Presidential Debate Obama VS Romney Final Round

[Pelranius]

Especially now that Turkey isn't passing too much on in trade to Iran, IIRC.

[Dalton]

Vile harpy Ann Coulter called Obama a retard. Sour grapes.

[Flagg]

Dude she may be right. She can use her Adams Apple to tell the future. I mean just last year she predicted Romney would get nominated and lose.

[Flagg]

So watching MSNBC's post debate coverage I wanted to strangle Schmitty. Not because I think he's wrong, but because I think he's right. Fucking terrifying.

[Lonestar]

Romney blinks a lot.


Am I the only other one who noticed this?


I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

[Flagg]

Romney blinks a lot.


Am I the only other one who noticed this?


I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

He blinks like a lizard.

[weemadando]

Vile harpy Ann Coulter called Obama a retard. Sour grapes.

I can't wait for Sarah Palin to call her out on it.

.
.
.

ahahahahahah That'll never happen.

[Flagg]

Vile harpy Ann Coulter called Obama a retard. Sour grapes.

I can't wait for Sarah Palin to call her out on it.

.
.
.

ahahahahahah That'll never happen.

Is that dumb cunt even on TV anymore?

[Lonestar]

He blinks like a lizard.

From someone on another forum "that's his cooling mechanism for the CPU".

[Executor32]

Actually, it's the hard drive access indicator. Like an old Compaq, he doesn't have a lot of memory, so the swap file has to be accessed constantly.

[The Yosemite Bear]

well we've heard the rendition of america the buetiful when he loses will he sing daisy daisy like hal+

[Edward Yee]

Romney:We will do what we are already doing unlike what Obama is doing already! It will be different because I'll be doing it instead of him!

Sadly, this pretty much sounds like Romney's campaign at times -- grab the policies that are popular and 'trust' in his base to be just that "anyone but Obama".

[SirNitram]

Oh look. The conservative freakshow that now occupies the media is, in their flailing, desperate attempt to get ANYTHING to bring down Obama, saying horses and bayonets are too still in use. I guess they're too goddamn stupid to understand the difference between 'fewer' and 'none.'. Pathetic little asshats.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Oh look. The conservative freakshow that now occupies the media is, in their flailing, desperate attempt to get ANYTHING to bring down Obama, saying horses and bayonets are too still in use. I guess they're too goddamn stupid to understand the difference between 'fewer' and 'none.'. Pathetic little asshats.

I've been seeing these "Obama is wrong!!! My brother's cousin's uncle's roommate is in the Marines and HE HAS A BAYONET!!!" comments everywhere and it's struck me as particularly maddening. It manages to demonstrate the commenter is not only incapable of grasping Obama's pretty obvious point (militaries and military doctrine evolve and America's must as well), but also a profound ignorance of military history. I certainly don't expect the Average Joe to know much about military history, but if someone's going to comment on the use of bayonets in a modern military force, it might behoove said someone to understand that bayonets are little more than glorified utility knives in a 21st century military.

[Mr Bean]

Oh look. The conservative freakshow that now occupies the media is, in their flailing, desperate attempt to get ANYTHING to bring down Obama, saying horses and bayonets are too still in use. I guess they're too goddamn stupid to understand the difference between 'fewer' and 'none.'. Pathetic little asshats.

I've been seeing these "Obama is wrong!!! My brother's cousin's uncle's roommate is in the Marines and HE HAS A BAYONET!!!" comments everywhere and it's struck me as particularly maddening. It manages to demonstrate the commenter is not only incapable of grasping Obama's pretty obvious point (militaries and military doctrine evolve and America's must as well), but also a profound ignorance of military history. I certainly don't expect the Average Joe to know much about military history, but if someone's going to comment on the use of bayonets in a modern military force, it might behoove said someone to understand that bayonets are little more than glorified utility knives in a 21st century military.

His exact words were, we have fewer horses and bayonets than we do in 1917, not we have none, we have fewer which is... exactly right. Nitram pointed it out, Gaius repeated it, I will as well. Don't let a little thing like what he actually said get in the way of criticizing him for what you think he said.

