Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Possibilities

Expand Messages
  • William
    I was not taught to type, I was prohibuted form the class . Sister Thjeckla was pleased because she hated me. She could tell I did not believe in her god, that
    Message 1 of 17 , Jun 2, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      I was not taught to type, I was prohibuted form the class . Sister Thjeckla was pleased because she hated me. She could tell I did not believe in her god, that I detested her cannon rules and she knew I was out to destroy her papal system. I could smell her indigneous attitude when she came about. I had fought it out with numerous nuns and knew I could whip them. They just don`t have the brains for high level ,mind fighting. Progress is a set of questions within an age. Of my time I think you will see my solutions are possible but also unavoidable. Can you imagine that what we started in 1959 might be solved by sol;utions formed at Bikini Atoll. The Super and Teller remain as symbols of anything but democracy. I will not miss them if we blow up, but have no memory if we became free . Bill
    • tom
      Bill Bipartisan support against war is beginning to emerge http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate II) Summary: U.S./Top News 1) The support of liberals and
      Message 2 of 17 , Jun 3, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Bill

        Bipartisan support against war is beginning to emerge



        http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate





        II) Summary:
        U.S./Top News
        1) The support of liberals and conservatives - defying the leaders of both parties - for a bill to pull the U.S. military out of the Libya operation, which led GOP leaders to shelve the bill, signaled how abruptly the politics of U.S. warmaking have changed, the Washington Post reports. On Wednesday, House discontent with the Libya military operation - and with warmaking in general - seemed to boil over, the Post says. An early warning came last week, when the House narrowly voted down a proposal to demand a speedy transition of U.S. forces out of Afghanistan.

        "There's been disquiet for a long time," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), one of those who supported the Kucinich resolution on Libya. "Republicans have been too eager to support some military ventures abroad. And this, I think, is perhaps a little more consistent with traditional conservatism."

        Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who co-sponsored Kucinich's bill, said he would press for GOP leadership to bring it up for a vote. "I think, in the House, there's probably enough votes to pass this," Burton said.

        Tom


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Mary
        Tom, That s great news. I read last evening the recently retired director of Mossad is openly criticizing Netanyahu s policies concerning stalled peace
        Message 3 of 17 , Jun 3, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Tom,

          That's great news. I read last evening the recently retired director of Mossad is openly criticizing Netanyahu's policies concerning stalled peace initiatives and recalcitrance regarding 1967 borders.

          Mary

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
          >
          > Bill
          >
          > Bipartisan support against war is beginning to emerge
          >
          >
          >
          > http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > II) Summary:
          > U.S./Top News
          > 1) The support of liberals and conservatives - defying the leaders of both parties - for a bill to pull the U.S. military out of the Libya operation, which led GOP leaders to shelve the bill, signaled how abruptly the politics of U.S. warmaking have changed, the Washington Post reports. On Wednesday, House discontent with the Libya military operation - and with warmaking in general - seemed to boil over, the Post says. An early warning came last week, when the House narrowly voted down a proposal to demand a speedy transition of U.S. forces out of Afghanistan.
          >
          > "There's been disquiet for a long time," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), one of those who supported the Kucinich resolution on Libya. "Republicans have been too eager to support some military ventures abroad. And this, I think, is perhaps a little more consistent with traditional conservatism."
          >
          > Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who co-sponsored Kucinich's bill, said he would press for GOP leadership to bring it up for a vote. "I think, in the House, there's probably enough votes to pass this," Burton said.
          >
          > Tom
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • tom
          Mary, Bill etc Liberals can push for reducing military scope to move money from war toward health, education, welfare etc; and conservatives as a way of
          Message 4 of 17 , Jun 3, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Mary, Bill etc

            Liberals can push for reducing military scope to move money from war toward health, education, welfare etc; and conservatives as a way of reducing government. Then debates and votes could occur as to the disposition of saved sums. Libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul pushing anti war agenda allows other Republicans to do so without being seen as leftists. The military industrial complex just like police state prison complex is a monster that feeds on the body politic like a cancer.

            Peace
            Tom
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Mary
            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 10:46 AM
            Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities



            Tom,

            That's great news. I read last evening the recently retired director of Mossad is openly criticizing Netanyahu's policies concerning stalled peace initiatives and recalcitrance regarding 1967 borders.

