The genius of mail call and this area:
“Inmate population, 9,000. If we can’t have religion in our schools, which is greatly needed, why in the world do we allow it in the prisons? ... Why do we allow religion in the prisons, and not in the schools?”
Maybe because in prisons no one is forced to sit through a service? Maybe because there is this little clause called separation of church and state in the constitution?
If you want your kids to have a religious education send them to private school. You have an option, don't complain if you don't want to take it.
So the official election results have been available for several days now:
http://www.washco-md.net/election/2008Gen.htm
And to no surprise the McCain / Palin ticket won the majority in the county. What amazes me though is the fact that so many people in this area thought they would actually benefit from John McCain. I read the following in an article in the Herald Mail a few days ago:
David Peters, 27, of Hagerstown, disagreed. He said a majority of Washington County residents voted for McCain because the Arizona senator had more experience.
“(McCain) knows more about politics,” Peters said. “Obama didn’t know a lot. All he wanted to do was raise taxes. I wouldn’t have liked that. Now, it’s going to happen.”
I would love to know if David actually is making more than $250,000 per year. My money is on he is not making even a third of that. The simple fact is that Western Maryland average incomes have never benefited from republican policy. The vast majority of people out here are not executives but working class folks that need all the breaks they can get. When the median household income hovers around $35,000 per year, I find it hard to believe why someone would support a candidate whose tax plan pretty much only reduced capital gains taxes on people who make a lot of money with investments.
The fact is that most people did not choose McCain because they thought he "is the better man" as the article suggests. People in Washington county chose McCain and Palin because they hold much more conservative religious beliefs and he has Military service on his record. While there is nothing wrong with either, it is hard to say if they make him a better man than Barack Obama for leading a country. The presidency is about making policy, not determining Military strategy and tactics on the ground, nor is the presidency about setting the religious standards in this country.
When it comes down to who is the better person for the presidency, the better person is the one who can energize people, talk eloquently, rally the support of foreign nations and present a much more inviting face to the rest of the world. Not to mention make intelligent policy decisions without relying on only one strength to guide them such as military experience. It's time for America to realize that in order to be effective, we must utilize diplomacy but maintain the threat of military force, utilizing it only sparingly as needed. As Teddy Roosevelt said, "speak softly and carry a big stick."
Better to have people fear what you could do, then show what you can. I think Barack will understand this along with the rest of his military and policy team. I think this is something that someone not so ingrained in the military culture of the country can truly understand and utilize to great effect.
So do we have the best person from the candidates possible entering the White House? Yes, I think we do. Is he young and somewhat untested on the world stage? Absolutely. Is this such a bad thing? No it is not. Barack has a lot to prove and a lot to live up to, but bringing a non-insider attitude to the White House is a plus. He also has the presence of mind to surround himself with some of the greatest political and military thinkers of this era which will provide him with advice for the situations he has never faced in his own life. This will be a collaboration, a truly team effort and one that should make us all proud since pooling the strengths of individuals is what makes America so strong. I believe we will be proven to be strong once again in the coming four years as well.
When asked about gun rights, Janet Huckabee said the U.S. Constitution's second amendment is about more than sport shooting. She said the amendment was created to allow people to protect themselves and should remain that way."If someone wants to keep an AK-47 in their house, they should be allowed to. I have a .38 (caliber), .40-caliber Sig (Sauer) and a 9 mm Glock," Janet Huckabee said.
Janet Huckabee stumps for husband in Washington County today - The Herald-Mail Online - News for Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia
Yet another reason not to vote for Mike Huckabee and another reason why he won't win. He and his wife can keep their AK-47's in Arkansas and away from me, my family and my future children. No one needs an AK-47, NO ONE.
I dare Mike Huckabee to try and argue this point in open debate about why you should need an assault rifle with armor piercing bullets in your home. Better yet, let's send both him and his wife over to Iraq and Afghanistan to see how well they fare with their AK-47 rifles then if they are so great, I bet they wouldn't last 15 minutes but it would be a way to introduce them to what religious fanaticism is when mixed with weapons. It's funny how we could essentially get the same atmosphere in the US so easily if we did not keep people like him out of national public office, after all apparently he is a big proponent of both religion and guns which is exactly what you have in the middle east.
