Couple get armed police visit for googling "pressure cookers"

[DugMachine]

I have said this in similar threads before, but things like this are the reason I don't oppose the crazies that like to shoot at federal agents. The less of them there are, the less there is to harass us for stuff like this.

Yeah, because one group of cops followed up on a legit concern from a former employee, it's totally legit to shoot at cops in general.

...What? That makes no sense. Especially since people shooting at law enforcement or condoning it only increases the paranoia and animosity.

If they'd turned up at my house armed in that manner I would have shot at them (if I owned a gun). If I have the opportunity to attack and incapacitate anyone invading my home I will do so. If not I will attempt to escape. I don't care if they claim to represent the government.

I hope you never own a gun. People like you are the reason we need stricter gun control, shoot firsts and ask questions later. Just insane, I can't believe I read this.

So you would throw your life away to "protect" your home from "invaders" because they just show up armed? You know police, unlike you, don't usually shoot for no reason. One or two bad cops and the whole force is corrupt. I swear, the fucking logic some posters here use is just insane.

 

[Jacco]

I would probably be arrested if I was there because I would treat armed men turning up at my house as a home invasion and, if I had the opportunity, kill them.

If they'd turned up at my house armed in that manner I would have shot at them (if I owned a gun). If I have the opportunity to attack and incapacitate anyone invading my home I will do so. If not I will attempt to escape. I don't care if they claim to represent the government.

Your posts reminded me of this:

Spoiler

Stop being an internet tough guy. Everyone here knows you would not shoot at the police if they were knocking down your door for (what would likely be a legit reason related to militant anti-government groups). And even so, they wouldn't arrest you if you opened fire. They would kill you.

And by living here and being a citizen or resident, you do not have the right to resist lawful arrest. If the government is knocking on your door, your rights then become those of an accused person which you may legally exercise in a court of law. Not by shooting at people who are just doing their jobs.

 

[Spacefrog]

'snip'

I think you're trying to see something that isn't there.

1. Not all Americans are patriots, in fact the majority of us positively hate our government right now. Many of us may love the concept of America as a romantic ideal, but even that's been fading for a long time. Most of my friends have said that they'd wish they were born elsewhere, and I don't know of anyone who actually likes the state of our country or government right now.
2. It's a huge stretch to jump from 'okay with certain government actions in the name of security' to 'blind obedience', not that everyone is even the former. People in the US still have and exercise their right to protest all the time, so I'd say it's pretty misguided to call us authoritarian.
3. No, just no. Outside of preventing violence/destruction/theft/etc our government does not get involved in in private our public life. Mostly because people lose their shit whenever it appears like it's trying to. And even then most of our police enforcement is done on the state level not federal level so there's very little centralization.
4. We have definitely been hostile towards communism (see Vietnam), but never democracy. In fact our most recent wars were started in the guise of spreading democracy, try to figure that out.

Look who's trying to see something that isn't there
I said it was coming closer to fascism than communism, NOT that the current USA IS fascistic.
Some of the points have quite some way to go, and I personally theorise that no one can reach the -isms 100%
But let's go trough your arguments anyway

1)The whole "concept of America as a romantic ideal" IS nationalism (Of a sort, there are several kinds and you can find people for most of them speaking on the news)
Then there are the flag-wavers, the USA #1'ers and so on (not to mention the pure ignorance of anything outside the US), you cannot deny those and while they may not be the majority they are quite numerous, and loud.
And no one likes the current state of the country they live in, it is a compromise between the direction they want it to go, if they still live in the US they are not disliking their current residence enough.
2) It does not have to be blind obedience, simple acceptance or indifference works too
As a side-note being authoritarian have nothing to do with the right to protest, as for the exercising that right only the truly stupid protests come trough the news over here, so I have no idea of how frequent the .
3) Then how do you explain all of the stories about the government spying on its people
The fact that they keep trying is enough to fulfil the clause
4) I said LIBERAL democracy not democracy as a whole. (The whole "USA doesn't have true democracy" discussion is for another time)
and considering how close your elections are its opposition is quite strong there. (And at least during election time that opposition turn quite hostile)

 

[the clockmaker]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

OK, talking about shooting at federal agents may have been an overreaction on my part. At least n relation to this case. This situation was just a stupid mix-up. But where prospect of you going to federal prion for a crime you did not commit is a reality, then yes, I believe in the right to shoot at the guys who come to take you away.

