Nationalism

[Spontaneity]

Is nationalism or patriotism a good thing when it is not taken to extreme levels?

There are a lot of negative opinions about nationalism, but I think it is a great thing when not taken to extremes. There is nothing wrong with loving your country. What does everyone else think?

 

[David]

Is nationalism or patriotism a good thing when it is not taken to extreme levels?

There are a lot of negative opinions about nationalism, but I think it is a great thing when not taken to extremes. There is nothing wrong with loving your country. What does everyone else think?

I'm nationalistic. Being proud of who you are and being a bigot that thinks being what you are makes you better are 2 different things.

 

[el canadiano]

Honestly, I love Canada. However, obviously there are other countries who are better in some aspects. I'm really digging the idea of plastic money to replace paper money like Australia, but I think mandatory voting could benefit Canada if politics is taught in the elementary and high school age.

 

[adagio]

I think that Nationalism is a dangerous thing. Patriotism is something different. I embodies principles that a country stands for and honoring them. Nationalism strikes me as a boastful arrogance. American Exceptionalism for example. I'm an American and I love this country. It has the most spetacular geography in the world. Everything you can imagine can be found, from mountains to oceans and it's virtual eye-candy to the visitor.

The politics of this country are another matter. We have such a checkered past to our history. Things that are impossible to be proud of, and actually easy to be ashamed of. Conservatives here hate hearing that. I'm an America hater by saying that. But our system of government is not perfect. It's man made. No man made system is going to be infallible. It's prone to mistake. Our founders were hoping to create a "more perfect union". Not "the Perfect Union". One of our great strengths has been our ability to correct the mistakes of the past and move the country forward. Over the past 10 years I've seen an unhealthy change in this country that I can't see a remedy for. In my view the strength of the United States was in it's diversity. Today that diversity is condemned by the right as being a weakness. All that matters seems to be symbols of strength and power with the intentions of instilling fear in our neighbors and allies as well as our enemies.

There is a division that exists now that threatens the stability of the social and political framework of the United States. The very thought that torture would be a subject of debate is astonishing. The very talk of repealing or amending the Civil Rights Act in order to permit discrimination is also astonishing. Things are not getting more civil. They are getting more ugly than I've ever seen them. The waving of the Flag in one hand while holding a Bible in the other is a frieghtening picture. It's the sign of a person with a very rigid theory of rationality with a dogmatic approach to promoting an agenda that sees domination as a virtue.

I think the United States is in for some rough seas. The division that exists in the country is too wide for this generation to bridge. The propaganda that is in play is overwhelming to the senses. The truth is buried under outlandish lies and no sooner is one dispelled than there are three more to take it's place. The election of Obama has shown that the United States has broken through a barrier, yet it brought out the worst in some of us, and exposed a side of this country that we didn't want to admit was still there.

 

[myp]

I think that Nationalism is a dangerous thing. Patriotism is something different. I embodies principles that a country stands for and honoring them. Nationalism strikes me as a boastful arrogance. American Exceptionalism for example. I'm an American and I love this country. It has the most spetacular geography in the world. Everything you can imagine can be found, from mountains to oceans and it's virtual eye-candy to the visitor.

The politics of this country are another matter. We have such a checkered past to our history. Things that are impossible to be proud of, and actually easy to be ashamed of.

I can agree up to here

Conservatives here hate hearing that. I'm an America hater by saying that. But our system of government is not perfect. It's man made. No man made system is going to be infallible. It's prone to mistake. Our founders were hoping to create a "more perfect union". Not "the Perfect Union". One of our great strengths has been our ability to correct the mistakes of the past and move the country forward.

To this part, I know some conservatives may feel that way, but there are also some liberals who feel like that. I think this statement is overgeneralized as I myself am a conservative, yet do not feel we have done everything right, etc. I think this sort of sentiment is something more in line with the neoconservative movement, but even there I am sure some people would disagree.

Over the past 10 years I've seen an unhealthy change in this country that I can't see a remedy for. In my view the strength of the United States was in it's diversity. Today that diversity is condemned by the right as being a weakness. All that matters seems to be symbols of strength and power with the intentions of instilling fear in our neighbors and allies as well as our enemies.

There is a division that exists now that threatens the stability of the social and political framework of the United States. The very thought that torture would be a subject of debate is astonishing. The very talk of repealing or amending the Civil Rights Act in order to permit discrimination is also astonishing. Things are not getting more civil. They are getting more ugly than I've ever seen them.

