# Nationalism Is ALWAYS Dangerous



## Annie

China and Japan seem to both be suffering a bout of it. Does anyone really think that Japan COULD offer an apology to China that would be believed or truly accepted? Losing proposition, that  one.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1229/p01s02-woap.htm



> Nationalism drives China, Japan apart
> By Robert Marquand | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
> 
> BEIJING - The growing trade between Japan and China in 2005 has been matched by rising symbolic and verbal provocations and a steady decline in public opinion and diplomatic ties - marking a new nadir in relations between the most important competitors for Asia's future.
> 
> And the year is ending on a sour note. Last week, China formally declared a policy of "peaceful development" as it rises economically in Asia. But within 24 hours, Japan's new foreign minister, Taro Aso, warned that China's nuclear program and secretive military development "pose a considerable threat," the first time a Japanese foreign minister has made such a bald statement of concern.
> 
> "This could possibly be the worst period of Sino-Japanese relations since World War II," says James Mulvenon, Asia specialist at the Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis in Washington.
> 
> Few analysts predict violent conflict between Japan and China. Both nations are regarded as practical and pragmatic. Yet the negative dynamics of rising nationalism, fear, historical animosity - and China's rapid economic expansion in Asia - are at work with no mediating structures or nations. Diplomats and even some Chinese and Japanese officials say privately that Washington has yet to show it is paying much attention, apparently preoccupied with other priorities such as Iraq.
> 
> Relations between the historic Pacific rivals immediately plummeted at the start of this calendar year. Japan surprised China in February, on the first day of its biggest national holiday, Spring Festival, by saying it claimed formal control of the disputed Senkaku (or Diaoyu) islands in the oil-rich East China Sea. The year has now ended with rhetorical salvos, with Beijing describing the Japanese foreign minister's comments about China's military last week as "highly irresponsible."
> 
> Two days after Mr. Aso's warning, Tokyo announced it would jointly develop a naval SM-3 missile interceptor with the US, part of a "nuclear missile shield," for use on Japan's advanced Aegis-system destroyers that are expected to be launched in 2008. The US and Japan have been developing closer formal military ties since early this year.
> 
> In between the 2005 bookends has been a quiet, intense game of diplomatic snubs, protests, and cat-and-mouse maneuvers in the East China Sea over drilling rights and borders. China has systematically worked to keep Japan off the UN Security Council in proposed reforms of that body. This spring, carefully controlled Chinese "mobs" threw bottles and rocks at the Japanese Embassy here, and smashed up some Japanese businesses in brief rampages in Shanghai, frightening Japanese expatriates.
> China blocks Japan's UN bid
> 
> After a Dec. 26 meeting with Japan on UN reform, China stated it would support greater participation by African countries in the UN rather than an expansion of the Security Council, and reiterated its concern that until Japan is properly repentant for its war-time past, China will block Japan's effort.
> 
> No plans now exist for leaders or even foreign ministers of the two most powerful states in Asia to meet. At the first "East Asian summit" this month in Kuala Lumpur, designed to enhance intra-Asian ties (and exclude the US), no "sideline" talks took place. Summit host Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi publicly stated, "We are concerned about the developing dichotomy in Japan-China relations ... one of the main pillars of East Asia cooperation."
> 
> Meanwhile, the general public opinion in both China and Japan about each other continues to slide, despite many instances of good business and professional working relationships. In fact, China is now Japan's No. 1 trade and export partner, replacing the US. But only 32 percent of Japanese have a friendly feeling toward China, a new government-sponsored poll shows. The figure has been dropping since 1995, when nearly 50 percent of Japanese said they felt positively toward their huge neighbor.
> 
> "Such a major drop in friendly feelings, or ... a rise in feelings of dislike, is not good for both countries," said former foreign minister Nobutaka Machimura in Tokyo Friday, after the poll was released.
> 
> Since visiting the Yasukuni shrine in October, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has come under pressure from the Japanese business community to curb his provocations with such an important business partner. On Tuesday Aso the foreign minister stated that Japan should not view China as an "economic threat" but that "competition is a good thing in nature."
> 
> Both China and Japan have strong domestic reasons for allowing, and even carefully feeding and managing, the chill between the two.
> Cohesion through a new nationalism
> 
> China is a communist state whose ideology no longer inspires most of its people, experts point out, but whose communist structures of control still are relied on for authority and legitimacy. Within that system, hatred for the Japanese occupation in World War II is one substitute for ideology, and building a proud China capable of becoming the No. 1 power in Asia is one way of creating national cohesion. When Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi visits the Yasukuni Shrine, a place where more than a dozen top Japanese war criminals were secretly placed for burial in the early 1970s, it gives China plenty of fuel to stoke the flames of nationalism.
> 
> "Try to imagine [German] Chancellor Angela Merkel going repeatedly to pay her public respects at a cemetery where a dozen high ranking Nazis and members of Hitler's inner circle were buried," Mr. Mulvenon points out. "Do you think that might be upsetting?"
> 
> In Japan, China's rise has become a major political topic. Japanese politicians, even the head of the liberal Democratic Party of Japan, now are shifting to the right, looking for votes in a prouder "stand tall" rhetoric. Japan has sought to become a "normal nation" not so reliant on the US. Japanese used to point to dictator Kim Jong Il in North Korea as an example of dangers in their neighborhood.
> 
> But today the talk is of the enormity of the Chinese threat, a country of 1.3 billion people that Japanese say is controlled by a government whose workings are secret and is less than forthcoming about the size and intentions of its military, and could one day shut down Japan's oil supply.
> Just $25.6 billion for defense?
> 
> After Aso's comment about China's hefty military spending increases, Beijing vehemently and publicly repeated the official Chinese annual defense spending figure of $25.6 billion. Yet few China experts believe that figure. The London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies this fall argued that China now spends nearly $25 billion purchasing Russian armaments alone.
> 
> "If you are sitting in Japan, an island nation, and you are watching a huge neighboring country many times larger than you, start to develop a modern military, you are going to get worried," notes one European scholar in Beijing. "It is a fairly basic thing."
> 
> What many analysts worry about in the developing chill between China and Japan is the potential for a miscalculation. Japan's inability to offer a convincing apology for its wartime past, and the use of the Yasukuni shrine to score subtle ethnic put-downs in Asia (and get domestic applause) is one possible miscalculation.
> 
> Another is Beijing's apparent inability to apprehend how its growing muscularity looks in Asia, and its apparent inability to believably reassure other nations about its peaceful intentions. As Mulvenon points out, "When my Chinese friends ask me why Japan is so worried, I tell them the Chinese have no one to blame but themselves. They created this schism with their military modernization program.... [and] lack of transparency in their strategic intentions."
> 
> So far, the US has not actively engaged in trying to reduce the chill. "The US is better positioned than any of the regional powers to take the lead in changing the geopolitical context in Northeast Asia," notes James Goodby, a former US ambassador, speaking of a range of animosities and schisms in the Pacific.
> 
> "Until very recently the Bush administration has not seen fit to exercise this unique role...," he says. But Mr. Goodby adds that in recent weeks the White House may have gained a greater "awareness" of its potential for helping with stability.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Nationalism is fine if the values of the nation are positive.  The internationalists have gotten to you, Kat.  Quick, get thee to a deprogramming session.


----------



## Annie

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Nationalism is fine if the values of the nation are positive.  The internationalists have gotten to you, Kat.  Quick, get thee to a deprogramming session.



Nope, patriotism is fine, nationalism isn't.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Nope, patriotism is fine, nationalism isn't.



One person's patriotism is another's nationalism.  

http://www.newamericancentury.com/  this is my favorite nationalist site.  It just so happens that what is good for america is good for freedom around the globe.


----------



## Zhukov

Japanese culture has been shocked and rocked since the war.  I think a little more Japanese nationalism could be a good thing for them and us.  Get their competitive spirit going again, rather than returning to the era of feeling depressed about their society and future while their kids commit suicide in record numbers among industrialized states and their economy stagnates and shrinks (|).  It could definetely go too far, but I don't think it's anywhere near that yet.



Though I can't say I approve of visiting the graves of war criminals.

On the other side, it's hypocritical for the ChiComs to demand an apology from the Japanese when they should be apologizing themselves, having killed many more Chinese than the Japanese ever did.


----------



## Annie

Orwell wrote on the differences, at root, WWI was caused by European hyper-nationalism, though truly looking over the history of that continent, any excuse would do:

http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/nationalism.html


----------



## Annie

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> One person's patriotism is another's nationalism.
> 
> http://www.newamericancentury.com/  this is my favorite nationalist site.  It just so happens that what is good for america is good for freedom around the globe.




