Romney endorses Obama for President

Last nights debate was another shake of the etch-a-sketch for the GOP, shake and start over, repeat as necessary.  Along the way lie that your current statements do not reverse or ignore your old ones, shake and repeat.

On every point Romney agreed with the current position and action.  He nit-picked the details for things to bitch about, but the man endorsed Obama, there is no other way to view it.  Good enough for me, I'll vote Obama.

What a good belly laugh, the line about we don't have as many horses or bayonets as in WWI either.  Now, for the ship counting trick, which by the way 1 of todays ships could have shot hell out of the entire worlds navy of early WWI without ever getting close enough to see them.  The count is meaningless.

How Many Ships for World War I?

Now, here’s where it gets interesting. Go back a few years before 1917 and you’ll see that the Navy was gradually building its force, but throughout that period it had significantly fewer active ships than it has today.

That pattern held right up to 1916 when the active force totalled 245 ships, still fewer than today’s count.

Given that history, it’s pretty obvious why Mr. Romney chose 1917 as his benchmark. The jump to 345 in just one year was an unprecedented but appropriate activity by the Navy, given that the U.S. was heading into war with a powerful force that had already laid waste across Europe.

After World War I, the Navy’s active force took a nosedive for reasons that are patently obvious. The same pattern, logically enough, occurred before and after World War II.

In other words, 1917 is a cherry-picked year of comparison. It does not account for the technological advances that President Obama pointed out, and it does not account for the state or nature of warfare during the periods of comparison.

Clean Technica (http://s.tt/1qN9S)