            Mary

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
            >
            > Bill
            >
            > Bipartisan support against war is beginning to emerge
            >
            >
            >
            > http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > II) Summary:
            > U.S./Top News
            > 1) The support of liberals and conservatives - defying the leaders of both parties - for a bill to pull the U.S. military out of the Libya operation, which led GOP leaders to shelve the bill, signaled how abruptly the politics of U.S. warmaking have changed, the Washington Post reports. On Wednesday, House discontent with the Libya military operation - and with warmaking in general - seemed to boil over, the Post says. An early warning came last week, when the House narrowly voted down a proposal to demand a speedy transition of U.S. forces out of Afghanistan.
            >
            > "There's been disquiet for a long time," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), one of those who supported the Kucinich resolution on Libya. "Republicans have been too eager to support some military ventures abroad. And this, I think, is perhaps a little more consistent with traditional conservatism."
            >
            > Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who co-sponsored Kucinich's bill, said he would press for GOP leadership to bring it up for a vote. "I think, in the House, there's probably enough votes to pass this," Burton said.
            >
            > Tom
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Mary
            Socialists would push agendas which eliminate most the root cause of these problems :)
            Message 5 of 17 , Jun 3, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Socialists would push agendas which eliminate most the root cause of these problems :)

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
              >
              > Mary, Bill etc
              >
              > Liberals can push for reducing military scope to move money from war toward health, education, welfare etc; and conservatives as a way of reducing government. Then debates and votes could occur as to the disposition of saved sums. Libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul pushing anti war agenda allows other Republicans to do so without being seen as leftists. The military industrial complex just like police state prison complex is a monster that feeds on the body politic like a cancer.
              >
              > Peace
              > Tom
            • tom
              Mary George Soros s Open Society paradigm is that our thoughts can never completely match reality, an open society would be one in which there is an
              Message 6 of 17 , Jun 3, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Mary

                George Soros's "Open Society" paradigm is that our thoughts can never completely match reality, an open society would be one in which there is an awareness that no ideas are 100% describing reality, so ongoing debates and elections between relatively liberal, and relatively conservative forces are hoped to result in ideas that more nearly describe and deal with the challenges that are being faced. Certainly the problem of the huge vested interests that have successfully engineered the massive growth of the military industrial complex over our life times is extreme. The incarceration rate has quadrupled since 1980;whereas violent crime has remained fairly stable.


                Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. These policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, but instead yielded high rates of confinement for nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. Only 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges. wikipedia----- -----

                The expenses for so called defense is much higher than in the days of the cold war. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent each year for more missiles, jets and nuclear bombs allegedly to fight terrorists is like getting canons to fight spiders.

                So I see any voting blocks of both liberals and conservatives to fight either of these evils as a possible beginning of a place where people of good will could debate the advantages and disadvantages of more socialization or more privatization. So much of the present debates are not about matters of opinion as much as the paid lackeys justifying their sugar daddies.

                Peace
                Tom
                From: Mary
                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 12:03 PM
                Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities



                Socialists would push agendas which eliminate most the root cause of these problems :)

                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                >
                > Mary, Bill etc
                >
                > Liberals can push for reducing military scope to move money from war toward health, education, welfare etc; and conservatives as a way of reducing government. Then debates and votes could occur as to the disposition of saved sums. Libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul pushing anti war agenda allows other Republicans to do so without being seen as leftists. The military industrial complex just like police state prison complex is a monster that feeds on the body politic like a cancer.
                >
                > Peace
                > Tom





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • tom
                Mary and Bill If someone like a Ron Paul got the Republican nomination, this would automatically cause the Democrats to shift to compete for the peace and
                Message 7 of 17 , Jun 3, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Mary and Bill

                  If someone like a Ron Paul got the Republican nomination, this would automatically cause the Democrats to shift to compete for the peace and civil liberties vote. Just as in football or basketball, political parties will adjust their positions depending on opponent.

                  Tom
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Mary
                  To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 12:03 PM
                  Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities



                  Socialists would push agendas which eliminate most the root cause of these problems :)

                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Mary, Bill etc
                  >
                  > Liberals can push for reducing military scope to move money from war toward health, education, welfare etc; and conservatives as a way of reducing government. Then debates and votes could occur as to the disposition of saved sums. Libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul pushing anti war agenda allows other Republicans to do so without being seen as leftists. The military industrial complex just like police state prison complex is a monster that feeds on the body politic like a cancer.
                  >
                  > Peace
                  > Tom





