Perhaps if he paid the full 35% like the rest of us, we could afford those brigades.

I'm starting to think it was a good thing Politifact called the Ryan Plan to End Medicare a pants on fire hyperbole...

They're gonna need every ounce of perceived neutrality they can muster, cos Romney is just full of shiat.

We should have the smallest Navy since 1917. There is no other power with a blue water Navy that can remotely challenge our command of the seas.

And what does all this mean?

nothing

Thanks for wasting the time to talk about numbers that only have consequence to people who do not have the capacity to think.

FTA: Judging by the numbers alone, Romney was close to accurate.

Go ahead and laugh, the Canadian Horde sure is.

Philip Francis Queeg: We should have the smallest Navy since 1917. There is no other power with a blue water Navy that can remotely challenge our command of the seas.

THIS

Nobody can take us on face-to-face. Warfare has changed, our forces need to adapt to smaller conflicts.

our Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917

Probably because we don't need a thousand battleships, cruisers, and destroyers since the advent of the modern aircraft carrier that can project our might from far greater distances than the 'old' navy could have done. But hey, keep crapping your pants.

Philip Francis Queeg: We should have the smallest Navy since 1917. There is no other power with a blue water Navy that can remotely challenge our command of the seas.

Agreed. I think 12 carrier battlegroups roaming the seas is the very definition of overkill on our part.

To republicans....

this



equals this

Its funny how the Republican message is "cut spending", "cut spending", "waste", "fraud", etc. Except for the military, where a mere decrease in the rate of increase in spending is called "dangerous and irresponsible".


http://www.newsmax.com/DickArmey/Obama-Military-Budget-cut/2012/01/11 / id/423870

Dear Romney,

You take command of the US navy during, say, 1945 (6768 ships, albeit mostly auxiliary, amphibious, and patrol vessels) and I'll take command of the 2007 fleet (278 ships). Throw in appropriate air crews as necessary.

Want to bet who will win?

Dinki: [pcmedia.gamespy.com image 400x300]

Ranged infantry can kick their butts

Sure, if the horses are standing still.

*gasp* My monocle!

Damn you, submitter!!!

One modern aircraft carrier task force could probably defeat all the world's warships from 1917 combined.

Final Countdown 2

czei: Its funny how the Republican message is "cut spending", "cut spending", "waste", "fraud", etc. Except for the military, where a mere decrease in the rate of increase in spending is called "dangerous and irresponsible".


http://www.newsmax.com/DickArmey/Obama-Military-Budget-cut/2012/01/11 / id/423870

Because when you need to attack Obama on National Security and military matters, you need a Dick Armey.

// I seem to remember Al Franken saying the same thing about Dick Cheney(?)'s criticisms of Clinton "decimating" the military
// they cited the reduced number of horse cavalry, but again, you had to dig through the cite to find how they disingenuously used it

They did this in 2000 if anyone recalls at the RNC. The line in that dramatic, jerkoff tone that only self-important geezers can muster was "not ready for duty, sir!"

This should be expected and in the next year you'll hear a lot about how Obama has decimated our military to 1916 levels. "Strong on defense" is always a Republican brand attribute.

He could have a point. With a lower number of tanks, our army would be vulnerable to a horde of spearmen who could get enough lucky hits to defeat our military, even though the enemy has a less technically advanced force. Although I'm not sure if this scenario has ever applied to navy or air forces.

Dragoons?

Yeah, my Tea Party Congressmen was trotting out this same talking point in a newsletter he sent out to his constituents in the form of a fake survey. Basically comparing miltary spending now to what it was in 1990 and saying that the DoD have been unfairly targeted.

Although part of it has to do with the fact that Boeing has a large presence in my district.

Romney also has said Obama has never held a private sector job which is another lie.

He lies and lies all the time and no one ever calls him on it.

xtragrind: FTA: Judging by the numbers alone, Romney was close to accurate.

FTFA: This comment includes a lot of separate claims, but after a number of readers contacted us, we decided to focus on two of them: "Our Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917," and, "Our Air Force is smaller and older than any time since 1947."

On the number of naval ships, Romney is close, except that he overlooked the four years of lower numbers under Bush. Meanwhile, he's correct on the number of aircraft and is most likely correct on the age of aircraft.

...But still rated Pants on Fire, based on things they specifically said they weren't focusing on. What the hell.

Calvary is NOT Cavalry.

Cavalry is NOT Calvary.

sheesh.

Corvus: Romney also has said Obama has never held a private sector job which is another lie.

He lies and lies all the time and no one ever calls him on it.

Ghandi never had a private sector job! Lazy bastard.

Republicans: always trying to make up for size.

Really though, the guy who preaches of efficiencies of markets is trying to argue that brute force, and throwing bad money at bad in the military is a good idea? Our fraking military is smaller, you dickpickle, because we're much more technologically advanced and smarter, faster, and more effective.

