Mr. President, Marines Still Use Bayonets

[Quantum Windbag]

Here ya go
I know what you're going to say next (maybe I'm clairvoyant as well), which will confirm your failure in this discussion - as pedantry is the last resort in a failed argument.

Where does that say "Obama said that we don't use bayonets?:

Annnnd...there ya go.
I must be clairvoyant.
I know you walked into that ironically, but I guess you had nowhere else to go anyway.
Disappointing.

Yes, you are disappointing. You keep saying I said something I didn't, and you keep pretending I did.

 

[idb]

Where does that say "Obama said that we don't use bayonets?:

Annnnd...there ya go.
I must be clairvoyant.
I know you walked into that ironically, but I guess you had nowhere else to go anyway.
Disappointing.

Yes, you are disappointing. You keep saying I said something I didn't, and you keep pretending I did.

"No I'm not, you are!"
Oh well.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Annnnd...there ya go.
I must be clairvoyant.
I know you walked into that ironically, but I guess you had nowhere else to go anyway.
Disappointing.

Yes, you are disappointing. You keep saying I said something I didn't, and you keep pretending I did.

"No I'm not, you are!"
Oh well.

I have consistently said that Obama thought that horses and bayonets were no longer used by the military, which is why he used them as an example. Then you whine when I point out that Obama was actually wrong when he claimed that we have fewer bayonets than we did in 1916. Now you are acting like a 3 year old.

Keep up the great debating technique.

 

[idb]

Yes, you are disappointing. You keep saying I said something I didn't, and you keep pretending I did.

"No I'm not, you are!"
Oh well.

I have consistently said that Obama thought that horses and bayonets were no longer used by the military, which is why he used them as an example. Then you whine when I point out that Obama was actually wrong when he claimed that we have fewer bayonets than we did in 1916. Now you are acting like a 3 year old.

Keep up the great debating technique.

Your claim is that, despite what Obama actually said, you know what he was actually thinking...presumably because you have psychic powers.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The truth is that ther ARE fewer bayonets and fewer horses.

Why are people (who aren't qualified) trying to read minds?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"No I'm not, you are!"
Oh well.

I have consistently said that Obama thought that horses and bayonets were no longer used by the military, which is why he used them as an example. Then you whine when I point out that Obama was actually wrong when he claimed that we have fewer bayonets than we did in 1916. Now you are acting like a 3 year old.

Keep up the great debating technique.

Your claim is that, despite what Obama actually said, you know what he was actually thinking...presumably because you have psychic powers.

That is not my claim. My claim is that, if we look at the entire response, it is clear that Obama was trying to paint Romney as out of touch with how the military works today. He argued that we now have to use horses and bayonets because we have things called aircraft carriers, and ships that go underwater. He obviously meant that we no longer use those things, and he was wrong that we actually have fewer bayonets.

Yet you keep saying he didn't say something I never said he said. Did you also argue that he didn't say "You didn't build that?"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The truth is that ther ARE fewer bayonets and fewer horses.

Why are people (who aren't qualified) trying to read minds?

The actual truth is there are more bayonets, and fewer horses.

It isn't my fault you aren't qualified to parse the English language, take that up with your teachers.

 

[paperview]

We started build up talk in 1915 with good ole Teddy pounding the drums. The National Defense Act (June 1916) increased the Army to 175,000 soldiers

Before the draft in April 1917, there were a little over 200K in the combined forces.

By the end of 1917, there were more than a million soldiers in the order of battle.

Millions more by the next year [correction from my last post]. Every one of these was issued a bayonet, but even then, they were not used much. Hell, the peak of the bayonet was Rev War era.

This silly little picayune point about evolving technology and times really has me wondering about the raw stupidity of cons out there.

 

[Shelzin]

Technology doesn't mean squat on the battlefield, which is why every special forces soldier in the world always carries a knife.

Right, technology is useless on the battlefield. That's why the radio never caught on. Or night-vision goggles.

Or the atomic bomb.

You are absolutely right, thanks to all of those things no human being will ever be killed in battle again.

I think his point was, at least if you are logical about it, is that one aircraft carrier is worth a bit more than one battleship. Or a million bayonets.

Whoever said technology is useless on a battlefield was.... Hopefully... Being sarcastic. Because that's an outright stupid stance to take. Morbidly stupid.

