Book I highly recommend to all posters

[LuckyDuck01!]

Some call that anarchy. They are right of course. I believe that it is almost unanimous that the nation thinks and acts like you do.

That's not anarchy. That's individuals who don't violate others out of compassion. Anarchy allows for violence and victims, period.

 

[Donald H]

Read my opening again. I was upset at his claims for a long time. I debated him. But he finally persuaded me he was actually correct.

I've read it and uinderstood it. Now you should read his book so you don't have to make excuses for not being able to answer the questions.

 

[dblack]

No government means complete anarchy.

And in most cases, that's fine. It's really only a narrow subset of social conflict that needs to be resolved by government.

 

[Donald H]

The so-called Democrat Party is the current one that would actually like to see an end to Democracy and a one-party only government Socialist State.

I'm not interested in how it's spun to suit the regime's propaganda.

What's important is that it will happen, if the trend is read correctly.

 

[Donald H]

The topic I read was interpreted by me as addressing "socialism," not Theocracies, Military Juntas, Monarchies, Despotic Leaders, or Oligarchies.
If by military junta, you think just because Trump sent troops to LA without a request by the governor, he is trying to create a military junta, you are seriously wrong.
Even though the governor didn't request federal support against the rioters, LA's police chief requested federal government assistance as he said the rioters had gotten out of control and he needed help. The LA police chief was there on the ground and knew the situation and the Constitution, as well as the Insurrection Act allow for federal troops to intervene to suppress violence, if necessary, requested or not. Always remember, "federal laws" outweigh state's governors and can't state constitutions cannot conflict with federal law.
Personally, what I see, when it comes to the present-day Democrats is a party hellbent on ending actual Democracy. If the public votes in their opponent, they promote protesting, violence and disobedience. A Democracy allows for political opposition and the opportunity to vote for the candidate of your choice and if your candidate loses, you simply try to do better, honestly, on the next election period. A Democracy isn't a nation that only allows one party to run. If that's your idea of a legitimate government, you might want to pack your bags and travel to any one of several nations that forbid opposing parties the opportunity to win elections.
North Korea. Their leader gets 100% of the votes in elections.
China. Their party always ensures their party wins, no matter what.
Cuba. They are good at allowing only one party. Opposition is arrested.
Venezuela. Opposition is either arrested or killed by death squads.
Pick your Islamic nation. You can only be a Muslim and the more oppressive the better.
Myanmar. An actual Military Junta. He's your only choice.

Say what you need to say in one post. I don't have that much time for stupid people like you.

 

[Donald H]

I have to go over his book again in order to give you honest and correct answers.

You mean that you have to read the book first. LOL

 

[Robert W]

You mean that you have to read the book first. LOL

No, I don't.

 

[Robert W]

I've read it and uinderstood it. Now you should read his book so you don't have to make excuses for not being able to answer the questions.

What can you share from his book?

 

[Donald H]

What can you share from his book?

I don't know or even care about what book you're on about Bob.

What I do know so far is that you went off halfcocked about your hard-on for government before you either read or understood some book. As in:

I have to go over his book again in order to give you honest and correct answers.

If you're still trying to make some point with me, let it out!

Or sit back and enjoy being an ass-clown. Those are your options Bob!

 

[Robert W]

I don't know or even care about what book you're on about Bob.

What I do know so far is that you went off halfcocked about your hard-on for government before you either read or understood some book. As in:



If you're still trying to make some point with me, let it out!

Or sit back and enjoy being an ass-clown. Those are your options Bob!

You claim you have read the book. So, what did you learn after reading the book?