Thinking Right

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

March 8, 2007 8:45 AM | Link to this

Jim,

If I recall correctly, the GOP’s entire campaign strategerie, as developed by Herr Rove, centers on the Christain Right.

The GOP’s alignment with Christains for nothing more than political gain is well documented.

How is this different from what Billary and Obama are doing? It’s politics. They’re courting votes.

Oh…I know why they’re different. They’re Democrats.

Democrats are wrong. Always.

And not only that, they lie. A lot.

Oh…and they’re immoral. Bad people, those Democrats.

And their Church of “liberialsim”…oooohhhhh…that’s bad. I don’t know what that is, but they use it alot on Fox and AM radio and that Ann Coulter man says that they’re Godless. They must be. all of them.

Watch out. They’re coming to get you.

By Writer's block

March 8, 2007 8:48 AM | Link to this

Guest writer?

By Southern Democrat

March 8, 2007 8:59 AM | Link to this

Yawn.

The story I took away from last weekend was that churning in my stomach I get every time I see footage of the actions of many of my fellow white Southerners during the era of the Civil Rights Movement and the courage of so many black Americans to fight for equality; a courage I’m not sure I could have mustered… then the juxtaposition of those memories with the fact that a woman and a black American are viable candidates for president in a major party… maybe we’re on the right path?

Mr. Wooten and others are worried about separation of Church and State.

While your left hand types these words, you might want to tell your right hand to stop supporting government sponsored faith-based initiatives, creches in government squares during Christmas, prayer in public schools, and displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses.

You know, just for consistency.

By Writer's block

March 8, 2007 9:04 AM | Link to this

Hillary’s accent. Apparently this ruse works for any politician, no matter how ridiculous it looks to viewers. Vote getting rule: When in Rome, do as the Romans do, and they wont mistake you for a christian, and you wont get fed to the lions. This is very revealing about human nature. If I were to judge hillary’s speech before she delivered it, during a practice rehearsal, I would have shouted her down, and expected that the audience would have done the same. It’s like the white bread soccor moms who appear on Oprah and try to be a girlfriend with her it’s all good, shake it out, oh baby, we all be in the house, dont you know.

As I get older and older, I’m finding it extremely difficult to believe in the expressed state of people’s hearts. What do people think they have to do to entertain others or even hold their attention?

It’s not that sanctuaries are sacrosanct, it’s that historically, folks should hiss at historionics.

Just talk normal. If someone has personal charm then enjoy it, dont steal it, because it will stink on you, trust me. “Yeah, I be all about da tang wid da luv gone wild, dont you know, uh huh. (vote 4me).”

Some people’s best moments are the inscriptions on their tombstones. What do you want on your tombstone?

By CJ

March 8, 2007 9:08 AM | Link to this

Pitching from the pulpit in and of itself isn’t a problem. The problems are with whose pulpit you’re pitching from and the message that you’re pitching. Trumpeting equal rights for all is one thing. It’s something else entirely to visit churches to trumpet constitutional amendments and Supreme Court justices specifically to restrict rights (e.g. gays, women, geriatric hippies), condone bans on interracial dating (i.e. Bob Jones University) and kiss the rings of ridiculous men who sell videos accusing a former Democratic president of actually hiring hit men to murder his political enemies.

On a different note, I recently complained on this blog about the kind of thinking behind Zell Miller’s infamous quote, made in the wake of 9-11: “I say bomb the hell out of them. If there’s collateral damage, so be it.” In response, some labeled me a “blind leftist” or “lefty wingnut” (terms of endearment, no doubt). Well, it turns out that Miller’s beloved Marine Corp has been infiltrated by so-called lefty wingnuts. Here’s a quote from their counterinsurgency manual:

“An operation that kills five insurgents is counterproductive if collateral damage leads to the recruitment of 50 more insurgents…”

Just another small addition to the mountain of evidence that liberalism and pragmatism are one and the same.

By Writer's block

March 8, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this

Whoever wrote today’s blog might consider how the evangelical right changed smart-mobbing a poll station forever.

By Barbara

March 8, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this

I’m with you Jim. The double standard is ridiculous. And did you get a load of Hitlary’s fake accent when she was speaking to the congregation??? Did she really fool anybody, other than those that wanted to believe it??

But I will call you out on going to listen to Andy Young. You should have known better. I mean, were you surprised? I thought you were smarter than that.

By Curious Observer

March 8, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this

By all means let’s exclude the pulpit as a political stump. In that way, many fewer Republicans will be elected, for it is the Republicans who use the church for political advantage.

I find it amusing that Wooten sees politicians at black churches as a threat to freedom, while he says nothing about the practice of having 500 voters show up at evangelical churches to march off to the polls on election day.

Tell me, when is the last time James Dobson or Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or any of the pastors of those mega-churches urged support for Democratic causes? When is the last time you heard a Republican urge separation of church and state? How many Democrats urge imposing their own religion-based beliefs on the politics of this country?

In many ways, today’s Wooten column is even more blatantly hypocritical than yesterday’s.

By @@

March 8, 2007 9:28 AM | Link to this

What’s that you say Jim?

The “left’s” foot CAN be shoved into the “right” shoe and find a comfortable fit during campaign season?

I’m not surprised.

As a conservative I strongly advise my minister not to preach politics from the pulpit, but she and I still hobble along in two right shoes.

By Jim's a nose picker

March 8, 2007 9:32 AM | Link to this

It’s not many more days now before the AJC forces you out to pasture is it, Jim?

Good, good.

By time for the truth

March 8, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this

Watching the corrupt to the core lardarsed lying hog HiTllary puking out a phoney southern accent in its despicable pandering to a bunch of smug liberal blacks was cringe-making in the extreme. As for the half black nonenity Osama Obama as the DUI killer Kennedy hilariously called him - puking up a racially empty vainglorious assertion that coming to Selema meant he was “coming home”. This oleaginous pandering outrage was about as credible as a badly bewildered white maggot turning down the chance to eat some ripe gorgonzola!!

Black churches politically are all sadly still implicitly if not quite always explicitly about racebaiting and black separatism, as Osama Obama’s poisonous pew in Chicago witnesses week after week.

Now if someone would only tell some mohammedan fascists that Osama OBama was an apostate - given his middle name of Hussein and his pappy being some (lasped) AfriKan mohammedan etc - the already mind numbingly irrelevant demoNcrat power crazed primary for worthless appeasing cut and run scum would liven up very nicely.

The world desperately needs a highly contagious disease that very aggressively and very painfully swiftly wipes out ONLY liberalism. Liberalism is undeniably the nastiest, most virulent and and sickest modern brainwasting sickness fastidiously and wilfully perpetrated on the earth since the days of the bubonic plague and the baleful villainousness of genocidal marxism/nazism and the malignancy of modern mass organised religion took their evil calamitous collective toll!!

Any black church that espouses or pushes repugnant liberal/leftist politicks should instantly lose its tax exempt status forever.

Instead of witch burning - which a few centuries ago would have thankfully automatically seen the suitably acrid end of the Pelosibitch and the Klintonbitch and the BOxerbitch et al -we need to instigate a huge national programme of Bush derangement syndrome feminazi burning!! Now this would give PPV TV a much needed financial shot in the arm and provide fabulous, relatively cheap entertainment for clear thinking patriotic Americans.