Again, this might be too generalized, but I don't think anyone wants to repeal the Civil Rights because they want discrimination- even those who advocate it have other reasons.

The waving of the Flag in one hand while holding a Bible in the other is a frieghtening picture. It's the sign of a person with a very rigid theory of rationality with a dogmatic approach to promoting an agenda that sees domination as a virtue.

I won't disagree with you there.

I think the United States is in for some rough seas. The division that exists in the country is too wide for this generation to bridge. The propaganda that is in play is overwhelming to the senses. The truth is buried under outlandish lies and no sooner is one dispelled than there are three more to take it's place. The election of Obama has shown that the United States has broken through a barrier, yet it brought out the worst in some of us, and exposed a side of this country that we didn't want to admit was still there.

This is where I am a little more optimistic than you. The country has always been diverse and people of different backgrounds have historically had tensions and that is fine. With education and free thinking, those rifts are only bound to get fewer. I believe 9/11 was a great example of how the people of this country still have it in them to come together in times of need and I believe that at the end of the day we will be able to preserve what this land was meant for.

 

[jdsingle]

I think Nationalism is both a positive and negative thing. Some people take it to a bit of an extreme and others use it as a part of their identity.

 

[Dirk]

I am neither a nationalist or a patriot. Usually nationalism has a lot of negative connotations where I come from. I'm not proud of "my" country, i'm not proud of its people, i'm not proud of its history. By geography, I quite like the West, but former East Germany is full of bigots. I wouldn't say I'm proud of it, or anything, though.

 

[adagio]

I can agree up to here

To this part, I know some conservatives may feel that way, but there are also some liberals who feel like that. I think this statement is overgeneralized as I myself am a conservative, yet do not feel we have done everything right, etc. I think this sort of sentiment is something more in line with the neoconservative movement, but even there I am sure some people would disagree.


Again, this might be too generalized, but I don't think anyone wants to repeal the Civil Rights because they want discrimination- even those who advocate it have other reasons.

I won't disagree with you there.


This is where I am a little more optimistic than you. The country has always been diverse and people of different backgrounds have historically had tensions and that is fine. With education and free thinking, those rifts are only bound to get fewer. I believe 9/11 was a great example of how the people of this country still have it in them to come together in times of need and I believe that at the end of the day we will be able to preserve what this land was meant for.

>"I think this statement is overgeneralized as I myself am a conservative, yet do not feel we have done everything right, etc. I think this sort of sentiment is something more in line with the neoconservative movement, but even there I am sure some people would disagree."<

You're right. It was an over generalization. Most of the conservatives that I encounter seem to have that view, and I've heared it expressed on talk radio. But I would admit that's not enough to make a complete all encompassing statement like that.

>"Again, this might be too generalized, but I don't think anyone wants to repeal the Civil Rights because they want discrimination- even those who advocate it have other reasons."<

On the forum I just left there was enormous conservative (right wing)support for the statements of Rand Paul on his views of the Civil Rights Act. And quite a few threads were started on the subject of amending or outright repealing of the CRA. Judging by the overt hostility toward race that I witnessed I found those arguments disingenuous and rather more a justification for racism. I hadn't experienced that kind of completely overt racism on any other forum before. Most forums forbid it. This one let it fly. It turned my stomach, and actually turned me toward this forum. But it did make me aware of the fact that these sentiments probably weren't peculiar to this particular forum but were merely tolerated for expression. I've seen some pretty ugly examples of this within the TeaParty movement. It's an ugly side of America.

>"I believe 9/11 was a great example of how the people of this country still have it in them to come together in times of need and I believe that at the end of the day we will be able to preserve what this land was meant for."<

That may be true. But it didn't take long for Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson to start pointing fingers and laying blame for what happened on those withwhom they have different views. Suddenly 9/11 was the fault of atheists, feminists, gays, liberals, the ACLU, Humanists...etc. That's a person with a very fixed theory of rationality and he appeals to those that share that limited ability to think for themselves.

 

[Dirk]

>"I think this statement is overgeneralized as I myself am a conservative, yet do not feel we have done everything right, etc. I think this sort of sentiment is something more in line with the neoconservative movement, but even there I am sure some people would disagree."<

You're right. It was an over generalization. Most of the conservatives that I encounter seem to have that view, and I've heared it expressed on talk radio. But I would admit that's not enough to make a complete all encompassing statement like that.