It's a matter of degrees and openess.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Orwell wrote on the differences, at root, WWI was caused by European hyper-nationalism, though truly looking over the history of that continent, any excuse would do:
> 
> http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/nationalism.html



And again, the effect of the nationalism depends on the values it seeks to spread.  I feel your generalization is too broad.


----------



## Annie

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> And again, the effect of the nationalism depends on the values it seeks to spread.  I feel your generalization is too broad.


Ok.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Ok.



OH, you're no fun! :funnyface


----------



## dilloduck

America could use a HUGE shot of nationalism right now. The problem is that America is NOT what a large number of Americans call their nation. So much for the great melting pot experiment.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Peace is dictated.  Where have I read that before?


----------



## Annie

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Peace is dictated.  Where have I read that before?




But not through nationalism, through strength, real strength. Not some frickin' 'Glorious Past.'


----------



## dilloduck

Kathianne said:
			
		

> But not through nationalism, through strength, real strength. Not some frickin' 'Glorious Past.'



Why does nationalism have to be in the past?


----------



## Annie

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Why does nationalism have to be in the past?



Do the homework. If you were China or Japan in 2006; or  Germany or France in 1910, where would you look?


----------



## dilloduck

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Do the homework. If you were China or Japan in 2006; or  Germany or France in 1910, where would you look?



I just disagree with your assertion that nationalism is always bad and I've done plenty of homework.


----------



## Annie

dilloduck said:
			
		

> I just disagree with your assertion that nationalism is always bad and I've done plenty of homework.


OK


----------



## dilloduck

Been nice debating it with ya !  :teeth:


----------



## Zhukov

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Peace is dictated.  Where have I read that before?


Probably from the future peace dictator of the world.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Kathianne said:
			
		

> But not through nationalism, through strength, real strength. Not some frickin' 'Glorious Past.'



Kathianne, you've accepted the pc associations that nationalism = bad.  It's only bad if the values of the nation are evil.  Our greatness is because of individual freedoms.  This is what we spread when we spread.


----------



## Annie

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Kathianne, you've accepted the pc associations that nationalism = bad.  It's only bad if the values of the nation are evil.  Our greatness is because of individual freedoms.  This is what we spread when we spread.


Hardly. I've thought nationalism extremely negative since reading about WWI. Not good and European nations are more prone than most countries to this phenonema-well except China and Japan. Mix xenophobia with hyperpatriotism with hubris and national delusion to get nationalism. While the US is very patriotic by and large, nationalism just isn't something such a diverse country falls into.


----------



## dilloduck

Nationalism does not require xenophobia, hyperpatroitism nor national delusion. The population of a country can certainly be very proud of it without hating or attacking every other country. A dose of nationalism might go a long way in mending the rifts in our country and educate a few ingrates along the way.


----------



## Annie

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Nationalism does not require xenophobia, hyperpatroitism nor national delusion. The population of a country can certainly be very proud of it without hating or attacking every other country. A dose of nationalism might go a long way in mending the rifts in our country and educate a few ingrates along the way.



Then our definitions of nationalism are different.


----------



## dilloduck

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Then our definitions of nationalism are different.



Now THAT wouldn't surprise me in the least. It does have many disputed definitions and we dispute all the time !


----------



## rtwngAvngr

here's your definition Kat.



> Mix xenophobia with hyperpatriotism with hubris and national delusion to get nationalism.



Here's the actual definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nationalism
Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation. 
The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals. 
Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

What's the alternative?  Internationalism?

Satan seeks to destroy the nations.


----------



## Annie

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> here's your definition Kat.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the actual definition:
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nationalism
> Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
> The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
> Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.
> 
> What's the alternative?  Internationalism?
> 
> Satan seeks to destroy the nations.



Again, we disagree. That wasn't MY definition, but one definition from an online dictionary. With something as serious as this, I tend more towards this:

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20011002



> patriotism/nationalism
> 
> Michelle Davis wrote:
> 
> I have tried to find a difference between nationalism and patriotism in the dictionary and can see only a subtle difference between the two. It seems that nationalism is more centered in thought, and patriotism is more centered in feeling, and that nationalism is more about comparing your country to others, whereas patriotism is just plain love for your country without the competition context. Is there truly a difference between the two?
> 
> Patriotism can be defined simply as 'love and loyal support of one's country'. Yes, it's centered in feelingand, as we've seen in past weeks, the emotion is deep and intense.
> 
> But when people take patriotism to a fanatic extreme, this is usually called nationalism. (The terms jingoism and chauvinism are near synonyms.) Nationalism is more centered in thought than in feeling; it's actually a political and social philosophy. The Columbia Encyclopedia defines it as "a collective state of mind or consciousness in which people believe their primary duty and loyalty is to the nation-state. Often nationalism implies national superiority and glorifies various national virtues. Thus love of nation may be overemphasized; concern with national self-interest to the exclusion of the rights of other nations may lead to international conflict." So, because nationalism is the belief that national interests and security are more important than international considerations, it often goes hand in hand with a militaristic foreign policy. It also tends to encourage cultural conformity and intolerance.
> 
> On the positive side, nationalism has been a means of creating a national identity based a common cultural history. It has also been a means of fostering unity and of preserving political and social institutions. Historically it has manifested itself as a desire for national independenceit's the philosophy behind political movements aimed at national unification, self-determination, and freedom from foreign domination. The American Revolution is only one example.
> 
> Lately, newspapers and magazines have been full of quotations about the difference between patriotism and nationalism. The English novelist George Orwell wrote: "By patriotism, I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people." Sydney Harris, a British-born U.S. journalist, wrote: "Patriotism is being proud of a country's virtues and eager to correct its deficiencies; it also acknowledges the legitimate patriotism of other countries, with their own specific virtues. The pride of nationalism, however, trumpets its country's virtues and denies its deficiencies, while it is contemptuous toward the virtues of other countries...The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does." And finally, Charles de Gaulle, former president of France, said: "Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first."
> 
> Carol



Again, it's not so much a definition per se, as trying to capture the essence of meaning and end product. Here's something on the causes of WWI, nationalism being one:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...i.html+nationalism+WWI&hl=en&client=firefox-a


> Nationalism: "The changes that took place in the map of Europe between 1859 and 1878 increased the opportunities for friction between the major powers and inflamed the resentments of minor ones. This process had been accelerated by the intense economic rivalry of the post-free trade era and the bitter competition for overseas colonies, which caused frequent crises from the 1880s onward, and by the growth of a new kind of nationalism, made possible by the spread of popular education and the birth of the yellow pressa nationalism that became increasingly ideological in nature and encouraged suspicion rather than understanding of other nations" (Gordon Craig). In other words, imperialist rivalries aroused nationalist passions in an age of mass politics. Political élitesparticularly in Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russiahoped to consolidate their authority at home with an aggressive foreign policy.
> 
> Serbia, having wrested its independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1878, was a relatively new state with large ambitions. Its leaders intended that Serbia should play the same role in the Balkans that Piedmont had played in Italy: unifying the peninsula at the expense of Austria. Serbia fought two wars in the Balkans in 1912-13, but these were not yet directed against Austria. The first war, which pushed the Ottomans out of one of their last footholds in the peninsula, was followed by one in which Serbia fought its neighbor Bulgaria for control of the territories the Ottomans had evacuated. The result was to double the size of Serbia, to the dismay of the Austrians. But the Austrians succeeded in denying Serbia access to the sea by insisting on the creation of Albania at a peace conference sponsored by the British. So Serbian nationalism was frustrated again by Austrian imperialism.


----------



## dilloduck

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Again, we disagree. That wasn't MY definition, but one definition from an online dictionary. With something as serious as this, I tend more towards this:
> 
> http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20011002
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it's not so much a definition per se, as trying to capture the essence of meaning and end product. Here's something on the causes of WWI, nationalism being one:
> 
> http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...i.html+nationalism+WWI&hl=en&client=firefox-a



I don't see anything in any definition that remotely refers to nationalism being ALWAYS bad so I guess that's just your personal feelings about nationalism.


----------



## Annie

dilloduck said:
			
		

> I don't see anything in any definition that remotely refers to nationalism being ALWAYS bad so I guess that's just your personal feelings about nationalism.



Reasonable assumption. I would say that I've come to that conclusion.  I guess it's the 'nuance', feeling Kerry like. OMG!  :duh3:


----------



## rtwngAvngr

This was your original statement regarding what you thought it was.


> Mix xenophobia with hyperpatriotism with hubris and national delusion to get nationalism.



That long essay making some distinction about emotion versus rationality is pure postulation.

And anyway: I rationally think a tolerant multicutultural society such as ours is better than intolerant muslim theocracies.  In this context is my nationalism "bad"?


