"I thought we were talking about Gingrich... ??? Are you countering my claim that Gingrich tried to reign in central banking by pointing to Kissinger's connection to David Rockefeller... ??? Boy, you conspiracy guys are amazing. Everything is a conspiracy. Why can't you guys stop looking behind each tree for a boogeyman, and see the whole damaged forest for what it is... ??? "

funny Ingo... you specifically asked me "What's the connection... ??? What does Kisinger have to do with central banking, except that he may like it. "

All I did was answer your question.

Ingo you do seem to "drink kool aid" if you think Gingrich/Santorum is going to be a champion of the constitution and help push forward policy that is meaningfully different than Bush and Obama have.

Thos guys have a track record of wiping their behinds with the constitution and individual liberty.

"How about just pointing to human nature and natural law as an explanation... ??? " in my experience I have found a wide variety of humans... some think short term, some long term, some care about what the world will be like in the future and others don't. Just pointing to human nature as the reason why everything is a certain way doesn't provide much of a predictive framework. DB predicted the rise of the muslim brotherhood and mid-east military tensions due to the predictive framework they have developed... the neo-cons like Gingrich/Santorum/Ingo are still trying to explain terrorism as being because muslims hate freedom due to super evil human nature and we must kill these people... .this is a worthless predictive framework.

Ha, does it get any more neocon than that?

"you really don't know who Kissinger has spent much of his life working for?"

I thought we were talking about Gingrich... ??? Are you countering my claim that Gingrich tried to reign in central banking by pointing to Kissinger's connection to David Rockefeller... ??? Boy, you conspiracy guys are amazing. Everything is a conspiracy. Why can't you guys stop looking behind each tree for a boogeyman, and see the whole damaged forest for what it is... ???

"I wish I knew if you were in favor of the Iran sanctions,the Cuba trade embargo and what you think about the CIA trafficking drugs... .answers to those three questions would help me better classify you."

There it is... .the Rothbard liberterian/anarchist standard question.

It's actually very funny that the question about what anyone thinks about Iran, Cuba, the Patriot Act and the CIA drug war gives you guys away everytime for the Kool Aid drinkers you are...

I don't need to fir a classification. I don't drink Kool Aid. I thought you would have figured that out by now.

However, the guys who need to read web sites to find conspiracy theories seem to lack an understanding of how the world works. How about just pointing to human nature and natural law as an explanation... ???

If you were in favor of the constitution I don't see how you could supprot the pro-federal-drug war/pro-patriot act/pro-police state Gingrich/Santorum.

Ingo-"Smoke whatever weed you want to smoke. Snort whatever powder you want to snort. It's none of my darn business. I could care less what you ingest. "

Your answer is reflective of the DSM that whoever is against a federal drug war must be against it because they are dopeheads... couldn't have anything to do with unconstitutional laws, civil liberties, creating millions of non-violent criminals and the corruption of government at all levels.

gabe-'Gingrich threatened central banking about as much as Henry Kissinger does.'

Ingo-"What's the connection... ??? What does Kisinger have to do with central banking, except that he may like it. "

gabe-you really don't know who Kissinger has spent much of his life working for? David Rockefeller, House of Saud(making sure the dollar/oil leg of american centrla banking stays strong.

Ingo-"I don't think you have the foggiest idea who the Fed central bank interests are... ??? The DB certainly doesn't."

Right you think Ron Paul works for the central bankers and Gingrich/Santorum are putting the Rothchilds into a state of panic?

Could be true I suppose. I am pretty sure your not in the Cass Sunstein program... The Gingrich support had me thinking you were just a victim of early 90's brainwashing... but the Santorum support was what led me to start thinking you were Cass Sunstein's minion... .now I am just leaning towards old ... .I wish I knew if you were in favor of the Iran sanctions,the Cuba trade embargo and what you think about the CIA trafficking drugs... .answers to those three questions would help me better classify you.

Hi clark,

You're funny . . . another in a long line people that think you are bisch slapping Ingo with logic, when he thinks he is doing the same to you!

Logic will not win him over you over me over and done with that . . . I second that emotion.

Man, I've gotta get outta here!

