« WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT UNALOTTMENT OUTRAGE? | Home | “NON-PARTISAN” SECRETARY OF STATE ATTACKS MN GOP; RITCHIE MUST HAVE FORGOTTEN ABOUT HIS “IN-THE-GUTTER-TYPE CAMPAIGN” FROM 2006 »
DISGUSTING AND SHAMEFUL: LIBERAL BLOGGERS ATTACK VETERAN AND CONSTITUENT OF CONGRESSMAN WALZ
By Ryan Flynn | July 20, 2009
Dave Thul, Iraq War Veteran and constituent of Congressman Tim Walz, has found himself on the receiving end of a disgusting and shameful attack from liberal bloggers desperaretly trying to cover for the misinformation spread by Congressman Walz about his military background. Tommy Johnson of the SD 42 DFL has unleashed a series of hate-full rants on Joe Bodell’s and Eric Pusey’s “community” blog attacking Iraq War veteran Thul for meeting with Congressman Walz’s staff and respectfully asking questions about Walz’s military background.
Ignore the personal and disgusting attacks and watch the video of a Iraq War veteran and constituent of Congressman Walz asking questions of Walz’s staff.
Please check back to Minnesota Democrats Exposed for more information on this developing story.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 48 Comments »
48 Responses to “DISGUSTING AND SHAMEFUL: LIBERAL BLOGGERS ATTACK VETERAN AND CONSTITUENT OF CONGRESSMAN WALZ”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 20th, 2009 at 11:13 AM
A couple of comments were deleted from here as I do not feel this is the forum for these types of grievances. While this information may be public this is not the proper place for it to be posted. The comments on Minnesota Democrats Exposed is meant for a substantive debate as it relates to post at hand or happenings around politics/policy.
I hope people can understand this. If anyone has a problem or has something to add please feel to use the contact section of Minnesota Democrats Exposed.
July 20th, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Ryan..
With all due respect, how can you censor free speech here after launching the partisan attack from Mr. Thul.
I guess it’s pretty obvious what’s happenning here at MDE.
July 20th, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Of course Johnson would be shoveling dirt to cover up for a guy that is shopping around a misleading military record….as the regular readers know, he’s done it himself, right here in MDE comments!
But why should anyone be surprised? The Democrat party is overflowing with dishonorable liars, cheats and reprobates of every sort.
I’d compare them to a pack of mongrel dogs, but then animal lovers would have a legitimate beef with me.
July 20th, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Liberal danbrome, It was my posts that Ryan deleted. Does that make you feel better?
I posted a link to public court records involving Tommy Johnson and Ryan removed them. I don’t agree with that, but it’s his call.
The court record is one that Tommy Johnson himself linked to himself here on MDE back in January. I believe MBB removed that post at the request of Tommy Johnson.
But that doesn’t matter, because it does not change the public record. You might remember this, but if you don’t and your curious, then read through this thread …
http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2009/01/26/coleman-attorney-ben-ginsberg-discusses-recount-on-fox-news-channel/
July 20th, 2009 at 12:44 PM
What’s pretty obvious here is that danbrome is still a liberal meathead.
July 20th, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Liberal danbrome, in defense of MDE and Ryan, Minnesota Democrats in rare in that it is a partisan blog that allows the enemy to comment.
I rarely comment on liberal blogs because
A) If I’m going to talk to the devil, I don’t want to do it in hell.
B) My comments will likely be deleted, either through moderation or after the fact.
Ryan lets the partisan back and forth banter on MDE with little interference. I disagree with Ryan for removing my post, but his explanation tells me his did so in go faith. I think Ryan’s a good guy and doesn’t want MDE to take away the little credibilty remaining in Tommy’s sad, twisted world.
July 20th, 2009 at 1:49 PM
chile-
How you think of the Democrats just shows your childish view of the world.
You call the people you disagree with the “enemy”. I call you and others I disagree with opponents. Check out what dictionary.com defines “enemy” as:
enâ‹…eâ‹…my
–noun
1. a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent.
2. an armed foe; an opposing military force: The army attacked the enemy at dawn.
3. a hostile nation or state.
4. a citizen of such a state.
5. enemies, persons, nations, etc., that are hostile to one another: Let’s make up and stop being enemies.
6. something harmful or prejudical: His unbridled ambition is his worst enemy.
7. the Enemy, the Devil; Satan.
–adjective
8. belonging to a hostile power or to any of its nationals: enemy property.
9. Obsolete. inimical; ill-disposed.
For somebody who is always talking about the Democrats spreading hate, you decide to use a “hate” word to describe anyone who disagrees with you. This proves to me and anybody else that you are not capable of having a civilized discussion about the issues. When you grow up and start respecting people, including those who think differently than you, then you can come to the “adult” discussion. Until then, you can keep slinging your schoolyard taunts and the rest of us will continue to think of you as nothing more than entertainment value here.
You posted the comments about Tommy for no other reason than to tear him down personally. I agree with Ryan for removing them before too many people had the chance to read them. If you want to create your own blog somewhere and use it to tear people down on a personal level, be my guest. The rest of us would just assume not hear it here, and this is not the place for it. As you and others have posted here before, there are limits on free speech. Think about what they are before you decide to instantly disagree with what Ryan said.
July 20th, 2009 at 2:17 PM
“1. a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent.”
That defines most of the liberal people on this site. Don’t try and act so high and mighty Integrity. From your words and actions you clearly feel that conservatives are you enemy. Not calling conservatives “enemy” means nothing, what you do means everything.
July 20th, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Integrity,
You are a true believer in your party’s cause and I can respect that. Just as I am a true believer in conservatism and in free markets. That said, if you want to talk about hate and rage do you ever go to the liberal blogs? Ever read about what Democrats and liberals say about the people they disagree with? The MN Independent right now has an article speculating that Pawlenty visited one of the same hookers as Gov. Spitzer. The Huff Po just had an article a few weeks ago calling Sarah Palin a retard producer. And that doesn’t touch the hate and rage against President Bush for the last eight years. The difference between the two sides seems to be that Republicans police ourselves against offensive comments left by our side and Democrats promote offensive comments left by theirs.
July 20th, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Sounds like Integrity is still fuming over this post …
http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2009/07/20/non-partisan-secretary-of-state-attacks-mn-gop-ritchie-must-have-forgotten-about-his-in-the-gutter-type-campaign-from-2006/#comment-309249
2010, this definition is also fitting:
7. the Enemy, the Devil; Satan.
Integrity, I consider you the enemy because you are a liberal socialist. We use to deal with that the old fashion way, Mccarthyism. The problem with that is that the government got way too involved in that.
I propose a new term for exposing socialists as socialist. Chile-ism. It goes like this …
If you look like a socialist, swim like a socialist, and fly like a socialist, then you’re a socialist. Self-describing terms like “progessive, will not go unchecked.
If you support or defend socialistic elected officials like, Obama, Franken*, Hakim Ellison, Betty Mac, etc., then you are a socialist.
If you support socialize medicine, or voter fraud, then you are a socialist
You still have the right to be a socialist, mind you, but under Chile-ism you will be aptly labeled as such.
July 20th, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Free speech occurs when you take your soapbox and stand in a public square and spout off…when you are standing on someone elses property they have a right to determine what is appropriate behavior. If I go to Kos and espouse my imperialist libertarian views, they will attack me mercilessly, call me names, and tell me to go to troll hell. That is their right, it is their site. This is Ryan’s site, he can allow whatever level of discourse he finds appropriate.
July 20th, 2009 at 3:07 PM
TJSwift says “The Democrat party is overflowing with dishonorable liars, cheats and reprobates of every sort.”
And what about the Republican party? I think the scales are pretty balanced when it comes to scoundrels in each party.