----------



## Annie

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> This was your original statement regarding what you thought it was.
> 
> 
> That long essay making some distinction about emotion versus rationality is pure postulation.
> 
> And anyway: I rationally think a tolerant multicutultural society such as ours is better than intolerant muslim theocracies.  In this context is my nationalism "bad"?



No we agree on why our 'tolerant multicultural society', works, even though for most of us there is way too much 'tolerance' of perversions, evil acts, etc. We are still better off for it. 

I think Dillo is correct, Nationalism, to _my way of thinking_ is ALWAYS wrong-but I am not always right. How's that?


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Kathianne said:
			
		

> No we agree on why our 'tolerant multicultural society', works, even though for most of us there is way too much 'tolerance' of perversions, evil acts, etc. We are still better off for it.
> 
> I think Dillo is correct, Nationalism, to _my way of thinking_ is ALWAYS wrong-but I am not always right. How's that?



So don't you rationally think it's better?  OR is "works" not to be construed as "better"?

Do you always stick to politically correct villifications of words in your own thinking even when the word has been shown to not really be such a bad thing?


----------



## Annie

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> So don't you rationally think it's better?  OR is "works" not to be construed as "better"?
> 
> Do you always stick to politically correct villifications of words in your own thinking even when the word has been shown to not really be such a bad thing?



Jason, I will return to this. Let's just say that what I consider nationalism is a bad thing. Our country is NOT nationalistic, in my use of the word. Yes, our country works very well, wouldn't trade it for any.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Jason, I will return to this. Let's just say that what I consider nationalism is a bad thing. Our country is NOT nationalistic, in my use of the word. Yes, our country works very well, wouldn't trade it for any.



Your notion of it is just part of Political Correctness.  That "grasping at straws" essay you found is gibberish.  


Our country works in a clearly superior fashion!  

Happy New Year!


----------



## Said1

Just an observation, but I found nationalist tend to be stuck in the past, not unlike Muslims and Frenchmen, no?

Partrotism tends to focus on past, present and future greatness. I don't think I;m way off with that. Anyone?


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> Just an observation, but I found nationalist tend to be stuck in the past, not unlike Muslims and Frenchmen, no?
> 
> Partrotism tends to focus on past, present and future greatness. I don't think I;m way off with that. Anyone?



I just think nationalism is used when someone wants to make it seem bad.  And the values of the country very well may be bad, and the people who feel nationalistic about that particular society may be evil.  The word is neutral though. IMHO  (In My Hubristic Opinion)


----------



## dilloduck

Said1 said:
			
		

> Just an observation, but I found nationalist tend to be stuck in the past, not unlike Muslims and Frenchmen, no?
> 
> Partrotism tends to focus on past, present and future greatness. I don't think I;m way off with that. Anyone?



Exactly when did you find this nationalist trend ?


----------



## Annie

Said1 said:
			
		

> Just an observation, but I found nationalist tend to be stuck in the past, not unlike Muslims and Frenchmen, no?
> 
> Partrotism tends to focus on past, present and future greatness. I don't think I;m way off with that. Anyone?



We're not alone:

http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/champion/65/glorious_past.htm



> Restoring the Glorious Past: Juche in Korean Historiography
> 
> by Leonid A.Petrov
> 
> Presented at the Third Biennial KSAA Conference "Korea:  Language, Knowledge and Society",
> 30 June - 1 July 2003, The Australian National University, Canberra.
> 
> In 1968 the new approach to national history research, in which certain elements of Marxist dialectics and historical materialism were intricately interwoven with the nationalistic principle of Juche (self-reliance), was devised and promulgated in North Korea. The crucial role in its creation was played by a Moscow-trained philosopher and historian, Hwang Chang-y&#335;p. Assuming that both the primitive and communist modes of production were based on classless societies, Hwang started critically revising the orthodox Marxist tenet of class struggle as the cornerstone of the historical process. His assumption was that history must be viewed not from the viewpoint of class but from the viewpoint of people  the subject of history.
> 
> It took a decade for North Korean historians to recover from the historiographical crisis of 1967-1968, and finally The Complete History of Korea or Chos&#335;n Ch&#335;nsa (1979-1982) was produced as the model for the Juche approach to national history in the DPRK. Eighteen of its 33 volumes were dedicated to Kim Il-s&#335;ng, his family, and his anti-Japanese and socialist state-construction activities. The other fifteen volumes, which treated Korean history from the Neolithic age to the fall of the Korean Empire, tended to glorify every fragment of national history. But by restoring Koreas glorious past, historians in the North came to conclusions that now have become extremely fashionable in contemporary South Korea. This paper examines the pedigree of this ultra-nationalistic approach to history, which is likely to become instrumental in the process of Korean unification.
> 
> Historical research and ultra-nationalism...


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> The word is neutral though. IMHO  (In My Hubristic Opinion)



No it isn't. The French are a good example of nationalists. They want to re-create the glory of their past. What glory, they were beat by the British. Suck it!


----------



## Said1

Said1 said:
			
		

> No it isn't. The French are a good example of nationalists. They want to re-create the glory of their past. *What glory, they were beat by the British. Suck it!*



Not you, the French.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> No it isn't. The French are a good example of nationalists. They want to re-create the glory of their past. What glory, they were beat by the British. Suck it!



They want to recreate it in the present. SO those are still their values.  And they would probably just say they're patriotic.


----------



## Annie

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> They want to recreate it in the present. SO those are still their values.  And they would probably just say they're patriotic.



The problem comes when what they are calling 'their past' is self-delusional fiction. The Germans have been very good at that too, for a long time. 

As I said before, I think we may be addressing different phenonema. To me, patriotism means I love my country, I'm not ashamed of the flag-I wave it proudly. I think our history speaks for itself, while acknowledging the influence of others on those leaders. I know we've made mistakes as a country, but I think that we not only have learned, eventually we often get around to rectifying our mistakes-ala Saddam. What other peoples, save to a much lesser degree, the English, can say such a thing? 

Getting back to the historical leaders, I'm speaking of Founders and Framers; they set the tone in being able to take snippets found here and there in philosphy, government, history, economics, and political theory mix it with many original ideas of their own and had the courage to try something original in the history of a government. Over the years of our state, we have mostly fought for the right things and only when necessary-sometimes a wee past the need. 

There is no short supply of reasons to love our country, to me that is what patriotism is about. Nationalism goes beyond respecting and loving the country, rather it is seeing none of the worth of others, past or present. It is what opens the doors for genocide and other atrocities, it is using 'love of country' to justify hatred. That to me, is different.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Kathianne said:
			
		

> The problem comes when what they are calling 'their past' is self-delusional fiction. The Germans have been very good at that too, for a long time.
> 
> As I said before, I think we may be addressing different phenonema. To me, patriotism means I love my country, I'm not ashamed of the flag-I wave it proudly. I think our history speaks for itself, while acknowledging the influence of others on those leaders. I know we've made mistakes as a country, but I think that we not only have learned, eventually we often get around to rectifying our mistakes-ala Saddam. What other peoples, save to a much lesser degree, the English, can say such a thing?
> 
> Getting back to the historical leaders, I'm speaking of Founders and Framers; they set the tone in being able to take snippets found here and there in philosphy, government, history, economics, and political theory mix it with many original ideas of their own and had the courage to try something original in the history of a government. Over the years of our state, we have mostly fought for the right things and only when necessary-sometimes a wee past the need.
> 
> There is no short supply of reasons to love our country, to me that is what patriotism is about. Nationalism goes beyond respecting and loving the country, rather it is seeing none of the worth of others, past or present. It is what opens the doors for genocide and other atrocities, it is using 'love of country' to justify hatred. That to me, is different.



These are extra-definitional associations.


----------



## Annie

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> These are extra-definitional associations.



I don't understand that.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Kathianne said:
			
		

> I don't understand that.




Sure you do.


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> They want to recreate it in the present. SO those are still their values.  And they would probably just say they're patriotic.



Yes, that would them up. Nationalism tends to be associated with nation-states more than anything. And their past greatness is open for debate, not unlike Theocratic rulers in the Mid East. Those who consider themselves patriotic, tend to acknowledge that their past largely makes them who they are today, but don't want to revisit.


----------



## dilloduck

Nationalism has saved Israels' ass. ( or would you like to define it as Zionism?)


----------



## Annie

RWA, I guess I didn't make clear what I was trying to say by using an example of what I perceive to be differences between nationalism and patriotism. 

