Image 01 Image 03

Something else we have less of in addition to horses and bayonets

Something else we have less of in addition to horses and bayonets

It truly is hard to overstate the joy on the left with Obama’s horses and bayonets “zinger” last night.

This summary at HuffPo reflected the joy:

There were no binders full of women at the final presidential debate on Monday, but there were certainly horses and bayonets.

President Barack Obama countered Mitt Romney’s comment that the U.S. “Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917” with a zinger that won the night.

“You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916,” Obama told Romney. “Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed.”

The “horses and bayonets” comment delighted the Twittersphere: The hashtag #horsesandbayonets became the number one trend on Twitter in the U.S. and third in the world. At one point, the phrase was mentioned on Twitter nearly 60,000 times in one minute, according to data from Tospy, a social web analytics tool.

The Obama campaign capitalized on the traffic, buying the search term “Bayonets” on Twitter, HuffPost’s Mat Yurow noted.

Within minutes of Obama’s comment, a “Horses and Bayonets” Tumblr featuring GIFs and images went live, and a Horses and Bayonets Facebook page already has more than 3,000 likes.

It is was the triumph of zingers over reason, a fitting tribute to the age of Obama, and a reflection of how out-of-touch the left has become.

Here is something else we have less of which I think will be much more determinative of the outcome of the election, the percentage of People Participating in the Workforce:

Keep laughing at the zingers, it’s working so well.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I am not sure why they are celebrating one of the most idiotic statements ever made by a president. Navy warships cannot both be Obsolete and the Wave of the future at the same time. Obama cannot be giving the Navy what its asking for and slashing our surface fleet by a third. The Audience was laughing at Obama’s joke, they were snickering at his stupidity

    Actually it is technically possible that they could (but I agree that I don’t think that they ARE).

    It is like anything else: a more modern, efficient fleet could, theoretically, perform the same mission with fewer ships due to larger size, more efficient engines, more mission capable equipment, and larger range.

    However I think that this was entirely short sighted by Obama to bring up, and Romney missed a huge opportunity to say “Mr. President, if you don’t think the military is ASKING for more ships and equipment, maybe it’s that your not LISTENING.

      Pet Peeve: “Better technology means we can have less of it.”

      No. Not when it comes to troops, planes, and ships.

      The oceans are vast. The practical limit (for the foreseeable future, possibly forever) for ship speed, around 30 knots, and even that is for limited periods, in seas that are at most moderate. The seas are rough in many parts of the world.

      That means no matter how super-duper the ship, it can only cover a certain area. As for missiles and radars, all well and fine, but PRESENCE (“showing the flag”) is the only thing that stops piracy and adventurism. Where there is no major free-world naval presence, there is piracy and adventurism, the latter by Russia or China (Mitt’s risibly stupid fairy tale of a friendly China notwithstanding).

      Furthermore, you need “3 navies”: one under repair (naval ships are floating industrial yards requring lots of upkeep; that will NEVER change, sea water and wave action being what they are), one exercising to prepare for deployment, one deployed.

      Same thing with airspace and ground warfare. Ultimately, it comes down to staking out territory: on the ground by a soldier with a rifle, in the air by a fighter covering area. No matter how fantastically advanced the equipment, there is a limit to how much one unit can cover. And “flooding the zone” has a huge psychological value that transcends whatever the math/management wonks, most of whom have never spent a single day in uniform, might tell you is “optimal.”

        Ragspierre in reply to CalMark. | October 23, 2012 at 1:16 pm

        Horse + bayonet = UNICORN!!!!

        See? It works MAGICALLY.

          CalMark in reply to Ragspierre. | October 23, 2012 at 1:30 pm

          Well, Obama is MAGICAL, is he not?

          It follows that his solutions to everything are MAGIC.

          100 years ago, The One would have been a kook living on the edges of some podunk town and (without charity) in constant danger of starving to death, all while selling his “magic.”

        Hi CalMark,

        Yeah, I get the geography aspect to it, but most ships travel in a battle-group or fleet, not alone (at least surface ships, anyway).

        What I was trying to convey is that it’s possible that more mission-capable ships in a particular battle-group can lead to less of them, because you’re dividing the work more efficiently (again, theory). Thus, instead of 10 ships in a battle group, maybe you have 8. You’ve still got the same number of battle-groups covering the same amount of square-mileage of ocean. Further, as the tech improves, you get more “useable” space per ship, and thus can divide the same capabilities over a smaller number of actual vessels.