FTA: "We simply cannot continue to cut our Department of Defense budget if we are going to remain the hope of the Earth. And I will fight to make sure America retains military superiority."

Because America is always right and everyone else is wrong.

Thanks for reminding me why I'll never vote Republican Mitt!

AdolfOliverPanties: If Obama doesn't beat Mittens or Newtie in a landslide, then he just didn't take advantage of the out and out lies each of them are telling.

Or that the American voters are the stupidest they've been since 19.....well ever.

That's funny, Mitt, but I see no squirrel over there.

Came for images of City of Heroes "Nemesis" prussian automatons, leaving sad.

Also, if politifact says its pants on fire, I'm more inclined to believe Romney, based on Poltifacts recent errors.

WTF Indeed: Perhaps if he paid the full 35% like the rest of us, we could afford those brigades.

Dude you need to get a better accountant and stop doing your tax forms in crayon. I think most everyone paid less than 14% in federal income tax. I was 16%.

Forgot_my_password_again: To republicans....

this (old plane)

equals this (new fight jet)



I am sure the same applies to ships and submarines. It quite possible one of the trident submarines could have won all World War I sea battles alone.

FTFA We simply cannot continue to cut our Department of Defense budget if we are going to remain the hope of the Earth

A) Yes we can.
B) "the hope of the Earth"? Seriously? Its bad enough when people think we need to be world police for our own security, but apparently Romney thinks the US is some kind of 1950's cartoon hero.

And he's using aircraft carriers to prove his point? Mitt, that sonic boom you're hearing is the drone going over your head.

Incredibly stupid statistics are incredibly stupid.

We have fewer aircraft now than 1950 because each individual aircraft is:
1) much more capable
2) Much more expensive

The US built 96,000 total aircraft in the year 1944 ALONE. From 1939-1945 5 we built over 300,000 aircraft in total. Comparing airforce size now to 1950 is disingenuous and stupid. Or would you call the F51, Bearcat, and F-80 shooting star equivalent to an F15/F18/F22?
How about a B29 vs. a B2? or B52?

Lets not compare our airforce with a different era, with different specializations, lets compare it with... say, a contemporary?

The British RAF has 997 total aircraft...
and before you but..but..but... China me, they only have about 2500 aircraft.
Russia comes the closest with 4000ish

Or, in other words, STFU Romney.

theknuckler_33: our Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917

Probably because we don't need a thousand battleships, cruisers, and destroyers since the advent of the modern aircraft carrier that can project our might from far greater distances than the 'old' navy could have done. But hey, keep crapping your pants.

yeah but now China has that one aircraft carrier it took them forever to get going. What if they start steaming this way? They could be within striking distance in just WEEKS! How would we ever stop them on that short of notice?

Hell, if they ever get the rail cannon project working up to full specs, they'd need less than *that*. That thing could theoretically provide artillery support for.. wasn't it close to the *entire* pacific, just sitting in Hawaii?

(Of course, that's a big 'if')

sgleason818: Calvary is NOT Cavalry.

Cavalry is NOT Calvary.

sheesh.

Sorry. My bad. You forgot this calvary though:

I've seen an army of pikemen take out tanks before. I've seen ancient galleys destroy cruisers before. Mounted knights have taken down squadrons of fighter planes... somehow. Its not good enough to have the best weapons, you never know what the roll of the die will wind up doing.

This is a Civ thread, right?

brandent: theknuckler_33: our Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917

Probably because we don't need a thousand battleships, cruisers, and destroyers since the advent of the modern aircraft carrier that can project our might from far greater distances than the 'old' navy could have done. But hey, keep crapping your pants.

yeah but now China has that one aircraft carrier it took them forever to get going. What if they start steaming this way? They could be within striking distance in just WEEKS! How would we ever stop them on that short of notice?

It would be like the German bombing of Pearl Harbor all over again!

dababler: Came for images of City of Heroes "Nemesis" prussian automatons, leaving sad.

Also, if politifact says its pants on fire, I'm more inclined to believe Romney, based on Poltifacts recent errors.

The lack of Nemesis images is a Nemesis Plot.

/It's ALWAYS a Nemesis Plot.

FTA: We simply cannot continue to cut our Department of Defense budget if we are going to remain the hope of the Earth

Help me Obi-wan, you're my only hope!

Honestly, this is absurd. Nevermind the entire issue of cost effective spending, nevermind the need for increased taxes to pay for an increase in the size of military, nevermind America blowing money stupidly in military conflicts recently, just what threat does Romney think we are facing?

(If anything recent events have shown that size is less important than proper application of force and proper intelligence.)

meat0918: Mrtraveler01: FTA: "We simply cannot continue to cut our Department of Defense budget if we are going to remain the hope of the Earth. And I will fight to make sure America retains military superiority."

Because America is always right and everyone else is wrong.

Thanks for reminding me why I'll never vote Republican Mitt!

mmmmm, Dominionist talking points...

Can Mormons be Dominionists?