Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Let's review. The Naval Chief of Staff isn't as wise, knowledgeable and pragmatic as you are because you and Mitt have a real grasp of Naval readiness and capabilities. Any view that diverges from yours is treasonous. And we should take you seriously.They want 315 ships. That's it? That would make us weak! After all, in 1864 the navy had 700 ships in its fleet!! The navy today wants to be less than half as strong as it was in 1864! What a bunch of traitors they are. We need Mitt Romney as President, so he can build 1000 ships!
We have roads and bridges, do we really even need a navy?
We have roads and bridges, do we really even need a navy?
Someones got to take the Marines where they need to go.
It's no coincidence Mitt used 1916 as a point of comparison - his energy policy dates from the same year.
They want 315 ships. That's it? That would make us weak! After all, in 1864 the navy had 700 ships in its fleet!! The navy today wants to be less than half as strong as it was in 1864! What a bunch of traitors they are. We need Mitt Romney as President, so he can build 1000 ships!
We will be totally energy independent during Romney's first term.
That's the "Military Industrial Complex" that Eisenhower warned us about. If building ships creates jobs then we should be at war all the time right?Building ships creats jobs. donut?
It's no coincidence Mitt used 1916 as a point of comparison - his energy policy dates from the same year.
Moron.
We will be totally energy independent during Romney's first term.
What the president didn't mention last night is that yes, we do have those things called Submarines and Aircraft Carriers that need support anywhere they go. Both are expensive to build and maintain and we have no plans to build any real soon . Then there's aircraft that although briefly mentioned production is being cut under "Sequestration". That's including the drastic reduction in number of cargo craft, fighters, and bombers. The F-22 production was cut and so has the F-35 been cut.
Not matter what, in the end you need boots on the ground and if that is the case you need cargo ships, cargo aircraft and all sorts of vehicles to support and advance our troops.
We have roads and bridges, do we really even need a navy?
Someones got to take the Marines where they need to go.
Horses can swim
Give it up, republicans do not care about making our military efficient and formed to meet the real world threats we face, it's never big enough and expensive enough to suit them while they rush around crying that we are broke and the government can't do anything right on everything but the bloated, corrupt and incredibly wasteful MIC.What the president didn't mention last night is that yes, we do have those things called Submarines and Aircraft Carriers that need support anywhere they go. Both are expensive to build and maintain and we have no plans to build any real soon . Then there's aircraft that although briefly mentioned production is being cut under "Sequestration". That's including the drastic reduction in number of cargo craft, fighters, and bombers. The F-22 production was cut and so has the F-35 been cut.
Not matter what, in the end you need boots on the ground and if that is the case you need cargo ships, cargo aircraft and all sorts of vehicles to support and advance our troops.
Given the US currently spends 4 times that of China, and more than double what China and Russian spend combined - how much do you feel would be enough?
Maybe 10 times what China spends?