July 20th, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Isn’t it funny that the hypcritical Lefties like brome pretend to champion free speech, as long as they agree with it.
BTW, Obama’s numbers continue heading south, and even Democrats are turning against him. Nice to see “their” president crashing and burning. The Dems are running for cover because they know if they continue to support this clown, they won’t be re-elected. Can’t wait for 2010!
July 20th, 2009 at 3:17 PM
“You posted the comments about Tommy for no other reason than to tear him down personally.”
Not at all. I was exposing a liberal hate blogger for what he is. I did not rely on rumor or inuendo, as is the M.O of the ol’ twoputter. I relied on facts and gave a direct link to public court records.
“If you want to create your own blog somewhere and use it to tear people down on a personal level, be my guest. The rest of us would just assume not hear it here, and this is not the place.”
Speak for yourself. I’m sure many MDE readers, liberal and conservative, are interested to learn more about the real twoputttommy. I know DFLers in SD42 and they wish Tommy would go away.
“As you and others have posted here before, there are limits on free speech. Think about what they are before you decide to instantly disagree with what Ryan said.”
I disagreed with Ryan, but I also acknowledged that it was his call. This has nothing to do with free speech, MDE has no obligation to provide me with such right. As far as my deleted posts, there are no constitutional restrictons on what I stated. My posts were true and documented with links court records.
July 20th, 2009 at 3:55 PM
chile-
You choose to describe everyone who is not like you as a socialist. That’s not my fault. Are you really suggesting a witch hunt to “expose” socialists? You sound like a true American, fighting to get rid of anyone who is a member of the opposition.
I could tell you that the sky was blue, and if you found out I was a Democrat (which I am) you would find a way to argue against me. There is a difference between discussion of the issues and what you choose to do.
Your comments added nothing to this discussion and even Ryan saw that fact. That’s why your “important information” got deleted. You talk about how Tommy is so insignificant, and how the people in SD 42 just want him to go away. If that is so true, why do you insist on “doing battle” with him as if he were your strongest enemy?
You respect nobody who doesn’t have the same ultra-conservative views as you do. It’s as simple as that. Anybody who reads this blog can come to that conclusion all on their own by just reading what you post.
July 20th, 2009 at 4:05 PM
@AC:
That’s true to a point. The big difference being that when a Republican lowlife is exposed, more often than not, they have, at least, enough self-respect left to step down; if not, we reject them.
The Democrat party runs them for high elected office and the Democrat rank file lines up to pay homage.
Honestly, the Democrats have really scraped the bottom of the barrel with Senator* Scumbag…you have no credibility when it comes to matters of honesty or integrity….none.
July 20th, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Al Franken* was endorsed by the DFL, after it was discovered it was well know that he was a tax cheating porn writer who didn’t provide legally mandated work comp for his empoyees. The DFL considered that to be a big plus.
July 20th, 2009 at 8:55 PM
“Your comments added nothing to this discussion and even Ryan saw that fact. That’s why your “important information†got deleted.”
Apparently Ryan had second thoughts.
http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2009/07/20/hypocrisy-now-goes-by-the-name-of-tommy-two-putt-johnson-of-the-sd-42-dfl/
July 20th, 2009 at 11:26 PM
chris..
“The difference between the two sides seems to be that Republicans police ourselves against offensive comments left by our side and Democrats promote offensive comments left by theirs.”
Can you really be that pompous?
Holy Crap!
July 20th, 2009 at 11:28 PM
chris..
When do you plan to start policing your comments about me?
Oh that’s right, the GOP rules don’t apply to pompous blowhards like you.
Nevermind!
July 20th, 2009 at 11:30 PM
chris..
Regarding your hilarious statement suggesting Republicans take the high road here on MDE…
I’m confident that Integrity got a good belly laugh out of that one, and I share his enjoyment.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:20 AM
brone,
Your obsession with me is about as demented as your obsession with Norm Coleman. I never said the GOP takes the high road, what I did was to paraphrase the sentiment that nobody hates like a liberal.
