“What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents.”

He was so ahead of his time. Had he lived he would have had to amend this quote,"is not that they are extreme" We just had the seventh anniversary of 9-11.

cool

Yes, well, 'extreme' is only extreme to those who hold the opposite view now isn't it. For progressive socialists, self-defense is 'extreme.' For religious zealots, those that openly resist their dogma are 'extreme.' I do agree that most 'extremist' arguments cannot bear scrutiny, so their common modus operandi is to try and discredit and/or render insults to the opposition. Another reason why unchecked democracy is but rule by the ignorant mob.

Since I am very intolerant of Muslims I must be "intolerant". I just seem to have a hard time with people who will cut your head off if you don't convert to their so-called religion. Read "Marked for Death", by Geert Wilders and see what I mean.

What if the extreme concerns tolerance ? By way of example; the ignorant helot, serfs and slave patrons of the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land have an extreme tolerance for despotism, tyranny and unlawful / unconstitutional totalitarianism. Will such patrons tolerate freedom, liberty or rights ? Or, as Archer references, will they just fall in line with the progressive socialists or other religious zealots ? Is free speech evil ? Or, are criminal acts reserved at fact to, those acts that result in physical harm and violation of other's rights ?

To call the mentally ill an opponent would not be productive for my cause. I really don't have opponents just patients to disseminate my mental health providing provisions amongst.