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • William
                  Many things point to an attitude by authority that the people are worthy of greater liberty. That arrogance,in itself, is indicative of how much we have
                  Message 8 of 17 , Jun 3, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Many things point to an attitude by authority that the people are worthy of greater liberty. That arrogance,in itself, is indicative of how much we have lost,in time ,in liberty and wealth. Now these often self appointed leaders act as if they are a separate class with no obligations under the law.
                    I think any restoration of peace will come only if we take back our bill of rights. I do not know how maleable we will find Obama. What sort of concept of liberty lies at the base of his political philosophy. I think he is a constitutional law professor and so he has thought about it ,a lot. I hope he speaks of these matters on the campaign trail. I know it is boring to some but we need to know how he will steer the ship of state. Up to this point he has been wickedly rebuffed by the old guard money and conservativism. I think Obama could become very much more powerful and I hope his retaliation goes toward those who have twarted him and not at the rank and file. We need to hear if he is primarily a lawyer or libertarian. I think he will act as a liberal lawyer and thats ok with me. I know many of them and they are a decent sort that are at least, rational . Many of them feel they are cadged and will work for liberalization of the blue laws since most of them have been caught and sanctioned. I do not want to go back through "I did not inhale", bull shit. War has failed, War on Iraque, war on Afganistan, war on drugs ,war on our civil liberties. PEACE NOW!Bill
                  • Mary
                    Tom, Taking the opportunity for profit out of all these enterprises will solve much. By constantly endorsing the status quo, you will never even come close to
                    Message 9 of 17 , Jun 3, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Tom,

                      Taking the opportunity for profit out of all these enterprises will solve much. By constantly endorsing the status quo, you will never even come close to the idealistic society you envision.

                      Mary

                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Mary
                      >
                      > George Soros's "Open Society" paradigm is that our thoughts can never completely match reality, an open society would be one in which there is an awareness that no ideas are 100% describing reality, so ongoing debates and elections between relatively liberal, and relatively conservative forces are hoped to result in ideas that more nearly describe and deal with the challenges that are being faced. Certainly the problem of the huge vested interests that have successfully engineered the massive growth of the military industrial complex over our life times is extreme. The incarceration rate has quadrupled since 1980;whereas violent crime has remained fairly stable.
                      >
                      >
                      > Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. These policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, but instead yielded high rates of confinement for nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. Only 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges. wikipedia----- -----
                      >
                      > The expenses for so called defense is much higher than in the days of the cold war. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent each year for more missiles, jets and nuclear bombs allegedly to fight terrorists is like getting canons to fight spiders.
                      >
                      > So I see any voting blocks of both liberals and conservatives to fight either of these evils as a possible beginning of a place where people of good will could debate the advantages and disadvantages of more socialization or more privatization. So much of the present debates are not about matters of opinion as much as the paid lackeys justifying their sugar daddies.
                      >
                      > Peace
                      > Tom
                      > From: Mary
                      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 12:03 PM
                      > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Socialists would push agendas which eliminate most the root cause of these problems :)
                      >
                      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Mary, Bill etc
                      > >
                      > > Liberals can push for reducing military scope to move money from war toward health, education, welfare etc; and conservatives as a way of reducing government. Then debates and votes could occur as to the disposition of saved sums. Libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul pushing anti war agenda allows other Republicans to do so without being seen as leftists. The military industrial complex just like police state prison complex is a monster that feeds on the body politic like a cancer.
                      > >
                      > > Peace
                      > > Tom
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                    • tom
                      Mary If we take the profit out, I guess you mean to change from private to public ownership. By so doing, you get large numbers of people to form voting blocks
                      Message 10 of 17 , Jun 3, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Mary

                        If we take the profit out, I guess you mean to change from private to public ownership. By so doing, you get large numbers of people to form voting blocks to give them raises and expand their departments. I am not denying problems with private ownership, but public ownership tends to create large well paid machines that soon become the master rather than the servant. In reality, it is usually a combination of both public employess and private contractors pushing expensive cash cows. The police state prison complex is a great example. Private construction companies and sometimes private prison systems are part of it, but police and guards unions provide the large voting blocks, p-lus often cash contributions just like private interests.

                        Peace
                        Tom
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: Mary
                        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 4:55 PM
                        Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities



                        Tom,

                        Taking the opportunity for profit out of all these enterprises will solve much. By constantly endorsing the status quo, you will never even come close to the idealistic society you envision.