        I’ll say this: Better technology doesn’t necessarily mean we need less of it, but it often means that it takes up a smaller footprint.

        I actually agree with you on tactics and coverage. I was just saying that I can see the argument (like I said, I don’t think theory holds up to practice in this instance).

      Oldflyer in reply to Chuck Skinner. | October 23, 2012 at 2:22 pm

      No Chuck you are wrong. Not as an instrument of international policy. Ships cannot be in two places at once, no matter how capable they are. If you need ships to counter Somali pirates in the Indian Ocean, and you need ships to guarantee the Straits of Hormuz, and more ships to patrol the Taiwan straits, then you need X number of ships. Not only do you need warships, with modern capabilities, you need a fleet of support ships to keep them deployed. If you think you might have to evacuate Americans from a Mid East disaster, then you better have an amphibious fleet to get the Marines to the scene. Then when big threats emerge you want X number of carriers to cool things down. Besides all those surface ships, in the modern world, you better have a modern submarine fleet of sufficient size to deploy around the world.

      Obama with his infantile zingers doesn’t seem to understand how to use a fleet, and what it takes to have a credible one.

        Ragspierre in reply to Oldflyer. | October 23, 2012 at 4:24 pm

        We have learned recently that we need a littoral (or “gator”) fleet to do patrol and potential war-fighting in shallow waters constrained by geographic features.

        Something most people don’t get is that a full scale carrier task force has submarines as an integral part of the inventory, doing hunter-killer duty against submarine threats.

        I actually think that we need a larger number of ships, but I can see the theoretical side of the argument of less ships. That argument is this: More mission-capable ships can (again, in theory) lead to smaller “combat groups” (instead of a combat group having 10 ships, they have 8).

        In practice, I don’t think it works because of the visual and projection aspect.

9thDistrictNeighbor | October 23, 2012 at 12:03 pm

Fewer jobs mean fewer workforce participants mean more government dependants who have time to sit around and chuckle at the bon mots of their leftist masters.

Obama showed his contempt for the military last night.

Everyone with a military background EVER…including anyone in a military family…will reciprocate.

    For most of the “active-duty” individuals, it’s too late for them to reciprocate. The Democrat Party has played games with the absentee ballots in full violation of the requirements to provide them in time to military service personnel.

    At least some of those active duty personnel will be disenfranchised from voting, and others who may have been bamboozled again by Obama won’t be able to change their vote due to the lag time.

      Ragspierre in reply to Chuck Skinner. | October 23, 2012 at 1:01 pm

      This is the old, old story.

      Deemocrats work VERY hard at suppressing the military vote. This is not lost on those close to serving members of the military, and I think has a multiplier effect the Deemocrats very likely do not like.

      “Payback is a motherFLUCKER…”

I’m actually beginning to worry about the mental health of these people. Looks like a group suicide watch for November 7.

    Warning! Politically incorrect alert!

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but hopefully so. If they’re not mentally strong enough to deal with the fact that their entire world view is a sham and a lie, that’s their problem. At least then we wouldn’t have to be fighting their loony-leftist ideas and reminding the short-attention-span public why a policy of promising unicorns and rainbows doesn’t actually solve problems every 2 years.

nor only was it a remarkably stupid thing to say, even by SCOAMF standards, but, unsurprisingly, he was at least half wrong.

the US military has more people under arms now than we did in 1916, with a corresponding increase in the number or rifles as issue personal weapons, and, at least for the Army & Marines, a similar increase in the number or bayonets, on a one to one basis of issue.

maybe if JEFH had spent more time on national security and less on golf, he would know things like that.

    Funny, I just posted the same thing. In fact, the military today has 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.

    And so another Obama Fail.

The best response I saw to this “zinger” by Obama last night was this (quoted, not said by me or my father).

“I called my father to talk about how the presidential debate was unfolding. He reminded me that the Marine Corps still uses bayonets.”

The world is 70% water. The Navy is ALWAYS important. An aircraft carrier has other support ships. Submarines? Containing a significant part of our nuclear force. Many other ships for specified purposes. I dont claim to be particularly navy savey but I agree with imfine.

^^Commentary has an article all about that also talks the use of horses in Afganastan.

Politicians need to be really careful with these cute zingers designed to send tingles up the legs of liberal elites. When they are perceived as contrived and unnatural they run the risk of being labeled as the Don Rickles candidate.
Obama was using his silly and unnatural “death stare” and he looked honestly like a pissed off teenager. Just waiting for the next “pounce moment”
And this is the guy that supposedly the leader of the Free World. What an example.
If his future is uncertain at the UN after being rejected in November, Im sure one of the casinos in Las Vegas can put his zingers to good use.

