Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Horses and Bayonets............. the difference between Obama and Romney..

page: 3
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen

Originally posted by PurpleDog UK
He used the Analagy of 'Bayonets & Horses' NOT in a direct comparison but in the sense that warfare and therefore obviously resources change over time............


He used the bayonet analogy -- like you say -- as a comparison to show the ignorance of Mitt Romney. However, in doing so, he exposed his own ignorance. The bayonet is to this day standard issue for Marines.

This just goes to show how this warmongering, Nobel Peace Prize-winning excuse for a president is so out of touch with the military.




No he's not because he didnt say we dont use them now he said we have fewer now. Nice try.




posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Obama made that IGNORANT comment that our naval ships are in the same defunct category as bayonets and horses. I can't believe this idiot is our Commander in Chief. I hope the entire US Navy was listening as well as all the shipyards in Virginia.

:shk:


whaaaat?

You completely missed the point of his comment. Romney made the case that we have less ships than we did in 1916, Obama said we also have less horses and bayonets to make the point that Romney was out of touch if he thinks that's a valid point. He is saying our technology today is vastly superior to what we had in the past, so numbers aren't what's important.

The point obama is making is 50(random number i pulled from thin air) ships we used in 1916 don't compare to the strength of our modern air craft carriers, that carry fighter jets, as well as far superior weaponry, armor & technology.

There was nothing ignorant about Obama pointing that out, you took his comment way out of context and gave it a whole new meaning.
edit on 23-10-2012 by mahatche because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


Newport News Shipbuilding is doing a booming business and Virginia unemployment is below 6% because of it and the military in this area. We are still building the strongest and best Navy in the world we just dont need a bunch of little boats floating around to prove it. We have the mighty carriers. Hint the Navy is fast becoming Naval /Air as in Norfolks Naval Air Station here in Virginia and in Pensicola Florida where the Navy maintains another fleet of planes. They still call it the Navy but most of its sortes are fought by air now.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a common phrase in the military these days is "doing more with less"



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by theconspirator
a common phrase in the military these days is "doing more with less"


Hey, thats a common phrase at my house too !



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
I'll put it in pictures to make obama's point more clear

these are our ships from 1916
bldg92.org...

these are are massive advanced floating cities that carry multiple fighter jets
www.seanews.com.tr...

in 1916 if we wanted to bomb another country our only option was flying over and dropping a bunch of unguided bombs, and hoping they hit. Now we have amazing guided missiles that could zone in on our enemies quivering butt hole. Obama's point is we are stronger with bigger better technology, so we don't need the numbers.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by MountainEnigma
reply to post by PurpleDog UK
 


I have to say that I'm not sure you have the right to speak about what is best for the US when you live in the UK! Numbers in the military has always been important. Even if our Navy ships are technologically sound, the numbers still matter. Too few and we won't be in enough places at once to defend our country, regardless of how advanced they are!



of course numbers matter, but numbers alone have never told the entire story either.

Let's not act like obama is gutting the navy just because he doesn't agree with Romney's plan to add more ships that aren't even being requested. Our current navy, as is, even with out extra ships is the strongest in the world. The military defense budget has gone up each year under obama as well, and he will add more in the future.

I'm sure the military industrial complex would like to convince people we are in dire need, but it's not reality.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen

Originally posted by PurpleDog UK
He used the Analagy of 'Bayonets & Horses' NOT in a direct comparison but in the sense that warfare and therefore obviously resources change over time............


He used the bayonet analogy -- like you say -- as a comparison to show the ignorance of Mitt Romney. However, in doing so, he exposed his own ignorance. The bayonet is to this day standard issue for Marines.

This just goes to show how this warmongering, Nobel Peace Prize-winning excuse for a president is so out of touch with the military.




No he's not because he didnt say we dont use them now he said we have fewer now. Nice try.


Sorry, but at what point in history did we have more bayonets issued to active military personnel than now?



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
In the age of satellites, stealth aircraft and missiles big slow navy ships are obsolete sitting ducks just waiting to be sunk, we don`t need a bigger navy.

Most of what the navy does can be done faster and cheaper by other means.
The days of loading up troop ships and sailing them half way around the world are over, aircraft can transport troops faster and cheaper than a ship.
big slow expensive floating artillery batteries (navy ships) have been replaced with airpower and missiles.
There may be some missions that can only be done by the navy but those are far and few between and don`t justify the massive expense of having such a big navy.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Komonazmuk
 


My point was more like this analogy. It is like a Mechanic discussing how to make a souffle. He may just be talking to the wind or he may have actually made a few hundred in his lifetime, but his profession is Mechanic so it seems out of character.

