Unless one starts with a basic premise upon which to have beliefs, there is no logic in their statements. My basic premise is this: "I own myself and you own yourself." If any liberal/progressive/religious right adherents want to have a real discussion with me I ask them if they acknowledge and accept that premise. If not, I ask them: "Then, who owns you?" If they say God ... discussion over. But if they do embrace (for the moment) the basic premise, then there is a foundation upon which to have a discussion. This is difficult, because as Charles Krauthammer says, most people are practicing "willful ignorance." They don't want to give up their beliefs. That is quintessential codependency ... to stay in denial on which point of the codependent triangle they are on: Rescuer, Victim, or Persecutor. If we look at our government today (one that does not follow the constitution) we see codependency at the macro level. All codependent behavior comes from the need to control others. That neurotic need is based in fear.

If we start to see the dysfunctional behavior of the collectivist from a psychological viewpoint, we will start to understand why they do what they do. As Nathaniel Branden says in the first paragraph of "The Psychology of Self-Esteem," the first decision we make when we reach the age of reason is "to think or not to think." Maybe we could ask him how we can get the left out of denial.

what you are saying goes to the deeper level of self examination. But think of it on the surface for a moment. Group think encourages normalcy and discourages abnormal. If you are the only dude asserting rational thought in the group-your influence is low because the norm is what is valued. It is especially insidious when you have a Toohey manipulating "the norm." Like Al Gore, "there is a consensus on global warming."
I have a friend when asked about what she would like for her children-she always replied, "just to be normal." she's a good catholic

Having become a huge fan of Ayn Rand over 30 years ago, I later found the apathy all around me so wrong. When my daughter was in grade school, she was exposed daily to collectivist ideas. Parents were brainwashed into thinking they should not question or make waves, because the school knew best. Little by little, apathy was the accepted non-action. When my daughter wore a Bond shirt to school, it had a tiny gun in 007's hand, and she was forced to turn her shirt inside out, as she was about to accept an academic award! Guess they thought cotton could be dangerous. Morons. That is the only word for sheeple who allow such nonsense to exist in schools while real damage is happening in the form of anti-capitalist ideas and collectivist dogma every single day in the classrooms of America. It will only get worse as Common Core enters each state and pushes Marxism on the students. Of course, the parents, who have been led to believe the average IQ 110 teachers know far better than they how to raise their children, will stand by and do nothing. Their children will be transformed, and it will be "Anthem" all over again.

The left uses the word "extremist" to describe anyone that does not follow their ideology. This is an insidious propaganda technique designed to subconsciously connect anyone who disagrees with them.....to TRUE extremists, such as the murderous Muslim terrorists. Who in their right mind would want to side with "them"? Hitler would be so proud of these so called "progressives".

One of the things I thought of Shrug is the idea that Washington loves bipartisan solutions. I almost puke when I hear that. I know what needs to be done and so do a lot of us Gulchers. I don't care if Democrats, Republicans or third party representatives agree with me. For some reason being seen as rigid is bad and always giving in is good. It's a big part of the reason we are in the mess we are in.

Extremist in the context does sound "splendid". We can infer from the context that what she means is "extremist individuals". Extremism as a means to an end is what any truly committed individual engages in when attempting to get to the meat of an idea, chase down an elusive scientific principle, or articulate a rational sequence of thought with precision.

I am particularly prone to becoming engrossed in an idea to such an extent that I fail to yield to biological necessities. I put off eating, sleeping, and even relieving myself when I become hyper-focused. It is rarely rewarding in the short term, and as often as not, a solution "pops into mind" only after finally giving in to my biological necessities.

Individual etremism in this sense harms no one (except possibly the individual), and is truly just a means to an end.

Of course, if an individual extremist goes insane in her rabid pursuit of knowledge or truth or articulation, the end corresponding to the extreme means might not be such a pretty thing.

Consider the popular or charismatic individual genius embarking on an extreme quest for knowledge. His admirers wait in quiet anticipation for the results to be articulated. The genius, now insane, returns from his quest and announces that "reality exists only in the minds of men", or any of the many other ridiculous conclusions reached by philosophers throughout the ages. The admirers adopt this new "extremist end" reached by "individual extremist means", and an "extremist group" is formed.

Would that external genius and charisma could gather no purchase within the hearts of men, nor stealthily rob them of their own sensibilities through their desire to be loved by their beloved. Until a society can establish a methodology by which to teach the use of necessary emotional shields against external genius and charisma, individuals will continue to succumb to the temptation to allow, and even encourage, their beloved to think for them.

My conclusion:
A society full of individuals utilizing extremist means in their pursuits would contain no groups blindly following extremist ends. An "extremist" is quite different from "extremists", and "means" are quite different from "ends".

This is why there are RINOs!
I am a Libertarian.
Learned mostly from Ayn Rand.
The worst parts of the right are being overcome (slowly), but the worst parts of the left are growing. Republicans are weak. We have mostly to fight the left, and the right will follow along.

Thoughts?

I purposely took the time to space this out into paragraphs when I posted it and now it's all in clump. Why?

I talk to many independent business people. They don't want to talk about what is happening, or about to happen, to their lives and businesses. They are in complete denial. I have quit trying to inform them.

If we are all extremists, then we would not get along. Humans are social creatures. If you do not compromise then society does not work. Compromise does not mean that you compromise your principles, it means that you get along together. We need to do that, even as we show the other parties that our ideas are right. But we do not tear apart society because we can not get 100% of our way.

The fallacy of the false alternative in all its glory: "There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil." Both sides could be wrong.

Scott...did you space this out for me? Thank you...but ya missed one.. lol ;)