Naynay and 4eyes

[Forever_frost]

You're saying 'probably'. Show me numbers that prove Obama right

[4eyedwillie]

Do you realize we still have Cav units? And we're using horses in Afghanistan because vehicles won't handle the mountains as well as horses do. And every infantryman is issued at least one bayonet. And yes, it's the same old bayonet we used to have. Doesn't work, is dull and can't cut wire but it's a bayonet

Sure we have cav units..but they ride humvee's, strikers, and tanks not horses usually. As I said we have horses in Afghanistan but number wise compared to 1917 there are fewer horses in use by the military which is what he said. As for the bayonet I know they are issued to every infantry man, Not REMF's, read what I wrote I didn't say they weren't used just that compared to 1917 there are probably fewer which is what he said also. The only way to know is to look at the inventory from 1917 and now and compare.

[Forever_frost]

You realize that what you posted was equivalent to going liar liar pants on fire don't you? Find a inventory of the number bayonets owned in 1917 and the number owned now and compare them. Posting the number of people that are enlisted is meaningless. I would bet that the number of effective combat troops in 1917 was actually higher than now. REMF's typically don't carry bayonets, that would be a combat only item. Also from reading the article I get the impression that the newer ones are more knife's than traditional bayonets. I maybe wrong, do the newest ones still attach to the rifle?

On the subject of horses I counted 36 at one place, some ceremonial units, and some in Afghanistan. That number wasn't reported but I would think 300 would be high. Again no way for me to know for sure. But you do realize that in 1917 we still had Calvary units? And that they were still using horses to move artillery?

Do you realize we still have Cav units? And we're using horses in Afghanistan because vehicles won't handle the mountains as well as horses do. And every infantryman is issued at least one bayonet. And yes, it's the same old bayonet we used to have. Doesn't work, is dull and can't cut wire but it's a bayonet

[Forever_frost]

I actually haven't been able to watch any TV for the past few weeks, at least not any TV show or program in its entirety. However it was my understanding that he did call it an act of terrorism 2 days later or something like that? How does one act when put in a situation like that. How do you react? Bush was at a elementary school reading books to little kids when he found out about the 911 attacks and he sat there and kept reading. What do you do? I can tell you that I sure as hell wouldn't know what to do. So I can't say what I think the potus should do, then again I'm not an armchair politician.

Bush kept reading not to freak out the kids and then politely left to go kick ass. He didn't finish reading, head to Vegas and go raise money while blaming it on a youtube video no one had seen

[Forever_frost]

Up to 2 weeks after the event, he was blaming it on a video and said he had no idea what happened when he did. Also, instead of handling this, he went to bed and then flew off to Vegas (remember when he told people not to go to Vegas?) to fund raise.

[A+]

I actually haven't been able to watch any TV for the past few weeks, at least not any TV show or program in its entirety. However it was my understanding that he did call it an act of terrorism 2 days later or something like that? How does one act when put in a situation like that. How do you react? Bush was at a elementary school reading books to little kids when he found out about the 911 attacks and he sat there and kept reading. What do you do? I can tell you that I sure as hell wouldn't know what to do. So I can't say what I think the potus should do, then again I'm not an armchair politician.

[Vertnut]

How is Libya being covered up? And if he knew 2hrs after it happened, what was he supposed to do? And what lies did he tell the American people regarding the incident in Libya. Just wondering......

Are you serious? Do you watch anything other than MSNBC? Continuing to pimp the idea that a you-tube film was the reason for the attack? For two weeks, he sent his minions out to say that the attack was not terrorism. On the anniversary of 9-11?

[A+]

I'd like to know how you can support a man that continues to lie and cover up this Libya debacle? We now have proof that he knew within 2 hours what happened, and even knew who claimed responsibility. Two weeks of straight-up lying to the American people. Do you have no moral compass at all? How is he buying your vote? Surely you must be getting something out of it. At least I hope so.

How is Libya being covered up? And if he knew 2hrs after it happened, what was he supposed to do? And what lies did he tell the American people regarding the incident in Libya. Just wondering......

[4eyedwillie]

No, you didn't. I'm not talking about abortion, rape, etc. I asked what you get out of it. I can see that you and your messiah think alike. I can see you are of the same character by your posts'. Just like him, you deflect to Bush? That shit is old.

You don't pay attention do you? He's not my messiah I just have no other viable alternative. I will NEVER support the party that brought us Bush. That's all the reason I need. PERIOD!

[Vertnut]

Dodge how? I answered your question.

No, you didn't. I'm not talking about abortion, rape, etc. I asked what you get out of it. I can see that you and your messiah think alike. I can see you are of the same character by your posts'. Just like him, you deflect to Bush? That shit is old.

[4eyedwillie]

Nice dodge.

Dodge how? I answered your question.

[Vertnut]

I'd like to know how you can support a party that thinks rape is gods plan and that a woman can't get pregnant from being raped? There have been so many different republicans that state similar views that it HAS to the party line. Hell even your VP believes it. He said no abortion under any circumstances in the VP debate.
But as for me Republicans are the party of Bush. I will NEVER support the party that brought us that imbecile.

Nice dodge.

[4eyedwillie]

I'd like to know how you can support a man that continues to lie and cover up this Libya debacle? We now have proof that he knew within 2 hours what happened, and even knew who claimed responsibility. Two weeks of straight-up lying to the American people. Do you have no moral compass at all? How is he buying your vote? Surely you must be getting something out of it. At least I hope so.

I'd like to know how you can support a party that thinks rape is gods plan and that a woman can't get pregnant from being raped? There have been so many different republicans that state similar views that it HAS to the party line. Hell even your VP believes it. He said no abortion under any circumstances in the VP debate.
But as for me Republicans are the party of Bush. I will NEVER support the party that brought us that imbecile.

[Vertnut]

You realize that what you posted was equivalent to going liar liar pants on fire don't you? Find a inventory of the number bayonets owned in 1917 and the number owned now and compare them. Posting the number of people that are enlisted is meaningless. I would bet that the number of effective combat troops in 1917 was actually higher than now. REMF's typically don't carry bayonets, that would be a combat only item. Also from reading the article I get the impression that the newer ones are more knife's than traditional bayonets. I maybe wrong, do the newest ones still attach to the rifle?

On the subject of horses I counted 36 at one place, some ceremonial units, and some in Afghanistan. That number wasn't reported but I would think 300 would be high. Again no way for me to know for sure. But you do realize that in 1917 we still had Calvary units? And that they were still using horses to move artillery?

I'd like to know how you can support a man that continues to lie and cover up this Libya debacle? We now have proof that he knew within 2 hours what happened, and even knew who claimed responsibility. Two weeks of straight-up lying to the American people. Do you have no moral compass at all? How is he buying your vote? Surely you must be getting something out of it. At least I hope so.

[4eyedwillie]

You realize that what you posted was equivalent to going liar liar pants on fire don't you? Find a inventory of the number bayonets owned in 1917 and the number owned now and compare them. Posting the number of people that are enlisted is meaningless. I would bet that the number of effective combat troops in 1917 was actually higher than now. REMF's typically don't carry bayonets, that would be a combat only item. Also from reading the article I get the impression that the newer ones are more knife's than traditional bayonets. I maybe wrong, do the newest ones still attach to the rifle?

On the subject of horses I counted 36 at one place, some ceremonial units, and some in Afghanistan. That number wasn't reported but I would think 300 would be high. Again no way for me to know for sure. But you do realize that in 1917 we still had Calvary units? And that they were still using horses to move artillery?