I support a candidate that you obviously do not like, so that somehow means that I am "out of my mind"?

How specious.

My point is if you don't or refuse to salute the flag, and you support that- that does make you out of your mind. He's only running for President and can't salute the flag???????

I would urge you to be a bit skeptical of "chain emails" you receive. (Did you know that the oil minister of Lagos Nigeria sent me an email yesterday requesting my assistance in moving $26 million dollars out of his country!?) I am unable to locate a single reference via Google of Senator Edwards purported lack of respect for the flag, even on some of the sketchier Republican-leaning blogs that normally thrive on this sort of character assasination. As such, I'm highly skeptical of your claim, well-intentioned as it might be (FYI there are a number of "Obama hates the flag" stories out there, are you sure you've got the right smear with the right candidate?)

Finally, I'd like to know exactly who you would vote for President.

If there are a number of stories that Obama won't salute the flag, and one was actually true would you still vote for him? If you saw him say that he won't salute the flag would you still vote for him? As far as who I would vote for so far none of them are what this country needs at the this time- except two that I am still waiting to see what happens. Oh, by the by they are not liberal. I have seen them salute the flag. Do you salute the flag? I did not say a thing about Edwards refusing to salute the flag, just a comment that his wife should be more important TO HIM than running for President. That a personal opinion. Everyone has them.

Hi Lilly, I see now where we had our disconnect. I thought you were referring to John Edwards and you were referring to Barack Obama all along. Honest mistake, no foul.

I have read many stories about how Barack Obama "won't" salute the flag, most of them from websites pushing their own agenda (such as Satan's own website www.townhall.com). I understand that all the candidates are under a microscope 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and that the simplest slipup can and will be blown out of proportion, particularly if there is a perceived benefit to Republicans. I'll give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Do I salute the flag? You bet I do. Let me tell you a story about something that happened to me last week. I was at a civic event, seated at a table where my chair was up against a wall. The emcee asked everyone to rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, and less than one second later (literally one second here!) he began to recite it, even though a good many people had not risen completely from their seats (myself included...it was a struggle to stand up). Had a photographer taken a photograph at that moment, it would have looked as if a good many people were not paying proper respect to the flag. A Republican without morals might then use this as "evidence" of my "disdain" for the flag, when of course nothing would be further from the truth.

I've noticed you've been hesitant to name exactly who you would support for president (while taking potshots at those you oppose, tsk tsk). This seems to be the Standard Operating Procedure for social conservatives this year. I believe that social conservatives are still waiting for the second coming of Ronald Reagan, and that just ain't gonna happen this time around. Consequently, I believe the social conservatives of America (20-23% of the electorate) are going to stay home on Election Day, and we'll have quite a Democratic landslide. (Not in Georgia, though, Georgia is most often a "lagging indicator" of political trends).

I'm fascinated watching the give-and-take on Mitt the Mormon Romney. He is saying everything the social conservatives want to hear, but so many of them will not vote for him because he is a Mormon.

I agree with you sir....

I'll give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Me too! When on stage, with the excitement and pressure around an event like that, it's easy to understand how one's timing or attention can be thrown off. I always salute and honor the flag when the Pledge or our National Anthem is being played. Imagine my awkwardness when I entered Turner field a couple of months ago laughing and joking with my buddy only to discover I was in the middle of the National Anthem. I immediately stopped and focused in on honoring our flag. Heck, this could happen to anybody and to not give Obama the benefit of the doubt is a waste of time and a petty exercise.

I've got several issues I vehemently disagree with Obabma on. This one is useless distraction.

That picture is probably no more than a timing issue.

**** GIT REAL TOUGH ON CRIME ****

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

Are you voting liberal?

OH, by the way since we are on the subject of the flag, do you also say one nation under GOD?

ONCE AGAIN I AM LOOKING AT TWO PEOPLE THAT I THINK WOULD BE FIT FOR PRESIDENT. WHEN I DECEIDE I WILL LET YOU KNOW. NO, IT'S NOT A LIBERAL.

