Friday, April 18, 2008

Moonbats and Traitors and Carters, Oh My!

I have really enjoyed having people reading the endless stream of words I fling out. And I've even enjoyed the comments, as it forces me to either change (damned rare, sirs) or reinforce my point of view with not only facts but the limber strands that make my mind most mindfully mindful. So I've been thinking about terms and ideas that have been batted about over on the right about the more emphatic elements of the left-leaning blogs. And I figured clarification was called for.

So on to the definitions:

Moonbats - The line between liberalism and antiwar beliefs and the moonbats is a fine one. So I'll give some examples. If you are against the war, ok. If you believe the troops should be pulled out of Iraq, that's fine. If you think Bush has sucked us into a war under questionable circumstances, you can make a case.

But if you call our troops an occupying force, you're deluded. If you think we are to blame for terrorism around the world because we are an imperial power, you have drank too much Kool-Aid to remember history. And if you believe Bush and Cheney are worse than Adolf Hitler, you might be a moonbat.

The differentiation is that dissent is reasonable, understandable, and honorable, but demonizing the President and trying to demoralize the troops on a daily basis is insane. Consider the freedom with which you do this. FDR, Abe Lincoln, and John Adams would have all chucked your asses in a cell to shut you up during wartime. But in this age, you're fee to speak. Remember that.

Oh, and if you cheer because somebody who was politically opposed to your positions dies, then post crass comments expressing the same sentiment, not only do you get the moonbat label, you also deserve more pain from the cancerous mass that is your soul. You know who you are. Stop pissing on the dead.

Traitors - This is a group of people who, were it any time before Vietnam, would have been shot dead. Here's the ways you become a traitor:

1. Take up arms against your country in war. If found on the battlefield, you should be shot on the spot.
2. Aid and comfort: The most classic example is "Hanoi" Jane Fonda. Supporting enemy propaganda is unforgivable. Borders are closed. No America for you!
3. Disloyalty is minor treason. Opinions are fine. However, to go overseas and attack your country is bad. Don't waste my time if you can do this.

The point is that most people who fall under the moonbat moniker are not traitors. Traitors weaken this country, and considering their freedom of expression is a natural right we protect, it makes less than no sense.

Jimmy Carter - The 39th President of the United States made headlines this week by going over to the Middle East to meet with terrorist group leaders. You know, others have posted more extensively on this (Dee has those links posted here) but I have to add this: There is a dignity in not playing politics after office. Look at former Presidents Bush and (prior to the Hillary campaign) Clinton, who have joined up to do good works in the world without too much political crap. Even Carter did well with his Habitat for Humanity work. But whether he is just trying to rebuild his reputation or he honestly believes in what he is doing, this crap is hurting the country.

So there it is. Now if you disagree with me, you should stop dropping the acid that make my words go all plaid and gooey. Because you know I'm right and I know I'm right. And I know there's some people on the far right just as bad. But I'll verbally beat the shit out of them another day.

13 comments:

Toad734 said...

Fact: Our troops are an occupying force, they are there occupying a country and for a couple year, we were the government. They aren't not occupying Iraq? I don't see how you came up with that one. What else are they if not an occupying force? What would you call it?

No one really believes Bush and Cheney are worse than Hitler. No one was worse than Hitler. I still say Cheney is evil when you get down to the basics and Bush is stupid enough to be manipulated by him and at one point, Rumsfeld. Now, Hitler and Bush have employed some of the same tactics in lying about the enemy, creating an over exaggerated fear of a different culture and using that to take away our freedoms and start a war, spying on their citizens etc. So no, they aren't Hitler but they aren't Mary Poppins either.

Actually, wasn't John Adams very liberal when it came to free speech and opposing the government? And I have never heard such things about FDR. It doesn't mean it didn't happen but I never heard of such accounts. Of course there was all the Japanese camps he made them all relocate to but that wasn't for what they were saying it was because of who they were.

I find it interesting that no where in your definition of traitor was someone who lies in order to get 4000 American troops killed. Not only that, Joe Wilson was called a traitor at the time when he went to Niger but as it turns out, he was right and the people calling him a traitor were wrong. So aren't the real traitors the people who were keeping him from seeking the truth? Didn't he do the most patriotic thing that someone could do in that situation? They even went a step further to punish his patiotism by outing his wife, ending her career and possibly endangering her.

Again, "traitor" is relative. If Bush decided to join the US, Canada and Mexico and write a new constitution and I bombed his car to stop it, I would be labeled as a traitor by the powers that be. In reality, I would have been a patriot for trying to preserve the union. The story of the conquered is written by the conquerors.