                        Mary

                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Mary
                        >
                        > George Soros's "Open Society" paradigm is that our thoughts can never completely match reality, an open society would be one in which there is an awareness that no ideas are 100% describing reality, so ongoing debates and elections between relatively liberal, and relatively conservative forces are hoped to result in ideas that more nearly describe and deal with the challenges that are being faced. Certainly the problem of the huge vested interests that have successfully engineered the massive growth of the military industrial complex over our life times is extreme. The incarceration rate has quadrupled since 1980;whereas violent crime has remained fairly stable.
                        >
                        >
                        > Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. These policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, but instead yielded high rates of confinement for nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. Only 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges. wikipedia----- -----
                        >
                        > The expenses for so called defense is much higher than in the days of the cold war. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent each year for more missiles, jets and nuclear bombs allegedly to fight terrorists is like getting canons to fight spiders.
                        >
                        > So I see any voting blocks of both liberals and conservatives to fight either of these evils as a possible beginning of a place where people of good will could debate the advantages and disadvantages of more socialization or more privatization. So much of the present debates are not about matters of opinion as much as the paid lackeys justifying their sugar daddies.
                        >
                        > Peace
                        > Tom
                        > From: Mary
                        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 12:03 PM
                        > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Socialists would push agendas which eliminate most the root cause of these problems :)
                        >
                        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > Mary, Bill etc
                        > >
                        > > Liberals can push for reducing military scope to move money from war toward health, education, welfare etc; and conservatives as a way of reducing government. Then debates and votes could occur as to the disposition of saved sums. Libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul pushing anti war agenda allows other Republicans to do so without being seen as leftists. The military industrial complex just like police state prison complex is a monster that feeds on the body politic like a cancer.
                        > >
                        > > Peace
                        > > Tom
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >





                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Mary
                        Tom, The public (you and I) don t own, operate, or make any decisions regarding these enterprises. Governments tax us to subsidize their operations, and/or
                        Message 11 of 17 , Jun 3, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Tom,

                          The public (you and I) don't own, operate, or make any decisions regarding these enterprises. Governments tax us to subsidize their operations, and/or hire private contractors (other capitalists). This is not socialism. If profit is eliminated from this, the M.I.C., and the drug trade, many of these issues you are so passionate about will disappear. As it is now, they are completely interwoven. Prison corporations trade stock publicly, drum up business via criminal justice system, and pay lobbyists.

                          Don't you see the connection between capital and oppression? MSNBC, the media's token Liberal network, is owned by General Electric, and they build prisons and airs prison programming on the weekends!

                          Mary

                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Mary
                          >
                          > If we take the profit out, I guess you mean to change from private to public ownership. By so doing, you get large numbers of people to form voting blocks to give them raises and expand their departments. I am not denying problems with private ownership, but public ownership tends to create large well paid machines that soon become the master rather than the servant. In reality, it is usually a combination of both public employess and private contractors pushing expensive cash cows. The police state prison complex is a great example. Private construction companies and sometimes private prison systems are part of it, but police and guards unions provide the large voting blocks, p-lus often cash contributions just like private interests.
                          >
                          > Peace
                          > Tom
                          > ----- Original Message -----
                          > From: Mary
                          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 4:55 PM
                          > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Tom,
                          >
                          > Taking the opportunity for profit out of all these enterprises will solve much. By constantly endorsing the status quo, you will never even come close to the idealistic society you envision.
                          >
                          > Mary
                          >
                          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Mary
                          > >
                          > > George Soros's "Open Society" paradigm is that our thoughts can never completely match reality, an open society would be one in which there is an awareness that no ideas are 100% describing reality, so ongoing debates and elections between relatively liberal, and relatively conservative forces are hoped to result in ideas that more nearly describe and deal with the challenges that are being faced. Certainly the problem of the huge vested interests that have successfully engineered the massive growth of the military industrial complex over our life times is extreme. The incarceration rate has quadrupled since 1980;whereas violent crime has remained fairly stable.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. These policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, but instead yielded high rates of confinement for nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. Only 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges. wikipedia----- -----
                          > >
                          > > The expenses for so called defense is much higher than in the days of the cold war. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent each year for more missiles, jets and nuclear bombs allegedly to fight terrorists is like getting canons to fight spiders.
                          > >
                          > > So I see any voting blocks of both liberals and conservatives to fight either of these evils as a possible beginning of a place where people of good will could debate the advantages and disadvantages of more socialization or more privatization. So much of the present debates are not about matters of opinion as much as the paid lackeys justifying their sugar daddies.
                          > >
                          > > Peace
                          > > Tom
                          > > From: Mary
                          > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          > > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 12:03 PM
                          > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Socialists would push agendas which eliminate most the root cause of these problems :)
                          > >
                          > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > Mary, Bill etc
                          > > >
                          > > > Liberals can push for reducing military scope to move money from war toward health, education, welfare etc; and conservatives as a way of reducing government. Then debates and votes could occur as to the disposition of saved sums. Libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul pushing anti war agenda allows other Republicans to do so without being seen as leftists. The military industrial complex just like police state prison complex is a monster that feeds on the body politic like a cancer.
                          > > >
                          > > > Peace
                          > > > Tom
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          > >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                        • tom
                          Mary Yes, I see it; but I also see the impact having tens of thousands of employees voting, for and their unions giving money to the politician who will give
                          Message 12 of 17 , Jun 3, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Mary

                            Yes, I see it; but I also see the impact having tens of thousands of employees voting, for and their unions giving money to the politician who will give them the best raises, pensions, and most important expand rather than cut back their departments.I certainly favor not allowinjg corporations or unions to make political contributions.

