"Wilbert Dijkhof" wrote in message
...


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

Yes they do, and this example is irrelevant. In fact your previous "and
thus" completely supported my contention, but was obtuse because it removed
any context surrounding the assertion.

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?

Where do you get that? I clearly was translating (by removing redundant
"nots") a statement made by someone else.


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.

Yes it was an error.

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?

The real answer to your question is not clearly black and white. Marshall
law has been invoked when the security of a nation cannot be maintained by
conventional policing. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's simply the
result of conditions beyond our ability to maintain security. I would call
a nation under Marshall law a police state. But I would advocate that be
only a temporary condition and not an ideology.

I don't believe that the US is a police state by any stretch of the
imagination. Although some measures that are characteristic of a police
state have been taken because of security issues. It's a matter of scope
and scale. To claim that the US is a police state is a bombastic
exageration.