Funny political pictures

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

More details on Benghazi have been released.

What does Benghazi have to do with it? The topic was the number of ships the Navy has, and Obama's response that it's the effectiveness of the weapons that matters, not the number of weapons?

[Big Sarge]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Ferchristsake Sarge, get your head out of your ass. Obama said we have less bayonets and horses than we had in WW I. Then we had 4 million men in the Army alone. Now, in all 5 services, including reserves, there's something like 2.3 million. So I guess that means less bayonets, doesn't it. I won't even go into the horses.

Actually they were discussing 1916. The National Defense Act approved on 3 June 1916 set the peace strength of the Regular Army at 220,000 officers and men and of the National Guard at 450,000. In 2012, US Army (Active) was 547,400 with an Army Reserve of 205,000 and Army National Guard of 358,200.

[BigV]

you're aces with facts as this post shows. where are the facts that show Obama said we don't use bayonets anymore?

[Big Sarge]

This is a good one. Have you received your free phone?

[Big Sarge]

Originally Posted by glatt

And he was making the point that some weapons are more useful than others.

Does a bayonet have its uses? Yes. Of course. But it's been what, two weeks since the debate? And I still haven seen the forces opposed to Obama come up with one single picture of a bayonet being used in combat today. You posted a parade picture and a training picture. That's all you will find.

Do a Google image search of "combat marines" and in the first ten pages of pictures you won't see a single bayonet in use. I found one bayonet affixed to a rifle in combat, but it was carried by a British soldier, not an American.

The first image I pulled up was this.US soldiers with bayonet-fixed rifles guard the entrance to the former Presidential Palace which now houses the US Administration office in Baghdad, Iraq (news - web sites) as protesters (unseen) gather Saturday July 5, 2003 demanding the release of former Parliament Speaker Dr. Saadon Hamadi, who was arrested by the US forces June 25.

[DanaC]

he ridiculed Mitt Romney for suggesting that the U.S. Navy is underfunded, lamenting that it has fewer ships than it did in 1917. Yes, we have fewer ships, Obama responded witheringly, but we also have fewer "horses and bayonets." Obama said his point was that the military's needs have evolved — modern aircraft carriers and nuclear subs are so much more powerful than the war vessels of yesteryear that the comparison is pointless and "counting ships" is no way to measure naval power.

http://theweek.com/article/index/235...-diss-the-navy

How is that the same as him saying the army doesn't need bayonets?

[Big Sarge]

I'm having no problems finding deployed troops with bayonets.

[Cyber Wolf]

I think what we're looking for is a number of how many bayonets were used to dispatch the opposition, rather than how many were issued and visible during active wartime.

If you go to your favorite hunting ground with a .22 anything and a .45 anything and end up only taking a couple of rabbits with the .22, the .45 was carried/issued but not used and can't be counted as a weapon used on the trip... cuz it wasn't. So, if, for some reason, a soldier is in battles where he fires his rifle until it's red hot, but has no occasion/need to stab someone with the bayonet he also carries, the bayonet is issued but not actually used.

So how many of our soldiers, not British soldiers cuz we're not talking about them, used their bayonets instead of bullets or other high powered weaponry to disarm/disable/devitalize an enemy? The most direct way to find out is just to ask. Has anyone asked?

[DanaC]

But even that isn't really the point. Surely the point is that Obama never said anything remotely like what he's accused in that cartoon of having said.

[DanaC]

Y'know, Sarge, whilst your busy getting hot under the collar and generally insulted by things the president never actually said, does this in anyway anger you? :

Republicans have voted down legislation that would have established a1bn jobs programme to put unemployed veterans back to work as firefighters and police officers and in public work projects.

They objected to the cost of the bill, which they said violated spending limits agreed to last year in Congress.

Democrats and veterans groups say its cost are fully offset.

The bill, which had bipartisan support in the Senate and would have given priority to post-9/11 veterans whose employment prospects are three points below the national average, fell two votes short of the majority of 60 needed to waive Republican objections.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...down-us-senate

See, now that's fucking insulting.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by DanaC

But even that isn't really the point. Surely the point is that Obama never said anything remotely like what he's accused in that cartoon of having said.

But is that even the point? I thought the point was that our society is so dumbed-down that a sitting president is regarded as having 'scored points' in a debate because he had better 'zingers' than the opponent. I mean, are we electing a stand-up comedian? Do we need to know if he can juggle, or make balloon animals?

To be fair, I was also insulted by the 'who would you rather have a beer with' analysis of GW Bush, but come on...

Now we're going with who is snarkier?

Now 'cut downs' are Presidential?

[DanaC]

Oh that's an even wider point :p

[Flint]

42

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Flint

But is that even the point? I thought the point was that our society is so dumbed-down that a sitting president is regarded as having 'scored points' in a debate because he had better 'zingers' than the opponent.
...
Now we're going with who is snarkier?

Did you understand what he said, past the zinger?

Romney's criticism was that we have fewer ships now than we used to.

Obama's response, while admittedly in the zinger form you hate so much, was that the number of ships is a poor metric, when the power and versatility of the ships we do have is beyond the imagination of ye olde Navy.

Not to mention the fact that there isn't an opposing navy now that we would have to overwhelm with numbers.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Did you understand what he said, past the zinger?

Romney's criticism was that we have fewer ships now than we used to.

Obama's response, while admittedly in the zinger form you hate so much, was that the number of ships is a poor metric, when the power and versatility of the ships we do have is beyond the imagination of ye olde Navy.

Not to mention the fact that there isn't an opposing navy now that we would have to overwhelm with numbers.

This is exactly the issue. Anything else is a distraction.