Ryan: "I just don't understand" bayonet remark

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07







Most people would be shocked to find out how much the B-2s and F-117s cost us, including research and development. I can't think of any other nation that has such capablities. I think it is a big luxury when at least 30% of the american population cannot afford healthcare and have their pays garnished for years if they are unlucky enough to fail for state welfare. Or diverting money from social security to pay for the false flag wars.

I think the libya campaign was legitimate though. As was the serbia campaign. Not somalia!

Well, see this is what I mean when I say that Socialists justify war whenever it suits their purposes, but decry it when it is actually used for real defense against the communist empire. The ends always justify the means in their minds.

Against what communist empire? Maybe you don't keep up with the news? The USSR and Peoples Republic of China became capitalists. I never hear obama, romney, clinton, bush talk about them. I only hear them talk about iran, because their agenda is to defeat islam, not communism.

Communism fell just like capitalism will. All self-inflicted stupidity for the most part. But then again most great empires collapse anyway.

The One World Communist empire which has been building since the Bolshevik Revolution. You see, the forces of light have been battling the forces of darkness, just like a chess game. Every time the light advances, the darkness moves its chess pieces. Point/Counterpoint.
And so while the forces of light continue to battle the communist One World Totalitarian govt in various ways, the dark ones move their pieces around.
I know it's a tough thing for a socialist to get, but all that is in the world does not revolve around your socialist Utopia, but the Battle of Armageddon rages on day in and day out. The LIGHT will Triumph.

Furthermore, you should realize that if communism were truly dead, then Obama would not have had avowed communists and Mao lovers like Van Jones and Anita Dunn and Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod on his staff.
It is naive at best to imagine that all this is going on just accidentally.
Do you know that to become an American citizen one must swear on oath that one has not been a member of any communist party or organization for the previous 5 years prior to application, and yet Obama has had admitted communists all over his staff and admin. Are you really going to declare this is at best an accident and that he sort of just overlooked all these people's associations?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


To the contrary the bilderbergers, who meet in absolute secrecy each year, are the big corporate heads of the multinational conglomerates operating in almost every country. Corporatism is a capitalist idea and you can argue cronyism in defense but that still does not make it so.

Then they get to play gay rituals and light the owl at bohemian grove, an exclusive all male club, for AGAIN the same folks. Corporate heads meeting to discuss how they will consolidate all the wealth into their hands via mergers and takeovers. It seems you don't know the first thing about capitalism, but you love it just the same.

Socialism is a utopia because it exists only in the textbooks, and the few countries that tried it got choked by the bilderbergers. They are called blockades and embargoes. To this day cuba and north korea have a hard time importing and exporting.

I am sure you love all the corporate bailouts numbering in the 5-6 trillion with nothing to show for it. Big business took the money and ran for china, then these firms import the stuff tarrif-free and we get to save a few pennies to the dollar.

Haha. You got to be kidding me with such outrageous fantasies. Meanwhile the capitalist class headed by the rockefellers and rothschilds have the georgia guidestones to fulfill and a religion called islam to destroy. Keep supporting romney little man!

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
.
Furthermore, you should realize that if communism were truly dead, then Obama would not have had avowed communists and Mao lovers like Van Jones and Anita Dunn and Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod on his staff.
It is naive at best to imagine that all this is going on just accidentally.

Do you know that to become an American citizen one must swear on oath that one has not been a member of any communist party or organization for the previous 5 years prior to application, and yet Obama has had admitted communists all over his staff and admin. Are you really going to declare this is at best an accident and that he sort of just overlooked all these people's associations?

edit on 24-10-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Wow. I can't believe you are spouting so much intentional ignorance. If people wanted socialism or communism they would simply vote for CPUSA(communist party usa) or SPUSA(socialist party usa) and get a revolutionary government, rather than this BS liberal agenda of pretending to be left wing when they are right of center. The democrats are RIGHT OF CENTER! Anyone with half a brain can figure it out cause its not rocket science.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Yes, this is why Antony Sutton explained about the Hegelian dialectic, and how the wealthy elites use the "managed conflict" they create with their policies and their support of Totalitarian movements. I am well aware of how the elites make money off of war and the the engines of war. Make no mistake, your darling George Soros is also a Bilderberg and a big money making elite who makes money from Capitalist markets, then uses that money to funnel into radical leftist organizations, many of which are extremely anti-American. He is a socialist who uses Capitalism for his own ends
.www.reformed-theology.org...

