Horses and Bayonets trending

[TeyshaBlue]

Darrin whines about memes then vomits up a bunch of memes in desperation.

Illustrative sarcasm is illustrative.

[MannyIsGod]

I hate NBA Dan's use of buzzwords like trending (especially when its not even done correctly - there's not even a mention of twitter here). It comes off as such hipster ry.

[Agloco]

I believe horses were and still are used in Afghanistan by the US military. I got the president's point, but its a bit ironic that in trying to score cheap points about Mitt Romney's lack of knowledge on what our miliatry currently uses he got it so wrong. He should have said cannons and muskets.

I'd agree, if only Obama had said we no longer have horses and bayonets. He didn't though.

[ChumpDumper]

I'd agree, if only Obama had said we no longer have horses and bayonets. He didn't though.

Republicans are attacking strawmen with bayonets today.

[cantthinkofanything]

This all seems like some kind of set up to promote Revolution on NBC.
Very Funny.

[DarrinS]

Republicans are attacking strawmen with bayonets today.

Obama beat the out of that strawman last night.

[ChumpDumper]

Obama beat the out of that strawman last night.

Please explain how this statement was a strawman.

"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."

[mavs>spurs]

Because he deflected on cutting military by bringing up some bs about horses. Obama cut military spending period..regardless of if the money went to boats, horses, planes, etc. The one thing he ever did that I agree with, he should have just owned up to it.

[DarrinS]

Please explain how this statement was a strawman.

"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."

So, you think Obama's bayonet example was accurately representing Romney's argument?

[DarrinS]

And by the way, Obama's condescending remark "'We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them.", really didn't help him at all.

It may have made the MSNBC loons high-five each other, but it came off rather ish.

[ChumpDumper]

So, you think Obama's bayonet example was accurately representing Romney's argument?

Answer my question.

[ChumpDumper]

And by the way, Obama's condescending remark "'We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them.", really didn't help him at all.

Obama didn't win your support?

Quelle horreur!

[ChumpDumper]

Because he deflected on cutting military by bringing up some bs about horses. Obama cut military spending period..regardless of if the money went to boats, horses, planes, etc. The one thing he ever did that I agree with, he should have just owned up to it.

You didn't explain how it was a strawman.

Not that you were asked, but unprovoked failure is nice to witness as well.

[DarrinS]

Answer my question.

If Romney had said that the military needs more muskets, then you might have a point.

[ChumpDumper]

If Romney had said that the military needs more muskets, then you might have a point.

You didn't answer my question.

How was it a strawman?

You really don't know what a strawman is, do you?

[DarrinS]

The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We're now down to 285.

Maybe Obama should use his horse and bayonet comparison on the CNO.

[DarrinS]

You didn't answer my question.

How was it a strawman?

You really don't know what a strawman is, do you?

It's when you misrepresent your opponent's position.

[ChumpDumper]

It's when you misrepresent your opponent's position.

The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916.

You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916.

OK, how was Romney's position misrepresented?

If anything, Obama may have accepted more of a claim than Romney actually made (fewer rather than equal to).

[DarrinS]

Our Navy is smaller now than any time since 1917. The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We're now down to 285. We're headed down to the - to the low 200s if we go through with sequestration. That's unacceptable to me. I want to make sure that we have the ships that are required by our Navy.

[clambake]

And by the way, Obama's condescending remark "'We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them.", really didn't help him at all.

It may have made the MSNBC loons high-five each other, but it came off rather ish.

didn't watch the debates, but thats pretty funny.

[ChumpDumper]

So it wasn't misrepresented. It was just a stupid point for Mittens to make in the first place.

Anyone is free to disagree with the Navy as to how many ships it needs, and Obama explained why. Don't get mad because Mittens looked kind of dumb and a meme was born. I'm sure Mittens used that talking point many times in his stump speeches -- too bad for you someone was listening to him and not Chris Matthews.

[clambake]

what branch of the armed services doesn't clamor for more?

[Agloco]

It's when you misrepresent your opponent's position.

Romney was complaining that the number of naval vessels was at their lowest since 1917 (forgot the exact year he brought up....). Obama simply put Romneys comment into the proper context by citing technological advance as one rationale for reduced numbers of ships. He took it back to horses and bayonets to emphasize the point. Well played imo.

People would have you think that he got it wrong because horses and bayonets are still in use. That point is quite irrelevant given the context of Obamas statement though.

There are fewer horses and bayonets in use today due to technological advances just as Obama feels that fewer naval vessels are needed....for the same reason. Whether or not he's right is for another discussion.

[ChumpDumper]

lol

The historical records of the Navy show that in 1916, the Navy had 245 ships....

The current level of ships, 285 in fiscal 2011, is actually not even the lowest since 1916. The historical list shows that the lowest ship force was reached during the Bush administration, when the number of ships fell to 278 in 2007. Given the change over time in the composition of the naval force, that probably is the most relevant comparison — and the trend line is up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...80a9_blog.html

I'm sure the facts will offend Darrin more than mean ol' Barry.

[Agloco]

lol http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...80a9_blog.html

I'm sure the facts will offend Darrin more than mean ol' Barry.

Mitt wasn't even right, say it ain't so.