« MUST READ FROM THE NY TIMES: “THE TWO OBAMAS” | Home | THE WASHINGTON POST REPORTS ON THE “THE MINNESOTA GREEN SCREEN DEBATE”; STILL NO APOLOGIES FROM LIBERAL BLOGS »
MN GOP PRESS RELEASE: “WASHINGTON WALZ SIDES WITH LIBERAL SPECIAL INTERESTS”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | June 23, 2008
I received this press release on Friday afternoon.
###
Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman Ron Carey today released the following statement in reaction to Rep. Tim Walz’s vote against approving key terrorist surveillance legislation.
“By voting against this bipartisan compromise on FISA legislation, Tim Walz has made clear he will side with national liberals and special interest groups. This important legislation gives the intelligence community the tools they need to keep America safe, and Walz’s vote cements his position as out of touch with residents of Southern Minnesota.â€
Walz Votes Against FISA Act of 2008 (Roll Call 437, June 20, 2008, http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml)
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 34 Comments »
34 Responses to “MN GOP PRESS RELEASE: “WASHINGTON WALZ SIDES WITH LIBERAL SPECIAL INTERESTS””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Nancy told him he had to vote “no.” That moron is incapable of independent thought. It’s amazing that anyone voted against this necessary, common-sense legislation. This vote illustrates how extreme liberal he is.
Next time he says he’s an independent voice, or a moderate, it’s o.k. to laugh hard, laugh loud. He’s anything but.
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:30 PM
republiCon Ron issued a press release on a Friday afternoon?
What a moron.
June 23rd, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Since Pelosi voted FOR the bill, only a moron would believe she told Walz to vote NO.
June 23rd, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Way to go Chestnut, you are on the ball
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Tommy’s point is, as almost always, lost in his insult. Tommy shoots from the hip, but is not always hip when he shoots.
Anyway, back on subject, Friday afternoon is the worst time of the week to issue a press release. That is if you are planning to get any publicity out of the news release.
In point of fact, the federal government typically will issue a press release on Friday IF it has bad news to report. That’s because the feds (and this is the case no matter who is president) believe in the adage, “Nobody reads the paper on Saturday.” It certainly is true in Washington, D.C. and generally is true outside the beltway.
June 23rd, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Counselor, why is it that you always chastise the lefty’s insult, but ignore the rightwingnut’s insult?
I’m guessing it’s because beyond being a bootlicker, you have no moral compass.
I was going to attend law school; but they had a big garbage can at the entrance, with a sign over it that read: “Abandon ethics, all ye who enter here.”
Thank you for reminding me of that, Counselor.
June 23rd, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Tommy has ethics? ROTFLMAO!!!!
June 23rd, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Chestnut, you got a typo. What you meant to type is:
RITGLMAO
(Rolling In The Gutter…)
But, keep on posting, pal! Nobody types the (cheney)heimer like you do!!!
June 23rd, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Johnson divulged: “I was going to attend law school..”
That damn high school diploma thing really screwed that one up for you didn’t it Johnson?
The question we’re left with is, if you found it so easy to fabricate a distinguished military record, what was the problem printing up a simple sheepskin?
Heck, why not just buy yourself a law degree from the same place you get your combat ribbons?
<a href=”http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?from=R40&_trksid=m37&satitle=high+school+diploma&category0=”They got plenty.
June 23rd, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Oops, try here
June 23rd, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Hey Chestnut.
When you are asking for examples of republicans wiping their asses with the constitution, this bill is a perfect example.
If you want to repeal the fourth amendment, republicans should push to repeal the fourth amendment. Taking it down with a thousand paper cuts like this is not the way a party proud of its war on terror should act. Seems to me, voting for the bill as Kline, Ramstad and Bachmann did is a rather obvious sign of cowardice.
June 23rd, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Say, Leroy?
When Angry Al wipes his ass with American values, do you blow your nose as it passes by?
June 23rd, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Leroy,
I hope your party runs on civil rights for Al Qaeda. Clearly you believe it, the question is whether you have the intellectual honesty to admit it.
