Which is why I stick solely to facts, raw facts have no opinion to sway one with, like a hard science.

Many of today's ideas were formed by great communicators of the past, it is these opinions I try and avoid, so as to get a clearer picture of how we arrived at our current place.

Say for example, had Hitler never arrived on the scene, where would we be today?

I tend to stick to history as much as possible and current on science, while taking in the chess game of politics, a very complicated game, one the left plays several moves ahead of the right and is always dictating the outcome, sometimes to their own peril.

It's a matter of understanding how and why we got to where we are, then reading backwards.

Why did the Founders do what they did, then examine the time and place in a historical manner, wars, politics,etc.

Instead of simply picking up a so called history book written by one author and a few researchers thinking in kind.

It's like reading one article on a subject and forming  an opinion, many of the books on a given subject tend to have ingrained, (no matter how slight), the authors opinion.

I prefer to read the actual accounts and form my own opinion.
It works for me, you should try it, it's akin to turning off the sound on TV and just watching the video.

Wow, who would have thought 4 short years after President Obama started, the DOW would be up almost 6000 points. well I think safe to say "nobody at this board".

Was it only 4 years ago, the screams and chants from the right were

"THE MARKET IS GOING TO ZERO"
"WE WILL HAVE HYPER INFLATION"
"THE DOLLAR WILL COLLAPSE"
"SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM"

here's one of the supposed leading 'financial' newspapers. 

"
Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow
"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html

When they wrote that the DOW was about 6500.  Thats down from inauguration day of about 8200.  How could a supposed 'financial' paper miss the first 6000 point drop of that massive market crash?

No, I really dont.

I would probably ignore Cronkite's version, as he is part of the establishment.

Now, those who actually served have great insight into the logistics of the battle, or so on, but they are limited in what they can say about geo-political sea changes, policy goals, the role of special interests in pushing for war, such as banks or weapons manufacturers... etc

But all that aside, the recounts of soldiers, politicians, historians and the rest can never be purely objective fact.

For in order to decide which aspects of reality are relevant to report one must have a theory of what causes what, if only to separate relevant facts from the irrelevant.

That requires theory.

And everyone does it, from the solider, to the commander, to the historian.

No, I really dont.

I would probably ignore Cronkite's version, as he is part of the establishment.

Now, those who actually served have great insight into the logistics of the battle, or so on, but they are limited in what they can say about geo-political sea changes, policy goals, the role of special interests in pushing for war, such as banks or weapons manufacturers... etc

But all that aside, the recounts of soldiers, politicians, historians and the rest can never be purely objective fact.

For in order to decide which aspects of reality are relevant to report one must have a theory of what causes what, if only to separate relevant facts from the irrelevant.

That requires theory.

And everyone does it, from the solider, to the commander, to the historian.

I'm a self educated man, the majority of my knowledge base is from tons of research and experience.
Yes, I've read crib notes of many books, only to lead me to pursue the actual events by those that were there, which is one reason I never fall for conspiracy theory, I want the facts, not a bunch of wild theories from a myriad of so called experts.

I do not come to final conclusions based on other opinions, it really is that simple.

This also explains why you theorize your style of "not Govt" would work in today's climate, and why I say it wouldn't, you deal in theory, I deal in fact.

Nothing wrong with the way you come to conclusions, it's just not the way I do it.

That's what I've been saying, any form of agreement where a system is in place that dictates rules of agreement, is in and of itself, a Govt. he can call it anything he likes, but for other Govts to recognize your system, they will view it as a govt and apply their own laws accordingly.
If they have a dispute, they will not look to his for of Govt for resolution where one has no laws with teeth to back it up.

It's nice to theorize everyone will think just like you do, but people are people, which is why we have libs and cons with opposing views, it's human nature, and no matter how hard you try, you can't make everyone the same.

Even if people agreed to the rules, their offspring didn't sign on with the same enthusiasm, which is why we have the divide we have today, not everyone appreciated the Constitution, they wanted to change it.

No govt is impossible.

Two's company, three's a crowd, comes to mind.

Whether TL wants to admit it or not, "government" begins forming whenever an individual becomes part of a group. Even if it's two people.

He also assumes that we don't understand his concept. Well, I do. I also understand that if it was ever applied, it would fail...............quickly.

It's the reason why the communes of the 60's failed. A total lack of government led to people reverting to their petty, lazy, greedy ways. Nobody was compelled to do anything, so they didn't.