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

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Every infantryman carries one (and more likely, two) blades. Trust me on this.

Originally posted by sicksonezer0
Sounds like a lot of people arguing about things they know nothing about. Including the OP.

Obama Bots are real quick to pounce on anything they can, grasping at straws.

Logistically it doesn't make sense to have a smaller fleet, even with newer technology. If we have less ships with better technology, they are useless if they are not where they need to be, but on the other hand, if we have more ships with less capability they are less effective in battle and harder to manage.

The American Navy fleet needs balance in terms of quality vs quantity. Neither one of these candidates understand this, they are faced with a harsh imperative, and while everyone is busy crying about their lame candidates, they miss the whole premise of the argument.

Our country is going to be in a world of trouble, not only because of the leadership, but the people who are being led like sheep.

Right now our ships are balanced in terms of quality vs quantity. And we have more ships now than we did back then. Romney just wants to keep feeding the war machine. Our Navy outnumbers everyone there is no match for it. We beat the second best by almost three to one.
Total Navy Ship Strength by Country


Our country is in trouble because of people that constantly look for excuses to go to war. Perhaps the Romneybots need to start checking things out before commenting.

Originally posted by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies
So he didn't free the slaves then?

Darned you history books!

Well, he did.
And unlike what Butcher said, he wasn't a racist (well, if you put it in todays standards, sure, but back then, he was far from it.

However. He didn't go to war to free the slaves..that was incidental and used first as a threat to get the rebels in line, and eventually he followed through on the threat..it was ultimately a military tactic moreso than a movement from the start.

For his time, he was very much a progressive (the republicans back then were actually the progressive types..things did change though in the 20th century and the "sides" slowly flipped. It took almost 50 years of conversion, but ultimately, the Democratic party of today = the republican party of lincoln's time...also why the Democrats now represent the large urban and ivy league areas, and the republicans are more farmer bill's party (used to be the opposite).

History is a interesting thing. Over time, good men are painted as either great men, or forgotten, minor criminals become major villians, etc...easier to remember when extremes are painted, long after the facts are filed and forgotten.

The idea that Lincoln was a racist is by some angry black historian by the name of Lerone Bennet, whom took great liberties with imagining what Lincoln was thinking. Here are the facts though...from the words of Lincoln himself:

Lincoln states, "I agree with Judge Douglas that he [a black] is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color — perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments; but in the right to eat the bread without leave of anybody else which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man."

Lincoln spent his youth and most of his adult life in a world where blacks were not unlike a assembly line machine. trained by the society that they were basically trained monkeymen moreso than human, and so initially figured thats what it was..however, his views evolved over time as he spent more and more time getting to know what the people were. By the end of the civil war, his initial concept of spanking the south and then shipping these people back to africa changed due to first off powerful lobbiests from the abolitionists (sort of a fringe northern group at the time) and from his own experience realizing they are not just smart monkeys but actual people (regardless of how he was trained).

After seeing over 200,000 African-Americans volunteer and fight alongside Union forces, Lincoln dropped his support for plans to colonize freed slaves to Africa after the Civil War. In an 1863 speech, Lincoln stated, "there will be some black men who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet, they have helped mankind on to this great consummation, while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, they have strove to hinder it."

On April 11, 1865 Lincoln delivered an address in which he became the first president to advocate extending voting rights to African-Americans who fought for the Union when he stated, "It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers." By this statement, Lincoln indicated his belief that African-Americans should have full political equality

Know history..ignore those whom try to twist it.

Lincoln in the end was not only not a racist (at least publically, surely he still had some baggage in his head from a lifetime of programming he flushed), but he was even more progressive than the abolitionists desires..
full political equality...

In context, Lincoln was in the end about as racist as a Kardashian..wisdom comes over time and experience.

Lincoln was one of the greatest POTUS's the US has ever had. the "sane" people understand this.
the KKK...not a fan.

Originally posted by ColeYounger
Obama's remarks were undignified in the extreme and unbefitting a president.
"We have things called aircraft carriers that planes land on." It was immature, really bush-league.
Our society has become so ignorant that rude, snotty, and mannerless people are looked upon as "assertive" or "confident".

Seriously...it was like watching some smarmy, know-it-all college brat.

Get a grip, anyone watching this whole scenario unfold from outside the USA can see what is happening here, romney and is sidekick are appealing to the half brain southpark, as in "dey tuk r jerb" mentality, look out bob its comin' right for us, its not enough to have "nuclar" powered subs with nuclear launch capability sea to air missiles,air craft carriers that can hit anywhere anytime with an entourage of support ships, but this guy wants more ships why, what for, its pointless.
these two idiots are fear mongering to gain support and its ludicrous that no one has addressed this situation, and as for your comment I fully understand Obamas attitude towards Romney when answering this question he could see straight through Romney , Romney has no plans of increasing the navy or not down sizing it, the USA cant afford it

What confuses me is this about this whole thread:

The POTUS made a fairly humorous strawman argument...it did lead to a greater point overall, but it was in essence a strawman.

So, the right, instead of just dismissing the strawman and focusing back in on the navy fleet....have decided to breathlessly defend the strawman argument, thereby making those whom have a sense of humor see them as...well, a bit slow.

Why not just say...meh, strawman nonsense, navy ships are not low tech so the comparison doesn't work.

You can't..because your soo caught up in the example that you have lost the point (and plot)

But carry on with this line. I find it funny.

No wonder the conservatives don't have a answer to the daily show...no sense of humor, no ability to get past simple strawmen.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Saturn, While Lincoln did level a personal federal income tax to pay for the war, it was not a Progressive income tax. Progressives seem to have suddenly decided Lincoln was a Big Govt Progressive somehow.

The general purpose of the income tax was to fund the war and the operations of government, not to fund special programs or redistribute income; its specific purpose, in fact, was to take the inflationary steam out of the newly introduced “greenback” currency. For that reason, the tax on personal incomes laid surprisingly modest burdens on Northern taxpayers

It was confederates who levied the Progressive Tax according to Heritage.

By contrast, the Confederate government, which also levied a tax on incomes, established steeply progressive rates, beginning with 5 percent on incomes from $500 to $1,500 per annum, rising to 10 percent for incomes from $1,500 to $5,000, 12.5 percent for incomes from $5,000 to $10,000, and 15 percent for those over $10,000. The Confederate government also imposed license fees for everything from apothecaries to wholesale liquor dealers, and at rates usually five times greater than license fees levied by Lincoln’s Administration.

In any case, the Civil War taxes on personal income lasted only until their repeal in 1872, and by that time, in fact, all but the tariffs had disappeared. The income taxes that prevail today were the creation in 1913 of Woodrow Wilson’s Administration and were intended by Wilson not to fund the costs of a national emergency, but to redress “an industrial system which, take it on all its sides, holds capital in leading strings, restricts the liberties and limits the opportunities of labor, and exploits without renewing or conserving the natural resources of the country.” For Lincoln, the income tax was needed to pay bills; for Wilson, it was necessary to achieve a social vision.[25]

www.heritage.org...

I believe Heritage makes a great case against Progressive claims on Lincoln, however I would say that the forces of hegelian dialectic through Karl Marx and Engels at that time were beginning to shape political and economic spheres and trying to wend it's way into govt. There is even a letter from Marx to Lincoln, praising him for freeing the slaves.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Lincoln states, "I agree with Judge Douglas that he [a black] is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color — perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments; but in the right to eat the bread without leave of anybody else which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man."

The fact that you don't find this to be the statement of a racist is telling.

Might want to watch throwing around the KKK label. I know that they won't accept me.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Know history..ignore those whom try to twist it.

Yes, exactly, let us ignore Progressive revisionist historians who have tried to hijack Lincoln to promote their ideas.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Lincoln states, "I agree with Judge Douglas that he [a black] is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color — perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments; but in the right to eat the bread without leave of anybody else which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man."