By Spiritraveller

March 8, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this

Imagine, however, how many would have found themselves “frightened” and “angry” if a couple of bigwig Republicans had pitched their messages from the pulpit to evangelicals.

No imagining necessary, Republicans do that every campaign season… especially in Georgia.

Jim, it’s honestly weird the way you pretend to believe your own BS. I figure you just write the dumbest thing that comes to mind in the shower every morning, in hopes that someone will label you “provocative.”

I can always count on you to provoke my BS meter to go off the charts.

By DebbieDoRight

March 8, 2007 9:42 AM | Link to this

From Jim: It really is time for the media to get to one standard on whether it’s permissible for candidates to take their politics into the pulpit. Without question, people of faith should get involved in politics and ministers should preach on social issues that grow out of their religious beliefs. But that’s considerably different than pitching camp permanently with one party or the other and with using the church as a campaign tent.

You are one sad pathetic old man. Your party is falling apart around you, you have NO credibility as a journalist, (only another mouth piece for the Republican Party — hey why don’t you try to get on Fox News?!? Your blatant rightist tirades are really lost at the AJC), you yell for Bush to pardon Libby because of some so-called left wing conspiracy, (even though the prosecutor was republican), and you make a mockery out of the word justice. Yet here you blog in all your prejudiced, old man fury, about Obama and Clinton going to churches (black churches)! Hey, old guy, have you ever considered that some REPUBLICANS can go to black churches too?!? Why, DON’T they go? Scared they may find Jesus?

Last year, The mouthpiece for the right, Anne Coulter, was the guest speaker for the Christian Coalition Of Georgia; why didn’t you rant about the republican party “using the church as a campaign tent” then?

I used to admire you, but now I feel sorry for you. Play on Nero, Rome is burning.

By Ty

March 8, 2007 9:47 AM | Link to this

Jim,

Those whom you support have embarassed you, and you’ve run out of things to write about. I much preferred your fluff piece on fat dogs—a veritable admission of defeat—to this ridiculous analogy. Fluff shows a lot more journalistic integrity.

By JP

March 8, 2007 9:50 AM | Link to this

I laughed when i saw the full footage of Hillary, with what Drudge called her “mock southern drawl” or some such, when the full footage revealed she was reading a passage in cadence and not implying it was her own voice.

By god, it’s about time the right wing media started focusing on facts rather than imaginary boogie-men and things they WANT us to believe.

By JP

March 8, 2007 9:51 AM | Link to this

Barbara, I see you fell 100% into the Drudge “southern accent” trap. Whatever has become of our country?

By jbmlaw

March 8, 2007 9:57 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. Jim raises a couple of question: (1) The news media’s “Republicans are wrong whatever they do, and Democrats are ok even if they do the same thing” perspective, and (2) politicization of the church.

Item 1 – not worth wringing our hands. The world is changing, and the seven sisters no longer call the shots. It has taken the media a solid four years of constant drum beating to undermine the Iraq military victory, to attempt to turn that into a political defeat, and yet victory over the opponents still seems likely. The media no longer has the power it once held, due to Drudge and blogs. I cannot remember the last time I watched the evening news – had to be in the 1980s.

Item 2 – a valid charge. Rev. Falwell ought not condemn leftists, and Andy Young ought not condemn conservatives. My life does not revolve around politics – but for the threat the socialists constantly pose to my freedom, I could not care less. That one hour per week should be a respite, as Jim correctly argues.

By Jack

March 8, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten, Without question, people of faith should get involved in politics and ministers should preach on social issues that grow out of their religious beliefs. But that’s considerably different than pitching camp permanently with one party or the other and with using the church as a campaign tent.

I totally disagree with your above statement. I do not beleive that a minister should preach on social issues that grow out of their religious believes. Nor do I believe that a politician should use religion as a means to obtain votes. I go to a church of God/charmatic church where our pastor does not do that.

Religion/church no matter what the denomination, should be a spiritual place to learn about Jesus, God and the bible. A place to have a intimate relationship with God. It is not a place to make a political stand or for a fake politician that truly does not live his or her life for Jesus and God.

This world would be a better place if everyone, politicians, judges, ect. truly lived their life as Jesus, God and the bible intended for us to.

By getalife

March 8, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this

• A sanctuary ought to be a sanctuary — from politics.*

Get your religion out of my politics wingnuts.

You gave us the worst President ever and have destroyed our country.

You should fight to correct this wrong to save your souls.

By Dennis

March 8, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten said, “It really is time for the media to get to one standard on whether it’s permissible for candidates to take their politics into the pulpit.”

In short, what’s fair for Republicans is not fair for Democrats?

The “one standard” all Americans would like to see is a standard of reporting and telling the unslanted truth from the media. Your column included.

How can Americans decide what is best for their country when the media and their own government lie to them?

Some of us are aware of the words of CIA Director William Casey, when in his first staff meeting in 1981 he said, “We will know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American people believe is false.”

So, whether the slant be a liberal slant or a conservative slant, more Americans than you might think, can tell the difference. And it is NOT appreciated.

That is why you, and the media, catch so much hell.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By WWJD#2

March 8, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this

Does anyone else find it contradictory when someone calls themselves “christian” and then turns right around and advocates the denial of housing, medical care, education, the seperation of children from parents, etc? Are these desires the actions of true christians? I think not. It seems that church and christianity have undoubtedly become defined more by political ideology and party affiliation than the tenants of faith, hope, and charity. I am really starting to wonder if there is such a thing as a true christian anymore. Christianity has become too much like morals and ethics…situational. The Ten Commandments don’t have “riders” or buts and ifs attached. Yet the way some so called christians play fast and loose with them you would think so. Furthermore, it seems that some of the posters right here on this blog that profess to be the most pioused christians tout some of the most inhumane political beliefs. One thing is for sure. Christianity and church is not what it used to be. Some churches might as well hang a sign out front declaring what political beliefs one has to have to come inside. When I ride by some of the biggest churches and the sermon advertised for that Sunday revolves around a hot button political issue it makes me sick. Yet every single one of these places THINKS that they are God’s chosen ones, that they are the ones that have a hotline to God, that they are the ones doing God’s will. Yeah right! Christian is as christian does. And I have a feeling that come judgement day many so called christians are going to be shocked to find that they have reservations in hell.

By LMAO

March 8, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this

Jim, I noticed you said nothing about Newt Gingrich. Are you going to listen to his James Dobson “Focus on the Family” radio address on Friday?

I hear he is going to have a Jimmy Swaggert moment and confesses his moral failings. I hear he says that he has “gotten on his knees and sought God’s forgiveness”

I wonder why he is doing this now? Maybe because the other Republican candidates are no saints themselves? Could he possibly be after the christian coalition vote and the primary strength it gives? Is this a case of “using the church as a campaign tent.”

Is it?

LMAO!

By Barbara

March 8, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this

JP, regardless…. what is the point of adopting a different accent if not pandering? Same motive.

Personally I don’t have a problem with politicians preaching Christian values from the pulpits. I just wish all were treated the same. When the Republicans do it, it’s the “religous right” pandering, but when Hitlary and Osama Obama (love it TFTT!) do it, why it’s okay. Puh-leeeeze! And again, I totally support Christianity in American politics. I actually went to Montgomery, AL, and was standing in protest the day the Ten Commandments monument was removed from the rotundra. But the double-standard coming from the Dems is total BS.