>"Again, this might be too generalized, but I don't think anyone wants to repeal the Civil Rights because they want discrimination- even those who advocate it have other reasons."<

On the forum I just left there was enormous conservative (right wing)support for the statements of Rand Paul on his views of the Civil Rights Act. And quite a few threads were started on the subject of amending or outright repealing of the CRA. Judging by the overt hostility toward race that I witnessed I found those arguments disingenuous and rather more a justification for racism. I hadn't experienced that kind of completely overt racism on any other forum before. Most forums forbid it. This one let it fly. It turned my stomach, and actually turned me toward this forum. But it did make me aware of the fact that these sentiments probably weren't peculiar to this particular forum but were merely tolerated for expression. I've seen some pretty ugly examples of this within the TeaParty movement. It's an ugly side of America.

>"I believe 9/11 was a great example of how the people of this country still have it in them to come together in times of need and I believe that at the end of the day we will be able to preserve what this land was meant for."<

That may be true. But it didn't take long for Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson to start pointing fingers and laying blame for what happened on those withwhom they have different views. Suddenly 9/11 was the fault of atheists, feminists, gays, liberals, the ACLU, Humanists...etc. That's a person with a very fixed theory of rationality and he appeals to those that share that limited ability to think for themselves.

I've decided I like you. Haha!

To add to your point, I also thought it was pretty sick to blame an alleged "pact with the devil" for the Haitian earthquake.

 

[adagio]

I've decided I like you. Haha!

To add to your point, I also thought it was pretty sick to blame an alleged "pact with the devil" for the Haitian earthquake.

Hey,,,what's not to like. I was voted most likeable in my 8th grade class. It was a life altering experience for me.

 

[adagio]

I've decided I like you. Haha!

To add to your point, I also thought it was pretty sick to blame an alleged "pact with the devil" for the Haitian earthquake.

Oh absolutely. Limbaugh and others stating that they already gave to help Haiti through taxation. And then the crap from religious zealots blaming them for their religion. It's so predictable. I never want to overgeneralize but I can predict that on a given issue I know almost verbatim what I'm going to hear from Limbaugh and his followers. Anything that might benefit the average person is something they will oppose. Not just oppose, but cast as evil and an act of treason.

 

[myp]

On the forum I just left there was enormous conservative (right wing)support for the statements of Rand Paul on his views of the Civil Rights Act. And quite a few threads were started on the subject of amending or outright repealing of the CRA. Judging by the overt hostility toward race that I witnessed I found those arguments disingenuous and rather more a justification for racism. I hadn't experienced that kind of completely overt racism on any other forum before. Most forums forbid it. This one let it fly. It turned my stomach, and actually turned me toward this forum. But it did make me aware of the fact that these sentiments probably weren't peculiar to this particular forum but were merely tolerated for expression. I've seen some pretty ugly examples of this within the TeaParty movement. It's an ugly side of America.

I know a lot of forums allow hate speech etc.- that's why I made this place- to try to create a respectful and more intelligent debate forum as opposed to one where people just use debate fallacies and attack one another to try to get a point across.

As for this issue though, while some of his followers may be racist, it should be noted that Rand Paul did not question the Civil Rights Act out of being racist, but instead on its Constitutionality and whether the Federal government should have certain powers.

>"I believe 9/11 was a great example of how the people of this country still have it in them to come together in times of need and I believe that at the end of the day we will be able to preserve what this land was meant for."<

That may be true. But it didn't take long for Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson to start pointing fingers and laying blame for what happened on those withwhom they have different views. Suddenly 9/11 was the fault of atheists, feminists, gays, liberals, the ACLU, Humanists...etc. That's a person with a very fixed theory of rationality and he appeals to those that share that limited ability to think for themselves.

While there are certainly some fringe ideas out there, if we look at any period in history- even during the golden ages of any civilization, there are always a few individuals who belong to that sort of group for whatever reason whether it be racism, monetary issues, or whatever.

 

[adagio]

>"As for this issue though, while some of his followers may be racist, it should be noted that Rand Paul did not question the Civil Rights Act out of being racist, but instead on its Constitutionality and whether the Federal government should have certain powers."<

I don't really know Rand Pauls motives. I don't know for certain if he did or didn't. I know that it requires an explanation which now requires one to assume that Rand Paul meant something other then what his comments imply. I'm supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt here. Why should I do that, when the explanation doesn't have a logical basis to it?


