Conservapedia talk:Liberal myths

Cannot you use the side-by-side template that allows editing each section individually? Because this format sucks... ħuman 05:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the table formatting but did not add any section headers. ListenerX^TalkerX 13:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you think we should use, numbers? Now that you've done the hard part it should be easy to add them... thanks! ħuman 18:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticizing citations and law enforcement vs terrorism

There are a lot of things I'd like to tackle on this article, but I'm really lazy. However, I think one thing that could be worked on first is setting up some kind of template thing at the bottom where we can analyze and comment on the citations given - after all, there's about three dozen of them, although there's far more myths. At the risk of exposing parody, it should be pretty easy to find which ones are being distorted or misread by the people who edited the article.

Also,the "claim that terrorism should be handled by law enforcement", judging by the links, seems to specifically refer to people who have objected to the notion of having US forces (whether troops or agencies) act as the main aggressor in combating foreign terrorism. Some people have advocated that the US should instead focus on supporting and shoring up the local law enforcement authorities, since US troops can often generate hostility and misunderstanding (there's also simultaneous although not always necessarily linked argument for supporting local troops, but it's my personal belief that such a move has a higher risk of creating abuses of power - although it really depends on where it's happening). Megaten (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean the footnotes in the original? Knock yourself out, add them as sections if you want. If you get lost, tell people what you are doing and they'll jump in and help. ħuman 06:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The cites Schlafly puts in is to show that liberals do indeed hold these positions. He just assumes that they are self evidentially wrong so he does not have to respond, he just labels it a myth and he is therefore right. - π 06:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Even better

I'm not sure, but I reckon this is even better than CP's one. It smacks of Poe, particularly "This puts to rest the claim that Hillary is the smartest woman in the world", but even if it isn't taking the piss, it's a more rabid list. ^theist 12:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's funnier in places, but in others even more US centric.--Bob^{Not Jim} 18:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Denigration of soldiers

Rhetoric attacking soldiers (as opposed to the armies they serve) is commonly heard from those who consider the armies to be advancing the cause of "imperialism," or something similar; it comes in the form of The Conformist-style condemnations of "the cogs in the diabolical machine." I would not stick this attitude to liberals or (most of) the contemporary anti-war movement, but there it is. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have a point, but I also think there's a pretty strong tendency among American (we're talking about CP, so that's all that matters here) anti-war activists to not make the same spit-on-the-veterans-and-call-them-babykillers kind of mistake that was made during Vietnam--even people on the way left of the American mainstream, like Democracy Now, have made soldiers' issues (health care, mental health, insufficient armour/equipment) a way to demonstrate concern for the well-being of the (often) lower-class members of society that fight the wars to protect the interests of the elites as a means by which to advance an anti-war agenda. Anecdotal evidence, I know, but in the many, many, many anti-war demos/marches/events I've been to in the last (exactly) eight years, I've NEVER seen any sort of anti-soldier discourse, and have seen MANY attempts to give the appearance of being "on the side" of the soldiers. Remember, I'm talking specifically about iraq and Afghanistan and the US here, not the broad undifferentiated "left" throughout history and across borders. RaoulDuke 03:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, "spit-on-the-veterans" was a Reagan lie. ħuman 03:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I am in agreement there; I have never observed personal attacks against soldiers at anti-war marches. You see all these yard-signs around Minneapolis that say, "Support the Troops: Bring Them Home!", which I think illustrates the position of the anti-war movement in general. An acquaintance of mine strongly opposes our current wars, but makes the effort of sending care-packages of microwave popcorn, etc., to the soldiers. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)