                            Peace
                            Tom
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: Mary
                            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 7:00 PM
                            Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities



                            Tom,

                            The public (you and I) don't own, operate, or make any decisions regarding these enterprises. Governments tax us to subsidize their operations, and/or hire private contractors (other capitalists). This is not socialism. If profit is eliminated from this, the M.I.C., and the drug trade, many of these issues you are so passionate about will disappear. As it is now, they are completely interwoven. Prison corporations trade stock publicly, drum up business via criminal justice system, and pay lobbyists.

                            Don't you see the connection between capital and oppression? MSNBC, the media's token Liberal network, is owned by General Electric, and they build prisons and airs prison programming on the weekends!

                            Mary

                            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Mary
                            >
                            > If we take the profit out, I guess you mean to change from private to public ownership. By so doing, you get large numbers of people to form voting blocks to give them raises and expand their departments. I am not denying problems with private ownership, but public ownership tends to create large well paid machines that soon become the master rather than the servant. In reality, it is usually a combination of both public employess and private contractors pushing expensive cash cows. The police state prison complex is a great example. Private construction companies and sometimes private prison systems are part of it, but police and guards unions provide the large voting blocks, p-lus often cash contributions just like private interests.
                            >
                            > Peace
                            > Tom
                            > ----- Original Message -----
                            > From: Mary
                            > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                            > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 4:55 PM
                            > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Tom,
                            >
                            > Taking the opportunity for profit out of all these enterprises will solve much. By constantly endorsing the status quo, you will never even come close to the idealistic society you envision.
                            >
                            > Mary
                            >
                            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Mary
                            > >
                            > > George Soros's "Open Society" paradigm is that our thoughts can never completely match reality, an open society would be one in which there is an awareness that no ideas are 100% describing reality, so ongoing debates and elections between relatively liberal, and relatively conservative forces are hoped to result in ideas that more nearly describe and deal with the challenges that are being faced. Certainly the problem of the huge vested interests that have successfully engineered the massive growth of the military industrial complex over our life times is extreme. The incarceration rate has quadrupled since 1980;whereas violent crime has remained fairly stable.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. These policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, but instead yielded high rates of confinement for nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. Only 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges. wikipedia----- -----
                            > >
                            > > The expenses for so called defense is much higher than in the days of the cold war. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent each year for more missiles, jets and nuclear bombs allegedly to fight terrorists is like getting canons to fight spiders.
                            > >
                            > > So I see any voting blocks of both liberals and conservatives to fight either of these evils as a possible beginning of a place where people of good will could debate the advantages and disadvantages of more socialization or more privatization. So much of the present debates are not about matters of opinion as much as the paid lackeys justifying their sugar daddies.
                            > >
                            > > Peace
                            > > Tom
                            > > From: Mary
                            > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                            > > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 12:03 PM
                            > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Socialists would push agendas which eliminate most the root cause of these problems :)
                            > >
                            > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > > Mary, Bill etc
                            > > >
                            > > > Liberals can push for reducing military scope to move money from war toward health, education, welfare etc; and conservatives as a way of reducing government. Then debates and votes could occur as to the disposition of saved sums. Libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul pushing anti war agenda allows other Republicans to do so without being seen as leftists. The military industrial complex just like police state prison complex is a monster that feeds on the body politic like a cancer.
                            > > >
                            > > > Peace
                            > > > Tom
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            > >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >





                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Mary
                            Tom, You don t understand socialism. Employees wouldn t exist; everyone would be an owner. Are you saying a citizen isn t free to vote in their own best
                            Message 13 of 17 , Jun 3, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Tom,

                              You don't understand socialism. Employees wouldn't exist; everyone would be an owner. Are you saying a citizen isn't free to vote in their own best interest?!?

