Mr. President, Marines Still Use Bayonets

[LadyGunSlinger]

It’s clear to anyone that has the ability to just… think…. That Obama was talking about the evolution and use of military technology. Knives at the end of a weapon are less used today to actually kill an enemy than they were when you had a 1 pop pea shooter that then left you to rush to the other side of a ******* field and start stabbing people to death.

The navy’s “Boats” will shrink as its usefulness in war to actually kill the ******* enemy shrinks.

At 1 time we had 0 subs, 0 nukes, 0 attack you from mother ******* space weapons... Grow the **** up you small minded peeons.

Hate to break it to you but in 1916 we did not equip our military with one shot rifles. they were bolt action and feed from an integral magazine.

 

[VaYank5150]

I am an independant. I support Romney and I have his back everytime I can. Yes, his shit was blabber

Do wither of you morans even know the difference between a bayonet used in 1916 versus one today?

A bayonet in 1916 was a dull knife attached to the end of a rifle, Today... it is still a dull knife attached to the end of a rifle.

Wrong answer, but thank you for playing. Today's "bayonet" is more of a side knife with many intended purposes, the least of which is a bayonet charge. In 1916, while the bayonet charge had lost it's effectiveness, it was by no means a side knife.

 

[Mr Natural]

Between improved mass production techniques and huge military contracts it would only seem logical that we have many more bayonettes now then we did in 1916.

Of course, the bulk of them are most likely stacked up in warehouses around the country along with several billion dollars worth of other obsolete military hardware.

 

[TNHarley]

It’s clear to anyone that has the ability to just… think…. That Obama was talking about the evolution and use of military technology. Knives at the end of a weapon are less used today to actually kill an enemy than they were when you had a 1 pop pea shooter that then left you to rush to the other side of a ******* field and start stabbing people to death.

The navy’s “Boats” will shrink as its usefulness in war to actually kill the ******* enemy shrinks.

At 1 time we had 0 subs, 0 nukes, 0 attack you from mother ******* space weapons... Grow the **** up you small minded peeons.

Hate to break it to you but in 1916 we did not equip our military with one shot rifles. they were bolt action and feed from an integral magazine.

Avory, did you get that you fuckin small-minded peon?

 

[Avorysuds]

It’s clear to anyone that has the ability to just… think…. That Obama was talking about the evolution and use of military technology. Knives at the end of a weapon are less used today to actually kill an enemy than they were when you had a 1 pop pea shooter that then left you to rush to the other side of a ******* field and start stabbing people to death.

The navy’s “Boats” will shrink as its usefulness in war to actually kill the ******* enemy shrinks.

At 1 time we had 0 subs, 0 nukes, 0 attack you from mother ******* space weapons... Grow the **** up you small minded peeons.

Hate to break it to you but in 1916 we did not equip our military with one shot rifles. they were bolt action and feed from an integral magazine.

Hate to break it to you but was Obama taloking about 1916 or was that Mitt? Oh, that would be Mitt seeing as Obama didn't attach a date to what he was talking about, you did....


You guys hate to much, seriously.

 

[koshergrl]

TRR: Obama Sticks it to Romney on Bayonets - Washington Times

Smarmy Obama doesn't know SQUAT about his own military.. ALONG with his liberal Zombie posse.. Old SeaWytch claimed otherwise, NUMEROUS times yesterday.

LOL

Obama's strategy..."every time Romney makes a point, ridicule him. It dosen't matter what about."

Of course he lied, he was grabbing at anything he could to divert attention away from the fact that Romney SCORED with his observation. You can tell how many times Romney scored if you count the jeering, disrespectful, personal attacks Obama made in that *debate*.

 

[Avorysuds]

It’s clear to anyone that has the ability to just… think…. That Obama was talking about the evolution and use of military technology. Knives at the end of a weapon are less used today to actually kill an enemy than they were when you had a 1 pop pea shooter that then left you to rush to the other side of a ******* field and start stabbing people to death.

The navy’s “Boats” will shrink as its usefulness in war to actually kill the ******* enemy shrinks.

At 1 time we had 0 subs, 0 nukes, 0 attack you from mother ******* space weapons... Grow the **** up you small minded peeons.

Hate to break it to you but in 1916 we did not equip our military with one shot rifles. they were bolt action and feed from an integral magazine.

Avory, did you get that you fuckin small-minded peon?

Yup and I destroyed the stupid "comback."

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Do wither of you morans even know the difference between a bayonet used in 1916 versus one today?

A bayonet in 1916 was a dull knife attached to the end of a rifle, Today... it is still a dull knife attached to the end of a rifle.

Wrong answer, but thank you for playing. Today's "bayonet" is more of a side knife with many intended purposes, the least of which is a bayonet charge. In 1916, while the bayonet charge had lost it's effectiveness, it was by no means a side knife.

