T Nation

The Definition of a Moon-Bat


#1

Ok, so you guys know me, you know that I'm probably the most liberal person you can imagine.

...or perhaps among the top five. :wink:

I went to Humboldt State University, I'm an environmentalist, to me war is a last resort, and I was once a registered Socialist, and I actually switched to being a registered Democrat because I want to help bring the party back to the true left.

...but last night, I was shocked and awed by the moonbat I met. There I was, at the Angelides victory rally/party, crowded in front of the stage with a bunch of people awaiting Phil's victory speech, and she began speaking to me, much to my dismay. She laid a guilt trip on me becasue I still own a vehicle. She said that you can commute ANYWHERE using public transit, and when I told here the neighborhood that I live in and where I work, she said, "oh yeah, that IS tough". To that I said, well, that's why I bought a motorcycle. She said motorcycles are worse than cars! She said I should buy a new hybrid - to that I had to remind her the sheer ammount of energy it takes to manufacture a new car, to say nothing of the pollution it creates. Consumerism has FAR greater impact on the environment than riding and maintaing an old motorcycle. This lady was NUTS.

She went on to tell me that the war in Iraq was genocide - that the soldiers recieved orders from "high-up" to torture and murder Iraqi civillians. She said Bush was worse than Hitler.

I'm not fucking kidding.

I mean, I'm no fan of Bush, and I'm pissed this war ever took place, but dammit we made this mess, and we have to clean it up! Comparing a tragic murder in Iraq to the 6 MILLION Jews slain in the holocaust is INSANE.

If anybody meets any nutcase like this woman, please remember: they're not accurate representatives of the true liberals in America - they're a distinct minority, and INSANE.

I mean, I'm totally used to talking sustainability - I walk a lot, I ride a motorcycle, I drive old vehicles, I compost, I recycle, I turn off the sink when I brush my teeth. I know several recipes for biodiesel.

So please, just do me a favor and don't EVER lump me in with the true moonbats - they ARE OUT THERE AND THEY'RE SCARY!

-K


#2

"Liberal" fundamentalism is just as bad as anyother fundamentalism.


#3

knewsom,

Excellent post.

Your point is well taken.

Please remember that when (or if) you are tempted to make sweeping generalizations about "all Republicans."

You may be surprised at the diversity of ideas within the party.

Oh, I find the religious fundamentalists in the Republican party as (or more) offensive than the hippie you met.

JeffR


#4

I'm forming a radical anti-fundamentalist group... any takers?


#5

I'm in!

knewsom:

So, was she hot? Did you do her anyway?


#6

You really need to get out more, TME. I live in the middle of BFE, and I think I must get out more than you. Of course I am really really good looking.


#7

I donno... I think I'm going to start a group for moderate fundamentalism. :smiley:

shudder

At least extremist liberals are fairly benign and don't go blowing up buildings or anything...

but SHIT they're annoying!


#8

Not Extreme? What about ELF?


#9

Hello, PETA!? Green-peace?!


#10

Why did you ruin a perfectly good post?
Your original post was well written and appeared sincere.

You were on a roll.

How about the earth liberation front?

Take a peek at their tactics.

I've got more examples of radical, dangerous, eco-terrorist moonbat groups.

JeffR


#11

I said FAIRLY benign, not WHOLLY benign - of course fanatacism in general can be extremely dangerous, but I wouldn't exactly lump Greenpeace in with ELF...

There are lines that the ELF has crossed (like vandalism and outright destruction of public and private property) that Greenpeace hasn't...

ELF are definitely moonbats - agreed, and certainly use pretty despicable tactics, but I don't think you can compare them to groups like Al Qaeda or people like Timothy McVeigh... I mean, when was the last time Greenpeace or PETA or even ELF detonated a building with the intended result of killing tons of people?


#12

Stalin and Mao were a couple of lefties.

Nothing like a good cultural revolution.


#13

That's funny I do most of these things as a matter of course and practicality rather than because I'm a conservative or a Republican. Are you really a socialist-turned-Democrat or are you in favor of self-sufficience and conservation? (Not that the two are mutually exclusive, but the divergence IMO is blatantly obvious.)


#14

knewsom,

I appreciate that you've changed your tune somewhat. However, your last sentence shows that I still have some work to do.

I believe that your underlying premise is that "far-left groups are not as dangerous as far-right groups."

Again, I contend they are equally as dangerous and malevolent.

the elf is a spin off of earth first. The elf is considered an arm of it.