Tonight I was reading some general stuff  online and came across a Mark Steyn piece, posted excerpts already, on the 'end of much of Western Europe.' Here is a link to  another piece from the same 'journal':

http://www.newcriterion.com/archives/24/01/after-the-suicide/

To me, this process which both Steyn and the above illustrate would be the inverse of nationalism-also obviously deadly.  :scratch: I'm not sure myself how I would tie this together, but I thought it interesting and that you might too.


----------



## William Joyce

dilloduck said:
			
		

> America could use a HUGE shot of nationalism right now. The problem is that America is NOT what a large number of Americans call their nation. So much for the great melting pot experiment.



I agree.  When everyone piles in demanding that their original culture be "respected" and accommodated, it turns into a huge clusterfuck.  We don't have "diversity," we have bumper cars.

Nationalism can certainly have "bad" manifestations, but it's like a Porsche rocketing down the autobahn (sorry, had to do it) with speed, precision and purpose compared to the polyglot glop of America.  There may have been some nobility to the idea of America as an "open" country, but it's gotten way, way out of hand of late.  The truth is that America is (or was) a great nation not because of "diversity" or multiculturalism but because from 1776 to the mid-1960's, it was forged, occupied and carried forward by an overwhelmingly white, Christian population that drew on the best traditions of the West, from Greek and Roman notions to European traditions.  So whether you're appealing to patriotism or nationalism, the "real deal" is the race.  

In fact, both words conjure blood:  "patriotism" derives from father (as in, your blood father), and "nationalism" derives from birth (as in, your blood mother).  The blood in turn runs through the race.  That's the real nation.


----------



## Annie

William Joyce said:
			
		

> I agree.  When everyone piles in demanding that their original culture be "respected" and accommodated, it turns into a huge clusterfuck.  We don't have "diversity," we have bumper cars.
> 
> Nationalism can certainly have "bad" manifestations, but it's like a Porsche rocketing down the autobahn (sorry, had to do it) with speed, precision and purpose compared to the polyglot glop of America.  There may have been some nobility to the idea of America as an "open" country, but it's gotten way, way out of hand of late.  The truth is that America is (or was) a great nation not because of "diversity" or multiculturalism but because from 1776 to the mid-1960's, it was forged, occupied and carried forward by an overwhelmingly white, Christian population that drew on the best traditions of the West, from Greek and Roman notions to European traditions.  So whether you're appealing to patriotism or nationalism, the "real deal" is the race.
> 
> In fact, both words conjure blood:  "patriotism" derives from father (as in, your blood father), and "nationalism" derives from birth (as in, your blood mother).  The blood in turn runs through the race.  That's the real nation.


 So move to Germany, if you think that is better.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Kathianne said:
			
		

> RWA, I guess I didn't make clear what I was trying to say by using an example of what I perceive to be differences between nationalism and patriotism.
> 
> Tonight I was reading some general stuff  online and came across a Mark Steyn piece, posted excerpts already, on the 'end of much of Western Europe.' Here is a link to  another piece from the same 'journal':
> 
> http://www.newcriterion.com/archives/24/01/after-the-suicide/
> 
> To me, this process which both Steyn and the above illustrate would be the inverse of nationalism-also obviously deadly.  :scratch: I'm not sure myself how I would tie this together, but I thought it interesting and that you might too.



As far as i see, this backs me one hundred percent.  It's not nationalism per se that's bad, but the values of the nation.  The blanket statement "nationalism is always dangerous"  is part of the politically correct crap foisted upon our society by those who seek to guilt us out of existence.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

An analogy.  Libs like to assert simplistic axioms like "selfishness is always wrong".  That's way too simple.  What's good or evil is the modes and tactics employed to satify one's selfishness.


----------



## Annie

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> As far as i see, this backs me one hundred percent.  It's not nationalism per se that's bad, but the values of the nation.  The blanket statement "nationalism is always dangerous"  is part of the politically correct crap foisted upon our society by those who seek to guilt us out of existence.



Ok, so you didn't like the title, fair enough. 

Other than the US, which state's values are good enough to justify nationalism? UK failed in 1760's, ran into huge debacle's in 18th and especially 19th/20th C.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Ok, so you didn't like the title, fair enough.
> 
> Other than the US, which state's values are good enough to justify nationalism? UK failed in 1760's, ran into huge debacle's in 18th and especially 19th/20th C.



I don't have to supply that  information to make my case that nationalism isn't always dangerous.


----------



## Annie

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I don't have to supply that  information to make my case that nationalism isn't always dangerous.



Alright, through out 'always', insert 'other than American nationalism', which I've already said is against our pluralistic nature.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Alright, through out 'always', insert 'other than American nationalism', which I've already said is against our pluralistic nature.



No.  Another new country could spring up even more free than ours and seek to take over our country and make it more free.  I might feel their nationalism was a good thing.  Australia's nationalism may be justified.  They seem damn free.  Evaluating the good or evil of a country's nationalism has elements of subjective evaluation to it.  The concept of Nationalism itself still remains value neutral.


----------



## Annie

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> No.  Another new country could spring up even more free than ours and seek to take over our country and make it more free.  I might feel their nationalism was a good thing.  Australia's nationalism may be justified.  They seem damn free.  Evaluating the good or evil of a country's nationalism has elements of subjective evaluation to it.  The concept of Nationalism itself still remains value neutral.




I like Australia, but they too are having major problems with Islamic immigrants and are not too keen to assimilate anymore-would rather deport. Not that I have problems understanding that. 

On the other hand, do you really think another nation could 'spring up' more free and dominant than ours? How? Where?


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Kathianne said:
			
		

> I like Australia, but they too are having major problems with Islamic immigrants and are not too keen to assimilate anymore-would rather deport. Not that I have problems understanding that.
> 
> On the other hand, do you really think another nation could 'spring up' more free and dominant than ours? How? Where?



I said maybe austrlia.   I don't have to come up with concrete examples.  The point is: nationalism is not always dangerous.    Get over it.


----------



## Annie

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I said maybe austrlia.   I don't have to come up with concrete examples.  The point is: nationalism is not always dangerous.    Get over it.



You 'get over it', basically I've more than made my case, you came up with a mythical 'some country' 'someday' 'more free than US'. BTW, here are some links to what's recently been happening in Australia:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20535

http://www.masnet.org/news.asp?id=3012  (got to be 'diverse', liberal that I am.    )

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17536279%5E601,00.html


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Kathianne said:
			
		

> You 'get over it', basically I've more than made my case, you came up with a mythical 'some country' 'someday' 'more free than US'. BTW, here are some links to what's recently been happening in Australia:
> 
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20535
> 
> http://www.masnet.org/news.asp?id=3012  (got to be 'diverse', liberal that I am.    )
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17536279%5E601,00.html



You've not made your case at all.  I said maybe australia.  Checkout my selfishness analogy again,  it's quit stunning.



			
				rwa said:
			
		

> An analogy. Libs like to assert simplistic axioms like "selfishness is always wrong". That's way too simple. What's good or evil is the modes and tactics employed to satisfy one's selfishness.



Because no other country exists right now that I on a rational level feel has values which should be spread moreso than ours, doesn't mean it couldn't happen, nor does it automatically make your case that nationalism is always dangerous.


----------



## Annie

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> You've not made your case at all.  I said maybe australia.  Checkout my selfishness analogy again,  it's quit stunning.
> 
> 
> 
> Because no other country exists right now that I on a rational level feel has values which should be spread moreso than ours, doesn't mean it couldn't happen, nor does it automatically make your case that nationalism is always dangerous.



You know Jason, I know that you must have the last word. So you have got it. Selfishness has not a thing to do with nationalism, intrinsically, but never mind. You win! Let's move on.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Kathianne said:
			
		

> You win!



I know.  I think I'll linger and view the thread some more if you don't mind.


----------



## Annie

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I know.  I think I'll linger and view the thread some more if you don't mind.



Enjoy!


----------



## rtwngAvngr

The jew planted infection runs deep in the baby boomer generation.


----------



## Annie

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> The jew planted infection runs deep in the baby boomer generation.



Well that make sense. Not.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Well that make sense. Not.



That's jew-planted, as in, the jews put it there.  The infection is the infection of self doubt and reactionary political correctness.


----------



## Annie

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> That's jew-planted, as in, the jews put it there.  The infection is the infection of self doubt and reactionary political correctness.



I've little self-doubt regarding my country and those I consider our allies, Israel being one of a few, today.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Kathianne said:
			
		

> I've little self-doubt regarding my country and those I consider our allies, Israel being one of a few, today.




I support Israel too.  This doesn't change the fact that paranoid jews feel entitled to guilt nations about their existence and values.  I saw this interesting link at the top.  IN the ads.







> http://www.anansi.ca/titles.cfm?pub_id=53
> 
> The National Bestseller!
> 
> Noam Chomsky examines the nature of the media and the role of intellectuals in a political system where population control cannot be disciplined by force and thus must be subjected to more subtle forms of ideological control.