As for the other posts (1) I am not a blowhard as I did not brag about anything which is the classic definition of a bloward (ie. a braggard) and (2) I’ve only called you names which accurately describe the political positions you espouse and parrot. Unlike you, I don’t call people c*cksuckers, f*ckers, assh*les and a whole host of other names. I also do not refer to myself in the third person. Your posts demonstrate the same childish petulance typical of danbrome.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:29 AM
Chris, easy on Liberal danbrome. It’s obvious he’s has to much wine to drink and now he feeling frisky and he wants you to give him the high hard one.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Chris-
If the things that you say danbrome calls people are offensive, why don’t you go after other people who use those words and worse? Why don’t you go after chile, or Dash, or anybody, friend or foe, for using foul language?
Also, in this case, blowhard fits you perfectly. Although you are not bragging about yourself personally, you are bragging about how your ideas are always right, and the Democrats always have the wrong ideas. Though you do it in a more civilized manner, you are just like chile or Focused on 2010 (formerly Pete F.). While I respect you for keeping things more toned down on the name calling side of things, I still think that when danbrome calls you a blowhard, the description is right on.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:18 AM
chile says:
“Chris, easy on Liberal danbrome. It’s obvious he’s has to much wine to drink and now he feeling frisky and he wants you to give him the high hard one.”
Ah chile, always right there to prove my point. How has this added to the discussion of the GOP strategy against Congressman Walz?
You also say,
““Your comments added nothing to this discussion and even Ryan saw that fact. That’s why your “important information†got deleted.â€
Apparently Ryan had second thoughts.
http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2009/07/20/hypocrisy-now-goes-by-the-name-of-tommy-two-putt-johnson-of-the-sd-42-dfl/”
If Ryan had second thoughts, why doesn’t he post your comments again? Better yet, why doesn’t he include them in his post about Tommy Johnson?
July 21st, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Integrity,
I’m not surprised given that you are a true believer, but you’ve missed my point entirely. I said that Republican blogs like MDE police their blogs for offensive and over the top comments. Ryan did exactly this when he took down the comment about Two Putz Tommy’s criminal history. Democrat blogs freely post false and hate-filled articles, as well as comments, about Republicans and nobody bats an eye. Ever read the Huff Po, Daily Kos or Democratic Underground? Did you see the article where a contributor to the Huff Po said that Palin was going to run for President in 2012 on a “more retardation” platform? Did you see the Minnesota Independent speculate that Pawlenty visited one of Sptizer’s hookers? Give me a break.
You accused me of being a blowhard. It doesn’t particularly bother me or hurt my feelings because I know when people can’t respond substantively to substance I’m usually winning the argument. You say that I never allow for Democrats to be right on their ideas (without evidence, I might add), but which Republican or conservative ideas do you support or embrace?
I’m a partisan Republican and a proud conservative and I admit this. I’d have a lot more respect for both you and danbrome if you’d admit your own partisan-left affiliation. But feel free to prove me wrong and tell me which conservative Republican ideas you champion.
July 21st, 2009 at 12:01 PM
P.S. Integrity,
I’m not sure if you remember the debate we all had about global warming a couple of weeks ago. During the debate, I linked to this wonderful article talking about the folly of cap and trade.
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/01/cap-and-trade-dementia
I remember your comments that there was no room for debate about global warming and that everyone who questioned global warming were anti-science, etc. Just so you know, your comments fit your own definition of blowhard, in case you were wondering.
July 21st, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Intergrity, STFU.
The discussion is not about the “GOP strategy against Congressman Walz.”
The topic of the post is Tommy Johnson’s “ATTACK VETERAN AND CONSTITUENT OF CONGRESSMAN WALZ”
Maybe you can find an adult who will sit down and explain that to you.
Chris had not posted on this thread in 9 hours, and several people had posted after hims. What does Liberal danbrome do when he sits down at the computer?
He makes three posts in four minutes, all calling Chris names.
