My evaluations on the candidates....some of them

Clinton:
-What I like about Hilary, aside from her having experience in the WH, is that from her record she said she wants to keep non-violent drug offenders out of prisons, voted against drilling in Alaska, against Military Commissions Act,
against a Federal Marriage Amendment and against the Patriot Act's wiretapping extension. But my problem with her is that she still voted for the original Patriot Act in 2001 and reauthorizing it. She also voted for the Iraq War, which we are still in, she has and still is advocating socialist policies, signed on the Assault Weapons Ban, and voted against an amendment that prevented confiscation of legally owned firearms during disasters. Also, she is the only Democratic candidate who sees video games as an issue.

I can't say that her wanting a no-fly zone in Darfur is a problem because her problem is that she doesn't know Sudan has no air force and if aid were to go that might hurt them.

Obama:
-His being black (or "not black enough") has nothing to do with my feelings. One of the first things I like about Obama is the fact that he opposes the Iraq War and all "dumb wars," and in my POV he has that over Hilary. He, like Clinton, also voted against drilling in Alaska, voted for preserving habeas corpus for detainees, is against torturing detainees, Military Commissions Act, and is also against the Federal Marriage Amendment. I want to vote for him but he's got some things I'm against, like how he's a gun control supporter and in favor of another Assault Weapons Ban. He also made the same decision as Clinton on the Patriot Act: for reauthorizing it but against extending the wiretapping provision.

Obama also thinks we should have a no-fly zone in Darfur, but again Sudan doesn’t have an air force and that might hurt any aid sent there.

Giuliani:
-Being former mayor of America’s biggest city is good and fine, but that is not all the criteria needed to be president. But aside from that, I’ll say his ability to reduce crime in NYC by half and helping the city get through the events of September the 11th were some of the best things that have happened to the city. I think it’s also good that he accepts that global warming is an issue and energy independence needs to be achieved. But I still hold the fact that he supports the Iraq War against him, as I would any candidate who does. His support of torture, specifically waterboarding, is not something I like, and I also don’t like his support for warrantless wiretapping, the Patriot Act, and he keeps changing his views on gun control, not to mention his support for the Assault Weapons Ban. And I’m still disappointed that he didn’t show up to the debate at Baltimore a few weeks ago, but oh well….

Paul:
-I like him too much to describe with words, but let me get on with it. The first thing is that the Constitution is like the Bible to him, and that he was one of the few who voted against going to Iraq. I also admire his willingness to end the War on Drugs (he actually used history as an example), voted against the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, would not abuse habeas corpus, and is pretty much for smaller, less-involved government that abides by the Constitution i.e. Supreme Law of the Land. My only problem with him is he voted for drilling in Alaska and seems pretty anti-environment to me.

I think I can agree with most of what you've said and I really didn't know Clinton voted against Military Commissions.

Wait, where's Biden and Romney? How come you didn't list them?

micfranklin wrote:

My only problem with him is he voted for drilling in Alaska and seems pretty anti-environment to me.

Drilling in Alaska is not anti environment. It is actually the prudent thing to do if you really care about the environment. Remember, the Nature Conservancy drills on their preserve land. All of the alternatives that hard core environmentalist promote are very bad for the environment.

Bio fuels - rainforests are being cut to farm bio fuels

Wind - damages the local environment dramatically and takes huge amount of space and kills birds

Solar - just as impractical as wind

etc etc etc

Drilling in ANWR doesn't actually harm the environment. Caribou love it and do well with oil exploration. One well head can drill sideways and have multiple wells.

Hillary Clinton - Banned by The Media
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019

scpg02 wrote:

Drilling in Alaska is not anti environment. It is actually the prudent thing to do if you really care about the environment. Remember, the Nature Conservancy drills on their preserve land. All of the alternatives that hard core environmentalist promote are very bad for the environment.

How is excavating one of the most pristine environments in all of the Americas not anti-environment?

I've always thought that Clinton was kind of shady.

Mateo wrote:

scpg02 wrote:

Drilling in Alaska is not anti environment. It is actually the prudent thing to do if you really care about the environment. Remember, the Nature Conservancy drills on their preserve land. All of the alternatives that hard core environmentalist promote are very bad for the environment.

How is excavating one of the most pristine environments in all of the Americas not anti-environment?

Do any animals live there anyway?

Kerrikins wrote:

Mateo wrote:

scpg02 wrote:

Drilling in Alaska is not anti environment. It is actually the prudent thing to do if you really care about the environment. Remember, the Nature Conservancy drills on their preserve land. All of the alternatives that hard core environmentalist promote are very bad for the environment.

How is excavating one of the most pristine environments in all of the Americas not anti-environment?

Do any animals live there anyway?

Doesn't matter, it's still a pristine environment and needs to be left alone. It's bad enough we have global warming, we don't have to do anything to add on to it.