                              Mary

                              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Mary
                              >
                              > Yes, I see it; but I also see the impact having tens of thousands of employees voting, for and their unions giving money to the politician who will give them the best raises, pensions, and most important expand rather than cut back their departments.I certainly favor not allowinjg corporations or unions to make political contributions.
                              >
                              > Peace
                              > Tom
                              > ----- Original Message -----
                              > From: Mary
                              > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                              > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 7:00 PM
                              > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Tom,
                              >
                              > The public (you and I) don't own, operate, or make any decisions regarding these enterprises. Governments tax us to subsidize their operations, and/or hire private contractors (other capitalists). This is not socialism. If profit is eliminated from this, the M.I.C., and the drug trade, many of these issues you are so passionate about will disappear. As it is now, they are completely interwoven. Prison corporations trade stock publicly, drum up business via criminal justice system, and pay lobbyists.
                              >
                              > Don't you see the connection between capital and oppression? MSNBC, the media's token Liberal network, is owned by General Electric, and they build prisons and airs prison programming on the weekends!
                              >
                              > Mary
                              >
                              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > Mary
                              > >
                              > > If we take the profit out, I guess you mean to change from private to public ownership. By so doing, you get large numbers of people to form voting blocks to give them raises and expand their departments. I am not denying problems with private ownership, but public ownership tends to create large well paid machines that soon become the master rather than the servant. In reality, it is usually a combination of both public employess and private contractors pushing expensive cash cows. The police state prison complex is a great example. Private construction companies and sometimes private prison systems are part of it, but police and guards unions provide the large voting blocks, p-lus often cash contributions just like private interests.
                              > >
                              > > Peace
                              > > Tom
                              > > ----- Original Message -----
                              > > From: Mary
                              > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                              > > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 4:55 PM
                              > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Tom,
                              > >
                              > > Taking the opportunity for profit out of all these enterprises will solve much. By constantly endorsing the status quo, you will never even come close to the idealistic society you envision.
                              > >
                              > > Mary
                              > >
                              > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > > Mary
                              > > >
                              > > > George Soros's "Open Society" paradigm is that our thoughts can never completely match reality, an open society would be one in which there is an awareness that no ideas are 100% describing reality, so ongoing debates and elections between relatively liberal, and relatively conservative forces are hoped to result in ideas that more nearly describe and deal with the challenges that are being faced. Certainly the problem of the huge vested interests that have successfully engineered the massive growth of the military industrial complex over our life times is extreme. The incarceration rate has quadrupled since 1980;whereas violent crime has remained fairly stable.
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. These policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, but instead yielded high rates of confinement for nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. Only 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges. wikipedia----- -----
                              > > >
                              > > > The expenses for so called defense is much higher than in the days of the cold war. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent each year for more missiles, jets and nuclear bombs allegedly to fight terrorists is like getting canons to fight spiders.
                              > > >
                              > > > So I see any voting blocks of both liberals and conservatives to fight either of these evils as a possible beginning of a place where people of good will could debate the advantages and disadvantages of more socialization or more privatization. So much of the present debates are not about matters of opinion as much as the paid lackeys justifying their sugar daddies.
                              > > >
                              > > > Peace
                              > > > Tom
                              > > > From: Mary
                              > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                              > > > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 12:03 PM
                              > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > Socialists would push agendas which eliminate most the root cause of these problems :)
                              > > >
                              > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Mary, Bill etc
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Liberals can push for reducing military scope to move money from war toward health, education, welfare etc; and conservatives as a way of reducing government. Then debates and votes could occur as to the disposition of saved sums. Libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul pushing anti war agenda allows other Republicans to do so without being seen as leftists. The military industrial complex just like police state prison complex is a monster that feeds on the body politic like a cancer.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Peace
                              > > > > Tom
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              > > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              > >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                            • tom
                              Mary I am saying that one of the factors that is responsible for the growth in various governmental agencies is the capacity for employeees to vote for
                              Message 14 of 17 , Jun 3, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Mary

                                I am saying that one of the factors that is responsible for the growth in various governmental agencies is the capacity for employeees to vote for politicians that expand their agencies, and give them fat salaries, good benefits, and great retirements. In the 010 California election, the famous words heard being said by a Brown aid,[some say it was Brown's wife] about Meg Whitman "You can say she is a whore". Of course, Brown was calling the cops group himself seeking their support. I certainly don't deny the negative impact of corporate money on the expanding military and police prison complex;however, the voting powers and lobbying by employee unions are also big factors. The late USSR certainly had a highly developed police state and prison complex without any other privatization than the black markets. China was represive when totally Communistic; and still repressive as it has privatized. I don't by any means totally disagree with you;however, I don't see socialism as being any guarantee against police state or military industrial complex growth.

                                Peace
                                Tom
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: Mary
                                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 8:17 PM
                                Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities



                                Tom,

                                You don't understand socialism. Employees wouldn't exist; everyone would be an owner. Are you saying a citizen isn't free to vote in their own best interest?!?