I should have been more specific in my comments, and sensitive to the fact that some here may work or have family who work for these federal agencies, but I stick by the core of my statement. If someone tries to put me in a prison cell because I goggled the cheapest place to buy fertilizer, I'm going to resist that. I hate being the guy who pulls Goodwin's Law, but nobody is going to disagree that you have the right to shoot at the Gestapo when they come to haul you off to the camps. Being a Jew is a much a crime as googling pressure cookers, both arrests are equally unwarranted.

do understand what being arrested is? Do you know what a trial is? Hint mate, you ain't going to no camp. Worst comes to worst, you get asked a few questions (as the idiot in the article was) and get released. If you decide to shoot at the police to avoid being asked questions, well let me just say that I will not mourn for you when you receive their 556 rebuttal .

Also, if you are going to compare western police and security services to the fucking gestapo, maybe you should not be speaking about important matters in public. You should be allowed to, by all means, just as people are allowed to stick their dicks into electrical sockets, but you shouldn't be doing it.

And you should in no way be allowed to have a gun.

Honestly, what is it with people on these forums and thinking that A-Its okay to say you want to kill your countrymen for doing their job and B-That you would not have your arse handed to on a fucking plate with a pretty pink bow for trying.

 

[TakerFoxx]

Thanks, I'm glad you took time to make your point of view clear, TakerFoxx

0_o

Wow, uh, that never happens. Thanks though. Reasonable reactions aren't something I see very often.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

I can pretty much guarantee that your govt don't have the resources to actually watch what you are doing online... Think about it logically, how many people would the govt need to sit and watch everything everyone does online? This whole Prism thing is more to do with keywords, and visits to known sites associated with terrorism. It is just a tool to cue the FBI to who needs to be investigated for illicit activity. Also... the Internet is a public place. Amazon own their website, and when you visit it is like you wondering into their shop... When you wondrr into a shop in real life you will be clocked by CCTV, you will be counted as a visitor and there will be footage of you browsing and purchasing. If you pay with a card you purchase is further recorded and accountable to you. The same thing happens online... and the same thing happens. if you don't do anything ilegal or dodgy then no one will bat an eyelid to you... no one will care. (That's a general response, not refering to the article... as most people appear not to have read it...)

 

[Flames66]

If they'd turned up at my house armed in that manner I would have shot at them (if I owned a gun). If I have the opportunity to attack and incapacitate anyone invading my home I will do so. If not I will attempt to escape. I don't care if they claim to represent the government.

So you'd shoot first simply because the police were ARMED in a specific fashion? Makes perfect sense.

I'm sorry, I misread the first few posts and assumed they had done something like kicking his door down. If they had knocked on my door the situation would be different.

I hope you never own a gun. People like you are the reason we need stricter gun control, shoot firsts and ask questions later. Just insane, I can't believe I read this.

So you would throw your life away to "protect" your home from "invaders" because they just show up armed? You know police, unlike you, don't usually shoot for no reason. One or two bad cops and the whole force is corrupt. I swear, the fucking logic some posters here use is just insane.

I'm not likely to, they are not a thing in this country. As I said just now I misread it thinking they kicked his door down so the situation would be different. In the situation described I would talk to them in a civil manner but not allow them access to my home.

Stop being an internet tough guy. Everyone here knows you would not shoot at the police if they were knocking down your door for (what would likely be a legit reason related to militant anti-government groups). And even so, they wouldn't arrest you if you opened fire. They would kill you.

And by living here and being a citizen or resident, you do not have the right to resist lawful arrest. If the government is knocking on your door, your rights then become those of an accused person which you may legally exercise in a court of law. Not by shooting at people who are just doing their jobs.