By Eric

March 8, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

What America needs…

Less illegal immigrants Less politicians Less manifest destiny

and DEFINITELY

Less God

By Regulator

March 8, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

Jim, I’ve always given you more credit than this. This is the most petty thing I ever seen commented on, guess you’ve been reading to much Cal Thomas.

By steve-o

March 8, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

Black clergy has always had the historical role of being community leaders by default since many blacks could not vote, thus the tradition of politicians stumping in black churches has endured.

The symbolism of speaking in black churches in Selma on the anniversary of Bloody Sunday is very significant and is akin to giving a speech in Independence Hall because Selma forever will be a battleground where the aboslute democratic right to vote was paid for in blood.

I really don’t think there’s anything wrong with Republicans pandering to conservative Christian congregations. However, there is a fundamental difference in the eyes of moderates and liberals in speaking before a congregation and advocating expanded and equal opportunity and speaking before other congregations and speaking about limiting the rights of others.

This is a democracy and if members or advocates of religious conservative politicians really feel slighted, then they need to find a better way to advocate their platform that will appeal to the masses in a more positive light rather than moan and complain.

By steve-o

March 8, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this

…and yes I’ll indulge you conservatives. As a black person it was awkward indeed to hear Hillary’s faux accent!

By Regulator

March 8, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

Barbara, Taliking about fake accents, George W. Bush, the Conneticut Yankee and Yalie, his Texas drawl, what a fake. Hillary 08’

By Regulator

March 8, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

Barbara, Taliking about fake accents, George W. Bush, the Conneticut Yankee and Yalie, his Texas drawl, what a fake. Hillary 08’

By Ray

March 8, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

You are absolutely right!! Why should black churches be in danger of losing their 503 status as white churches. If a white church was to do it, whamo! loss of tax exempt status.

By INQUIRINGMIND

March 8, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

By Barbara

March 8, 2007 10:16 AM

Personally I don’t have a problem with politicians preaching Christian values from the pulpits.

Barbara, would you please define “christian values”? I would love to know what they truly are in this day and age.

By Redneck Convert

March 8, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

Well, I say we should keep giving the libruls the what-for in church and then meet to march off to the polls on election day. This is a Christian country and we need to keep it that way by making sure we beat all the libruls back. I also think we should ban Those People from getting libruls to speak at their church. When us conservatives finally get what we want there won’t be no libruls left. Only God-fearing Christians in a country where women stay in the kitchen and have our babys and don’t go having abortions. And we will have the 10 Commandmints on every telephone pole and in all the court houses. There won’t be no jews or arabs or people that wear funny things on their head. And we will send all the Mexicans back to their country so God-fearing Christians will have plenty of jobs.

Me and my buddy Jim Earl is planning to watch NASCAR again this weekend. For the next 3 days I will be very busy stocking up the bars for all them thirsty Baptists. They can sure put it down.

Tell Wooten that warehouse job is still open so if the libruls at the AJC decide to can him I know where he can find work that suits his ability to a T. And the people there are all fine Christians that don’t put up with librul thinking and talk. He might have to get a crew cut to fit in right and learn to say the N-word but I know his mind is right for the job.

Tell TFTT to get off the dope. He’s hard to follow any more, what with the big words and no little marks to guide a person thru what he is saying. He musta gone to the same writing school I did. Tho I don’t see how if he growed up in England. Maybe there’s a special place for rednecks to live over there and they have their own school. He Thinks Right but he writes all wrong.

By Van

March 8, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

Well, it seems the left can not differentiate between Christians and evangelicals and they lump them all into the same pot.

And, yes, it is hypocritical for the media to say nothing while a candidate is in the pulpit campaigning and pandering for votes. As other posters noted, that a speech at a religious affiliated school is the same thing, I have to disagree.

Not all christian denominations are extreme in there beliefs as the lefties would shout as fact.

By Barbara

March 8, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

WWJD#2, I am really sorry for you if that is your take on Christianity. That’s a pretty sad outlook. Christians aren’t perfect. God knows that and loves us anyway.

INQUIRINGMIND, each of us is challenged to read the bible, develop a relationship with Christ, and in that pursuit you will learn what God has in store for you. It’s different for each of us. Christians are charged with being kind and taking care of others, but are also asked to be good stewards of the resources given to them. This means we must make decisions that non-christians deem cruel or hateful. I could opine all day about what I consider Christian values, but that is not the subject of today’s blog, and you would certainly be better off pursuing that answer yourself, to learn what God has in store for you.

By getalife

March 8, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

We learned from the Libby trial that the reasons for this occupation were dead wrong.

It is time to right this dead wrong and withdraw. The President is begging the Dems to cut funding and they should.

It is the right thing to do to right this dead wrong. History will show the Dems doing the right thing and cut the funding to end this dead wrong occupation.

By jm

March 8, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

What I have a problem with is churches that shill for a particular politician or party and hide behind their tax-exempt status while doing so.

Churches are still the centers of many communities and as such should be able to address the social needs of those communities. However, if a church is going to endorse a party or particular politician, they should be willing to give up their tax-exempt status.

By Kenneth Paddick

March 8, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this

“Imagine” writes Scootin Wooten, “…if a couple of bigwig Republican had pitched their message from the pulpit….” Who is this guy kidding? There is madman Pat Robertson, Zigzag Zell, the Governor from hell, and monstor Jerry Foulmouth who dominate airwaves and pulpits with pure Republican lies. At a minimum, Scootin should not insult his few readers with insults.

By INQUIRINGMIND

March 8, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

Barbara, we are all waiting for you to define “christian values” for us. Maybe you could even give us a commandment by commandment breakdown of the “except whens…, but ifs…etc that those of you with “christian values” find acceptable when one of these commandments gets in the way of your ideology or political belief. For example: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor…except when: Trying to cover up a crime or impede an investigation. You are an intelligent woman Barbara and I really do need someone with true “christian values” to show this admitted sinner under what conditions I can safely “ammend” the Ten Commandments.

By Southern Democrat

March 8, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

Barbara @ 10:48,

It’s nice to have you back and posting. Though I don’t always agree with you, I always enjoy your intelligent commentary and appreciate your willingess to discuss issues.

In your response to WWJD#2, I agree that the beauty of Christianity is that our salvation has been given to us through the sacrifice of Christ, but I also think that too many of us want that for ourselves, but still want the ability to condemn those we don’t agree with. I hear too many times about how God loves us all, but those gays, Muslims, etc. are going to hell. I try to follow “do not judge lest ye be judged” b/c I know that as it stands right now I will probably be on the bad side come Judgment Day. I think there’s a balance, obviously, but I’d like to hear more Christians (when discussing politics) tone down the rhetoric of condemnation and play up our responsibilities to one another.

By Van

March 8, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this

getalife,

Hey bumpkin, Wilson’s report to the CIA supported the earlier analysis, he lied in his editorial.

By Barbara

March 8, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this

jm, I think I could get on board with your 10:54 post, unless the “regulation” got to picky. For example, where would you draw the line? Our founding fathers wrote that the basis of country, the guiding principles and even our laws were dependent on Christian values. You wouldn’t require that all Christian churches lose their status over that? I can see that we wouldn’t want endoresement turning into financial value or gain for either the church or the politician, but we also shouldn’t forget the values and beliefs on which this great nation was founded.

