Stop it. Not dragging someone to the pole isn't voter suppression. Voter suppression is when someone goes to the poll to vote, but their vote is nullified by someone else who also casts a vote, but isn't eligible to do so. Or when your vote for candidate X is suppressed by someone else's TWO votes for candidate Y. Or when you're overseas in the military, and the administration in charge of doing things like getting your tallied votes communicated/transported in time to count in the election drops the ball, thus suppressing your vote. Voter suppression is when an organization seeks out college students to make sure that they're voting in both their own home district, and by absentee ballot in another district, thus suppressing other people's votes.

You know what's NOT suppression? Asking you to prove who you are when, once every couple or four years, you walk up to play a part in influencing the legislature, the executive, various referenda, and maybe even local judges under which other people also have to live. A thousand more routine and mundane things are more demanding when it comes to simply showing some ID. The notion that it's "suppressing" the vote to do LESS when you act to empower your preferred government is completely disingenuous crap, and everyone involved knows it.

You're being obtuse, here. "Inciting" hatred is exactly something like "All Jews/Muslims/Christians/Musicians/Whatever ought to be killed." That's what's so awful about what they're doing, here. It's not about planning a killing. It's about, say, using your Mosque's web site to say that you think heretics should be done away with. That's inciting hatred among that web site's audience, right? It's not a plan, not a specific call to a specific action. And indeed it appears that in certain demographics, that sort of talk fits right in with a widely held urge to go out and kill people. But the problem is there are other demographics that don't seem to have that cultural problem, and won't react to an identically worded (other than swapping out "Jew" for, say, "Atheist" or "Catholic" or "Cartoonist") phrase the same way. And these governments are looking to set up a structure in which such speech is illegal.

Just because way too many Muslims can't restrain themselves from being violent doesn't mean that we need to make it illegal for another group to express their opinions. So we should err on the side of allowing even dimwitted, medieval-minded backwards Imams to say what they will (unless they are calling for a specific violent act), and just shout them down. Right now, they're being coddled in their police-are-afraid-to-go-there enclaves in places like France, and THAT is the problem. Not freedom of speech.

Fank you for having more of a clue than a few other folks, apparently!

Some people seek office in order to reign in those who've been doing the over-reaching. Not everybody wants to be the Nanny in the Nanny State, but some people sure do. That wouldn't matter, of course, if so many people didn't want a Nanny in the first place.

In practical terms, kids who are marinated in hate while being kept deliberately free of useful information and critical thinking skills turn out to be adults who are permanently different - in the way they process new information, in the way they react, in their motivations, and in how they perpetuate that culture - from others. And the difference manifests itself in the sorts of real-life behavior that we're watching play out, right now. Yes, it's a cultural problem. But it might as well be genetic for as entrenched as it is, and the impact is has on the behavior of millions of people.

You're still trying too hard. The root cause of this problem is a desire on the part of millions of people to see the world run according to their oppressively misogynistic, apocolyptically theocratic, thug-centric vision. You don't need to be a thorough student of history to know that people like that, who are willing to machine gun rooms full of students to make their point, aren't ever talked out of their world view. It's too late for that. They have to be shut down.

Except that's pronounced "Nawftees." Just doesn't work.

It doesn't matter what they're a product of. What matters is their vision for the future and the actual actions they take. THEY are the ones talking about Caliphates and Sharia, and they're the ones happy to slaughter innocents in order to establish what they want. It isn't, and doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

It doesn't matter if a culture that considers it better to burn a teacher alive than to let her instruct girls in reading and writing is wanting things to be like they were centuries ago, or if they simply want illiterate girls for the sake of keeping them illiterate. It doesn't matter. What matters is that they're acting to make it so.

Not during the raid to free the rest. That's the whole point.

No, it's not.

Government funding that's in keeping with the constitutionally defined role of the government is appropriate. Taking tax money and spending it on one artist's political statements so that the administration choosing to spend that money can use your money (if you actually pay taxes) and the power of government to amplify that artist's politics is not appropriate, and certainly not "the same."

No, people who hold the coats for their more activist brothers as they burn teachers alive for teaching girls to reads are not human beings just like me. That you feel they are just like you is nauseating, though. Please go away.

Are you actually that obtuse, or are you just pretending to be? You really think that the phrase "knock some sense into" is to be construed as a threat against abortion clinics?

No, I'll characterize the attacks as exactly in keeping with a very large (and growing), well-funded, technically astute religious organization that is now controlling large swaths of territory, training foreigners with clean passports on how to do more of the same, and NOT being shut down by the quiet, indulgent majority of their fellow Muslims. If the billions of Muslims in the world wanted their militantly activist branch to stop slaughtering people, they could stop it immediately. But since countries that are run by that religion at the government level are not only refusing to do so, but are egging them on ... no, I'd say that you're asking me to "admit" to a deliberate lie on your part. That doesn't seem very constructive.

Do you consider a grant to study algae blooms to be a form of politicized artistic expression? No? Apples/Oranges.