On 11/16/2013 10:17 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 November 2013 19:54, meekerdb <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
