[tpaine]

Refute Pauls article, - or, - take your inane, baiting asides to the back room. - It's the FR way.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Itchy trigger finger?

Did I miss the memo?

When did you become head hall monitor?

[Republicanus_Tyrannus]

So.

I will refute.

This was posted in 1997? That was what, six years ago?

For this article to need point by point refuting - the article itself must seem prescient. It must have outlined developments which should have taken place since its initial publication.

It has not.

There are no goose-stepping hordes of Federal Polize knocking on doorways with truncheons.

There is no law on the books making "certain" speech - outside of conspiracy- illegal. (and before you try to jump on that aside - conspiracy has ALWAYS been illegal in the US).

There has not been anyone in America dragged off to concentration camps for saying rude things - or even the "wrong" things in social situations.

In short - this article posits a police state. It claims that such a thing is imminent.

And it states such six years ago.

Therefore, tpaine, it is incorrect in its overall meaning.

Does that suffice for you? (I gave it my old college try)