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?

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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?

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.

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? :

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

See, now that's fucking insulting.

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?

Oh that's an even wider point :p

42

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.