Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Only in that it differs with your nonsense and sheeplike behavior in believing your leader.
He said exactly what he meant, because Romney was complaining we have FEWER ships.[/quote]
Yes, just like he always does. Which explains why you obamabots are always having to explain what he really means, in direct contradiction to his actual statements.
Quote:
All this distraction because you all know deep down this isn't breaking well. Momentum has turned into Nomentum. We're talking Willard Mitt Romney for God's sake - the man whose foreign policy experience consists solely of knowing where to hide assets in the Caymans and Switzerland, and shipping jobs to China for profit.
All of your distraction and attempts at diversion just because you know your baby is in real danger of losing his coveted power.
Quote:
You people - and your candidate - are way out of your league on foreign policy. "The World," btw, including all of our allies, are pulling for an Obama win. Even Britian called Romney a twit!
[/quote]
You people and your candidate are way out of your league on governing for the good of the people. As for the rest of your statement is just wishful thinking and what you are told to believe. Wake up.
The Air Force and the Navy does'nt and other branches are not being issued them in basic training either, but never mind all of that junk, how is this important in the grand scheme of life
Why don't you ask the soldiers who are defending your freedom - and mine - as we speak?
A bayonet is just a knife mounted on a gun barrel. I think what RBG is trying to point out is that there is more importance attached to edged weapons now, not less. Navy Seals in particular are known to be obsessive when it comes to edged weapons.
I posted earlier in this thread how edged weapons were actually more effective than bombs during the Vietnam War.
I guess that the Obama supporters either did not read that post or they ignored it because it makes their assertions seem ridiculous.
So lets abandoned other technology for edged weapons! Or lets put all of our money into edged weapons! You and many others have completely let the point pass over your head.
Your hate for Obama clouds your reasoning abilities.
I guess that the Obama supporters either did not read that post or they ignored it because it makes their assertions seem ridiculous.
No, you just keep sounding more ridiculous. The president didn't talk about "edged weapons" did he? He talked about bayonets and horses. These are two items that were indispensible in say, the Civil War or during the American Revolution, and popular BEFORE we had weapons that were more effective for the type of war that we have now. As such, a massive fleet of ships is not as critical today as it was 100 years ago because the ships we do have are so much more advanced that we don't need as many as we did. You can surely bet, though, that the smaller number of ships we have today cost much more than the greater numbers of ships that have much less capability.
But as evidenced by pages and pages of your refusal to admit that you latched on to a ridiculous "news" story and got led down the rabbit hole, you're never going to admit that the analogy is correct. Enjoy your weekend.
No, you just keep sounding more ridiculous. The president didn't talk about "edged weapons" did he? He talked about bayonets and horses. These are two items that were indispensible in say, the Civil War or during the American Revolution, and popular BEFORE we had weapons that were more effective for the type of war that we have now. As such, a massive fleet of ships is not as critical today as it was 100 years ago because the ships we do have are so much more advanced that we don't need as many as we did. You can surely bet, though, that the smaller number of ships we have today cost much more than the greater numbers of ships that have much less capability.
But as evidenced by pages and pages of your refusal to admit that you latched on to a ridiculous "news" story and got led down the rabbit hole, you're never going to admit that the analogy is correct. Enjoy your weekend.
all these advanced ships and we don't seem to be winning anything anywhere.
although we have forces in 150 countries now.
maybe it is a leadership problem, not a weapons problem.
So lets abandoned other technology for edged weapons! Or lets put all of our money into edged weapons! You and many others have completely let the point pass over your head.
Your hate for Obama clouds your reasoning abilities.
Best projection yet!!! Where did anyone say that we should "abandon other technology for edged weapons?" You're hallucinating!
Bottom line is that Pres. Obama could have chosen a much better example of an obsolete piece of gear than bayonets. It's not really a big deal, just a poorly chosen metaphor by Obama. I think some people saw it as underscoring his lack of familiarity w/ things military, similar to his "corpseman" gaffe.
It's no big deal, but it's not a delusional point either, as you imply. Certainly there is more "there, there" than with the absurd "binders" meme put forth by Democrats last week.
Best projection yet!!! Where did anyone say that we should "abandon other technology for edged weapons?" You're hallucinating!
Bottom line is that Pres. Obama could have chosen a much better example of an obsolete piece of gear than bayonets. It's not really a big deal, just a poorly chosen metaphor by Obama. I think some people saw it as underscoring his lack of familiarity w/ things military, similar to his "corpseman" gaffe.
It's no big deal, but it's not a delusional point either, as you imply. Certainly there is more "there, there" than with the absurd "binders" meme put forth by Democrats last week.
I actually think it was a fine metaphor, although as I stated up thread "mustketballs" would have been safer!
When I think of bayonet rifles and horses, I immediately think of the movie "The Patriot" and that sort of warfare displayed then. In that sense, to the everyday citizen who is not familiar with "edged weaponry" in today's military, the metaphor or analogy gets the point across. We do not and should not be operating our military based on the numbers/types of weaponry used in 1916 (the comparison point that Romney was using to count ships).
TMZ
Wonder if ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, and newspapers report this story or will they ignore it like all the other Obama flubs?
The president said, ”Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets”. All you heard was "no horses or bayonets".
So, you hear what you want (or what you've been fed).
Thanks for clearing that up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
