"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
news

I'm sorry, but I don't recall advocating a "social program based
utopia."




Well, that's how this reader interprets your professional writing.

Eisboch




I believe in a strong social safety net that keeps people healthy and
provides for high level training so that everyone has access to meaningful
work that provides a decent living for a family. It's the Norwegian
approach, sort of.


--
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."
John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that
the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain senior
moment?

Provides....provides....provides. Who is going to provide the money. There's
too many folks being provided for and a shortage of providers. Provide a
solution to that problem and you will be provided with all the riches you
dream of.

I wouldn't exactly call what you do meaningful work, would you?

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:45:45 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:16:23 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Oh, by the way - interesting article the other day about polling results
- in that whites ~~ THE HORROR ~~ may actually lie about voting for a
black man when polled. Which, according to the author of the article,
may portend a huge landslide - for McCain.

Demographics, lad, demographics. Republicans are a dying breed. Their
power base is white, particularly white male. In another twenty years,
whites will no longer be the majority in this country. Republicans
either expand their base to include females, Hispanics, blacks, or they
will become the permanent minority party.

http://people-press.org/report/124/republicans

I was just busting Harry. :)

I agree - the Demographics are changing - and for the better I think
because a lot of hispanics are sympathetic to convervatives and blacks
are waking up to the base fact that TANSTAAFL is actually the way life
works.

It will be an interesting in the coming years.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:06:20 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:30:26 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


wrote in message
net...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:13:45 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Here we go again with history repeating itself. This is shades of
Jimmy Carter all over again. If the USA ever became close to being a
paper tiger, it was during his administration. Reagan came along,
reversed all Carter's cutbacks and set in motion the events that
ultimately led to the USSR's collapse.

Those were Ford's cuts, and to be fair, we were coming out of a war. One
should expect the defense budget to be cut. Carter increased, as % GDP,
the defense budget. Reagan, of course, increased it significantly more.


http://colorado.mediamatters.org/sta...em/incidental/
fiscalchart.htm


Seems to me that I recall plans to reduce the Navy by almost half by Carter
which led to serious concerns about our ability to control the seas by
members of Congress on both sides
.
Reagan re-instituted a 600 ship (minimum) Navy.

Not Google info .... this is from memory.

Honest - I have not read Harry's reply yet.

I guarentee you he will say something along the lines of waste of
money, social issues and can't we all get along.

Filter him. You won't have the problem.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:36:15 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
...


If Georgia and some of the other former Sov satellites were already in
NATO, and if Bush hadn't shot our diplomatic wad around the world. Russia
wouldn't have invaded.



Come on Harry. That is nothing but a grand assumption.

Here's the question, put more simply.

If a NATO member is attacked and invaded by Russia (or any other non-NATO
adversary), does the United States have an obligation to respond with
military action, if required?

Eisboch


Not unless NATO determines that military force is to be applied. That won't
happen until the last NATO country is standing.
--
** Good Day! **

John H