Obama '08?

I think we need a higher standard, but I believe we should have kicked Clinton out, no question, and maybe that would have turned us in a better direction than what we are seeing.

. I think that overall, we have lost our way as a culture, we have lost our decency, both in language and in behavior.

Monica Lewinsky was 21 when, as a White House intern, she delivered pizza to the President, flirted with him, flashed her thong and began an 18-month relationship that involved oral sex, phone sex, an infamous incident with a cigar, a great deal of soul-searching about what he really felt for her and then increasing fear and panic as it became clear that the relationship could become public.

In the immediate aftermath of the scandal she wrote her account, with Andrew Morton, and promoted the book with interviews. She resented how Clinton had characterised the relationship: “He talked about it as though I had laid it all out there for the taking. I was the buffet and he just couldn’t resist the dessert. That’s not how it was. This was a mutual relationship, mutual on all levels.”

We are talking about a VP rather than two-bit member of Congress, joe. I understand your comparison, but if you really want to get down to brass tacks here, and apply some standards more universally, that would have meant comparing the seriousness of comments like this with Clintons antics in the Whitehouse as well, abusing interns and all of that.... [the rest is just okie avoiding the question]

Quote:

. I think that overall, we have lost our way as a culture, we have lost our decency, both in language and in behavior.

And you are right there in the forefront of the movement okie. When you accuse Clinton of abusing an intern in spite of facts, you have lost your decency both in language and behavior.

insist that there was nothing wrong with what he did, beyond marital infidelity.

but I just can't ignore the hypocrisy of his liberal supporters who insist that there was nothing wrong with what he did, beyond marital infidelity.

"The Deal" or "The Tax Deal" as it is becoming known around the country between President Obama and Congressional Leadership ... needs to be opposed.

Here are the reasons why this tax bill must be opposed as outlined by HughHewitt in TownHall.com:

"The deal" was forged in secret, without consultation with the scores of new representatives and senators who campaigned on a much different agenda much less with their supporters and contributors who worked for two years and gave vast sums of money so that a new start could be made, one built on transparency and principle.

"The deal" like Obamacare, isn't reduced to writing even now, when Senator Reid says a vote could be held on Saturday. Like Obamacare, we are being told we will have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.

"The deal" revives the death tax, an immoral "vampire tax" that sucks the blood from the dead, ruins family businesses and double taxes savings that were accumulated over a lifetime. It took ten years of gradual step downs to eliminate the tax, and now "the deal" revives it at 35% with a $5 million dollar exemption, a rate that looks and feels permanent and which will immediately impact tens of thousands of families in 2011 and when inflation works its way into the system, thousands more over time. The GOP has spent years making the case against the death tax on moral and economic grounds, and in the course of a weekend of secret meetings, it gave that issue away.

"The deal" spends billions and billions of dollars that the country does not have in order to prevent a tax hike that the country voted against. In essence the GOP bribed the president to follow the will of the people. There is at least $75 billion in new spending in the plan, agreed to by the GOP less than 5 weeks after the country fairly screamed "Stop Spending Our Children's Money!"

On September 23, all of the House GOP leadership agreed to the "Pledge to America ." A photo op was arranged at the Tart Lumber store in Sterling, Virginia, and the senior leaders of the would-be majority, with their shirt sleeves rolled up, took the pledge and asked America for the majority back. There are at least five provisions of the Pledge that are breached by "the deal." In September the House GOP promised to:

"Permanently Stop All Job-Killing Tax Hikes" (p. 16)
"Act immediately to Reduce Spending" (p. 21)
"Cut Government Spending to Pre-Stimulus, Pre-Bailout Levels" (p. 21)
"Read the Bill" (p. 33)
"Advance Legislative Issues One at a Time" (p. 33)

"The deal's" assault on "The Pledge" will make the latter a joke, and instantly impacts the credibility of all future efforts to propose agendas to the electorate.

The idea that this massive tax and spend bill has not yet even been written but may be voted on by the Senate this weekend is appalling, and has rightfully drawn the anger of the TeaPartyPatriots.org and other Tea Party activists, an anger that will not diminish.

"The deal" revives the death tax, an immoral "vampire tax" that sucks the blood from the dead, ruins family businesses and double taxes savings that were accumulated over a lifetime. It took ten years of gradual step downs to eliminate the tax, and now "the deal" revives it at 35% with a $5 million dollar exemption, a rate that looks and feels permanent and which will immediately impact tens of thousands of families in 2011 and when inflation works its way into the system, thousands more over time. The GOP has spent years making the case against the death tax on moral and economic grounds, and in the course of a weekend of secret meetings, it gave that issue away.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/12/obamas-health-care-law-loses-in-court/1
Obama's health care law loses first round in court
12:01 PMYahoo! BuzzShare
DiggNewsvineRedditE-mailSavePrintShare109Comment

A federal judge in Virginia has struck down the Obama administration's requirement that all Americans buy health insurance, a key provision in the landmark health care bill that the president signed in March.

Today's ruling, if upheld, could undercut the entire health care plan, though U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson wrote that his decision will surely be appealed -- probably all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The outcome of this case has significant public policy implications," Hudson wrote. "And the final word will undoubtedly reside with a higher court."

