71 comments

  1. “Clergy should be allowed to pray in public.”

    Yes, but I would submit that praying in public is different from starting every commission meeting with a prayer – where people who are there to keep tabs on the goings on of their government must sit and listen to the prayer. How many times, I wonder, have they had a Muslim prayer? Or someone from the Church of Satan?

    After all, satanists should be allowed to pray in public…

    • Doug Grammer says:

      Even though the law allows for it, saying things like “After all, satanists should be allowed to pray in public…,” will ensure that your party won’t break 5%. Keep up the good (satanic) work!

      • Well, I’m not doing any satanic work… sorry to disappoint you Doug. 😛 I’m just pointing out the fallacy in the argument of “Clergy should be allowed to pray in public.” After all, I’m sure the leaders of the Satanic church or whatever they call themselves would consider themselves clergy as well.

          • I figured as much… I responded anyways as some people here take everything seriously. I’d hate for someone to think me a satanist when I’m not. I tend to lean more towards the agnostic point of view. (The “I don’t know and you don’t really know either. You might think you know… have a strong suspicion… have a very strong faith, etc. But the people who worshipped their gods in Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc. years ago believed just as fervently as Christians that their religions were the only accurate and true religions. I’m not saying there’s not a God, but I’m not saying that there is one either.”)

        • hannah says:

          Anyone can pray whenever and wherever it suits their fancy, or not. Prayer is not an activity requiring a permit or permission. But, that’s not the issue. The issue is whether other people are going to be held hostage and forced to attend to a private activity.

          If memory serves, in the olden days royal thrones were outfitted with pots so the attendant courtiers could bear witness to the king’s human functions.

          Exposing one’s privates in public is a power play, usually perpetrated by individuals who are personally insecure. Why else would one need to call on a deity to help get the attention of an audience?

            • BuckheadConservative says:

              haha, ya know, everytime I see a comment by Hannah I start to read it b/c I think they’re absurd and funny….then I get half way through it and just scratch my head and quit. Glad someone else has the same reaction.

              • Lady Thinker says:

                I do the same thing BC. She is so out there that I wonder if she is on an acid trip from the sixties, or if she has Alzheimers, or if constant Marijuana use has finally stripped her brain of reality.

                Oh, and so I don’t threadjack, I voted for Max Wood because in my opinion, I think Olens is just not qualified for the AG position.

                • Doug Grammer says:

                  I don’t consider it a thread jack if posts naturally gravitates to another topic. If the thread is Olens goes on TV, and the first post is “I hate bananas,” that’s a thread jack.

                  However, if the thread is Olens goes on TV, and the first post is “I think Sam’s commercial is cute,” the second post is “monkeys are cute, but Sam isn’t,” the third say something about bananas, then a post that “I hate bananas” isn’t a thread jack, IMO.

                  If the moderators disagree with me, I blame them for a lack of rules of PP being posted. If what I described is a thread jack, then I am guilty of it repeatedly.

    • Joshua Morris says:

      Like it or not, this Nation was not founded on muslim or satanic principles, but on Christian principles. Christian prayer has been a part of government proceedings at multiple levels since the United States was formed. There is religious freedom, however, and if a community wants muslim, satanic, buddhist, or church of elvis prayers at their commission meetings, they have the right to do so.

      • Founded on Christian principles huh? So what ever did this world do before Christ? What about ancient Rome and Greece? I bet they didn’t have any laws against killing, stealing, etc. Because, as you and others suggest, those are Christian principles, right?

        • Oh, and as a further thought… it seems to me I’ve read somewhere that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were hemp farmers. I’m sure you obviously would agree that we need to go back to hemp farming being legal… since this nation was founded with it being legal and all… right?

          • “The Ten Commandments (also called the Decalogue) were given to Moses, the great leader of the Hebrews, over 3,000 years ago after the Hebrews were delivered from slavery in Egypt.”

            So are you saying that say 4,000 years ago nobody had any form of moral compass to live by because Moses didn’t exist yet? That people were free to kill each other or harm one another because this Decalogue didn’t exist yet? Are you saying that if you didn’t have the ten commandments and the Bible to live by that you would probably think killing and stealing is okay?