“Sadly, that’s what’s happened with political discourse today†– Tommy “Jailhouse” Johnson, Hypocrite
July 21st, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Saying that global warming isn’t real is sort of like saying the Earth is flat. Saying that it is a fact that global warming exists doesn’t make me a blowhard. If you say that it doesn’t exist at all, that just makes you look foolish.
I think you and I can both agree, Chris, that global warming is in fact happening. Where we disagree is to what degree it is affecting the planet. I believe that pollution created by human activity is affecting the planet a great deal, and you believe (correct me if I’m wrong) that it is not affecting the plant in a negative way.
Outside of global warming, I think it is a good idea to do other things that in the end will accomplish the same goal. For example, if we work towards domestic green energy, we can lower our dependence on foreign oil and create good, high-paying jobs here in the United States. Many of these jobs are not able to be outsourced. By converting our energy sources from oil and coal to clean, green, renewable sources we can cut emissions and in the end, have a cleaner environment and slow down global warming. There really isn’t a reason not to do it as there are benefits for both sides of the isle.
Chris, I respect you in the fact that you, like me, are a true believer. I have to say that there are no “conservative Republican” ideas that I “champion”. If this proves that I am a “liberal” (or for chilie, that would mean I am a socialist) then so be it. If there is such a thing as moderate Republican ideas, I would be much more willing to give them thought and perhaps even support. Right now, politics is very polarized; it’s our side against your side, there is little room in the middle. It is possible to be a moderate, but nobody will see you that way because we are all used to identifying with one side or the other.
For example, I have known danbrome for a number of years. I believe that his claims of being a moderate are true. Just because he chooses not to cater to the conservatives by talking about “the five things he is a moderate on” doesn’t mean that he isn’t a moderate. It doesn’t mean that he is a coward for not publishing them here either. What matters in the end isn’t the name by which he identifies his beliefs with; it is the content of those thoughts and ideas. I know that danbrome is no fool. He is highly educated and has carefully thought out and crafted his opinions based on all sorts of information (not just a page of talking points as he is so often accused of) from all sides. He has just chosen to agree more with the Democrats than the conservative Republicans.
As for me being a partisan, I am more than willing to listen to the ideas of the Republican party. The problem is, all too often we end of with things like the story about Walz military record instead of good substantial discussion. I am not a cynic, but these sorts of “news stories†turn me off from listening to the Republican ideas, push me further to the left, and make me less willing to listen next time. Unfortunately for the GOP, I think that they might have some good ideas, and may even have luck getting the voters to buy into their ideas if they just put them out there in a straight forward way. Tell me why you are right and not why the other guys are wrong. I want to hear about the solutions of the future, not the problems of the past.
Chris, I think that you and I can both agree that a message that talks about a party’s ideas for the future rather than the follies of the past is going to be most effective. Neither side, Democrats or Republicans, are squeaky clean on the issue of launching attacks against opponents. All that we can do as individuals is keep things civil and as free from personal attacks as we can. I am more interested in the discussion of ideas than knowing that Tommy broke into a house one time anyhow. It would be different if he were running for office, but he is just a guy posting his ideas on a blog, so who cares about his run-ins with the law. As so many people have said here, nobody likes the guy. So what is the point in dedicating an entire post to “expose†him? Hasn’t he already been “exposedâ€?
Keep up the good work Chris (despite the fact that we so often disagree), you always keep me on my toes here and I enjoy the banter back and forth. As long as we can discuss things like adults with one another I am happy to continue to do so.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:49 PM
OK chile, let me rephrase the question so you can understand then. What did this comment have to add to the discussion about “Tommy Johnson’s “ATTACK VETERAN AND CONSTITUENT OF CONGRESSMAN WALZ—:
“Chris, easy on Liberal danbrome. It’s obvious he’s has to much wine to drink and now he feeling frisky and he wants you to give him the high hard one.”
??
