"Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go under water, nuclear submarines."
Did President Obama think he was talking to a 5 year old? Sure, let someone else have the strongest navy in the world.
Not a funny topic Jungle.
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”
It would be very hard for Romney to wield a bayonet on one hand while holding a big, fat binder full of women on the other, while riding a horse.
I say let Romney flip through his binder and let Obama ride a horse with a bayonet.
Romney had a huge opportunity to counter, but didn't do it. You can't just plunk a couple of aircraft carriers in the water and call it a navy. You see, there's these ships called cruisers and destroyers. You need to screen carriers to protect against submarines and in bad weather. Ah well. The submarine itself is a bit of a wildcard in the modern era, depends if the situation is total nuclear war or not. Obviously, mostly and hopefully not.
From what I've determined, (and I felt quite disappointed in his seeming passivity during the debate itself), Romney's objective was, (or may have been), to appear 'unthreatening', (i.e. not the jingoistic sabre rattler the Dems would portray him as).
Momentum seems to be favorable to Romney at this point, and even some of the left leaning media have started to, (just in a small way at present, but the snowball effect often has a way of alerting people to the fact that the bandwagon might just leave without them.......piling metaphor upon metaphor, as it were), to take ('supposed'...in case momentum reverses), 'good natured' digs at Obama, (hedging their bets, as it were........if Cassius & Brutus eventually show up, the lot of them will/might pile on, claiming to have recognized Obama's massive imperfections "Back when").
There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio......and we'll doubtless learn what some of them are in two weeks.
Last edited by Nemo2; 2012-10-23 at 04:13 PM.
The point was not that the US should not have the strongest navy in the world. But that you can not judge the effectiveness of a navy by the amount of ships you have. An aircraft carrier projects much more power than a battleship circa 1916, which was the point of his argument. I'd also have to point out that there are very few countries with aircraft carriers and the US owns half of the world's complement of aircraft carriers.Originally Posted by Toronto.gal
1. President Obama could have handled himself in a confident & commanding manner without so much cheap & burlesque intent [the latter I did not view as passionate in the least]. As well, I did not appreciate the angry/evil stares for practically the entire time that he was silent. However, I don't believe that Governor Romney let him get away with anything; in fact, I think exactly what you said above with respect to wanting 'to appear unthreatening'. We saw a contrast in behaviour for sure.
2. Maybe not; we might need a Florida [or other] election recount.
Last edited by Toronto.gal; 2012-10-23 at 04:25 PM. Reason: President not Mr. :)
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”
Trust me, I know exactly what President Obama meant.
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”
Obama: ""You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916,” Obama said. “Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets........"
http://senseofevents.blogspot.ca/201...-bayonets.htmlAs 1916 opened, the US Army's total size was about 110,000 troops. The Marine Corps was minuscule since the Marines were still seen then as a raiding or expeditionary force rather than a major land combatant force.
In 1916, the Congress passed the National Defense Act that doubled the Army to 220,000 (rounded slightly). The USMC was marginally affected.
So a compromise was passed in May 1916, as the war raged on and Berlin was debating whether America was so weak it could be ignored. The army was to double in size to 11,300 officers and 208,000 men, with no reserves, and a National Guard that would be enlarged in five years to 440,000 men.
The US Army today has more than 560,000 troops and the USMC more than 200,000. Obama is wrong. we have hundreds of thousands more bayonets now than in 1916.
Sarcasm and condescension only work if the speaker's presumption of lofty superior knowledge is borne out by his command of actual facts. You can't successfully accuse your opponent of being an ignoramus when you don't know what you're talking about yourself.
^ Sarcasm and condescension only work if the speaker's presumption of lofty superior knowledge is borne out by his command of actual facts. You can't successfully accuse your opponent of being an ignoramus when you don't know what you're talking about yourself.
Very well put by the author.
Similarly, all this sermonizing and pedantic finger wagging is meaningful only if the incumbent had an excellent track record to stand behind.
President Obama's term reminds me a lot about George Bush Sr.'s first (and only) term (ignoring the fact that they are from different political parties).
My sense was that one of Romney's advisors dug up what they believed was an obscure fact they thought would be a great soundbite, and Romney served up a lob ball that Obama hit out of the park.
Romney looked foolish at times, agreeing with almost everything Obama has done, but declaring the "he would have done it earlier and louder."
Romney also appeared surprised when Obama talked about how long it takes to get all nations on side with sanctions. Romney appeared to believe he could just order them up..........like a CEO would do.
The world doesn't work that way. The US had sanctions on Iran for years, but if everyone else supplies them with what they want.............how effective are sanctions?
It all doesn't matter much, I think.
This election is about the economy...........and I would bet a there was a whole lot of interest in America about dealing with China taking US jobs. That great sucking sound that Ross Perot talking about years ago, has come to pass. Hardly a family in the US has been untouched by the loss of jobs to foreign countries.
Watching the lines on the "undecided panel" both candidates did better when they concentrated on the positives.......and the audience reaction lines turned negative when they started listing the other's faults.
Obama seemed to be in better control of that end of it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote