Barack Obama RIPPED By Bayonet Co. "We're Still Relevant!!!"He said Fewer. you idiot. Do M4's have bayonets on them?
tmz.com ^ | 10/23/12
Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 11:46:22 AM by Justaham
President Barack Obama has offended the bayonet community ... TMZ has learned.
TMZ spoke with multiple people in the bayonet industry who tell us they were shocked and even offended when Obama brought up the weapon during last night's debate.
FYI -- Obama was going after Romney when he said, "You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed."
According to the official U.S. Marine Corps website, every Marine is STILL required to complete a bayonet training program ... because "the weapon becomes just as effective [as a rifle] in close combat situations."
We spoke with Dan Riker from Bayonet Inc. -- a leading military surplus outlet that specializes in bayonets -- who tells us he believes Obama's comment was "ignorant ... because our soldiers still use bayonets."
He adds, “[Bayonets] are still distributed to the military all the time -- he should get educated on it”
For the record, Riker says he won't be voting for Obama ... "and I didn't vote for him last election either."
(Excerpt) Read more at tmz.com ...
He said Fewer. you idiot. Do M4's have bayonets on them?
Barack Obama RIPPED By Bayonet Co. "We're Still Relevant!!!"
tmz.com ^ | 10/23/12
Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 11:46:22 AM by Justaham
President Barack Obama has offended the bayonet community ... TMZ has learned.
TMZ spoke with multiple people in the bayonet industry who tell us they were shocked and even offended when Obama brought up the weapon during last night's debate.
FYI -- Obama was going after Romney when he said, "You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed."
Barack Obama RIPPED By Bayonet Co. "We're Still Relevant!!!"
tmz.com ^ | 10/23/12
Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 11:46:22 AM by Justaham
President Barack Obama has offended the bayonet community ... TMZ has learned.
TMZ spoke with multiple people in the bayonet industry who tell us they were shocked and even offended when Obama brought up the weapon during last night's debate.
FYI -- Obama was going after Romney when he said, "You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed."
According to the official U.S. Marine Corps website, every Marine is STILL required to complete a bayonet training program ... because "the weapon becomes just as effective [as a rifle] in close combat situations."
We spoke with Dan Riker from Bayonet Inc. -- a leading military surplus outlet that specializes in bayonets -- who tells us he believes Obama's comment was "ignorant ... because our soldiers still use bayonets."
He adds, “[Bayonets] are still distributed to the military all the time -- he should get educated on it”
For the record, Riker says he won't be voting for Obama ... "and I didn't vote for him last election either."
(Excerpt) Read more at tmz.com ...
Well we sure know were this guy stands.
Bayonets and binders....we're not perfect but they're nuts! Vote for President Obama.
LOL - obama is going to get landslided and you clowns will still be in denial for years to come as to why.
Noo...noo.. dude.. were just commenting on this dumb shit.. youre trying to morph it..
What a jackass
Noo...noo.. dude.. were just commenting on this dumb shit.. youre trying to morph it..
What a jackass
So does obama think the navy needs less ships?
So does obama think the navy needs less ships?
yes,technology changes your looking pretty dumb :D :D
So eventually our nvy will have no ships?
He said Fewer. you idiot. Do M4's have bayonets on them?Um, yes, they do. They have bayonet lugs. You affix bayonets in situations where you know the enemy is going to get into hand to hand distance.
we do have fwer bayonets. fewer horses too. He didn't say "none". he said "fewer".WTF are you talking about? Every infantryman in the Marine Corp is issued a bayonet. Its a K-bar fighting knife that has a special ring to affix to the assault rifles.
Another over-reaction by the victimization wing of the right.
::)
We also still use horses in many spec ops situations in Afghanistan.
Obama showed himself, just like his tonsils and stealing feet gaffes, to be an ignorant fool of the highest order.
Yes its bajonets and horses that wins wars.It was a pretty moronic comment by Obama. His comment wasn't that they win wars, it was that there aren't many of them left, which is totally stupid and ignorant.
::)
Some people really have to much time on their hands.
Yes its bajonets and horses that wins wars.
::)
Some people really have to much time on their hands.
It was a pretty moronic comment by Obama. His comment wasn't that they win wars, it was that there aren't many of them left, which is totally stupid and ignorant.
they will defend their man no matter how dumb it makes them look :D :D :D :D :D
He said horses was about to go instinct?Left in the military.