Here is an excerpt from www.activist.com.

"The Earth First! Journal

Every industry has its trade rags, and the leading magazine for the environmental fringe is the Earth First! Journal. Unsuspecting magazine browsers in mainstream bookstores might stumble across the Journal, which provides tactical information and motivation to saboteurs -- while singing the praises of Earth First!ers who destroy fishing boats, genetically modified crops, and logging equipment.

The Journal features articles by some of America's most violent eco-terrorists. One issue, for example, included an essay by convicted arsonist Jeffrey Luers about "Why I set a fire at [Eugene, Oregon's] Romania Chevrolet." The same issue included a treatise titled "The Non-violent Use of Gunpowder."

"By every means necessary we will bring this and every other empire down! Mutiny and sabotage in defense of Mother Earth!" screamed another recent article condemning the war in Iraq. Elsewhere in that same issue: "A snitch is no longer entitled to basic expectations of safety. As such, it is righteous to hurt them, burn down their house or do similarly naughty things to them."

In 2000, the 20th Anniversary issue of the Earth First! Journal bragged: "The simple idea of putting the earth first had drawn expanding crowds of hippies, anarchists, animal rights activists and all sorts of riffraff." The kind of people who "riff" alphabet songs like this one:

I is incendiary, like burning 'dozers
J is for jail time, and other enclosures
K is for kill, what they'll do if they catch you."

Please read the last sentence four times. There is plenty more material available.

JeffR


#15

Moonbat
Pronunciation: 'mun-"bat
Function: noun
: JeffR

ROTHFLMFAO!!!!


#16

They're CERTAINLY not mutually exclusive, but I think that the idea of self-sufficience is a bit of a myth... nobody gets ANYWHERE on their own - we all need others, we all need help from time to time, and we all need the basic protections of our governments. Anarchy would get us nowhere, and even if we HAD anarchy, it wouldn't last becasue people would band together into tribes for protection and security. Tribes feed those who are hungry, tend to those who are sick, and protect those who need protection.

Also, I need to clarify my definition of being a socialist - I'm a democratic-socialist... think Sweden.

I think that conservation goes hand in hand with socialism, and in a socialist culture the goal is to be as self-reliant as possible, just as it is in a capitalist one. Perhaps people have a mistaken notion that socialists all expect to be handed things from the government - that's a mistake. Socialists expect basic human needs to be met, and the single most effective way to do so for every member of the population is through government.


#17

Well, when you talk about communism, it's almost to the point where it's gone full circle from radical leftism to ultra-conservativism. I'm not even sure you could define Stalin or Mao as leftists anymore due to their totalitarian practices. We need not forget that post-cultural revolution, China became EXTREMELY conservative regarding its communist culture.


#18

I read the whole thing, and did a bit of googling myself, and found that my previous statements were still correct. ELF and EF are both semi-terrorist in tactic, but still focus on causing economic harm to companies that cause ecological damage. They do NOT KILL PEOPLE. Read the last sentence again yourself dude... "K is for Kill, what THEY'LL DO IF THEY CATCH YOU" you could chalk this up to brainwashing their recruits, but I think this means "flee or die", rather than "kill or be killed".

Even if it DID mean kill or be killed, it's not like it said "kill as many polluters as possible"... I maintain that you simply cannot compare ELF and EF to Al Qaeda and McVeigh whose goals are loss of life as well as public spectacle to gain media attention. ELF only destroys things... big differentce.

If you still disagree, then tell me how many people have died by the hand of "eco-terrorists"?


#19

Question, can moonbats read, because Jerffy sure can't... he's been an idiot asswad for ages now.

Maybe if he learned to read he'd have something useful to add?


#20

Hey, knewsom.

Thanks for reading the article and looking into this.

As far as I know, no one has been killed by elf or alf.

If that is the only criteria for being a terrorist, then, yes, you have a point.

However, you and I both know, that terror is exactly what these groups are practicing and preaching. You can look up how much damage and mayhem they are "proud" to have caused.

Further, you know full well that violent acts are not limited to murder.

They are using violent tactics for the express purpose of stopping activities they find objectionable. This is the definition of terrorism.

Further, given the kill manifesto that I posted, one wonders just how close they are to using fatal tactics.

I just cannot go along with the left wing nutjobs are "mostly harmless" commentary.

I'll bet their victims would beg to differ.

JeffR