Liberals/Progressives are just as patriotic as Conservatives. Agree or Disagree?

Sinclair Lewis said it correctly "When Fascism comes to America It will be wrapped in a Flag and carrying a Cross."

there is actually nothing on him saying that. check Misattributed... http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...
but religion would very likely be used as a factor anyways.

I was just giving it another point of View Thanks for the Link

I know, but remember, we need to be the honest ones.

Most Liberals are rabidly Anti America

umm, what?

Tell me about it Reaper! Haven't heard a PEEP out of the SH birther imbiciles when it comes to Myth Robme.

does not know his own family history Willard claims marraige has been one man one woman for the past 3000 Yrs His Grand father had 5 Wives his Great Grandfather had 12 wives . The man who is Alma mater is names B Young had 23 Wives some so Young if he lived now it would be Statatory Rape

Here is a REAL AMERICAN

Well i'm not.

I got your John Wayne right here.

The Dem problem is a lack other peoples money to spend.

Anyone that says different can not see beyond their own noses.

I would use the term unpatriotic to describe the two arms of the republicrats.

I would have to agree with the top opinion. But I would add that they have a very sorry way of showing it. To me conservatives tend to express it, while progressives then to hide it.

Some perhaps are. But when you ask many...not all...but many Liberals what is important to them with regards to the country and Patriotism....They frankly miss the boat. I am sure they feel they are patriotic and therefore this question is of course a loaded one but when it comes to being willing to stand up and fight for the principles this country was founded on they fall short much of the time.

A lot of people who call themselves conservatives are really extremists. I'd call both of these types of people at the end of the political spectrum, in either direction that, extremists. In the past we've used the term radical to refer to what I perceive as those similar to conservatives at the other end. You of course do not include them when asking your question. Even in their case one could answer yes. Some radicals have been passionately patriotic. One may not agree with either of them. I do not. I am mostly a person moderate in all things and dislike great big lows or highs. I too can be equally patriotic. All of us will tend to pursue our goals in our fashion. Will some radicals and conservatives step over the line of what is legal and moral in the pursuit of their goal? Yes, much faster than those of us in the middle.

Some are more some are less.We're all individuals.No particular party is more or less patriotic.We all just have different ways of looking at it.

They love their country but seem to be more apologetic to our enemies and more interested in entitlements. They should listen to their own JFK - "ask not what your country can do for you."

What may appear to be apologetic to you and others, is called diplomacy. It's what intelligent people do to to create an atmosphere of mutual trust and put every one ease so that they can begin the extremely difficult task of attempting to negotiate a middle ground.To show respect towards your enemy (and knowing them) is the first essential step toward compromise. and finding a solution. Diplomacy can buy time for you to prepare for the worst case scenario should that be the unfortunate case. Tact and diplomacy, as opposed to the hardball tactics that most right wing conservatives advocate only begets the kind of reactions we see erupt with the slightest provocation, or none at all. And the talking tough arrogance just sets the wrong tone. Now no one is listening. It's not apologetic, it's a lack of arrogance, and what makes one a true diplomat. And I don't know very many democrats who would rather accept a handout than a job. Reconsider what you think is true.

You're assuming we're dealing with intelligent people or at least people who think like us

No.

By definition, conservatives look to preserve what makes your nation great.

By definition, progressives seek to transform what was great about your nation into something different.

Patriotism is loving your country for what it is...idealism is wanting to change your country into something you can love.

What a bunch of bs

Wow, what a powerful argument

Then try mine on...

????

Scroll down.

This is a very well put statement.

yeah, I prefer we didn't go back to the way things used to be.

you are so right reaper...what was I thinking.

Being the greatest superpower in the world, having a robust economy that continues to grow, leaving a better life for our children, and theirs, smaller leaner government, spending within our means, being respected and sometimes feared around the globe, having smarter students who could compete in the world and jobs that one could be proud of, and less intrusion in our lives...........yeah reaper, all that stuff was over-rated wasn't it?

go back to sleep reap

not what i meant. there have been people that talked about going back to the rules and laws we had from the start. thats not something we want. unless you are talking about the 90's under Clinton?
and i prefer we weren't feared, just respected and seen as equals. unless it comes to some kind of competition like in the olympics.

Well i don't really like the country that preaches equal rights but doesn't give them.

who doesn't have equal rights?

Gays, poor people, etc.

class rhetoric

It's not rhetorical, it's true. And full sentences please, we're not in 2nd grade.

Patriotism is NOT limited to ONE definition.
Because it can be equally argued that patriotism is seeing what may be wrong in your country and seeking to change it.

It was MEANT to change.
Remember in the Preamble of the Constitution:

"IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION"

But it did NOT say..."A PERFECT union".
Even the founders knew that they were not perfect and could not see the future, and so they made it clear that things not only could change...they were expected to.

I disagree...a more perfect union refers to what they creating compared to all previous governments. They created the balance of power, the bill of rights, and the constitution so that things would NOT change or very little. The Constitution is not a "breathing" document as progessives call it so that they can ignore or usurp it.....it is a dead document, meant to do what the drafters intended..

You are so very wrong.
Even the wording says so.

AMENDMENT: Root word: MEND (verb) To repair or fix.
However, if that isn't enough for you...Mr Jefferson himself is quoted on the subject.

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and constitutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Letter to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), 12 July 1816 (image at Library of Congress)

Yes, the Constitution was intended as a living document.