 |
| Do we have more or fewer bayonets now than in 1916? |
Leave aside the kindergarten-level snarkiness of Obama's reply overall ("we also have these things called aircraft carriers"), let's just focus on bayonets.
Here are the facts.
As 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.
And so once again:
The good prof. Jacobson points out of Obama's snitty reply,
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.So here ya go:
Posts
