Clinton considers giving up some powers

[Psycho4Bud]

NEW YORK - If elected president in 2008, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton would consider giving up some of the executive powers President Bush and Vice President Cheney have assumed since taking office.

In an interview published Tuesday in Guardian America, a Web site run by the London-based Guardian newspaper, Clinton denounced the Bush Administration's push to concentrate more power in the White House as a "power grab" not supported by the Constitution.

Asked if she would consider giving up some of those powers if she were president, Clinton replied, "Oh, absolutely ... I mean, that has to be part of the review that I undertake when I get to the White House, and I intend to do that."
Clinton considers giving up some powers - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071023/ap_po/clinton_executive_power)

Sure thing Hillary....I'm "considering" a trip to Afghanistan to smoke a fatty with Bin Laden too.;)

Have a good one!:s4:

[epxroot]

The sad thing is, is that a lot of people are going to believe her!

[birdgirl73]

I do believe her. That's been on the chief complaints about the Bush-Cheney White House, their strong belief that the Executive Branch should be above the other governmental branches, judicial and legislative. Bush, and particularly Cheney, believe in the Executive branch having a lot more power than it needs to. This belief has been the basis for this war action in Iraq and also the motivation for the firing of the U.S. Attorneys, among other things. Executive power needs to be balanced by the other two branches and its actions far less secretive, too. I'm counting on that from the next new administration.

I wish more people here watched "Frontline" on PBS. You could learn so much about this stuff. There was a really good piece on Cheney's views on executive power just the other night. His attorney David Addington and Karl Rove have also played huge roles in these policies and actions. Bush mostly has just gone with the flow. There was another very interesting "Frontline" on tonight about the situation with Iran and how it has deteriorated in the last five years.

[mfqr]

Hillary is full of more lies than a dirty dope sack. Of course, she speaks the truth about the current situation in the government -- but will she give up those powers? LOL, no way. She's a liar, and a very good one at that.

She's the kind of person that lies about almost everything, because she has dug herself so deep into lies. Maybe that's not true, but it seems like it.

Interesting article, P4B.

[Psycho4Bud]

I do believe her.

Oh birdgirl....so innocent and trusting. I'd tell ya about the orange grove I have for sale in Wisconsin but that would just be wrong.:D

Have a good one!:s4:

[killerweed420]

I would never believe a thing that comes out of her mouth. But she is right Bush has greatly enlarged the executive privelidge laws and they should be repealed.

[Tea Party]

I do believe her. That's been on the chief complaints about the Bush-Cheney White House, their strong belief that the Executive Branch should be above the other governmental branches, judicial and legislative. Bush, and particularly Cheney, believe in the Executive branch having a lot more power than it needs to. This belief has been the basis for this war action in Iraq and also the motivation for the firing of the U.S. Attorneys, among other things. Executive power needs to be balanced by the other two branches and its actions far less secretive, too. I'm counting on that from the next new administration.

