On 18 November 2013 11:13, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/16/2013 10:17 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 16 November 2013 19:54, meekerdb <[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. > > 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 [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.
