Obama Dustbins US Navy with the Bayonets and Horses

reply to post by beezzer


Romney Checklist for Debate 3:

1.Not give any information to what he will actually do in office.
Check!
2.Let us know he hasn't looked at a map in well... forever.
Check!
3.Lie about his views on Women.
Check!
4.Yet again show how out of touch he is with America.
Check!

This could go on forever and see I keyed it toward the topic at hand, that wasn't very hard was it? I guess the only thing left for republicans to do is to avoid questions and bring up the same old same old. Obama is a shoe in for 2012. Thanks!

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by beezzer

 

Romney Checklist for Debate 3:

1.Not give any information to what he will actually do in office.
Check!
2.Let us know he hasn't looked at a map in well... forever.
Check!
3.Lie about his views on Women.
Check!
4.Yet again show how out of touch he is with America.
Check!

This could go on forever and see I keyed it toward the topic at hand, that wasn't very hard was it? I guess the only thing left for republicans to do is to avoid questions and bring up the same old same old. Obama is a shoe in for 2012. Thanks!

Sad. Obama ran on "hope and change" in 08.

NOW you want bullet points!

The draconian cuts to the military is only one aspect of a far larger picture.

But hey! Vote your fanny off in November!

reply to post by beezzer




Beezer, you and I don't always see eye to eye but that was a pretty good one!

All this talk of bayonets made me think of the most ridiculous one I have ever seen. A close runner up would a friend of mine that bought a custom threaded barrel for his glock 9mm, and had a gunsmith re-thread a flash suppresor from an AR-15 for it.

His justification? "It helps reduce muzzle flip" On a 9mm?

reply to post by FlyersFan


I'm not an Obama fan at all, you can look at my post history to see that.... But I didn't have a problem with that comment and I feel like people are twisting it. The way I took it was that the military has changed/adapted to the times, back in the day bayonets and horses were needed, and today less naval ships is needed especially with the advancements in technology (drones, satellites, etc.). A lot of the times we can fight a war by pressing a few buttons in a command center on some base and that will send out unmanned crafts to do the job... Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I took it.. simply put, the times have changed...

Sometimes i worry about our cousins across the big pond....in 1916 the USA had more ships than it does today in the navy, but what does that tell you as a fact? that if every 1916 ship of the line was brought back into service the US navy would be stronger than it is today? that could cause a laugh at any missile control deck, there is a difference between quantity and quality and i think some of our cousins have forgotten that but if i suppose you could just delegate some wooden kayaks as military vessels and get the count up for a few thousand dollars just so there is no loss of numbers

we still use bayonets, all military rifles have the hookup for a bayonet..... just saying...

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by mobiusmale
between your calls for the banning of the OP for expressing his/her opinion, and the hate-speak (who hates who more, etc.)...

The intolerance by certain members here towards those with a different opinion or 'take' on what was said by politicians is remarkable. Isn't it?

I can tell you what I find remarkable. A person mentions the strike capabilities of the US Navy which come from aircraft carriers and nuclear subs. Most people know that these are some of the most modern and awesome weapons in human history, and guarantee a decisive advantage to the US Navy in most any scenario. However, the next moment you (and I mean you personally) declare that this was a statement of obsolescence of the Navy, and of its irrelevance.

At this point it's no longer "opinion" we are talking about here, but applying the standard of a "reasonable person" as it exists, for example, in Common Law. There is simply no way that A means B, A being a statement of modernity and capability of the Navy, and B being a statement of how irrelevant it is. These two are incompatible. My kids are now in school and they are busy learning reading comprehension. They would get an "F" if they wrote anything like it, and they Nintendo privileges would have been revoked till further notice.

I simply can't believe that a healthy person can write that sort of stuff unless they have an agenda.

reply to post by FlyersFan


If you want to take his words negatively, but I think you're reaching when you said that he wants to dustbin the navy. He said that we have less ships that we did back then and that quantity does not equal quality.

But if you want to read more into that, go ahead, but you just look misinformed and dishonest.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by beezzer

 

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

Haha well that's what crying bunnies do when they have no argument to make.. Change the subject

Ive never seen this kind of desperation from either political party

Originally posted by camaro68ss
we still use bayonets, all military rifles have the hookup for a bayonet..... just saying...

No one said we didnt use bayonets

Hey, OP, the President didn't say we don't need a strong Navy. He did say we need to not spend money needlessly, which is a lot different. Put the prejudice out of your ears and listen to words spoken, as opposed to making up the what ever suits your bias. Just a suggestion that I feel confident will be ignored.

One more thing that ahs probably been mentioned already. The President isn't proposing dramitic cuts to the military. He's only planning to MAINTAIN current monitary commitments. He's not reducing the military, just not un-necessarily increasing it, again, and again, and again.

reply to post by FlyersFan


OP you are an idiot. Our military spending is off the charts. ALL of our taxes basically go to this. SO what the hell is being done with the military budget??

