Bayonet Co. slices Obama to shreds: "He should educate himself"

[Necrosis]

Holes in the Hull: Obama's Battleship Argument Confuses Sneering for Intellectual Confidence.
 National Review ^ | 10/26/2012 | Jonah Goldberg

Posted on Friday, October 26, 2012 8:29:39 AM by SeekAndFind

In the third and final debate, Barack Obama scored huge points with the media, college kids, and die-hard liberals — in other words, his base — when he mocked Mitt Romney’s concern about our historically small Navy.

“But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works,” the president said. “You — 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 so,” he added, “the question is not a game of Battleship where we’re counting ships.” The question is “what are our capabilities.”

This struck me as an example of how thoroughly liberalism has confused sneering for intellectual confidence. It shouldn’t be surprising, given that comedy shows often substitute for news programs, particularly for younger liberals. That’s probably why the president has been spending more time talking to DJs, entertainment shows, and comedians than to reporters. He desperately needs the support of low-information voters, who’ve replaced the old adage “it’s funny because it’s true” with “if it’s funny, it must be true.”

Obama’s argument — if that’s not too generous a word — is that the Navy in particular, and the military in general, can do so much more because of technological advances.

And that is certainly true.

But it’s also true that there have been huge advances in the technology used to sink our ships and blow up our planes as well. And, to date, no breakthrough innovation has led us to figuring out how to put one ship in two places at once.

There’s another problem. What innovation does he have in mind? Many of our warplanes and nearly all of our major naval vessels are much older than the pilots and sailors flying and sailing them. It’s great to talk up the benefits of innovation, but that argument starts to sputter when you realize we are often relying on the innovation of older generations. For all his talk about the game Battleship, we haven’t built a real battleship in almost 70 years, and the Navy hasn’t had one in its arsenal for decades.

But what I find most interesting about this argument is how selective it is. For instance, defenders of Obama’s Keynesian economic policies are constantly touting the benefits of big, high-tech spending programs because of the “multiplier effect” — the increased economic activity “primed” by government spending.

Indeed, the economists who subscribe to these views tend to tout military spending as particularly good evidence in their favor. Many argue that it was the massive spending during World War II that really pulled us out of the Great Depression (a flawed theory but more credible than the New Deal itself, which mostly prolonged the Great Depression).

And yet, it seems that military spending is the only Keynesian pump-priming this president doesn’t like.

Conversely, his argument that technological advances should deliver increased savings by providing more “bang for the buck” doesn’t seem to enter his thinking anywhere else. In the private sector he finds improved efficiencies to be a burden — all of those ATM machines taking away good bank-teller jobs.

And where are the technological efficiencies making government more effective for less money? Surely the breakthroughs in productivity, information management, and telecommunications would afford us a huge opportunity to cut away some of the obsolescence in the non-defense parts of our government?

But no. Obama is constantly yearning to hire more government workers. The private sector, he said not long ago, was doing fine. The place we needed more jobs was in the federal, state, and local bureaucracies.

Indeed, in his new “plan” he promises — again — to hire 100,000 new teachers. He is constantly assuring us that our “crumbling” schools with leaky roofs are robbing children of their education. The honest truth: You can teach kids in a school with a leaky roof pretty easily. A submarine with a leaky roof? That’s a problem.

The amazing thing is that we’ve been increasing federal government spending on education at a blistering pace for decades. Where is the return on the investment? Where are the improved capabilities and efficiencies from investments in technology?

The military, which thrives on precisely the civic virtue Obama insists is on full display in public education, has a lot to show for the investments of the past Obama would like to curtail. Where’s a similar return in the non-defense sector? And has Obama ever bothered to ask that question?

— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Dude take a break, this is the most retarded screed I have layed eyes on. You are the problem.

[flipper5470]

Proving the point that sneering is no substitue for discussion.....

[Necrosis]

Proving the point that sneering is no substitue for discussion.....

the article is non-sense.

this guy creates a brutal straw-man that Obama believes "Obama’s argument — if that’s not too generous a word — is that the Navy in particular, and the military in general, can do so much more because of technological advances. " then he proceeds to go all over the map, about keynesian economics, ATM's amongst other things. Obama never made that argument, if anything he was implying that number for ships isn't a valid measure of military because changes have been made. That is, nuclear submarines, carriers, planes that travel great distances etc.. citing number of ships is short-sighted and irrelevant to any discussion about the navy without context, sheer numbers isn't indicative of anything. Also, Obama has more "ships" then Bush, so Romney again was incorrect in his assertions. However, I wouldn't expect a nitwit like you to garner this information and connect the dots with a double digit IQ.

[Soul Crusher]

the article is non-sense.

this guy creates a brutal straw-man that Obama believes "Obama’s argument — if that’s not too generous a word — is that the Navy in particular, and the military in general, can do so much more because of technological advances. " then he proceeds to go all over the map, about keynesian economics, ATM's amongst other things. Obama never made that argument, if anything he was implying that number for ships isn't a valid measure of military because changes have been made. That is, nuclear submarines, carriers, planes that travel great distances etc.. citing number of ships is short-sighted and irrelevant to any discussion about the navy without context, sheer numbers isn't indicative of anything. Also, Obama has more "ships" then Bush, so Romney again was incorrect in his assertions. However, I wouldn't expect a nitwit like you to garner this information and connect the dots with a double digit IQ.