INQUIRINGMIND, it ain’t gonna happen buddy.

By getalife

March 8, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this

Vaneesa,

Ask your God to forgive you to save your soul.

By jbmlaw

March 8, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

Dear WWJD#2 @ 10:14, I think you err when you affirm that Jesus was a conventional socialist thief, stealing the private wealth of individuals to spend on government programs. That is Mohammed you are thinking about. Well-written, Barbara @ 10:48.

By Joe L

March 8, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this

Jbmlaw:”It has taken the media a solid four years of constant drum beating to undermine the Iraq military victory, to attempt to turn that into a political defeat, and yet victory over the opponents still seems likely.”

Wow I used to think you were at least a reasonable person even if I disagreed completely with most of your politics. But if you believe this is true in the slightest you really are divorced of reality and rational thought.

By Ashley

March 8, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

Barbara,

Our laws are not “dependent” on Christian values or those of any particular faith. You can quote the Declaration of Independence, the Pledge of Allegiance and the coins in your pocketbook all day long, but Civics 101 — the Constitution is the law of the land (learn about the “Supremacy Clause” — and the Constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

By jbmlaw

March 8, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

Dear Southern @ 11:00, well-written. Please forgive me for my vicious joke in my last post.

By INQUIRINGMIND

March 8, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

I didn’t think so Barbara. There are 2 questions that sends everyone scurrying for cover. 1-Define “christian values” 2-Define American culture. And I know why that is. Because it exposes and maybe even makes one confront their own hypocrisy, prejudice, and bigotry. I knew that you wouldn’t fall into it Barbara. But you turned right around and spoke of it again in another context. So Barbara, please tell us what the “values and beliefs” on which this great nation was founded are. And I will even give you a hint. It damn sure ain’t the constitution according to Alberto Gonzalez, nor is it America according to Dick and George.

By Jack

March 8, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

To INQUIRINGMIND,

I will define christian values for you. It is learning and living your life to the best of your ability as to how God, Jesus and the Bible intended for us to. Their are only 2 people sin and mistake free and will be forever and that is God and his son Jesus. No one else is perfect. A true christian knows what it means to have a intimate relationship with Christ.

No one has the right to judge or think his or her religion is “the” religion or the right religion. I myself goes to a church of God/charismatic church and would call myself a christian and I do still sin, backslide and make wrong decisions from time to time. Religion is a subject that can be argued about for a long time. Whos religion/beliefs are right? No one will no until you die and face God.

The bottom line is that Politics should not be preached from the pulpit/church. Once again it is a spiritual place to find and have a intimate relationship with the lord. It is not a place for a political party to gain and obtain votes.

By ckt

March 8, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten -

Are you serious? Really, are you serious??

You see no difference between Obama, who was INVITED TO SPEAK AT A CHURCH, enforcing no law, taking no TAXPAYER money, and “faith-based initiatives”?

Have you forgotten “Justice Sunday” the right-wing nutjobs trying to force politics and religion onto the JUDICIAL bench? Have you forgotten that???

What liberals have a problem with, and please, try to listen, I know this is hard for you, is FORCING religion on others. I have no problem with anyone, R or D in front of their names, courting religious voters - I DO have a problem when senators go to churches and try to influence supreme court nominees, when they prevent crucial medical funding because of THEIR INTERPRETATION of faith, when they force laws that are based on THEIR SOUTHERN BAPTIST ROOTS.

If you see no difference between courting voters and enacting legislation, you are indeed the small minded person that we all think you are.

Get off you horse Mr. Wooten - the repugnance with which you make your assertions is disgusting - pardon Libby, who committed a crime, but jail Clinton, who simply had an affair (which, is, if I remember correctly, still legal, though immoral). Blast democrats who talk at churches, but allow senators to block end-of-life wishes, to use the church as an enforcer of the supreme court. You seem to simply look for that little, ugly R- in front of a name.

Shame on you.

You disgust honest Americans.

By LMAO

March 8, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this

What more of a socialist act is pulling fish out of a basket to feed the hungry?

What was the matter with those lazy people Jesus fed. Didn’t they have a job? Was that welfare?

By Barbara

March 8, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

Southern Dem, I always love hearing from you. You are a reasonable voice and quite pleasant in debate. Don’t worry - you won’t be alone on the “bad side” come Judgement Day; I’ll be right there with you! Thank God for the grace of Jesus! And you won’t find me saying God doesn’t love the gays, Muslims, Jews, etc. I know better. :-)

By Craig

March 8, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this

Amazing. Jim, do you read your own paper? On the same day you trash Democrats for appealing to religious voters, your Political Insider column addresses Newt’s disgusting efforts to suck up to the ever hypocritical and prideful James Dobson.

Amazing.

By Barbara

March 8, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

INQUIRINGMIND, I have been guilty of all of those things (hypocracy, prejudice, bigotry) and many, many others. That makes me human. I wish my sinful nature didn’t tempt me to fall to those, and other sins, because I know they are wrong and they hurt Jesus, my Savior. That makes me a Christian.

By Jeff

March 8, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this

Southern @ 11:00

On Christianity: I don’t completely agree with the christians that preach constant condemnation. In fact, there is only one sin that condemns ANYONE to Hell: the sin of disbelief in Jesus Christ as the ONLY way to Heaven. ALL else can be forgiven.

Now me, I’m a Jeffersonian Republican. Take a look at Warrior Class by Dale Brown (and a few of the books after that… Plan of Attack is another good one for this character) and look at President Thomas Nathaniel Thorn. I want THAT guy as President. Or at least a Jack Ryan from Tom Clancy’s Executive Orders….

By INQUIRINGMIND

March 8, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this

By Jack

March 8, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

To INQUIRINGMIND,

I will define christian values for you. It is learning and living your life to the best of your ability as to how God, Jesus and the Bible intended for us to. Their are only 2 people sin and mistake free and will be forever and that is God and his son Jesus. No one else is perfect. A true christian knows what it means to have a intimate relationship with Christ.

Thank you Jack. You tried and actually you are probably spot on. In a nutshell you say christian is as christian does. Now I guess the question is how does one reconcile their un-christian acts with their proslytizing? How does a church preach politics from the pulpit that just might not jive with the acts of Jesus himself or God’s will? There are just too many contradictions between politics and our “christian values” as Barbara says. And before I check out I will say that being very much a literalist I figure that I already have a reservation in hell unless I am way off on something. You see, I spent the better part of the 60s dropping napalm on women and children in SEA. And no matter how many times I was told that I was on a “mission from God” I knew better. I was on a mission from LBJ and Robert McNamara that had not one damn thing to do with God’s wishes. And when you combine that with many years of…well…let’s say wine, women, and song, I figure I’m a goner. I do try to live in the manner that I think is christian today, but unlike many “christians” I don’t think that God is going to let me in my last breath on earth apologize and get that ticket to heaven. My only chance I guess is if the Catholics are right and there is a purgatory where you pay up before getting the ride up the elevator. Christian is as christian does, and some of the politics being espoused from the pulpit today just doesn’t seem all that christian anymore.

By Lord Doom

March 8, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

Hillary wasn’t trying to talk southern, she was trying to talk black.

Hillary is so desparate to win the black vote from Obama, that she’s going to be wearing gold teeth and throwing up gang signs before this thing is over.

