If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   Paul Ryan hits back at Obama's "horses and bayonets" quip: "The ocean hasn't shrunk." ZING   (thehill.com) divider line 61
    More: Hero, President Obama, navy, Budget Control Act, sea lanes, foreign policy, oceans  
•       •       •

2589 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Oct 2012 at 10:34 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-23 09:54:47 AM
9 votes:
Um....

boeingblogs.com

Yes it has, dumbass.
2012-10-23 09:57:05 AM
7 votes:
We have guided missiles that can take out an enemy ship from over the horizon. we don't need a flotilla of cruisers to do the same job as a pile of missiles.
2012-10-23 10:49:17 AM
6 votes:
"Iran is four years closer to a nuclear weapon."

It's also 4 years closer to the election of it's first gay female robot emperor with a cooking show.
2012-10-23 09:58:00 AM
5 votes:
Go on, double down on the stupidity.
2012-10-23 10:30:49 AM
4 votes:
The fact that the GOP has to spend the entire next day doing damage control and shoring up Romney's statements tells me all I need to know about who they think won.

That and the laughable coverage by Faux News.
2012-10-23 09:57:51 AM
4 votes:
The ships do go a little farther though don't they you lying pissrag.
2012-10-23 10:49:13 AM
3 votes:
In this scenario, Barack Obama is Indiana Jones, and Mitt Romney is the dude who just got shot.

www.thegeekreport.net
2012-10-23 10:46:36 AM
3 votes:
"This trillion dollar cut in defense will make us weak, will project weakness abroad"

So, do you regret voting for the sequestration?

Also, maybe you should be busting your ass in Congress to avoid that automatic cut.

Ryan is like someone farking up horribly at work and hoping to find a new job before someone notices and fires him.
2012-10-23 10:09:49 AM
3 votes:

Bloody William: "The ocean hasn't shrunk," Ryan said in an interview on CBS's This Morning. "You still have to have enough ships to have the footprint that you need ... to keep our strength abroad where it needs to be."

What exactly is the "footprint" (tactical reach?) of a single carrier group compared to the entire American fleet in 1912?


A single carrier battle group would obliterate the combined navies of the US, Britain and Germany from WWI. If they felt like it they could probably do this without being seen for extra points.
2012-10-23 10:08:48 AM
3 votes:
Instead of wasting money and putting lots of ships and sailors on the line, we could invest in those fancy new missiles that can pin a fly to a wall from way the fark out, then explode and wipe out whatever ship that fly was on.

But yeah, keep using the size of the ocean as a reason to waste money on outdated technology.
2012-10-23 10:08:20 AM
3 votes:
The entire world has shrunk... its called globalization.

Also (I'll accept corrections if i'm wrong) but I understand that our Nimitz class aircraft carriers have two nuclear reactors that allow them to navigate w/o stopping for fuel for about 20 years. It seems that if your ships are faster and don't need to stop as much to refuel and you can cover more ground with less vessels.
2012-10-23 10:01:59 AM
3 votes:
Nine hours and that's the best response. My, oh my.
2012-10-23 10:01:31 AM
3 votes:
FTFA: The president, if all of these defense cuts go through, our Navy will be smaller than it was in World War I. That's unacceptable."

No. That's actually the opposite of unacceptable. Air power has fundamentally altered the value of a navy, and the navy has been decreasing in size for decades for a reason.
2012-10-23 09:59:15 AM
3 votes:
That's really bad, considering he's had all this time with a team to work together on the best thing to say as a soundbite to be their retort to that quip... Sack everyone involved.
2012-10-23 11:55:10 AM
2 votes:
choosepp.net
2012-10-23 11:39:03 AM
2 votes:
Ryan: "to compare modern american battleships and navy with bayonet's, I just don't understand that comparison"

Do you know why you don't understand? Because bayonets were being compared to the 1917 navy.