Today, btw, is the anniversary of the terrorist attack on our barracks in Beirut.

    JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to Ragspierre. | October 23, 2012 at 1:00 pm

    Rest In Peace, brave Marines. You are not forgotten.

      RIP Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty. And even though you were not a Marine, Sean Smith, you fought with the best of them, and therefore I consider you honorary Semper Fidelis. God rest all your souls, your country will not forget you!

NC Mountain Girl | October 23, 2012 at 12:58 pm

Funny but I just read this book called Horse Soldiers: The Extraordinary Story of a Band of US Soldiers Who Rode to Victory in Afghanistan.. The Special Forces use of 18th century cavalry tactics combined with 21st century satellite communications and smart bombs was THE news story in the early days of the war in Afghanistan. I picked up the book because I recalled Rumsfled’s obvious glee with the Special Forces request that the next airlift drop bridles,saddles and feed. Funny no one on Obama’s briefing team remembered them, especially since the monument to them near the WTC was dedicated a couple of days ago.

I also cringed over Obama’s comment on submarines. Calling one a ship is like calling a Marine a soldier. No matter how large it is a submarine is always a boat. The Commander in Chief should know that.

Raquel Pinkbullet | October 23, 2012 at 12:58 pm

First debate: Big Bird
Second debate: Binders
Third debate: Bayonettes.

Raquel Pinkbullet | October 23, 2012 at 12:59 pm

IT should be Third Debate: Horses & Bayonettes…

    JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to Raquel Pinkbullet. | October 23, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    “Bayonettes” are feminine bayonets? Kind of like “Mom jeans”?
    Right up Barack’s alley…

      Raquel Pinkbullet in reply to JimMtnViewCaUSA. | October 23, 2012 at 1:09 pm

      My husband used to work at Symantec in Mountain View, CA. My GOD what a liberal hell hole that was. Absolutely loaded with koolaid drinking moonbats.

      Conservatives are an endangered species in the Bay Area.

        JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to Raquel Pinkbullet. | October 23, 2012 at 4:57 pm

        Yeah, a former employer had a conference room named “Gore”.
        Talk about your workplace harassment.
        And all the companies put CNN on the TV monitors in public areas like the cafe, etc. Ugh. But there are quite a few of us slipping by under the radar 🙂


Truth 1: HORSES REMAIN “BIG” FOR THE MILITARY. See, “Horse Soldiers: The Extraordinary Story of a Band of US Soldiers Who Rode to Victory in Afghanistan” — Amazon Books–selling well; highly rated.

Truth 2: Marines still use Bayonets, everyone gets one: “Last night the Post’s Rajiv Chandrasekaran noted U.S. Marines still train on bayonets in boot camp and Marines still are issued bayonets as standard equipment” See:

Both of those “antiquated elements of war” are alive and well, and form part of our MILITARY MYSTIQUE: “Americans…they’ll cross icy rivers…in the dead of night…on Christmas…TO KILL YOU.” George Washington really started something way back when!

George would probably gut-shoot Ovomit if presented with the chance–“You want to DESTROY MY COUNTRY! Go to hell imposter!”

NEW “COMMANDER IN CHIEF” COMING…ELECTED IN UNDER TWO WEEKS. Our troops will be much happier and we can stop the horror which started three years ago–MORE SOLDIERS DIE BY SUICIDE SINCE 2009 THAN ARE KILLED IN COMBAT: See–

ROMNEY & RYAN RIDE TO VICTORY, BIG WIN…less than two weeks

    There you go again spouting facts. Just stop it, it hurts the narrative. /sarcasm/

    What’s truly epic is that Obama outed himself as ignorant. What’s truly horrifying is that as CIC, he is woefully ignorant of the forces he commands. What did we expect of a person who sends robo signed form letters to the families of fallen soldiers?

    What’s next? As a cost cutting move for sequestration, Obama orders the military not to purchase or use bayonets and horses.

    The general public gets the joke Obama told on himself. Everyone knows because it’s common knowledge that every soldier has a bayonet, i.e. a honking big knife that attaches to a rifle. That the liberal loons don’t get the joke is on Obama is even more funny.

Raquel Pinkbullet | October 23, 2012 at 1:00 pm

In addition to turning this country’s future back in the right direction, an ancillary benefit of a Mitt Romney election victory will be the complete and utter mega-schadenfreude I get from seeing these imbecilic bastards’ heads collectively explode. With extreme prejudice.