>"While there are certainly some fringe ideas out there, if we look at any period in history- even during the golden ages of any civilization, there are always a few individuals who belong to that sort of group for whatever reason whether it be racism, monetary issues, or whatever."<

Then it's vitally important to distance ourselves from those elements so that nothing can be inferred. Guilt by association is normal in this country. Because Obama knows Bill Ayers he must be a communist and terrorist. If that is a legitimate argument to make, then it's equally legitimate to question any conservative that doesn't renounce racism and the racists within the TeaParty movement or elsewhere. We expect that of muslims when it comes to the Jihadists. We should expect no less from conservatives when it comes to racists.

 

[myp]

I don't really know Rand Pauls motives. I don't know for certain if he did or didn't. I know that it requires an explanation which now requires one to assume that Rand Paul meant something other then what his comments imply. I'm supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt here. Why should I do that, when the explanation doesn't have a logical basis to it?

It isn't a matter of giving the benefit of the doubt because there is sufficient explanation and analysis behind what he says. It really has to do with his libertarian ideological roots- something that can be seen in his father's words as well. If you look at what they reference in speeches, talks, etc. it becomes clear what they have in mind and it is clearly not racism. I am saying this as someone who has done a significant amount of research on Ron Paul as I did support him in the last election. As someone who is not white, I found it important to make sure what they were after

>
Then it's vitally important to distance ourselves from those elements so that nothing can be inferred. Guilt by association is normal in this country. Because Obama knows Bill Ayers he must be a communist and terrorist. If that is a legitimate argument to make, then it's equally legitimate to question any conservative that doesn't renounce racism and the racists within the TeaParty movement or elsewhere. We expect that of muslims when it comes to the Jihadists. We should expect no less from conservatives when it comes to racists.

Bill Ayers was an individual who we know Obama had contacts- however close they may have been- with. In the case of racists and the tea party or the Republican party, it is not as if any major candidates have supported those racist ideas even if some of their supporters may think that way- Dr. Paul being an example. I am not sure what more GOP leaders could do if they already haven't endorsed, worked with, or done anything with those racists. They can't exactly single out every person who is going to support them. On the same note, there is no doubt that President Obama and any other politician also has some followers who may support them due to reasons such as race, sex, orientation, or whatever.

Speculation will always be about- it is only when one really looks into the platforms and ideals of individuals that they can place what that individual stands for. And even then there will always be a fuzzy gray-area. Just part of not being omniscient.

 

[Dirk]

Guilt by association is normal in this country. Because Obama knows Bill Ayers he must be a communist and terrorist.

It does get to the point of idiocy, though. I can't remember who it was, but I remember some figure of some sort was accused of and under suspicion of being a communist, i quote, "because he lived up the road from the Soviet embassy". Even presuming it is at all a legitimate inference to make the connection between communism and the USSR, it is a pretty damn flimsy connection to make!

Bill Ayers was an individual who we know Obama had contacts- however close they may have been- with.

I don't think this is fair at all. I've had contacts with SPD members, doesn't make me a social democrat. I've had contacts with Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat Party members, doesn't make me a centrist, or centre-rightist. In fact, a better example, I've met Donnie Munro, I still wouldn't vote for the Labour Party in a million years.

 

[adagio]

It isn't a matter of giving the benefit of the doubt because there is sufficient explanation and analysis behind what he says. It really has to do with his libertarian ideological roots- something that can be seen in his father's words as well. If you look at what they reference in speeches, talks, etc. it becomes clear what they have in mind and it is clearly not racism. I am saying this as someone who has done a significant amount of research on Ron Paul as I did support him in the last election. As someone who is not white, I found it important to make sure what they were after


Bill Ayers was an individual who we know Obama had contacts- however close they may have been- with. In the case of racists and the tea party or the Republican party, it is not as if any major candidates have supported those racist ideas even if some of their supporters may think that way- Dr. Paul being an example. I am not sure what more GOP leaders could do if they already haven't endorsed, worked with, or done anything with those racists. They can't exactly single out every person who is going to support them. On the same note, there is no doubt that President Obama and any other politician also has some followers who may support them due to reasons such as race, sex, orientation, or whatever.

Speculation will always be about- it is only when one really looks into the platforms and ideals of individuals that they can place what that individual stands for. And even then there will always be a fuzzy gray-area. Just part of not being omniscient.