DUMBASS! (even if he is pretending to mis-remember the comparison.
2012-10-23 11:06:33 AM
2 votes:

Fark It: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x1076]


imageshack.us 

I spent like 15 seconds making it, might as well wring out as much use as possible
2012-10-23 10:53:13 AM
2 votes:

JerseyTim: Do you think he went back to his advisers after that line and said, "Nailed it!"


i48.tinypic.com

oi49.tinypic.com
2012-10-23 10:44:51 AM
2 votes:
Paul Ryan is an idiot on everything but budgets and numbers. Until we found out he was an idiot on that too. So vote for him. He could be president if Romney falls off his dancing horse.
2012-10-23 10:40:07 AM
2 votes:
Pair this with his "war on left-handed Irish" comment, it makes you realize Ryan says he's a "numbers guy" not because of anything regarding his number-crunching skills, but because he fails miserably at words.
2012-10-23 10:38:25 AM
2 votes:
Man, I hate to pound the shotglass or just toss out ten lbs of cheddar, but even an environmentally minded dude can see that the President won the last debate.
2012-10-23 10:14:13 AM
2 votes:

DjangoStonereaver: Um....

[boeingblogs.com image 700x500]

Yes it has, dumbass.


The advance in technology is impressive. But its funny that the personnel still wear standard camouflage.

If they really needed to stay hidden in that room the camo should be depictions of computers and electronic equipment.
2012-10-23 10:03:09 AM
2 votes:
"The ocean hasn't shrunk," Ryan said in an interview on CBS's This Morning. "You still have to have enough ships to have the footprint that you need ... to keep our strength abroad where it needs to be."

What exactly is the "footprint" (tactical reach?) of a single carrier group compared to the entire American fleet in 1912?
2012-10-23 10:01:57 AM
2 votes:
www.neptunuslex.com

no but the ships have gotten bigger

Class & type: Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate
Displacement: 4,100 long tons (4,200 t), full load
Length: 453 feet (138 m), overall
Beam: 45 feet (14 m)
Draught: 22 feet (6.7 m)

USS Constitution (heavy frigate)
Tonnage: 1,576
Displacement: 2,200 tons
Length: 204 ft (62 m) billet head to taffrail;
175 ft (53 m) at waterline[2]
Beam: 43 ft 6 in (13.26 m)
Height: foremast: 198 ft (60 m)
mainmast: 220 ft (67 m)
mizzenmast:172.5 ft (52.6 m)[2]
Draft: 21 ft (6.4 m) forward
23 ft (7.0 m) aft[4]
2012-10-23 09:58:39 AM
2 votes:
Keep running with this, boys. We need more boats. It doesn't matter what kind, it's the numbers that matter.
2012-10-23 06:32:53 PM
1 votes:

vpb: Actually the area each ship can control has increased dramatically. Besides, if you want to start dredging up historical irrelevancies, the US has the largest navy in the world now and we were number two in 1917.

There were only about 40 more ships in 1917, and ships today are much larger. I am fairly sure the Navy is larger today than in 1917 in terms of tonnage. Does anyone know where to find total active tonnage for 1917?


Heck - the difference between 1914-1942 is huge. Here's the hulk of the USS Oklahoma (the one that rolled over) next to the USS Wisconsin:

www.bitlogic.com 

Both of those ships are "Battleships"
2012-10-23 06:19:11 PM
1 votes:

vpb: Actually the area each ship can control has increased dramatically. Besides, if you want to start dredging up historical irrelevancies, the US has the largest navy in the world now and we were number two in 1917.

There were only about 40 more ships in 1917, and ships today are much larger. I am fairly sure the Navy is larger today than in 1917 in terms of tonnage. Does anyone know where to find total active tonnage for 1917?


I wonder what sailors from 1917 would think of a Supercarrier.

Given the size of a period South Carolina class battleship, a Nimitz class supercarrier is twice as long and 50% wider at the waterline and so high above it they couldn't see onto its deck.
They'd likely laugh at a guided missile cruiser if they got close enough to it to actually see it. "heh. where are all the guns, is that some futuristic paint sprayer?"
2012-10-23 11:41:25 AM
1 votes:
We have planes that are stationed in Missouri that attack Afghanistan and come back 3 days later.
We have single carrier groups that can singlehandedly take out the entire combined navies from WWI.

Hell, one or two carrier groups could probably take on the entire combined navies from WWII if they wanted to try. What in the f*ck is the Yamato or Bismark going to do against a bunch of missiles that they have no chance of shooting down when launched from 600 miles away? And, a bunch of zereos are going to do dickall against the defenses of a carrier.