By jm

March 8, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

Barbara@11:07 - I am not holding my breath on any type of regulation ever taking place. Touching the tax-exempt status for any (mainstream religion) church/synagogue/mosque is political poison. Even when “terrorist” groups were invited (IRA, JDL, Islamic Jihad) to speak, the tax exempt status was untouched.

Oh yeah. Just to avoid arguments:

IRA - British Government considered them terrorists JDL - FBI labeled them a “right wing terrorist group” Islamic Jihad - US State Dept.

By AJC's Political Insider

March 8, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

“*First it was twice-married John McCain.

Now it’s thrice-hitched Newt Gingrich baring his soul the Republican party’s conservative Christian base — which is still up for grabs in the ’08 race for the White House.

Gingrich will give the May 19 commencement address at Liberty University in Lynchburg, founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell.

McCain addressed the student body last year. Gingrich, the former speaker and Georgia congressman, last spoke at the school’s commencement in 1991.

Also this week, Gingrich is cozying up to James Dobson of Focus on the Family, currently the most influential religious conservative in the nation, in a two-part radio interview being broadcast this week.

Dobson has turned up his nose at the GOP’s two current front-runners, McCain and Rudy Giuliani.

Gingrich tells Dobson that he’s “gotten on my knees and sought God’s forgiveness” for his moral failings.

At least that’s what Dobson’s web site says. We listened to the first installment here.

In that first 28-minute segment, Gingrich reviews his pro-God credentials, endorses the abolition of Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, and hawks his new book, “Rediscovering God in America.”

Confessions are always best held until the end. It keeps the audience listening.*”

AJC’s Political Insider Thursday, March 8, 2007, 09:59 AM

By Shar

March 8, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

Christian values? Simple. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Encourages a humble attitude, an open heart and a sensitive perspective on our fellow man. Plus, there’s no need to judge others or “to make decisions that non-Christians deem cruel or hateful”. Listen to, respect and try to understand the decisions of others instead.

On the topic of the day, every politician, given the opportunity of speaking to a group of people in a place redolent of authority and probity, will leap at the chance. Besides which, in some small locales, the church may well be the biggest meeting hall available. Aren’t I correct in recalling that Cagle and Reed had a major faceoff this fall at a Baptist church in Cobb County? The problem comes when either the speaker attempts to take on the mantle of the Almighty or the audience is constrained to profess a particular faith. Doesn’t this Administration use prayer breakfasts as political opportunities, thus bringing the Almighty to them rather than the other way around? They should follow Teddy Roosevelt’s lead - in keeping with his interest in conserving Nature, he often invited people who wanted access to join him in his daily skinny dips in Rock Creek Park first thing in the morning. As everyone was required to participate, positions were put pithily and consensus reached really fast, all in the Glory of the Great Outdoors.

By MarkP

March 8, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

I’m not sure I’m familiar with the generic media condemnation of Republicans’ religious affiliations or appearances that Mr. Wooten refers to, actually, or the supposed double standard. What I am familiar with is condemnation of the insertion of faith-specific rationales into the legislation passed or proposed by right-leaning Republicans and Democrats, which is different from policies and rationales that happen to appease constituents both inside and outside a given faith afilliation. Not sure I see what the problem is with the campaign coverage or non-coverage that is chaffing Mr. Wooten this week.

By Van

March 8, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

LMAO,

“What more of a socialist act is pulling fish out of a basket to feed the hungry?”

Under socialism, the fish would have been taken for the States good.

In the story, the 5 fish and 2 loaves were donated. The remains were gathered up and filled 5 baskets. This was pure capitalism (smirk) with a good return on the investment.

By Forgetful

March 8, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this

Maybe I’m wrong Shar, but didn’t GWB say that God told him to invade Iraq, or to get Saddam Hussein, or words to that effect? One point that some so called “christians” seem to forget is that being the creator, God just may not have a side. I am sure that God, nor Jesus approves of all the innocents being killed in Iraq each and everyday by either side. But according to some “christians” as long as you are killing in the name of the lord it’s just hunky dory. It would just be nice every now and then if God would speak his mind instead of us having to take the word of a “christian” that God supports ole GWB, Deadeye Dick and da boiz in these wars of theirs.

By RC

March 8, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

I’m figuring that God knows BS when he hears it, whether is comes from supposed reverend Andrew Young or someone on the right. Let Him sort it out.

By Lord Doom

March 8, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

Funny how all the none going to church folks have so much to say about church.

By Jeff

March 8, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

Forgetful:

The Bible is RIPE with commands from God to enact genocide… matter of fact, the Palestinians (nor Arabs in general) would not exist if the Isrealis of the day had followed the letter of the command….

By Play that funky music whiteboy

March 8, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this

Jim, I rarely if ever agree with you - and I doubt I do on this issue, but I’m willing to go along with your premise. I would love to see politics taken completely out of church. It’s the very reason I left a particular church back in the early 90’s - for five weeks in a row the Sunday School teacher and Pastor had more to say about Bill Clinton than they did about Jesus.

Please people of faith remember, long after Clinton and “Dubya” are in the ground as worm fodder - God will still be on the throne and Jesus at his right hand. Amen

By Lord Doom

March 8, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this

Jeff,

To bad genocide wasn’t committed on you and your family!

By RichieRich

March 8, 2007 1:01 PM | Link to this

By Van

March 8, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

LMAO,

“What more of a socialist act is pulling fish out of a basket to feed the hungry?”

Under socialism, the fish would have been taken for the States good.

In the story, the 5 fish and 2 loaves were donated. The remains were gathered up and filled 5 baskets. This was pure capitalism (smirk) with a good return on the investment.

No Van! You dumbazz! In a pure capitalist system the bread and fish would have been sold to the highest bidder. 5% of the people would walk away with all the fish and bread leaving the others with nothing. That is pure capitalism Van.

By Curious Observer

March 8, 2007 1:07 PM | Link to this

When the last of you bible-thumpers finish praying in the street and proclaiming the Lord Jesus Christ as your savior, would you please get off the blog and allow rational people to debate ideas?

By Elizabeth

March 8, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this

God is not a Republican, nor a Democrat. God isn’t even Christian. Imagine that!

By Jackie

March 8, 2007 1:28 PM | Link to this

There is “circular logic” being employed here.
These canards are being published to get rational people worked up about something that has no substance. Is the problem still Iraq, the economy, jobs, cost and access to education, treatment of returning military, retirement pay? These questions have not been addressed by this imperial administration, yet, the right wing blusters about items that have no positive impact on our daily lives. The right wing wants to have it their way, even if it is in violation of the laws they propose and the Constitution the purport to adhere to. “liars, liars, pants on fire!!!!!!!!”

By rarringt

March 8, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this

Afternoon all,

Doom said,

Funny how all the none [sic] going to church folks have so much to say about church

You’re erroneously equating liberal and moderate ideological views with atheism. Many non-conservatives (such as myself) are actively spiritual, practicing Christians.

You’re referring to Christian fundamentalism, which Van referred to earlier as “Evangelicals,” and others call “Charismatic” Christianity.

Basically, it’s part of the fire and brimstone movement from the 1700s, and is largely known today as “Word of Faith” ministries.

You know the types. Creflo Dollar. Pat Robertson. Jerry Falwell. Ken Hagin, Ken Copeland, the list goes on.