I wish more people here watched "Frontline" on PBS. You could learn so much about this stuff. There was a really good piece on Cheney's views on executive power just the other night. His attorney David Addington and Karl Rove have also played huge roles in these policies and actions. Bush mostly has just gone with the flow. There was another very interesting "Frontline" on tonight about the situation with Iran and how it has deteriorated in the last five years.
I agree, BirdGirl. Quality in the world is slipping further behind quantity every day. Articles written by Yahoo! News can hardly be taken seriously when there are so many other real news outlets available. That is the problem I see on many online forums: So many people base their political views on articles written by those who are not even journalists.
It is extremely sad to see the masses (many of whom consider themselves the greatest of patriots) who simply refuse to seek out the broader spectrum of real journalism available. Instead, there are all of these threads on many different web forums linking to garbage news sites, so we end up with the public debate having no real foundation or quality. This is why we are gifted with the leaders we have--bad journalism versus more bad journalism, compounded by readers who believe everything that is printed/online is necessarily true or includes all of the facts...these kind of articles are not news or journalism. They are blame-focused, inflammatory scribbles written on digital sticky notes by interns with communications degrees and are not worth taking seriously.
It is all very similar to the presidential debates. So much time is spent on one-liner rebuttals, and attempts to perform clever, scripted jokes negating the opposition. More energy is spent on defeating one's opponent than on being a good candidate. It must drive people like Kucinich and Paul nuts to have to sit in the wings, barely getting a chance to speak, while the top tier candidates spend the whole time discrediting their opponents.
There are people people running who I am convinced want to win in order to do a good and help the world (Kucinich, Paul, Edwards) and then there is most everybody else who I am convinced just wants to win for the sake of winning. This sort of behavior is mirrored in the attitudes of the voters themselves.
Hillary Clinton (come on folks, at least hide your latent sexism and use her last name as with the other candidates) is in the third category of "not sure," and is my fourth choice...at the moment, but all of this may change. We still have a year of debates and world happenings ahead of us. She is a bulldog, and she has a good heart at the same time...and what...oh yes, SHE IS ACTUALLY well-informed: so I like her, and there is no Republican candidate that is worthy of the office besides Ron Paul. I have no way of knowing if she or anybody else is telling the truth at any given moment. I wish I had access to the lie detector machine reports that everybody else has.:D
It is all right there in the Karate Kid for Christ sakes. There are the physically powerful, like Cobra Kai who just want to get to the top no matter what it takes, then there is the smaller, but more spiritually powerful Mr. Miyagi school. What a crazy world.:1baa:

[Psycho4Bud]

I agree, BirdGirl. Quality in the world is slipping further behind quantity every day. Articles written by Yahoo! News can hardly be taken seriously when there are so many other real news outlets available. That is the problem I see on many online forums: So many people base their political views on articles written by those who are not even journalists.
It is extremely sad to see the masses (many of whom consider themselves the greatest of patriots) who simply refuse to seek out the broader spectrum of real journalism available. Instead, there are all of these threads on many different web forums linking to garbage news sites, so we end up with the public debate having no real foundation or quality. This is why we are gifted with the leaders we have--bad journalism versus more bad journalism, compounded by readers who believe everything that is printed/online is necessarily true or includes all of the facts...these kind of articles are not news or journalism. They are blame-focused, inflammatory scribbles written on digital sticky notes by interns with communications degrees and are not worth taking seriously.

Glad to see your not holding a grudge there buddy. Hate to inform you but your take on Yahoo news is kind of off base.....here's a little bit on the SUPPLIER of their news; Associated Press:

Who owns The Associated Press?
The Associated Press is a not-for-profit cooperative, which means it is owned by its 1,500 U.S. daily newspaper members. They elect a board of directors that directs the cooperative.
The Associated Press | The essential global news network (http://www.ap.org/)

243 bureaus in 97 countries.

1,700 U.S. daily, weekly, non-English and college newspapers.

5,000 radio and television outlets taking AP services.

850 AP Radio News audio affiliates.

550 International broadcasters who receive AP's global video news service, APTN, and SNTV, a sports joint venture video service.

121 number of countries served by AP

4 languages in which AP sends news. The report is translated into many more languages by international subscribers.

4,100 AP editorial, communications and administrative employees worldwide.

3,000 of AP's worldwide staff are journalists.

49 Pulitzer Prizes, including 30 for photography.

WOW, kind of far from what you were stating.........I would just as soon move on, how about you?

Have a good one!:s4:

[mfqr]

