In other news today...

Lying witness who said Mike Brown had his hands up was arrested:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/06/us/dorian-johnson-arrested/

And maybe this is the bigger problem in Batimore:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/6/only-16-of-baltimore-county-teens-grow-up-with-bot/
(For those that won't click, only 16% of Baltimore teens were raised by married parents, one of the worst percentages in the country)

I got these from non-conservative sites, just for you bleeding hearts. OMG the Muslims are mad about cartoons, I think they were instigated in trying to MURDER people. Makes perfect sense.

HitsRus;1727372 wrote:So flag burning should be illegal because it incites?

That's what I am asking. A lot of people will get all bent out of shape about this and act like it shouldn't be allowed but have no other problem with other things. I've asked others this before. To me it's hypocritical to get up in arms about others (that they don't agree with) to exercise their rights, but it's patriotic(or w/e you want to call it) for those that they agree with to exercise theirs. I hope that makes sense.

To the topic of this thread, I have no problem with people drawing Muhammad. I've actually been really pissed off in the past when cartoons decided not to. I remember South Park did MANY years ago, but now you can't even find the Super Best Friends episode. I also thought it was stupid for Sony not to show The Interview because of fear from North Korea (maybe it was a publicity stunt on their end; I don't know). I truly feel that you shouldn't cowher down expressing yourself because someone might get butt hurt about it.

^^^^I think the answer is plain as day. Obviously, (just consider Belly's reaction) flag burning incites patriotic Americans at least as much as 'blaspheming' Muhammed does to Muslims. Flag burning is protected under the Constitution. Religious displays on non government property are allowed and protected no matter how distatsteful they may be to some groups.

isadore;1727411 wrote:you are wrong. In the Muslim cartoon had no threat of violence. As can be seen in the case of Smith v Collins the Nazis could march through a pre dominantly Jewish community. And the Westboro church won their case.

The drawing of the cartoon is what sparked the anger. As far as WBC goes, look how many states and the federal government passed laws to prohibit picketing within so many feet of funerals.

HitsRus;1727486 wrote:^^^^I think the answer is plain as day. Obviously, (just consider Belly's reaction) flag burning incites patriotic Americans at least as much as 'blaspheming' Muhammed does to Muslims. Flag burning is protected under the Constitution. Religious displays on non government property are allowed and protected no matter how distatsteful they may be to some groups.

You'd be surprised how many people don't have that viewpoint though.

bigkahuna;1727246 wrote:I agree that he needs his ass kicked for wearing white socks like that. Also, you have proven my point.

burning the American flag angers me , but white sock wearing requires a punch in the face behavorial alteration moment

bigkahuna;1727370 wrote:So do you disagree with the city of Baltimore putting a curfew in place? Do you agree with Philadelphia PD banning a protest on I-90? Do you disagree with Westboro Baptist Church not being able to protest right outside of a funeral instead of in a designated area away from said funeral?

In each of those cases, the people are not being told they can't do something. They are being told when and where they can do it.
The equivalent would be saying that you can't have a Muhammad drawing contest during Ramadan or within 100 feet of a Mosque.

Bottom line: When you tease the Religion of Peace, death always comes lurking. It isn't a 'perhaps', 'maybe' or a 'we'll see'. Holy Jihadists are coming every time.

Uz2Bon36;1729054 wrote:

And nobody got shot that day.

^^ and no women or homosexuals were stoned to death, and girls went to school.