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Wow. I can't believe you are spouting so much intentional ignorance

It is really you who does not understand the scope and magnitude of all this, and of what I speak. Perhaps it is you who is willfully ignoring even that which you have as your own signature by your avatar. I know other people on this board do and will get it, or at least part of it. I am sorry you do not comprehend these things. I cannot but post the information I have studied and understand. If I were you, I would find out what Socialism is really about and what socialism/communism has done in so many parts of the world before signing on to this death spiral.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

I am sure you love all the corporate bailouts numbering in the 5-6 trillion

In fact, as a member of the Tea Party and a free marketeer, I was never for any of the baillouts including your beloved Obama's nationalizing of auto industry. You want fascism, Obama gave it. You want socialist baillouts of the auto industry Obama gave it. I was NEVER For it, or for any of the other baillouts and STIMULUS. You got the wrong person with your erroneous asssuming.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Your posts


Bull and propaganda

FYI

I thought the President was spot-on. I mean, we've SEEN what happens when old strategies and tactics are used... battleships are a bit out-dated. Heck, even a drone could take one out.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by butcherguy


Uh... just look at the size of the army in WWI compared to now. There are far fewer troops now. and being that the last US bayonet charge was in 1951 in the Korean war, it seems this comparison was quite appropriate.

One could make a more detailed comparison, accounting for the fact that we now have NO dreadnoughts or battleships, and that the number of ships in rival navies is also much smaller than back then, when all the European colonial powers had large navies, as did Japan.

The bottom line was Romney's point was stupid and irrelevant, and based on no real analysis of US naval requirements. And in the debate Romney claimed Syria is Iran's gateway to the sea; guess he has never looked at a map of the world or a globe. That people will vote for this guy and complain about Obama in comparison is beyond belief.

Complain about Obama all you want, people. I have problems with him too. But he is several heads above Romney. People who think otherwise are deluded by their bias and/or hate.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

I am sure you love all the corporate bailouts numbering in the 5-6 trillion

In fact, as a member of the Tea Party and a free marketeer, I was never for any of the baillouts including your beloved Obama's nationalizing of auto industry. You want fascism, Obama gave it. You want socialist baillouts of the auto industry Obama gave it. I was NEVER For it, or for any of the other baillouts and STIMULUS. You got the wrong person with your erroneous asssuming.

Clearly you're not for education either, as evidenced by your post. And why do you make this false claim that Obama is beloved by the left, progressives and Democrats? He's the far lesser of the two evils; that is all.

As for who is responsible for steering the US towards fascism, try your right-wing darling George W. Bush, who ramped up the outsourcing of the US military to war profiteering corporations, including non-bid cost-plus contracts, and for the getting into bed with the telecoms for illegal spying on US citizens and then retroactively making that legal. It was also Bush II who signed the bill for the first round of auto bail-out loans.

I'm not a fan of how the auto bailouts and stimulus were carried out, but if they weren't done, the economy would be in far worse trouble.

You Teabaggers have a very selective memory politics in this country -- that or an EXTREME DOUBLE STANDARD.

And as for your forces of light vs. forces of darkness comments and claims about avowed communists in Obama's circle, you are clearly delusional -- that and/or extremely ignorant and brainwashed by the right-wing echo chamber. But keep on posting your inane/insane malarkey, because it just shows how ridiculous your Teabaggin' ideology is.

Originally posted by timetothink
Still no one on Obamas side can admit he lied about the amount of bayonets currently in use and as the commander in chief he should know better?

can you show me when the word less started meaning none at all?

reply to post by thefbipeeper

Originally posted by thefbipeeper
I will point out first, that because illuminated0ne has it all figured out, that he pointed out that Romney was unintelligent

First off, I called Paul Ryan unintelligent in my first post, not Romney. Maybe you should learn to read before you reply.

Originally posted by thefbipeeper
I will point out second, that he's about to be taken to school

I'll point out third, that for far too long, the narrow minded half retarded left has been allowed to claim they are the smart ones, the good ones, the non racists, the better people.

And I'll prove it with this post, that just like the rest of them, illuminated0ne is a fool.

Very mature of you. You have done three things in your post so far:

1: You have displayed extreme prejudice, and assumed I am "left" simply because I pointed out idiocy coming from someone on the "right". I'll have you know, I am neither left nor right. Just because someone points out idiocy on one side, doesn't mean they belong to the other side.

2: You stereotyped a large group of different people (the left), and called them all retarded fools. That is normally what racist people do.

3: You are trying to prove the "left" is a bunch of fools based on an extremely prejudice assumption that I am "left", and an asinine conclusion that anything I said was foolish. All you have really done thus far is prove that you are a hypocrite. Congratulations.

Originally posted by thefbipeeper
illuminated0ne assumes that the united states is the only country that has built bigger, faster, better ships.

Really, do I assume that? Or do you assume that I assume that?

I don't recall ever making such an illogical statement, so I am pretty sure that you are only assuming that I assumed it.

What you have now done is accused me of assuming something that I didn't assume, and you are trying to prove I am foolish based off of an extreme foolish assumption that you foolishly created out of thin air. Do you know what they call that? They call that a Straw Man argument. You just foolishly misrepresented my position, and created an illusion that you refuted my position by refuting a position that you created out of thin air. Bravo.

Originally posted by thefbipeeper
You see, if other countries had ships from the WWI era... he'd be right! Even Iran has a nuclear sub now though. (bought from russia) so what the HELL is illuminated0ne talking about? Oh it's ok, compaired to WWI, all we need is a single modern PT boat! ????

We don't even have enough navy right now, to back up the coast gaurd, to stop the DRUG RUNNERS! Imagine if we got invaded? YES! if we got invaded, it would be MODERN warships, not WWI ships you idiot illuminated0ne.

thefbipeeper,

The only thing I have ever stated on this topic is that advancements in technology, and changes on the battlefield, and changes in tactics, require less ships than previously required in the past. I never claimed any one country needs less ships than any other country. So your argument is invalid, and asinine.

Many years ago, between 1940 and 1945, when computers were first invented, a single computer was the size of an entire room, and consumed enough power to run several hundred modern day computers. But because of advancements in technology, and production, we now have computers 100 times faster and more powerful than the first computers, and they consume 100s of times less power, and can fit in the palm of our hand. One tiny little device has more capabilities than a device that used to fill an entire room.

Some foolish person would probably say, "Since 1940 the size of our computers have decreased! We must increase funding to make our computers larger!".

Originally posted by thefbipeeper
My freeken god the insanity that has been going on in this nation last couple years.

Insanity I find in a mind so blind.

Obama was too busy trying to make snarky comebacks to actually understand what the Navy needs.

US Armed Forces Journal - Why The Navy Needs More Ships

The Navy needs a larger number of ships, not only for winning a war at sea against a stronger opponent but also for carrying out diverse missions in peacetime, ranging from humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, security assistance, enforcement of maritime agreements, counterpiracy, vessel traffic service, multinational exercises, countersmuggling and counterdrug, to regional deterrence through forward presence in selected parts of the world’s oceans. In operations short of war, the Navy’s mission includes prevention of transnational terrorist acts on the high seas and in international straits and larger ports, support of counterinsurgency or insurgency, and peace enforcement operations.

The Navy today lacks both the numbers and the type of combat ships to successfully carry out all its diverse missions in times of peace and war. The reasons for such a long-standing unfavorable fleet structure include the Navy’s preference for building an ever-larger number of high-capability but large and expensive ships optimally suited for operations on the open ocean; the associated costs of building such large ships; the use of purely business considerations in determining fleet size/composition and deployment patterns; the belief that new technologies are a substitute for numbers; and a false reading of the future strategic environment.

From the Iron Ship Builders Magazine - why the Navy needs more ships

.... the U.S. Navy has been shrinking for two decades. As recently as 1987, the Navy had 594 ships. At that time, we were not at war. Since then, despite growing threats from around the globe — the Middle East, Korea, China — we have built an average of only six ships a year, while decommissioning 20.

The Navy’s fleet is now only 281 ships, less than half its size in 1987. Although there is support within the military for a larger Naval fleet, the Department of Defense (DOD) has shown little interest in building the ships key to our arsenal. For example, numerous reports recommend a fleet of 55-75 submarines, but the Navy is building only one a year. Our submarine fleet has shrunk from 100 in 1990 to 53 today. The American Shipbuilding Association estimates that at current rates, China will have twice as many submarines as the United States in only five years.

