FOUR MORE YEARS

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

So clever.

Remember how upset you were when in the third debate Obama replied to Romney's observations of our naval strength? You're playing with the same fire here. Your misquoting here for humorous effect opens you up to the same treatment; you probably won't like it. But more importantly, it is another example of your willingness to just make shit up whenever it suits you, facts be damned. Don't be upset when adults who are talking about real issues ignore or reprimand you for childish interruptions like this.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

So clever.

Remember how upset you were when in the third debate Obama replied to Romney's observations of our naval strength? You're playing with the same fire here. Your misquoting here for humorous effect opens you up to the same treatment; you probably won't like it. But more importantly, it is another example of your willingness to just make shit up whenever it suits you, facts be damned. Don't be upset when adults who are talking about real issues ignore or reprimand you for childish interruptions like this.

When you wake up enough to grasp the concept that a naval vessel in the Pacific, is useless for an immediate problem in the Mediterranean, then you'll grasp what I was referring to about Obama cutting down the number of naval ships we have.

Until then, it will fly right over your head.

I'm sure you could name, five (just five) specific plans that Obama will be implementing in this next term, surely?

Perhaps because Obama NEVER NAMED five specific plans for his second term, throughout his campaign.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

When you wake up enough to grasp the concept that a naval vessel in the Pacific, is useless for an immediate problem in the Mediterranean, then you'll grasp what I was referring to about Obama cutting down the number of naval ships we have.

--snip

When you confess to your dishonesty of putting words in the President's mouth by saying that he "used that as a defense in the debate", then you'll grasp what *he* was saying about Romney's statement about the number of ships in the navy. Or not.

It was a lie when you said it the first time, it's still a lie now. Changing the subject didn't work before, and won't work now. You've shown your devotion to that position despite how wrong it is. Every time you bring it up, I'll knock it down.

Misquoting, putting words in people's mouths, lying, these are the actions of the ignorant, the malicious, of people who have no interest much less respect for the truth. I think you are a bit of all three. Our dialog will improve dramatically when you clean up your act in this regard.

Originally Posted by Adak

Until then, it will fly right over your head.

Not unlike those planes that land on those ships, eh?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

When you confess to your dishonesty of putting words in the President's mouth by saying that he "used that as a defense in the debate", then you'll grasp what *he* was saying about Romney's statement about the number of ships in the navy. Or not.

It was a lie when you said it the first time, it's still a lie now. Changing the subject didn't work before, and won't work now. You've shown your devotion to that position despite how wrong it is. Every time you bring it up, I'll knock it down.

I'm not putting words into Obama's mouth. I'm telling you what those words MEAN, in a tactical sense. I'm telling you that a ship in the Pacific, can't help us with an immediate problem in the Mediterranean Sea. It doesn't matter if it's an aircraft carrier or not.

And it MEANS, Obama has no tactical sense, at all. Or it's just another campaigning politician who lies. I wish he wouldn't do that about something as important as our Naval strength, however.

Misquoting, putting words in people's mouths, lying, these are the actions of the ignorant, the malicious, of people who have no interest much less respect for the truth. I think you are a bit of all three. Our dialog will improve dramatically when you clean up your act in this regard.

Sounds like most politicians, actually.

[glatt]

Dude, YOU have no tactical sense. How many oceans are there? How many ships do we have? How many ships per ocean?

I assure you, we don't have just one ship.

Don't make me find that chart that's been floating all over the web of our navy's size compared to the navies of all the countries of the rest of the world.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by glatt

Dude, YOU have no tactical sense. How many oceans are there? How many ships do we have? How many ships per ocean?

I assure you, we don't have just one ship.

Don't make me find that chart that's been floating all over the web of our navy's size compared to the navies of all the countries of the rest of the world.

Why don't you take a boat and travel on out to Adak Island? I assure you, by the time you return, you'll have an ENTIRELY new perspective of how large the oceans of the world, actually are.

Actually, storms are bad around Adak Island, so go to Hawaii instead. But do it by boat/ship, not by plane.

I assure you, ships don't travel by one's - they travel in a fleet or battle group, so they have air cover, anti-sub and anti missile cruisers, and subs and destroyers, as well.

Currently, for the first time ever, US Navy is providing escort service to 99% of the oil tankers in the Persian Gulf - after threats from Iran. That has left us with NO ships in the Mediterranean Sea, at all, at times.

Putting on your tactical hat for a moment, do you see where we could need a fleet around oh, maybe Libya, maybe Egypt, maybe near Israel, etc.? You know, places where our consulates have been attacked, or places where we have a threatened ally from Iranian naval ships WHICH ARE in the Mediterranean for the first time?

You can't always wait while our fleet makes the three days journey from the Persian Gulf, around Yemen, and up through the Suez Canal, to get them into position. By then, it's too late. The attack in Benghazi was over in 6 to 7 hours, for instance.

And, even if there was a timely fleet arrival to something longer lasting, then we still have a problem - who's escorting the oil tankers in the Persian Gulf? You can see the problem.

I'm not saying we need to increase the number of our ships, but I AM saying FOR SURE!, that we do not want to continue decreasing the number of ships in our Navy.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

snip--

I'm sure you could name, five (just five) specific plans that Obama will be implementing in this next term, surely?

Ok.

OBAMA: I'm asking you to rally not around me, but rally around a set of goals for our country in manufacturing and education and energy, national security, reducing the deficit.

First, export more products and outsource fewer jobs.

Second, control more of our own energy.

Third, give more Americans the chance to get the skills that they need to compete.

Fourth, reduce the deficit without sticking it to the middle class.

Fifth, strong national security, smart foreign policy.

Originally Posted by Adak

Perhaps because Obama NEVER NAMED five specific plans for his second term, throughout his campaign.

You're wrong again. These were presented at the Democratic National Convention. Perhaps you didn't pay attention. They're all over his website too.