Hudson ruled that the individual mandate "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power." He added that he won't stop implementation of the law as various challenges wind their way through the courts, noting that many provisions won't take effect until at least 2014.

The Richmond-based judge did pass judgment on provisions of the law placing new restrictions on the health insurance industry, saying they were not related to the requirement all Americans buy health insurance.

But many new requirements -- requiring insurance companies to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions or who are ill -- hinge on the insurance mandate, creating a larger insurance pool that can reduce costs.

Hudson, a Republican appointed by President George W. Bush, is the first federal judge to strike down the law that Obama signed in March. The landmark bill has been upheld by judges in Virginia and Michigan, and several other lawsuits are pending.

Republicans who opposed the health care bill hailed Hudson's ruling against the requirement that all Americans buy insurance.

"Liberty requires limits on government, and today those limits have been upheld," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., who becomes Majority Leader when Republicans take control of the U.S. House next month, again vowed "a clean repeal of ObamaCare."

In his 42-page opinion, Judge Hudson wrote that "at its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance -- or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage -- it's about an individual's right to choose to participate."

In briefs and oral arguments, Obama administration attorneys -- as they have in other cases -- said the Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to require the purchase of insurance; they also cited Congress' taxing authority.

The insurance requirements are a "penalty," not a "tax," Hudson ruled. As for the Commerce Clause, the judge said no appeals court has said it can "compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market."

Washington and Lee University law professor Timothy Jost, an expert on the health-care law, said other judges who have upheld the law interpreted the Commerce Clause more broadly to cover economic decisions that are more passive -- namely, the refusal to buy insurance. Jost said that when people choose not to buy health insurance they are still making an economic decision and affecting the nation's commerce.

(Posted by David Jackson, Richard Wolf and Joan Biskupic)

It’s easy enough for conservatives, libertarians, et al, to gloat about Barack Obama’s recent petulant, child-like performances — at first unable to be even slightly gracious in compromise with Republicans on the tax bill and then, only a few days later, fleeing in panic when Clinton acted the real president, fielding questions with a relaxed authority so surpassing Obama’s it was almost comical.

But there is a bigger reason not to gloat. We are stuck with this odd duck for another two years at minimum and now everyone, the entire world really, knows what he is like. They also know, if they have been paying the slightest attention, the etiology of his behavior: the man never had to face serious adversity until he was elected POTUS. And now he can’t deal with it. He’s the very model of Harry Truman’s famous advice about getting out of the kitchen if you can’t stand the heat. Obama was out of the White House briefing room the second he realized he was being outclassed by Clinton. And, boy, was he ever!

We need a leader and don’t have one. This is extremely bad news for our country, especially now.

What is to be done? Unfortunately, the answer isn’t close to simple even with a real leader. Merely cutting taxes — assuming we do that — may not be nearly enough. And pseudo-stimulus spending, such as has been shamefully added on to this “compromise bill,” will most likely make matters worse. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking on our economy, our way of life really. Interest to China alone will soon be enough to bankrupt us.

<<Snip>>

And we have Barack Obama to lead us. Wow. The Republican leadership had better be strong. Their recent “compromise,” as Charles Krauthammer has shown us, was not inspiring. Color me nervous.

The preceding passage was written by a fool who knows nothing about the history of what they are talking about.
This statement was "written by a fool who knows nothing about the history of what they are talking about."

The Inheritance tax is the US' oldest tax. It taxes nobody's death at all. What more, those who wrote the law to CONTINUE this tax in 2011? Republicans wrote and signed that bill.
People inherit estates when the former owners die. That part of those inheritances estates greater than a specified amount are taxed. That amounts to a "death tax." The amount of an estate tax if high enough will force the beneficiary(s) to sell some or all of the property they inherit in order to pay all the tax. Such sales have resulted in the sale of business property to pay the tax. Such sales of business property have often resulted in the reduction of the business that resulted in reductions in the number of the business's employees.

There were no 'gradual' step-downs to eliminate it. The tax was cut to zero in 2010 only in the bill Republicans wrote and signed. The 5 Million exemption and 35% rate is far lower than it was scheduled to rise to in 2011, once again, by Republicans.
The magnitude of he "death tax" was reduced in steps over the period of 10 years. That's "gradually reduced over ten years."

This tax will not affect 'tens of thousands' of families at all. It will affect a few hundred or perhaps a thousand of the richest families in America. Not only that, it can be mostly avoided with smart financial planning on the part of those who are near the end of their life.
The proposed estate tax will effect all those who inherit more than one million dollar's worth of an estate.

Lastly, 'vampires' suck blood from the living, not the dead. Even the pejorative they use is inaccurate.
Those who are taxed on the inheritances they receive are alive.

Foolish words, hastily written and hastily repeated by another fool.
Cyclops, this post of yours consists of "Foolish words, hastily written and hastily repeated by [you] another fool."

Such sales have resulted in the sale of business property to pay the tax. Such sales of business property have often resulted in the reduction of the business that resulted in reductions in the number of the business's employees.