The ocean has shrunk. We shrunk it through technology. That's why one nation is able to be the single greatest naval force the world has ever seen. And, it isn't even freaking close.
2012-10-23 11:41:04 AM
1 votes:
In 1916, the U.S. Navy had 245 active ships, a number that eventually peaked during World War II, then fell, then peaked again more modestly during the Korean War, followed by a slow, consistent decline over the next five decades.

In 2011, the number was 285. More than any of the last four years under President Bush. But suddenly now it's a problem.
2012-10-23 11:31:44 AM
1 votes:
Either Mr Ryan thinks we are all too stupid to understand why we don't need as many ships as we had 100 years ago, or he is that stupid. Nether would get my vote.
2012-10-23 11:29:41 AM
1 votes:
"The ocean hasn't shrunk," Ryan said in an interview on CBS's "This Morning." "You still have to have enough ships to have the footprint that you need ... to keep our strength abroad where it needs to be."

I know it has been covered but since I am here. Due to technology, the footprint per ship has gotten bigger.
2012-10-23 11:05:20 AM
1 votes:
i632.photobucket.com
2012-10-23 10:59:25 AM
1 votes:
"The ocean hasn't shrunk." ZING

This, right here, is why I can never be in politics. When I hear or read something like what the President said last night, my first reaction is always to try and think up the GOP rejoinder that will resonate with their derp-class base. And every single time, I fail at it.

This "zing" is so patently, absurdly stupid that it would simply never occur to me that a responsible adult would permit such a thing to leave his mouth. And yet, there it is... and it is perfect. This is exactly the sort of come-back that a profoundly dumb person will think sounds clever. All I can do is shake my head in wonder.


Idiocracy is a documentary from the future. And the ocean does, in fact, have electrolytes.
2012-10-23 10:59:03 AM
1 votes:
This is like someone giving you a horribly scathing insult based on complete truth regarding your character that catches you off-guard leaving you with no adequate reply, and then after hours of mental self-torture over the truth of it, you finally think of a reply and call that person up and say, "Nuh uh!"
2012-10-23 10:54:26 AM
1 votes:

Mad Morf: kbronsito: The entire world has shrunk... its called globalization.

Also (I'll accept corrections if i'm wrong) but I understand that our Nimitz class aircraft carriers have two nuclear reactors that allow them to navigate w/o stopping for fuel for about 20 years. It seems that if your ships are faster and don't need to stop as much to refuel and you can cover more ground with less vessels.

This is true, but they can only carry enough aviation fuel for about 18 days of continuous flight ops, so that's the limiting factor these days...


Oh... that's a cool fact I didn't consider. This will be the one new thing i've learned today.
2012-10-23 10:50:35 AM
1 votes:
Well obviously there have been no significant advances in naval technology in the last 100 years, so Paul Ryan is totally correct.
2012-10-23 10:50:23 AM
1 votes:

Wellon Dowd: How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?


Negligible. It outranges the Iowas by quite a bit, but has about 10% of the armor. If the Iowa ever got in range, one or two salvos would be all she wrote for the Ticonderoga.

But it's a moot point. Both are prime targets for submarines, and would never operate outside of a task force, which in turn would never operate without air cover. It's so inter-linked that there's just no role for the battlewagons anymore - the sheer range of missiles and carrier air wings has made the naval gun obsolete.Heck, even Reagan knew that - they were refitted for their shore bombardment capabilities and to draw missiles from the carriers, not for their ability to be meaningful fleet force components. Think of them as especially tough decoys, with some littoral utility.
2012-10-23 10:50:06 AM
1 votes:
And submitter is soundly humiliated. nice work, everyone.
2012-10-23 10:46:25 AM
1 votes:
And..... He totally misses the point.

Thank you, Sarah-Palin-In-Pants
2012-10-23 10:46:07 AM
1 votes:
hey, Rmoney/Ryan!

cache.gawker.com
2012-10-23 10:44:42 AM
1 votes:
True...but the force-projection 'bubble' (ie, the range at which a given ship or fleet can engage an enemy) of a modern carrier is about 1000km. The force-projection 'bubble' of a WWI fleet was about 50k.

