«

Maybe they're too principled, but why don't Libs/Lefties take an if-you-can't-fight'em-join'em
approach to _300_? That is, claim _300_ as their own: Some Noam Chomsky/Ward
Churchill types could proclaim that if America were attacked by an invading
army, they and their sons and daughters-not the conservative, cowardly, Red
State couch potatoes-would take up arms and spare no mercy and fight till
the death in defense of their values and American sovereignty.

I'm a Registered Independent who supports both "Conservative" and "Liberal"
issues, and even though I'm very empathetic, I sense that I don't fully know
the Liberal/Lefty Mindset (or the Conservative/Righty one, for that matter).

So, Liberals (& Conservatives), help me out here:

What do Liberals/Leftists believe in? And do they believe in these things
strongly enough to not compromise on them and to fight and die for them? And
would today's American Liberals, like their WWII counterparts, put their
differences with Red Staters aside and fight for America? What would it
take?

My sincere thanks in advance for your thoughtful and empathetic responses.

....Curtin/Dobbs

On Mar 26, 4:02 pm, "Curtin/Dobbs" <curtin-do...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Maybe they're too principled, but why don't Libs/Lefties take an if-you-can't-fight'em-join'em
> approach to _300_? That is, claim _300_ as their own: Some Noam Chomsky/Ward
> Churchill types could proclaim that if America were attacked by an invading
> army, they and their sons and daughters-not the conservative, cowardly, Red
> State couch potatoes-would take up arms and spare no mercy and fight till
> the death in defense of their values and American sovereignty.
>
> I'm a Registered Independent who supports both "Conservative" and "Liberal"
> issues, and even though I'm very empathetic, I sense that I don't fully know
> the Liberal/Lefty Mindset (or the Conservative/Righty one, for that matter).
>
> So, Liberals (& Conservatives), help me out here:
>
> What do Liberals/Leftists believe in? And do they believe in these things
> strongly enough to not compromise on them and to fight and die for them? And
> would today's American Liberals, like their WWII counterparts, put their
> differences with Red Staters aside and fight for America? What would it
> take?

*****
Your first mistake is thinking there's a kinship between those on the
Left (presumably Socialists/Anarchists) and Liberals. When you talk
about what passes for Conservative and Liberal discourse in this
country, you're talking about an extremely narrow spectrum of opinion
that tilts more to the Right than anyone would have imagined as little
as 50 years ago. LIberals in truth have more in common with those on
the Right (barring its Libertarian wing) in that they have an abiding
faith in authoritarian structures; they just kid themselves that they
can use these sytems of control for more 'humane' ends. But they never
do. Liberals are some of the biggest closet fascists on the planet.

In order to go any further you'll have to define what you mean by
fighting 'for America'. Presumably you're referring to some
overarching construct generally known as the National Interest; but if
you mean by that what most people mean who use such words, then we're
not talking about the interests of ordinary American citizens, rather
a very narrow sector of private capital that receives the primary
benefit of US foreign and domestic policies. I can't imagine anyone
who hasn't been brainwashed into thinking, for instance, that 'as
Boeing goes, so goes the nation' who would *want* to fight for
anything so depraved.

But, again, I don't know if that's what you're referring to; so I
can't answer your question.

Tom Sutpen

On Mar 26, 4:02 pm, "Curtin/Dobbs" <curtin-do...@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> So, Liberals (& Conservatives), help me out here:
>
> What do Liberals/Leftists believe in?

I believe in the taste of anybody on the right or the left who thought
300 was a lousy movie.

--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog

Curtin/Dobbs schrieb:

> Maybe they're too principled, but why don't Libs/Lefties take an if-you-can't-fight'em-join'em
> approach to _300_? That is, claim _300_ as their own: Some Noam Chomsky/Ward
> Churchill types could proclaim that if America were attacked by an invading
> army, they and their sons and daughters-not the conservative, cowardly, Red
> State couch potatoes-would take up arms and spare no mercy and fight till
> the death in defense of their values and American sovereignty.
>
> I'm a Registered Independent who supports both "Conservative" and "Liberal"
> issues, and even though I'm very empathetic, I sense that I don't fully know
> the Liberal/Lefty Mindset (or the Conservative/Righty one, for that matter).
>
> So, Liberals (& Conservatives), help me out here:
>
> What do Liberals/Leftists believe in? And do they believe in these things
> strongly enough to not compromise on them and to fight and die for them? And
> would today's American Liberals, like their WWII counterparts, put their
> differences with Red Staters aside and fight for America? What would it
> take?
>
> My sincere thanks in advance for your thoughtful and empathetic responses.
>
> ...Curtin/Dobbs

For the sake of Frank Miller and all those involved in this movie I do hope that 300 is not meant
to glorify the suicidal Spartan ideology.As far as I can tell it's only some deep dark (erotic?)
phantasy that would never claim to be real or historically accurate-which it isn't,e.g. the
Spartans did wear armour especially a thick breast plate-Zack Snyder called it "surreal" in an
interview I've read.On the other hand if suicidal tendencies are appreciated why not the ones
employed in "The Life of Brian"?
The real question though is not whether you are prepared to die for anything you cherish high
enough but if you are ready to kill for it as well ? Is there anything more valuable than the life
of your fellow human being?
I'd rather take the view of the soldiers of the German city of Cologne,when attacked by
Napoleon's soldiers: "Don't shoot there are people standing here".Or even closer to my home,the
soldiers of Aachen,who weren't even there to defend the city because they were so poorly paid they
had to do additional jobs like baby-sitting in order to get along.Jorge Borges claims that in 17th
century Italy the art of warfare had achieved such a high level that at a battle the two opposing
armies simply met and then the opposing military leaders sat down ,discussed there tactics and
figured out the most likely outcome.This was accepted by both parts and then they left again
without any shot or whatever issued.