                                Mary

                                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Mary
                                >
                                > Yes, I see it; but I also see the impact having tens of thousands of employees voting, for and their unions giving money to the politician who will give them the best raises, pensions, and most important expand rather than cut back their departments.I certainly favor not allowinjg corporations or unions to make political contributions.
                                >
                                > Peace
                                > Tom
                                > ----- Original Message -----
                                > From: Mary
                                > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 7:00 PM
                                > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Tom,
                                >
                                > The public (you and I) don't own, operate, or make any decisions regarding these enterprises. Governments tax us to subsidize their operations, and/or hire private contractors (other capitalists). This is not socialism. If profit is eliminated from this, the M.I.C., and the drug trade, many of these issues you are so passionate about will disappear. As it is now, they are completely interwoven. Prison corporations trade stock publicly, drum up business via criminal justice system, and pay lobbyists.
                                >
                                > Don't you see the connection between capital and oppression? MSNBC, the media's token Liberal network, is owned by General Electric, and they build prisons and airs prison programming on the weekends!
                                >
                                > Mary
                                >
                                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > Mary
                                > >
                                > > If we take the profit out, I guess you mean to change from private to public ownership. By so doing, you get large numbers of people to form voting blocks to give them raises and expand their departments. I am not denying problems with private ownership, but public ownership tends to create large well paid machines that soon become the master rather than the servant. In reality, it is usually a combination of both public employess and private contractors pushing expensive cash cows. The police state prison complex is a great example. Private construction companies and sometimes private prison systems are part of it, but police and guards unions provide the large voting blocks, p-lus often cash contributions just like private interests.
                                > >
                                > > Peace
                                > > Tom
                                > > ----- Original Message -----
                                > > From: Mary
                                > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                > > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 4:55 PM
                                > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Tom,
                                > >
                                > > Taking the opportunity for profit out of all these enterprises will solve much. By constantly endorsing the status quo, you will never even come close to the idealistic society you envision.
                                > >
                                > > Mary
                                > >
                                > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                                > > >
                                > > > Mary
                                > > >
                                > > > George Soros's "Open Society" paradigm is that our thoughts can never completely match reality, an open society would be one in which there is an awareness that no ideas are 100% describing reality, so ongoing debates and elections between relatively liberal, and relatively conservative forces are hoped to result in ideas that more nearly describe and deal with the challenges that are being faced. Certainly the problem of the huge vested interests that have successfully engineered the massive growth of the military industrial complex over our life times is extreme. The incarceration rate has quadrupled since 1980;whereas violent crime has remained fairly stable.
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > > Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. These policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, but instead yielded high rates of confinement for nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. Only 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges. wikipedia----- -----
                                > > >
                                > > > The expenses for so called defense is much higher than in the days of the cold war. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent each year for more missiles, jets and nuclear bombs allegedly to fight terrorists is like getting canons to fight spiders.
                                > > >
                                > > > So I see any voting blocks of both liberals and conservatives to fight either of these evils as a possible beginning of a place where people of good will could debate the advantages and disadvantages of more socialization or more privatization. So much of the present debates are not about matters of opinion as much as the paid lackeys justifying their sugar daddies.
                                > > >
                                > > > Peace
                                > > > Tom
                                > > > From: Mary
                                > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                > > > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 12:03 PM
                                > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > > Socialists would push agendas which eliminate most the root cause of these problems :)
                                > > >
                                > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                                > > > >
                                > > > > Mary, Bill etc
                                > > > >
                                > > > > Liberals can push for reducing military scope to move money from war toward health, education, welfare etc; and conservatives as a way of reducing government. Then debates and votes could occur as to the disposition of saved sums. Libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul pushing anti war agenda allows other Republicans to do so without being seen as leftists. The military industrial complex just like police state prison complex is a monster that feeds on the body politic like a cancer.
                                > > > >
                                > > > > Peace
                                > > > > Tom
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                > > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                > >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >





                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Mary
                                Tom, I have so many objections to libertarianism, this could go on forever. Here s a little primer on why. And since neither socialists nor libertarians are
                                Message 15 of 17 , Jun 4, 2011
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Tom,

                                  I have so many objections to libertarianism, this could go on forever.

                                  Here's a little primer on why. And since neither socialists nor libertarians are likely to be represented sufficiently in any election, let's just say my objections are primarily moral and philosophical, and leave it at that.