I was a Marine from 1979 to 1995. A bayonet is NOT a side knife, it is dull and its stated purpose is to attack to a rifle as a thrusting weapon. We were issued K-Bars for a "side" knife. Moron.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A bayonet in 1916 was a dull knife attached to the end of a rifle, Today... it is still a dull knife attached to the end of a rifle.

Wrong answer, but thank you for playing. Today's "bayonet" is more of a side knife with many intended purposes, the least of which is a bayonet charge. In 1916, while the bayonet charge had lost it's effectiveness, it was by no means a side knife.

I was a Marine from 1979 to 1995. A bayonet is NOT a side knife, it is dull and its stated purpose is to attack to a rifle as a thrusting weapon. We were issued K-Bars for a "side" knife. Moron.

My Dad was an Infantry man from 1966 to retirement. The bayonet in the army was also NOT a side knife, however the army as I recall did not issue a knife, my Dad bought his own.

 

[Avorysuds]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfkOXQXdUjs]President Obama: We Have Fewer Horses and Bayonets - YouTube[/ame]


BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

Owned.....

Obama didn't attach a date to his claims, he simply pointed out the date Mitt attached to Mitt's claims.

 

[Avorysuds]

Today for the most part Bayonets are used mostly for show and hardly ever kill anyone or anything. So while yes there might technically be more bayonets there are far less on the field where soldiers actually fight. Passed that the bayonets of today are much different than they were in the past.



I don’t support Obama, I won’t vote for Obama… I never supported or voted for Obama. But attacking Obama by playing semantics over a discussion that is clearly based on the usefulness of our military technology where he is in fact very correct is ******* ridiculous.

There are 310 MILLION Americans today... Back at the turn of the century we had around 100 million and a military budget that was TINY compared to today where we can have novelty items thanks to that never ending deficit spending you all pretend to hate so much .

 

[koshergrl]

The attack against Obama is an attack of his use of semantics in a presidential debate. If you're going to sneer at somebody and bring up the "fact" that we no longer need navy vessels because we have fewer bayonets, you'd better be sure that we have fewer bayonets.

He made an idiotic parallel, and he got called on it, as he should be. The man is an arrogant, and ignorant, piece of shit. And people realize it more more every time he opens his idiotic cock sucker.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

The attack against Obama is an attack of his use of semantics in a presidential debate. If you're going to sneer at somebody and bring up the "fact" that we no longer need navy vessels because we have fewer bayonets, you'd better be sure that we have fewer bayonets.

He made an idiotic parallel, and he got called on it, as he should be. The man is an arrogant, and ignorant, piece of shit. And people realize it more more every time he opens his idiotic cock sucker.

LOL!! Well said!!

 

[Avorysuds]

The attack against Obama is an attack of his use of semantics in a presidential debate. If you're going to sneer at somebody and bring up the "fact" that we no longer need navy vessels because we have fewer bayonets, you'd better be sure that we have fewer bayonets.

He made an idiotic parallel, and he got called on it, as he should be. The man is an arrogant, and ignorant, piece of shit. And people realize it more more every time he opens his idiotic cock sucker.

While I agree with you, the point I'm trying to make is to show just how far the Republican party has fallen that THIS is what they have to focus on after a debate with "America's worst President!"

 

[TNHarley]

the attack against obama is an attack of his use of semantics in a presidential debate. If you're going to sneer at somebody and bring up the "fact" that we no longer need navy vessels because we have fewer bayonets, you'd better be sure that we have fewer bayonets.

He made an idiotic parallel, and he got called on it, as he should be. The man is an arrogant, and ignorant, piece of shit. And people realize it more more every time he opens his idiotic cock sucker.

lol a+

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The Obama campaign needs to produce detailed figures to justify this claim of fewer bayonets.

Read more: TRR: Obama Sticks it to Romney on Bayonets - Washington Times TRR: Obama Sticks it to Romney on Bayonets - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

And if he fails - it means we don't have enough ships?

 

[BlindBoo]

So we do have more bayonets today than back than?

There are several links in this thread.. You can read about it.

Actually the link you posted doesn't give the inventory of bayonets from 1916 or 2012. It list the number of active duty soldiers.

But I happen agree with you that is was a snarky way to put the fact that the Navy of today is much different today than 1916 and that the number of ships is not a reliable method of judging it's effectiveness. But then where would the nasty conversationalist be with that?

 

[Plasmaball]

Why did we need another thread on this? Why doesnt LGs just go back to the other thread she got shitted on?

 

[Oldguy]

We once had millions of M-1 bayonets designed to attach to the M-1 Garand rifle.

Do Romney and y'all think we oughta buy a bunch more of them too?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why do Romney and the OP want to waste taxpayer money buying more bayonets?