Isn't Hammas the democratically elected legitimate government of Palestine? One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Again, it’s all relative. You don't think Israeli's who bulldoze the houses of Palestinians are terrorists? Why, because they wear uniforms? The Colonist rebels were "terrorists" as well. We didn't fight fair. We hid in towns and in the woods and churches and set traps for an enemy who fought by marching in a straight line. We fought with what we could and we won the only way we could win. Ireland is a country now because the IRA killed all the high ranking British officials who would come in to root them out. They didn't "fight fair" soldier to soldier, they cut the head off the beast and the body withered. They were labeled terrorists. I’m not defending school bus bombings or anything but you only see what they want you to see; you don't see what made those "terrorists" who they are or even take into consideration the desperate situations they could be in. Now, Bin Laden is clearly a terrorist.

And speaking of relative, I don't see you preserving the sanctity of the dead when it's Iraqi's or Palestinians who die. Maybe I saw Heston as a terrorist. I mean he did hold an NRA rally in Denver right after Columbine after he was told not to come and has done such things in the past. You don't think that was terror for the victims and the victims families? Again, all relative.

Shaw said...

FDR, Abe Lincoln, and John Adams.

FDR put Americans in detention camps because of the shape of their eyes and the color of their skin. Although the US government didn't kill them (but who really knows how many died as a result of this enormous outrage perpetrated on them?), the US government confiscated the property and businesses that these US citizens owned by their own hard work and diligence, and allowed other Americans who didn't have differently shaped eyes and skin color to swoop up the the loot.

This didn't happent to Germans and Italians.

Abe Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus--the most fundamental right in Western democracies--in the opening months of the Civil War. Actually, our Constitution allows this in times of insurrection and invasion. I would say that when the 10 states seceded from the Union upon Lincoln's inauguration, that would be seen as an insurrection.

George Bush suspended Habeas Corpus through the Military Commissions Act of 2005. He suspended Habeas Corpus for "enemy combatants."

And the biggest blot on John Adams' presidency was the illegal "Alien and Sedition Acts."

It appears the first thing the US government does when threatened by enemies without and within is ignore the Constitution.

Toad734 said...

The Supreme Court also restored Habeas Corpus over rulling Lincoln.

PAt,

Just because these people did, or would have done these things doesn't make it right, legal or constitutional. I am sure Augustus Ceasar would have had them thrown to the lions, King George would have had them beheaded,Stalin would have had them burried alive, thats what makes America, America. We don't allow those types of things.

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

Pat, has it ever occured to you that with your political beliefs at any other time in History that perhaps you would have been a Loyalist during the American revolution, Part of King Louis court during the French Revolution, The British in India, Ireland and elsewhere, with the Fascists of Spain, Or part of the Church during the inquisition?

Not calling you a fascist but you see what I am getting at.

Patrick M said...

Except for dealing with Bush's treatment of foreign enemy combatants, you're thinking about exactly what I was pointing out. Those three, and all other, great Presidents have some blemishes to their otherwise legendary greatness. My point there is that we have unparalleled freedom compared to our history where Presidents have shut people up to conduct a war. The moonbat problem is a result of too many people taking that freedom to the extreme. And we have fanatics on the right as well who should stop drinking their preferred flavor of Kool-Aid. Again, that's for another post.


Toad: Where to begin with you, since you posted more comments as I began my reply.....

Our forces are not occupying, because it is our plan and expectation to keep the country stable only until it is able to stand on its own. Then we leave.

And although, according to his wife Lynn, when people refer to Cheney as Darth Vader, it's an attempt to humanize him.... My threshold for evil is pretty high. And since we don't have access to all the information Cheney has had I don't know if he has crossed that line. And is it evil if you do something with a noble purpose, with the goal of less suffering and pain? Either way, I'll have to leave this one to history and God to judge.

Also, you say Bush is not worse than Hitler, then rattle off comparisons! You make my point for me again.

Shaw already answered my problem with Adams (Alien and Sedition Acts) which were unconstitutional, but considered by Adams a war measure. So I'll leave it at that.

As for traitor, of course it's a relative term. But generally, it involves acts that damage our country, most grievously in a time of war. The point is that most moonbats are not traitors. I doubt you'd intentionally help our country to be attacked or actively support enemies of America.

As for Hammas, yes, they were elected. Doesn't mean they're not a terrorist bunch. It just means working with them is not a possibility at this time.

Also, I should define a terrorist in modern times: A person who intentionally targets civilians and civilian infrastructure indiscriminately to disrupt and kill. I do make partial exceptions to this where there's a nasty civil war, as there are some issues that I'd have to be there to see to explain. So the second part of terrorist is that their goal is disruption and death, not a political overthrow.