Villification of the very notion of nationalism is part of this ideological control of which he speaks.


----------



## Annie

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I support Israel too.  This doesn't change the fact that paranoid jews feel entitled to guilt nations about their existence and values.  I saw this interesting link at the top.  IN the ads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Villification of the very notion of nationalism is part of this ideological control of which he speaks.


Science came up with anti-biotics. Some scientific proponents claim that God never existed, much less created the universe.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Science came up with anti-biotics. Some scientific proponents claim that God never existed, much less created the universe.



Good posts consist of more than mere true statements.  Relevance is a factor!

How do you like it down in chinatown?


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I said maybe austrlia.   I don't have to come up with concrete examples.



Yes you do. Everyone else does. No exceptions!  :tng: 

Every country, territory, province or disputed land claimed by a state that promotes nationalism as opposed to partriotism is/was seriously  messed up ie: Quebec, France, Iran, Italy (including areas within Italy that consider their history different than Italy's,therefor not Italian), Germany, China.........Nationalists differentiate themselves from the rest, not unlike facists. No hyphens allowed.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> Yes you do. Everyone else does. No exceptions!  :tng:
> 
> Every country, territory, province or disputed land claimed by a state that promotes nationalism as opposed to partriotism is/was seriously  messed up ie: Quebec, France, Iran, Italy (including areas within Italy that consider their history different than Italy's,therefor not Italian), Germany, China.........Nationalists differentiate themselves from the rest, not unlike facists. No hyphens allowed.



I've given one example.  The u.s. That's enought to disprove Kathianne's ALWAYS statement.  You just carry negative associations about the word.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

This is what the word means.  From dictionary.com.

NOthing about backward looking or racism.  Or any of the other straw grasps to justify clinging to the insidious political correctness of it all. 



> Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
> The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
> Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Two nationalistic nations can recognized the individual gains from working together.  Nationalism does not have to lead to violence and repression.  Just as selfishness is not evil, if it is satisfied according to socially acceptable norms, like working, or growing a garden.


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I've given one example.  The u.s. That's enought to disprove Kathianne's ALWAYS statement.  You just carry negative associations about the word.




How is that an example? Upon entry, you're not supposed to leave your ethnic background at the immigration office. Hyphens allowed and encouraged.


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> This is what the word means.  From dictionary.com.
> 
> NOthing about backward looking or racism.  Or any of the other straw grasps to justify clinging to the insidious political correctness of it all.
> 
> 
> Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
> The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
> Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.



Well the definition fits, but you may also find racism and backwords looking does exists in states that would like to achieve nation-state status or already have it. This you know.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> Well the definition fits, but you may also find racism and backwords looking does exists in states that would like to achieve nation-state status or already have it. This you know.



Yes. But  to use my selfishness analogy, some people satify it through criminal, antisocial means,  but this doesn't mean selfishness is bad.  Just expand this principle to the nation and voila!  SO clear.  So crystal clear.  So amazing! So illuminating.  Annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum!


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Yes. But  to use my selfishness analogy, some people satify it through criminal, antisocial means,  but this doesn't mean selfishness is bad.  Just expand this principle to the nation and voila!  SO clear.  So crystal clear.  So amazing! So illuminating.  Annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum!





So, are you planning to sell that to the Ayatollah or those pesky Kurds and Quebecois, oui?


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> So, are you planning to sell that to the Ayatollah or those pesky Kurds and Quebecois, oui?



It's not their nationalism that's bad.  We all have the right to think we're the best.  It's kind of the nature of humankind.  OUr national values happen to include a measure of tolerance and freedom which makes us discernably and measurably better.  I would say the values they are pursuing will ultimately weaken them, as their totalirian repression also saps the creativity and productivity of the nation.  It's not wrong they believe it; it's  that what they believe in is wrong, assuming prosperty for all is their goal.


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> It's not their nationalism that's bad.



Yes it is. Nationalism is not present in societies that are not dictatorships or boardline police states. If they erase what it is that makes them nationalists, then they would be more accepting and willing to incorporate other cultures - or at least allow for hyphens and english signs.


Give me an example of a nation-state or hopeful future nation-state, (not to be confused with a state) that does not practice some form of cultural nazi-like policing on their citizens.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> Yes it is. Nationalism is not present in societies that are not dictatorships or boardline police states. If they erase what it is that makes them nationalists, then they would be more accepting and willing to incorporate other cultures - or at least allow for hyphens and english signs.
> 
> 
> Give me an example of a nation-state or hopeful future nation-state, (not to be confused with a state) that does not practice some form of cultural nazi-like policing on their citizens.




No.    This is just so much political correctness.  It's similar to saying selfishnes is bad, which we all know is just a gross simplification designed to inspire guilt.  Why don't you tell me which actual definition of nationalism is so awful.    I'm not going to repeat the Kathianne discussion with you.


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> No.    This is just so much political correctness.
> It's similar to saying selfishnes is bad, which we all know is just a gross simplification designed to inspire guilt.  Why don't you tell me which actual definition of nationalism is so awful.    I'm not going to repeat the Kathianne discussion with you.



PC, selfishness....are you joking? Surely you can do better than that. 

How about this, just name one nation-state that does not or has not practiced legal cultural discrimmination.  Now this doesn't have to be something violent mind you, just handing out fines or passing discriminatory legislation.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> PC, selfishness....are you joking? Surely you can do better than that.
> 
> How about this, just name one nation-state that does not or has not practiced legal cultural discrimmination.  Now this doesn't have to be something violent mind you, just handing out fines or passing discriminatory legislation.



It's a good analogy.  And frankly, your other issues is oh so tangential, having very little to do with nationalim.


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> It's a good analogy.  And frankly, your other issues is oh so tangential, having very little to do with nationalim.



No, it's not a good analogy and yes the other 'issues' are tangible since they exist primarily in nation-states.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> No, it's not a good analogy and yes the other 'issues' are tangible since they exist primarily in nation-states.



It is a good one.   And your desperate grasping to find SOME way to legitimate the political correctness you've internalized and of which you may be unaware is telling.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Just simmer down, read this, and tell me which definition offends you the most.

2 entries found for nationalism.
na·tion·al·ism    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (nsh-n-lzm, nshn-)
n. 
Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation. 
The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals. 
Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> It is a good one.   And your desperate grasping to find SOME way to legitimate the political correctness you've internalized and of which you may be unaware is telling.




No it isn't a good one. Political Correctness is about tolerance and acceptance, which nationalist do not have. Are YOU so desperate to appear to know what you're talking about that you've mixed up the two? 

Why don't you grasp that google button and name that ever so tolerante nation-state.


----------



## dilloduck

Said1 said:
			
		

> No it isn't a good one. Political Correctness is about tolerance and acceptance, which nationalist do not have. Are YOU so desperate to appear to know what you're talking about that you've mixed up the two?
> 
> Why don't you grasp that google button and name that ever so tolerante nation-state.



You still aren't counting Israel?


----------



## Said1

dilloduck said:
			
		

> You still aren't counting Israel?



Are they overly tolerante and accepting of other people and their cultures?


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Political Correctness is about stifling critical thinking behind nice sounding slogans.

simplistic value statements like "nationalism is bad", are the result of the politicization of the languge, also known as political correctness.


----------



## Annie

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Political Correctness is about stifling critical thinking behind nice sounding slogans.
> 
> simplistic value statements like "nationalism is bad", are the result of the politicization of the languge, also known as political correctness.




Like, "America, Love it or Leave it"? That's PC?


----------



## dilloduck

Said1 said:
			
		

> Are they overly tolerante and accepting of other people and their cultures?



That's the mantra I always hear from the Israeli apologists.


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Political Correctness is about stifling critical thinking behind nice sounding slogans.



So it's not about toleration and making special exceptions for others who are culturally different (for starters) that's a nationalistic philosophy, now?



> simplistic value statements like "nationalism is bad", are the result of the politicization of the languge, also known as political correctness.



Ha, this from the king of simplistic political slogans.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Like, "America, Love it or Leave it"? That's PC?



PC uses slogans, but not all slogans are pc- ness.

No.  This is a choice some would like others to make.  A good example of political correctness is calling Race based discrimination "affirmative action".  Or it can be a case of villifying certain words because of past events, saying things like "nationalism is always dangerous".


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> So it's not about toleration and making special exceptions for others who are culturally different (for starters) that's a nationalistic philosophy, now?
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, this from the king of simplistic political slogans.



You need a breather.