By the way Ronald Reagan was my second favorite, Bush is my favorite, so take off on that one. I really don't give much thought to what people say, our Nation is in the state it's in because of CLINTON not doing anything for 8 yrs. Before you defend him tell me all he did.

You assume I am Republican, are there not any conservative democrat's that are running, if there was someone that I felt like could run the nation that was , I would vote for them.

What I look for in a President is not what I am sure that you or others look for.

By the way you would never vote for someone who said they were Christian would you?

You would be surprised at the two I am looking at. But, I am not saying untill I know for sure. One can already know who you are voting for.

I do say "one nation under God", thanks for asking. I have a close personal relationship with God. Do you?

You are right, I should not have "assumed" you were a Republican, your near-continual gushing over George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan notwithstanding. My apologies.

And your nasty commentary to the contrary, I would never disqualify a candidate based on his or her religious faith. Can you make the same claim?

I have had a close relationship with God(JESUS who is the Messiah) ever since I was 15 years old. So for 32 years He has been my Father. That I look to for my decesions in every area of my life. As who to vote for.

Yes, I do believe since I am a Christian I would want the person I vote for would be also. Because if you are a Christian you know who really is in charge.

Thanks for the reply about Bush, there is not anyone that is more proud of him than me. My commentary was not nasty, I just wanted to know where you are coming from. I don't get being liberal - has anything to do with God. Most, hate God, you know that.

I need a President that knows he is mere man that his dependance is on ALMIGHTY GOD! Would you prefer one that doesn't. If so if another 9-11 comes around what would he do? You would rather have someone that depended on himself, that is sad. But since you are a Christian, you know one day will come when none of them will believe in God.

We are nothing without God, and you know that.

As I said before if a Democrate was what I was looking for in a President he would get my vote.

By the way Clinton should be prison for lying under oath, do we get to lie under oath and not go to prison? What was that all about?????

It's a GREAT BIG STUPID WORLD- with someone like him in office. So, let's all vote for Hillary for somemore lies.

You earn respect- sorry Clinton didn't.

And I was quite surprised, actually. Anyhow, I found this statement from you to be very interesting:

"By the way Clinton should be prison for lying under oath, do we get to lie under oath and not go to prison? What was that all about?????"

Your answer can be found in the legal file of a man named Scooter Libby. The President you are so proud of may have an answer as well.

Speaking of your liking of this president's performance, do you like the way our president has handled immigration? How about Iraq? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Our ports? Harriet Myers?

I am curious of how you feel about these issues of our president's performance.

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King

Yep, I'm old-47. Do I like the way that Clinton forced President Bush in this situation, by having just to put it this way- speciaL GIRLS,
please you know he should have to go to prison.

What if you lied under oath- would they set you free, just say you know Clinton.

By the way when I was 18 one thing I will admit, I voted for the Clinton's friend, Carter- I would give a million dollars to take that vote back, what a disgrace both of them have been.

But, of course you will see it different. And you could go on about Bush, we just differ.

It's strange sometimes you write decent things- so your not so bad after all.

Here are some pictures of Obama holding his hand over his heart during the Pledge. Some of you people are so gullible.

Obama Nabbed by the Patriot Police

And speaking of values, who are you for lilly? Guilliani?

Just as long as he continues to salute the flag. As long as I see him do it, for all I know he could be having his hand over his heart for something else.

Guillible- I think not, only people who voted for Clinton. And now they will vote for Mrs. Clinton.

Who am I voting for. I don't jump so fast on decesions so important. I have said twice I am looking at two different people for President, and it is not a liberal. I will let you know when I make my mind up.

Good morning, Denise.

Based on your rather lengthy history on this site of incivility with people who do not agree with you (q.v. Major King), I believe it would be counterproductive in attempting to establish a dialogue with you.

Therefore, I opt to not respond to your rather obvious attempts to get me to justify my support for the candidate that I believe is best for America.