>"It isn't a matter of giving the benefit of the doubt because there is sufficient explanation and analysis behind what he says."<

Well, thats just it. I don't think there is. I think the explanation is weak and the logic not to mention the morality of it is non-existant.

>"It really has to do with his libertarian ideological roots- something that can be seen in his father's words as well."<

Which is probably why I find the explanations and rationalizations weak. I think Libertarianism is pretty dumb.

>"If you look at what they reference in speeches, talks, etc. it becomes clear what they have in mind and it is clearly not racism. I am saying this as someone who has done a significant amount of research on Ron Paul as I did support him in the last election. As someone who is not white, I found it important to make sure what they were after" <

If you're comfortable with that, it matters. I'm white and I'm not comfortable with it. I've seen far too many couch their racism behind theories of rationality which can be exploded rather easily.

>"Bill Ayers was an individual who we know Obama had contacts- however close they may have been- with."<

Obama was 8 years old when Ayers was doing his thing. Ayers lived in his neighborhood and was an activist in education and sat on a board created by a Reagan Republican with other Republicans including the presidnet of Northwestern University. They weren't "close buddies". They didn't have dinner together and plot the overthrow of the United States.

>"In the case of racists and the tea party or the Republican party, it is not as if any major candidates have supported those racist ideas even if some of their supporters may think that way- Dr. Paul being an example."<

I disagree. Paul himself had an outright racist on his staff that he had to let go because it became known. There are other Republican politicians with connections to Neo-confederate organizations and publications. The politicians aren't likely to come out publicly to support racists ideologues, but the racist ideologues will and do provide support for them. The relationships are MUCH closer then anything Obama had with Ayers.

>"I am not sure what more GOP leaders could do if they already haven't endorsed, worked with, or done anything with those racists. They can't exactly single out every person who is going to support them. On the same note, there is no doubt that President Obama and any other politician also has some followers who may support them due to reasons such as race, sex, orientation, or whatever."<

It should be very simple. The Republican Party Platform should fully and unequivically endorse and support the Civil Rights Act without any reservations whatsoever. If they can't do that, then explain why not? As for those that cling to the racist ideology they will go the same way as the racist Democrats of the 60's. Away. They will leave the Republicans because Republicans won't accept their views in the party any longer, and they will have no voice. They can form their own KKK Party. Eventually like the dinosaurs that they are...they will die off. If they could ever accomplish that much, they'd end up a much stronger party with a much greater appeal. But nobody with any degree of dignity wants to be lumped together with a bunch of redneck racists. You're known by the company you keep. If that applies to Obama, it also applies to his critics.

 

[myp]

I think Libertarianism is pretty dumb.

I don't, but that's a whole other debate

>"Bill Ayers was an individual who we know Obama had contacts- however close they may have been- with."<

Obama was 8 years old when Ayers was doing his thing. Ayers lived in his neighborhood and was an activist in education and sat on a board created by a Reagan Republican with other Republicans including the presidnet of Northwestern University. They weren't "close buddies". They didn't have dinner together and plot the overthrow of the United States.

I am not suggesting they did, but it cannot be denied that they did have a relationship and Ayers did have some influence on Obama.

I disagree. Paul himself had an outright racist on his staff that he had to let go because it became known.

But doesn't that just show that he doesn't believe in racism since he did distance himself from that person once he found out? No one knows what the intentions of others are when they just meet them as is often the case when new campaign staffers are interviewed.

There are other Republican politicians with connections to Neo-confederate organizations and publications. The politicians aren't likely to come out publicly to support racists ideologues, but the racist ideologues will and do provide support for them. The relationships are MUCH closer then anything Obama had with Ayers.

I would disagree here unless there is some actual proof. Otherwise it is just speculation and everyone can do that. It is not like there aren't people racist against white people who might have voted for Obama over McCain because of skin color as well.

It should be very simple. The Republican Party Platform should fully and unequivically endorse and support the Civil Rights Act without any reservations whatsoever. If they can't do that, then explain why not?

Well this is again just generalization as the Pauls are only 2 members of millions in the party. I don't think the RNC feels the need for such a statement at this time. It is because of generalizations like these that I sometimes just wish there were no parties and people could just look at politicians solely on what they stand for.