Unfortunately, there is no option for not being a citizen or resident, so I choose not to acknowledge the authority of the government. My philosophy is to live and let live, however if I am attacked I will respond.

EDIT: You were right though, I wouldn't actually do it. It's not a clever strategy or the best course of action to shoot the people just doing their jobs, even if their jobs are enforcing the will of a corrupt government. It was a quick post trying to express my anger about the trend towards total surveillance. The trend must be stopped at all costs, but what I said previously is not the way to go about it.

 

[TakerFoxx]

OK, talking about shooting at federal agents may have been an overreaction on my part. At least n relation to this case. This situation was just a stupid mix-up. But where prospect of you going to federal prion for a crime you did not commit is a reality, then yes, I believe in the right to shoot at the guys who come to take you away.

I should have been more specific in my comments, and sensitive to the fact that some here may work or have family who work for these federal agencies, but I stick by the core of my statement. If someone tries to put me in a prison cell because I goggled the cheapest place to buy fertilizer, I'm going to resist that. I hate being the guy who pulls Goodwin's Law, but nobody is going to disagree that you have the right to shoot at the Gestapo when they come to haul you off to the camps. Being a Jew is a much a crime as googling pressure cookers, both arrests are equally unwarranted.

Do you know why Godwin's Law is so reviled? Partially because way too many people do it, and partially because the situations that are being compared to the Holocaust are so tame that the comparison is downright insulting to people who went through the actual Holocaust.

Also, the couple were not hauled anywhere. The police showed up, knocked on their door, properly identified themselves, asked a few questions, and left after figuring out that it was a false alarm. That is it. They didn't have their homes and possessions taken away, they weren't hauled to any camps, they didn't go to jail, and hell, they weren't even arrested! So ease up on your "Fuck the Police" overreactions already, they've really disturbing.

 

[Flames66]

OK, talking about shooting at federal agents may have been an overreaction on my part. At least n relation to this case. This situation was just a stupid mix-up. But where prospect of you going to federal prion for a crime you did not commit is a reality, then yes, I believe in the right to shoot at the guys who come to take you away.

I should have been more specific in my comments, and sensitive to the fact that some here may work or have family who work for these federal agencies, but I stick by the core of my statement. If someone tries to put me in a prison cell because I goggled the cheapest place to buy fertilizer, I'm going to resist that. I hate being the guy who pulls Goodwin's Law, but nobody is going to disagree that you have the right to shoot at the Gestapo when they come to haul you off to the camps. Being a Jew is a much a crime as googling pressure cookers, both arrests are equally unwarranted.

Do you know why Godwin's Law is so reviled? Partially because way too many people do it, and partially because the situations that are being compared to the Holocaust are so tame that the comparison is downright insulting to people who went through the actual Holocaust.

Also, the couple were not hauled anywhere. The police showed up, knocked on their door, properly identified themselves, asked a few questions, and left after figuring out that it was a false alarm. That is it. They didn't have their homes and possessions taken away, they weren't hauled to any camps, they didn't go to jail, and hell, they weren't even arrested! So ease up on your "Fuck the Police" overreactions already, they've really disturbing.

You make an interesting point which is also relevant to what I have been saying. Consider the League of Legends player who made a stupid comment on the internet and spent several months in jail while the courts fartarsed about. He became depressed, was assaulted several times and considered suicide. He should not have been there in the first place so he was falsely arrested. In my opinion he would have been well within his rights to incapacitate the officers who came to take him to jail.

Thoughts?

 

[DugMachine]

You make an interesting point which is also relevant to what I have been saying. Consider the League of Legends player who made a stupid comment on the internet and spent several months in jail while the courts fartarsed about. He became depressed, was assaulted several times and considered suicide. He should not have been there in the first place so he was falsely arrested. In my opinion he would have been well within his rights to incapacitate the officers who came to take him to jail.

Thoughts?

While that was a truly stupid case, the player was not "within his rights" to do anything. If you know you're innocent and once you go through court the case will be dropped why even try to shoot at officers, potentially killing them which will surely give you life in prison? Again, your logic is way off.

