FLY135 wrote:

"Wilbert Dijkhof" wrote in message
...


FLY135 wrote:

"Any Moose Poster" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"FLY135" FLY_135(@hot not not)notmail.com wrote:

"Any Moose Poster" wrote in
message
...
In article ,
Rata Rioja wrote:

Anyone with half a brain, doesn't want to go to a
police-state anymore.

Anyone with half a brain wouldn't say it was a police state.
Anyone who wasn't terrorist sympathizer wouldn't say it was
a police state.

Damn Moose, didn't you recently castigate me for saying as much?

No you called him a terrorist sympathizer. At least that's the way
your
posting sounds.

No terrorist sympathizer = no a police state.

and thus

police state = terrorist sympathizer

Let's try again...

"Anyone who wasn't terrorist sympathizer wouldn't say it was a police state"

Remove the redundant "nots", which cancel each other out....

They don't. They cancel out if you reverse the assumption and the
conclusion.

a - b = !b - !a

Anyone who was (a) terrorist sympathizer would say it was a police state

? Are you saying that terrorist sympathizers claim that America is a
police state? I don't think terrorists care about that, so why would
they think that?

I'd say it would be a good guess to assume English isn't your first
language, so the error is understandable.

Except it's not an error. And yes, English is not my native language.

May I ask you what measures do you think should be taken to turn a
country (America, Canada or in Europe) into a police state?

Sure you can ask.... "None"

So, you think they can't become a police state, no matter what
measures they take? Or, all of them are already police states?

Wilbert