[Sea Skimmer]

The US Army-Marine almost certainly does have more bayonets now then it did in 1917 upon the declaration of war, which is what that pointless comparison of navy ship totals is based on. At least if we counted bayonets for modern rifles, and not civil war rifled muskets that we may have forgotten to sell tot he French still rusting in forgotten armories or Krags. The US army with reserves only had 200,000 men in 1917, and the Marine Corps 15,000. The National Guard had an authorized strength of 400,000, but more like 200,000 men and not all were yet armed. The modern US Army meanwhile just recently bought 450,000 M4 carbines with bayonets alone besides its pile of existing rifles and bayonets, and the modern USMC approaches the size of the 1917 army in active duty with an arm for near everyone... yeah that's going to total higher pretty easily as far as service weapons go.

[Irbis]

I certainly don't expect the Average Joe to know much about military history, but if someone's going to comment on the use of bayonets in a modern military force, it might behoove said someone to understand that bayonets are little more than glorified utility knives in a 21st century military.

You were saying?

[Simon_Jester]

Yes, and that would probably have worked about as well had the same soldiers taken utility knives and duct-taped them onto their rifles.

[Irbis]

Yeah, battle where 30 soldiers low on ammo shatter 150 men strong unit with mortars and AKs could have been won with harsh language, too, am I rite?

[Esquire]

Irbis, you do understand that the above story is an exception to what' s been the rule since the Great War, right? That bayonets are simply not used to anything like the degree that they were in 1912? That given a century of technological and strategic development, things change?

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Congratulations, Irbis, you've managed to successfully join the throngs of idiot commenters I was just talking about. Go read a book about the invention of the machinegun some time. Maybe study some Guderian and see where bayonets fit into that model of warfare.

[Irbis]

Irbis, you do understand that the above story is an exception to what' s been the rule since the Great War, right? That bayonets are simply not used to anything like the degree that they were in 1912? That given a century of technological and strategic development, things change?

Yes, it's exception. That's why that battle in 2004 was so famous. Still comparing something that armies still train in and what can be still be used to win battles to duct tape is at least unwarranted, IMHO.

Congratulations, Irbis, you've managed to successfully join the throngs of idiot commenters I was just talking about.

By replying an idiot who has no idea what he's talking about?

I agree with Obama, BTW, but I'm still going to reply to someone so oblivious to reality he spouts garbage absolutist statements contradicted by events in every XXIst century war so far. Maybe you'll enlighten us why people still buy and train in them when according to you some sporks issued instead would be better?

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

So let me get this straight. Your refutation of a general observation of modern strategic doctrine is to cite one cherry-picked example of a platoon-level engagement, as if this somehow defeats in detail the accumulated experience of an entire century of warfare to the contrary? Do you not see the problem with this? Do said glorified utility knives being used once in combat somehow legitimize them in any way as being strategically or doctrinally relevant to a modern military?

Police occasionally encounter suspects armed with katanas in close quarters. Are katanas in any way relevant to modern police procedures and doctrine? Shall we start armoring our police officers in 15th century plate armor, in order to combat the katana menace? Your logic seems to indicate we should. Unless, of course, you admit you are talking out of your ass in order to score a ridiculous cheap point by nitpicking a general statement with an equally ridiculous obscure fluke of an example.

Still comparing something that armies still train in and what can be still be used to win battles to duct tape is at least unwarranted, IMHO.

Armies also train in close-order drill, parade marching, wear colorful and ornate dress uniforms, practice musical signaling, and anachronistically refer to a variety of armored and airborne units as "cavalry." None of those things have been relevant to strategic military doctrine either, just like bayonets.

[Zinegata]

Meh, it just wasn't an airtight analogy.

Personally, I would have said how it's very, very silly to complain about US Navy "downsizing" compared to 1917, when back in 1917 the US Navy was only the third most powerful in world, as opposed to today where the US Navy is more powerful than everyone else combined.

Still a stupid thing to quibble over.

[weemadando]

I honestly don't know what else needs to be said about how stupid an issue it is to start with.