The criticism of these churches, and the seed that has caused the schism between social and fiscal conservatives, is that the neo-social agenda does not merely fit within the umbra of “Charismatic Christianity,” but is the same, and so intertwined as to be inseparable and indistinguishable.

In other words, they feel as though they have a special connection with God that allows them to dictate policy unto others, no matter how contrary to the letter and spirit of the bible or how destructive it may be to society.

Now, what’s interesting is that these same people are vehemently opposed to Islamic fundamentalists, who, ironically, think in the same terms.

Interesting, isn’t it? We are manipulated on both the foreign and domestic fronts by zealots who, though they proclaim to be mortal enemies, think in precisely the same extreme terms.

By jbmlaw

March 8, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this

Dear Van @ 12:37, yours is the post of the day. Well-executed humor.

Dear Forgetful @ 12:41, you are correct in conceding that you are wrong.

Dear RichieRich @ 1:01, you confuse our “tools of production” (e.g., capitalism) with our ethics (“charity.”) Whereas socialists do not believe in charity, capitalists fund charities. Even those socialist do-gooder organizations are funded by the Vans of the world.

By Southern Democrat

March 8, 2007 1:41 PM | Link to this

Jeff,

I agree, of course, with your statements on sins and forgiveness. Without turning this into too much of a theological discussion, I’ve often wondered how to couple Christ’s call to evangelize and “go forth and make of all the nations disciples” with the mantra of “pray and fast in private” and “they will know we are Christians by our love.” I also agree with your assessment of hell, but feel, perhaps overly optimistically, that on the Day of Judgment, even those who did not believe will have a chance to repent when they see God in his Glory. I also, in a more personal way, stress over my own sinful ways and that I have zero excuse for it. I was born on third base and certainly did not hit a triple; I was born into a family that cared for me and gave me unlimite opportunity and that lived in the greatest country in the world; not many have those same opportunities.

I agree with your President Ryan review, I loved that book and I particularly like how Congress and the Cabinet were reconstructed and made out of normal, motivated, intelligent citizens who cared about public service. Wouldn’t that be nice?

By Ga Liberal

March 8, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this

Lets see here. Hillary and Barack make ‘apparences’ at a black church (as has been done by many candidates both Republican and Democratic) and thats bad. But when Republicans used church roles for mailing lists and handed out campaign flyers to members as they were leaving and that’s ok. Now there was no concern by Mr. Wooten when the Republicans leveraged Christian wing-nuts on fake issues like gay marriage and attacks on Christianity. Yet, now that Democrats are making ‘appearences’ up go the red flags. Mr. Wooten cries out for ‘separation of Church and State,’ but Republicans say that it only exists in the minds of liberals. Me thinks there is a double standard here.

By Rick

March 8, 2007 1:48 PM | Link to this

Jim - Please tell me you are not asking for a shred of consistency from the left. They are hypocrites at the highest level, whether it is campaigning from the pulpit or decrying the accumulation of wealth in AMerica while the naitonal advocate of the poor John Edwards clear cuts dozens of acres of land in NC to build a 29,000 square foot palace. Just think about how many homeless people he could care for if he were just a greedy GOP businessman.

By MarkP

March 8, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this

Thinking independently on Mr. Wooten’s premises today:

On celebrity politicians: The not so subtle dig Mr. Wooten takes in his opening line on Clinton and Obama is silly. Let’s talk about Giuliani, Schwarzenneger, Gingrich, or the Holy One himself, Ronald Reagan.

On disrespect for faith from the media and the left: Let’s talk about Mitt Romney, and the source of most of the (public) complaints and suspicions about his faith. It’s not the media, Democrats, or the left: it’s his fellow Republicans, and their right-wing constituents, who have made attacks — some of them unscrupulous —at almost every public appearance and campaign he’s attended so far.

On the black church that moved into Mr. Wooten’s neighborhood: Let’s be careful. Mr. Wooten’s specific complaint was not related to a “black church” issue. I’m sure he’d claim that wasn’t his insinuation but the proximity of the two observations is irresponsible.

On Andrew Young’s actual message: Young’s message was fair play. Let’s not pretend that there have been many in both black and white churches who cited God’s Will and Approval in their implorations to vote for President Bush. It stands to reason that there’s an opposite viewpoint.

All that said, I’ll take Mr. Wooten’s allusions a step further: politicians holding or seeking office should be banned from speaking at churches, period. Unless it’s a debate attended by all parties, or part of an established spiritual ritual, hosting or allowing political speeches should jeopardize the churches’ nonprofit status.

By rarringt

March 8, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this

I think it would be helpful to keep in mind that Jim has said, on more than one occasion, that he is not a journalist. Journalism theoretically requires you to err on the side of objective impartiality.

Jim, on the other hand, is a columnist. He has opinions and clearly has no issues with sharing them. Further, he runs a blog whose success is predicated on engendering a response. It’s easier to do that when you take an extreme position.

If he didn’t, well, then he’d be Jim Osterman (of Around Sandy Springs fame). Don’t get me wrong, I like Osterman’s columns and blog, but his middle-of-the-road Lake Wobegon Days approach may, on a good week, get him about half a dozen responses. Jim, on the other hand averages between 100-200 a day (including weekends).

That may say a whole lot more about us than about Jim. Or Jim.

By Mid-South Philosopher

March 8, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this

While our Founders had a healthy respect for the Judeo-Christian Ethic, they understood that for a democratic republic to function, the power of religion must be relegated to the Celestial plane as opposed to the Terrestrial environment. To that end, they recognized the concept of God, officially, in the philosophical sense, but did not embrace any dogmatic or doctrinal view.

My conservative friends often tout that America is a Christian country. While this is incorrect, it is equally in error to view America as an atheistic or even an agnostic nation. America is a theistic country, allowing it citizens the right to select for themselves the “ism” or doctrine that they chose to embrace. Further, the nation provides the right for Americans to chose NO religion if they so desire.

Although Democrats have been doing it for over a century and Republican have taken up the process in the last 30 years or so, I get awfully nervous when a politician approaches the “pulpit.” But not half as nervous as I get when a whole gaggle of politicians approach a state legislature or the Congress…especially when we may have to put up with some of them for a half-century or more.

Therein lies the real danger.

By Fall Line

March 8, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this

The biggest problem I see with today’s comments is the references to “White” churches and to “Black” churches. My church is much more diverse than that.

By Jeff

March 8, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this

Southern:

Dale Brown has used two Presidents so far in his McLanahan series, Kevin Martindale and Thomas Thorn. Both have qualities that I like. (Martindale is often categorized by his enemies as a cowboy, but they can RARELY pin any of the actions he supports on US forces…. largely because until about 9 books in, no one knew of the weapons platforms that were being employed! Thorn is the Jeffersonian Republican.) If I had to choose between Thorn, Martindale, and Ryan though, I would go with Thorn as Pres, with Ryan as VP and Martindale as SecDef.

By Van

March 8, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this

RichieRich,

My word, a closet socialists or someone that hates each of us bettering ourselves.

A capitalists looks for return on investment, not pure profit.

By getalife

March 8, 2007 2:14 PM | Link to this

Senior Republicans who knew about problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center while their party controlled Congress insist they did all they could to prod the Pentagon to fix them.

Geez.

By Dusty

March 8, 2007 2:40 PM | Link to this

Oh how rediculous.

