I believe it to be satire. It's a style some responders use here. Not knowing redcloak nor his/her style, I was was caught off guard with his/her post.
My first thought of redcloak was that he/she was a raving manical lunatic. That is because he/she was that good in their prose...especially if you were unfamiliar with them and their style. But then, I thought better of it thinking it must be satire but still sought confirmation.
Bottomline, it could be a mistake to perceive spinestein as "moonbatty." The trick here is to get to know your adversary before you make judgments you may later regret.
Then, once you began to really know them, and you still find them moonbatty, then it's game on.
good idea, I'll take it to heart. I did have a "back and forth" before I posted the bat though. Might have benefitted with additional communication though. Did you see his twin?
I've heard the term "moonbat" used often over the past few years and never knew what it meant. I just had to look it up.
THIS IS FROM WIKIPEDIA:
Moonbat is a term often used as a political epithet. Some Iraq War supporters use it to insult opponents like Noam Chomsky and Pat Buchanan. According to an article by New York Times language maven William Safire, the term was first used by the famous science fiction author Robert A. Heinlein in 1947. [1]
Moonbat is a political epithet coined in 2002 by Perry de Havilland of Samizdata.net a libertarian weblog. It was originally a play on the last name of George Monbiot, a columnist for The Guardian. Although the term enjoys great currency in the libertarian and conservative blogosphere as an all-purpose insult for modern liberals, peace protestors, and other ideological opponents, that was not the original intention as it was just as often used to describe the more extreme elements of libertarian or paleo-conservative thought.
People write of the "moonbat" in a range of uses. For example, the earliest use listed in Google Groups is a user's screen name on an Ultima Online newsgroup post from 1998.[1]. Recently, open source advocate Eric Raymond used the term in an interview in The New Yorker to describe eccentric Wikipedia contributors.[2] The term has come into wider use in politics, sometimes as "moonbat crazy"; Boston commentator Howie Carr uses the term regularly.[3] In September, 2006, Carr ran a number of "How do you spot a moonbat?" segments on his daily radio show, and defined the term to mean "A left-wing nut who probably suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome."
Libertarian Perry de Havilland of Samizdata says a moonbat is "someone on the extreme edge of whatever their -ism happens to be". Adriana Cronin-Lukas defines the term as "someone who sacrifices sanity for the sake of consistency". De Havilland says it was not originally a play on the last name of George Monbiot, a columnist for The Guardian, although he and Monbiot have appeared on the BBC together expressing politically opposed views. [citation needed]
The term was originally rendered as "Barking Moonbat", suggesting that certain issues seem to trigger a reflexive response from some people much like wolves howl at the moon.[citation needed] It evokes the traditional association between the moon and insanity. While this term was originally coined to attack commentators on the Right, it was also used to afront Leftists.[citations needed].
Some bloggers claim "moonbat" is neither a general epithet for U.S. War on Terror critics, nor even a purely U.S.- oriented term. They say they use it only against those who construct elaborate conspiracy theories concerning American foreign policy.[citation needed] For example, someone who claims that George W. Bush caused the 9/11 attacks would fit this category. "Idiotarian" fits a similar context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonbat
I'm a lot of things and some of them not good, but I'm not a moonbat.
</:^D
MWUUHAAAAHAAAAHAAAHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! Um... I mean thank you.
(It's "he", by the way.)
I was just trying to take the statist argument to its loony conclusion: Kill the children to save them. Or as Rush puts it, illustrating absurdity by being absurd.
Like you, I'm shocked by some of what I read here. I always thought that a true conservative would never approve of a finger wagging nanny state. We've all seen this nation's various flirtations with such well intended meddling. The end result is always more government, less freedom, and the original problem left unsolved. (But with the nanny demanding more and more resources anyway.)
The Jihad on Drugs is no exception. Taxes are taken from us, our freedoms are curtailed, and our lives endangered; but, we receive no benefit. Narcotics are still available and we are still exposed to whatever hazards they bear on their own. Only now, with this jihad, we get still more risk thrown in with no return on our investment. We get a bigger government, a bigger boot on our necks, and more empty promises of how it will finally work this time. That isn't my definition of conservatism.