Edit: Oh. Never mind. You know if you were sarcastic or not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We started build up talk in 1915 with good ole Teddy pounding the drums. The National Defense Act (June 1916) increased the Army to 175,000 soldiers

Before the draft in April 1917, there were a little over 200K in the combined forces.

By the end of 1917, there were more than a million soldiers in the order of battle.

Millions more by the next year [correction from my last post]. Every one of these was issued a bayonet, but even then, they were not used much. Hell, the peak of the bayonet was Rev War era.

This silly little picayune point about evolving technology and times really has me wondering about the raw stupidity of cons out there.

Millions more? Seriously?

You still haven't dealt with the fact that Obama said 1916, have you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Right, technology is useless on the battlefield. That's why the radio never caught on. Or night-vision goggles.

Or the atomic bomb.

You are absolutely right, thanks to all of those things no human being will ever be killed in battle again.

I think his point was, at least if you are logical about it, is that one aircraft carrier is worth a bit more than one battleship. Or a million bayonets.

Whoever said technology is useless on a battlefield was.... Hopefully... Being sarcastic. Because that's an outright stupid stance to take. Morbidly stupid.

Edit: Oh. Never mind. You know if you were sarcastic or not.

I think my point is that, ultimately, it comes down to the grunt on the battlefield, not the technology.

Want to argue with that one?

 

[Sarah G]

Obama is not a Military Strategist. Far from it.

He certainly seems more capable than Romney and that was the point of this particular section of the debate. He was schooling Romney, he knew his shit.

 

[idb]

I have consistently said that Obama thought that horses and bayonets were no longer used by the military, which is why he used them as an example. Then you whine when I point out that Obama was actually wrong when he claimed that we have fewer bayonets than we did in 1916. Now you are acting like a 3 year old.

Keep up the great debating technique.

Your claim is that, despite what Obama actually said, you know what he was actually thinking...presumably because you have psychic powers.

That is not my claim. My claim is that, if we look at the entire response, it is clear that Obama was trying to paint Romney as out of touch with how the military works today. He argued that we now have to use horses and bayonets because we have things called aircraft carriers, and ships that go underwater. He obviously meant that we no longer use those things, and he was wrong that we actually have fewer bayonets.

Yet you keep saying he didn't say something I never said he said. Did you also argue that he didn't say "You didn't build that?"

I don't think he argued that you "now have to use horses and bayonets" at all.
Well, I certainly never read that into his statements.
Where did he say that, you've introduced a whole new slant?

 

[Shelzin]

You are absolutely right, thanks to all of those things no human being will ever be killed in battle again.

I think his point was, at least if you are logical about it, is that one aircraft carrier is worth a bit more than one battleship. Or a million bayonets.

Whoever said technology is useless on a battlefield was.... Hopefully... Being sarcastic. Because that's an outright stupid stance to take. Morbidly stupid.

Edit: Oh. Never mind. You know if you were sarcastic or not.

I think my point is that, ultimately, it comes down to the grunt on the battlefield, not the technology.

Want to argue with that one?

Yes. Morbidly stupid. You're insane for thinking that.

Screw battleships... Nukes.. Whatever. Just the accuracy and reliability of today guns from 100 years ago is crazy better. You aren't talking about anything that you know anything about. I don't care how good you are you can't control the flight of a bullet that frankly was shit poor for aerodynamics. Or something jamming in the gun. Or it simply didn't fire.

Feel free to have an opinion. But they aren't created equal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think his point was, at least if you are logical about it, is that one aircraft carrier is worth a bit more than one battleship. Or a million bayonets.

Whoever said technology is useless on a battlefield was.... Hopefully... Being sarcastic. Because that's an outright stupid stance to take. Morbidly stupid.

Edit: Oh. Never mind. You know if you were sarcastic or not.

I think my point is that, ultimately, it comes down to the grunt on the battlefield, not the technology.

Want to argue with that one?

Yes. Morbidly stupid. You're insane for thinking that.

Screw battleships... Nukes.. Whatever. Just the accuracy and reliability of today guns from 100 years ago is crazy better. You aren't talking about anything that you know anything about.

Feel free to have an opinion. But they aren't created equal.

