VP Debate...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Who's been feedin' me these stuff ? No one. Why would the Clintions chose Obama as to support him for presidency ? And, even we all knew Clintons' history was really bad and yet they want Obama to be a president --- there's somethin' wrong with this picture. I believe they already knew what's goin' to happen to America, if Obama should win. Why did the stocks fail without much success and even, the bailout doesn't help to solve it ? Why did it have to happen before the election ? There's somethin' goin' on about the " money " itself he's goin' to change. Possibly change it to United Nations' ATM ? We will see, if he should win.........

That's like for example : If one person like to lie to people, he or she must find other people like him/or her to join makin' friends as a same group. Same with gang, they must find people to be like them so they can hang out together doin' the " same " thing. Same goes for thieves, drugs, abortionists, KKK, and so on. Socialists will go with Socialists...the list goes on.

I've seen Muslims are growin' ( no offense ), but that's how I see things just like I've described above.

I know some people don't like Clintons, because of their history and how the former president Clinton refused to step down when people protested impeachin' him. Am wonderin' if, Obama will follow the same if, people discover what he did wrong ?

Jiro, there's ALOT of things I could think of.

Provide a link, please, for the stuff you copied in post #112.
 
^^ Please, read Reba's post. :ty:
 
^^ Please, read Reba's post. :ty:

Reba's post does not provide a link to the website where you copied the words you posted in #112. Please provide a link for that website. I am not asking you to support your argument; I am asking you for a link to the website where the words were originally written. Thank you.
 
Where you get that information from?

I would suggest you to check McCain´s own website and Obama´s own website and also FactCheck.org as well.

From FactCheck.org:

NRA Claim: "Pass Federal Laws Eliminating Your Right-to-Carry"

True: In 2004, while running for the Democratic nomination for the Senate seat he now holds, Obama indeed called for "national legislation" to prevent anyone but law enforcers from carrying concealed firearms. The Chicago Tribune, which queried the candidates on several issues, reported:

Chicago Tribune (Feb. 20 2004): Obama ... backed federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement. He cited Texas as an example of a place where a law allowing people to carry weapons has "malfunctioned" because hundreds of people granted licenses had prior convictions.

"National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents," Obama said.

More recently, Obama was quoted by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review in an article on April 2, 2008, saying "I am not in favor of concealed weapons. ... I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."

NRA Claim: "Expand the Clinton Semi-Auto Weapons Ban to Include Millions More Firearms"

Partly true: The NRA refers here to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which was put in place during former President Bill Clinton's administration. Title XI of the legislation spoke directly to regulations on assault weapons. The law outlawed the semi-automatic versions of 19 kinds of military-style assault weapons, but it expired in 2004. The "assault weapon ban" was always a misnomer, however. Fully automatic weapons – like the military assault rifle carried on battlefields – had always been illegal to own without a very hard-to-obtain federal license, under legislation going back to the days of Al Capone. They remain so today.

Nevertheless, Obama called the ban a "common sense gun law" and favors bringing it back on a permanent basis. Obama's "Urban Policy" fact sheet says he "supports making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets."

As recently as Aug. 28, when accepting his party's nomination at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said, "The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."

Obama's policy statement doesn't mention any expansion of the expired ban, however. We're not sure where the NRA gets its claim that "millions" of additional weapons would be covered.

NRA Claim: "Restore Voting Rights for Five Million Criminals Including Those Who Have been Convicted of Using a Gun to Commit a Violent Crime"

Mostly true: We could find no NRA citation to back up this statement. We note, however, that Obama was a cosponsor of the Count Every Vote Act of 2007. The section of the legislation, "Sec. 701. Voting Rights of Individuals Convicted of Criminal Offenses," states that the purpose of Title VII of the legislation was "to restore fairness in the Federal election process by ensuring that ex-offenders who have fully served their sentences are not denied the right to vote." There has been no action on the bill since March 2007 when it was referred to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.