Being detained does not mean you will be in prison for the rest of your life so better go out with a bang. Everybody has to go through the judicial system, you won't get a pass from the courts because "the cops hauled me off and I felt that they were invaders in my home". It just wouldn't be worth it.

I'm not on the side of the police here, it's scary that here in the USA you can't even look up terrorist devices out of curiosity without setting off some flags somewhere but shooting everybody that comes on your porch because you feel threatened is not the answer.

 

[Caiphus]

You make an interesting point which is also relevant to what I have been saying. Consider the League of Legends player who made a stupid comment on the internet and spent several months in jail while the courts fartarsed about. He became depressed, was assaulted several times and considered suicide. He should not have been there in the first place so he was falsely arrested. In my opinion he would have been well within his rights to incapacitate the officers who came to take him to jail.

Thoughts?

Whatever your opinion is, it is not the opinion of the law, and Justin Carter would have been sentenced to jail for a very long time had he decided to do what you are implying.

First: The police that arrested the LoL player, Justin Carter, are almost certainly not the same people who made the decision to charge him with terroristic threats and to continue prosecution. In all likelihood, you would be taking it out on the wrong people by shooting the constables.

Second: Shooting the policemen actually gives them an actual legitimate crime for which to arrest you/shoot you back.

Third: He was falsely arrested, sure. But that wasn't the cause of his depression/assaults. His arrest only brought about the situation in which the rest of the police district could collectively and figuratively dump on Mr. Carter's head. What should have happened is what happened in this case: The police come around and question the people about whom they receive a tip, and then leave when they figure out that it was a false alarm.

 

[Flames66]

While that was a truly stupid case, the player was not "within his rights" to do anything. If you know you're innocent and once you go through court the case will be dropped why even try to shoot at officers, potentially killing them which will surely give you life in prison? Again, your logic is way off.

Being detained does not mean you will be in prison for the rest of your life so better go out with a bang. Everybody has to go through the judicial system, you won't get a pass from the courts because "the cops hauled me off and I felt that they were invaders in my home". It just wouldn't be worth it.

I'm not on the side of the police here, it's scary that here in the USA you can't even look up terrorist devices out of curiosity without setting off some flags somewhere but shooting everybody that comes on your porch because you feel threatened is not the answer.

I wasn't referring to his legal rights, rather the moral right to self defense which to me is far more important. Laws have been manipulated for the ends of the corrupt throughout history (as have morals but that's another issue) and it should be the spirit rather than the letter that is enforced. The right to privacy and the right to freedom are far more important than the rule of law.

Whatever your opinion is, it is not the opinion of the law, and Justin Carter would have been sentenced to jail for a very long time had he decided to do what you are implying.

First: The police that arrested the LoL player, Justin Carter, are almost certainly not the same people who made the decision to charge him with terroristic threats and to continue prosecution. In all likelihood, you would be taking it out on the wrong people by shooting the constables.

Second: Shooting the policemen actually gives them an actual legitimate crime for which to arrest you/shoot you back.

Third: He was falsely arrested, sure. But that wasn't the cause of his depression/assaults. His arrest only brought about the situation in which the rest of the police district could collectively and figuratively dump on Mr. Carter's head. What should have happened is what happened in this case: The police come around and question the people about whom they receive a tip, and then leave when they figure out that it was a false alarm.

The opinion of the law is not necessarily correct, just what those in power want everyone to follow.

I agree that my previous comment was misinformed and disproportionate, I spoke without thinking out of anger and frustration. The police in question are partially responsible as they are agents of the corrupt system. I admit that they do not have all the facts and can only act on their best judgement, but they could choose not to support the injustice.

I agree that, now I have properly read the article, the police who spoke to the man in this case acted appropriately, although an armed response unit was still massive overkill and could have made the situation far worse.

 

[Olas]

1)The whole "concept of America as a romantic ideal" IS nationalism (Of a sort, there are several kinds and you can find people for most of them speaking on the news)
Then there are the flag-wavers, the USA #1'ers and so on (not to mention the pure ignorance of anything outside the US), you cannot deny those and while they may not be the majority they are quite numerous, and loud.

