Your right to resell your own stuff is in peril

[4bangen]

it'd be obama himself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt2ygzhfy7s

boosh!!!!

[4eyedwillie]

It'd be Obama himself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

I would be interested to see what that 20 second blurb was taken out of, and what he was talking about. I didn't hear a think about a force that was solely his in that little blurb. We both know that with selective editing and quoting just a sentence or two the meaning of a conversation can be totally changed.

[4eyedwillie]

boosh!!!!

Maybe maybe not, see the above reply.

[krazy kris]

So now Rick will be giving people 2% of what stuff is worth at the pawn shop.

[Forever_frost]

I would be interested to see what that 20 second blurb was taken out of, and what he was talking about. I didn't hear a think about a force that was solely his in that little blurb. We both know that with selective editing and quoting just a sentence or two the meaning of a conversation can be totally changed.

So what you're saying is that Obama didn't say what he actually, in a video, said. Can you disprove his own words? He said he wanted a civilian force, just as well funded, just as well trained and armed as the Army. Ignoring that'd be the national guard, that means he wants to create another military. Guess who is the commander in chief of the military. Guess who that 'civilian force' would answer to.

It's okay, I'll wait while you figure this out and get information that contradicts Obama in his own words.

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.

We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded"

[Forever_frost]

I read all the liberal BS sites trying to make his words everything BUT what he said, however that's his words. A "Civilian Security Force" as powerful, strong and funded as the military

[reo]

I wanna say I've seen the full speach and there was no "out of context" about that. And he was not talking about the national guard or any current military or LEO agency.

-Eric

[4eyedwillie]

I wanna say I've seen the full speach and there was no "out of context" about that. And he was not talking about the national guard or any current military or LEO agency.

-Eric

Link?

[4eyedwillie]

So what you're saying is that Obama didn't say what he actually, in a video, said. Can you disprove his own words? He said he wanted a civilian force, just as well funded, just as well trained and armed as the Army. Ignoring that'd be the national guard, that means he wants to create another military. Guess who is the commander in chief of the military. Guess who that 'civilian force' would answer to.

It's okay, I'll wait while you figure this out and get information that contradicts Obama in his own words.

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.

We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded"

That's not what I said and you know it. Try reading what I actually typed.

[Craizie]

Typical republitard. Always has to resort to name calling when someone disagrees with her.

I'm name calling because;

Anytime someone post something negative about the Democrat's you basically say "nuh uh" or "Bush did it first!". At least try and disprove what is being said.

**Edit** I'm not a Republican either. I just think your generic "come backs" are lame.

Also, LoL @ calling someone out for resorting to name calling, when you start off by name calling.

[4eyedwillie]

I'm name calling because;

Anytime someone post something negative about the Democrat's you basically say "nuh uh" or "Bush did it first!". At least try and disprove what is being said.

**Edit** I'm not a Republican either. I just think your generic "come backs" are lame.

Also, LoL @ calling someone out for resorting to name calling, when you start off by name calling.

I reply to maybe 10% of the anti democrat post on here, I probably wouldn't even reply to those except I get kind of sick of seeing the level of bashing that goes on in here. Plus it's entertaining seeing the repubs get torqued off at my replies.

You might go back in the threads and see who starts the name calling. It's usually not me. This one started with trip calling me a fuckstick.

edit first you called me a idiot then trip then you said I was still a moron.

[talisman]

I reply to maybe 10% of the anti democrat post on here, I probably wouldn't even reply to those except I get kind of sick of seeing the level of bashing that goes on in here. Plus it's entertaining seeing the repubs get torqued off at my replies.

You might go back in the threads and see who starts the name calling. It's usually not me. This one started with trip calling me a fuckstick.

For the record, I'm not a Republican, and I think you're a fucking idiot.

[Craizie]

I reply to maybe 10% of the anti democrat post on here, I probably wouldn't even reply to those except I get kind of sick of seeing the level of bashing that goes on in here. Plus it's entertaining seeing the repubs get torqued off at my replies.

You might go back in the threads and see who starts the name calling. It's usually not me. This one started with trip calling me a fuckstick.

edit first you called me a idiot then trip then you said I was still a moron.

Ahh, so it's ok to name call as long as the "other" guy does it first. I see why you retort with "Bush did it first" so much now. Because that makes it ok for Obama.

[4eyedwillie]

For the record, I'm not a Republican, and I think you're a fucking idiot.

back atcha.

[4eyedwillie]

Ahh, so it's ok to name call as long as the "other" guy does it first. I see why you retort with "Bush did it first" so much now. Because that makes it ok for Obama.

I can't defend myself? I retort with Bush did it because I loath Bush and everything he did to this country.