http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1429144751008474466

He is promoting his Vietnam War Career to get elected President.

I am no fan of Wesley Clark but when you look at McCain’s war record Some very disturbing questions do come up. Is he responsible for the deaths of 134 sailors in the USS Forrestal disaster?

This is a serious charge indeed and unfortunately if the disaster was due to McCain by “wet starting” his A-4 it would be quite understandable how due to the his father’s prominence such accountability for such an action could have been avoided.

And now we have McCain promoting a socialist policy in order to stop Global Warming (which of course is a socialist ploy and a myth). And the Republicans are spending millions of dollars bragging about it.

Record Gas Prices, A Climate in Crisis,” the narrator announces. And it also highlights Mr. McCain’s differences within his own party .

SO, let me get this straight the National Republican Committee is spending 3 million dollars to promote how McCain is against what Republicans believe?

Vote for McCain, he stands AGAINST the Republican Party!
(paid for by the Republican National Committee).

In the next four years the most likely Supreme Court Justice openings will be replacement for liberals. But eight years from now, twelve years from now?

I am very scared of a McCain win this year. I really think it will mean the end of the Conservative movement and I have heard no one explain why I shouldn’t have these concerns.

You say, “Gayness as a crime- clearly, I am referring to, your interpretation of the gay life style.”
This is just another lie. You clearly did not refer to me at all, or anything I’d said. You said, in your own words, “the crime of being gay.” I’ve never said that in all my life and I don’t think that way. Crimes are acts against laws that spell out and proscribe specific behaviors, not “states of being.” If you can’t tell one from the other, please do us all a favor and get out of politics, and please don’t vote, you’re not qualified.

“Your post (sic) over the years reveals your feelings.”
My “feelings” are irrelevant and I’ve never posted anyting about my “feelings” regarding homosexuals. I challenge you to quote anything. My ideas, however, are quite clear.

Cominus’ reference to Craig was a direct response to Joel’s claim that you could tell if a man was engaged in homosexual behavior by talking to his family. It did not indict anyone, it just refuted a stupid idea. Learn to read English sentences.

“No ever made the claim that Ross is Joel? Come on Doug, that clearly what you are implying. You are a master of using innuendo and questionable comparisons to slur- this example being the latest.”
RBN, this gets back to your reading comprehension challenge. First of all, you don’t understand the word “implication.” It means to “imply”

imply [imˈplai] verb
to suggest or hint without actually stating

An implication is, clearly, NOT an accusation. An accusation actually states, openly, that a person is guilty of something. A QUESTION about an alleged fact is neither an “accusation” nor an “implication.” It is not an implication because it actually states the allegation, openly, not as a matter of suggestion or hinting, and it is not an accusation because it does not make the claim that the allegation is true.
The question of Joel’s possible identification with a KCGOP insider is reasonable because “Joel’s” style of character assasination matches that used, over and over again, in the Young/Sotelo/Adams/Marzolf administration. I pointed that out to Joel, not in the third-person tone of an unfair “implication,” but directly, and he, in response, claimed not to know any of those people. It was not an “implication.” It was an open question. It was not an accusation, either. Where did I say, “You’re Ross” or “You’re Michael” or “You’re Lori?” But it was, and remains, a good question. Why does “Joel” insist on remaining anonymous, anyway? (I mean aside from his obvious cowardice.) Your false claim that questioning whether “Joel” is actually Ross or Michael is a “slur” is, itself a real slur.
But if my question were a “slur” who would I be slurring? The imaginary character “Joel” or the GOP Leftists he might actually be in real life? You seem to want to defend both of them and yet want to typify any question that they are identical as a “slur.” How can that be?

If I am a “master” of using innuendo, etc. to “slur” then you would be able to come up with at least one example of it. I’m still waiting.

Well the truth is that the only likely positions that would come up in the next four years are liberal ones meaning that the 5-4 split would remain.

Sure it would be nice to gain some ground on that but some of the most liberal Supreme Court Justices have come from Republicans.

Even as much as I love and respect Reagan I must say that he blew it on that account with his appointment of Sandra Day O’Connor. So when I see the two Presidential candidates as being equal in so many issues, I include the Supreme Court because I believe nether of the two candidates will change the 5-4 split. Obama because he won’t have the opportunity to replace a conservative, and McCain because knowing him if a liberal supreme court justice leaves he will appoint another liberal.