I don't even know what you're even referring to. Who goes around waving flags and saying USA #1? Is your entire perception of americans based on watching us during the Olympics? Do you think we all dress like Uncle Sam too? Do you think we pray to the Statue of Liberty? Yes there are some people who are very patriotic, just like in your country and every country, but the actual degree varies hugely depending on where you go and what demographics you talk to and I can guarantee you it's much less than you appear to think.

And what's this "pure ignorance of anything outside the US" crap? You think we don't study world history in school just like you, and that we don't have world news over here just like you? That we don't care about the rest of the world at all? Our population is probably less focused on foreign issues than that of most countries, but keep in mind that we're also nearly as large as all of Europe and we have a lot of issues of our own. To me it sounds like you're the one who's being ignorant if this is really how you envision us. It sounds like you know almost nothing outside of basic American stereotypes.

2) It does not have to be blind obedience, simple acceptance or indifference works too

I don't know what you're referring to, acceptance or indifference to what exactly?

3) Then how do you explain all of the stories about the government spying on its people
The fact that they keep trying is enough to fulfil the clause.

The apparent degree of our government surveillance is disturbing no doubt. But what does that have to do with the government having authority or control over the populace? This surveillance is only being used to spot potential threats to national security, as in terrorists. It has nothing to do with domestic policies at all much less civil liberties.

You said: "The state have to hold total authority over the society and seek to control all aspects of public and private life whenever necessary"

So far you haven't mentioned anything to this affect Where are your examples of the government infringing on peoples' freedom? Where is the state trying to control Americans' private lives? Sure there are laws about what you can't do: 'don't drive too fast', 'don't steal', 'don't murder', but all civilized countries have these laws. The government doesn't intervene in our day to day life, at least not moreso than any other country I've been to.

4) I said LIBERAL democracy not democracy as a whole. (The whole "USA doesn't have true democracy" discussion is for another time)
and considering how close your elections are its opposition is quite strong there. (And at least during election time that opposition turn quite hostile)

Liberal democracy is what people typically mean today when they say democracy, and it more than applies to the United States and essentially all first world nations. Regardless of what you choose to believe about us, you can't deny the simple fact that we have free elections, separate branches of power, multiple distinct political parties, civil rights, civil liberties, and political freedom. The US is considered a liberal democracy by both the UN and Freedom House which ranks it as one of the most free countries in the world.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2013/united-states

You simply have to be living in another reality to believe the United States doesn't support democracy.

 

[purf]

Here, I fixed that for you:

The US [...] ranks as one of the most free countries in the world.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/content/william-h-taft-iv

And I will spell it out in case that link goes unfollowed:
"The US ranks as one of the most free countries in the world.", says US.

I, too, believe that even if we are not there yet, (western) societies are heading straight into a Panopticon ("a new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind") which slowly but consequentially chips away at the freedom of expression and freedom of information.
We already live in a time where putting out information that should be vital for a functioning 'democracy' (reminder: demos+kratía - Rule of the Poeple) gets you imprisonment for life. And think about what a signal like this does to journalism.
I don't remember having voted for Germany's federal trojan. I don't remember this being part of the social democrats' election programme. I'm sure as hell nobody voted for a breach of Germany's constitution when Phantom jets were performing low-altitude flights over protesters at Heiligendamm's G8 summit. Etcpp. All the crap we, the people, have no business in and all that other crap we aren't supposed to know? Democracy, my ass.

And I'm typing this here a couple of days prior to a trip to NYC. I don't feel easy about it. Probably not the right time to make jokes about Homeland Security's weird questionnaire I had to fill out, either.

 

[Spacefrog]

1)The whole "concept of America as a romantic ideal" IS nationalism (Of a sort, there are several kinds and you can find people for most of them speaking on the news)
Then there are the flag-wavers, the USA #1'ers and so on (not to mention the pure ignorance of anything outside the US), you cannot deny those and while they may not be the majority they are quite numerous, and loud.

