MITT ROMNEY POLITICALLY DROPPED HIS PANTS AS PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA EXPOSED HIM AS A MORONIC FOOL AND AN ABSOLUTE TOOL TO BOOT!!!
OK, Democratic President Barack Obama didn't do very well in his first Presidential debate with Republican Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, back in Tuesday, October 3,2012. The one fault I see in Obama, is that he is just too much of a gentleman and he needed to be more aggressive.
The only reason why Nit-wit Mitt Romney won in the first Presidential debate, is because he's a smooth talking liar, and a
really good liar can often sound very convincing.
I believe that President Obama was sincere, honest, and truthful during the first debate. But, he simply should have been a little bit more aggressive, and tried to call Romney out on his bull shit!!!
Yeah, people are more likely to believe a smooth talking liar than to believe a non-aggressive person who is telling the truth.
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.
Mark Twain
Then . . . on Thursday, October 11,2012 was the Vice-presidential between Democratic Vice-president, Joe Biden, and Republican Vice-presidential candidate, Paul Ryan.
Yeah! Joe Bidden mopped up the debate floor with Paul Ryan!!!
Yeah! Way to go Joe!!!
This calls for for a drink in celebration!
Then came the second Presidential debate between Barack Obama and Mitt
Romney on Tuesday, October 16,2012 and as usual, Mitt Romney lied like a
piss-socked wet rug on a shit-house floor!
Yeah! Liar liar, pants on fire! His nose is longer than a telephone wire!
Oh! But it gets even better!!!
Then, came the third and final Presidential debate on Monday, October
22,2012 between Democratic President Barack Obama and Republican
Presidential candidate Shit Romney!
Here is where Mitt Romney politically drops his pants and exposes himself for what he really is! Yeah,
a moronic fool and an absolute tool to boot!
It was during their discussion on the military and foreign policy when Mitt Romney made the following comment . . .
"The Navy is too small and has fewer ships than it did in 1916."
To which, Obama replied . . . . .
"You
mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we
did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets,
because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things
called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships
that go underwater, nuclear submarines."
And Obama went on to say . . .
"It's not a game of battleship where we're counting ships, it's 'What are our capabilities?'"
WOW! Obama made Romney look like an absolute fool!!!
OK,
I'm sure that I love horses as much as Mitt Romney does. In fact, I
like animals much more than Mitt Romney, because, unlike him . . . I would NEVER strap a dog down on top of a car and go for a 12 hour drive!!!
Anyway . . . . . . .
Here is a really cute video game I found at:
And here is a screen shot I took while playing the video.
Horses and Bayonets Game: Help
Obama win! Throw horses and
bayonets on Mitt Romney!
To play this game, you just simply click your mouse on the screen to drop horses and bayonets on Mitt Romney as he quickly moves from side to side.
So, just go to the above mentioned web site link.
And have fun!
Thank's Teddy for this article but I would like to say that Romney's Lie About the Navy goes much deeper. Romney also lied about the airforce. Politifact called it a pants on fire lie. Romney's Lie About the Navy and Airforce CLICK HERE
The U.S. military is at risk of losing its "military superiority"
because "our Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917. Our Air Force is
smaller and older than any time since 1947."--Mitt Romney--
Professional Liar Mitt Romney on Monday, January 16th, 2012 in a Republican presidential debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C.
During the Jan. 16, 2012, Republican presidential debate in Myrtle
Beach, S.C., former Massachusetts Gov. and professional liar Mitt Romney took aim at President
Barack Obama’s support for the U.S. military.
"The most extraordinary thing that's happened with this military
authorization is the president is planning on cutting $1 trillion out of
military spending," Romney said. "Our Navy is smaller than it's been
since 1917. Our Air Force is smaller and older than any time since 1947.
We are cutting our number of troops. We are not giving the veterans the
care they deserve. 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."
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."
His underlying point: The U.S. military has been seriously weakened compared to what it was 50 and 100 years ago.
We’ll look at both the numbers as well as the larger
context. But as you'll see below, using the number of military ships
and airplanes is an outdated practice that one expert says "doesn't pass
'the giggle test.' "
The Navy numbers
The Romney campaign didn’t get back to us, but we found their likely
sourcing when we contacted the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think
tank.
