I can't document all the moonbattery of the extreme left. No, they are much too productive, and we only have so much time in the day. Let me instead list the most egregious examples. Keep in mind that this is only the tip of the iceberg.
First, there's Jessie Macbeth. Short story: A guy comes forward and says, "I'm an Army Ranger, and I was ordered to kill hundreds of innocent Iraqis." He is really a liar, from the top to the bottom.
Next, there's Denny Hastert. You know, the Speaker of the House. He came out and said that he didn't like the FBI raiding a sitting representative's office. Fair enough. But ABC reported that Speaker Hastert was under investigation himself! Except… ABC lied. Just like NBC lied about the memo that said President Bush didn't fulfill his duties in the ANG. "Fake but accurate" is what the moonbats say. In other words, "We refuse to acknowledge a lie for what it is, because we believe it too much to let go."
Next, there's the utter refusal to acknowledge militant Islam as a threat to the civilized world. The snipers in DC? Remember them? Yes, they were trying to satisfy the demands of Allah. And President Ahmedinejad of Iran? Yes, he thinks he is in a holy war with Israel and the Great Satan. "These guys aren't bad," moonbats reason. "They're just misunderstood." Expose that the misunderstanding is really on the part of the left, then they go into a quivering mass of moral equivalency. "Freeing 50 million people from brutal regimes is just like trying to wipe Israel off the map!"
Finally, I want to expose the way the moonbats argue. Normal people are respectful and courteous and try to use reason to argue. For instance, if you believed that we shouldn't cut taxes because it will reduce government revenue, I would try to attack your arguments by showing that tax cuts increase actual revenue. That's an argument that we should have. But moonbats don't argue like that. They employ three tactics: argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad populum, and ignoratio elenchi. If you are not familiar with these tactics, let me outline them:
Argumentum ad hominem is by far the most common. It is simply attacking the messenger without addressing the message. For instance, my arguments about the climate are wrong because I am an idiot, so they might say. Or, I might be on Exxon's bribe list. Or, I am not a scientist (and only scientists can make logical arguments, don't you know?) This argument is easily countered. "Very well, I may be those things, but it is irrelevant. What I stated is true. Refute my statements."
Argumentum ad populum is the assumption that since everyone believes it to be true, it must be true. This is easily countered. "Before Newton", you say, "everyone believed that the natural state of objects was rest. But now we know better: Things move until they are stopped." And you can easily continue. "We used to believe particles were like little bullets, but now we have Quantum Theory that shows us that they are really something like bullets and waves." And go on from there. "But that isn't really right either. Right now they are working on a string theory that might give a better picture of reality." Your mother probably expose this fallacy with the simple statement, "If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you do it to?"
Ignoratio Elenchi, or irrelevant conclusion, is used to distract the audience from the question. It is used in politer circles. When you have circumscribed your opponent and exposed the fallacy of their position, they will immediately begin defending another position, one which you had not been concerned with. Your response to this is not to engage the new point, but to admit victory. "You can't say that I'm wrong, so you are distracting the audience with a different point. Therefore, I conclude that my position was correct."
Moonbats don't operate like you think normal humans should. They are powered by hate, a strange breed of hatred against hate. They are powered by ignorance, and ignorance that is so ignorant that education appears ignorant to them. They are powered by intolerance, an intolerance of intolerance. Think of a walking contradiction, and you will have imagined the perfect moonbat.
Don't try to engage moonbats in the hopes of reforming them. No, only engage them with the purpose of exposing them. They are their own worst enemy. The more pictures you show of them parading without their pants on in front of children (and they do) and with their "Bush is Hitler" posters, and with their drawings of Jews sucking the blood of Palestinian children, the more they damage themselves. If a particular moonbat refuses to expose themself openly, try this trick. Openly challenge them to a debate. for instance:
"Bush is evil," says a moonbat. Reply, firmly yet calmly, "No, President Bush is perhaps the greatest president alive. We are in the strongest economy, we have freed 50 million people from tyranny, and we are finally defeating militant Islam for the first time in history." You have evidence on your side, so plain that it is missed. They only have hatred, intolerance, and ignorance for their tools. Keep your cool as they explode in a tyrade, and watch as those around you realize what has happened to the extreme left.