horrible jindal appointment

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Family Research Council can be against both vaccines against cancer and the estate tax..

It can if you consider the choice to vaccinate a child is theirs as their estate is theirs as well.

Conversely the other side thinks the choice of whether your child is vaccinated is society's as is your estate.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Oldest trick in the book.

1. Create a distraction by appointing an incendiary figure to a high post.

2. While the populace is getting all up in arms screaming at each other about it, (Right! Left!! RIGHT!!! LEFT!!!) make a bunch of unpopular lower post appoints/decisions while no one is paying attention.

3. Reconsider/withdraw the appointment in favor of a more mainstream candidate.

4. Winnar!!







It reminds me of a time a many years ago when my buddies and I wanted to take a trip to Myrtle Beach for a long, "guys only"golf weekend, but knew we'd get a bunch of heartburn from our significant others for excluding them. So it went something like this:

ME: "Honey, me and the guys are thinking about going to the Dominican Republic for a week to play golf"

WIFE: WHAAATTTT??? NO FU!#ING WAY!!!

ME: "But why? I've got a ton of vacation that I've got to burn and we are getting a killer all-inclusive deal"

WIFE: "Fine, go. Do what you want." (We ALL know she meant the exact opposite, and I would never hear the end of it if I went).

2 days later;

ME: "Honey, you know, I've been thinking about it, and you know, you're exactly right. That was terribly inconsiderate of me. I talked with the guys and we decided against it and we're just going to take a long golf weekend in Myrtle instead."

WIFE: "That's a WONDERFUL idea."

Cha Ching

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Oldest trick in the book.

1. Create a distraction by appointing an incendiary figure to a high post.

2. While the populace is getting all up in arms screaming at each other about it, (Right! Left!! RIGHT!!! LEFT!!!) make a bunch of unpopular lower post appoints/decisions while no one is paying attention.

3. Reconsider/withdraw the appointment in favor of a more mainstream candidate.

4. Winnar!!







It reminds me of a time a many years ago when my buddies and I wanted to take a trip to Myrtle Beach for a long, "guys only"golf weekend, but knew we'd get a bunch of heartburn from our significant others for excluding them. So it went something like this:

ME: "Honey, me and the guys are thinking about going to the Dominican Republic for a week to play golf"

WIFE: WHAAATTTT??? NO FU!#ING WAY!!!

ME: "But why? I've got a ton of vacation that I've got to burn and we are getting a killer all-inclusive deal"

WIFE: "Fine, go. Do what you want." (We ALL know she meant the exact opposite, and I would never hear the end of it if I went).

2 days later;

ME: "Honey, you know, I've been thinking about it, and you know, you're exactly right. That was terribly inconsiderate of me. I talked with the guys and we decided against it and we're just going to take a long golf weekend in Myrtle instead."

WIFE: "That's a WONDERFUL idea."

Cha Ching

Well Played

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by jms62

Well Played

What is alarming is that Slate (and Danzig) would be concerned about Piyush's appointment to a minor state commission. It isn't like Perkins was appointed to the Louisiana Racing Commission.

I'm not proud to say that I voted for Piyush for Governor once, but that was when he was in a runoff with Kathleen Babbling Blanco so I had a valid excuse.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by DaTruth

What is alarming is that Slate (and Danzig) would be concerned about Piyush's appointment to a minor state commission. It isn't like Perkins was appointed to the Louisiana Racing Commission.

I'm not proud to say that I voted for Piyush for Governor once, but that was when he was in a runoff with Kathleen Babbling Blanco so I had a valid excuse.

i'm sorry you find it 'alarming'.
i thought it was a shame that the guy was selected, but i didn't lose sleep over it. i think you're overthinking me starting this thread.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

It reminds me of a time a many years ago when my buddies and I wanted to take a trip to Myrtle Beach for a long, "guys only"golf weekend, but knew we'd get a bunch of heartburn from our significant others for excluding them. So it went something like this:

ME: "Honey, me and the guys are thinking about going to the Dominican Republic for a week to play golf"

WIFE: WHAAATTTT??? NO FU!#ING WAY!!!

ME: "But why? I've got a ton of vacation that I've got to burn and we are getting a killer all-inclusive deal"

WIFE: "Fine, go. Do what you want." (We ALL know she meant the exact opposite, and I would never hear the end of it if I went).

2 days later;

ME: "Honey, you know, I've been thinking about it, and you know, you're exactly right. That was terribly inconsiderate of me. I talked with the guys and we decided against it and we're just going to take a long golf weekend in Myrtle instead."

WIFE: "That's a WONDERFUL idea."

Cha Ching

That's bananas; I would TOTALLY have used it as an opportunity to take a vacation of my own.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

It can if you consider the choice to vaccinate a child is theirs as their estate is theirs as well.

Conversely the other side thinks the choice of whether your child is vaccinated is society's as is your estate.

Vaccination is society's concern, not your own, because it's a public health issue. There are kids out there (and adults) who can't be vaccinated, due to immune system issues (or being too young), and they depend on the rest of us being responsible to keep them safe. Great Britain has had a rash of measles outbreaks, including deaths, thanks to idiots who bought into the false scares perpetuated by a (now stripped of his license) doctor out to make a quick buck.

As for the estate tax- I agree with Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson:

"A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural. There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexin...unding_fathers

Opposing the estate tax is for those who want oligarchy, not democracy.