Kind of like you wouldn't go to a tax attorney for pre-marital counseling, you would go to someone who handles pre-marital counseling - just another analogy.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by mahatche
 


I have to ask then, if it is not obvious to those like Romney, that we have enough ships in our navy, then where does the extra money go for the defense budget that we have increased each year Obama has been in office? We brought troops home. That should account for fewer funds needed. We aren't building more ships, so no new funds needed there. He did away with the NASA program, so no defense funds needed there.

Just where is all this money going? Are we secretly running tons of Black Ops projects that the American Public is not even aware of? How can they insist on more money without some type of accountability for the use of public monies?



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Obama made that IGNORANT comment that our naval ships are in the same defunct category as bayonets and horses. I can't believe this idiot is our Commander in Chief. I hope the entire US Navy was listening as well as all the shipyards in Virginia.
:shk:


Wow talk about ignorant. He said absolutely no such thing. He said that trying to quantify the effectiveness of our Navy by the number of ships we possess is an old fashioned way of thinking. We do far more with fewer ships now because the ships have multiple purposes and much larger crews / equipment available. Get your head out of Rush Limbaugh's arse please.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by AnonymousCitizen
 


Um are you living under a rock? Never studied US history, never heard of a couple wars called the revolutionary and civil?
edit on 24-10-2012 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleDog UK
 


This will all be over soon. Then what will we talk about? Who will we have to tell that they ad wrong and who is right.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by PurpleDog UK
ask yourself a question............ is that what he really said or is that what you want to hear....?

It's what he said.

Your interpretation of that comment is so clouded by political bias (on your part) that you were not really listening to the message.......

Bias? Riiiiiiiiiiight. 'Cuz I just Luv Romney so much. NOT! Obama's message was clear .. he thinks of the US Naval ships much the same as he thinks of horses and bayonets .. not really needed. It was ignorant of him and it was a slap in the face of our US Military.

Seriously .. some people here are a real hoot. They assume that because a person sees a fault with one candidate that they must be head over heals for the other one. Not that it's any of your business, but I already voted absentee and I voted LIBERTARIAN.


not just make crass comments like your comment above......

Crass? You obviously have no clue what the word 'crass' means. :shk: I stated the TRUTH. The intent of what he said was that the US Navy didn't need to be strong. He dustbin'd it with horses and bayonets. It was an awful thing for the Commander and Chief to say. And it was pretty damn ignorant.


You know what? You tick me off, people have told you over and over what he said, and you don't listen. He said "we have FEWER horses and bayonets too". And it was very plain to anyone who was awake at the time that he was referring to the fact that if you have ten thousand canoes it's not better than having a hundred aircraft carriers. You're the problem with this country.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Hawking
His point was that warfare changes over the years...and the tools of war will change with it out of necessity.

And he thinks the Navy isn't necessary. That was obvious.
And it's also obvious that he is DEAD WRONG. :shk:


No... he thinks that the planes on CVN's are an addition to the Navy's strength and not just the amount of ships that are out there. Without the Navy those CVN's don't exist. Why would he bring up the fact that ships carry planes if he didn't want them? Stop trying to push your Fox News clouded agenda on everyone.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen

He used the bayonet analogy -- like you say -- as a comparison to show the ignorance of Mitt Romney. However, in doing so, he exposed his own ignorance. The bayonet is to this day standard issue for Marines.

This just goes to show how this warmongering, Nobel Peace Prize-winning excuse for a president is so out of touch with the military.




I can say personally... as a medically retired Marine, that I have never been issued a bayonet. I can also say that my entire Company was never issued bayonets as "standard issue". I can furthermore state that we were never issued knives of any sort before deploying. What I was issued as a Captain, was a Beretta M-9 and Bushmaster M4A1.

Now, I'm not saying that MARSOC and SOCOM units are not issued them, but that is beyond "standard issue".



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 07:17 AM
link   
I picture Romney sitting down with the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying, here's 2 Trillion for more ships. JCS will say... ummm how about we use this to finish funding the F-35C Joint Strike Fighter.






top topics



 
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join