Left in the military.
It was a pretty moronic comment by Obama. His comment wasn't that they win wars, it was that there aren't many of them left, which is totally stupid and ignorant.
He said horses was about to go instinct?
When did Obama say "there aren't many of them left?"
I believe you mean extinct and not instinct. Although anyone who has ever been a horseman knows that most horses have good instincts.
3333 What do you know about bayonets from your service experiences?
When I was in the Army, we were trained with bayonets...had to run a 1.5 mile uphill course....however Obama is right.....bayonets are relevant but no longer a deciding factors in wars since World War 1. Pretty much true. Unless of course you are surrounded and with no ammo.
My bad :)
When I was in the Army, we were trained with bayonets...had to run a 1.5 mile uphill course....however Obama is right.....bayonets are relevant but no longer a deciding factors in wars since World War 1
WTF are you talking about? Every infantryman in the Marine Corp is issued a bayonet. Its a K-bar fighting knife that has a special ring to affix to the assault rifles.
. Pretty much true. Unless of course you are surrounded and with no ammo.
I don't see them ever being phased out. Even when we have phasers :D
This comment really did make Obama look ignorant as fuck.
LOL.
So it's not even "fewer".
I see.
When you were in the service did you carry out a lot of attacks from horse-back with a bajonet?
jesus, bayonets are not standard issue, so what if there is a lug, his comment is factually correct. We use far fewer bayonets then we previously did.
I honestly can't believe you assholes are arguing about this, you know you have no facts on your side when the number of ships (higher than bushs reign anyways) is a talking point for fucks sakes. Who gives a flying fuck, what are some people at home going "wtf, fewer ships, he's a commie we need more ships for all the navel battles we get into".
It was a pretty moronic comment by Obama. His comment wasn't that they win wars, it was that there aren't many of them left, which is totally stupid and ignorant.
I don't if they are "standard issue" for Marines, but every Marine is trained to use them. They're also still used quite a bit.
http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/War-Horses-Fade-Into-History-Even-as-Marines-3975138.php
sure, I think they should be, his comment is still right and his point is still correct that romney going on about ships it moronic. How do you know you lack substance? use the sheer number of ships as a talking point. It's actually absurd you guys are defending his use of this issue and now this bayonet bullshit.
In fact under Obama the number of "ships" is higher then the all time low under bush so his comment is wrong out the gate and stupid in the long run. You guys spend more on defence then the top 23 other countries, seriously, as long as you argue about bullshit like this you will never get anywhere.
jesus, bayonets are not standard issue,You are a moron. Marines going into combat are issued bayonets. We also train with them. Also, I believe Mountain Warfare school still uses horses.
I see.We did quite a bit with bayonets. As I said, Mountain Warfare school still uses horses and mules, I believe.
When you were in the service did you carry out a lot of attacks from horse-back with a bajonet?
sure, I think they should be, his comment is still right and his point is still correct that romney going on about ships it moronic. How do you know you lack substance? use the sheer number of ships as a talking point. It's actually absurd you guys are defending his use of this issue and now this bayonet bullshit.No one is arguing this, just that his comment was idiotic. Bayonets are still used in the military and are still very important. The horse thing is semi-accurate. The bayonet part was not. There are just as many bayonet's in the hands of the infantry today as there was back then.
In fact under Obama the number of "ships" is higher then the all time low under bush so his comment is wrong out the gate and stupid in the long run. You guys spend more on defence then the top 23 other countries, seriously, as long as you argue about bullshit like this you will never get anywhere.
You are a moron. Marines going into combat are issued bayonets. We also train with them. Also, I believe Mountain Warfare school still uses horses.
h
UM.. Shock.. While i do know you train with them. The instance of going into combat zones and walking with it attached to the end of your rifle isnt practiced as much. Oh and i didnt know you were a marine. My older bro is and he is my hero for real. ThanksOf course its not practiced as much. But it's there for when you need it. It's attached in dire situations, when you know fighting is going to be at arms reach, such as if you're overrun, or low on ammo, or going to charge an enemy position.
Of course its not practiced as much. But it's there for when you need it. It's attached in dire situations, when you know fighting is going to be at arms reach, such as if you're overrun, or low on ammo, or going to charge an enemy position.
