Paul Ryan: ‘I just don’t understand’ what ‘horses and bayonets’ means (video) | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 8443185 United States 10/23/2012 03:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 19058378 United States 10/23/2012 03:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Mitty is right, we need at least 100 more carriers in our navy. Likely another 5,000 planes in our air force as well. we need to be able to be everywhere in world at once to be spread freedom to 3rd world nations everywhere. we are last hope. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 8443185 United States 10/23/2012 03:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 19058378 United States 10/23/2012 03:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I dont understand it either. Obamy doesnt realize that bayonet still widely used in military. Bottom line is our 1916 navy would defeat our current navy because they have more ship..it that simple, we would be outnumbered. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 4469103 United States 10/23/2012 03:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I dont understand it either. Obamy doesnt realize that bayonet still widely used in military. Bottom line is our 1916 navy would defeat our current navy because they have more ship..it that simple, we would be outnumbered. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 19058378 You guys are taking it to literal.. It wasn't about the horses and bayonets it was about the capabilities. We have advanced technology that allows us to to more with less. I'm not saying I agree with having less, but just pointing out what my interpretation of that part of the debate was. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 22089462 Netherlands 10/23/2012 03:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I dont understand it either. Obamy doesnt realize that bayonet still widely used in military. Bottom line is our 1916 navy would defeat our current navy because they have more ship..it that simple, we would be outnumbered. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 19058378 Hmmmmmm not sure if serious or not :|. Also what I heard was that he solely said less bayonets. Can you please back up the claim that that statement is incorrect? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 19058378 United States 10/23/2012 03:18 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I dont understand it either. Obamy doesnt realize that bayonet still widely used in military. Bottom line is our 1916 navy would defeat our current navy because they have more ship..it that simple, we would be outnumbered. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 19058378 Hmmmmmm not sure if serious or not :|. Also what I heard was that he solely said less bayonets. Can you please back up the claim that that statement is incorrect? Whats not to understand? Our 1916 military would destory current one. We would get overwhlemed by the numbers. it would be massacre. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 23182389 United States 10/23/2012 03:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 23182389 United States 10/23/2012 03:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I dont understand it either. Obamy doesnt realize that bayonet still widely used in military. Bottom line is our 1916 navy would defeat our current navy because they have more ship..it that simple, we would be outnumbered. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 19058378 Umm... no. [link to www.mittromney.com] If you're talking about WW2, then yes. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 8464481 United States 10/23/2012 03:21 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I dont understand it either. Obamy doesnt realize that bayonet still widely used in military. Bottom line is our 1916 navy would defeat our current navy because they have more ship..it that simple, we would be outnumbered. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 19058378 Hmmmmmm not sure if serious or not :|. Also what I heard was that he solely said less bayonets. Can you please back up the claim that that statement is incorrect? Whats not to understand? Our 1916 military would destory current one. We would get overwhlemed by the numbers. it would be massacre. Yeah....ok....you know, those bayonets and misfiring piece of shit rifles would totally fuck us up!!!!! LIKE ZOMG!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH RETARD ALERT! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 4469103 United States 10/23/2012 03:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
HangZen User ID: 1510250 United States 10/23/2012 03:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 8464481 United States 10/23/2012 03:25 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 19058378 United States 10/23/2012 03:25 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Whats not to understand? Our 1916 military would destory current one. We would get overwhlemed by the numbers. it would be massacre. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4469103 Put down the crack pipe...that's not even close to being true. Umm it true, Romney stated more ships = better navy. In 1916 we had many ship, now..not so many, just big ones but that mean they slow. Perhaps if we allowed coast gaurd to fight we could beat 1916 navy. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 22089462 Netherlands 10/23/2012 03:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I dont understand it either. Obamy doesnt realize that bayonet still widely used in military. Bottom line is our 1916 navy would defeat our current navy because they have more ship..it that simple, we would be outnumbered. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 19058378 Hmmmmmm not sure if serious or not :|. Also what I heard was that he solely said less bayonets. Can you please back up the claim that that statement is incorrect? Whats not to understand? Our 1916 military would destory current one. We would get overwhlemed by the numbers. it would be massacre. [link to en.wikipedia.org] 7 KM range and top speeds ranging at 20 knots. A single fucking carrier can take out 50+ of them (by then I guess the planes run out of ammo) without even ever getting in their fire range.... A single destroyer can probably take out a dozen of them before running out of ammo (and also never getting in their fire range). |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 8464481 United States 10/23/2012 03:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Whats not to understand? Our 1916 military would destory current one. We would get overwhlemed by the numbers. it would be massacre. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4469103 Put down the crack pipe...that's not even close to being true. Umm it true, Romney stated more ships = better navy. In 1916 we had many ship, now..not so many, just big ones but that mean they slow. Perhaps if we allowed coast gaurd to fight we could beat 1916 navy. WIN! This seriously had me LMF@ooooooo! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 20676524 United States 10/23/2012 03:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 19058378 United States 10/23/2012 03:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I dont understand it either. Obamy doesnt realize that bayonet still widely used in military. Bottom line is our 1916 navy would defeat our current navy because they have more ship..it that simple, we would be outnumbered. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 19058378 Hmmmmmm not sure if serious or not :|. Also what I heard was that he solely said less bayonets. Can you please back up the claim that that statement is incorrect? Whats not to understand? Our 1916 military would destory current one. We would get overwhlemed by the numbers. it would be massacre. [link to en.wikipedia.org] 7 KM range and top speeds ranging at 20 knots. A single fucking carrier can take out 50+ of them (by then I guess the planes run out of ammo) without even ever getting in their fire range.... A single destroyer can probably take out a dozen of them before running out of ammo (and also never getting in their fire range). Boy from Netherland tryin to educate me on military? Do you even have row boat in Nerthland? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 24824113 United States 10/23/2012 03:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Let me explain it for you, Mr. Ryan. President Obama had nothing of real substance to say, so he was being petulant. I have a 4 year old who acts like this also. It's hard for us adults to understand, I know. The best thing to do would be to take his golf clubs and stand him in the corner. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 24824113 United States 10/23/2012 03:34 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I dont understand it either. Obamy doesnt realize that bayonet still widely used in military. Bottom line is our 1916 navy would defeat our current navy because they have more ship..it that simple, we would be outnumbered. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 19058378 Hmmmmmm not sure if serious or not :|. Also what I heard was that he solely said less bayonets. Can you please back up the claim that that statement is incorrect? Whats not to understand? Our 1916 military would destory current one. We would get overwhlemed by the numbers. it would be massacre. [link to en.wikipedia.org] 7 KM range and top speeds ranging at 20 knots. A single fucking carrier can take out 50+ of them (by then I guess the planes run out of ammo) without even ever getting in their fire range.... A single destroyer can probably take out a dozen of them before running out of ammo (and also never getting in their fire range). Good. Give me 15,000 of each. Next! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 808852 United States 10/23/2012 03:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Let me explain it for you, Mr. Ryan. Quoting: LunaticFringe President Obama had nothing of real substance to say, so he was being petulant. I have a 4 year old who acts like this also. It's hard for us adults to understand, I know. The best thing to do would be to take his golf clubs and stand him in the corner. ^^^^ THIS! ^^^^^ So true! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 25681237 United States 10/23/2012 04:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 13158115 United States 10/23/2012 04:10 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
ANNONYMOUS User ID: 8415236 United States 10/23/2012 04:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I dont understand it either. Obamy doesnt realize that bayonet still widely used in military. Bottom line is our 1916 navy would defeat our current navy because they have more ship..it that simple, we would be outnumbered. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 19058378 Hmmmmmm not sure if serious or not :|. Also what I heard was that he solely said less bayonets. Can you please back up the claim that that statement is incorrect? Whats not to understand? Our 1916 military would destory current one. We would get overwhlemed by the numbers. it would be massacre. Wow, you must have cornered the market on STUPIDITY! One carrier strike force would be able to destroy the entire 1916 Navy period! Sorry, no prize for you MORON! |
071676
User ID: 19545845 United States 10/23/2012 04:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I dont understand it either. Obamy doesnt realize that bayonet still widely used in military. Bottom line is our 1916 navy would defeat our current navy because they have more ship..it that simple, we would be outnumbered. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 19058378 You guys are taking it to literal.. It wasn't about the horses and bayonets it was about the capabilities. We have advanced technology that allows us to to more with less. I'm not saying I agree with having less, but just pointing out what my interpretation of that part of the debate was. Yeah, just pop off one little EMP bomb and all of our glorious technology is worthless. |
chrion777
User ID: 8258047 United States 10/23/2012 04:53 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I dont understand it either. Obamy doesnt realize that bayonet still widely used in military. Bottom line is our 1916 navy would defeat our current navy because they have more ship..it that simple, we would be outnumbered. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 19058378 So what about what Obama said, that technology has evolved and that we have air craft carriers that carry an entire fleat and submarines so we don't need as many battleships. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 24824113 United States 10/23/2012 04:53 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I dont understand it either. Obamy doesnt realize that bayonet still widely used in military. Bottom line is our 1916 navy would defeat our current navy because they have more ship..it that simple, we would be outnumbered. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 19058378 You guys are taking it to literal.. It wasn't about the horses and bayonets it was about the capabilities. We have advanced technology that allows us to to more with less. I'm not saying I agree with having less, but just pointing out what my interpretation of that part of the debate was. Yeah, just pop off one little EMP bomb and all of our glorious technology is worthless. The funny thing is that the horses and bayonets (and the weapons they are attached to) will still work. Go figure. |
Nam Marine User ID: 24695931 United States 10/23/2012 04:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
071676
User ID: 19545845 United States 10/23/2012 05:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I dont understand it either. Obamy doesnt realize that bayonet still widely used in military. Bottom line is our 1916 navy would defeat our current navy because they have more ship..it that simple, we would be outnumbered. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 19058378 You guys are taking it to literal.. It wasn't about the horses and bayonets it was about the capabilities. We have advanced technology that allows us to to more with less. I'm not saying I agree with having less, but just pointing out what my interpretation of that part of the debate was. Yeah, just pop off one little EMP bomb and all of our glorious technology is worthless. The funny thing is that the horses and bayonets (and the weapons they are attached) to will still work. Go figure. That was my point. Get rid of all of the technology and what you have left is "Horses and Bayonets". |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 815606 Canada 10/23/2012 05:37 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You guys are taking it to literal.. It wasn't about the horses and bayonets it was about the capabilities. We have advanced technology that allows us to to more with less. I'm not saying I agree with having less, but just pointing out what my interpretation of that part of the debate was. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4469103 No Barry was being a smart ass but a stupid one that that because 300,000 marines would disagree about the bayonets and special forces in Afghanistan would disagree about the horses. I might add that Border Patrol uses horses too. |