I don't even know what you're even referring to. Who goes around waving flags and saying USA #1? Is your entire perception of americans based on watching us during the Olympics? Do you think we all dress like Uncle Sam too? Do you think we pray to the Statue of Liberty? Yes there are some people who are very patriotic, just like in your country and every country, but the actual degree varies hugely depending on where you go and what demographics you talk to and I can guarantee you it's much less than you appear to think.

And what's this "pure ignorance of anything outside the US" crap? You think we don't study world history in school just like you, and that we don't have world news over here just like you? That we don't care about the rest of the world at all? Our population is probably less focused on foreign issues than that of most countries, but keep in mind that we're also nearly as large as all of Europe and we have a lot of issues of our own. To me it sounds like you're the one who's being ignorant if this is really how you envision us. It sounds like you know almost nothing outside of basic American stereotypes.

2) It does not have to be blind obedience, simple acceptance or indifference works too

I don't know what you're referring to, acceptance or indifference to what exactly?

3) Then how do you explain all of the stories about the government spying on its people
The fact that they keep trying is enough to fulfil the clause.

The apparent degree of our government surveillance is disturbing no doubt. But what does that have to do with the government having authority or control over the populace? This surveillance is only being used to spot potential threats to national security, as in terrorists. It has nothing to do with domestic policies at all much less civil liberties.

You said: "The state have to hold total authority over the society and seek to control all aspects of public and private life whenever necessary"

So far you haven't mentioned anything to this affect Where are your examples of the government infringing on peoples' freedom? Where is the state trying to control Americans' private lives? Sure there are laws about what you can't do: 'don't drive too fast', 'don't steal', 'don't murder', but all civilized countries have these laws. The government doesn't intervene in our day to day life, at least not moreso than any other country I've been to.

4) I said LIBERAL democracy not democracy as a whole. (The whole "USA doesn't have true democracy" discussion is for another time)
and considering how close your elections are its opposition is quite strong there. (And at least during election time that opposition turn quite hostile)

Liberal democracy is what people typically mean today when they say democracy, and it more than applies to the United States and essentially all first world nations. Regardless of what you choose to believe about us, you can't deny the simple fact that we have free elections, separate branches of power, multiple distinct political parties, civil rights, civil liberties, and political freedom. The US is considered a liberal democracy by both the UN and Freedom House which ranks it as one of the most free countries in the world.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2013/united-states

You simply have to be living in another reality to believe the United States doesn't support democracy.[/quote]

Are you even reading my posts?
1)I repeat "you cannot deny those and while they may not be the majority they are quite numerous, and loud." and they are not only in sporting events, "concept of America as a romantic ideal" IS a minor form of flag-waving
2)Of what steps the government takes and how much power in gives itself
3)Surveillance is where it starts, little by little they start arresting people on vaguer and vaguer grounds (for goggling pressure cooker) and for smaller and smaller perceived crimes
Every journey starts with a little step and this surveillance is just the start unless someone makes it to stop
4)Are you even reading my posts? Then I will repeat what I wrote in that quote
I NEVER SAID THAT THE US WAS AGAINST DEMOCRACY
Here's a quick reminder for you
The US have two main political parties the Democrats and the Republicans
Those parties are founded in different basic philosophies, LIBERALISM and the conservationism respectively (The good old left vs. right discussion) and fascists lean towards conservationists simple as that.
My point was that since the voters was 51/47% it would say that there was still quite an opposition to to liberalism and it could go either way
That particular part of a political view have nothing whatsoever to do with free elections, separate branches of power, multiple distinct political parties, civil rights, civil liberties, political freedom or whether or not you are a democracy
It merely decides how big the government should be.

What did I meant when I said that the US does not have true democracy?
A better word would probably be pure democracy
Democracy is a form of control where the people vote on every decision the country have to make, with the majority deciding.
That means for it to be pure democracy, the people would have to vote about EVERYTHING.
The US does not follow that kind of philosophy, no-one does, you would never get anything decided as it would drown in bureaucracy.
Instead we have representative democracy where we choose people to take the decisions, sort of a light version of democracy.
It was merely an example of how people should stop thinking in absolutes, no country follow any philosophy 100%

 

[Olas]

Are you even reading my posts?