And as to Obama’s supreme court justice nominee we must remember that such a nominee has to get through a Senate which yeah will be controlled by Democrats but Democrats who still have to get re-elected. And I wish I could remember how Ruth Bader Ginsberg got on the Supreme Court. Yeah, I know she was a Clinton appointee but the Republicans could have made enough hay out of her ACLU connections to make her too controversial a person to vote for. And, back then Republicans had enough votes to stop her from getting a vote by fillerbuster (as the Democrats have been doing for years with Bush’s appointees). So we do have the inaction of the Republicans to blame for her appointment. Just because a person is nominated to the Supreme Court doesn’t mean that person has to become a Justice. The fact that Republicans didn’t “Bork” Ginsberg is something we should never forgive them for! And again no matter how liberal a Obama appointee would be as long as he or she is in the minority as such an appointee would be, the Justice would have no effect.

Actually the Supreme Court Justice issue is another reason to vote for Obama. For it is better to have him now when there is little chance to change the balance of the courts until to wait and have a liberal like Obama get in when there is a great chance that he or she could change the balance of the courts.

That is what would McCain and his McCanicas do to the Republican party if he becomes president.

Sure I don’t like Obama and his rhetoric. But the truth is unless there is a change in the whole DIRECTION of America someone like Obama will be elected sometime, if not now in a future election. Even when they lose the Democrats put up increeasingly liberal candidates the next time around an unless McCain declares himself dictator for life (which would still be too short a time) in just four years from now we will face another election with another radical Dem (this is all assuming McCain will win, and if I had to put money down I would predict the exact opposite). In just Four short years if not Obama himself then someone as leftist or even more Leftist. And say Republicans pull it out again, then the next person will even be worse and worse until the day the Republicans do lose and then what will we have.

So while I find Obama unpleasant, I have pretty much realized that such a presidency is inevitable again, if not now then in the near future.

And I think it is in the very near future. People in the end vote pocketbook. Things are really bad right now and fairly or not when things are really bad economically the party with the President in the White House gets the blame and their candidates lose. That is really why I don’t think McCain has much of a chance this year.

But say he does pull it out. I don’t see the economy getting better under McCain. I don’t see it getting better under Obama either as neither of them have he answers for what is going on. That is why I say that whichever party wins the White House this year, loses it next time around.

So, Obama or someone even worse will get in this time or the next. So my question becomes is there any reason to postpone this four years? Actually the answer no. Helmes, Buckley earlier this year, conservatives and other freedom minded people are dying off. In four years even more conservatives will be lost. If I have to choose between this year or four years from now give me now when we still have the numbers to fight this.

So, now that my Obama fear has gone away (not dislike but fear) due to the fact its going to happen anyway I turn to a McCain Presidency.

A McCain Presidency means that at best, we won’t have even a chance to get a conservative candidate for the Presidency to 2016. As we know the President has lots of influence over his own party. If he wants to run again, he is going to get the nomination and if he doesn’t he probably would have the influence to get his choice the nomination.

But, I don’t even think we have the chance to get a conservative nominated in 2016 or ever again for that matter if McCain gets in. We in Washington State saw what the McCainicas did against conservatives in our own convenion. And that wasn’t unique to us but was played out in state convention after state convention.

So, that’s McCain and his people as him as the nominee. Think what they will do with McCain in the White House making him the de-facto leader of the Republican Party. He will totally drive conservatives out of positions of influence which will not only effect what type of candidates get the Presidential nomination in the future but who will be the Republican candidates for Congress, for Governors across this nation, for state legislators, etc. If you think it is controled by RINOS now and to a great extent it already is. a McCain Presidency will be the deathnail to conservative politics. And you can talk third party all you want but if the Republican party doesn’t put up conservative candidates the chances of conservative candidates winning will be remote indeed.

This is why I am voting Obama. Next Four years will be tough but in a way that is why I want him. We need the next four years to be tough so that conservatives will stand up like they did with Clinton and fight to not only slow the speed but reverse the direction of this country. Otherwise be it four years or eight years we will have Presidents who are unimaginably liberal but we will not have the conservatives left out there to fight them.