                                  http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html

                                  Mary

                                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Mary
                                  >
                                  > I am saying that one of the factors that is responsible for the growth in various governmental agencies is the capacity for employeees to vote for politicians that expand their agencies, and give them fat salaries, good benefits, and great retirements. In the 010 California election, the famous words heard being said by a Brown aid,[some say it was Brown's wife] about Meg Whitman "You can say she is a whore". Of course, Brown was calling the cops group himself seeking their support. I certainly don't deny the negative impact of corporate money on the expanding military and police prison complex;however, the voting powers and lobbying by employee unions are also big factors. The late USSR certainly had a highly developed police state and prison complex without any other privatization than the black markets. China was represive when totally Communistic; and still repressive as it has privatized. I don't by any means totally disagree with you;however, I don't see socialism as being any guarantee against police state or military industrial complex growth.
                                  >
                                  > Peace
                                  > Tom
                                  > ----- Original Message -----
                                  > From: Mary
                                  > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 8:17 PM
                                  > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Tom,
                                  >
                                  > You don't understand socialism. Employees wouldn't exist; everyone would be an owner. Are you saying a citizen isn't free to vote in their own best interest?!?
                                  >
                                  > Mary
                                  >
                                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > Mary
                                  > >
                                  > > Yes, I see it; but I also see the impact having tens of thousands of employees voting, for and their unions giving money to the politician who will give them the best raises, pensions, and most important expand rather than cut back their departments.I certainly favor not allowinjg corporations or unions to make political contributions.
                                  > >
                                  > > Peace
                                  > > Tom
                                  > > ----- Original Message -----
                                  > > From: Mary
                                  > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                  > > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 7:00 PM
                                  > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Tom,
                                  > >
                                  > > The public (you and I) don't own, operate, or make any decisions regarding these enterprises. Governments tax us to subsidize their operations, and/or hire private contractors (other capitalists). This is not socialism. If profit is eliminated from this, the M.I.C., and the drug trade, many of these issues you are so passionate about will disappear. As it is now, they are completely interwoven. Prison corporations trade stock publicly, drum up business via criminal justice system, and pay lobbyists.
                                  > >
                                  > > Don't you see the connection between capital and oppression? MSNBC, the media's token Liberal network, is owned by General Electric, and they build prisons and airs prison programming on the weekends!
                                  > >
                                  > > Mary
                                  > >
                                  > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Mary
                                  > > >
                                  > > > If we take the profit out, I guess you mean to change from private to public ownership. By so doing, you get large numbers of people to form voting blocks to give them raises and expand their departments. I am not denying problems with private ownership, but public ownership tends to create large well paid machines that soon become the master rather than the servant. In reality, it is usually a combination of both public employess and private contractors pushing expensive cash cows. The police state prison complex is a great example. Private construction companies and sometimes private prison systems are part of it, but police and guards unions provide the large voting blocks, p-lus often cash contributions just like private interests.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Peace
                                  > > > Tom
                                  > > > ----- Original Message -----
                                  > > > From: Mary
                                  > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                  > > > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 4:55 PM
                                  > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Tom,
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Taking the opportunity for profit out of all these enterprises will solve much. By constantly endorsing the status quo, you will never even come close to the idealistic society you envision.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Mary
                                  > > >
                                  > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Mary
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > George Soros's "Open Society" paradigm is that our thoughts can never completely match reality, an open society would be one in which there is an awareness that no ideas are 100% describing reality, so ongoing debates and elections between relatively liberal, and relatively conservative forces are hoped to result in ideas that more nearly describe and deal with the challenges that are being faced. Certainly the problem of the huge vested interests that have successfully engineered the massive growth of the military industrial complex over our life times is extreme. The incarceration rate has quadrupled since 1980;whereas violent crime has remained fairly stable.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. These policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, but instead yielded high rates of confinement for nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. Only 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges. wikipedia----- -----
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > The expenses for so called defense is much higher than in the days of the cold war. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent each year for more missiles, jets and nuclear bombs allegedly to fight terrorists is like getting canons to fight spiders.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > So I see any voting blocks of both liberals and conservatives to fight either of these evils as a possible beginning of a place where people of good will could debate the advantages and disadvantages of more socialization or more privatization. So much of the present debates are not about matters of opinion as much as the paid lackeys justifying their sugar daddies.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Peace
                                  > > > > Tom
                                  > > > > From: Mary
                                  > > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                  > > > > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 12:03 PM
                                  > > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Socialists would push agendas which eliminate most the root cause of these problems :)
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > > Mary, Bill etc
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > > Liberals can push for reducing military scope to move money from war toward health, education, welfare etc; and conservatives as a way of reducing government. Then debates and votes could occur as to the disposition of saved sums. Libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul pushing anti war agenda allows other Republicans to do so without being seen as leftists. The military industrial complex just like police state prison complex is a monster that feeds on the body politic like a cancer.
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > > Peace
                                  > > > > > Tom
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  > > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  > > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.