            Good luck with your theory… I think I’ll stick with reality.

            • Joshua Morris says:

              Here’s some reality for you: Greece didn’t have laws 4,000 years ago (first one was written in 620 BC–2,630 years ago). Before that, murder victims’ families would go kill the person they thought did it.

              Roman society didn’t have written law until the middle of the fifth century BC–approximately 2,550 years ago. Before that, local lords or kings were the law.

              Moses received the Ten Commandments around 1,500 BC–approximately 3,500 years ago. Researching this stuff isn’t that hard.

              • You’re right. It’s not hard to research this stuff… if only I was more interested in it. But you might want to read a little more carefully. I don’t believe I mentioned the word “law” once. I said “moral compass to live by” and that people were free to kill one another.

                Sure, legally they might have been able to kill one another. But they knew the consequences of their actions. Just because there wasn’t a law didn’t mean they were free to go kill someone without any consequences. The survivor’s family would enact justice themselves because a moral wrong had been done. Right? So they knew that killing was wrong even though they didn’t have your precious ten commandments. You see, it doesn’t take a Bible to know wrong from right. Just because you require a Bible to tell you what you should and shouldn’t do doesn’t mean that everyone else does.

              • Joshua Morris says:

                We’ve gone way off the beaten path of my original point. Keep your heads in the sand if you like.

                • I don’t think we’ve gone way off the beaten path at all. Your suggestion was that this country was founded on Christian principles. Sure the whole “thou shalt not kill” and “thou shalt not steal” thing are in the Bible. But my argument was that people would have created those laws with or without Moses. Of course, the debate could always be had as to whether Moses really was talking to a supernatural being, was high or whether he just came up with them himself up on Mount Sinai. But that’s another topic for another day.

                  • Joshua Morris says:

                    My suggestion is true based on direct quotes from John Adams, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, and many others.

                    You’re correct that laws, as tyrannical as they may have been, were created before Moses and would still have been made without him, but this does not prove that those commandments have not had a profound effect on the civilized world, especially these United States.

  2. Progressive Dem says:

    Prayer at Commission meetings builds a bridge to the Christian right. A must-pander-group for this candidate. He sounds like he is in favor of prayer in schools. Is he? He opened the door to that questioning.

    • Provocateur says:

      Are you against school children being allowed to pray before a test or to say grace over their lunch?

      • Well, I’m not doing any satanic work… sorry to disappoint you Doug. 😛 I’m just pointing out the fallacy in the argument of “Clergy should be allowed to pray in public.” After all, I’m sure the leaders of the Satanic church or whatever they call themselves would consider themselves clergy as well.

        • dagnabbit… that was supposed to have posted up above…

          Provocateur – are you talking about a teacher leading a prayer before a test or say grace over lunch or allowing children to pray quietly to themselves. Because if commission meetings simply allowed people to pray quietly to themselves instead of having a prayer led by a clergyman, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

          • Provocateur says:

            David, I’m just asking Progressive Dem to clarify what he/she is saying. He/she is the one who made the statement “[Olens] sounds like he is in favor of prayer in schools.”

            I’m asking Progressive what kind of “prayer” he is referring to. Do you mind if I do that?

            • Progressive Dem says:

              My question for Mr. Olens is: does he favor the state leading a prayer in public schools?

  3. EllisArnall says:

    I actually really liked the ad. Better than most of the others I have seen. Sam Olens is great for this office.

  4. JDW says:

    I have seen more impressive work in a kindergartner’s finger-paintings. This was Sam’s chance to give voters a look at his experience as an attorney, instead he only talked about what he would do while in office; that’s fine so long as it’s coupled with experience so people can say “well, he’s done it before, he can do it again.”

    Remember when Obama was elected based on his promises of what he’d do while in office? That turned out to be a disaster, because he had no experience with the responsibilities that came with the office he was running for. Sam has no experience with criminal prosecution so how can we expect Sam to enforce the immigration laws?

    Also, I agree with theSituation, this commercial lacked luster.