As for pissing on the dead, while you can disagree, unless the person is a terrorist or serial killer or known only for infamy, it is tactless to piss on the dead. Let me use Jimmy Carter as an example. When he dies, I'll be focusing on things such as his handling of Three Mile Island, his tireless but futile work trying to free the hostages in Iran until the minute he was no longer President, and his years of work with Habitat for Humanity. I won't dwell on all the problems and issues I've had with him, including his current stupidity. And if I don't have anything good or instructive to say, I leave the dead in peace.

Now, as for what I'd have done back in France or in the American Revolution, I can't necessarily say. Were I there with my present set of beliefs, I would be behind the ideals of a limited government of the people, not a monarchy. However, it's difficult for me to say precisely.

Not that you're trying to paint me as a fascist or anything....

And if I missed anything, let me know and I'll correct you.

Moonbat said...

http://www.westernrevival.org/moonbat.gif

Massagem said...

Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the Massagem, I hope you enjoy. The address is http://massagem-brasil.blogspot.com. A hug.

Toad734 said...

So you are against a strong central monarchy. And by Monarchy do you mean where a father ruled a nation and then because of that and name, the Son is then put in power and then increases the size and power of the government??

Toad734 said...

Ok, so they are currently occupying Iraq until they leave.

You realize that you called Israel a terrorist state and they are the largest recipients of US Foreign aid.

Bush can certainly be compared to Hitler with what he has done in selling bullshit to the masses in order to get us into a war and them believing it. That being said, I didn't say he was gassing Jews, I said they have employed some of the same tactics.

Patrick M said...

Let me anticipate your clumsy line of reasoning. At the time, Bush looked to be a good choice. Especially:

when it is he
his opponent you see
who could possibly be
not a man but a tree.
AlGore

But yeah, keeping political legacies going is a bad thing. Which reminds me of the Kennedys and, even worse, the Clintons.

Also it reminds me of the Tafts, from a former President to the inept quarter-wit that was Governor of the great state of Ohio.

This is why I support the limitation on our freedom called term limits.

Also, the advantage of the written word is that I can look back and see how you are trying to take me out of context. It is obvious your anger at the USA in general and Bush in particular drives your attempts to misstate my statements.

That, and you try to out-comment me. Well, even with thing coming out of both ends (it's been a rough weekend) I can still keep up.

Mike's America said...

Fact: Toad is a Toadbat!

P.S. only one disagreement with your post. You say "if you believe Bush and Cheney are worse than Adolf Hitler, you might be a moonbat.
"


MIGHT?

I visited Dachau, the first of the German Concentration camps which opened in 1933 outside of Munich. No one who visits a death camp would ever confuse Bush/Cheney with Hitler. But then, moonbats like Toadbat try to obfuscate and diminish the very REAL EVIL that exists in the world because they do not want to take any responsibility for confronting it.

So, instead, they delude themselves into thinking it isn't real (like the Islamist threat) or by trying to convince themselves that Bush/Cheney is just as bad or worse.

Toad734 said...

Mike:

I said Bush wasn't worse that Hitler you illiterate idiot!

I know your brain isn't capable of this kind of abstract thought but what created this Islamist threat? Who is milking this Islamist threat? Who has exploited this Islamist threat and made up lies to get us into the oil fields of Iraq?

You are more likely to be killed by an American than a terrorist.

You are more likely to be killed by an automobile than a terrorist.

You are more likely to die in a plane crash than be killed by an Islamic terrorist.

Ill bet you are more likely to choke on the cap of your pen than to you are to be killed by a terrorist in the United States.

How bad of a threat is it really? More people have died in Bush's revenge war in Iraq than died on 9/11. This war is exactly what Bin Laden wanted. How else could 4000 Americans have been killed?

Open your mouth, they are going to keep piling in the bullshit and you are going to keep swallowing as you hand your civil liberties over in the name of security.

Patrick:

Yes, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Bush (jeb) is about the scariest thing I could imagine being printed into the history books. For 2 families to be in power for 32 years is not really what I call a Democratic Republic. Who knows, maybe even Chelsea could get into the mix and maybe even one of the Bush twins, hopefully the hot one as opposed to the drunk. I'v had enough of the Bush drunks.

Toad734 said...

Mike:

They are laughing at you.

Patrick M said...

Mike: I say "might" because it could just be a Bush hater, who just will never see any good in Bush no matter what. We had people on the right who were Clinton haters, but not wingnuts. Moonbats are a little crazier than that, as they fling every liberal line known as their mantra.

Other than that, no argument on your assessment of Toad.

Toad: Ease off the namecalling. If you want to insult Mike, he has a blog to ban you from.

Also, Although your slamming of the Bush family is uncalled for, I agree it's time to elect someone new.

Although Barbara is my favorite Bush twin. I'll let your imagination take it from there.