The DOD’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), issued on Feb. 3, calls for a return to building two submarines a year by 2012. Issued every four years, the QDR outlines DOD goals for the next 20 years.

The Case for More Submarines by CDR Mark L. Gorenflo, USN, and CDR Michel T. Poirier, USN

In the five domains where our military forces operate - on land, in the air, on the sea, beneath the sea, and in space - undersea operations are the least visible. For this reason, they offer the ultimate in stealth and surprise while influencing events in all five domains with minimal risk. Unfortunately, because submarine operations are virtually invisible and highly secretive, they are least understood and most frequently under-valued by the public at large. This article discusses the unique value of the U.S. Submarine Force today and why it warrants more defense investment for the future.

The Diplomat Magazine - The US Navy's Quantity Problem
AOL Defense - Navy Needs Both LCS Types for War with China and Iran

Obama Got Military Tech Wrong

I just love that this is the republican focal point after the debate. I mean Really? This is it? This is your big problem with the debate Monday night? Clearly they'd like to talk about this far more then the comment made about Romney outlining his policy. Romney - "Check my website for the information." Obama - "I did and there's no information on there." So how about we discuss that, the total lack of factual evidence to support anything that Romney has said he will actually do in office. This is an open forum so anyone who can detail me his policy, be my guest, I'll be waiting for it.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Nice of you to post here Flyersfan, what's the matter, your thread not good enough? O that's right your idea of 'information' goes hand and hand with Mitt's idea about transparent policy.

Also as a question to all the conservatives here, could you detail for me what Ryan does understand? Because along with Mitt he has shown a clear track record of doing a whole lot of nothing and not understanding much. I'm sure he said the same after an episode of Sesame Street and that's why they want PBS pulled.

reply to post by MrInquisitive

And in the debate Romney claimed Syria is Iran's gateway to the sea; guess he has never looked at a map of the world or a globe.

Everyone needs to stop reading opinion pieces and start reading the actual transcript if they want to know what was really said.

Here's what Romney said:

ROMNEY: Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world. It's their route to the sea. It's the route for them to arm Hezbollah in Lebanon, which threatens, of course, our ally, Israel.

It's obvious that Romney is talking about the Mediterranean Sea, not the Persian Gulf or Arabian Sea.

Iran wouldn't use a route through the Arabian Sea to get to Lebanon, now would they?

Romney was talking about threats to Israel by means of the Mediterranean Sea.

www.politico.com...

reply to post by FlyersFan


If you and others weren't so busy trying to find mistakes to discredit the President, you probably would have comprehended what he was implying.

Romney was trying to make it seem that having less ships now than in 1914 is a bad thing, when it is not. Obama was simply explaining that things have changed, and there is no need for the same amount of ships we had in the past. With aircraft carriers and aircraft, there is less need for certain ships.

www.informationdissemination.net...

Under Secretary of the Navy Robert Work, in a January 2012 speech to the Surface Navy Association, dismissed concerns about the Navy's shrinking ship count. Work asserted that the Navy's robust plans for long-range air reconnaissance, conducted by new aircraft such as the P-8A Poseidon and a Navy version of the Global Hawk drone, will do much of the routine maritime patrolling previously done by ships.


...advanced ISR will give fewer ships more information than they have ever had, thus allow fewer ships to perform the same mission just as effectively as more ships without the ISR could. The argument that technology enables a smaller fleet to be as effective as larger fleets in previous eras is not new, indeed it is an argument Bob Work has made in several ways in the past - including at SNA when he stated the 300 ship Navy will be far more capable than the 600 ship Navy of the 1980s.

That sure does put Obama's remark, "We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them.", into perspective doesn't it.

On that note...

Romney was telling a lie when he claimed the US Navy ship count is at a historic low. The US Navy had 285 ships in 2011. The lowest ship count was 278 in 2007 under Bush's administration.

reply to post by illuminated0ne


Don't even humor the conversation, just ask them to outline Romney's policy for you. If this is all they have let um run with it, this isn't going to change any tide. Just makes the republican party look even more childish.