The fact that you don't find this to be the statement of a racist is telling.

Might want to watch throwing around the KKK label. I know that they won't accept me.

No, because I understand the context.
The only possible relation I can make of it in todays world would be down the line in maybe 30 or so years, when people are discussing artificial intelligence robots whom say they are alive.
For now, us..our generation will always see them as just well made toasters..but not actually a person.
Some may, but the majority will always see..toaster.

So, if a POTUS in 30 years says, ok...they may lack a soul, lack a true etc etc etc..but they work hard and deserve their equal pay...that doesn't make that person a erm...racist, it makes them actually very progressive from todays standard (give a toaster a wage? What a insane idea). Now, 200 years down the line, they may look at that POTUS and think he was some sort of hate monger for saying the AIs have no souls or whatnot...

You cannot compare without understanding context, timeframe, etc.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Lincoln states, "I agree with Judge Douglas that he [a black] is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color — perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments; but in the right to eat the bread without leave of anybody else which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man."

The fact that you don't find this to be the statement of a racist is telling.

Might want to watch throwing around the KKK label. I know that they won't accept me.

I would guess that this is more in relation to the education at that time, as slaves were relegated to hard labor. Why have Progressives tried to claim Lincoln as one of their own who instituted a Progressive income tax if they also thought him a racist?

This stuff just doesn't make any sense. The fact is Lincoln was still a straight Republican at a time when Marxists were running about the world trying to institute change. It was confederates at that time who did not want to free the slaves. It was mostly Republicans who were the abolitionists. So let's not mix things up.
LIncoln freed the slaves and Marx thought so much of it he wrote him a letter praising him. But this does not make Lincoln a Marxist. Marx wanted the abolition of private property as well, and according to Heritage, he allowed for more private property via the Homestead Act.
This of course is never used by Progressives to make their points, only the institution of income tax.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Know history..ignore those whom try to twist it.

Yes, exactly, let us ignore Progressive revisionist historians who have tried to hijack Lincoln to promote their ideas.

The earliest known application of progressive taxation took place in Great Britain in the 14th century. In the United States, the first progressive income tax was established by the Revenue Act of 1862, which was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln and repealed the short-lived flat tax contained in the Revenue Act of 1861.

Wiki

Lincoln introduced it. The dems later on liked it and kept it (in 1913) once it was ratified.

It is constitutional, it works (as shown by America becoming the economic powerhouse it is). Whats the problem?

Originally posted by sicksonezer0
Sounds like a lot of people arguing about things they know nothing about. Including the OP.

Obama Bots are real quick to pounce on anything they can, grasping at straws.

Logistically it doesn't make sense to have a smaller fleet, even with newer technology. If we have less ships with better technology, they are useless if they are not where they need to be, but on the other hand, if we have more ships with less capability they are less effective in battle and harder to manage.

The American Navy fleet needs balance in terms of quality vs quantity. Neither one of these candidates understand this, they are faced with a harsh imperative, and while everyone is busy crying about their lame candidates, they miss the whole premise of the argument.

Our country is going to be in a world of trouble, not only because of the leadership, but the people who are being led like sheep.

Got news for you...

Beginning in the early 90's there was a draw down in the military. Bases were closed and soldiers were offered early retirements.

The military has been drawing down for 20 years!

reply to post by SaturnFX

Just because wiki declares it doesn't make it true. Wiki has a lot of Progressives updating it with their skewed vision of the world.

Would you mind reading the Heritage piece before jumping to a Progressive site promoting their ideals? The minute you went for claiming Lincoln as a Progressive I knew you were using Progressive info.But even the Heritage site says that even some Libertarians went for the bait to distance themselves from anything Progressive
I do plan to look into this more though, as today I am using my laptop since my desktop HD is in trouble. I do not enjoy surfing on a laptop.

.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
www.heritage.org...