Warm regards,
Sniffles

Since you've just been a member for 1 week and 6 days, what do you know about my alleged "rather lengthy history on this site of incivility with people who do not agree with you"?

Will you please cite instances of my "incivility"?

I'll let Major King speak for himself ["Denise, not trying to make you mad (u no i wuv u)" and "My dearest Denise"], but I don't think our dialogues are at all "counterproductive."

Surely you can "justify" your support for a candidate. I'd really like to hear your reasons. Besides, I've found out that, when you explain your reasons to someone else, you clarify in your own mind what your true beliefs are.

I'm wondering who will express support for Hillary, and how well well she will do in Georgia. Any ideas?

Have an enjoyable day!

But you must have missed this part of the main blog's body:

"I'm not interested in hearing who you WOULDN'T vote for, there is plenty of that "I'm against so-and-so" garbage elsewhere in this blog."

You christian conservatives sure are stuck on attack mode.

As for me, I like Bill Richardson. He probably won't make it out of the democratic caucus, so I hope he's the VP designee. He is intelligent, well-spoken, pleasant to listen to, inspiring, even-handed, and has a knowledge of the middle east. My second choice, but probably not the one to emerge the presidential candidate, is John Edwards. you here lots of interesting things from conservatives about John. The interesting thing is this: He is a self-made family man who has stayed with the woman he first married and built wealth with his own labors. This seems like the conservative dream, but alas, John gets expensive haircuts. My kids went to a school in NC that had a computer center provided wholly by his money. Many schools had them and they were in the name of his deceased son. This was the first computer my daughter Morgan ever used (of course she is now a 16 yr old MySpace pro).

I'd love to see Edwards Richardson, Edwards Obama, Clinton Richardson, or Clinton Obamma. I would literally vote for a donkey before I would vote for someone who doesn't know if water-boarding is torture.

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King

Why would you even ask how much Edward's wife factors into someones declaration of support for him? Are you making reference to her recurrence of cancer? Do you really think her cancer is going to garner him favor and pull in huge numbers of sympathy votes for him?

Who's the real leader, Elizabeth or John? Who has more backbone?

These people do not have the same value that we do. What husband would run for President when his wife has cancer and who knows what could happen to her next- of course she says she said for him to do it. It's funny he says some of the most off the wall things- in hopes some stupid person will fall for it and they do. But, of course Hillary said she ran the White House when Bill was there- he was too busy with other things.

"These people do not have the same value that we do. "

What "value" would that be? I would agree that republicans seem to be down to one value; tax cuts. Because if you look at the front-runner, Rudy Giuliani, you won't find many family values. You won't find supportive children (the ones who know him best)even though we are somehow supposed to support him. You won't find a very sound ethical background with his NRA waffling and his attempt to get Bernie Kerick installed in the highest levels of our nation's government. So, if tax cuts are that important, I guess a vote for an R makes sense. But one day we'll have to figure out how to settle our debts with China.

Kevin "Hack" King

I did not tell you who I was voting for, I said I was looking at two people. You just assumed who that person would be. But, again it's not a liberal. We already had enough of that with Clinton. Well, not unless people are stupid and vote for the person who said she ran the "White House" while he was in office.

"But, of course Hillary said she ran the White House when Bill was there- he was too busy with other things."

If she has a few more questions like the ones at the last debate, she just might not get the chance to run the White House for 4 more years!

Tom Coburn -- He's about the only one who consistently fights out-of-control spending. He even got Hillary's earmark for the Woodstock Museum defeated.

"Senate Quashes Grant for Woodstock Museum" Excerpt

The Senate voted Thursday to kill a $1 million grant for a museum on the site of the 1969 Woodstock concert, a rare rebuke of a legislative pet project and a blow to the presidential candidate who backed it, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Clinton and her New York colleague, Sen. Charles Schumer, had the funding inserted into the **$604 billion** education and health spending bill. [Just how much more do politicians expect us to spend?] The Woodstock project's main backer, Alan Gerry, is a registered Republican who recently became a major contributor to the Schumer-led Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Nine days after the "earmark" was placed in the bill in June, Gerry and his wife [a registered Democrat] contributed the maximum of $9,200 to Clinton's primary and general election campaign funds. The Gerry family contributed an additional $20,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, USA TODAY reported Wednesday.

