Debate:Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots

From Conservapedia

I am all for a good debate, which involves the conservative and liberal points. However, after several postings I have noticed a pattern of far leftwing liberals counter points, not just liberal, not just moderate liberal, far far extreme left. Which leads me to believe the far left feels threatened by Conservapedia so they rebuke posts quickly with the standard talking points; Bush, Iraq, Blah Blah Blah. Either they are extemists netroot liberals or they are just bored as rocks with the one-sided liberal websites and are just looking for a good debate. Regardless, a good debate involves sane reasoning which these people do not offer.--jp 10:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Please sign posts. Flippin 10:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, Jpatt, of course. But I am wondering what you mean by the far far extreme left. Like is that to the left of Mao Tse Tung, V.I. Lenin or Leon Trotsky, or Bakhunin? Or Pol Pot for example, or would they be far, far, far very extreme left. Pol Pot's idea of leftism was to march the entire population of Phnom Pheng into the fields to do peasant work, execute people who so much as grew a single tomato plant, declare it to be Year 0, ban money, and murder millions of people because they had some previous connection to capitalists. And he's one of the lightweights. Bakunin advocated a simple measure. Just bomb anyone and anything you don't like. Do these people remind you of the posters over here? Perhaps you could direct me to some of their outpourings? I would be curious to see and read them.

mylesP myles325@yahoo.com.au 7 april 2007 (why can't I get my name in blue lights?)

The essence of the fallacy of the ad hominem is that points are not discussed on their own merits (or lack thereof), but the goodness of the person making the assertion is questioned instead. Teresita 13:22, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Good point Jpatt. If the point is to far left it does not merit response or critique. The only thing those extreme left positions warrent is an analogy of how they are evidence of the conservative positions superiority.Rebiu 14:38, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

No doubt there are lots of people here who are more liberal - perhaps even more liberals than conservatives. This is a great place to see so many crazy right-wingers - we just can't stay away. Bob2 23:08, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I like how the right-winger types (Western American-style left-right scale) use insults such as Hippie, Commie, whiner, sissy, Chicken little, etc. to describe us, which all seem like 3rd grade bully-level insults to me. However, if one were to insult a far-right type, warmonger, nutjob, backward, dogmatic, Flat Earth Society-esque, ignorant, intolerant, dumb in general, and so on all come to mind. Now you tell me, which are the more severe claims? [[AdamNelson 17:32, 14 April 2007 (EDT)]]

Okay, seriously, the guy who started this question: I would not make the case for an instant that Conservapedia is middle-of-the-road conservative. I would say that it is pretty far to the right. Now I consider myself pretty conservative, but I feel as though I come off as being a raging liberal in comparison to the rest of this site. I also don't think that the really liberal people you are referring to aren't offering evidence, they are just not offering evidence that falls within the monolithic far right viewpoint. No disrespect to this position, because I happen to agree with many of the same issues as you probably do, but I do not worry about "the left" as much. -Augustine, 28 November 2007