STFU moron.

[Agnostic007]

So eventually our nvy will have no ships? 

quite possible that 200 yrs from now Navy ships will be obsolete or we will require fewer of them due to advanced technology. I don't know that this will be the case, but I would imagine if you asked a soldier 200 yrs ago if eventually our army would have fewer swords he would think you were crazy

[Necrosis]

STFU moron.

good response braniac

how does it feel knowing Mittens is all but done?

[Soul Crusher]

good response braniac

how does it feel knowing Mittens is all but done?

LOL

Are you freaking kidding?  Landslide underway for Romney as O-THUG is sending the gaffomatic to Wisconsin and buying ads in MN. 

[Necrosis]

LOL

Are you freaking kidding?  Landslide underway for Romney as O-THUG is sending the gaffomatic to Wisconsin and buying ads in MN. 

ok muffin, we will see.

[Tightskin]

"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."

What is the size of the military now in comparison?  Do we really have fewer bayonets?

[Shockwave]

What is the size of the military now in comparison?  Do we really have fewer bayonets?

Technically in 1916 the actual size of the military was much smaller than today, judging from what I looked up. It's impossible to know for sure without knowing the percentage of troops that carried bayonet's into battle compared with today, so I just ate crow and let it go.

[flipper5470]

Technically...I don't think it matters if the bayonets are deployed or not.  The idiot said we have fewer bayonets...so..we have an inventory of over a half a million bayonets.  Is that less than what we had in 1916?

Regardless...it's a stupid point to make.  Genuinely idiotic.  The question isn't how many bayonets...the question is... why is our President such a dumbass?  Romney raised a legit point...the people who run the navy say we need more ships...is Obama saying they don't know what they're talking about?   Isn't that a topic worth discussion?   Isn't the President doing a disservice to the people he's sworn to serve by arrogantly dismissing legitimate questions?

Obama is an incompetent fool....

[Primemuscle]

Technically...I don't think it matters if the bayonets are deployed or not.  The idiot said we have fewer bayonets...so..we have an inventory of over a half a million bayonets.  Is that less than what we had in 1916?

Regardless...it's a stupid point to make.  Genuinely idiotic.  The question isn't how many bayonets...the question is... why is our President such a dumbass?  Romney raised a legit point...the people who run the navy say we need more ships...is Obama saying they don't know what they're talking about?   Isn't that a topic worth discussion?   Isn't the President doing a disservice to the people he's sworn to serve by arrogantly dismissing legitimate questions?

Obama is an incompetent fool....

Our current ship-building rate is 9 to 10 per year.
 
Two points regarding that issue:
 
1.) As it happens, two political scientists at Florida State University recently completed a historical study that compares naval strength among the major powers from 1865 to 2011. They conclude:
 

“In 1916, the U.S. controlled roughly 11% of the world’s naval power. This is an impressive number that ranks the US third in naval strength behind the UK (34%) and Germany (19%), and just ahead of France (10%). What about the US navy in 2011? In 2011, the US controlled roughly 50% of the world’s naval power putting it in a comfortable lead in naval power ahead of Russia (11%).”
 
In Romney’s view, the fact that 4 percent of the world’s population controls a mere 50 percent of the world’s naval firepower, almost five times the amount of the second-ranked power, leaves that 4 percent dangerously vulnerable.

2.) Why is Romney stressing naval expansion in his campaign remarks? Take a look at the map of swing states. Virginia is critical to his election hopes. Virginia is also home to Newport News Shipbuilding, which with 21,000 employees is a major contractor with the U.S. Navy. The additional submarines that Romney keeps mentioning are nuclear-powered Virginia-class subs, built in part at Newport News at a cost of $2.5 billion per copy.
 
In other words, Romney is dangling billions of taxpayers dollars and government-financed jobs in front of Virginia voters, hoping that it wins him the presidency.

[flipper5470]

The % of our popuation vs the % of our naval force is an irrelevant argument.  You have to look at what the needs assessment is from the navy vs what the level of material on hand is.  You can debate the needs assessment...you can debate how long it should take to get there..yoou can debate a number of issues within that topic.  Being a sneering little bitch and dismissing the topic isn't something a serious candidate for President should do.

So...I must conclude that Obama isn't taking his campaign seriously...

[Necrosis]

Technically...I don't think it matters if the bayonets are deployed or not.  The idiot said we have fewer bayonets...so..we have an inventory of over a half a million bayonets.  Is that less than what we had in 1916?

Regardless...it's a stupid point to make.  Genuinely idiotic.  The question isn't how many bayonets...the question is... why is our President such a dumbass?  Romney raised a legit point...the people who run the navy say we need more ships...is Obama saying they don't know what they're talking about?   Isn't that a topic worth discussion?   Isn't the President doing a disservice to the people he's sworn to serve by arrogantly dismissing legitimate questions?

Obama is an incompetent fool....

 

man your dumb.

[Soul Crusher]

 

[Dos Equis]

Nice.