June 23rd, 2008 at 4:48 PM
You’re a sick man, “Swiftee”. You’re also the republiCon base. No one is any baser than you, “Swiftee”.
And you’re the epitome of why GOP now stands for GreedOverPrinciples.
June 23rd, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Chris, you’re the most intellectually dishonest here. You scream about “liberal judges” while the fact of the matter is 7 out of 9 in the SCOTUS were appointed by GOPers; that since 1968, the GOP has made the appointments to the Federal Bench for all but 12 of those 40 years.
The issue isn’t “civil rights for al Queda”, and you know it. You’re being intellectually dishonest, and projecting too.
June 23rd, 2008 at 4:54 PM
You’re a sick man, “Swiftee.”
June 23rd, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Outside of one or two “token” NRA votes Walz has taken, can someone name any major issue that Walz has actually sided with the Republicans on? Approval of the Journal doesn’t count. The only thing moderate about Walz is his haircut. He’s pretty smart talking tough and pandering to veterans (who would disagree with that), but it looks like a lot of people in the 1st are wising up to that strategy! Nice credit card debts too (see Mankato paper): just the way he runs the country.
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Tim Walz would be against terrorism but it would put him on the same side as America, so he had to vote against the bill. Maybe he needed some extra cash and got a little bonus from some organization to vote the way he did. Since he can’t even get his personal finances in order, he may be desparate.
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Chris-
These aren’t wiretaps in Afghanistan or Iran. They are wiretaps of American citizens. Last time I checked, they are the same people whose rights are guaranteed by the constitution.
If you want to believe that the second amendment guarantees you the right to own an Uzi with cop killer bullets, you also have to agree that the fourth amendment allows you to call people in other countries without government interference.
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:19 PM
TommyJohnson said:
“the fact of the matter is 7 out of 9 in the SCOTUS were appointed by GOPers”
And yet the party affiliation of those that appointed them doesn’t affect the way the judge so much (as was intended). Your definition of “intellectual honesty” leaves much to be desired, TommyJohnson.
“The issue isn’t “civil rights for al Quedaâ€, and you know it”
To be blunt, TommyJohnson, I don’t think you can be trusted to ferret out what the “issue” is or is not. And projecting onto “RepubliCons” in every other comment thread and then crying “Foul! Intellectual Dishonesty! Projection!”? makes you look quite silly.
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:43 PM
Leroy, these bootlickers worry about their guns, while they are blissfully ignorant that this misAdministration believes it has the God-given ‘right’ to take not only their guns, but them, their spouse, their kids, and any up to and including all of their property, and they have no right to challenge the government’s actions in court.
Real Republicans have a healthy distrust of government; these bootlickers have an unhealthy trust of this misAdministration because Dumbya is allegedly a Republican.
When Boy Blunder said this:
“You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.†George aWol Bush
he was referrin’ to the bootlickin’ base.
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:04 PM
Two-Putt,
Perhaps a commercial/political ad will also be done in the kitchen [or bathroom] of Swiftee, and Norm will also be there to take out the trash [garbage].
[Does Swiftee realize how "sick" some of his writing reads?]
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:32 PM
“These aren’t wiretaps in Afghanistan or Iran. They are wiretaps of American citizens. Last time I checked, they are the same people whose rights are guaranteed by the constitution.”
Really? Prove it.
In any case. If Howard Dean wants to have a conference call with his pal Bin Laden, I want the NSA to know about it.
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:34 PM
… and by the way, Leroy, you dumb fuck, those wiretaps were to telephones connected to known terrorists.
If the Democrats want to fight for the rights of terrorists to have unfettered conversations with their friends within our borders, so be it. I don’t think that’s a winning issue though. But at least it would be consistent with their hate for America.
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:37 PM
“Does Swiftee realize how “sick” some of his writing reads?”
Thanks, “el p”. But I am not running for the Democrat endorsement for Senate, and I will not accept if if I’m drafted.
