horrible jindal appointment

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2...president.html

President of Anti-Gay Hate Group Appointed to Louisiana Law Enforcement Commission
By Mark Joseph Stern

Tony Perkins has worn many hats throughout his life: television reporter, police officer, Louisiana state representative, head of a certified hate group. But the president of the viciously homophobic Family Research Council earned a new title this week when Gov. Bobby Jindal appointed him to the Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement, which awards grants, trains officers, and regulates law enforcement throughout the state.

[Danzig]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council

an article on the 'family research council'.

yeah, they sound like a blast.

Politics, policies and positions

The Family Research Council opposes efforts to make a vaccine for human papilloma virus (HPV), a virus that causes cervical cancer, mandatory for school attendance. It defends this on the basis of rights of parents and because of its support for abstinence prior to marriage.[8]

It supports a federal conscience clause, allowing medical workers to refuse to provide certain treatments to their patients, such as abortion, blood transfusion or birth control. It also advocates for abstinence-only sex education, intelligent design and prayer in public schools, and the regulation of pornography and other "obscene, indecent, or profane programming" on broadcast and cable television. It opposed, but failed to defeat, the introduction of a .xxx domain name, and it lobbied for an increase in indecency fines from the Federal Communications Commission.

The FRC also holds that hotel pornography may be prosecutable under federal and state obscenity laws.[9][10] It opposes the expansion of civil rights laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity as illegal bases for discrimination.[11]

The Family Research Council is also fiscally conservative[12] and wants to increase the child tax credit.[13] The FRC supports the requirement of a one-year waiting period before a married couple with children can legally get a divorce so that they can receive marital counseling, unless the marriage involves domestic violence. Permanently eliminating the marriage penalty and estate taxes are also issues FRC supports.[14]

The Family Research Council opposes legalized abortion, stem-cell research which involves the destruction of human embryos and funding thereof (instead advocating research using adult stem cells), legal recognition of same-sex domestic partnerships in the form of marriage or civil unions, and all forms of gambling.[15] The Family Research Council has questioned the idea that humans are mainly or completely responsible for climate change, and has opposed other evangelicals who have affirmed their belief of global warming.[16][17][18][19]

[dellinger63]

Horrible, just horrible, the recent tragedies in Kenya, Pakistan and even Chicago pale in comparison.

The Family Research Council makes the Gangster Disciples, the Black P Stone Nation and al Qaida look like the Brownies, the Girl Scouts and the Cub Scouts. Really, really bad guys and girls! In fact call home the Nimitz and station her off the gulf coast of Louisiana. We may have to bomb.

Imagine teaching abstinence till marriage is the way to go. How dare they!

Forget about chemical weapons and gangsters shooting 3-year olds, we got a guy that was President of a group that supports among other things (I can barely type it) ABSTINENCE.

Much bigger fish to fry IMO

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Horrible, just horrible, the recent tragedies in Kenya, Pakistan and even Chicago pale in comparison.

The Family Research Council makes the Gangster Disciples, the Black P Stone Nation and al Qaida look like the Brownies, the Girl Scouts and the Cub Scouts. Really, really bad guys and girls! In fact call home the Nimitz and station her off the gulf coast of Louisiana. We may have to bomb.

Imagine teaching abstinence till marriage is the way to go. How dare they!

Forget about chemical weapons and gangsters shooting 3-year olds, we got a guy that was President of a group that supports among other things (I can barely type it) ABSTINENCE.

Much bigger fish to fry IMO

Dell, most of us can be mad about more than one thing at once. Like how the Family Research Council can be against both vaccines against cancer and the estate tax.

For what it's worth, I don't think abstinence until marriage is a good idea, either.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Dell, most of us can be mad about more than one thing at once. Like how the Family Research Council can be against both vaccines against cancer and the estate tax.

For what it's worth, I don't think abstinence until marriage is a good idea, either.

I realize that people can be mad at more than one thing and also think abstinence before marriage is a bad thing.

Not supporting government recognition of same-sex marriage, doesn't make them an anti-gay-hate group as suggested in the title of the article cited and presumably the premise of this thread.

[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

[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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Dell, most of us can be mad about more than one thing at once. Like how the Family Research Council can be against both vaccines against cancer and the estate tax.

For what it's worth, I don't think abstinence until marriage is a good idea, either.

i can't believe they are against the hpv vaccine. how could anyone not be supportive of preventing certain cancers? hopefully, they will eventually find a way to block them all.

as for abstinence til marriage....
people are putting off marriage til much later in life than how people used to marry. my husbands grandmother got married at 14. the norm then, the (thankfully) extreme rarity now. it's absurd and is fantasizing to assume people will wait til marriage now, if marriage doesn't come til the 30's.
and why should they? people have a right to decide how to act in their private lives.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

as for abstinence til marriage....
it's absurd and is fantasizing to assume people will wait til marriage now, if marriage doesn't come til the 30's.
and why should they? people have a right to decide how to act in their private lives.

There is a very strong case to be made for religion controlling people's sexuality as a means of social control, and, specifically, social control of women.

Marriage is a huge undertaking, and sex is just one part of it. Much better to make that decision without "OhmygodIreallywanttoseethispersonnekkid" clouding the process. Not to mention, you're sexually compatible with some people and not with others. Better to test drive the merchandise before you get stuck with it. I'm sure many of us have horror stories.

people are putting off marriage til much later in life than how people used to marry. my husbands grandmother got married at 14. the norm then, the (thankfully) extreme rarity now.

My great-grandmother was married at 15- to a guy in his 30s (my great-grandfather). Her parents both died and the village she and he lived in decided it was the most efficient way of making sure someone was there to take care of her. Ah, romance!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

There is a very strong case to be made for religion controlling people's sexuality as a means of social control, and, specifically, social control of women.

Marriage is a huge undertaking, and sex is just one part of it. Much better to make that decision without "OhmygodIreallywanttoseethispersonnekkid" clouding the process. Not to mention, you're sexually compatible with some people and not with others. Better to test drive the merchandise before you get stuck with it. I'm sure many of us have horror stories.



My great-grandmother was married at 15- to a guy in his 30s (my great-grandfather). Her parents both died and the village she and he lived in decided it was the most efficient way of making sure someone was there to take care of her. Ah, romance!

i absolutely agree about the social control-sex and education are the two big things that people in power use, or try to use to control. keep them stupid has been a ploy for centuries. it was used by the church in the old world, and is employed in many third world and muslim controlled countries now.