Comment: Well, thanks for replying

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: There's no wild speculation. (see in situ)

Well, thanks for replying

Well, thanks for replying instead of downvoting. Or at least for replying in addition to downvoting.

Noam Chomsky wrote in Manufacturing Consent that the extent of our ability to participate in interactive media would be to give thumbs up or down on something, such as a play in a football game.

> Already Americans have to go through electronic strip searches to get on an airplane. Hell, even the Nazis didn't do that.

We can be sure they would have if the technology existed.

> Preppers get put on the "no fly" list.

Recently a prepper was indeed put on the no-fly list. So far the fact that he's a prepper seems like the only plausible explanation. Are there any other known examples?

> The NSA spies on all your email and internet traffic, violating the 4th Amendment on an industrial scale.

Yes, it does. There is no refuting this. I know that CSIS has been doing the same in Canada for over the decade. This has not been reported publicly. I've been told by people who would know that this is happening in the UK as well. It seems there is nowhere to run. The best one can do is cause your traffic to egress where the locals don't care about you. And that gets more difficult and complicated each day.

> And when the government has control over food distribution it can and will use that as a weapon against its "enemies" during times of crisis, just as North Korea has done.

OK, I see where you're going with this.

Does the United States government have control over food distribution within the US? Well, since it has all the guns and badges it controls everything.

Is it reasonable to say it will use it as a weapon? Yes, of course, it will use anything as a weapon. Then it boils down to who its enemies are.

> If you voted for Ron Paul, you're one of those "enemies".

Glenn Greenwald has aptly defined a terrorist as "he who effectively opposes the will of the U.S."

I haven't even been able to refute even a single one of your points.

That must mean Mike Adams isn't being unreasonable, even if I don't like how he's saying it.