I agree, BirdGirl. Quality in the world is slipping further behind quantity every day. Articles written by Yahoo! News can hardly be taken seriously when there are so many other real news outlets available. That is the problem I see on many online forums: So many people base their political views on articles written by those who are not even journalists.
It is extremely sad to see the masses (many of whom consider themselves the greatest of patriots) who simply refuse to seek out the broader spectrum of real journalism available. Instead, there are all of these threads on many different web forums linking to garbage news sites, so we end up with the public debate having no real foundation or quality. This is why we are gifted with the leaders we have--bad journalism versus more bad journalism, compounded by readers who believe everything that is printed/online is necessarily true or includes all of the facts...these kind of articles are not news or journalism. They are blame-focused, inflammatory scribbles written on digital sticky notes by interns with communications degrees and are not worth taking seriously.
It is all very similar to the presidential debates. So much time is spent on one-liner rebuttals, and attempts to perform clever, scripted jokes negating the opposition. More energy is spent on defeating one's opponent than on being a good candidate. It must drive people like Kucinich and Paul nuts to have to sit in the wings, barely getting a chance to speak, while the top tier candidates spend the whole time discrediting their opponents.
There are people people running who I am convinced want to win in order to do a good and help the world (Kucinich, Paul, Edwards) and then there is most everybody else who I am convinced just wants to win for the sake of winning. This sort of behavior is mirrored in the attitudes of the voters themselves.
Hillary Clinton (come on folks, at least hide your latent sexism and use her last name as with the other candidates) is in the third category of "not sure," and is my fourth choice...at the moment, but all of this may change. We still have a year of debates and world happenings ahead of us. She is a bulldog, and she has a good heart at the same time...and what...oh yes, SHE IS ACTUALLY well-informed: so I like her, and there is no Republican candidate that is worthy of the office besides Ron Paul. I have no way of knowing if she or anybody else is telling the truth at any given moment. I wish I had access to the lie detector machine reports that everybody else has.:D
It is all right there in the Karate Kid for Christ sakes. There are the physically powerful, like Cobra Kai who just want to get to the top no matter what it takes, then there is the smaller, but more spiritually powerful Mr. Miyagi school. What a crazy world.:1baa:

I agree with your whole post, except that it's a pretty well-known fact that Hillary Clinton is a huge liar. She's scum...

[thcbongman]

Regardless, even if Hilldog is the liar, at least she promised it. Heck you think any of the major republican candidates are going to give up that power? No!

I'm not voting for Hilldog, I'm voting for Ron Paul tho.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

Oh birdgirl....so innocent and trusting. I'd tell ya about the orange grove I have for sale in Wisconsin .....
you can have a crack at her as soon as she has invested in the lovely ocean-front property i have for sale in arizona.;)

I do believe her....
.... Executive power needs to be balanced by the other two branches and its actions far less secretive, too. I'm counting on that from the next new administration.
don't go holdin' yer breath. remember readin' daddy bush's lips?

it is in the nature of those in power that they do not willingly give up what control they have, but seek to add to it. though i have no great love for the current administration, i would see a second clinton white house as a sure sign of the apocalypse. hillary is just another dc insider with a rather questionable past, her promise and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of starbuck's coffee. this is just another example of the dems campaigning against the outgoing administration in order to paint the rep candidates in broad fascist strokes. if i were you, i wouldn't go trusting her just because she's a woman. behind those sagging c-cups beats the black heart of just another political animal. if she does make it to the oval office she'll need all those presidential powers and more in order to fulfill her dreams of socialist mediocrity.

[birdgirl73]

I don't trust her because she's a woman. I trust her because, of all the most viable candidates, her politics are most in line with mine. I also think she's smart. And I don't think she's any more of a liar than any politician. That's an easy-out characterization that people like to use because she's smart and consequently threatening.

What gives me pause about her is that I agree she's very much a Washington insider. She's also what's known as a "corporate Democrat," meaning she's as vulnerable to the influences of special interests and lobbyists as most Republicans are. But I still think she's an increasingly viable candidate, and I'll vote for her over one of the Republicans any day. Ron Paul would be nice, but he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning any nomination. Hillary Clinton does.

[mfqr]

Well if everyone thought the same way about any candidate as you do Ron Paul... then obviously they'd never be elected, Birdgirl. That idea has been spoonfed to quite a few people. But if everyone would just put that idea down and vote for Ron Paul, then how is it not possible for him to have a chance then? Like it seems a lot of people would vote for him, if there wasn't the idea that "he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell"... he might if people got over that, but whatever.

[cadmiumblimp]

I don't see any reason to trust Hillary Clinton or any other politician.

[Tea Party]

Glad to see your not holding a grudge there buddy. Hate to inform you but your take on Yahoo news is kind of off base.....here's a little bit on the SUPPLIER of their news; Associated Press:

Who owns The Associated Press?
The Associated Press is a not-for-profit cooperative, which means it is owned by its 1,500 U.S. daily newspaper members. They elect a board of directors that directs the cooperative.
The Associated Press | The essential global news network (http://www.ap.org/)

243 bureaus in 97 countries.

