"Horses and Bayonets"

[Steelplate]

Obama didn't listen to his security team or Intel briefings and our ME Embassy got wiped out, what makes you think he listens to the Navy?

Did you read the link I provided....10 new warships included in the budget.

Face it dude, you're trying to make something out of nothing. It didn't work with "57 States", it didn't work with "you didn't build that", and it's not working now.....you look like fools.

 

[Warrior102]

I cannot believe Willard decided to compare the number of ships in the 1916 Navy to our forces now. The debate coach that came up with that assertion is an idiot.

It did illustrate just how backwards Willard's thinking is, though. He made a good point for Obama.

We used horses in Afghanistan, numbnuts.

And we still have bayonets, idiot.

You're as ignorant regarding the military as Obama is.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

I cannot believe Willard decided to compare the number of ships in the 1916 Navy to our forces now. The debate coach that came up with that assertion is an idiot.

It did illustrate just how backwards Willard's thinking is, though. He made a good point for Obama.

We used horses in Afghanistan, numbnuts.

And we still have bayonets, idiot.

You're as ignorant regarding the military as Obama is.

Yes, every mission was a bayonette charge on horseback. Welcome to "miss the point" with everyones favorite host, Warrior.

 

[tyroneweaver]

No, the navy WANTS more ships.

The navy doesn't NEED more ships.

In 1916, you had the German Navy, the Japanese Navy, the British Navy all of which were potential rivals to American interests. So having more ships then actually kind of made sense.

today. Nearly every country with a major naval power is either an ally or has a common economic interest in keeping free trade and globalism like it is.

Navies are kind of pointless when you can take out a whole fleet with one nuke.

What we need is to put more money into infrastructure and education, not building expensive ships that will never see a day of combat.

I am not sure what Willard was thinking last night, but I do believe he punched Barry's ticket to a second term. I see a respected pollster with Virginia in the Obama column now...

why's that Virginia is a ship yard state

 

[Listening]

I cannot believe Willard decided to compare the number of ships in the 1916 Navy to our forces now. The debate coach that came up with that assertion is an idiot.

It did illustrate just how backwards Willard's thinking is, though. He made a good point for Obama.

We used horses in Afghanistan, numbnuts.

And we still have bayonets, idiot.

You're as ignorant regarding the military as Obama is.

Yes, every mission was a bayonette charge on horseback. Welcome to "miss the point" with everyones favorite host, Warrior.

Still pretending to be someone "smart", I see.

 

[Seawytch]

I cannot believe Willard decided to compare the number of ships in the 1916 Navy to our forces now. The debate coach that came up with that assertion is an idiot.

It did illustrate just how backwards Willard's thinking is, though. He made a good point for Obama.

We used horses in Afghanistan, numbnuts.

And we still have bayonets, idiot.

You're as ignorant regarding the military as Obama is.

Whew...good thing the President said fewer and not none at all.

 

[Steelplate]

I cannot believe Willard decided to compare the number of ships in the 1916 Navy to our forces now. The debate coach that came up with that assertion is an idiot.

It did illustrate just how backwards Willard's thinking is, though. He made a good point for Obama.

We used horses in Afghanistan, numbnuts.

And we still have bayonets, idiot.

You're as ignorant regarding the military as Obama is.

Wow...did you hear him say that we didn't use them anymore? Please post video or a link to the transcript. Thanks in advance.

 

[VaYank5150]

No, the navy WANTS more ships.

The navy doesn't NEED more ships.

In 1916, you had the German Navy, the Japanese Navy, the British Navy all of which were potential rivals to American interests. So having more ships then actually kind of made sense.

today. Nearly every country with a major naval power is either an ally or has a common economic interest in keeping free trade and globalism like it is.

Navies are kind of pointless when you can take out a whole fleet with one nuke.

What we need is to put more money into infrastructure and education, not building expensive ships that will never see a day of combat.

I am not sure what Willard was thinking last night, but I do believe he punched Barry's ticket to a second term. I see a respected pollster with Virginia in the Obama column now...

why's that Virginia is a ship yard state

So? Are you suggesting that our bloated defense budget is SUPPOSED to be propping up jobs in Virginia? Didn't Romney JUST say last night that Government does not create jobs??????

 

[VaYank5150]

I cannot believe Willard decided to compare the number of ships in the 1916 Navy to our forces now. The debate coach that came up with that assertion is an idiot.

It did illustrate just how backwards Willard's thinking is, though. He made a good point for Obama.