    • Provocateur says:

      As I recall, it is district attorneys who are responsible for enforcing criminal laws. The attorney general’s office is more about managing a bunch of civil law attorneys, and, on occasion, stepping-in to handle a conflict-of-interest matter where a DA might not be able to prosecute due to specific circumstances. Usually, that case gets re-assigned to a DA in another circuit.

      Contrary to popular misconception, the state AG’s office is not “justice department” like the one in D.C. is.

      • JDW says:

        Here is the list of responsbilities required of Georgia’s Attorney General, It is the duty of the Attorney General:
        (1) When required to do so by the Governor, to give his opinion in writing, or otherwise, on any question of law connected with the interest of the state or with the duties of any of the departments;
        (2) When he deems it advisable, to prepare all contracts and writings in relation to any matter in which the state is interested;
        (3) When required to do so by the Governor, to participate in, on behalf of the state, all CRIMINAL actions in any court of competent jurisdiction when the district attorney thereof is being prosecuted, and all other CRIMINAL or civil actions to which the state is a party;
        (4) To act as the legal adviser of the executive branch;
        (5) To represent the state in all capital FELONY actions before the Supreme Court. O.C.G.A. § 45-15-3.

        In addition, Georgia’s Judiciary Act of 1797 provided for an Attorney General, whose duty was primarily the prosecution of criminals.

        Contrary to your assertion Georgia’s Department of Law has a Criminal Justice Division. Get your facts straight, Sam-bot… I mean, Provocateur.

        Also, if immigration is not criminal matter handled by the Attorney General, why is Sam Olens talking about it in his commercial?

      • JDW says:

        Also, Sam Olens says he’s big on prayer but he invited an atheist to pray before a meeting and then claims he was surprised that the atheist would make offensive comments. What did you think Buckner was gonna do, Sam? honor God? http://www.ajc.com/news/cobb/atheist-gives-invocation-at-103965.html

        I say let the atheist speak if you want to, so as not to suppress his freedom to speak, but don’t call it an invocation. An invocation is a time of prayer, and prayer is sacred and should be so kept.

        • Provocateur says:

          JDW,

          An “invocation” can be one of the following:

          1) the act or process of petitioning for help or support
          2) a prayer of entreaty (as at the beginning of a service of worship)
          3) a calling upon for authority or justification

          The atheist has the right to petition for help in this country, does he not?

          • JDW says:

            Provocateur,

            That is a pathetic attempt to construe the meaning of invocation to mean a request of help from anyone but God. Multiple definitions of a word must be read consistently with one another. Secular dictionaries discount the role of God, so I’m not surprised to find God is not mentioned in any of the definitions but I can assure you that the official term invocation as a formal ceremony means asking God for help, praying God will be present, and calling on God as the authority.

            Mr. Buckner was not there to request help from Cobb County, he was there to redicule prayer.

    • hannah says:

      Immigration is not a crime. Immigration is the entry of a foreign national into the United States with the intent of taking up permanent residence and a willingness to take on the obligations of citizenship. Just landing in the country without enough money to hire lodging, food and transport is not immigration. Besides, it’s not a state issue.
      That said, Obama wasn’t elected on the basis of promises of what he would do in office, but on the assertion that he would carry out the duties of the office, as specified in the Constitution. It was a promise of change only because the prior administration had clearly failed to do what the Constitution demands. The party of ‘no’ is aptly named because the people who operate under its banner don’t do what they are supposed to do.
      George W. Bush, quite rightly, proclaimed that he had a “mandate.” He simply failed to understand that he was under orders to work, not take naps.
      “Paper or plastic” calls for a decision. It’s not a recipe for directing an administration.

  5. HowardRoark says:

    His positioning in the general versus Hodges:

    Not a politician or a prosecutor…a prayer.

        • Charles Rehberg says:

          Melb, Charles Rehberg = Charles Rehberg. I do NOT post under “Jack Smith”. I do agree with Jack’s assessment of Ken Hodges. There are MANY people that see Hodges for what he really is. Note that a friend sent me a link to this so that I could set the record straight.

  6. GOPwits says:

    Really? Seriously? Ugh… No real issues here, just playing with rhetoric over prayer…

    Georgia doesn’t need just another politician as Attorney General. It needs someone like Max Wood who served as a US Attorney and who helped build the Iraqi Justice System. Someone who can stand up toe to toe with either Democrat running and win.