Jim Wooten is writing his OWN opinion. Whose opinion did you expect him to write? Yours?

As I see it here, liberals want churches to be political arenas.

Conservatives want churches to be a place of worship and inspiration for one’s faith.

Every action by a religious person is not necessarily connected to a church. That person has freedom of speech just like the atheist who can also say whatever comes to mind (read this blog).

The faith of each person is up to their personal decision. Christ told us to spread the gospel and then he added, if they do not want it, dust off your sandals and move on.

As to Jim visiting a church to hear Andrew Young, conservative meets liberal. Jim reported his reaction.

Now, if that doesn’t suit you, go to the drug store and buy a pacifier.

By Clay

March 8, 2007 2:43 PM | Link to this

rarringt at 1:58,

Right you are about Jim not being a journalist. He does have an opinion. However, I disagree with your statement that he has no issues with sharing them. He does.

A perfect example of this fact is the racial undertones of today’s blog that MarkP astutely picked up on. Jim and others who share his point of view claim to judge others “by the content of their character”, but they don’t. In lame attempts to maintain plausible deniability, they use not-so-subtly coded rhetoric to deliver messages that would leave them unemployed if they expressed themselves directly. Jim’s columns, as well those of other commentators from the right, market their bad ideas to the masses by creating and applying broad generalizations to appeal to our base emotions with the help of aides such as provocative word lists from Newt Gingrich or focus-group tested phrases supplied by Frank Luntz.

No. I’m afraid that manipulation and misinformation are the staples of Jim’s trade. Sharing their true opinions isn’t part of the job.

By OfCourseTheyDid

March 8, 2007 2:46 PM | Link to this

*Money is similarly tight at the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA’s budget for medical care has risen in the past few years—from $28.8 billion in FY 2006 to $29.3 billion in FY 2007 to a request for $34.2 billion in FY 2008—but this hasn’t been enough. In each of the past four years, according to a March 1 report by the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, the VA has systematically underestimated the number of veterans applying for benefits in the coming fiscal year. The result is a shortfall of $2.8 billion in the FY08 budget, just to cover the current level of medical services.

The administration is trying to make up for some of this by raising deductibles on prescription drugs (from $8 to $15) and by imposing an annual enrollment fee (ranging from $250 to $750)—in short, by shifting costs to the veterans themselves. (Even so, these charges would make up only $450 million, or about one-sixth of the shortfall.)*

By Jackie

March 8, 2007 2:51 PM | Link to this

Notice how we are speaking about the subject Mr. Wooten wants us to discuss. It seems that we should have robust discussions concerning the war in Iraq, the lack of oversight by the Congress, the 100,000 contractors (American mercenaries) in Iraq being paid $250,000 tax free dollars yearly. Should we force the facisits defend their decision to defend their 6 years of tyranny?

By Tara

March 8, 2007 2:56 PM | Link to this

Everybody following this discussion on religion should read this excellent article in today’s online version of USA Today. The headline is, “Americans get an ‘F’ in religion”.

Here’s the link (I hope it works):

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-03-07-teaching-religion-cover_N.htm

By Janine

March 8, 2007 3:09 PM | Link to this

Well said, MidSouth @2:04. The real danger to our democratic republic comes from * both parties* when either states that God is on their side, as Bush did when he spoke of the war in Iraq, and as Andy Young often does. Falwell and Robertson make “God” statements that are detrimental to all and are right up there with the outrageous and divisive statements of Louis Farrakhan. And Jeff….it’s really difficult for all of us who are of religions that don’t believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation to hear on a daily basis that Hell is holding a place for us

By Dusty

March 8, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this

rarringt

what makes you think that Jim’s opinion pieces are extreme? I don’t think they are.

Now if you want extreme, hustle on over to Luckovich’s where extreme is one big namecalling adventure. It is worthless except to our enemies who like to see Americans act like imbeciles.

By rarringt

March 8, 2007 3:25 PM | Link to this

Dusty said:

As I see it here, liberals want churches to be political arenas.

what makes you think that Jim’s opinion pieces are extreme? I don’t think they are.

Hmmm.

This is normally where someone left-of-Thinking-Right accuses Dusty of being hopelessly unaware or completely detached from the real world, but I’m not so sure anymore.

I’m really leaning towards believing Dusty’s postings are satire, much like those of Redneck Convert. You know, meant to poke fun yet elicit a response.

On the other hand, maybe Dusty is serious, but I’m not sure if that wouldn’t be crude satire (bordering on farce) as well, however unintentional.

By getalife

March 8, 2007 3:28 PM | Link to this

Cynthia Tucker - Atlanta Journal Constitution” to win a Pulitzer

By Van

March 8, 2007 3:31 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

If loving you is wrong, I don’t want to be right.

By rarringt

March 8, 2007 3:39 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

Just another vast left wing media conspiracy to give hack shill Cyndi Sucker some semblance of credibility, when all she does is encourage the liberal controlled government to tax us, hate on Jesus and give aid and comfort to the terrorists.

Dusty, before you reply on how glad you are that I’ve finally seen the light, I was just joking

Congrats to Ms. Tucker on the well deserved nomination (love her or hate her, she’s one heckuva writer), and let’s hope she wins.

By Van

March 8, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this

getalife,

A reward for being a good little socialist

By getalife

March 8, 2007 4:14 PM | Link to this

I think Jim should turn this blog over to her.

Looks like they are going after cheney and Rove

Excellent.

By Dusty

March 8, 2007 4:17 PM | Link to this

rarringt

Poor baby! You don’t have to analyze my opinion. It is neither crude satire, farce or any other label you would like call it. It simply does not agree with yours.

Glad you have an open mind, rarringt, from one ear to the other. ( Just a little joke, rarringt.)

By Dusty

March 8, 2007 4:26 PM | Link to this

Van,

Love lifts us up where we belong.

By Courtney

March 8, 2007 4:32 PM | Link to this

Although neither side of the debate is immune from name-calling or labeling, I’ve noticed that, slowly but surely, this blog is progressing with new posters from both sides of the aisle who choose to communicate with complete sentences, paragraphs, proper punctuation and original thoughts.

But then there’s Van who, devoid of any thoughtful commentary to contribute, continues to come out with “You’re a socialist.”, “She’s a socialist.”, “That’s socialism.”

Note to Van: That crap isn’t working anymore. For too long, somebody could avoid making a case and just shout words such as “liberal”, “socialist”, “freedom”, “patriot”, or “conservative” to have an impact. But most people have learned that rather than accepting such labels at face value, skepticism should kick in when they’re uttered. The credibility of those who continue to apply such generalizations is declining. I’m afraid you’re going to have to start making a cogent argument if you hope to persuade. Good luck!

By Van

March 8, 2007 4:38 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Actually I think the lefties fear Churches. IMHO, I think they see them encroaching on their power base. if people were less dependent on the feds, then the dems would not have the power they so desperately want and need.

If their goal is total control by the Government of everyday life, then the churches would then be a threat they can not ignore.

As I see it, they want your children in their schools from pre-k (3-4 year olds) until they graduate from the state colleges.

They want control of all aspects medical care and are exerting more and more control over the health care industry through rules and regulations.

Yes, a person that has faith is a danger to all good little lefties. Why else would they hate us so.

By Van

March 8, 2007 4:40 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Squeeze my lemon til the juice runs down my leg.