In January 2010, Heritage published a report titled, "The State of the
U.S. Military." Citing data from the Naval History and Heritage Command,
a part of the Defense Department, the report said that "the U.S. Navy’s
fleet today contains the smallest number of ships since 1916. The total
number of active ships in the Navy declined from 592 to 283 between
1989 and 2009."
We looked up the original data, and the Heritage report does reflect the
trend line correctly (though Romney said 1917 rather than 1916,
something we won’t quibble with). 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 recent years, the number of active ships has fallen low enough to
approach its 1916 level. In both 2009 (the most recent year of the
Heritage report) and 2011, the number was 285.
So Romney has a point. However, even using this metric -- which, as
we’ll argue later, is an imperfect one for measuring military strength
--
this is not the lowest level since 1916.
The same data set shows that during the years 2005 to 2008, the number
of active ships was 282, 281, 278 and 282, respectively -- each of which
were below the levels of 2009, 2010 and 2011. In other words, each of
the final four years under George W. Bush saw lower levels of active
ships than any of the three years under Obama.
The number of surface warships also bottomed out in 2005 under Bush, later rising by about 10 percent under Obama.
Such figures undercut Romney’s use of the statistic as a weapon against Obama.
The Air Force numbers
How about the Air Force? First, let’s look at the total number of aircraft.
We found extensive data in a report titled, "Arsenal of Airpower: USAF
Aircraft Inventory, 1950-2009," authored by retired Air Force Col. James
C. Ruehrmund Jr. and Christopher J. Bowie and published in November
2010 by the Mitchell Institute, a research and analysis organization
founded by the Air Force Association.
The figures for 2009 show 5,988 total aircraft (4,460 active, 375
reserve and 1,153 in the Air National Guard). That’s a lower number than
any year going back at least to 1950, the earliest year tallied in the
report. So while we don’t have data going back to 1947, the specific
year Romney cited, his claim about the size of the Air Force seems
credible. (Figure 2 on page 5 of the Mitchell Institute report provides a
good graphical representation of the numerical patterns over time.)
Now, let’s look at the age of the Air Force’s assets.
The Heritage report includes a chart titled, "The Oldest Air Force in
U.S. History," referencing an October 2005 Government Accountability
Office report, "DOD Needs to Identify and Address Gaps and Potential
Risks in Program Strategies and Funding Priorities for Selected
Equipment." We couldn’t find specific support in the GAO report for the
claim that the Air Force of today (or, to be precise, the Air Force of
2005 when Bush was president) was the oldest since 1947. However, the
report, combined with the analysis of experts we asked, suggest that
it’s a fair conclusion.
The GAO looked at 30 pieces of equipment from various branches (not just the Air Force) and found that
"reported readiness rates declined between fiscal years 1999 and 2004 for most of these items.
The decline in readiness, which occurred more markedly in fiscal years
2003 and 2004, generally resulted from (1) the continued high use of
equipment to support current operations and (2) maintenance issues
caused by the advancing ages and complexity of the systems."
Charles Morrison, a researcher at the conservative American Enterprise
Institute, said the U.S. "bought more aircraft in the early 1950s than
in all the years combined from 1956 to 2011, clearly at the cost of an
older fleet."
So let’s sum up so far. 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.
Adding some context
But what do those numbers mean? Not much, a variety of experts told us.
Counting the number of ships or aircraft is not a good measurement of
defense strength because their capabilities have increased dramatically
in recent decades. Romney’s comparison "doesn’t pass ‘the giggle test,’ "
said William W. Stueck, a historian at the University of Georgia.
Consider what types of naval ships were used in 1916 and 2011. The types
of ships active in both years, such as cruisers and destroyers, are
outfitted today with far more advanced technology than what was
available during World War I. More importantly, the U.S. Navy has 11
aircraft carriers (plus the jets to launch from them), 31 amphibious
ships, 14 submarines capable of launching nuclear ballistic missiles and
four specialized submarines for launching Cruise missiles -- all
categories of vessels that didn't exist in 1916.
As for the Air Force, many U.S. planes may be old, but they "have been
modernized with amazing sensors and munitions even when the airframes
themselves haven’t been," said Michael O’Hanlon, a scholar at the
Brookings Institution. Human factors matter, too.
"The vast superiority of the U.S. Air Force has little to do with number
of planes, but with vastly superior training, in-flight coordination
and control, as well as precision targeting and superior missiles," said
Charles Knight, co-director of the Project on Defense Alternatives at
the Massachusetts-based Commonwealth Institute.
