suppressive

Are you seriously arguing that the USA is more suppressive of coimmunications and publications that China?

> Are you seriously arguing that the USA is more suppressive of coimmunications and publications that China?

A handful of books banned for a few individual legal issues does not make for a suppressive state.

Any wage suppressive influences should be weighed against the overall growth of the industry as a whole.

Before first 'assault rifles' appeared comrade soldiers where supposed to provide suppressive fire during an attack.

They're trained in firing precisely; and only to fire extraneous rounds when needed (like to lay covering or suppressive fire).

In former times it was not just evil, suppressive men that constructed society as it was.

The US military kills people with high powered machine guns, uses tactics like suppressive fire, trains constantly with live ammunition, etc.

Even with the suppressive effect of this collusion, wages remain more than high enough to make this industry an attractive option.

And suppressive fire (from the illegally modified AK variant rifle) limits an adversary's tactical options.

A non-regulated natural monopoly can be just as suppressive as a government enforced-coercive monopoly.

Why on Earth are you comparing a suppressive regime to the a western democracy?

A squad formation isn't likely to be stopped by "suppressive" fire.

If you want to extend the sense of "monopoly", as used in monopoly-suppressive legislation, you need to show (or, heck, at least claim ) that your new "monopolies" pose the same risks as the old monopolies.

Suppressive fire is typically high volume (think machine gun) and aimed over a larger area, with the intent of keeping the enemies heads' down (thus not firing), providing covering fire so that friendly forces can maneuver.