What does that even mean anyhow? This is just more half baked school yard style discussion and argument from chile. Nothing new here.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Intgerity, Chris stated: brone,
“Your obsession with me is about as demented as your obsession with Norm Coleman.”
I was only trying to help Chris understand the reasons for Liberal danbrome’s obsessive behavior. Liberal danbrome, offers nothing to the conversatons at MDE. He comes here only to flirt with men.
“What does that even mean anyhow?”
Ask an adult, Integrity.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Chris, in #26, how can you honestly pretend that this blog and others are pure and virtuous and then slam on the left-leaning blogs. The examples of false and hatefilled articles you cite can be found equally throughout the blogosphere.
Please take your blinders off and look around.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:36 PM
“Tell me why you are right and not why the other guys are wrong.”
This has been one of my biggest beefs for years. Take the presidential debates. Whenever a question is asked of a candidate and the person answering starts talking about his oponenet, I wish the moderator would cut them off or redirect them. Make them answer the question that was asked. SELL me on your ideas instead of talking smack about the other person.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:54 PM
AC,
Can you name a post on this blog (not a comment, but an actual post) which rises anywhere near to the level of calling Sarah Palin a retard producer or accusing, with zero evidence whatsoever, Pawlenty of having sex with a hooker? If you can name a post which comes close to rising to the level of the Palin “retard” post or the Pawlenty “hooker” post, I’ll agree with your comment 32 100%.
July 21st, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Integrity,
I appreciate your post. But you didn’t name a Republican or conservative position that you hold and you said that people who question global warming are like the people who questioned whether the Earth was round or flat. That’s not a good starter with me as the data from every climate scientist shows that the planet has actually been cooling since 1998. Are “green” jobs good? Sure, any private sector jobs are good. But I don’t agree with you that green jobs are superior than other jobs or that they can’t be exported. Wind turbines are made overseas in countries like Denmark and Japan. We could create thousands of jobs today if we opened up the outer continental shelf and ANWR to oil drilling. That would also end our dependence on foreign oil and would help unemployment.
As for danbrome, I don’t need a cheering section for him. I’m sure he’s a fine person and a decent husband and father. My issue with brome is that he makes wild claims on MDE with zero evidence to back them up. Let’s begin with brome’s claims of being a moderate. He admits that he supported Paul Wellstone, Al Franken and Barack Obama. They are NOT moderates in any way, shape, manner or form. I’d have a lot more respect for brome if he admitted his political leanings, as you and I have done many times.
I don’t disrespect you or your views. I think you’re a good person to debate with. I just don’t always agree with your debating techniques.
July 21st, 2009 at 5:25 PM
http://buildourparty.blogspot.com/2009/07/mde-hypocrisy-at-its-finest.html
Remember when Mr. Brodkorb attacked Al Franken on email’s that were sent via the U of M’s Humphrey Institute.
I’m not attacking the Humphrey Institute, but rather Franken thinking he can use the public/taxpayer resources of the Humphrey Institute like he used the private resources of Harvard University.
Brodkorb also turned his rage towards Secretary of State Mark Ritchie for use of his state email for campaign solicitation.
So, when Dave Thul uses his official us.army.mil email address to take pot shots at President Obama and to launch his tirades against Congressman Walz and other political leaders he opposes, we hear silence from the MDE crowd.
If they feign outrage over the use of email by Franken supporters at the U of M and SOS Ritchie, shouldn’t they be equally as outraged over the potential problems faced by Thul’s use of his official us.army.mil email address?
July 21st, 2009 at 5:35 PM
AC, MDE is different than most partisan blogs in that they allow the enemy to comment with out moderation.
MDE typically throws out a link to another publicaton or press release, offers a short commentary, and then says “discuss.”
You, Integrity and liberal danbrome, have all attacked for authoring things that they’ve merely linked to. That’s what make you a troll. You choose to put MDE onto your computer screen for the sole purpose of throwing a brick at it.
July 21st, 2009 at 6:52 PM
DJZ,
Apparently you’ve missed my comments about the Walz issue.