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> PC uses slogans, but not all slogans are pc- ness.
> 
> No.  This is a choice some would like others to make.  A good example of political correctness is calling Race based discrimination "affirmative action".  Or it can be a case of villifying certain words because of past events, saying things like "nationalism is always dangerous".





> OUr national values happen to include a measure of tolerance and freedom which makes us discernably and measurably better.



Pretty PC sounding to me and an awful lot unlike nation-states. 

Or have the PCers gotten carried away, not unlike the nationalists?


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> Pretty PC sounding to me and an awful lot unlike nation-states.
> 
> Or have the PCers gotten carried away, not unlike the nationalists?



I'm not saying nationalism is political correctness. I'm saying your negative associations about the word, which are clearly extradefinitional, are a RESULT of political correctness and indoctrination.


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> You need a breather.




Hmmm. No. You haven't called me a lib yet.


----------



## Annie

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> PC uses slogans, but not all slogans are pc- ness.
> 
> No.  This is a choice some would like others to make.  A good example of political correctness is calling Race based discrimination "affirmative action".  Or it can be a case of villifying certain words because of past events, saying things like "nationalism is always dangerous".



The only thing 'wrong' with what I wrote would be 'always'. Only then if we assume US someday becomes 'nationalistic' then time will tell if I was right or wrong. For now, I'll buy one should watch that kind of word.


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I'm not saying nationalism is political correctness, I'm saying your negative associations about the word, which are clearly extradefinitional, are a RESULT of political correctness and indoctrination.



No. You're wrong. My associations from the word stem from history and what nationalist stand for both in the past and presently. Patriots embrace everyone, nationalists do not. Again, name one nation-state or nationalist minded country that does not behave in that manner.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Kathianne said:
			
		

> The only thing 'wrong' with what I wrote would be 'always'. Only then if we assume US someday becomes 'nationalistic' then time will tell if I was right or wrong. For now, I'll buy one should watch that kind of word.



No.  You still misunderstand.  It's values of the nation that are right or wrong, not the belief or faith in them.  

Again I refer to the selfishness example.  We don't say that the selfishness of criminals, those who satify their needs immorally, is wrong, and the selfishness of law abiding people is right, but  rather we analyze the mode and means through which those needs are satisfied.

This is similar to the new age doctrine that, "all judgement is wrong".  This is just an attempt to guilt people out of their values or their critical thoughts.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> No. You're wrong. My associations from the word stem from history and what nationalist stand for both in the past and presently. Patriots embrace everyone, nationalists do not. Again, name one nation-state or nationalist minded country that does not behave in that manner.



None of those associations are in the dictionary.  Nationalists have only been labelled as such when they do very bad things.  Thus, the word carries a negative connotation.


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> None of those associations are in the dictionary.  Nationalists have only been labelled as such when they do very bad things.  Thus, the word carries a negative connotation.



The dictionary? How's that for critical thinking? 

Name a nation-state that has not done very bad things, violent or non-violent. Can't can you?


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> The dictionary? How's that for critical thinking?
> 
> Name a nation-state that has not done very bad things, violent or non-violent. Can't can you?



Having done bad things has nothing to do with the defintion of nationalism.


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Having done bad things has nothing to do with the defintion of nationalism.




If these laws and actions are done or passed In the name of preserving their culture, it sure does.  

Here's the problem. You don't seem know what makes a nation-state claim valid. There are very few nation-states, America not being one of them.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> If these laws and actions are done or passed In the name of preserving their culture, it sure does.
> 
> Here's the problem. You don't seem know what makes a nation-state claim valid. There are very few nation-states, America not being one of them.



No.  The problem is you've developed a lot of negative associations about a word that simply doesn't mean those things.


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> No.  The problem is you've developed a lot of negative associations about a word that simply doesn't mean those things.



No. You're doing what you accuse everyone else of doing when they're wrong - arguing semantics.


----------



## archangel

Said1 said:
			
		

> If these laws and actions are done or passed In the name of preserving their culture, it sure does.
> 
> Here's the problem. You don't seem know what makes a nation-state claim valid. There are very few nation-states, America not being one of them.




America="United States of America"...some 50 "Nation States"...United for the good of the Nation...thus Nation States...Canada also has several providences
that make up their "Nation State"
Now South America is made up of individual States not united for the good of the nation, but they sure do have alot of the problems you attributed to "Nation States"!


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> No. You're doing what you accuse everyone else of doing when they're wrong - arguing semantics.




No. I'm not.  I truly don't believe pursuing the interests of one's nation is always bad.


----------



## dilloduck

Nationalism vs nationalism as practiced in the past--is there a difference?
I think so.


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> No. I'm not.  I truly don't believe pursuing the interests of one's nation is always bad.



Of course it isn't, but that in itself does not define nationalism.


----------



## Said1

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Nationalism vs nationalism as practiced in the past--is there a difference?
> I think so.



Nationalismtoday, as it was in the past is still largley defined by ethnic background, culture, language etc. Acting in the best interest of one's country isn't nationalism, it it's protectionism.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> Nationalismtoday, as it was in the past is still largley defined by ethnic background, culture, language etc. Acting in the best interest of one's country isn't nationalism, it it's protectionism.



THis is all in your head.    Read my sig.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> Of course it isn't, but that in itself does not define nationalism.




IT is one defintion.  Our cultural IS multiculturalism, so it doesn't necessary have an association to ethnic purity or anything like that.


----------



## Annie

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> THis is all in your head.    Read my sig.


Not exactly, let's try a political terms dictionary:


http://www.fast-times.com/politicaldictionary.html



> nationalism - excessive, narrow patriotism; the belief that the promotion of one's own nation as a culturally distinct and independent entity is more important than any international considerations. Nationalism flourished during the nineteenth century, which saw the rise of the nation-state, and the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires, which were composed of many nations. Since the demise of communism, which held national identities in check, nationalism has again become one of the chief driving forces in world affairs, and is at the root of many wars.


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> THis is all in your head.    Read my sig.



Oh, yes. I'm right cause the dictionary says so. While you have you're dictionary open, look up nation-state.


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> IT is one defintion.  Our cultural IS multiculturalism, so it doesn't necessary have an association to ethnic purity or anything like that.




You're really grasping at straws here. If that is the case, why isn't the United States a nation-state, or even trying to gain that status?


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Not exactly, let's try a political terms dictionary:
> 
> 
> http://www.fast-times.com/politicaldictionary.html



That's a politically corrected dictionary.  Obviously.  Be PC if you want, kathianne, but I'll always call you on it. Good thing you don't like to fight!  LOL.  THere is good nationalism.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> You're really grasping at straws here. If that is the case, why isn't the United States a nation-state, or even trying to gain that status?



Not at all.  It makes total sense.  regarding your quibbling about nation-states, I'm just not interested.


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> THere is good nationalism.



Where, name one.


----------



## Annie

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> That's a politically corrected dictionary.  Obviously.  Be PC if you want, kathianne, but I'll always call you on it. Good thing you don't like to fight!  LOL.  THere is good nationalism.


Well, dictionary.com is great for checking spelling, but more than a bit weak at definitions. Works in a pinch, but Merriam's Children's Dictionary is more comprehensive.


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Not at all.  It makes total sense.  regarding your quibbling about nation-states, I'm just not interested.



That's cause you're wrong. It's fact.  You can't even name a nation-state to illustrate you opinion of "good nationalism". It doesn't exsit.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Regarding your quibbling about nation-states, I'm just not interested.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> That's cause you're wrong. It's fact.  You can't even name a nation-state to illustrate you opinion of "good nationalism". It doesn't exsit.



What's fact?


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> That's cause you're wrong. It's fact.  You can't even name a nation-state to illustrate you opinion of "good nationalism". It doesn't exsit.



Bounce on it.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=267




Good and Bad Nationalism

By Robert B. Reich
Web Exclusive: 11.29.99 

Print Friendly | Email Article 

The Boston Globe 

With Congress's recent rejection of the nuclear test ban treaty and an upcoming World Trade Organization meeting that's already causing a storm, it's useful to remind ourselves that there are two faces of nationalism. The negative face turns away from global responsiblities. The positive one embraces domestic ones. 

Both give priority to "us" inside the borders over "them" out there. Both believe that America should come first. Both depend for their force on a nation's sense of common purpose. But negative nationalism uses that commonality to exclude those who don't share it. Positive nationalism uses it to expand opportunities for those who do. 

Negative nationalism assumes that the world is a zero-sum game where our gains come at another nation's expense, and theirs come at our's. Positive nationalism assumes that when our people are better off they're more willing and better able to add to the world's well being. 