Yeah i kind of think thats what obama was getting atI can only go off what he said, and I know that Marines still carry their bayonets when they go into combat. They don't get used nearly as much, but they still have them.
I can only go off what he said, and I know that Marines still carry their bayonets when they go into combat. They don't get used nearly as much, but they still have them.
Let's compare. how many people in the military are carrying them today?You'd need to know how many of those troops were actually IN THE FIGHT, not just as being involved with the war.
in WWI, or 1916, there were about 300,000 US Troops fighting, and I bet most of them had at least one bayonet.......
this is from beachbum he's a repub so he must be right ;DNo one has been arguing about the horses.
As for horses, although a few reappeared in the opening days of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the special operations forces who rode them were carrying laser pointers to direct air strikes rather than sabers and lances to carve up the enemy.
While Obama was correct that the U.S. Army has fewer horses and bayonets than it did in 1916, as anyone who has seen the movie or play “War Horse” knows, the days of the cavalry charge and fixed bayonets were already waning in World War I. They were victims of machine guns and artillery.
While the U.S. Army still used horses for transport and supply duty, the last of them were traded in for trucks and Jeeps at the end of World War II.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/War-Horses-Fade-Into-History-Even-as-Marines-3975138.php#ixzz2AAdvIdQf
Blood, blood, blood.Why does the green grass grow?
What makes the grass grow?
No one is arguing this, just that his comment was idiotic. Bayonets are still used in the military and are still very important. The horse thing is semi-accurate. The bayonet part was not. There are just as many bayonet's in the hands of the infantry today as there was back then.::)
this is from beachbum he's a repub so he must be right ;D
As for horses, although a few reappeared in the opening days of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the special operations forces who rode them were carrying laser pointers to direct air strikes rather than sabers and lances to carve up the enemy.
While Obama was correct that the U.S. Army has fewer horses and bayonets than it did in 1916, as anyone who has seen the movie or play “War Horse” knows, the days of the cavalry charge and fixed bayonets were already waning in World War I. They were victims of machine guns and artillery.
While the U.S. Army still used horses for transport and supply duty, the last of them were traded in for trucks and Jeeps at the end of World War II.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/War-Horses-Fade-Into-History-Even-as-Marines-3975138.php#ixzz2AAdvIdQf
this is from beachbum he's a repub so he must be right ;D
As for horses, although a few reappeared in the opening days of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the special operations forces who rode them were carrying laser pointers to direct air strikes rather than sabers and lances to carve up the enemy.
While Obama was correct that the U.S. Army has fewer horses and bayonets than it did in 1916, as anyone who has seen the movie or play “War Horse” knows, the days of the cavalry charge and fixed bayonets were already waning in World War I. They were victims of machine guns and artillery.
While the U.S. Army still used horses for transport and supply duty, the last of them were traded in for trucks and Jeeps at the end of World War II.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/War-Horses-Fade-Into-History-Even-as-Marines-3975138.php#ixzz2AAdvIdQf
::)They have their place.
I dont think anyone is silly enough to argue Obama wasn't factually accurate.
However, it is a chance to act offended, something we can never pass up.
You are a moron. Marines going into combat are issued bayonets. We also train with them. Also, I believe Mountain Warfare school still uses horses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weapons_of_the_United_States_Marine_Corps
Bladed weapons
M7 bayonet - currently being phased out
OKC-3S bayonet
KA-BAR - generally issued to Marines who carry pistols, machine guns, or other non-bayonet compatible firearms
Marine non-commissioned officers' sword, 1859-present - ceremonial use only
Marine Officers' Mameluke Sword, 1875-Present - ceremonial use only
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Bayonet_OKC-3S_-_Ontario_Knife_Company.jpg/800px-Bayonet_OKC-3S_-_Ontario_Knife_Company.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Combat_knife_attached_to_gun.jpg/544px-Combat_knife_attached_to_gun.jpg)
again, they are not standard issue. nor are they used as much, hence the fewer.What in the hell is you definition of standard issue? Every Marine that goes into combat has his bayonet. Is that not standard issue enough for you?
again, so what if someone or some division uses horses, he said fewer. You are really grasping here aren't you.
What in the hell is you definition of standard issue? Every Marine that goes into combat has his bayonet. Is that not standard issue enough for you?
no. Unless they are on horse back charging hard on the ships.Check, bayonet's only count as issued if they are mounted whilst charging, on horseback, onto ships.
Check, bayonet's only count as issued if they are mounted whilst charging, on horseback, onto ships.hahaha, he is from europe dont you know!!!
It was a pretty moronic comment by Obama. His comment wasn't that they win wars, it was that there aren't many of them left, which is totally stupid and ignorant.
No one is arguing this, just that his comment was idiotic. Bayonets are still used in the military and are still very important.
What in the hell is you definition of standard issue? Every Marine that goes into combat has his bayonet. Is that not standard issue enough for you?
I can only go off what he said, and I know that Marines still carry their bayonets when they go into combat. They don't get used nearly as much, but they still have them.
Yes, I have to eat crow on this one. His comment is probably accurate. I took it out of context, inferring that he was saying that bayonet's are no longer issued very much in the military."You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets."
They did decide WW1 though, right?
Of course its not practiced as much. But it's there for when you need it. It's attached in dire situations, when you know fighting is going to be at arms reach, such as if you're overrun, or low on ammo, or going to charge an enemy position.
hahaha, he is from europe dont you know!!!
Yes, I have to eat crow on this one. His comment is probably accurate. I took it out of context, inferring that he was saying that bayonet's are no longer issued very much in the military.
You charge on an enemy position with the bajonet ???
You should the fuckers you dont use a bajonet. WTF
How many AQ and Taleban has been killed by bajonets lately?
You should really stick to sucking Obama's cock and defending liberal bullshit...anything remotely about the military, you should run screaming. Google Sutherland Highlanders among others.
The British Army performed bayonet charges during the Falklands War (see Battle of Mount Tumbledown), the Second Gulf War, and the war in Afghanistan.[35] In 2004 in Iraq at the Battle of Danny Boy, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders bayonet charged mortar positions filled with over 100 Mahdi Army members. The ensuing hand to hand fighting resulted in an estimate of over 40 insurgents killed and 35 bodies collected (many floated down the river) and 9 prisoners. Sergeant Brian Wood, of the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment, was awarded the Military Cross for his part in the battle.[36] This engagement brought to notice the tactical use of the weapon for close combat and the sheer psychological effect it can have.
British forces in Afghanistan have used bayonets on numerous occasions. In 2009, Lieutenant James Adamson, aged 24, of the Royal Regiment of Scotland was awarded the Military Cross for a bayonet charge whilst on a tour of duty in Afghanistan: after shooting one Taliban fighter dead Adamson had run out of ammunition when another enemy appeared. Adamson immediately charged the second Taliban fighter and bayoneted him.[37] In September 2012, Lance Corporal Sean Jones of The Princess of Wales's Regiment was awarded the Military Cross for his role in a bayonet charge which took place in October 2011.[38]
Whork owned. Again. He gets owned every single time. He must be a filthy masochist.
Obama said that we use LESS HORSES AND BAYONETS....he didn't say we didn't use them at all...
That being said....it was a good zinger
You should really stick to sucking Obama's cock and defending liberal bullshit...anything remotely about the military, you should run screaming. Google Sutherland Highlanders among others.
The British Army performed bayonet charges during the Falklands War (see Battle of Mount Tumbledown), the Second Gulf War, and the war in Afghanistan.[35] In 2004 in Iraq at the Battle of Danny Boy, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders bayonet charged mortar positions filled with over 100 Mahdi Army members. The ensuing hand to hand fighting resulted in an estimate of over 40 insurgents killed and 35 bodies collected (many floated down the river) and 9 prisoners. Sergeant Brian Wood, of the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment, was awarded the Military Cross for his part in the battle.[36] This engagement brought to notice the tactical use of the weapon for close combat and the sheer psychological effect it can have.
British forces in Afghanistan have used bayonets on numerous occasions. In 2009, Lieutenant James Adamson, aged 24, of the Royal Regiment of Scotland was awarded the Military Cross for a bayonet charge whilst on a tour of duty in Afghanistan: after shooting one Taliban fighter dead Adamson had run out of ammunition when another enemy appeared. Adamson immediately charged the second Taliban fighter and bayoneted him.[37] In September 2012, Lance Corporal Sean Jones of The Princess of Wales's Regiment was awarded the Military Cross for his role in a bayonet charge which took place in October 2011.[38]
You should really stick to sucking Obama's cock and defending liberal bullshit...anything remotely about the military, you should run screaming. Google Sutherland Highlanders among others.
The British Army performed bayonet charges during the Falklands War (see Battle of Mount Tumbledown), the Second Gulf War, and the war in Afghanistan.[35] In 2004 in Iraq at the Battle of Danny Boy, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders bayonet charged mortar positions filled with over 100 Mahdi Army members. The ensuing hand to hand fighting resulted in an estimate of over 40 insurgents killed and 35 bodies collected (many floated down the river) and 9 prisoners. Sergeant Brian Wood, of the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment, was awarded the Military Cross for his part in the battle.[36] This engagement brought to notice the tactical use of the weapon for close combat and the sheer psychological effect it can have.
British forces in Afghanistan have used bayonets on numerous occasions. In 2009, Lieutenant James Adamson, aged 24, of the Royal Regiment of Scotland was awarded the Military Cross for a bayonet charge whilst on a tour of duty in Afghanistan: after shooting one Taliban fighter dead Adamson had run out of ammunition when another enemy appeared. Adamson immediately charged the second Taliban fighter and bayoneted him.[37] In September 2012, Lance Corporal Sean Jones of The Princess of Wales's Regiment was awarded the Military Cross for his role in a bayonet charge which took place in October 2011.[38]
is the british army a branch of the u.s. :o :D :D :D :D
Haha missed that one thanks Black
Apparently our socalled ex soldier HH6 doesnt know what army he was in
You charge on an enemy position with the bajonet ???
You should the fuckers you dont use a bajonet. WTF
How many AQ and Taleban has been killed by bajonets lately?
talking to yourself again?
Where did you specifically ask for statistics only on US military branches?
That is a general question you made.
You lose the argument.
Well LT James Adamson is a bad ass for doing a bayonet charge.....bayonets are issued...or used to be issued when everything else fails.....
But the same thing can be said about a fucking E-Tool. Sorry but wars are NOT DECIDED ON Bayonets anymore ::)
better yet, how is anything about non-us military contingents relevant to this discussion? I think that is the question you have to ask yourself.
I mean I could look at say an african tribe and show they use horses and bayonets, yet that is not relevant. You see you are obfuscating the issue, simply because there is no issue here.
What reality is this?
Where people fucking argue points not even mentioned in the debate? Obama said fewer, he is correct. Romney's point was stupid anyway, Obama used an analogy which is correct. We have fewer ships, but also fewer horses and bayonets. The implication was that warfare has changed, which Obama elaborated on in the very next sentence.
Everything he said was correct, his analogy correct and his pointing out that Romney is unaware that warfare has evolved correct. Seriously, what kind of a fucking argument is the number of ships? LMAO. Again bush had fewer ships then obama, so what the fuck was the point of his argument?
that obama is a ship hater? can't be true
that more ships are needed? no they are not
that number of ships somehow relates to military might? no
that the US needs to spend more on the military? you already spend more then all other developed countries.
seriously what are you guys arguing about? Romney made a stupid statement and trying to rip Obama's factually correct retort by making up shit makes you look like a lunatic fringe meat pie.
Where did you specifically ask for statistics only on US military branches?
That is a general question you made.
You lose the argument.
Russia announced this year that they intend to spend $137 billion dollars to beef up their navy.
Yes, I have to eat crow on this one. His comment is probably accurate. I took it out of context, inferring that he was saying that bayonet's are no longer issued very much in the military.
Doubt it.
With planes, machineguns etc bajonets is not really that relevant
LOL@ 137 billion. That's 3 months of Iraq war cost. That's nothing. We drop more than that, running for the bus!
Russia announced this year that they intend to spend $137 billion dollars to beef up their navy. A Congressional study this year deemed China's naval build up an "aggressive act". You might want to re-think the notion that our navy is of no concern. Expressing a concern over the state of our Naval capabilites deserves more consideration from the Commander in Chief than a smart assed quip.
Russia announced this year that they intend to spend $137 billion dollars to beef up their navy. A Congressional study this year deemed China's naval build up an "aggressive act". You might want to re-think the notion that our navy is of no concern. Expressing a concern over the state of our Naval capabilites deserves more consideration from the Commander in Chief than a smart assed quip.
Yes..they have rebuilt a Soviet aircraft carrier...and they have plans to build about 3-6 more. The Obama administration aoears to be concerned about the build up...which makes Bathhouse Barry's dissmive posture seem all the more odd.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2158343/U-S-Navy-shift-60-PER-CENT-fleet-Pacific-China-builds-military.html
You should do a little research before running your mouth..you'll look like less of an ass that way...
Again...neither of you seem to be willing to address the central point. The landscape is changing...the role and compsition of the navy is a topic that should be debated. Romney broached the subject and the repsonse from the CIC was a smart assed remark that doesn't even make sense in the context of current events.
Not true... WWI was a trench war... Bayonets were used VERY frequently... The Plane was not really a factor in that War... planes were used mostly for spying... Not dropping bombs or attacking targets.
WWII was a different beast... Planes were a HUGE impact then and close quarters hand to hand combat had taken a huge nosedive... hence, why there were "less and less" bayonets.
Five pages on the popularity and use of bayonets in the military today verses previous times. Simply amazing!Hey now, we Marines love our bayonets.
Hey now, we Marines love our bayonets.
Holes in the Hull: Obama's Battleship Argument Confuses Sneering for Intellectual Confidence.
National Review ^ | 10/26/2012 | Jonah Goldberg
Posted on Friday, October 26, 2012 8:29:39 AM by SeekAndFind
In the third and final debate, Barack Obama scored huge points with the media, college kids, and die-hard liberals — in other words, his base — when he mocked Mitt Romney’s concern about our historically small Navy.
“But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works,” the president said. “You — you mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”
“And so,” he added, “the question is not a game of Battleship where we’re counting ships.” The question is “what are our capabilities.”
This struck me as an example of how thoroughly liberalism has confused sneering for intellectual confidence. It shouldn’t be surprising, given that comedy shows often substitute for news programs, particularly for younger liberals. That’s probably why the president has been spending more time talking to DJs, entertainment shows, and comedians than to reporters. He desperately needs the support of low-information voters, who’ve replaced the old adage “it’s funny because it’s true” with “if it’s funny, it must be true.”
Obama’s argument — if that’s not too generous a word — is that the Navy in particular, and the military in general, can do so much more because of technological advances.
And that is certainly true.
But it’s also true that there have been huge advances in the technology used to sink our ships and blow up our planes as well. And, to date, no breakthrough innovation has led us to figuring out how to put one ship in two places at once.
There’s another problem. What innovation does he have in mind? Many of our warplanes and nearly all of our major naval vessels are much older than the pilots and sailors flying and sailing them. It’s great to talk up the benefits of innovation, but that argument starts to sputter when you realize we are often relying on the innovation of older generations. For all his talk about the game Battleship, we haven’t built a real battleship in almost 70 years, and the Navy hasn’t had one in its arsenal for decades.
But what I find most interesting about this argument is how selective it is. For instance, defenders of Obama’s Keynesian economic policies are constantly touting the benefits of big, high-tech spending programs because of the “multiplier effect” — the increased economic activity “primed” by government spending.
Indeed, the economists who subscribe to these views tend to tout military spending as particularly good evidence in their favor. Many argue that it was the massive spending during World War II that really pulled us out of the Great Depression (a flawed theory but more credible than the New Deal itself, which mostly prolonged the Great Depression).
And yet, it seems that military spending is the only Keynesian pump-priming this president doesn’t like.
Conversely, his argument that technological advances should deliver increased savings by providing more “bang for the buck” doesn’t seem to enter his thinking anywhere else. In the private sector he finds improved efficiencies to be a burden — all of those ATM machines taking away good bank-teller jobs.
And where are the technological efficiencies making government more effective for less money? Surely the breakthroughs in productivity, information management, and telecommunications would afford us a huge opportunity to cut away some of the obsolescence in the non-defense parts of our government?
But no. Obama is constantly yearning to hire more government workers. The private sector, he said not long ago, was doing fine. The place we needed more jobs was in the federal, state, and local bureaucracies.
Indeed, in his new “plan” he promises — again — to hire 100,000 new teachers. He is constantly assuring us that our “crumbling” schools with leaky roofs are robbing children of their education. The honest truth: You can teach kids in a school with a leaky roof pretty easily. A submarine with a leaky roof? That’s a problem.
The amazing thing is that we’ve been increasing federal government spending on education at a blistering pace for decades. Where is the return on the investment? Where are the improved capabilities and efficiencies from investments in technology?
The military, which thrives on precisely the civic virtue Obama insists is on full display in public education, has a lot to show for the investments of the past Obama would like to curtail. Where’s a similar return in the non-defense sector? And has Obama ever bothered to ask that question?
— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Proving the point that sneering is no substitue for discussion.....
the article is non-sense.
this guy creates a brutal straw-man that Obama believes "Obama’s argument — if that’s not too generous a word — is that the Navy in particular, and the military in general, can do so much more because of technological advances. " then he proceeds to go all over the map, about keynesian economics, ATM's amongst other things. Obama never made that argument, if anything he was implying that number for ships isn't a valid measure of military because changes have been made. That is, nuclear submarines, carriers, planes that travel great distances etc.. citing number of ships is short-sighted and irrelevant to any discussion about the navy without context, sheer numbers isn't indicative of anything. Also, Obama has more "ships" then Bush, so Romney again was incorrect in his assertions. However, I wouldn't expect a nitwit like you to garner this information and connect the dots with a double digit IQ.
So eventually our nvy will have no ships?
STFU moron.
good response braniac ::)
how does it feel knowing Mittens is all but done?
LOL
Are you freaking kidding? Landslide underway for Romney as O-THUG is sending the gaffomatic to Wisconsin and buying ads in MN.
"You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed."
What is the size of the military now in comparison? Do we really have fewer bayonets?Technically in 1916 the actual size of the military was much smaller than today, judging from what I looked up. It's impossible to know for sure without knowing the percentage of troops that carried bayonet's into battle compared with today, so I just ate crow and let it go.
Technically...I don't think it matters if the bayonets are deployed or not. The idiot said we have fewer bayonets...so..we have an inventory of over a half a million bayonets. Is that less than what we had in 1916?
Regardless...it's a stupid point to make. Genuinely idiotic. The question isn't how many bayonets...the question is... why is our President such a dumbass? Romney raised a legit point...the people who run the navy say we need more ships...is Obama saying they don't know what they're talking about? Isn't that a topic worth discussion? Isn't the President doing a disservice to the people he's sworn to serve by arrogantly dismissing legitimate questions?
Obama is an incompetent fool....
Our current ship-building rate is 9 to 10 per year.
Two points regarding that issue:
1.) As it happens, two political scientists at Florida State University recently completed a historical study that compares naval strength among the major powers from 1865 to 2011. They conclude:
“In 1916, the U.S. controlled roughly 11% of the world’s naval power. This is an impressive number that ranks the US third in naval strength behind the UK (34%) and Germany (19%), and just ahead of France (10%). What about the US navy in 2011? In 2011, the US controlled roughly 50% of the world’s naval power putting it in a comfortable lead in naval power ahead of Russia (11%).”
In Romney’s view, the fact that 4 percent of the world’s population controls a mere 50 percent of the world’s naval firepower, almost five times the amount of the second-ranked power, leaves that 4 percent dangerously vulnerable.
2.) Why is Romney stressing naval expansion in his campaign remarks? Take a look at the map of swing states. Virginia is critical to his election hopes. Virginia is also home to Newport News Shipbuilding, which with 21,000 employees is a major contractor with the U.S. Navy. The additional submarines that Romney keeps mentioning are nuclear-powered Virginia-class subs, built in part at Newport News at a cost of $2.5 billion per copy.
In other words, Romney is dangling billions of taxpayers dollars and government-financed jobs in front of Virginia voters, hoping that it wins him the presidency.
Technically...I don't think it matters if the bayonets are deployed or not. The idiot said we have fewer bayonets...so..we have an inventory of over a half a million bayonets. Is that less than what we had in 1916?
Regardless...it's a stupid point to make. Genuinely idiotic. The question isn't how many bayonets...the question is... why is our President such a dumbass? Romney raised a legit point...the people who run the navy say we need more ships...is Obama saying they don't know what they're talking about? Isn't that a topic worth discussion? Isn't the President doing a disservice to the people he's sworn to serve by arrogantly dismissing legitimate questions?
Obama is an incompetent fool....
;D