When I read your post, I was struck by three thoughts: surprise, fascination, and a question.

My surprise was the originality of your thoughts. Normally I see repetitive drivel (moral inconsistencies (#79), stereotypical responses (#80), simplistic platitudes (#83), etc) devoid of logic or originality. Like a mantra that if said over and over; it becomes true. Your antidote, however was nothing of the sort and strikes me as genuine and true.

I was fascinated because I learned something (or I think I did anyway); probably the Black Panther members were there because they were worried about voter intimidation. How ironic.

A question for you: should not all voters have the courtesy of being allowed to vote without a man armed with a club acting as a “greeter”?

I wish you well MissDrea. Regards to your parents (for what it’s worth, it seems to me they did a great job)–

Maybe, but maybe not.

Quick stroy:
Two soldiers, they hate each other. Platoon sergeant places them on the same foxhole detail. Nighttime. RPG falls into the foxhole. Does not detonate, but smoking. One soldier dives on the RPG to prevent the concussion blast and shrapnel for getting the other. Turns out the RPG is a dud, both live. Today, they are best friends and inseparable. Weird how that works.

Sorta happened on 9/11 nation-wide.

Didn’t last though. Weird how that works.

Calling it a night JD—thanks again for all your kind words, take care–

You say: “In 2000 when there were election challenges in Florida, Al Gore was called Sore Loserman.”

Al Gore was a sore loser (although I am unfamiliar with the term “Loserman”).

Please contrast his behavior to Senator McCain’s behavior.

Like Senator McCain, I too believe we must support President-elect Obama (and I do).

However, I will ALWAYS refuse to support voter intimidation regardless of which candidate/party benefits (or even if there is no benefit, as is the case here). Our most sacred principle as Americans is the right to vote (and all that that implies – i.e. without intimidation).

An armed man in the uniform of a militant organization at a polling place is wrong (now, forever, and always).

As a fellow American, I trust you would join me in condemning this intimidation.

I am not certain what argument you are trying to make: a) two wrongs make a right, b) a wrong that does not affect everyone is not a wrong, or c) you do not understand why intimidation is wrong.

In short:
a) Your proposition is morally illogical.
b) If one or more of our fellow citizens is intimidated from voting, it is an attack on all of us (E Pluribus Unum – out of Many, One).
c) Cannot help you here.

Resorting to specious rhetoric (and offensive stereotypes of people that you do not know) is the hallmark of someone insecure in his ideas and intellectually unable to argue in a logical manner; similar to the definition of a bigot.

Knowledge, learning, and tolerance may be able to overcome your deficient moral capacity and it is my hope that you might someday acquire these qualities.

Good luck to you James—

In other words, the HuffPo blogger is lying. Whaddya know about that?

In 2000 when there were election challenges in Florida, Al Gore was called Sore Loserman.

I’m just watching the shoe put itself on the other foot right now.

You mean that McCain is suing to try to steal the Presidency? I missed that.