Loading ...
4/9/2008
Our own Joshua Sharf has jumped into the fray. He has decided to run for Colorado House District 6. He’s running in the primary against Rima Barakat — a terrorist apologist with no conservative credentials. So, I’m proud to announce my support of Joshua for CD-6. I will be doing whatever I can to help get him through the primary and then on to the general.
In other news, it’s time for a new Letters from Home project. This time I will be collecting letters for the Navy. I’ll be sending them off to the USS Russell — DDG-59. So, just like last time, please send generalized supportive emails to me, and I will make sure that they get to the men and women aboard the Russell. When you send your email, please be sure and put “Letters from Home” in the subject line. We’re aiming for about 250 emails, so I’m hoping to have them collected and packed up by the end of the month. As with last time, anything you all can do to help spread the word would be greatly appreciated.
By the way, they have their own blog there on the Russell. There’s some great writing going on there! Their crew gives you a good close look at life aboard a modern destroyer at war.
-
[...] was really, really nice. And you could still be a part of it, for those who are still out there: In other news, it’s time for a new Letters from Home project. This time I will be collecting [...]
Pingback by Letters from home | Neptunus Lex — 4/10/2008 @ 22:56
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackback URI for this post:
http://thinking-right.com/2008/04/09/updates/trackback/
<< Take Me Back Home!
A “terrorist apologist”? Really?
Now Jim, wutever she may be, ain’t been nuthin’ shown provin’s she’s a “terrorist apologist.” But I’m willin’ t’ be currected if’n ye come up with that thar evidince:
Deecisions, deecisions.
Comment by Snaggle-Tooth Jones — 4/9/2008 @ 22:54
Snaggle,
Come on man, you’ve got to do better than that. I guess you didn’t follow the link to Joshua’s post where he has a video of Ms. Barakat accusing the Israelis of killing innocent children.
Jim C
Comment by Jim — 4/10/2008 @ 09:21
As I noted in my blog entry thar, I did view th’ videar. Heard ‘em very words, as a matter-a fact. But my question to you is-iss: How do Ms. Barakat’s accusing the Israelis of killing innocent children make her a “terrorist apologist”? Amnesty Internashnal also makes-iss claim. Are they “terrorist apologists”?
Comment by Snaggle-Tooth Jones — 4/10/2008 @ 21:40
Actually, you didn’t say anything of the sort in your original comment.
Actually, the accusation of killing innocent children is just the least of her problems. Here are a couple of quotes pulled from the transcript of the video:
In addition to that, Ms. Barakat — instead of innocent children — actually said baby killers. So, yes, I would consider her a terrorist apologist. I would also consider Amnesty International terrorist apologists. They have repeatedly defended Palestinian tactics, and have defended Guantanamo bay detainees while criticizing US and Israeli efforts to defend ourselves.
Jim C
Comment by Jim — 4/10/2008 @ 21:56
Actually, you didn’t say anything of the sort in your original comment.
What I sed wuz, Jim, is that I *did* view th’ videar. Have a look at my blog entry where I indercate that I viewed th’ videar. It’s raht thar, clear as day.
And as t’ the rest of your post above, well I simply repeat that you, followin’ Mr. Sharf, have committed a blatunt non sequitur. You say, “In addition to that, Ms. Barakat — instead of innocent children — actually said baby killers. So, yes, I would consider her a terrorist apologist.” But it simply don’t logically follow from wut she sed up above that she’s a “terror apologist.” The only thang that logically follows is that she is a critic of Israel, and a Palestinian partisan. Nowhere did she defend terrorism ‘ginst th’ Israelis or anyone else.
I would also consider Amnesty International terrorist apologists. They have repeatedly defended Palestinian tactics, and have defended Guantanamo bay detainees while criticizing US and Israeli efforts to defend ourselves.
‘L, that’s a non sequitur too. ‘N please quote them where they “defend Palestinian tactics.” I ain’t aware of no place where IA defends terrorist tactics. But maybe I missed somethin’
Comment by Snaggle-Tooth Jones — 4/11/2008 @ 12:06
Snaggle,
You were right, you did say in a blog entry on your blog that you saw the video. I don’t frequent your blog because I find your writing style and intentional misspellings (not to mention your ideology) more than a little off-putting, and quite frankly find it a little difficult to stomach.
Still, that doesn’t change the quotes that I listed above. The statement “so, yes, I would consider her a terror apologist” was intended to be put with the quotes as well, and I think you know that.
Amnesty International’s criticism of Israel simply wanting their land back while not criticising Palestine’s use of terrorism amounts to a defacto defense of Palestinian tactics. And, you never did address Amnesty International’s defense of GITMO detainees.
Now, I’ve said everything I’m going to say on this. I believe that Ms. Barakat is a terror apologist… you don’t.
Comment by Jim — 4/11/2008 @ 13:15
Amnesty International’s criticism of Israel simply wanting their land back while not criticising Palestine’s use of terrorism amounts to a defacto defense of Palestinian tactics.
“New Amnesty Report Criticizes Palestinian Militants”: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2007543_ITM
And, you never did address Amnesty International’s defense of GITMO detainees.