Click to view link

"Conservatives follow rules to effect change"

Is that a joke?

It's more like, Pay Up or Die. Consider this article discussing the "102 Things NOT To Do If You Hate Taxes."
Click to view link

For decades conservatives have not followed "the rules", as shown in the link above. To say they do, now that's a kookie view.

You say you won't read the links I posted. Isn't that a bit like someone trying to argue against Real Bills without ever reading anything written by someone claiming to understand it, or anything at all about Real Bills other than arguments against it?

You write, "You demand change without going by the rules." If you would have read some of the links I posted you would see this was an untrue statement as well.

The Constitution does not say People have to go to Somalia to live the way they want to, Bischoff does.

Also, did you not notice my comment about judges saying they, "don't want any of that Constitutional crap in their courtrooms"? Then there's Gerrymandering and such like, on and on it goes thwarting the will of the People.

"without going by the rules" Psft, as if.

" Why are Americans not allowed to establish how they want to live here? It's your way or the hyway? Some freedom that is."

Let's examine this statement of yours... ..

Americans ARE allowed to establish how they want to live here. It's not MY way, it's the constitutional way. Now, I know that doesn't suit you, because your fascinated by your anarchistic view of the world, which pushes this view that the U.S. Constitution doesn't matter. It does. If people wanted to live according to your kookie view, they could change the Constitution to make it possible. However, for you it is too cumbersome of a way to establish anarchy.

See, this is the difference between anarchists and conservatives. You demand change without going by the rules. Conservatives follow rules to effect change.

Now, what were you saying about "my way or the Hiway"... ???

One other thing occurred to me. Your insistence in using words and meanings which are only found in the dictionary comes across as kind of ignorant.

It's as if you wouldn't recognize the word "ain't" or acknowledge that it had meaning until you saw the word used in the dictionary. Talk about Kool-Aid drinking.

How would you know if, "Hardly any of these descriptions of terms comes close to a standard definition in Websters Dictionary." if you didn't read the links?

New meanings for words are not being made up, that's just a lame excuse for failing to seek understanding.

You keep saying People who are not Somalians should go to Somalia, that's silly. Why should Americans leave? Why are Americans not allowed to establish how they want to live here? It's your way or the hyway? Some freedom that is.

The only reason I mentioned Somalia is because you said anarchy didn't work, yet here is an example of it working,... for Somalians.

It appears you made an error about the history of the West when you wrote, "it wasn't anarchy that made life more tolerable, it was the "Law" ... in the end the Constitution provided the frame work for the enforcement of the law and for relative peace."

With anarchy there are rules.

Please consider reading this article:
The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality

… 'What were these private protective agencies? They were not governments because they did not have a legal monopoly on keeping order. Instead, they included such organizations as land clubs, cattlemen's associations, mining camps, and wagon trains.

So-called land clubs were organizations established by settlers before the U.S. government even surveyed the land, let alone started to sell it or give it away. Because disputes over land titles are inevitable, the land clubs adopted their own constitutions, laying out the 'laws' that would define and protect property rights in land (Anderson and Hill 1979, 15). They administered land claims, protected them from outsiders, and arbitrated disputes. Social ostracism was used effectively against those who violated the rules. Establishing property rights in this way minimized disputes - and violence.' …

Click to view link

Lastly, you cite some difficulties the states had before ratification, the killing and destroying of lives and families now, pales in comparison to then. Things were more workable then than now.

It seems like you might be one of those Lincoln worshipers I keep reading about?

Hi Ingo,

Why did I stop here just now? I needed a laugh . . . and got one. Thanks!

You "accidentally" wrote:

h t t p : / / IT ?

Love . . . . IT

Oh, and the name's Weebley, Agent Weebley . . . an Agent Of Peace.

I have a question for you about QE3. Would you like to hear it? Or would I be lashing out at you with unstable logic?

Oh, and I remembered my original non-link from way, way back. Here it is. Ready for IT? OK . . . now:

Click to view link

@DB

When I composed a response to Weebly, I did not include a link.

After I posted the comment, I noticed that a link was inserted. However, after my comment was posted, there was nothing I could do about the link.

I didn't click on it. I assumed that it must have been a clitch in the system which added the link into the comment. I still don't know now what it is all about.