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:55 PM
“There arn`t wiretaps in Afghanistan or Iran.” They are wiretaps of American citizens…whose rights are guaranteed by the constitution.” You mean those same American citizens whose “rights” are violated every time they go thru a security line at an airport? Guess what? Hundreds of thousands of people`s stuff is searched every day, without a warrant, without probable cause, at the airport. Why aren`t you crying about that, Leroy? The 4th ammendment says no “unreasonable searches”, and so the courts have ruled that airport searches are “reasonable”, no warrant required. Just like coming thru customs. I find it ironic that to libs it`s wrong to listen in on suspected terrorists` phone calls, but it`s ok to search their bags as the come here over the Canadian border. What`s the difference? That`s the point, Leroy- If it`s ok for a no warrant search at the airport, we think it should be ok for a phone tap to listen in on some body who my be trying to blow you up on your next airplane ride. Either cry about both,or neither
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:01 PM
“I find it ironic that to libs it`s wrong to listen in on suspected terrorists` phone calls,…”
I find it ironic that you trust the current administration when they tell you they’re only listening in on “suspected terrorists.”
Personally, I don’t trust ANY administration.
Furthermore, I think that a system of checks and balances is what the Framers intended, and having the judicial branch act as the check is not unreasonable at all.
They want a wiretap to listen to my phone conversations, get a warrant. That goes for Obama’s administration, too.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:15 AM
Chestnut-
If you are fine with me taking all of your guns, I am fine with you listening in on my phone calls. If not, then we have a problem, because the constitution is binary. It either needs to be upheld or abandoned. Despite what the current administration thinks, it is not an ala carte document.
JimF-
Your specious argument is laughable. No one is required to give up their constitutional rights at an airport. Security screening is a requirement of participating in air travel. If I want to fly, I agree to the search. That is much different from the TSA showing up at my house and asking if they can look around, or the government deciding to tap my telephones. The courts have made these distinctions quite clear. There is a presumption of privacy in a telephone call. That is not granted to the purchaser of a plane ticket.
June 24th, 2008 at 8:21 AM
Leroy,
You have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about, that much is clear. The President has powers to listen in on conversations coming in from overseas, no matter who within the U.S. it is connected to. Moreover, a great deal of the calls listened in to are merely routed through the U.S., and not connected to ANY person within the U.S.
Like I said, if Democrats want to argue that terrorists should have unfettered access to communicate and plan attacks with persons in the U.S., fine. But it’s probably not a winning issue.
And while you’re on the phone with bin Laden, tell him to rot in hell for me.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:32 AM
Chestnut, you losers don’t have a winning issue, especially when it comes to Osama Been Forgotten (By Boy Blunder):
Q But don’t you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won’t truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
(George aWol Bush): Well, as I say, we haven’t heard much from him. And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
But, hey! Look at the bright side! In just a few short years, rightwingnuts like you have ensured Permanent Minority Status for the GreedOverPrinciples party!!!!
June 24th, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Good come back Tommy. No seriously. That’s a real zinger.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Say, Johnson? When Angry Al is flatulent, do you get chapped lips?
June 24th, 2008 at 5:31 PM
“No one is required to give up their constitutional rights at the airport. Oh yes they are, if you`re the one saying a warrant is needed for searches. “If i want to fly, i agree to the search.” How about, “If want to talk overseas, i agree to the search?” (wiretap) Whether you agree to the search doesn`t matter, it`s going to happen anyway. In case you`ve forgotten, there was a “presumption of privacy” in reguards to your baggage years ago- they weren`t searched. Then in the 60`s hijackings started, bombs on airplanes started, and several crewmembers crashing their own airplanes, ect., ect. So, the Supreme Court found it “reasonable” to require all bags searched, without a warrant. Then 9-11 happened, and we find it quite reasonable to listen to overseas phone calls. See the connection? Like i said, there was a presumption of privacy in air travel till terrorists happened. Same should go with phone calls overseas. The only thing laughable was your weak response.
June 25th, 2008 at 4:47 AM
You’re a sick man, “Swiftee”. And a “credit” to the republiCon party – Mark Foley is proud of you.