Here’s the thing about the Navy: it needs more ships. And possibly more bayonets, so as not to offend the bayonet-Americans . But definitely more ships. This is self-evidently true according to presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who astutely observed the other night that our
Not to mention, as Barack sadly failed to do, that in fact just on raw ship count (a measure that actual naval analysts say "doesn't pass the giggle test"), Romney is still lying - the Navy's active ship count in each of the four years of Bush's second term was lower than at any time during Barack's term. The number of ships ordered per year has also gone up under Obama compared with Bush's second term.
And yes, any one of our 11 carrier groups could certainly, with ease, sink our entire 1916 Navy.
Actually, I saw the Superferry back in 2008, Iirc. It was YUUUUUGE.
Global warming is taking care of this for us, with or without more ships.
Money, baby.
Creating jobs for the irrresponsible 47% is just an unfortunate side effect.
The Yangtze is currently shallow enough to wade across in most places... boats aren't an option anymore!
I'm also hearing some rumbles concerning Archduke Ferdinand, that guy should watch his back...
He's mostly wondering why we don't have triremes anymore
Ha!
Does Romney have any investments in blimps or personal jet packs? Just wondering.
Then maybe <i>he&#039;s</i> heard of aircraft carriers!
Not to mention, as Barack sadly failed to do, that in fact just on raw ship count (a measure that actual naval analysts say &quot;doesn&#039;t pass the giggle test&quot;), Romney is still lying - the Navy&#039;s active ship count in each of the four years of Bush&#039;s second term was lower than at any time during Barack&#039;s term. The number of ships ordered per year has also gone up under Obama compared with Bush&#039;s second term.
And yes, any one of our 11 carrier groups could certainly, with ease, sink our entire 1916 Navy.
Each ship will have a J Crew.