Currently, the Sentencing Project estimates that 5.3 million Americans are denied the right to vote because of state laws denying the right to people with felony convictions. It further estimates that this bars 13 percent of African-American men from voting. Most of those ex-offenders were not, however, convicted of gun violence. "There is absolutely no way of getting to that," said Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project. "All we can say is that the majority of felony charges are not for violent crimes and guns."
FactCheck.org: NRA Targets Obama
 
Reba's post does not provide a link to the website where you copied the words you posted in #112. Please provide a link for that website. I am not asking you to support your argument; I am asking you for a link to the website where the words were originally written. Thank you.

You don't get it, do you ? Gooo and read Reba's post. She provided that link to Lieblin'. Reba already got it.
 

You don't get it, do you ? Gooo and read Reba's post. She provided that link to Lieblin'. Reba already got it.

Reba provided a link to factcheck.org. That is not where these statements originally came from. You copied them from another website. Please provide the link to that website. Thank you.
 
I would suggest you to check McCain´s own website and Obama´s own website and also FactCheck.org as well.
From FactCheck.org:

Can Every Car Run on E85?

On April 3, 2006, Illinois Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama delivered a speech in Chicago titled "Energy Independence and the Safety of Our Planet." In it he said:

Obama: Already, some cars on the road have the flexible-fuel tanks necessary for them to run on E85, a cheaper, cleaner blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. But millions upon millions of cars still don't have these tanks. It's time for them to install those tanks in every single car they make, and it's time for the government to cover this small cost, which currently runs at just $100 per car.

...But Obama and Edwards leave out the fact that E85 produces significantly fewer miles-per-gallon than gasoline, by about 20 percent to 30 percent. Technology is slowly whittling away at that difference, but pure gasoline and E85 are not equally efficient yet — at least not in cars we can buy. Here's what the Environmental Protection Agency had to say in October 2006:

EPA: In general, E85 reduces fuel economy and range by about 20-30 percent, meaning [a flex fuel vehicle] will travel fewer miles on a tank of E85 than on a tank of gasoline. This is because ethanol contains less energy than gasoline. Vehicles can be designed to be optimized for E85 — which would reduce or eliminate this tendency. However, no such vehicles are currently on the market. The pump price for E85 is often lower than regular gasoline; however, prices vary depending on supply and market conditions.

...So when drivers run their cars on E85 they spend more to get where they're going.

Clean Cities Report, March 2007: Note that prices for the alternative fuels in terms of cost per gallon equivalent are higher than their cost per gallon because of their lower energy content per gallon. It has been seen, however, that consumer interest in alternative fuels increases as the price differential per gallon increases, even if that differential does not translate to savings on an energy-equivalent basis.

...A March 16 Congressional Research Service report cuts this theory off at the pass:

CRS: Despite the fact that ethanol displaces gasoline, the benefits to energy security from corn-based ethanol are not certain.... Further, as long as ethanol remains dependent on the U.S. corn supply, any threats to this supply (such as drought), or increases in corn prices, would negatively affect the supply and/or cost of ethanol. In fact, that happened when high corn prices caused by strong export demand in 1995 contributed to an 18% decline in ethanol production between 1995 and 1996. Further, expanding corn-based ethanol production to levels needed to significantly promote U.S. energy security is likely to be infeasible.

...Still, even if the oil companies immediately began giving 1 percent of their profits toward the installation of E85 pumps, other obstacles — like limitations on how much corn the nation can produce or the fact that many flex fuel vehicle owners aren't even aware that their cars can run on E85 — are significant....
FactCheck.org: Audacious Ethanol Hopes?
 
Never mind...I found it. You copied and pasted from the website below:

Shop.WND.com - A WorldNetDaily Exclusive!

The words were taken directly from a book review by Brad O'Leary. The Audacity of Deceit is an anti-Obama book that they can't even sell at the regular price of $25.95, so they have it on sale for $17.95.:giggle:

If you are going to cut and paste from the web, you need to provide a link. Rules of the forum.
 
The words were taken directly from a book review by Brad O'Leary. The Audacity of Deceit is an anti-Obama book that they can't even sell at the regular price of $25.95, so they have it on sale for $17.95.:giggle:

They should donate it to third world countries to use as toilet paper.
 
Mod's Note:

The thread is closed at the request of the thread creator.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top