Also: WWI was the height of a naval arms race. After WWI, that race continued right through WWII, when we then had the Cold War to deal with. So in a way, our fleet size has *finally* gotten back to actual peacetime levels and you want to build it up again? Do you maybe not realize how much ships cost?
2012-10-23 10:41:58 AM
1 votes:
How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?
2012-10-23 10:41:05 AM
1 votes:
I thought Republicans, especially so-called fiscal wonks like Ryan and rock-ribbed businessmen like Romney. understood the value of efficiency. Isn't controlling more battlespace with fewer, better ships and crew supposed to be a good thing that deficit hawks should applaud, or does productivity zealotry only apply to workers, the destitute, and the old?

/government doesn't create jobs... except when it comes to military procurement, at which point the more money thrown at it the better
//GOP logic
2012-10-23 10:41:01 AM
1 votes:
WHY DOES OBAMA REFUSE TO UP THE BUDGET ON OUR COAL REFUELING DEPOTS? WE'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO ATTACK SALAMANCA DURING OUR NEXT TURN WITH OUR IRONCLADS NOW!
2012-10-23 10:40:44 AM
1 votes:
"The ocean hasn't shrunk," Ryan said in an interview on CBS's This Morning.

What Ryan means is that the ocean hasn't shrunk in his bathtub where he plays "Battleship" with some ships that he got out of a Cracker Jack box.

STFU, Eddie!
2012-10-23 10:40:10 AM
1 votes:
"The Ocean hasn't shrunk..." no shiat, Sherlock. Hell, what with global warming, deglaciation, and rising sea levels the ocean has...wait a tick. Romney/Ryan also supports increased fossil fuel use and halting transition to renewables and clean energy.

Holy fark, Romney's plan has a detail, substance, and some coherence! The US rules the seas, and they want to make the seas bigger so we rule more of the Earth with a bigger navy to do it!

Manifest Sea-Destiny!
2012-10-23 10:39:57 AM
1 votes:

DjangoStonereaver: gilgigamesh: DjangoStonereaver: Um....

[boeingblogs.com image 700x500]

Yes it has, dumbass.

The advance in technology is impressive. But its funny that the personnel still wear standard camouflage.

If they really needed to stay hidden in that room the camo should be depictions of computers and electronic equipment.

Its fractal camouflage, now.


Believe it or not, the Navy NWU is not intended to be camouflage. It is designed to mask the most common paints, oils, and grease used in the maintenance of naval vessels.

We get to be dirty and not look dirty.
2012-10-23 10:39:16 AM
1 votes:
In other news, Paul Ryan has yet to discover satellite technology or GPS.
2012-10-23 10:39:14 AM
1 votes:
And if we ever go to war with the ocean that might matter.
2012-10-23 10:39:04 AM
1 votes:
cyberbrethren.com
2012-10-23 10:38:01 AM
1 votes:
Romney and Ryan have studied this issue extensively, people. They know what they're talking about.

4.bp.blogspot.com

/Hot.
2012-10-23 10:37:50 AM
1 votes:
They're pandering to voters who remember Pearl Harbor and still call Russia "The Soviet Union." Of course they're sticking with this talking point.
2012-10-23 10:37:15 AM
1 votes:
4.bp.blogspot.com
2012-10-23 10:36:43 AM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: Dear god, these people might be running this country in a few months.


Florida, Ohio, I just want to tell you both good luck. We're all counting on you.
2012-10-23 10:36:12 AM
1 votes:
Do you think he went back to his advisers after that line and said, "Nailed it!"
2012-10-23 10:24:13 AM
1 votes:

kronicfeld: Go on, double down on the stupidity.


This.

You'll definitely excite your base with this logic,Mittens.
2012-10-23 10:18:56 AM
1 votes:
Sounds like someone's doing their best to make sure Virginia doesn't go Democrat...Newport News...Lynchburg...
2012-10-23 10:15:21 AM
1 votes:
Does this mean the GOP is finally acknowledging global warming and rising ocean levels?
2012-10-23 10:13:08 AM
1 votes:
I wonder how many of the GOP's best and brightest it took to come up with that scathing retort.
2012-10-23 10:09:50 AM
1 votes:
To be fair, you DO need more ships if they're powered by horses on treadmills, getting poked with a bayonet once in a while to keep them trotting.
2012-10-23 10:08:57 AM
1 votes:
It still takes a day to travel to the Cayman Islands by yacht. Suck it Fart.
 
Displayed 61 of 61 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report