Two Republican senators, Oklahoma's Tom Coburn [who has called earmarking a “gateway drug” for a spending addiction] and Arizona's Jon Kyl, offered an amendment Thursday seeking to redirect the money to a maternal health care program. In a time of mounting deficits, they argued, senators shouldn't be steering money to a museum that has wealthy private supporters.

"How can we, with a straight face, argue to (the public) that we're not wasting their hard-earned money," Kyl said.

Among the Democrats voting against the earmark was Jim Webb of Virginia, who was recovering from shrapnel wounds he incurred in Vietnam while the Woodstock concert was unfolding in August 1969. He declined to comment.

Gerry, who according to Forbes magazine is worth $1.3 billion, bought the Woodstock concert site a decade ago with plans to turn it into a tourist center [i.e., a hippie museum for the "Flower Generation" and a taxpayer-funded LSD flashback].

The Gerrys have given $150,000 to the Schumer-led committee since 2005 [and $18,600 to Clinton].

Coburn argues there is an unseemly correlation between campaign contributions and earmarks.

[On the federal level, Gerry, his wife and three children have given $507,800 since 1998, including $272,050 to Democrats and $212,750 to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Why are they giving so much money to politicians and then asking for grants from taxpayers? ]

[Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., who earmarked $200,000 for the project in 2003, has received $19,500 since 1998.]

Why are you so concerned with what someone who obviously has the $ is doing with it. I believe that a site for people to visit which commemorates what was one of our countries greatest pop culture events/happenings is a wonderful idea. Sounds like Ms. Annie Oakley could use some "kool aid" of her own.....but would you share it?

Why I'm so concerned? Because Billionaire Gerry has the funds and is able to acquire whatever additional funds are needed from his wealthy friends to finance their Woodstock Memorial to the 1960s youth rebellion marked by drugs and sexual debauchery. They can keep all of the profits (except what income taxes the government can extract) and run it however they want, but they should not be using taxpayers' money for their pet project. Their more than half a million dollars ($507,800) in political "contributions" is nothing more than buying political influence with the Dem-Reps.

(Republicans tried but failed to block $2 million for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at The City College of New York - spending that GOP critics dubbed Rangel's “monument to me” (VIDEO from CBS News). And I thought that Dems were so concerned about the deficit. )

"one of our countries greatest pop culture events/happenings"

(Culture is a high degree of taste and refinement formed by aesthetic and intellectual training. Stoned hippies copulating in public doesn't come anywhere close to meeting the definition.)

“The Summer of Drugs” by TED NUGENT

"Turned off by the work ethic and productive American Dream values of their parents, hippies instead opted for a cowardly, irresponsible lifestyle of random sex, life-destroying drugs."

"The 1960s, a generation that wanted to hold hands, give peace a chance, smoke dope and change the world, changed it all right: for the worse. America is still suffering the horrible consequences of hippies who thought utopia could be found in joints and intentional disconnect.

"A quick study of social statistics before and after the 1960s is quite telling. The rising rates of divorce, high school drop outs, drug use, abortion, sexual diseases and crime, not to mention the exponential expansion of government and taxes, is dramatic. The 'if it feels good, do it' lifestyle born of the 1960s has proved to be destructive and deadly."

"There is a saying that if you can remember the 1960s, you were not there. I was there and remember the decade in vivid, ugly detail. I remember its toxic underbelly excess because I was caught in the vortex of the music revolution that was sweeping the country, and because my radar was fine-tuned thanks to a clean and sober lifestyle.

"Death due to drugs and the social carnage heaped upon America by hippies is nothing to celebrate. That is a fool's game, but it is quite apparent some burned-out hippies never learn."

