that believe in God? This by your own statement!

Rights? "...among those are...." But not equality of outcome!

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you had just fallen to a little GA style hyperbole with your inane syllogism. I guess I was wrong.

Mannning you are right, no argument here, they just try to make someone feel bad for what they have said, its the best weapon they have next to fabracation, but is it not funny how there best weapon works mostly aganist them and to their own harm, but their second best has no effect on them at all.

People like you, who label all those with whom they disagree as hating America, being Nazi, Stalinists, etc, are poisoning political discourse in America. This does far more harm to our country than any of your imagined excesses of the Left.

Dude why,
Once again, "Disagree" has what to do with what you people are up to and doing to this country, once again you take the part of the sad little guy that some mean conservative is picking on.

if you don't see that you always label those who point out the "fact" that the most of the labels you use on them fit you better after you labeled them first then you have no sence of irony, but what it all come down to is that you think your smarter then us, and why, cause some other liberal told you you where, lol.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you had just fallen to a little GA style hyperbole with your inane syllogism. I guess I was wrong.

People like you, who label all those with whom they disagree as hating America, being Nazi, Stalinists, etc, are poisoning political discourse in America. This does far more harm to our country than any of your imagined excesses of the Left.

The US should never give up one iota of sovereignty so long as this situation persists.

What on earth are you talking about?

Nor should we turn our backs on our Christian heritage by allowing further secularism.

You were the one who suggested Leitkultur. As originally proposed by Tibi, secularism is fundamental to the concept.
The term was later hijacked by German nativists who wanted to remove foreign elements from German culture. You are apparently using this version of the term.

Segregation of blacks and whites or any other color by law is not part of the Leitkulture I suggest.
Your dirty little assumption that I am suggesting white supremacy is likewise odious.

I was just taking your statement at face value. You said "The model for that national Leitkulture is most likely to be the culture of the pre-Vietnam era." Jim Crow laws persisted well after our engagement in Vietnam. The 50s and early 60s were a time of much more overt racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and homophobia. This is the era that you said we should base our Leitkultur on and those are realities of that era.

if there is to be a leadership, it should come from the dominant majority of Judeo-Christians, not atheists or followers of Islam. They only represent 1% and 2.1% of the population respectively

Jewish people only make up about 1% of US population so it's mighty kind of you to include them. According to CIA World Factbook, 10% list religion as other and 10% list none. The latest Newsweek poll says that 90% of Americans believe in God, though only 3% self identify as atheists. I guess this leaves that 7% as agnostics. All that however is beside the point. Religious affiliation should in no way be a requirement to lead in America. To say otherwise is frankly un-American.

...so their chances are not all that good if they are allowed to run.

Fortunately they are allowed to run, though apparently it is quite difficult to get elected if you admit to not believing in some invisible, unprovable entity controlling everything.

Woman's rights are quite open up until they allow conception to take place of their own volition

and if that conception is not of their own volition then what?

If by human rights is meant natural rights as derived from natural law, then that is good

Whose formulation of natural law are you referring to?

if it means further open-ended expansion of rights as they are created every other week by HS people, or demanded by Muslims, absolutely no.

What are HS people?
What rights demanded by Muslims are you referring to? Presumably if they are coming out weekly you should have no difficulty in compiling a formidable list.

I thought I was dealing with secular humanists; you know, the one's that are atheists, want children to be raised by the state, and want no hint of our Christian heritage showing, among other odious tenets, such as internationalism.

You mean those people you created in your own mind or label those you disagree with to justify your intense dislike for everything they believe? Do do realize that your description doesn't fit any _real_ people, right?

However, if there is to be a leadership, it should come from the dominant majority of Judeo-Christians

Ok, would that be Catholic leadership, Methodist leadership, Baptist leadership, Southern Baptist (yes, different) leadership, Unitarian leadership, Presbyterian leadership, etc? Because you know, they disagree with each other almost as much as they disagree with Atheists and Muslims. I guess I shouldn't even bother asking if you consider Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses as part of your "Judeo-Christian" majority.

The world is not ready for a master government: there are far too many amoral or immoral nations in the pot that make a mockery of democratic procedures, and we do not want a dictatorship of the world.

The US should never give up one iota of sovereignty so long as this situation persists.

Nor should we turn our backs on our Christian heritage by allowing further secularism. In fact, much of what has been done in this past 50 years must be rolled back, especially that which involved the ACLU, our schools, and display of Christian symbols.

Segregation of blacks and whites or any other color by law is not part of the Leitkulture I suggest.

Your dirty little assumption that I am suggesting white supremacy is likewise odious. However, if there is to be a leadership, it should come from the dominant majority of Judeo-Christians, not atheists or followers of Islam. They only represent 1% and 2.1% of the population respectively at the moment anyway, so their chances are not all that good if they are allowed to run.

If by human rights is meant natural rights as derived from natural law, then that is good, but if it means further open-ended expansion of rights as they are created every other week by HS people, or demanded by Muslims, absolutely no.

Except for abortion, which is apparently a no-no topic here, women should have equal rights in the society. I believe that human life begins with conception, and that artificial tampering with the process is, in most cases, wrong. Woman's rights are quite open up until they allow conception to take place of their own volition, at which point they are dealing with a human life in the womb that they proactively helped to create. They must not play God.

gee I thought it was your nazi-like librealism I was talking about.

Ding ding ding! Congratulations G.A.Phillips, you're this threads Godwin award winner. You can collect your prize somewhere (anywhere) else. Thanks for playing.

If you want to keep up the mutual admiration society with the resident troll keep on with posts like your syllogism. That type of discourse serves no constructive purpose and poisons rational discussion of any issue.

I suggest to you that we are, or should be, striving for a single, common, and well-understood national morality and culture, with the many subcultures we have appended as in a Leitkulture.

It depends upon what you mean by Leitkultur. If you mean that our culture should embrace democracy, secularism, the Enlightenment, human rights and civil society as Tibi originally stated, then yes. If however you mean it as it came to be used by the CDU in Germany, as your next sentence indicates, then no.

The model for that national Leitkulture is most likely to be the culture of the pre-Vietnam era, thus removing much of the poison that has corrupted our scene ever since then.

In other words it should be based on a white male dominated segregated society in which women and minorities know their place and dissent is frowned upon.