ESPECIALLY the clowns at Mess-NBC.

“It is was the triumph of zingers over reason, a fitting tribute to the age of Obama”

So true. Twits tweeting is now a measure of success and failure.

(but seems like your man Joel wanted his own basket of Romney zingers too.. see prior posts)

Two points to bring up about Obama’s inane “zinger” last night:

#1) The Military *STILL* issues bayonets to troops. Guess we have less troops, because our Embassies are fully capable in the modern world to secure themselves, right?!?!? As Ambassador Stevens found out the hard way, this isn’t the case.

#2) We also have Less *MONEY* to pay for our Military, so they are unable to do the job required of them. Guess that’s another “wave of the future” or WTF moment on Obama’s part.

Obama is “Winning the future” with a “Wave of the future” military. I guess that means Double WTF for the rest of us.

Midwest Rhino | October 23, 2012 at 1:28 pm

I believe Obama’s coaches can’t get Obama to think any deeper than his punch lines. Romney strategizes on how to communicate simply, pushing what he needs to push. But as Jon Stewart stated, Obama is actually just thinking about food.

An example, when Romney speaks of Obama promising 5.4% unemployment, he doesn’t say “we are at 7.8”, he says we are nine million jobs short of that promise. The chart above shows the real issue.

Obama is fed Orwellian talking points, claiming we are better off in every area. Romney methodically points out that 2+2=5 is a lie. But Obama is perfectly clear, every fact checker and reporter has proven Romney is the one lying. Obama can’t add, voters can.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | October 23, 2012 at 1:35 pm

Big Bird, binders, Romnnesia, horses and bayonets.

Do we now select presidents based on who is best at playing stupid meaningless word games? Or are Democrats simply intellectually stunted overgrown children?

“Horses and bayonets” is a great line if you want a wise-ass punk for a President.

SmokeVanThorn | October 23, 2012 at 1:51 pm

We have fewer Libyan ambassadors too.

Belial Issimo | October 23, 2012 at 2:00 pm

Some of the images at that Tumblr page are actually pretty funny. I don’t have the skills to do it but I would like to see an image of Romney bayoneting Big Bird.

RIPPED By Bayonet Co.
We’re Still Relevant!!!

According to the official U.S. Marine Corps website, every Marine is STILL required to complete a bayonet training program … because “the weapon becomes just as effective [as a rifle] in close combat situations.”

We spoke with Dan Riker from Bayonet Inc. — a leading military surplus outlet that specializes in bayonets — who tells us he believes Obama’s comment was “ignorant … because our soldiers still use bayonets.”

He adds, “[Bayonets] are still distributed to the military all the time — he should get educated on it”

For the record, Riker says he won’t be voting for Obama … “and I didn’t vote for him last election either.”

The jokes on Obama, we are laughing at you!!! Bahaha, bahahahaha!

Maybe Obama thought he was still at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner.

You know what the Navy doesn’t have ANY of?

Corpse men.

Binders full of women’s resumes.

Jane Edmonds Speech at the Republican National Convention RNC

I wonder how many people actually care for playground politics.

The word is “BAYONETS!” — Allen West, 2009, revolution.

NC Mountain Girl | October 23, 2012 at 4:01 pm

The pathetically ignorant snark of the left is boundless. I recall a story told in the comments on another site after Bush ordered on of our carrier groups to the site of some of the worst damage from the 2004 tsunami. His co-workers were belittling the evilmoronBushHilter who thought that a “battleship” could possibly help. He rattled off the stats for that ship: Electrical generating capacity enough to light a small city, (Didn’t these morons realize a nuclear carrier is a power plant inside a flat topped hull?) a desalinization plant that can provide thousands with safe drinking water, the modern operating suites staffed by first rate medical staff, the ability of the galley to crank out hot meals from lockers provisioned for long missions, helicopters used for recon and pilot rescue that could perform med-evacs, etc. etc.

DINORightMarie | October 23, 2012 at 4:12 pm


The left seems to think that line is so clever….so, presidential.

They don’t seem to agree over in the UK, at least not at the Telegraph.

Reminds me a bit of how the left didn’t quite get the brilliance, the simple genius of “the empty chair” and tried “Eastwooding” to mock, to ridicule.

The self-proclaimed, “smarter than you are,” self-loving left: yet another FAIL.

And yes, we are laughing AT you.