As for those that cling to the racist ideology they will go the same way as the racist Democrats of the 60's. Away. They will leave the Republicans because Republicans won't accept their views in the party any longer, and they will have no voice. They can form their own KKK Party. Eventually like the dinosaurs that they are...they will die off. If they could ever accomplish that much, they'd end up a much stronger party with a much greater appeal. But nobody with any degree of dignity wants to be lumped together with a bunch of redneck racists. You're known by the company you keep. If that applies to Obama, it also applies to his critics.

I will agree that I too think that over time the racists will once more not get their way, especially as education continues to increase.

 

[adagio]

I don't, but that's a whole other debate

I am not suggesting they did, but it cannot be denied that they did have a relationship and Ayers did have some influence on Obama.

But doesn't that just show that he doesn't believe in racism since he did distance himself from that person once he found out? No one knows what the intentions of others are when they just meet them as is often the case when new campaign staffers are interviewed.

I would disagree here unless there is some actual proof. Otherwise it is just speculation and everyone can do that. It is not like there aren't people racist against white people who might have voted for Obama over McCain because of skin color as well.

Well this is again just generalization as the Pauls are only 2 members of millions in the party. I don't think the RNC feels the need for such a statement at this time. It is because of generalizations like these that I sometimes just wish there were no parties and people could just look at politicians solely on what they stand for.


I will agree that I too think that over time the racists will once more not get their way, especially as education continues to increase.

>"I am not suggesting they did, but it cannot be denied that they did have a relationship and Ayers did have some influence on Obama."<

Then the question should be what was the nature of the relationship and what influence did Ayers have. How can that be demonstrated?

>" But doesn't that just show that he doesn't believe in racism since he did distance himself from that person once he found out?"<

No. Because he did nothing until it became public. Then of course the guy was dismissed.

>"No one knows what the intentions of others are when they just meet them as is often the case when new campaign staffers are interviewed."<

I'd be willing to bet that Rand Pauls relationship with this guy was much stronger and longer then any relationship that Obama would have had with Bill Ayers. I'm sure he spent more time with him.

>"I don't think the RNC feels the need for such a statement at this time."<
I'm sure. But why not? Why would they hesitate in their support for Civil Rights?

 

[adagio]

It isn't a matter of giving the benefit of the doubt because there is sufficient explanation and analysis behind what he says. It really has to do with his libertarian ideological roots- something that can be seen in his father's words as well. If you look at what they reference in speeches, talks, etc. it becomes clear what they have in mind and it is clearly not racism. I am saying this as someone who has done a significant amount of research on Ron Paul as I did support him in the last election. As someone who is not white, I found it important to make sure what they were after


Bill Ayers was an individual who we know Obama had contacts- however close they may have been- with. In the case of racists and the tea party or the Republican party, it is not as if any major candidates have supported those racist ideas even if some of their supporters may think that way- Dr. Paul being an example. I am not sure what more GOP leaders could do if they already haven't endorsed, worked with, or done anything with those racists. They can't exactly single out every person who is going to support them. On the same note, there is no doubt that President Obama and any other politician also has some followers who may support them due to reasons such as race, sex, orientation, or whatever.

Speculation will always be about- it is only when one really looks into the platforms and ideals of individuals that they can place what that individual stands for. And even then there will always be a fuzzy gray-area. Just part of not being omniscient.

>" In the case of racists and the tea party or the Republican party, it is not as if any major candidates have supported those racist ideas even if some of their supporters may think that way"<

Can it be shown that Obama has supported Ayers in some way? If so, how? Money? Verbal endorsemen? Anything?

 

[Black Angel]

I think it is fine to be proud of your country and of where you come from.. just as long as don't go thinking that your country is the best and can do no wrong. I am proud to be an American, and I am proud to be a New Yorker, but I don't think that the U.S. is the best country in the world, nor do I think that Americans are superior others.

It irritates me when you have those who are proud of their country NO MATTER WHAT.. and if someone should disagree with their opinion, or the actions of those in charger, then, that person is Un-American, Anti-Freedom, and a Terrorist.. and should "go back to wherever they came from." With these individuals, you are only entitled to your opinion just as long as you agree with everything they say. It pisses me off when you have people from other countries tarring all Americans with the same brush as these idiots.

Personally, I see the good as well as the bad, and I give credit and critique where it is due. If my country does right, then I'll cheer them on.. and if they screw up then I'll be cursing them.. to me, that is what true nationalism is.