There are extremists in every culture, extremists in both directions, extremely nice, extremely impolite, extremely sharp, extremely dull, extremely socialist, extremely conservative. On every form of measure of human opinion and action you can find extremists of both sides.

There are also those in the middle of the road, the average folks.I'm not talking about those on the fence, but those with average opinions, pretty nice people with open minds who care about fairness but maybe are not perfect, generally with a tilt towards ethics and an intelligent manner of dealing with others.

Now in the world there are countries where the average people are running the show. In my opinion the United states is one of these. Lots of people would want to point to Bush and shout extremist, but I caution you to remember that the President does not run this country on his own and you run the risk of being an extremist yourself if you refuse to see that.

Many countries now have people in control who are extremists. many countries have had this in the past but do not now. I don't want to start going down the list of past extremists and you will undoubtedly know some of the examples, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Napoleon. Currently some of those I consider extremists are Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Kim Jung Il. There are others, but none who gain so much attention lately.

Of these three, two have come to power by some populist takeover, with questionable support, and the other was handed down power from a previous despotic regime.

Interestingly these three have also created the largest amount of strife in the international politics over the last few years. I would suggest that the world would be a lot more manageable if the leaders of these countries were more middle of the roaders. I do not propose to suggest how this might be brought about. I am just reminding you that the majority of the people in all of these countries are likely more moderate and that moderation in governmental relations would be helpful.

I have the opinion that the extremists were helped to power because they were expected to benefit certain other groups or governments. This falls under the category of covert operations by governments or other entities.

In our country we more and more want our country to not participate in any covert activities, and the politically correct position is that we should not do so. But when I see that it is possible for covert activities by other countries to bring about extremist control of centers of huge natural resources and geographical influence, I get the opinion that some of the restrictions on such activities should be carefully considered.

I particularly feel that using influence to overcome underground activities to place extremists in position should be considered. It is in the interest of the United States, and the interest of the world to have moderates in positions of government helping to manage fair trade and peace.

extremely correct!

Um... just a thought but wouldn't /shouldn't we try to get more moderates in power in this country first or at least simulaneously?

Yep, I'm up for more moderates in this country.

So, what about the extremely moderate?

what about the moderately extreme..???

What about the moderatly moderate?

What about the superficial dumbasses?
Oh thats right we have that now!!!

i am not a dumbass!!

You commented that the President does not run this country alone. Idealistically you would be on the right track, but not this time.

Here are just a few examples:
First example (or first 1100 examples)
April 30, 2006
Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements on more than 750 new laws, declaring that he has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution. The federal government is instructed to follow the statements when it enforces the laws
(only one year later and theses signings exceed 1100 - that's 1100 laws that this President has exempted himself from.

Example 1101
With regards to the North American Union:
Particularly worrisome is the fact that most of these proposals are being advanced in secret, behind closed doors. “President Bush signed a formal agreement that will end the United States as we know it,” CNN correspondent Lou Dobbs proclaimed, “and he took the step without the approval from either the U.S. Congress or the people of the United States.” Evidently, as Corsi has noted, the plan is “to knit together the North American Union completely under the radar through a process of regulations and directives issued by various U.S. government agencies.” (if you don't like Lou Dobbs, use google, you'll find dozens of reports of such closed door activities, with no intentions of including the American public.

Example 1102

Bush has said on several occasions that he would veto any bill that came across his desk that would allow same sex couples to marry. In other words, he would use his power of veto to support a personal belief over the majority of those in favor of the bill.

Example 1103
In the wake of the AIDS crisis, scientist and citizens were crying out for Federal Funds for research. Bush gave his answer, not in funding AIDS AWARENESS OR AIDS RESEARCH but in funding his own idea Abstinance - Only - Before - Marriage. Now part of the entitlements that your tax dollars are used for.

A biggoted one sided view that received over 50 millions dollars a year, and has been federally mandated to be taken into public schools.

DO ANY OF THESE THINGS SCARE ANYONE OUT THERE?????

How about this. Read it and the comments of Bush in half a dozen such meetings and tell me you BELIEVE that he ever intended to do anything about immigration, EXCEPT to allow this all to happen, for the sake of us, the US getting used to it happening on a much wider scale.

Mar 23, 2005
Pres Bush to Pres Fox
RE: NAU meeting between Canada, U.S. and Mexico

In terms of the border, listen, we've got a large border. We've got a large border with Canada, we've got a large border with Mexico. There are some million people a day crossing the border from Mexico to the United States, which presents a common issue, and that is, how do we make sure those crossing the border are not terrorists, or drug runners, or gun runners, or smugglers.