These are America's two real political parties. You'll find both positive and negative nationalists among Republicans as well as among Democrats. George W. Bush's "compassionate" conservatism, still conveniently undefined, at least urges Americans to be generous toward other Americans. The Republican right, meanwhile, is determined to turn America's back on the rest of the world. Democratic primary challengers Bill Bradley and Al Gore are engaged in a long overdue debate about how best to meet the needs of America's poor and near-poor, even as some in the Democratic Party are putting priority on fighting a new round of world trade agreements. There may even be positive nationalists in the Reform Party unless Pat Buchanan - an unreconstructed negative nationalist - takes control. 

History teaches that one of the two faces of nationalism almost always predominates. A society with a lot of positive nationalism is more likely to be tolerant and open toward the rest of the world because its people have learned the habits of good citizenship and social justice. Dictators and demagogues, on the other hand, flourish where social capital is in short supply. People who feel little responsibility toward one another will turn against minorities in their midst and outsiders across their borders, in return for promises of glory or comforting fictions of superiority. 

Negative nationalists prey most directly on people who are losing ground economically and socially. The recent resurgence of negative nationalism in Austria, France, and Switzerland is especially evident among blue-collar manufacturing workers and young men who feel the economic ground shifting from under them. The ugly violence against ethnic Chinese in Indonesia during the currency crisis there was also rooted in economic fears. People whoe livelihoods are at risk find it reassuring to be given specific targets for their frustrations. 

Among economic insecurity's first scapegoats are always immigrants, foreigners, and ethnic minorities. 

A healthy dose of positive nationalism can ease these anxieties by softening the burdens of economic change. When they feel especially connected to their compatriots, citizens who gain from change are more willing to support strong safety nets, employment programs, and educational systems that help ease the burden on those who otherwise would fall far behind. And the generosity of the winners in turn allows the nation as a whole to better accept the consequences of free trade, open capital markets, and more liberal immigration. But failure to choose positive nationalism almost surely promotes its negative twin, because the losers are left vulnerable. 

Nations now busily shredding their safety nets and slashing their social spending may believe they're moving toward free markets, and in a narrow economic sense, they are. But in the process they risk breaking the bonds of positive nationalism and exposing their people to the very fears and uncertainties upon which negative nationalism feeds. The inadvertent consequence may be a backlash against not only free markets but also political freedom. 

In short, those who believe that membership in a society obligates the successful to help those who are falling behind should not recoil from appeals to nationalism. The moral force of social benevolence rests, after all, on the preexistence of strong bonds among a people who share common values and aspirations. Nationalism is not the danger. The real danger comes in allowing the negative nationalists to claim the mantle of patriotism for their own ends.


----------



## Annie

While I will admit Robert B. Reich, was one of the saner members of Clinton administration, I wonder exactly who it is here going PC?

"Good nationalism" gives away 'nation's surplus'.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Kathianne said:
			
		

> While I will admit Robert B. Reich, was one of the saner members of Clinton administration, I wonder exactly who it is here going PC?
> 
> "Good nationalism" gives away 'nation's surplus'.



Yeah.  Well.  A broken clock is right twice a day.  I doubt we would define "good nationalism"  as the same.  Well, I know we don't.  But the concept of good nationalism is a sound one.


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Bounce on it.
> 
> http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=267
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good and Bad Nationalism
> 
> By Robert B. Reich
> Web Exclusive: 11.29.99
> 
> Print Friendly | Email Article
> 
> The Boston Globe
> 
> With Congress's recent rejection of the nuclear test ban treaty and an upcoming World Trade Organization meeting that's already causing a storm, it's useful to remind ourselves that there are two faces of nationalism. The negative face turns away from global responsiblities. The positive one embraces domestic ones.
> 
> Both give priority to "us" inside the borders over "them" out there. Both believe that America should come first. Both depend for their force on a nation's sense of common purpose. But negative nationalism uses that commonality to exclude those who don't share it. Positive nationalism uses it to expand opportunities for those who do.
> 
> Negative nationalism assumes that the world is a zero-sum game where our gains come at another nation's expense, and theirs come at our's. Positive nationalism assumes that when our people are better off they're more willing and better able to add to the world's well being.
> 
> These are America's two real political parties. You'll find both positive and negative nationalists among Republicans as well as among Democrats. George W. Bush's "compassionate" conservatism, still conveniently undefined, at least urges Americans to be generous toward other Americans. The Republican right, meanwhile, is determined to turn America's back on the rest of the world. Democratic primary challengers Bill Bradley and Al Gore are engaged in a long overdue debate about how best to meet the needs of America's poor and near-poor, even as some in the Democratic Party are putting priority on fighting a new round of world trade agreements. There may even be positive nationalists in the Reform Party unless Pat Buchanan - an unreconstructed negative nationalist - takes control.
> 
> History teaches that one of the two faces of nationalism almost always predominates. A society with a lot of positive nationalism is more likely to be tolerant and open toward the rest of the world because its people have learned the habits of good citizenship and social justice. Dictators and demagogues, on the other hand, flourish where social capital is in short supply. People who feel little responsibility toward one another will turn against minorities in their midst and outsiders across their borders, in return for promises of glory or comforting fictions of superiority.
> 
> Negative nationalists prey most directly on people who are losing ground economically and socially. The recent resurgence of negative nationalism in Austria, France, and Switzerland is especially evident among blue-collar manufacturing workers and young men who feel the economic ground shifting from under them. The ugly violence against ethnic Chinese in Indonesia during the currency crisis there was also rooted in economic fears. People whoe livelihoods are at risk find it reassuring to be given specific targets for their frustrations.
> 
> Among economic insecurity's first scapegoats are always immigrants, foreigners, and ethnic minorities.
> 
> A healthy dose of positive nationalism can ease these anxieties by softening the burdens of economic change. When they feel especially connected to their compatriots, citizens who gain from change are more willing to support strong safety nets, employment programs, and educational systems that help ease the burden on those who otherwise would fall far behind. And the generosity of the winners in turn allows the nation as a whole to better accept the consequences of free trade, open capital markets, and more liberal immigration. But failure to choose positive nationalism almost surely promotes its negative twin, because the losers are left vulnerable.
> 
> Nations now busily shredding their safety nets and slashing their social spending may believe they're moving toward free markets, and in a narrow economic sense, they are. But in the process they risk breaking the bonds of positive nationalism and exposing their people to the very fears and uncertainties upon which negative nationalism feeds. The inadvertent consequence may be a backlash against not only free markets but also political freedom.
> 
> In short, those who believe that membership in a society obligates the successful to help those who are falling behind should not recoil from appeals to nationalism. The moral force of social benevolence rests, after all, on the preexistence of strong bonds among a people who share common values and aspirations. Nationalism is not the danger. The real danger comes in allowing the negative nationalists to claim the mantle of patriotism for their own ends.




I didn't know America was a nationalist minded country, protectionist (of people, borders, buildings) yes, but not nationalist.

And again, give me one positive example of a nation openly and practicing postive nationalism, who call themselves nationalists.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> I didn't know America was a nationalist minded country, protectionist (of people, borders, buildings) yes, but not nationalist.
> 
> And again, give me one positive example of a nation openly and practicing postive nationalism, who call themselves nationalists.



No.  You need to disabuse yourself of your own spurious and wrong headed associations.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> No.  You need to disabuse yourself of your own spurious and wrong headed associations.


Nice shorts.


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> No.  You need to disabuse yourself of your own spurious and wrong headed associations.



What's this? Another one sentence, non-answer. Good one. That's what I would have said. You go boy.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> What's this? Another one sentence, non-answer. Good one. That's what I would have said. You go boy.




You're half right.  It's one sentence for sure, but it is actually a decent reponse.


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> You're half right.  It's one sentence for sure, but it is actually a decent reponse.



Sure. Whatever you say. Dictionary-Dependent Wuss.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> Sure. Whatever you say. Dictionary-Dependent Wuss.



Yes,  whatever I say.  Thanks for conceding defeat.


----------



## archangel

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> Nice shorts.




your second attempt to distract the two 'lovers quarrel'...however the 'Marshal Dodge City' is mine, you keep your dudes in pink shorts!.... :shocked:


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Yes,  whatever I say.  Thanks for conceding defeat.




And thanks for attempting to answer any number of the questions asked in order to defeat me. 

And sorry to expose you for the one-line wonder that you really are. You'll bounce back though, nothing a quick bong hit won't cure.


----------



## Said1

archangel said:
			
		

> your second attempt to distract the two 'lovers quarrel'...however the 'Marshal Dodge City' is mine, you keep your dudes in pink shorts!.... :shocked:




Ehhh, I thought you were the original Fonz?


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> And thanks for attempting to answer any number of the questions asked in order to defeat me.
> 
> And sorry to expose you for the one-line wonder that you really are. You'll bounce back though, nothing a quick bong hit won't cure.



