Who brings a knife (bayonet) to a gunfight? What a dumbass Romney is!

Correcting Obama's Comments on the U.S. Navy and our Mlitary



This evening in the Third Presidential Debate Mitt Romney raised legitimate concerns about the current and shrinking size of the United States Navy. The President responded snarkily by saying that size does not matter because we have these these "things" called Carriers that "planes can land on" and these "things" that go underwater.
This pathetic attempt at rebuttal by Obama is quite simple. The first submarine commissioned by the United States Navy was "USS Holland (SS-1)" on October 12, 1900.
The first Aircraft Carrier commissioned by the United States Navy was the USS Langley
(CV-1) on March 20, 1922.
Exactly how does the existence of Aircraft Carriers and submarines in a Modern American Navy nullify Mitt Romney's just concerns about the size of the Navy? Obama spoke about both as if they were some new fangled advances in naval warfare. The existence of carriers in our fleet justifies its reduction even though they have been an integral part of our navy for 112 and 87 years respectively? I guess in Obama's world Jimmy Doolittle was bombing Tokyo with jet powered B-25 Mitchell bombers, or LeMay with B-29's. How can he defend shrinking a navy whose history he is wholly ignorant?
And yes, the Marine Corps still issues bayonets and lowly K-Bar knives. You know those archaic tools of battle. Even our Special Forces have stooped to using horses in the Afghan Kush but hey, no matter how advanced we become with those new fangled tools like aircraft carriers, submarines and drone UAV's, you still need boots on the ground and they need the equipment to sustain and protect them and you must be prepared to adapt and overcome.

Exactly how does the existence of Aircraft Carriers and submarines in a Modern American Navy nullify Mitt Romney's just concerns about the size of the Navy?

Because each Trident submarine carries over 1000 times the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb.


Hmm, that was before your friend John Walker gave away all the Navy's secrets. What Oblamer was attempting to do is to claim that our technology could reduce the need for a large Navy. I guess that you think that nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers are new arrivals to the Navy and will not be reduced. Well, your wrong there. They are first on the list of RIF according to Oblamer. I suggest that you hold onto that bayonet and knife. You may need it if Oblamer gets his way.
 
Last edited:
At the end of the day Romney is just a one term governor with NO foreign policy experience, who left Massachusetts with a 34% approval rating.
The governorship was simply a stepping stone on his path to the presidency.
 
Obama can run on his record and continues to contrast it to the Republicans obstructionisms policy. Obama has not only slowed Romneys momentum but overtaken it. Romney is dead in the water as we speak... just you watch the polls in the coming days.

"obstructionisms" may I ask what dictionary you found that word in.:eusa_clap:

Websters, click on the link...

Obstructionism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

:lol:
 
Willard's thing about increasing the Navy was a plea for Virginia votes. They make ships. Obama smacked him down so beautifully.
 
Obama can run on his record and continues to contrast it to the Republicans obstructionisms policy. Obama has not only slowed Romneys momentum but overtaken it. Romney is dead in the water as we speak... just you watch the polls in the coming days.

"obstructionisms" may I ask what dictionary you found that word in.:eusa_clap:

Websters, click on the link...

Obstructionism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

:lol:

the little fuck deserves a neg rep just for breathing the same air as the rest of humanity
 
The op is a moron......he thinks we can win wars playing Call of Duty......

but it would have been nice to have a few extra ships...say in Libya....how did all that new tech save an ambassador....ooops it didnt

so good I gotta post it.....again




Your glee in our "new tech to save an ambassador failure" is outstanding. Your r-wing political-agenda is duly noted.
nope I just called you libtards out on you Call of Duty defense......wooohooo
lets fire off some missles...we dont need no stinkin ships!
 
Why am I not shocked, the Liberals are most happy about the Most Childish and Petty Come back Obama had all night.

He never actually addressed the Fact that his own navy says they need 315 ships, and they only have 285, and Obama wants to cut it even more.

No instead he makes a cute little joke, and all the lemmings cheer.
 
Why am I not shocked, the Liberals are most happy about the Most Childish and Petty Come back Obama had all night.

He never actually addressed the Fact that his own navy says they need 315 ships, and they only have 285, and Obama wants to cut it even more.

No instead he makes a cute little joke, and all the lemmings cheer.

:laugh2:Romnesia Alert!:laugh2:
 
What Oblamer was attempting to do is to claim that our technology could reduce the need for a large Navy. I guess that you think that nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers are new arrivals to the Navy and will not be reduced.

You know, it's kinda disturbing how all in the same breath you point out the obvious fact that Obama was making a general point, and then with the other half of that breath you get right back to nit-picking the clicks and grunts that he used to make that point.
 
Last edited:
Obama is nitpicking in hopes of slowing the momentum of the Romney campaign. It's not working.

Obama cannot run on his record and his only hope is to make Romney look bad. Obama himself lamented the used of these exact tactics in the past- before he needed to use them.


Obama can run on his record and continues to contrast it to the Republicans obstructionisms policy. Obama has not only slowed Romneys momentum but overtaken it. Romney is dead in the water as we speak... just you watch the polls in the coming days.

First of all, President Obama showed his ignorance of the military that he commands since the Marine Corps still uses bayonets...something which Barry and his speech writers were obviously unaware of.

If Obama "can" run on his record...then why doesn't he do so?

His entire campaign has been to demagogue Mitt Romney. He avoids talking about his record because it's awful.
 

Improper application of the word, remeber the golden rule asshole.


Politically-correct much? I thought so. :eusa_boohoo:

naw, just a troll tex-dipschit first claimed it wasn't a word. then switches to this defense? what a loser -- can't conceded being caught being a douchebagh


Obama is nitpicking in hopes of slowing the momentum of the Romney campaign. It's not working.

Obama cannot run on his record and his only hope is to make Romney look bad. Obama himself lamented the used of these exact tactics in the past- before he needed to use them.


Obama can run on his record and continues to contrast it to the Republicans obstructionisms policy. Obama has not only slowed Romneys momentum but overtaken it. Romney is dead in the water as we speak... just you watch the polls in the coming days.

"obstructionisms" may I ask what dictionary you found that word in.:eusa_clap:
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top