And I have told the President that we will -- I will continue to push for reasonable, common-sense immigration policy with the United States Congress. It is an issue with which I have got a lot of familiarity -- after all, I was the governor of this great state for six years and I dealt with this issue a lot, not only with President Fox's predecessors, but with governors of border states -- Mexican border states, Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon. And I know what -- I know the issue well. And I will continue to call upon Congress to be commonsensical about this issue.

And the basis of the policy is that if there is a job opening which an American won't do, in other words -- and there's a willing worker and a willing employer, that job ought to be filled on a legal basis, no matter where the person comes from. That makes sense. We need a compassionate policy. In other words, if this is in place, someone will be able to come and work from Mexico in the United States, and be able to go home -- back and forth across the border in a legal fashion. That seems to make sense to me. It's a commonsensical way of doing things.

I think we ought to have a policy that does not jeopardize those who've stood in line trying to become legal citizens. We want to reward those who have been patient in the process. There's plenty of Mexican citizens who have applied for citizenship, they should -- their position in line should not be preempted because of there's a worker program. But there's a better way to enforce our border. And one way is to be compassionate and decent about the workers who are coming here to the United States.

And, Mr. President, you've got my pledge, I'll continue working on it. You don't have my pledge that Congress will act, because I'm not a member of the legislative branch. But you will have my pledge that I will continue to push our Congress to come up with rational, common-sense immigration policy.

Sorry I hit reply, wasn't done summarizing.

The middle of the road people, those people who want to live their live, to enjoy their comforts, and to allow those they put into office to run the country - while they enjoy their freedoms, these are the people who have gotten us where we are now. I was one of them, until the last several years.

We can not all be mainstream, we can all enjoy life without a care for whose in charge. It is the extremists that make things happen, it is extremists who most often give the most of themselves and their resources to accomplish.

If those, who you consider, 'middle of the road' would take more responsibility for the duties they must preform to assure a proper democracy, than those who are the extremists in this world would likely advance us all. Instead we leave the dirty jobs and the clean up jobs to the wake calls that the extremists must issue and issues they must lead the way in.

We need to stop placing blame and look for ways TOGETHER to fix what we have allow to be broken.

jesus the man is has delusions of grandeur and the power to fufill his wet dreams.i am scared.

For all who consider themselves middle of the road people, here's another tid bit for you.


Ben Bernanke ( member of Federal Reserve Bank) Running World’s Central Bank for remainder of decade) pub Global Agenda 2006

He made it - a 10 year stint. Why would this matter - tomorrow will be here soon, and in that tomorrow Bush would have a tri-country union and an Amero dollar which would naturally require the use of a Central World Bank. Bernanke has the job that was predetermined, again in private, to rewrite and conform the regulation of The Central World Banks to more readily reflect those of the Federal Reserve System.

After tomorrow, look into a future in the next 10 years when you will see, the same international powers, that being those with money, all with vested interests in a one world central bank, that combines the Amero, the Euro and every other legal form of tender in this world.

I'm not saying I'm against advancing society to a world oriented to peaceful coexistence. What we should all be against is that this is happening through those with money and power and with no support or concern for or of the people who will have to keep pace with the drummers.

This is a time for all extremists and would be extremists to flourish.

Redy, Just out of curiosity, I found an article in the Bosto Globe, dated April 30, 2006, It states,

Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements on more than 750 new laws, declaring that he has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution.

I was wondering where did you find the others. I ask because, I recently found an article, new, that contradicts the immigration statements you just made.
I believed Bush was responsible for the lack of enforcement of current immigration laws too, untill I read this article!

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=nation_world&id=5559400

WASHINGTON, Aug. 10, 2007 - A crackdown on illegal immigration will have to go forward without help from Congress, the Bush administration said Friday, asserting that an executive-branch-only approach is better than doing nothing.

Two Cabinet secretaries -- Homeland Security's Michael Chertoff and Commerce's Carlos Gutierrez -- said they hoped to have new tools to combat illegal immigration before moving further to cope with the problem. But Congress could not agree on comprehensive legislation.

The officials said they'll rely instead on tools already in their arsenal, some of which are already under way, including a plan to administratively sanction employers who hire illegal immigrants.

Perino said that Bush had held off on sweeping administrative action while pushing Congress to pass better legislation to address the matter. With that effort now sidelined, she said: "We're going as far as we possibly can without Congress acting."

The administration rolled out a proposed rule that will require employers to fire employees unable to clear up problems with their Social Security numbers 90 days after they've been notified of such discrepancies in so-called "no match letters." Employers who fail to comply will face possible criminal fines and sanctions.

"This regulation lays out a clear pattern for doing the right thing which will afford protection for employers," Chertoff said. The new rule will be effective in 30 days

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, chief author of the failed immigration bill, criticized the proposal. "Senate Democrats voted for real reform and for the sake of the nation, it's high time for Republicans to join in that effort," the Massachusetts senator said.