All of your questions were irrelevant.  And again, conciseness is a virtue. :spank3:


----------



## The ClayTaurus

archangel said:
			
		

> your second attempt to distract the two 'lovers quarrel'...however the 'Marshal Dodge City' is mine, you keep your dudes in pink shorts!.... :shocked:


I don't expect you to understand, although taking ownership of the dodge city badge is all sorts of funny. And appropriate.


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> All of your questions were irrelevant.  And again, conciseness is a virtue. :spank3:



No they weren't. And you would have saved face a bit, but alas - too hard.


----------



## archangel

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> I don't expect you to understand, although taking ownership of the dodge city badge is all sorts of funny. And appropriate.





my bad...I know nothing...understanding is your perview! Ya just keep on a keeping on wearing the pink shorts though...and I actually have a original(antique)Dodge City Marshal badge...sits next to my Treasury Badge on the shelf....


----------



## The ClayTaurus

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> All of your questions were irrelevant.  And again, conciseness is a virtue. :spank3:


----------



## The ClayTaurus

archangel said:
			
		

> my bad...I know nothing...understanding is your perview! Ya just keep on a keeping on wearing the pink shorts though...and I actually have a original(antique)Dodge City Marshal badge...sits next to my Treasury Badge on the shelf....


Too funny!  Thanks for the laughs


----------



## archangel

Said1 said:
			
		

> Ehhh, I thought you were the original Fonz?


 the clue.....


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> No they weren't. And you would have saved face a bit, but alas - too hard.



Yes.  They were irrelevant.


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Yes.  They were irrelevant.



No they were not. You are stating there is such a thing as positive nationalism, I asked you where? You answered "look at me, me sooo funny"

Cool. Consider yourself as bad as those libs arguing about communism being a good thing, if practiced properly. Too bad it never has been, like you're "good nationalism" theory. Oh, oh but they're not the same. Whatever, talk to the hand lib-like-poster.


----------



## archangel

Said1 said:
			
		

> No they were not. You are stating there is such a thing as positive nationalism, I asked you where? You answered "look at me, me sooo funny"
> 
> Cool. Consider yourself as bad as those libs arguing about communism being a good thing, if practiced properly. Too bad it never has been, like you're "good nationalism" theory. Oh, oh but they're not the same. Whatever, talk to the hand lib-like-poster.




America=Nationalism...ie: 50 states united for the good of the nation...and Canada also has a "Nation State" as in several providences united for the good (maybe)of Canada..however South America is made up of numerous individual states that are not united(Except for the MJ and Cocaine trade) and which would not be a "Nationalistic State" per se...but does have all the attributes against a nationalistic nation you allude too!


----------



## Said1

archangel said:
			
		

> America=Nationalism...ie: 50 states united for the good of the nation...and Canada also has a "Nation State" as in several providences united for the good (maybe)of Canada..however South America is made up of numerous individual states that are not united(Except for the MJ and Cocaine trade) and which would not be a "Nationalistic State" per se...but does have all the attributes against a nationalistic nation you allude too!




Canada and the United States are_ not_ nation-states and do not hold any of the attributes I'm alluding to. Look it up!   :funnyface


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Well, I'd say I was a *nationalist*.  Because I support the U.S. Constitution - which is definitely a *national * document of law.

It is *inter-nationalists * like Ruth Badder Ginsberg who are destroying our *national * U.S. Constitution by taking *inter-national * laws into account when making court decisions and in the process bending and destroying our *national * Constitution to become more *inter-national *.  I consider destroying our Constitution to be a negative thing.  

I will support our *national * U.S. Constitution over *international * law any day.  Therefore I am a *nationalist*.  I think there are many who would support this form of *nationalism*.


----------



## Said1

ScreamingEagle said:
			
		

> Well, I'd say I was a *nationalist*.  Because I support the U.S. Constitution - which is definitely a *national * document of law.
> 
> It is *inter-nationalists * like Ruth Badder Ginsberg who are destroying our *national * U.S. Constitution by taking *inter-national * laws into account when making court decisions and in the process bending and destroying our *national * Constitution to become more *inter-national *.  I consider destroying our Constitution to be a negative thing.
> 
> I will support our *national * U.S. Constitution over *international * law any day.  Therefore I am a *nationalist*.



No, you're a Federalist.  :tng:


----------



## archangel

Said1 said:
			
		

> Canada and the United States are_ not_ nation-states and do not hold any of the attributes I'm alluding to. Look it up!   :funnyface





"Nation States" as written in "OUR" Constitution the banding together of our individual states for the good of a "Nation State"...this is "my story and I'm sticking to it"! :cof:


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Said1 said:
			
		

> No, you're a Federalist.  :tng:



Sticks and stones.....


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> Canada and the United States are_ not_ nation-states and do not hold any of the attributes I'm alluding to. Look it up!   :funnyface



We're talking about regular old countries.  If you need to ALLUDE to rarefied concepts to twist the discussion, then that betrays your own weakness.


----------



## archangel

ScreamingEagle said:
			
		

> Well, I'd say I was a *nationalist*.  Because I support the U.S. Constitution - which is definitely a *national * document of law.
> 
> It is *inter-nationalists * like Ruth Badder Ginsberg who are destroying our *national * U.S. Constitution by taking *inter-national * laws into account when making court decisions and in the process bending and destroying our *national * Constitution to become more *inter-national *.  I consider destroying our Constitution to be a negative thing.
> 
> I will support our *national * U.S. Constitution over *international * law any day.  Therefore I am a *nationalist*.  I think there are many who would support this form of *nationalism*.




the US is a Nationalistic State thus known as a Nation of States...the "Federalist Doctrine"..............


----------



## rtwngAvngr

What's the difference between a run of the mill country and a Nation-State?  And why can only one of them be nationalistic?  Can a country transform into a nation-state through the process of nationalismizing?


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Oh man.  This was great.  They both wanted it so bad they could taste it.  Then they felt the ground give way beneath their feet, as their pc notions melted away like so much butter in the microwave.  Pass the crab legs!


----------



## Annie

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Oh man.  This was great.  They both wanted it so bad they could taste it.  Then they felt the ground give way beneath their feet, as their pc notions melted away like so much butter in the microwave.  Pass the crab legs!



Hardly, I had to leave school for bank job. Luckily I was able to get off early. So, what are you pounding your back for? Seems to me that you still haven't moved from where I left a few hours ago, other than Arch's story that he's 'sticking to', which has nothing to do with anything. 

Said1 probably either had to work, take care of her daughter, or got tired of   , which is certainly understandable.

Since I've already said that using the word 'always' was not wise, since any 'possible' exception, even one that hasn't happened, but is possible makes the statement false, this is probably a good point to quit. Of course, if you have something you wish to discuss, rather than pontificate on, I'm open to further discourse.

What I won't do, which is what I meant by 'fighting', is get any deeper into a    match with you and your elite band of merry men.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Hardly, I had to leave school for bank job. Luckily I was able to get off early. So, what are you pounding your back for? Seems to me that you still haven't moved from where I left a few hours ago, other than Arch's story that he's 'sticking to', which has nothing to do with anything.
> 
> Said1 probably either had to work, take care of her daughter, or got tired of   , which is certainly understandable.
> 
> Since I've already said that using the word 'always' was not wise, since any 'possible' exception, even one that hasn't happened, but is possible makes the statement false, this is probably a good point to quit. Of course, if you have something you wish to discuss, rather than pontificate on, I'm open to further discourse.
> 
> What I won't do, which is what I meant by 'fighting', is get any deeper into a    match with you and your elite band of merry men.




Oh,  but you're soaking in it!


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Oh man.  This was great.  They both wanted it so bad they could taste it.  Then they felt the ground give way beneath their feet, as their pc notions melted away like so much butter in the microwave.  Pass the crab legs!




Doubt it. I see you haven't produced anything other than your typical pseudo-intellectualism you attempt to bestow upon all. You know that's all you, dude.


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> We're talking about regular old countries.  If you need to ALLUDE to rarefied concepts to twist the discussion, then that betrays your own weakness.




 What a cum sock.


----------



## Said1

archangel said:
			
		

> the US is a Nationalistic State thus known as a Nation of States...the "Federalist Doctrine"..............



Not nationalistic, not by a long shot. Although, passing english as the official language is a start.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> Not nationalistic, not by a long shot. Although, passing english as the official language is a start.




yes.... according to your made up, idiosyncratic definition.


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> yes.... according to your made up, idiosyncratic definition.



Good one. You're critical thinking skills are phenomenal. Now back down to the chat section, stop this sad self-humiliation.


----------