Lots have been made about the frog in the pot analogy and I do believe that McCain knows how to cook the frog whereas Obama will make that frog jump out. We need the frog to jumb out and that is why the lesser of two evils is really to have Obama win. For after all it took Carter to give us Reagan, and without a figure like Reagan coming on we don’t have any chance.

Lets realize that elections don’t happen in a vacuum and sometimes you must look at the effects of elections long term. McCain is depending upon conservatives that their hate, their fear and indeed in McCain mind their racism will keep them away from voting for Obama and that is why he has not made even one move, even one sound bite to appeal to the conservatives. And that is why we must vote Obama to show McCain and those who, if McCain is successful will follow his model, that no, conservatives can’t be taken for granted. And once the Republican party realizes that Conservatives will work against anyone but a conservative and with Obama messing things up in the White House as badly as we all know he will, the Republicans will in 2012 nominate an actual conservative and like with Reagan, the American People will vote such a person in overwhelmingly.

But if McCain wins this year all that will be lost. He will be the frog cooker and the chance of us jumping out before being boiled alive will be remote indeed.

Regarding the other multitude of topics;

* It is fair to say, Doug and Cominus are publicly stating Ross is gay. Fine, now we know where you stand.

* Gayness as a crime- clearly, I am referring to, your interpretation of the gay life style . Your post over the years reveals your feelings. I might even add, that one who protests as much as you do, as his own issues. Perhaps Cominus viscous attack (referring to Craig), should be leveled at you.

* No ever made the claim that Ross is Joel? Come on Doug, that clearly what you are implying. You are a master of using innuendo and questionable comparisons to slur- this example being the latest.

If an implication that someone might be gay is “the worst kind of attack” then the extensive, I dare say radical, support for the gay rights movement that Ross and the Young/Sotelo administration have engaged is clearly “the worst kind” of politics and you should be calling for their resignations.

You say, “Really, you have proof Joel is Ross? Just because you perceive Ross as an enemy, does not make it right or fair to implicate him with no proof!”
No one even made the claim that Joel is Ross. Pointing out any similarity is speculation. The speculation is fair. Learn to read English sentences. If you actually cared about the issue in principle you would have stepped in to object when the “Joel” you defend repeatedly and falsely accused me of posting comments to this site under assumed names. It was exactly the same kind of speculation EXCEPT that “Joel” did not just “imply” it, he made the explicit accusation, not only without proof, but without any evidence at all. Why were you silent, then, hypocrite?

Also to the point, are you ever going to bring your evidence to the table to support your implications against me in 17? I have asked and you have remained silent.

“So now you believe anti sodomy laws are wrong? Otherwise, you do believe it is a crime.”
Once again, we’re dealing, here, with your rather severe reading comprehension disability. I made no comment and asked no question, whatsoever, about “anti-sodomy laws.” Anti-sodomy laws don’t criminalize “being gay.” I, further, made no comment about “being gay.” I asked you a question and you utterly failed to answer it.

Let me ask it again, why do you refer to “being gay” as a crime?
Your comment was in the context of your false claim that Cominus had accused Ross Marzolf of “being gay.” Are we to assume that you are under the mistaken impression that “being gay” is a crime in the State of Washington?

How can you not see the tactics of Cominus by his use of the term “outed” and the Larry Craig reference, as not direct attack and accusation of someone being Gay???

Cominus recited evidence? Where, what…he knows a Ross or some fictional character named Joel is gay?

“Merely commenting?” Please, anyone can “merely comment” but when those comments imply someone is gay, with no proof, no evidence is the worst kind of attack.

“Speculation about Joel’s identity is well within the bounds of reason because Joel refused to reveal his identity and attacked the character of others, irrationally, viciously and repeatedly”

Really, you have proof Joel is Ross? Just because you perceive Ross as an enemy, does not make it right or fair to implicate him with no proof!

Your statement in 20, is a parsing of word, in support of your alley (Cominus) to accuse/imply/whispering campaign against your enemies.

Why do you refer to “being gay” as a crime?

So now you believe anti sodomy laws are wrong? Otherwise, you do believe it is a crime.