We used horses in Afghanistan, numbnuts.

And we still have bayonets, idiot.

You're as ignorant regarding the military as Obama is.

Thank you for joining in and showing why you are too dumb to vote.

 

[RDD_1210]

You know it was a resounding victory when the best lie they can run with is twisting his bayonet comment.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

Paul Ryan jumping in to the fray, sounding just as stupid.


"I don't understand how you compare Ships to Bayonettes." (newsflash, Romney Junior. He wasn't)

"The ocean hasn't shrunk" Again having no clue about the difference in capability of a 1917 warship, and a modern aircraft carrier or submarine.

 

[mudwhistle]

I cannot believe Willard decided to compare the number of ships in the 1916 Navy to our forces now. The debate coach that came up with that assertion is an idiot.

It did illustrate just how backwards Willard's thinking is, though. He made a good point for Obama.

Obama doesn't understand the importance of a Navy. Most of our power overseas is projected thru sea-power. If he thinks we can transport a massive Army with air assets he doesn't have a clue.

Every large deployment begins with moving the equipment by rail to the sea ports and then over sea to whatever destination they need to go. Small deployments depend on air cargo, but Desert Storm wouldn't have happened without the ships that moved everything.

Obama failed on this issue badly.

 

[mudwhistle]

Oh, and every soldier is still issued a bayonet when they go to war.

Epic Fail

 

[Steelplate]

I cannot believe Willard decided to compare the number of ships in the 1916 Navy to our forces now. The debate coach that came up with that assertion is an idiot.

It did illustrate just how backwards Willard's thinking is, though. He made a good point for Obama.

Obama doesn't understand the importance of a Navy. Most of our power overseas is projected thru sea-power. If he thinks we can transport a massive Army with air assets he doesn't have a clue.

Every large deployment begins with moving the equipment by rail to the sea ports and then over sea to whatever destination they need to go. Small deployments depend on air cargo, but Desert Storm wouldn't have happened without the ship that moved everything.

Obama failed on this issue badly.

10 MORE WARSHIPS ON THE DOCKET IN THE CURRENT BUDGET....link on previous page. But hey, spin away....

 

[tyroneweaver]

I am not sure what Willard was thinking last night, but I do believe he punched Barry's ticket to a second term. I see a respected pollster with Virginia in the Obama column now...

why's that Virginia is a ship yard state

So? Are you suggesting that our bloated defense budget is SUPPOSED to be propping up jobs in Virginia? Didn't Romney JUST say last night that Government does not create jobs??????

...and your pollster is probably not very reliable either

 

[RDD_1210]

Oh, and every soldier is still issued a bayonet when they go to war.

Epic Fail

And?

 

[mudwhistle]

Paul Ryan jumping in to the fray, sounding just as stupid.


"I don't understand how you compare Ships to Bayonettes." (newsflash, Romney Junior. He wasn't)

"The ocean hasn't shrunk" Again having no clue about the difference in capability of a 1917 warship, and a modern aircraft carrier or submarine.

Do you know how long it still takes to go from stateside to the ME?

An Aircraft Carrier still has to steam to the Persian Gulf from where ever they're stationed. Ships still need resupply. Aircraft Carriers do not operate alone. The operate as part of a Battle group, not independently.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Oh, and every soldier is still issued a bayonet when they go to war.

Epic Fail

I think it was an anti 2nd amendment statement. In other words if you have an assault rifle with a bayonet lug on it....kiss it good bye.

 

[rightwinger]

I cannot believe Willard decided to compare the number of ships in the 1916 Navy to our forces now. The debate coach that came up with that assertion is an idiot.

It did illustrate just how backwards Willard's thinking is, though. He made a good point for Obama.

Obama doesn't understand the importance of a Navy. Most of our power overseas is projected thru sea-power. If he thinks we can transport a massive Army with air assets he doesn't have a clue.

Every large deployment begins with moving the equipment by rail to the sea ports and then over sea to whatever destination they need to go. Small deployments depend on air cargo, but Desert Storm wouldn't have happened without the ships that moved everything.

Obama failed on this issue badly.

He understands that anyone comparing our Navy in 1916 to today is a moron

 

[Steelplate]

Oh, and every soldier is still issued a bayonet when they go to war.

Epic Fail

I think it was an anti 2nd amendment statement. In other words if you have an assault rifle with a bayonet lug on it....kiss it good bye.

of course you do....it's all a KenyanCommunistMuslim plot.