In addition, Chertoff said he will try to use the department's regulatory authority to raise fines on employers by about 25 percent. Current fines are so modest that some companies consider them a cost of doing business, the agency said in a summary of the new enforcement effort.

The administration also wants to expand the list of international gangs whose members are automatically denied admission to the U.S., reduce processing times for immigrant background checks, and install by the end of the year an exit system so the departure of foreigners from the country can be recorded at airports and seaports.

The Homeland Security Department will ask states to voluntarily share their driver's license photos and records with the agency for use in an employment verification system. The sharing is meant to help employers detect fraudulent licenses.

Thats more than I planned on posting, but you get the idea. I applaud Bush for this if it happens, and it will be the only thing I have ever applauded his administration for!

Philosopher, excellent article well thought out.

Ok, I found it. It was a meeting between the thre NAFTA countries. In reading the whole US Embassy transcript I can only say that it must be noted he said jobs Americans will not do. I think that he was referring to the farm jobs in the S Western States though, and he addresses this in his new enforcements in the article I just linked. H e talks about increaseing the temporary worker permits!

Thank you Gardenforge

Redykeulous, I'll need a little more time to consider your comments before I can reply. I think I was making the point that there are crowds of people who work together to form the policy of this country. And my view is that there are moderates helping to manage the extremists. Working together there are some leveling effects. I am not speaking of checks and balances as that has a specific connotation.

Fanta, what the hell did your comments have to do with this topic, and put some pants on.

I was writing with limited time this morning and didn't really make it through the essence of the matter I was discussing so I'll give you something else to think about, to get you closer to the crux of the matter.

The extremists in a country always try to push their agenda. They publish and promote their causes and condemn the causes of others, often belittling slandering the good works and efforts of much more accomplished individuals and groups. Now when these extremists are in power, they set the policy as well as set the tome of rhetoric. When they are out of power, they continue with their efforts but they are less effective. They are not necessarily less noisy, but they are less effective. You can change the leadership of a government but you can not eliminate the extremists.

The point is this. If you take steps to change the regime in Iraq, as we have done, the extremists remain. They have less power but they are still there. If you take some steps to change the ruling party in Iran, or N. Koroea, or in many other areas around the world, the extremists will remain.

Now you can say that if you bring about changes that it will make it worse, because you will drive the extremists into the limelight and they will create more trouble and hatred. But I am saying that the extremists will basically remain the same, but they will be less effective because they are no longer in power.

You can think of this as a form of bell-curve theory if you want, but basically a certain measure of the people are going to be extremists no matter what you do, and a certain measure are going to support moderation. So I think the question then is what can be done to keep the extremists from holding the positions of power. History tells us that extremists are most likely to hold positions of power.

Not to end this on a patriotic note, but if you all look back to the things you were taught in history regarding our country and its form of government you will see that most of the characteristics of our government were created for the express purpose of keeping the extremists out of control. For the most part it has functioned well. There are issues, but I do not see other forms of government standing up to the same challenges. More likely they simply fold up and bow down to zealots.

Redy-

I understand what you are saying about extremists getting things accomplished- to a point. I have certainly protested, here and in Washington, when I thought it was justified and might accomplish something. That doesn't make me an extremist in my mind. The extremists I know always want to take dramatic action without thoguht for the consequences- e.g. animial rights acrivists who release lab rats, unaware that these animals are infected with contagious diseases that will now infect other populations and possibly even species.

And I was thinking about how I believe the current polarization in our country has paralyzed it to an extent. When everyone is taking extremist positions then sometimes NOTHING gets done.

Also, your charactorization of moderates as inactive, nonparticipants, is not what I was thinking of either- I was taking the word "moderate" to apply more to those who compromise to achieve goals, and extremeists as those who posture for the sake of "taking a stand" or whose solutions frequently end with statements such as "let's nuke them all." These are the extremists who frighten me.

Philosopher, my humble apologies. I so misunderstood your topic.
Anoasis had a much better handle on what you meant. I feel like such a - such an extremist. LOL

Can I get a pass on this one, and I promise to try to read better the next time.

After reading your second post and reading Anoasis, I would have had a much different comment, I'm sure.

At the moment I'm a bit embarrassed so I'll hold my tongue for another day.

(Redy)-

Don't beat yourself up. You have great, thoughtful, well-researched posts. I think sometimes we all just have different things in mind when using certain words.

And as you said, sometimes extremists are the ones who finally bring the publics attention to serious issues that need to be addressed. To me it's great that you have such passion and concern- things that have been lacking for many for too long. I would much rather see people who cared "too much" and became extremists than those who care not at all and languish in silent apathy.

What I fear is the pendulum. When things swing so far one way or another, they are bound to swing violently back the other way at some point...