Why are there so few navy ships today?? WHY

The question you should be asking (which would happen to be unbiased and would actually be trying to solve a problem instead of being a twit and egging on this left right charade) is where the hell is all of our money going??

what is our military doing with that money?? it sure as hell is not going to the troops who return because they are getting shafted left and right.

where the heck is the money going??? it sure is not going to build up our navy.. it must be going to new technology maybe?? maybe technology that makes it so you don't need a navy or you do not need as big of a navy

have you ever stopped think instead of jumping up and down like an ape ready to fling pooh at the opposing ape clan??


what the heck is being done with military spending?? why do we not have more ships???

You really are a tool if you cannot see what the true issue is


how can we not have more ships if we spend so much in the military.. what is it being spent on?? i sure as hell would like to know where those funds go and please do not start this national security bs. Kennedy was one to point out that citing national security si a cop out and that information should be readily available to a very precarious degree to where national security could still be kept. which is probably why he as killed.

so where is the money going cuz as obama has state it sure as hell is not going to building ships.

Okay, this is a retarded discussion. Just give you a little background, I have just got out of the Navy six months ago and I was a submariner.

Tot tell you the truth, we do not need more ships. We need to have two crews per ship to be able to keep the ships out to sea while reducing the strain on the sailors.

Looking back at what we have today vs back in the beginning of the 20th century, our Naval power has doubled with less ships.

This is the truth when I say that one SSGN can cause more damage than ten of those battleships. Almost two hundred cruise missiles are on a SSGN with a huge range, Even some our fast attack submarines are equipped with cruise missiles. The torpedoes that are carried have well over 90% tested accuracy and it honestly only takes one of our torpedoes to sink a ship. Our newest carriers with be able to launch its entire inventory of jets in a matter of minutes (a little more than a half hour if all jets are prepared) Our cruisers and destroyers have incredible reach with their equipment. Did I mention everything has cruise missiles? Did I mention we have guns that can shoot down incoming missiles by firing an obscene amount of bullets within seconds? With satellite technology, advanced radar, and advanced sonar, we do not need to occupy every damn grid of the world, we just need to be in range.

The only ships in the water that match our technology is our allies. They are a few hiccups that a couple of the navies out there can do but its not due to technology or numbers, its more because of crew discipline and tactics.

But hey, give the Navy more money, maybe they can finally pay for some of those programs they promise or maybe even pay us a decent wage for what we do and not put so much damn cost onto us with our tiny salaries.

reply to post by FlyersFan

That's not exactly what he said, not sure how you arrived at your conclusion? He was referring to the fact that we don't fight in the waters like we use back in the day or ride on horses and use bayonets.*CHARGE* LMAO Therefore, we don't need fleets of ships sitting there going to hell.

Hello 2012 >We have aircraft,submarines,drones and tanks. Romney just showed everyone he knows zero about the military!

Mittens just wants a fleet so he can play pirate! Yarrr Matey!

reply to post by camaro68ss


And he didnt say we didnt use them now only that there are fewer than there were in 1916. Hey I bet there are fewer wagons too. I also wonder about cannons. I bet we have fewer cannons than we had in 1916 too.
The following site offeres a view of the weapons that our military utilized in WWI and would have been our artillary in 1916. www.firstworldwar.com...

reply to post by beezzer


You didn't try to give bullet points? Also are you one of the 'naive' thinkers that thought anything would 'change' in 4 years, especially since we were still at war the reason for the debt? Here's two more bullets for you.

1. 12 million more jobs predicted by 2016 from the policies Obama has implemented.
2. Highest Private Sector jobs increase since before the debt crisis.

Need more I have them.

reply to post by Hawking


Absolutely agree Hawking he/she is still yet to contribute anything to this argument. A crying bunny indeed, who'd rather deflect deny then actually discuss anything credible. Like the lack of FACTUAL information from Romney on what he plans to do, conservatives love that question and Obama owned Romney on it last night. Romney - "Check my website for the details." Obama - "I have and it showed me nothing." End of story.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Im not sure what has been posted yet, but OP, you misunderstand Obama...

He said we don't have horses and bayonets anymore in reference to Romney's claim "we had more boats in 1916"

It means this..

We have spent more money on the Navy now than before and even one of our 'now' boats would own our entire navy from 'back in those days'...

We have the strongest Navy in the world.

That is what Obama said. In response to a dumb claim that Obama should make the Navy build more boats.


I dis like both of those clowns, but that's what he said.

This comment seems wrong and even embarrassing for Obama-If you don't understand what Obama is talking about. It's pretty obvious that he's saying that the navy of today is not the same as the navy back then. This is just like the outrage over "not optimal".

The are valid things to critcize Obama on, so why the need to make some up?