Navy Joining BE in 2015

[zls44]

According to Joe Schad

 

[uconnbaseball]

If the conference is still alive for that day, this is good news.

 

[Hoophound]

Lol. That seems a tad long. 2014 should be plenty of time. Seems Navy wants to let things play out more before joining. That means 3 more full football seasons before they arrive.

 

[Excalibur]

LOL. "If you still have a conference in 3 years, count us in!!"

 

[UConnSportsGuy]

Navy must be counting on the Mayan calendar being correct!

 

[Dann]

depending on who is the next president, we may not have a navy.

 

[District-Husky]

depending on who is the next president, we may not have a navy.

Then vote for Obama because the navy has grown since he's been in office.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...omney-says-us-navy-smallest-1917-air-force-s/

 

[gioff23]

Ugh, nothing like reading a headline and not the text. No, the navy has not grown under our esteemed leader, but why let facts cloud your argument.

Back to the point at hand - I wonder if the BE will come to an arrangement to "phase" Navy in - meaning asking them to fill any open dates between now and then w/BE teams

 

[BlueMAB]

Then vote for Obama because the navy has grown since he's been in office.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...omney-says-us-navy-smallest-1917-air-force-s/

The link you provided doesn't say the navy has grown, only that Romney's claim was stupid. Which it was.

 

[Dann]

Then vote for Obama because the navy has grown since he's been in office.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...omney-says-us-navy-smallest-1917-air-force-s/

lol at that

that was a simple ron paul joke that i guess i didnt do a good job on.

 

[District-Husky]

Ugh, nothing like reading a headline and not the text. No, the navy has not grown under our esteemed leader, but why let facts cloud your argument.

Back to the point at hand - I wonder if the BE will come to an arrangement to "phase" Navy in - meaning asking them to fill any open dates between now and then w/BE teams

Did you read the article?

"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."

That means that under Obama the Navy has grown.

 

[District-Husky]

The link you provided doesn't say the navy has grown, only that Romney's claim was stupid. Which it was.

Actually, it does. See my post above.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Did you read the article?

"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."

That means that under Obama the Navy has grown.

So if they added a whole bunch of lifeboats, and scrapped two aircraft carriers, the Navy has grown? Counting ships is a stupid measure. I'm not sure where the truth lies, but what matters is the capability of the Navy.

 

[Murph]

Must this really degrade into a political thread? I'm more interested to know when the Coast Guard Academy will be joining the BEast.

 

[CL82]

Must this really degrade into a political thread? I'm more interested to know when the Coast Guard Academy will be joining the BEast.

I hear the Merchant Marine Academy wants to go FCS.

 

[BlueMAB]

Actually, it does. See my post above.

Bottom line:
Basically your statement that he should vote for Obama because "the navy grew under Obama" is as silly as Mitt Romney's statement about the Navy. Don't take my word for it, read the article you linked:

"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."

In other words, arguing we should vote for Obama because of the state of the Navy is as dumb as arguing we shouldn't vote for Obama because of the state of the Navy.

 

[huskypantz]

Did you read the article?

"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."

That means that under Obama the Navy has grown.

Basically, you're saying that Obama produces more seamen than Bush.

 

[District-Husky]

Bottom line:
Basically your statement that he should vote for Obama because "the navy grew under Obama" is as silly as Mitt Romney's statement about the Navy. Don't take my word for it, read the article you linked:

"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."

In other words, arguing we should vote for Obama because of the state of the Navy is as dumb as arguing we shouldn't vote for Obama because of the state of the Navy.

Dude - this isn't a referendum or endorsement that you should vote for Obama because there are more ships today than when bush was in office. It was meant as a joke - you know - the navy has grown so you should vote for the guy who's been in office while its growing so its still there in 2015 and thus a viable BE football member.

I responded to gioff23 b/c he questioned the article and I pointed out where in the article it cited growth by the navy since 2007. And - as stated by the article and by me - the navy has in fact grown. So - to answer your question - of course its silly.