On 11/16/2013 10:17 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 November 2013 19:54, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    On 11/15/2013 8:36 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

    First, I think maybe we disagree as to what constitutes a police state.  My
    definition of it is one in which the police can investigate and interrogate 
anyone
    at anytime on any suspicion without judicial warrant and enforce some 
political
    orthodoxy that in turn supports their power.  It has nothing to do with 
having very
    tight security around some particular installation (like nuclear weapons 
plants and
    ICBM silos). It wouldn't even be useful in protecting LFTR powerplants.


Are you sure we don't already live in a police state (or rather several) ? Certainly that appeared (to me at least) to be what GWB was aiming for, and I'm not sure BO has changed course. And of course the UK and NZ and others are eagerly following suit...


Yes, I'm sure. We moved a little toward a police state with the "war on drugs" then "the war on terrorists" but we're not there yet and I don't see anything about protecting nuclear power plants that require it to get worse.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to