On 18 November 2013 11:13, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 11/16/2013 10:17 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 16 November 2013 19:54, meekerdb <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.
> I wasn't suggesting that. I was simply pointing out the irrelevancy of the
police state argument when we're being quietly ushered towards one
(ironically, it would seem the right wing are equally keen on this).
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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.