A political cartoonist just drew an unflattering picture of Hillary Clinton.

[Binkie The Clown]

I'm terrified that the Democrats might storm the newspaper offices and shoot the place up!

I guess we should outlaw drawing unflattering pictures of political figures.

[uppityperson]

1. Fundamentalist extremism is the problem.

[frogmarch]

2. No.

Bring it on!

[justiceischeap]

3. You're implying that people who support Hillary actually worship

her so extremely that they are willing to take up arms against people whom insult their deity. As an atheist, I'm pissed that I have to even draw this comparison and show how lop-sided it is.

Disclaimer:
I am not saying that what the two gunmen/terrorists did was appropriate (i.e., okay). I'm not suggesting we should curtail the 1st amendment to protect extremists. I'm just pointing out how idiotically stupid this analogy is.

[Binkie The Clown]

4. I am implying that

what we consider ridiculous in a political context we deem acceptable when it is justified by religion. It would be ridiculous to criticize a political cartoonist in one case, but it's OK to criticize a cartoonist in the other case.

Perhaps you didn't notice the "sarcasm" smilie, or perhaps you failed to notice the fact that I agree with you 100%. Your post underlines, and explains exactly what my post tried to say with sarcasm. So why are you saying my analogy is a bad one when its point was the same as your point?