Contrary to what Weebley asserts, I didn't start anything, nor did I mean to start anything.

I don't know about this Weebley character. Sometimes, I think he is not quite stable... but that's just a layman's judgment.

"It does not seem like you have a firm grasp on what anarchy is, have you read this short bit?"

I thank you for the effort to educate me on the definition of "anarchy".

The reason I am adverse to reading all those links that are offered up, is the fact that they all contain a description of concepts to fit the paradigm of the author. Hardly any of these descriptions of terms comes close to a standard definition in Websters Dictionary.

When one argues, one has to use the same terms in the argument. A commonly accepted dictionary is the only means by which this is possible, unless you set up a specific glossary before hand. As said, I appreciate your effort to teach me a new meaning of "Anarchy", but I am happy to stick to Webster and make my argument using the commonly accepted term for the word/concept of anarchy.

"So, you're saying Somalia is anarchy? It appears to be working for them."

Yes, Somalia lives under anarchism according to Websters dictionary. It is a system without government or commonly accepted rules or norms of behavior.

The question is not whether it works for them, the question is whether it works for you. Evidently, it doesn't work for you, because otherwise you'd be off to Somalia, instead of spending time to teach me the meaning of the word Anarchy.

"At any rate, based on what you say about the Constitution, Ron Paul does not come across as an anarchists."

Ron Paul invokes the Constitution frequently. The points he makes, when he does so, are mostly valid. The problem I have with Ron Paul is over his talk about the Fed central bank, and his actions in fighting the Fed. His actions do not match his talk. To the extent that Ron Paul believes what he says about the Constitution, I would not consider him an anarchist.

"You say the Constitution didn't work, "because the voters became lazy and slothful" um, this webpage is about how the voters were manipulated, conned, drugged and run rough shod over by military might, don't you suppose that's a bigger factor?"

No. There has always been violence. There have always been crooks. To guarantee Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, there is government under the Rule of Law. The pioneers, who moved into the anarchy which was the American West, fight to establish government which conformed to the U.S. Constitution. To do so, they had to fight violence and fraud with the "Law" and the "Lawmen". In the process, lots of people got shot, lots of people died, but in the end the Constitution provided the frame work for the enforcement of the law and for relative peace. Was the process easy... ??? No, but people couldn't and didn't sit on the sidelines, though they may have wanted to. Was law enforcement perfect... ??? Of course not, but in the end, it wasn't anarchy that made life more tolerable, it was the "Law".

As to "Panarchy", it is another concept that is a modification of a dictonary term. It expresses the inventor's proclifity for nuanace to describe his idea about government, like the "Woergl" describes a currency. I am not impressed.

"The Articles of Confederation seemed workable,... then there was a coup."

I suggest some serious, remedial instruction in history is needed. "The Articles of Confederation seemed workable"... did I read correctly... ??? This comment again is proof of having drunken the Kool Aid that is normally peddled in the libertarian/anarchist circle.

The Confederation of North American States was quickly falling apart under the Articles after the War of Independence had come to an end. In the mid 1780s there was active fighting and killing between residents of Pennsylvania and of New York. Connecticut and New Jersey were ready to go to war with New York over duties and toll fees. States failed to pony up agreed upon monies to cover confederate government expenses. The Confederate Congress could not come to any meaningful decisions, because of the unaniminity requirement... and on and on it went...

"The Articles seemed workable"... .believe me, it's poison Kool Aid to warp your mind.

@DB, sorry for helping to steer this thread so far off topic.

Ron Paul knows more about the economic situation we're in than the other candidates combined.

It would have been interesting to read more about that.

No, Bischoff, it's not about ego, as much as you might wish.

It does not seem like you read the links I posted, too bad, you should.

A lot of People say the Viking society was anarchy and it worked pretty well. But even deeper, anarchy is all around us everyday, a walk down a grocery store isle is an experience with anarchy.

It does not seem like you have a firm grasp on what anarchy is, have you read this short bit?:

What Is Anarchy?
Click to view link

At any rate, based on what you say about the Constitution, Ron Paul does not come across as an anarchists.