1,700 U.S. daily, weekly, non-English and college newspapers.

5,000 radio and television outlets taking AP services.

850 AP Radio News audio affiliates.

550 International broadcasters who receive AP's global video news service, APTN, and SNTV, a sports joint venture video service.

121 number of countries served by AP

4 languages in which AP sends news. The report is translated into many more languages by international subscribers.

4,100 AP editorial, communications and administrative employees worldwide.

3,000 of AP's worldwide staff are journalists.

49 Pulitzer Prizes, including 30 for photography.

WOW, kind of far from what you were stating.........I would just as soon move on, how about you?

Have a good one!:s4:

Your list is very long, however it is text copied from AP's own website. That is like me saying to somebody that Mc Donalds food has no quality, and they reply, "You are way off, buddy...watch this Mc Donalds commercial. It says their Big Macs, McNuggets, fries, and Milkshakes are mmmmmm good!" They are not good at all, not any aspect of them, but people think they are good because they have a habit of eating at Mc Donalds, a habit that Mc Donalds (http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller.nutrition.index1.html) created.

When I see that list of awards and numbers, I can only respond from a Buddhist perspective by saying, "Many, many containers...but all of them empty."

My post was about quality vs. quantity, and assuming that any organization that fills out non-profit incorporation forms and buys a .org web address is a stamp of quality in truth and vision is a mistake. I do not take my news from professional journalists. I take my news from professional human beings who also happen to share their stories. There is a vast difference.

I am not sure what you mean by grudge, but I will try to refrain from engaging in threads that were created to be intentionally confrontational in the future. We are expected to refrain from personal attacks here. Why is it okay to level personal attacks against some stranger we have never met or spoken with. It is fine to believe that somebody is lying, but what is the point of calling somebody a liar without adding anything else. That is not a discussion or a debate. It is just a hate fest. It is my own weakness or strength that I gravitate to these little fires, trying to blow them out...but fire likes wind.

Politics is what happens when activism and engaged living dies, and I do not want to keep falling into this trap of useless arguing and oneupmanship.

Move on? Sure, why not. This is your thread. Where would you like to go?:abduct:

[Psycho4Bud]

My post was about quality vs. quantity, and assuming that any organization that fills out non-profit incorporation forms and buys a .org web address is a stamp of quality in truth and vision is a mistake. I do not take my news from professional journalists. I take my news from professional human beings who also happen to share their stories. There is a vast difference.

"these kind of articles are not news or journalism. They are blame-focused, inflammatory scribbles written on digital sticky notes by interns with communications degrees and are not worth taking seriously."

You really got to get your story straight here.......ever consider a career in politics?

Have a good one!:s4:

[Comatose]

Executive powers.... Bush used all kinds of executive powers... Like the executive power to take more vacation time than any other president, ever. Or like the power to start a war without the approval of congress. Or how about throwing around vetos more than ever. What has bush accomplished besides pissing off the world and spending our 7 trillion dollar surplus that a Bill CLINTON saved up.?

Like I've said before, I don't support Hillary. But, ANY president is going to be better than Bush. I think if she is even willing to change the executive powers, then that is a good thing. After watching Bush abuse his power as commander in chief, I do believe there are quite a few changes that needs to happen.

[epxroot]

I don't trust her because she's a woman. I trust her because, of all the most viable candidates, her politics are most in line with mine. I also think she's smart. And I don't think she's any more of a liar than any politician. That's an easy-out characterization that people like to use because she's smart and consequently threatening.

What gives me pause about her is that I agree she's very much a Washington insider. She's also what's known as a "corporate Democrat," meaning she's as vulnerable to the influences of special interests and lobbyists as most Republicans are. But I still think she's an increasingly viable candidate, and I'll vote for her over one of the Republicans any day. Ron Paul would be nice, but he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning any nomination. Hillary Clinton does.

You're right, he doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell if people vote for who they think will win! Vote who you want to represent this country, and you may be surprised with the results.