We don't need soldiers on the ground anymore? Why did we send people into Afghanistan and Iraq if technology has replaced the infantry grunt?

 

[Dr Grump]

another keyboard commando heard from

*yawn*

Keyboard commando? You are indeed funny.

Good men are always opposed to evil, dear lady. and those with strength use it to protect the things they value. If you don't understand that, you are a fool.

In truth, I would not do anything which was against the law, but I can assure you that IF it were legal for me to do so, I would personally kick his un-American ass up and down Pennsylvania Avenue. I truly feel sorry for you if you would not do it and you don't know anyone who would.

Thank God for man and women who - unlike you - were and are willing put their lives on the line for what they believe.

You are obviously a keyboard and a real-life coward.

I will give you the last word. You do not deserve my time.

Feel free to kiss my motherfucking USMC ass.

Don't care if you took Iwo Jima all by yourself..you're still a keyboard commando and a douche...

 

[Steelplate]

I think my point is that, ultimately, it comes down to the grunt on the battlefield, not the technology.

Want to argue with that one?

Yes. Morbidly stupid. You're insane for thinking that.

Screw battleships... Nukes.. Whatever. Just the accuracy and reliability of today guns from 100 years ago is crazy better. You aren't talking about anything that you know anything about.

Feel free to have an opinion. But they aren't created equal.

We don't need soldiers on the ground anymore? Why did we send people into Afghanistan and Iraq if technology has replaced the infantry grunt?

OK....body armor, NV goggles, Kevlar Helmets, camels instead of canteens, weaponry advances, hand held GPS, armored transports instead of making them hike for 25 miles/day to get them to the battlefield without fatigue....that's just off the top of my head....technological advances.....Just for the grunt you mentioned. Never mind that before the grunt goes in, we take the skies away from our enemy, tenderize the fuck out of them with artillery, cruise missiles and smart bombs. Oh....let's not forget the advance scouts that hide in the shadows that tell the drone operators where to deliver their ordinance.

I never seen someone defend an indefensible position like you are. Where did anyone say we didn't need infantry? Where did anyone say that manpower isn't necessary? No one did. Only you.

I think it pretty telling that right wingers are deflecting about fucking BAYONETS.....when in the last bayonet charge was in 1951. Are they useful? hell yes....are they great to have? yep. Are they used much in combat? No. Even the guy in Afghanistan that people have mentioned took his opponent out with a rifle, not a bayonet.

Look....I know you don't like Obama....I get that.....and I know you don't like it that he made your boy look bad. But you trying to come up with your "you didn't build that" moment to get all outraged about only makes you look stupid and stubborn and, quite frankly....a little nuts.

gotta go to work....to be continued, I'm sure.

 

[J.E.D]

Keyboard commando? You are indeed funny.

Good men are always opposed to evil, dear lady. and those with strength use it to protect the things they value. If you don't understand that, you are a fool.

In truth, I would not do anything which was against the law, but I can assure you that IF it were legal for me to do so, I would personally kick his un-American ass up and down Pennsylvania Avenue. I truly feel sorry for you if you would not do it and you don't know anyone who would.

Thank God for man and women who - unlike you - were and are willing put their lives on the line for what they believe.

You are obviously a keyboard and a real-life coward.

I will give you the last word. You do not deserve my time.

Feel free to kiss my motherfucking USMC ass.

You truly feel sorry for somebody who doesn't want to kick president Obama's ass? You're not only unfunny, you're a god damn idiot.

 

[Ravi]

another keyboard commando heard from

*yawn*

Keyboard commando? You are indeed funny.

Good men are always opposed to evil, dear lady. and those with strength use it to protect the things they value. If you don't understand that, you are a fool.

In truth, I would not do anything which was against the law, but I can assure you that IF it were legal for me to do so, I would personally kick his un-American ass up and down Pennsylvania Avenue. I truly feel sorry for you if you would not do it and you don't know anyone who would.

Thank God for man and women who - unlike you - were and are willing put their lives on the line for what they believe.

You are obviously a keyboard and a real-life coward.

I will give you the last word. You do not deserve my time.

Feel free to kiss my motherfucking USMC ass.

You're a disgrace to the uniform.

 

[strollingbones]

fewer...how hard is that concept?