You write, "If anarchists really wanted to live their dream instead of just talking about it, they'd all be off to Somalia."

So, you're saying Somalia is anarchy?
It appears to be working for them.

You say the Constitution didn't work, "because the voters became lazy and slothful" um, this webpage is about how the voters were manipulated, conned, drugged and run rough shod over by military might, don't you suppose that's a bigger factor?

Also, no words about Panarchy?

Essentials of Panarchism
Click to view link

A Foundation for Panarchy
Click to view link

Seems like the horse pucky is what we have now, hmm how did we get here? The Articles of Confederation seemed workable,... then there was a coup.

@ DB,

How soon we forget? I used to do that pseudo-link thing a fair bit.

But Ingo started it . . . this time.

Morning, Ingo!

Sausages for brekkie today?

Been there, linked that . . . but I did IT in a more creative way. Ask anybody . . . but then, you don't click links . . . do you?

Click to view link

Reply from The Daily Bell

Your link doesn't work.

Weebley... Click to view link's time for your Meds... ..

That was hilarious, Ingo. I didn't realize you did eco-comedy.

I like the way you have adopted the 3 dots that I use . . . to join thoughts, albeit with a 3 "question mark" added twist.

Would the 3 dots and 3 question marks be the 3 corners of the box?

Anarchists in corner 1

Marxist/Socialist/?Communists? in corner 2

Constitutional Toilet Paperists in corner 3

That leaves corner 4 . . . open.

"... people who don't espouse freedom and individual liberty and instead prefer "group rights" and vague meaningless terms found in old documents signed by men who had no authority to do so, it is they who must be questioned as to their motives."

Big words, no meaning... On the other hand, they prove my point about Kool Aid drinkers.

There are no "group rights". There are only individual rights, which are god given, and among which are the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. To guarantee those rights, governments are instituted among men which receive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

However, when the governed can't be judicious in consenting to give power to elected officials, and when the goverened are too stupid and careless to hand power over their lifes to a bunch of charlatans and con artists, is it the fault of the document which assigned all the powers to the governed, or is it the fault of the lazy and brain dead electorate... ???

When the brain dead voters finally wake up, the super egotistical ones become "anarchists". They sign up to the "free of government" (Anarchy) idea. It suits their ego best. In their mind, they have found the better way to life, liberty and happiness. Their solution is NO GOVERNMENT at all.

It never dawns on them that their dream of anarchy has never worked, and is never going to work. If anarchists really wanted to live their dream instead of just talking about it, they'd all be off to Somalia... ???

At the other end of the spectrum are the Socialists and Marxists. Their schtick is a utopia, run by them for the brain dead governed. They'll get the ignorant electorate to give them power by promising to take from the "Rich" to give to those who rather not have to provide for themselves.

As long as there is majority rule (Democracy), sooner or later the Socialist/Marxists will have 51% of the electorate convinced to "vote for a living" and force the other 49% to "work for a living", effectively establishing an Oligarchy.

Both the Marxists, and the anarchists don't realize that they are chasing a dream. Sure, the dreams soothe their egos. Who wants to admit that their disinterest and laziness caused the sad state of affairs we have today... ???

Conservatives on the other hand want the original Constitution to work again. This requires that the charlatans and con artists be thrown out of office, but to do so, Conservatives have to check mate the Marxists and the Anarchists.

Conservatives want to maintain life under the Rule of Law (Republic). They are not impressed by the dreams of the Marxists and Anarchists. There is more wisdom in one sentence in the U.S. Constitution, then there is in the combined wisdom of the brains of all the Marxists and Anarchists.

"At any rate, the old system is done. It didn't work. What's next? Stepping back into the same old routine, or stepping forward into something better?"

It didn't work, because the voters became lazy and slothful. They had a good thing, but it took involvement. They didn't want to make the effort, and we are left with the results. It isn't the governing document which is at fault. It's the governed who are to blame. Believe me, their is no document in the world which can get you off your ass to go and do the right thing.

"Stepping forward into something better... ???" With this dream of anarchy on your mind, you'll NOT be stepping into something better, you'll be stepping into a big pile of horse pucky... .

Hi clark,

What's next? Business time!

Click to view link