Ruehrmund and Bowie write in their report that "although the overall
force level is lower, the capabilities of the current force in almost
all respects far exceed that of the huge Air Force of the 1950s. Today’s
Air Force can maintain surveillance of the planet with space and
air-breathing systems; strike with precision any point on the globe
within hours; deploy air power and joint forces with unprecedented speed
and agility; and provide high-bandwidth secure communications and
navigation assistance to the entire joint force."
Increasingly crucial today are pilotless aerial vehicles, some of which are more commonly known as drones.
"The Air Force now buys more unmanned than manned aircraft every year, and that trend is not going to change,"
said Lance Janda, a historian at Cameron University. "Within our
lifetime, I think you’ll see an end to manned combat aircraft, because
unmanned planes are more capable and a lot cheaper."
For a sense of comparison, in 1947, "it took dozens of planes and
literally hundreds of bombs to destroy a single target because they were
so inaccurate," said Todd Harrison, a fellow with the Center for
Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
"But thanks to
smart bombs and stealthy aircraft, today it only takes a single plane
and often a single bomb to destroy a target."
Or as John Pike, director of globalsecurity.org, puts it: "Would anyone
care to trade today's Navy or Air Force for either service at any point
in the 20th century?"
There’s also another problem with Romney’s claim. He appears to
be throwing blame on Obama, which is problematic because military
buildups and draw-downs these days take years to run their course. Just
look at the long, slow declines in the number of ships and aircraft.
These are not turn-on-a-dime events that can be pegged to one president.
"Ships are so expensive that they have to be built over long periods of
time, and at a pace that accounts for the retirement from service of
other ships as well," Janda said. "We also have to space the building
out over long periods of time to keep our major shipyards working at a
rate that’s sustainable over several decades, because you can’t let them
go under and then try to reform them in time of war. So Congress and
the president make decisions each year regarding the needs of the Navy
that do not come to fruition for decades, making it ridiculous to give
blame or praise to the president for the current situation."
All this said, there are lots of serious issues facing the military that
Obama, or whoever defeats him in 2012, will have to address.
One is the age of the Air Force’s assets, which is probably Romney’s
strongest point. And despite the technological advantages of today’s
military, there are limitations to having a smaller number of ships and
aircraft. For instance, both branches, and especially the Navy, have to
be able to position enough assets around the world where they are
needed.
And having a "small but sophisticated military is also risky," said
Thomas Bruscino, a professor at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff
College. "If the Navy loses one carrier to enemy action, for any reason,
that loss would be catastrophic in a way such a loss would not have
been in the past," Bruscino said. "Likewise, the Air Force cannot afford
to lose even small numbers of the highly sophisticated airframes of
today."
Still, most experts we spoke to felt that Romney’s critique was misguided. Knight went so far as to offer this reply:
"If Mr. Romney wants a truly stark example of diminished military
capability, he should compare today’s horse cavalry to that in 1917, or
even 1941 when there were still 15 active horse-cavalry regiments in the
Army. Today there has been total disarmament of horse cavalry,’ he
might say, ‘leaving our nation defenseless in this regard.’ His chosen
comparisons are almost as absurd."
Our ruling
This is a great example of a politician using more or less accurate statistics to make a meaningless claim.
Judging by the numbers alone, Romney was close to accurate. In recent
years, the number of Navy and Air Force assets has sunk to levels not
seen in decades, although the number of ships has risen slightly under
Obama.
However, a wide range of experts told us it’s wrong to assume that a
decline in the number of ships or aircraft automatically means a weaker
military. Quite the contrary:
The United States is
the world’s unquestioned military leader today, not just because of the
number of ships and aircraft in its arsenal but also because each is
stocked with top-of-the-line technology and highly trained personnel.
Thanks to the development of everything from nuclear weapons to drones,
comparing today’s military to that of 60 to 100 years ago presents an
egregious comparison of apples and oranges. Today’s military and
political leaders face real challenges in determining the right mix of
assets to deal with current and future threats, but Romney’s glib
suggestion that today’s military posture is in any way similar to that
of its predecessors in 1917 or 1947 is preposterous.
In addition, Romney appears to be using the statistic as a critique of
the current administration, while experts tell us that both draw-downs
and buildups of military equipment occur over long periods of time and
can't be pegged to one president. Put it all together and you have a
statement that, despite being close to accurate in its numbers, uses
those numbers in service of a ridiculous point. Pants on Fire.
