You decided to use the lamest of the lame arguments.
And yet you want to pretend omniscience, which is typical of Godwin Law violators.
And when you become less ignorant, you'll realize that in a free society there's a difference between an act being "frowned upon" and prohibited.This has generally been frowned upon by the American public until recently.
America is still mostly free.
Free enough so men can ignore the frowns of the Messiah in the White House.
Here's a conceptual nugget for you:What an ironic and tragic twist of fate. Merely calling it a "right" changes the whole thing. It doesn't take much to justify things does it?
It's their freedom, they're not required to justify what they do with it to anyone, including you, Hillary Clinton, General Petreaus, or the Messiah.
In fact, the President, the Secretary of State, and the General are all obligated to defend that man's freedom to burn that stupid book without once demanding he explain himself to them.
I don't recall asking anyone else's fanatics to justify themselves. I don't care their reasons, or if they have any at all. If they take violent action against us, I want them dead. It's as simple as that.Yet we can't find ourselves understanding why other civilization's fanatics can justify their behaviors.
Well, e-mail Allah and tell him to get moving, then.I say we re-create the world.
What's interesting isn't those people, it's the people who want them to restrain themselves that are interesting.
He violated the rule, and yes, his comparison was with the Nazis. Which, btw, was a false comparison because the Nazis were the govenment of a nation, not a small group of private citizens.Godwin's Law
It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." In other words, Godwin put forth the sarcastic observation that, given enough time, all discussions—regardless of topic or scope—inevitably wind up being about Hitler and the Nazis.
My inclination is to err on the side of the Rights of Man and strict limitation of government. Period.... rather than on the side of justifying the means (i.e., government intervention)