By Van

March 8, 2007 4:56 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Please forgive the ill bred bumpkin that is using my id for other than proper posting.

Sorry that some low life is trying to insult or be rude to you.

By Dusty

March 8, 2007 5:00 PM | Link to this

Courtney,

Are you the same Courtney that works for AJC? There was one and I thought you might be the same.

Van’s comments are usually correct. Was he incorrect this time? Has his freedom of speech been voided?

There was a bit of skepticism with your cogent argument when you labeled his opinion “crap”.

I will not give you my opinion of Ms.Tucker and THE prize because you probably don’t like the word liberal. Also I will not mention the decline in subscriptions to AJC or the loss of credibility for a Pulitzer Prize. I will be good and cozy up to cogent!!

By Dusty

March 8, 2007 5:02 PM | Link to this

Van,

Let’s meet at the All-You-Can-Eat buffet again this weekend. You know the place.

By Dusty

March 8, 2007 5:04 PM | Link to this

Van,

No problem. I knew it wasn’t you.

By the way, are you going to let me shoot your pistol again this weekend?

By Van

March 8, 2007 5:11 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

You can shoot my pistol as long as you clean and oil the barrel first.

By Van

March 8, 2007 5:14 PM | Link to this

Courtney,

I sense a bit of anger, is it hitting too close to home? Yes, most far left believers are for the government taking control of our lives, socialism, as a transition from capitalism to communism.

Marx had a lot going for his thoughts on a better life for the working man, that is until the modern middle class began to show up. With the emerging middle class, you know, neither exploited or exploiter, he had to sit back and take another look.

Marx was an idealist that refused to take a look at the human weaknesses. While to each according to their needs, and from each according to their means, sounded nice and gave people a sense of well being, the truth is it will never, never work. Human nature is such, that we are all lazy and will do a little as possible, unless there is a motivation - and that is to be independent and free.

So when I refer to the lefties as socialists, if the shoe fits …

By Courtney

March 8, 2007 5:15 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Sorry to interrupt…I see you’re making plans for the weekend.

You’re defense of Van is oddly chivalrous, but if he needs you to come to his defense, then you’ve kind of proven my point.

(No, I don’t work for the AJC, and I’ve noticed that you have a pattern of accusing people of being somebody they’re not. I don’t know what you hope to accomplish by doing that, but okay.)

By John D

March 8, 2007 5:16 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Lose the zero and get with a hero. I have a double-barrell shotgun instead of a pistol and I will take you to Golden Corral instead of the Dwarf House.

By Dusty

March 8, 2007 5:17 PM | Link to this

Would somebody please put the children to bed?

By Michael

March 8, 2007 5:20 PM | Link to this

Oh, go sit on it Jim. You really are a dick.

By Barbara

March 8, 2007 5:21 PM | Link to this

Van, anyone who reads your posts knows exactly when the ID stealer is at work. Looks like it’s posing as Dusty and creating some sort of relationship so it can live vicariously through both of you. How sad for it, to have to assume other folks’ lives in order to feel good.

By Van and Logic = Oil and Water

March 8, 2007 5:21 PM | Link to this

“far left believers”, Marx, socialism, communism, “independent and free”, lefties

So many words…so little said.

By Dusty

March 8, 2007 5:29 PM | Link to this

John D,

Wow. I don’t know what to think. Van is a brave man with a gun who defeats socialists on the internet and you have a shotgun and a backyard underground bunker for the coming Islamist invasion.

I also prefer Golden Corral to the Dwarf House. I don’t know…..I’m torn. I just need time to think…..

By Shar

March 8, 2007 5:37 PM | Link to this

Van: “most far left believers are for the government taking control of our lives”? Isn’t it the conservative Republicans in the Georgia Legislature who are trying their best to force pregnant women seeking abortions to have meaningless ultrasounds first? And the Georgia taxpayer to fund it? While PeachCare fails?

I think that the most extreme factions of any group, right or left, are in favor of their ideas being forced onto others, usually because they are devout in their beliefs, cannot negotiate or compromise, and can’t find enough fringe adherents to voluntarily adopt the idea. This frustration, and self absorption, drives most extremists, whether they are homicidal mullahs, rabid trade unionists or Right To Lifers with a gun (see Eric Rudolph).

By Sonny

March 8, 2007 5:39 PM | Link to this

Van at 5:14,

Take it up with Stalin. There are no closet Communists here. Just fellow Americans who are trying to figure out how to make a great country even better. If you don’t agree, then you don’t agree — but your ridiculous labeling and lectures on Marxism only serve to demonstrate the extent of your shallowness and stupidity.

Courtney is absolutely right about you. You’re “independent and free” BS is exactly that.

By Van

March 8, 2007 5:40 PM | Link to this

John D,

Back off. The girl is mine.

By John D

March 8, 2007 5:42 PM | Link to this

Van,

Back off partner. There is a new gunman in town. You better recognize.

By Dusty

March 8, 2007 5:45 PM | Link to this

Guys,

Please stop fighting. I am a one-gun type of girl. I just need some time alone to think.

By Dusty

March 8, 2007 5:48 PM | Link to this

Barbara at 5:15,

You are correct. Sounds like the same people show up every afternoon. I think their goal is to run off or belittle conservatives and confuse the blog. Unless you have some kind of registry for bloggers there’s no screening.

I am sure John D was not commenting either. You see, they don’t pick liberals to steal IDs from. Just conservatives.

By jbmlaw

March 8, 2007 5:51 PM | Link to this

Dear Courtney @ various times, I am a great fan of Van. Van has a clear philosophy of the world, one close enough to my own that I can rarely find any cause to disagree.

You accuse Van of name-calling in that he uses the “socialist” term. The term has a specific meaning, and you leftists are just going to have to get over that.

A “socialist” is anyone who thinks government can do anything competently, excluding our standard exceptions: killing, stealing, and deprivation of liberty - we acknowledge that government performs those functions exceptionally well. Those of us opposition to your view believe there is nothing else that private enterprise cannot do better.

I am truly sorry that you reject the socialist label, but any label you may embrace for your ideology would quickly become an epithet. It was perfectly acceptable to be a socialist in this country until Stalin and Hitler showed the world the highest socialist potential. Then your clan embraced “liberalm” a gross corruption of the traditional term for one who favored limited government, and of course that is approbation now.

By jbmlaw

March 8, 2007 5:53 PM | Link to this

Dear Shar @ 5:37, let me introduce you to libertarianism, with a small “L.” We give tutorials here daily.

By Dusty

March 8, 2007 5:54 PM | Link to this

Barbara,

They’re jealous because conservatives have more sex than liberals do.

By Sonny

March 8, 2007 5:57 PM | Link to this

Dusty wrote, “they don’t pick liberals to steal IDs from. Just conservatives.”

The problem with this statement is that, despite her claims to the contrary, Dusty is anything but a conservative. She doesn’t even know what the word means. It’s just a label she adopted when it became popular.

You better go now Dusty. You don’t want to miss the last hour of Hannity on the radio. Otherwise, you might be forced to think for yourself.

By Sonny

March 8, 2007 6:07 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

Your comparison of the views of those you disagree with to those of Stalin and Hitler only confirm Courtney’s observations about Van (and those like him) who can’t carry on an intelligent debate and therefore must, out of desperation, resort to demonization.

See my 5:39 post to Van. My comments there apply to you too.