Wud that be the same as John McCain’s defense of GITMO detainees? Maybe he’s a “terror apologist” too.
Now, I’ve said everything I’m going to say on this. I believe that Ms. Barakat is a terror apologist… you don’t.
I know wut it is you “believe”, Jim. It’s just that you ain’t proved it. Neither has Mr. Sharf. A “belief” based on a logical fallacy (the non sequitur) ain’t no valid belief at all.
I just posted a commint to a Rocky Mountain News article on this here matter. The last sentence of it is fir you and all the other neocons in the Colorader blogos-fear who have gone all apey ’bout the Sinclair candidacy:
http://coloradoconfederatarian.squarespace.com/journal/2008/4/11/more-on-the-sharfsinclair-kerfluffle.html
Comment by Snaggle-Tooth Jones — 4/11/2008 @ 13:38
Oops, here’s that link to my RMN commint:
http://coloradoconfederatarian.squarespace.com/journal/2008/4/11/more-on-the-sharfsinclair-kerfluffle.html
Comment by Snaggle-Tooth Jones — 4/11/2008 @ 13:42
Gee Snaggle, you wouldn’t be an anti-semite would you? Oh, and by the way, I guess I would be one of Joshua’s sycophants.
If you can’t see that Ms. Barakat is a terror apologist then I don’t know what else there is for us to discuss regarding this issue.
Jim C
Comment by Jim — 4/12/2008 @ 22:29
Nope, not an anti-semite, Jim C., though I’m not surprised at the charge. See, neocons like you have unfortunately learned the nasty habit of name-calling from the liberal/lefties. Like those liberal/lefties who call people who oppose illegal immigration “racists”, you call people “anti-semites” who merely critize Israel when she behaves badly. Tsk, tsk.
You’re correct, however: I can’t see that Ms. Barakat is a terror apologist. That’s because none of you has proved it. You’ve merely made the allegation on the basis of that video. (Well, Mr. Sharf, actually, and you all parroting him, indeed like sycophants.) But like I said, you committed the non sequitur fallacy in doing so.
Facile name-calling and fallacious logic: you’re really not doing so well with this thing, are you?
By the way, how’s my diction this afternoon? Any clearer?
Comment by Snaggle-Tooth Jones — 4/13/2008 @ 16:35
Yes, your diction is much better today. See, that wasn’t so bad. You actually sound intelligent (wrong… but at least not stupid and wrong) when you’re not using that hideous immitation of “southern speak”. Having family from the south — and having spent a good deal of time there through out my life — I find your whole act pretty condescending.
As to your allegation that Israel has behaved badly; you have offered no evidence that she has done so. Joshua and I have offered plenty of proof on the other hand that Ms. Barakat has on numerous occasions excused the terror tactics of recognised terrorist groups such as Hamas. Here is yet another example of her record.
Now, on to the matter of me calling you names. Actually, I just asked if you were an anti-Semite because personal experience has shown me that when people use the term “neocon” when attacking someone who defends the right of Israel to exist or when attacking someone of the Jewish faith, that person is usually exactly that… an anti-Semite. You on the other hand have actually called me a sycophant which is defined by Webster’s dictionary as:
American Heritage dictionary defines it as:
Gee, I never knew you cared.
Comment by Jim — 4/13/2008 @ 17:35
“Yes, your diction is much better today. See, that wasn’t so bad. You actually sound intelligent (wrong… but at least not stupid and wrong) when you’re not using that hideous immitation of “southern speakâ€. Having family from the south — and having spent a good deal of time there through out my life — I find your whole act pretty condescending.”
‘L, Jim, why-ohnt ye have a look at-iss, ‘n this tell me if’n ye thank it’s still condescendin’:
http://coloradoconfederatarian.squarespace.com/journal/2008/2/4/why-ole-snaggle-tooth-tawks-in-dialect-and-mispels-his-wurds.html
“As to your allegation that Israel has behaved badly; you have offered no evidence that she has done so.”
Now, pay attenshun thar, Jim. I linked t’ an Amnesty Internashnul report of Israeli abuses in my initial blog entry, which I posted here. ‘Sides: anyone ‘cept the most dogmatic Zionist knows that Israel has behaved badly at times: http://guardian.150m.com/palestine/israeli-massacres.htm
“Now, on to the matter of me calling you names. Actually, I just asked if you were an anti-Semite because personal experience has shown me that when people use the term “neocon†when attacking someone who defends the right of Israel to exist or when attacking someone of the Jewish faith, that person is usually exactly that… an anti-Semite.”
Yep. ‘Nother neocon myth. ‘N one-att’s been debunked so miny times, I cain’t believe anyone still swallers it.
Comment by Snaggle-Tooth Jones — 4/13/2008 @ 20:31
As far as your reasons for mispelling your words and your “southern speak”, I’ll take your word for it. If that’s the case then I stand corrected.
As to the other stuff; we’re not going to change each other’s minds on this. We’ve cluttered up this post enough with this argument.
Jim C
Comment by Jim — 4/13/2008 @ 22:15
Fair ‘nuf. Thanks fir th’ chaince to respond.
Comment by Snaggle-Tooth Jones — 4/13/2008 @ 22:34