Lol, ya. I always find it funny when people ask this question, especially when I try really hard to address what they've said.

1)I repeat "you cannot deny those and while they may not be the majority they are quite numerous, and loud." and they are not only in sporting events, "concept of America as a romantic ideal" IS a minor form of flag-waving

Look dude, point me to a single country that doesn't have patriotic people, or patriotism in some respect. Where are you from? Are there no flags in your country?

I don't know what you're referring to, acceptance or indifference to what exactly?

2)Of what steps the government takes and how much power in gives itself

And where exactly have you gotten the impression that Americans are "indifferent" or "accepting" of these? We aren't, the NSA scandal lead to an enourmous shitstorm as do most stories like the one in this thread. Americans are almost as paranoid of our own government as we are of terrorists. Do you know why so many Americans feel the need to own guns? There are many reasons, but the largest is that many believe they may have to form militias and overthrow the US government some day if it ever becomes tyrannical. I shit you not some of us really are that crazy, but if anything I'd say we're most mistrustful of our government than most developed nations.

Remember our nation began as a rebellion against a powerful ruler, and

3)Surveillance is where it starts, little by little they start arresting people on vaguer and vaguer grounds (for goggling pressure cooker) and for smaller and smaller perceived crimes
Every journey starts with a little step and this surveillance is just the start unless someone makes it to stop

So basically it's all just a gigantic slippery slope argument?
Your criteria for a Fascist state was:

"3) The state have to hold total authority over the society and seek to control all aspects of public and private life whenever necessary"

not

"3) The state has to allude the impression that some day in the distant future it may eventually hold total authority over the society and seek to control all aspects of public and private life whenever necessary"

I think even the latter is a huge stretch. Surveillance is one thing; revoking civil rights and actively controlling most aspects of public and private life is an entirely different story. Unless you can prove that the federal government is using this surveillance for anything other than catching potential terrorists, I think this criteria is wholly debunked.

4)Are you even reading my posts? Then I will repeat what I wrote in that quote
I NEVER SAID THAT THE US WAS AGAINST DEMOCRACY
Here's a quick reminder for you
The US have two main political parties the Democrats and the Republicans
Those parties are founded in different basic philosophies, LIBERALISM and the conservationism respectively (The good old left vs. right discussion) and fascists lean towards conservationists simple as that.
My point was that since the voters was 51/47% it would say that there was still quite an opposition to to liberalism and it could go either way
That particular part of a political view have nothing whatsoever to do with free elections, separate branches of power, multiple distinct political parties, civil rights, civil liberties, political freedom or whether or not you are a democracy
It merely decides how big the government should be.

What did I meant when I said that the US does not have true democracy?
A better word would probably be pure democracy
Democracy is a form of control where the people vote on every decision the country have to make, with the majority deciding.
That means for it to be pure democracy, the people would have to vote about EVERYTHING.
The US does not follow that kind of philosophy, no-one does, you would never get anything decided as it would drown in bureaucracy.
Instead we have representative democracy where we choose people to take the decisions, sort of a light version of democracy.
It was merely an example of how people should stop thinking in absolutes, no country follow any philosophy 100%

Wow, I can't believe you just bothered to lecture me on my own country's politics. Also, I don't know why you keep bringing it up, but I know what a "true democracy" is. I studied ancient Greece in middle school too wiseguy.

So basically you think "liberal democracy" specifically means the 'democratic party'? Are you fucking kidding me? So you didn't even bother looking up what 'liberal democracy' means? Here, read this, it's not too long.

http://australianpolitics.com/democracy-and-politics/key-terms/liberal-democracy

Okay, so now that we're clear, "liberal democracy" has nothing to do with either of the two major political parties of the United States. Both democrats and and republicans believe in having a 'liberal democracy' which like I said is basically just any country with free elections, decentralized power, and civil liberties for all citizens.

It wouldn't matter if the conservatives had won the last 10 presidential elections and held both the House and Senate, we would still be a "liberal democracy" by every definition of the term.

Are we done?