Obama Dustbins US Navy with the Bayonets and Horses

1917
2nd line

He was making the point that technology is to the point now where there are other means of patrolling the waters more effectively. He was not saying there is no need for the Navy. I thought he made that quite clear.

No need to twist it into something its not.

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
"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"

God this is pathetic...even for a conservative.

For the special people who just did not get it...Obama "You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916" meaning that Romney was comparing the 2012 Navy to the 1916 one.

Obama "Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets" saying that compared to 1916 ...the US does not rely on those items as much.

He was telling Romney you cannot compare 1916 needs to 2012 needs.

EXACTLY!!....to say "liberals" and "democrats" don't get it, is rediculous. this has nothing to do with being "in love with obama" or "not hearing what he said" or what ever the right-wingers want to disparage the left with...it has to do with what he said, and what was meant by what he said.........how simple is this?

Originally posted by Renegade2283

Enough said.

Those numbers are pure BS. Please post the link and get the latest numbers if possible.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Should we build more Forts to stop al qaeda?

Should the Cavalry be guarding Embassies?

Should we have sent Zeppelins to impose a no fly zone over Libya?

Clearly your not thinking well.... Clearly. We have the worlds largest Navy, meaning we don't need more ships. even though they are still building a ton of them. The comment was just Obama saying how out of touch with the military Romney actually is, the comment "horses and bayonettes" was to show things the military doesn't have a ton of anymore because times have changed and that warfare is a thing of the past. If the US navy was down sizing maybe you'd have an argument, hell maybe if we had a ship sunk maybe you'd have and argument but we haven't so you don't. Also on another thread you acted as if you were voting libertarian, clearly by this post you're a Romney backer and I remember you being insanely pro-life. So be proud stand up on a hill and shout 'I'm for the guy with fewer brain cells... who's also a bigot... who also praises inequality and... I'm a woman'.

reply to post by vox2442


Romney said 1917 and there are less today. Obama said 1916 incorrectly.

Originally posted by hp1229

Originally posted by Renegade2283

Enough said.

Those numbers are pure BS. Please post the link and get the latest numbers if possible.

All you had to do is look.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.globalfirepower.com...
www.globalsecurity.org...

Google is your friend & the Internet the largest repository of knowledge since the Library of Alexandria.

Learn to use it.

Harping on the President over these comments just makes the Republicans look very petty and weak.

Seriously. China has what, one aircraft carrier? I believe it's also an old Russian one anyhow.

Of course people in the military are going to want more spending, they have to justify their jobs. They have to keep their little socialist society going. (Tri-Care, free housing, free food, free work clothes, discoutned goods/services, free gym, free daycare, Star Card credit cards).

Enlisted people especially are freaked out by a leaner, smarter millitary. It will take away their illusion of a middle class lifestyle. For quite a few new recruits with barley a HS education, $1300/mo is more money than they ever thought possible at 18 years of age.

It's amazing at how so many people in the military call Obama a socialist, yet live in the most socialist bubble in the USA.

There is no reason why the military should have changed. We do just fine with sails and steam engines on our boats and single propeller plans with open cockpits. It's not like anyone else has invented anything better. Let’s charge on into war on horse back with our bayonets out and mussel loaders!!!! Why those new fangled subs and aircraft carriers haven't improved anything!!!

Also, if you play POTUS's reply backwards he clearly says "I am a Socialist Communist that was born in Kenya and you all are under my spell and will vote me back into office mhwwwaaaaaaaaa"

Sarcasm off/

Can the POTUS be misquoted and misinterpreted more??? He never said he hated the Navy or any of the Armed forces. He simply pointed out (and rightly so) that it has changed in the past 100 years. I know we American’s hate any thing new (it’s not like we stand in line over night for the newest Apple creation or any such thing) but with the ability to sit at a desk in NORAD (or any where else) and wipe any of our enemy’s off the face of the planet with the push of a button, do we really need as many ships as we did 100 years ago? I go with no.


ETA: sorry for the rant but reaaly people, there are better things to agrue over. Plus I feel better getting this off of my chest

reply to post by MystikMushroom


My thoughts exactly, if that's all the conservatives can pull from the debate they're grasping at straws that make them look infantile and desperate. Great post.

reply to post by froglegs79


Enjoyed the sarcasm, I wonder how many conservatives will like your post after they only read half of it. I'm just happy that THIS is the subject of 'Obama's' quote unquote faltered in the debate, if this is all they can grab at, I'm already looking forward to Obama till 2016.

why are americans so uneducated in the english language to the point they can't comprehend it.

romney said america has less ships than in 1916.

obama countered that america has less ships because they are more advanced and powerful and that one modern war ship has enough fire power than multiple ships in 1916. so you don't need as many to maintain the same level of deadliness.

then he said we also "don't have horses and bayonets either" meaning ronmey's example is like criticizing obama for not having enough horses and bayonets in the military.

of course the military doesn't have enough horses and bayonets in the military, they were replaced by tanks and machine guns, was the basic argument.

he wasn't criticizing the military, he was just illustrating how flawed ronmey's statement was. as technology gets more advanced, it gets more efficient, so you replace it.

Last time I checked most military firearms have a bayonet lug on them..somewhere out there is a bayonet for that lug. Obama never served in the military his words mean nothing to me he's a politician.

reply to post by Darkstar12


The fact of the matter is that the military doesn't have much 'use' for bayonettes anymore because we don't do that type of warfare. I'm sure the seal teams and divisions of the military that clear compounds still use them, other then that they're a dead weapon, just like the steam engine navy of the past.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Obama To-Do List

1. Depress the US economy.
Check!
2. Demoralise the US population with high unemployment
Check!
3. Create unstable global situations
Check!
4. Reduce the US Military to non-existent strength
Pending

One of these might be handy, we can use them to fight Somali pirates. Just stick it on the tactical rail of your pistol (no really, it's a pistol bayonet).

Wait, they aren't those kind of pirates? Darn. Yeah, I guess bayonets are kind of pointless these days, considering pirates no longer say "Yaaar" and use swords.

Originally posted by MystikMushroom

One of these might be handy, we can use them to fight Somali pirates. Just stick it on the tactical rail of your pistol (no really, it's a pistol bayonet).

Wait, they aren't those kind of pirates? Darn. Yeah, I guess bayonets are kind of pointless these days, considering pirates no longer say "Yaaar" and use swords.

edit on 23-10-2012 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)

No. Pirates today say "Savy" and wear eye make up.

reply to post by beezzer


Great way to totally not discuss the topic! As always your posts are 'enlightening'.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by beezzer

 

Great way to totally not discuss the topic! As always your posts are 'enlightening'.

Just putting things in perspective. I'm a "big picture-bottom line" type of guy.