    Sam Olens is just another pandering politician.

  7. Doug Deal says:

    Sam Olens was the catalyst that had me re-evaluate what I think it means to be a social conservative. On the outside, he balanced budgets and seemed to care about the checkbook of Cobb county, but his stressing of being a “Fiscal” conservative put into perspective a number of very unattractive things this guy supports that isn’t about fiscal policy at all. It made me realize I vote on social conservative issues just as much as fiscal conservative issues.

    Sam is an ardent supporter of “getting people out of our cars”. He wants to “encourage” people to ride mass transit (see ARC). This encourage, of course, is using the power of government to enact land use restrictions and other coersion to make living in 30 story high rise condos more attractive.

    I have seen videos posted on youtube by ARC whre he has said we could solve our transportation issues if the leaders got into a room and decided things away from the audience. The audience he was referring to were the voters and people who would have to live under their Utopic vision.

    I have also seen ARC members say that Atlanta needs to be modeled after NYC and people should not be allowed to build on half acre lots. They stress green space, but it is a city park built in the shadow of those 30 story high-rises that they have in mind. I have all the green space I want, a full acre of trees and grass where I am occassionally visited by deer, bunnies and other furry creatures instead of pan-handlers, crime and other big city problems.

    He has also been active on the water issues. This is commendable in theory, but his ideas are things like suggesting that kids turn off the water when they brush their teeth. This is liberal feel-good nonsense. That amounts to such a tiny amount of water compared to that wasted on landscaping, commercial use and just waste from leaky pipes that it has no effect worth mentioning.

    In all, none of these Utopic visionary issues are truly fiscal conservatism. They are nanny state social liberalism where someone in the government thinks they can run your life better than you can.

    I’ll take none please.

    • Provocateur says:

      Doug Deal,

      You started off your commentary by stating you re-evaluated what it meant to be a “social conservative.” Then you launched into a discussion on fiscal conservatism. Then you end with a discussion on Utopia. Are there some paragraphs missing in your post? Very difficult to follow, to say the least.

      • Doug Deal says:

        Sorry about the previous entry, lagging Android phone while walking does not make a good blogging tool, despite what one would think.

        The bottom part is about a side of social conservatism that isn’t about God and abortion, it is about the government staying out of our lives and letting individuals live as they choose instead of how a government busy body (Olens) thinks is best for you. His Utopia is how he views the world, the problems is how everyone else does.

        Before Olens, I always thought the line between the two was more clear, but lifestyle issues are more social policy than economic policy. His constant stress on being a ” (pause) Economic (pause)” conservative got me to think more about it.

        If being elected AG, means this

    • girlygrrll says:

      “I have seen videos posted on youtube by ARC whre he has said we could solve our transportation issues if the leaders got into a room and decided things away from the audience. The audience he was referring to were the voters and people who would have to live under their Utopic vision.”

      Sounds like the Judge’s ruling to keep water negotiations secret:
      http://www.ajc.com/news/judge-states-water-talks-270323.html

      Hmmm

    • Progressive Dem says:

      Doug

      Have you ever noticed how much easier the commute in metro Atlanta is on Columbus Day, or some other obscure holiday that most people don’t observe? Congestion is improved by just a few people not driving. If transit ridership increased so that 15% of the trips were taken by train, bus or shuttle, traffic would be dramitically improved in metro Atlanta. Nobody expects the majority of people to stop driving cars, but if a larger number of people could use some alternative, it would be huge improvement. (Lessening our depenence on oil has lots of national security and enviornmental benefits, too.)

      ARC and the Water Planning District have emphaiszed the need to reduce outdoor watering by pricing. Every city and county water supplier except Waleska has adopted new water rates. If you turn on the sprinkler in the summer, you are going to pay. As a result of their emphasis on rates (and it is their primary emphasis) water consumption has declined. Changing the public’s attitude about abundant, cheap water is important. We must also demonstrate to Alabama, Florida and the rest of Georgia that metro Atlanta is conserving water.