Heritage is a conservative think tank.
I am as likely to read from them and accept their concepts as you would accept Center for American Progress's stuff.

Find independent reviews...step away from the illusionary bubble when debating.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Just because wiki declares it doesn't make it true. Wiki has a lot of Progressives updating it with their skewed vision of the world.

Would you mind reading the Heritage piece before jumping to a Progressive site promoting their ideals? The minute you went for claiming Lincoln as a Progressive I knew you were using Progressive info.But even the Heritage site says that even some Libertarians went for the bait to distance themselves from anything Progressive.

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

Wiki is not progressive..unless you believe that only progressives know how to run consensus and source credible peer reviewed stuff.

I don't go into the discussion pages of wiki.

Heritage as I mentioned is a con think tank whom will try to in a few years, once a new energy source is out, pretend oil barons were all a bunch of liberals.

Originally posted by illuminated0ne
reply to post by SrWingCommander

 

President Obama never claimed anyone stopped using bayonets. He said we use less bayonets, which is true.

Bayonets are generally for close quarters fighting. War has changed, and tactics have changed, weapons have changed, and fighting from a distance has become the norm. So there is less and less close quarters fighting, and less need for a bayonet.

The US Army and US Marines still issue bayonets. They still train in the use of bayonets. I'm not sure about the Air Force and their limited weapon training during boot camp, but I bet they learn how to fix-bayonets and perform the basic slashes and jabs.

If our troops ever have to face an enemy that will go toe-to-toe like the Japanese and Germans did during WWII, the bayonet will be used. The Iraqi's surrendered when confronted. The Afghans only attack(ed) from afar or through a woman/child with a hidden bomb. The troops are prepared and armed for close-quarter combat and always will be.

The bayonet is also part of the soldier's and Marine's uniform.

We don't "use less bayonets" as you and your guy put it.

reply to post by primus2012


I never used my bayonet while clearing houses, did you?

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
www.heritage.org...

Heritage is a conservative think tank.
I am as likely to read from them and accept their concepts as you would accept Center for American Progress's stuff.

Find independent reviews...step away from the illusionary bubble when debating.

Yes, point well taken. At least we can be civil to one another.

Originally posted by DZAG Wright

Originally posted by sicksonezer0
Sounds like a lot of people arguing about things they know nothing about. Including the OP.

Obama Bots are real quick to pounce on anything they can, grasping at straws.

Logistically it doesn't make sense to have a smaller fleet, even with newer technology. If we have less ships with better technology, they are useless if they are not where they need to be, but on the other hand, if we have more ships with less capability they are less effective in battle and harder to manage.

The American Navy fleet needs balance in terms of quality vs quantity. Neither one of these candidates understand this, they are faced with a harsh imperative, and while everyone is busy crying about their lame candidates, they miss the whole premise of the argument.

Our country is going to be in a world of trouble, not only because of the leadership, but the people who are being led like sheep.

Got news for you...

Beginning in the early 90's there was a draw down in the military. Bases were closed and soldiers were offered early retirements.

The military has been drawing down for 20 years!

There was sharp decrease in 90-91, but then Desert Shield/Desert Storm pretty much put an end to that. Overall, there is about a 500k difference between active duty numbers in 90 and today. The reserve component numbers haven't changed much at all, like 1.3 mil average every year.

DOD currently wants to increase enrollment numbers.

reply to post by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies


You are more likley to die from bee stings than a terrorist attack.

This past summer I had a big bee nest under my porch. Perhaps the military should come out and deal with it, as it is clearly a bigger threat than terrorism.

I mean, they could have sent a Predador drone to take care of it. Hell, just send over a squad of Marines with a fire hose or a big stick. Isn't that what we pay our troops for? To keep us safe?

Then there's those things called cars...those are pretty scary too. You have a greater chance of being killed in a car accident than via a terrorist attack.

I'm not sure what the military plans to do about that threat, but damn those "cars" are everywhere!