"KOOL AID" -- No thanks but it sounds like you've already had some!

OYYYGHHHH! You've got too much free time on your hands. Go for a run, go to the gym, do yoga......something....just pleas elighten up. Quoting Ted Nugent? A beacon of taste and culture for sure. He must be one of your "blowing the heads off deer" partners, huh. Jeesh.

What are his thoughts about the Middle East and will he really push for a line-item veto? (God I wish this veto authority would have moved forward while the GOP was in charge!) His energy policy is a little shallow as with most politicians - the truth is going to hurt with this one but, it needs to be told. Overall, I think it's doable. Lets keep an eye on him.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

I've listened to Coburn's book Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders into Insiders about the Republican political cesspool in D.C. It's been a while, so I don't remember his position on line-item vetoes. He's remained consistently conservative on spending, though.

____________________________

"Flower-Power Pork" -- "Coburn's crusade against earmarks"

He has told his colleagues that their addiction to pork wastes money that otherwise would build bridges, regulate mine safety and litigate civil rights cases. All to no avail so far. The lawmakers still embrace pork and reject Coburn by the same big margins by which they passed the infamous Alaskan "Bridge to Nowhere" in the previous Congress.

The same appropriations bill is packed with other funding earmarks that Coburn said could have helped children instead. Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa earmarked $900,000 for the Lyndon Baines Johnson Foundation. Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont put in $100,000 for the Lake Champlain Quadricentennial. The two Virginia senators, Republican John Warner and Democrat Jim Webb, inserted $150,000 for the Virginia Aquarium and Marine Science Center.

Coburn is after bigger game. He is trying to eliminate $3.7 million in grants to labor unions requested by Harkin and Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Coburn also seeks to remove $1.7 million added to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention budget to fund a Hollywood liaison to advise doctor dramas and $5.1 million for "audio visual integration" in the CDC's new communications and visitors center named for Harkin.

In the previous money bill before the Senate, funding Commerce, Justice and science, Coburn tried on Oct. 4 to redirect $2.5 million in earmarks -- mainly for museums -- to fund the prosecution of unsolved civil rights cases. That failed 61 to 31.

On Sept. 12, Coburn lost, 63 to 32, in seeking to eliminate six out of 600 earmarks in the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development appropriations. These included a new baseball stadium in Billings, Mont. He was beaten 82 to 14 when he attempted to defer all earmarks until defective bridges are repaired.

Democratic party-line voting belies claims of a new climate on Capitol Hill. On the 61-to-31 Commerce vote, for instance, only two Democrats -- Evan Bayh of Indiana and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin -- voted against earmarks. But Coburn also was opposed by 17 Republicans (including Mel Martinez of Florida, the party's general chairman, and the top GOP members of the Appropriations Committee).

After his customary overwhelming defeat on the Transportation-HUD bill, Coburn blamed the Minnesota bridge failure on Congress: "We failed to make good decisions. We failed to direct dollars where they were needed most because this body is obsessed with parochial pork-barrel politics." Other senators hate it when the plain-spoken obstetrician from Muskogee, Okla., talks that way, but they figure hardly anybody -- including the media -- is listening.

____________________________

I like J. C. Watts, also from OK. I wonder if Hack and Git have ever met Watts or Coburn while in OK?

"will he really push for a line-item veto? (God I wish this veto authority would have moved forward while the GOP was in charge!)"

You do know who eliminated the line item veto and why, don't you? But now it's a good idea to the same crew that drug the line item veto into the bathroom and drowned it in the toilet? This seems odd to me.

Kevin "Hack" King

yeah I know - Rudy - Clinton v City of New York. It didn't pass Supreme Court muster because of Constitutionality or more precisely separation of powers - Executive versus Legislative. Congress could have brought it up and refined it by that was not done.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

and does your candidate exist and have a name, because they sound too perfect to me.

I believe you know the answer to that one.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.