  8. The Comma Guy says:

    And how big is that “Criminal Justice Division”? Are you talking about the one that handles most of the habeas petitions, all the death penalty appeals, and represents the Dept of Corrections, Board of Pardons and Paroles, and Medicare Fraud? Or are you talking about the 4 or 5 attorneys who primarily prosecute multi-jurisdictional mortgage fraud, government corruption, and conflict cases?

    Either way, the bulk of the attorneys in the Department of Law are civil attorneys (including all of the above mentioned ones with the exception of that small group). They are specialists in their area of government law. But they are not prosecutors. Those are the district attorneys and solicitor generals. And they don’t take their marching orders from 40 Capital Square.

    • JDW says:

      If your comment is conveying a concern about Max Wood’s ability to manage civil attorneys, this should put that to rest. As United States Attorney, for eight years, Max managed civil attorneys who practiced in the areas of medical malpractice, employment discrimination, bankruptcy, constitutional law, financial litigation, civil asset forfeiture, simple negligence, liens (tax liens, mortgages, etc.), and entitlement programs administered by U.S. Agencies in addition to supervising criminal attorneys.

      • The Comma Guy says:

        Yes, Wood has the experience managing a similar type office. However, in pandering to the GOP right wing, he stated he would lobby the Georgia Legislature to overturn Rowe v. Wade. As I stated, we don’t need an AG who is going to be a puppet and pick and choose which laws he is and is not going to defend or enforce. If Wood wants to change the law, he needs to run for the Legislature rather than a position in the Executive Branch.

        • JDW says:

          I agree one must go to the legislature for laws to be changed. Max Wood said in response to a question that the General Assembly is consering passing a law that flies in the face of Roe v. wade would you enforce that law, his repsonse was “Absolutely.” Here’s the video: http://multimedia.dailyreportonline.com/2010/05/max-wood-at-the-ag-forum-question-5/

          Max does wait for the legislature to act before enforcing laws. Olens panders to the corwd. For instance, at the NAACP event at Southern Poly, Olens was pandering to the folks there that Thurbert Baker should not have enforced the law but Max said Baker was right in enforcing the law even though Max knew it would be unpopular with that crowd. Max won respect that night from an unlikely crowd to support a Republican.

          Max understands the Attorney General position better than the other two Republican candidates. Max understands that part of being Attorney General means enforcing laws that conflict with personal views. Sam, on the other hand, broadcasts his support for prayer and uses Christian pastors in his commercial to show the Christian Republican base that he’s a man of faith… where are the rabbis, Sam? Who is the one pandering, Comma?

          Sam has to talk about prayer (which has nothing to do with being AG) because he has not practiced law in ten years and when it comes to experience for Attorney General, Max Wood blows Sam Olens out of the water. It is not even a contest.

  9. hannah says:

    I used to consider myself a fiscal conservative because I didn’t waste money by spending it on things I could do for myself. More recently I’ve come to realize that what’s to be conserved is control of our currency by the financial class, the banksters and the insurers who funnel the currency to them, in the interest of relieving the majority of the population of as much of it as possible.
    Control of the supply of money by insuring that some people have it and others don’t has turned out to be a most convenient screen behind which the traditional social strata can be retained and refined with hardly any notice.
    That the people who were deprived before (children, women, foreign-born and elders) are the same kind of people being deprived now is not a happenstance. The mentality that used to deposit the week’s earnings at the pub or the race track is the same one that funnels money into Wall Street and foreign bank accounts.
    “Not enough money” to do the things one is obligated to do is such a handy excuse. It’s right up there with “God’s will” and more easily demonstrated by emptying one’s pockets.
    There’s a wonderful phrase by an economist,

    when the work of men moved out of the household

    wonderful because it totally ignores that those left behind were now stuck with a host of responsibilities which, because they were unpaid were not considered significant, or even work. It’s also wonderful as a prime example of how inanimate entities such as “work” can be personalized and assigned functions they clearly don’t have, leaving us with the conclusion that nobody’s responsible. Work moved then and oil spills now and the human agency is nowhere in evidence.
    In considering the knowledge of good and evil with which mankind has been blessed, we overlooked that not knowing and refusing to attend is an alternative. It’s what the party of ‘no’ represents best.

Comments are closed.