July 21st, 2009 at 7:15 PM
DJZ, Thul has addressed the email issue.
“Both (Pink Man and twoprick) claim that I am using my official Army email address to launch these ‘attacks’. While it is true that I used my army.mil email to register this blog (I was in Iraq at the time and the army.mil email was simply the safest and most reliable email in a combat zone) it is also true that that information isn’t available to the casual reader.
In fact, if you look over this entire blog, including my profile, you wont see any Army email address. I have been blogging for 2 1/2 years now, including 12 months of active duty time. This issue has never come up before, nor have I ever been censored by the military in what I say. I do censor myself for OPSEC and military discipline, but I have never been told by the military that anything I have said on this blog was inappropriate.”
So if Pink Man and twoprick think Thul did something wrong they should ask the army to deal with it, and stop their public attempts to blackmail him into shutting up.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:55 PM
chile,
I might quibble with Mr. Thul. I’ve signed up for the Google Alerts for Congressman Walz and Thul’s military e-mail address is listed in the Google Alert. With free web based mail from companies like hotmail, yahoo, aol, g-mail, etc. I don’t think I’d want to be using an official military e-mail address for this kind of partisanship.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:22 AM
Chris, according to Tommy he’s already complained to the National Guard. If Thul is in violation of policy, then corrective action should be taken.
If you want to join twoprick in quibbling, then knock yourself out. Regardless, the issue of Walz’s questionable bio, still remains.
Neither Pink Man or twoprick have refuted a single fact that Thul has stated. While trying to distract from Walz’s issues, they only drawn more attention to them.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:25 AM
Chile,
I just respectfully disagree. I don’t see any problems with Walz’ bio or with the fact that he held a sign along a road. He was a private citizen at the time and I sure as hell don’t want the libs telling me, as a private citizen, what kind of signs I can hold up against them.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:26 AM
P.S. Chile,
The more we talk about Walz’ military record, the more people are reminded that he’s a retired National Guardsman who served his country honorably and during a difficult time in our history. I’m still unconvinced that’s an argument worth having.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:31 AM
One more point,
I remember Two Putz Tommy calling Congressman John Kline a chickenhawk and someone who turned his back on veterans. I think that kind of rhetoric is disgusting as Congressman Kline’s service to our country is honorable and admirable. I sure as hell don’t want our party participating in the same kind of crap which attempts to label someone else’s honorable military service as something else.
Unlike Kline, Walz did not get involved in wrongly condemning our troops who were involved in a difficult situation in Haditha. (Kline since apologized.) And unlike Kerry, Walz didn’t come back and trash his fellow soldiers our our country after the war. There are substantive issues to use against Walz. He is weak on a number of issues not the least of which is spending, the deficit, the failed stimulus and the cap and trade bill which hurts both farmers and consumers in the First District.
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:15 AM
See, that’s the problem chile. In #37, why do you have to refer to people you disagree with as “the enemy?”
MNPublius does not moderate (at least that I am aware of). The point is I’m sure we could each cite examples of conservative and liberal blogs to do or do not moderate, and who have posts with various levels of offending content. I try to avoid those extreme blogs for just that reason.
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:41 AM
Chris..
Your post #43 make a lot of sense.
What I don’t understand is why the GOP doesn’t see this, and decide to emphasize more important issues..
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:08 AM
danbrome,
My post #44 also makes a lot of sense. People like Two Putt Tommy and others have questioned John Kline’s military record and I think that’s just as bad as going after Walz. I hope, as a good “moderate”, you would also agree.
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:39 AM
“MNPublius does not moderate (at least that I am aware of).”
Is a question that asks “why are you afraid of this simple data request?”, a form of comment moderation
http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2009/06/10/why-is-mn-publius-so-afraid-of-a-simple-data-practices-request/
I consider you the enemy because your stupidity is dangerous. Is “Bob” as stupid as you? Mr. AC can’t be too bright if he married you.