[Tea Party]

"these kind of articles are not news or journalism. They are blame-focused, inflammatory scribbles written on digital sticky notes by interns with communications degrees and are not worth taking seriously."

You really got to get your story straight here.......ever consider a career in politics?

Have a good one!:s4:

You really have to try to expand your posts...I am flattered that in quoting me there are more of my words in your posts than your own, but I would appreciate it if I did not have to carry the whole weight of the discussion when dealing with you....ever consider a career as a comedian? Your one-liner responses are a knockout!

You win! You win! Now could you please tell me which candidate you would have me support--the one that tells the truth at all times, for this is the only one that can be considered to not be a liar.

My original concern with the Yahoo! articlewas that it had two small quotes of Mrs. Clinton, then ended with this:

Republican National Committee spokesman Danny Diaz doubted Clinton would give up any power.

"The reality is that Hillary Clinton, much like Bill, will say and do anything to win political office and will conveniently forget their promises in short order," he said.


It should be the responsibility of the reporter/agency to point out that this statement has no scientific basis. Would both Hillary and Bill Clinton do ANYTHING to win political office? This should be a skit on SNL news. REALLY, Mr. Diaz. Would they really do anything to win political office? Really....there is the notion that journalism should be unbiased, which it should, but this does not mean it should stand aside and let the story be created on its own. Journalism should be active. The journalist has to assume responsibility for being involved in the story too and comment on the deeper aspects of the story. Anybody can quote a few sources and call it news, but it is not journalism unless the writer takes an active part in creating it.


So I guess my point is that if you are concerned that the person who will almost certainly be the next President of the United States is a chronic liar, then you should engage in thoughtful debate and discussion about this reality rather than throw your hands up in disgust. I spent the first half of the Bush administration doing just that, so I understand the motivation, but recent revelations from (insert your vision of Jah/God/Brahman/Allah/Great Spirit/Tao here) have prompted me to be more involved in the world. This is not a world that I live in. This is a world that I AM...and that is the only difference between us. I am disgusted too, believe me, but I still have hope because the alternative is unthinkable.

Have a kind one! :hippy:

[Tea Party]

I almost forgot:
Happy 60th Birthday, Senator Clinton!
:birthday:
We know you and your husband inhale, but if you need to lie about it in order to help the world, we understand!

:wave1:

[Psycho4Bud]

You really have to try to expand your posts...I am flattered that in quoting me there are more of my words in your posts than your own, but I would appreciate it if I did not have to carry the whole weight of the discussion when dealing with you....ever consider a career as a comedian? Your one-liner responses are a knockout!

Hey, if you feel the need to write a short story with every post, have at it. Glad to see you like the responses though.:thumbsup:



You win! You win! Now could you please tell me which candidate you would have me support--the one that tells the truth at all times, for this is the only one that can be considered to not be a liar.

Vote for whoever you wish but if you think that your going to find a candidate that isn't a liar your reaching for the stars.


"The reality is that Hillary Clinton, much like Bill, will say and do anything to win political office and will conveniently forget their promises in short order," he said.

And you don't think that's a true statement? Her views change with the public opinion polls. Like the ol' song goes, "Give The People What They Want".

Also, don't you think that they'd sell their souls to be in the history books as the first female President first gentleman?



[COLOR=Blue][COLOR=Black]So I guess my point is that if you are concerned that the person who will almost certainly be the next President of the United States is a chronic liar, then you should engage in thoughtful debate and discussion about this reality rather than throw your hands up in disgust.

What election has been anything but picking the lesser of the two evils?


so I understand the motivation, but recent revelations from (insert your vision of Jah/God/Brahman/Allah/Great Spirit/Tao here) have prompted me to be more involved in the world. This is not a world that I live in. This is a world that I AM...and that is the only difference between us. I am disgusted too, believe me, but I still have hope because the alternative is unthinkable.

Searching for a shining light in Washington is like looking for a rainbow over a pile of shit. Different groups seem to hang together....stoners, bikers, etc..., where do you think the power hungry hang? Washington D.C.

Have a good one!:s4: