I wouldn't.

I would pick Donald Trump, first of all because he doesn't need or want to be president, because he knows it's a thankless job; secondly, because he'd be the one to start weeding out the crap in Congress. He doesn't need the lobbyists' money or favors, so no one would be able to buy him; he's not afraid of telling people when/if their ideas are absolutely worthless, and he's not afraid of hurting peoples' feelings. And he would not be afraid of telling any foreigners exactly how he feels, either. He's a take-no-shit kinda guy, and he's what we need to put this country back on track.

And for Vice-President, the dead weasel he wears on his head....

Boris Johnson, Lord Mayor of London. It'd be funny.

Me. My first act would be to order the mudrer of several members of congress arguing that they are a threat to the nation.

And thanks to everyone ignoring Obamas assumption of the power to detain or kill anyone he wants it'd all be perfectly legal.

I'd be a bloody handed tyrant and force american to wake the hell up to what is going on around them.

I'd also infect a bunch of pigs with a few virulent diseases and drop them on Mecca during the hajj

Since George Carlin is dead, Neil Degrasse Tyson. We need some scientists in charge, no more fucking lawyers and politicians.

I really don't think it matters, as long as there are no checks and balances. I could've done what Obi did: run up the debt, play and party, race baiting. The current admin has little to no allegiance to the country or the constitution. What's worse, few call them to task for it.
Also, as long as senators are directly elected, they represent nobody except themselves. Originally, the constitution required they be elected by the state legislatures, to represent the state they are from. The representatives represent the people and should be directly elected, not the sens.

Well, geez, since lujy's running, I'll vote for him! You go, luj!

(Yeah, I'm fickle that way...)

Flynne, then why not Bill Gates?

At least Gates isn't a birther.

Well, yeah, Patrick, there is that. But is Gates even considering it? Who would run his foundations? And isn't he just a tad more liberal?

I dunno. Can we put Christie back in the running?

Hey Luj -- looks like I'll have to run against you. My platform: I couldn't possibly be more incompetent and I'm certainly less malicious than anyone we've had recently.

So, my slogan: "Vote Old RPM -- How could it hurt?"

Oh, by the way Eric, I disagree; please, no scientists! The last thing we need is some egghead who thinks all it takes is brains. That won't end well.

Since George Carlin is dead, Neil Degrasse Tyson. ~ Eric

Oh, by the way Eric, I disagree; please, no scientists! The last thing we need is some egghead who thinks all it takes is brains. That won't end well. ~ Old RPM Daddy

Besides, I haven't forgiven him for Pluto's demotion.

PLUTO IS S PLANET!

Back on topic: The French Revolution tried to govern using only reason (The Cult of Reason). It ended very badly.

How about Bozo the Clown.

We need a professional clown running the country. Get rid of these amateurs.

Conan, I agree. I think anything large enough to pulled into a spheroid (that isn't a satellite) by its own gravity should be considered a planet.

But my question for you is, should Pluto be considered a planet or a binary planet system? One of its "moons," Charon is locked in a mutual orbit with Pluto, but neither body actually occupies the barycenter.

I'm not exactly sure as to what Pluto's other two moons, Nix and Hydra, truly orbit. Do they orbit Pluto or the mutual dwarf-planetoid binary system of Pluto and Charon?

Flynne, I wasn't aware that Christie left. A lot of people say they're not considering it, but we all know how sincere that is.

Chris Christie recently outlawed homosexual conversion therapy for minors. Sounds appropriate to me.

Though he could stop ordering the flags flown at half-staff for crackheads who drown in bathtubs and B-list actors, I'd like him more.

I don't think he really left either, Patrick, but he's being damned coy about it lately. That bill he signed outlawing homosexual conversion therapy for minors was a good thing, I agree, but adults can still be "pressured" into it. I think it's got to go altogether. No one should have to be subjected to that, no matter what age they are.

Though he could stop ordering the flags flown at half-staff for crackheads who drown in bathtubs and B-list actors, I'd like him more.

?? Who'd he do that for??

Well not exactly what you asked for, but I'd rather have the power of choosing others. i.e. putting Rand Paul on the Supreme Court would be interesting. I'd put Ron as head of the Fed.

Flynne, Whitney Houston and James Gandolfini.

(I tried to send you an email, Flynne, but I guess you didn't get it.)

I think demoting Pluto to dwarf status was appropriate. It doesnt have its own lane like the rest of the planets and as Patrick pointed out doesnt rule its satellite

Im now waiting for the geo freaks to man up at demote Europe from continent to peninsula

Any fed of the government is a fed of yours, huh, Joe?

It's funny how many people are still pissed off about the "Pluto" thing. I saw an interview with NDT and he actually received death threats.

Were his reputation not so tarnished, I would reccommend Colin Powell. I think Christie is also a pretty pragmatic straight shooter.

Do you have an opening in your schedule for 2017-2020, Amy?

Oh, now I remember, Patrick! And yeah, Whitney he didn't have to do that for, but I did like James Gandolfini.

I just replied to your email, sorry I'm so late with it! I did get it, just hadn't checked that account in while.

It's funny how many people are still pissed off about the "Pluto" thing.

People ... chill.

The Pluto thing was a joke. Besides, it's Goofy we need to worry about:

"The obscure unease that Pluto has always inspired, a dog owned by a mouse, daily confronted with the mutational horror of Goofy." ~ Michael Chabon

Marie Antoinette; because I want to have cake!

I'd pick someone who thinks both parties are corrupt and that the job is too disgusting to be considered as honest work for a decent human being.

Then I'd draft the poor sap and leg-iron him or her to the desk.

The first ten citizens who are picked lottery style from the voter rolls of every U.S. county. Each serve equally as "co-president". All must certify they are neither R nor D. The ten will pick one as 'spokesman". All vow to quit after 4 years.

Marie Antoinette probably never said, "Let them eat cake." The saying was actually, "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche." Brioche is a rich bread made with butter and eggs, making it even more inaccessible than the bread that the peasants were lacking.

According to Rousseau's autobiography "Confessions," the statement was uttered by "a great princess." However, since Marie Antoinette was only nine years old at the time "Confessions" was written, the attribution is at least doubtful.

I think Marie Antoinette gets a bad rap. Certainly not deserving of her fate. I find the American support of the French Revolution to be somewhat perplexing, consider it was Louis XVI who aided the Americans during our own revolution from England. Take about ungrateful!

It's also entirely possible that "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" was taken out of context.

If the peasants were lacking in bread, it was within the power of the royals to order the price of brioche (which used less flour) to be dropped to match the price of the scarce bread. In other words, "Let them eat brioche" means, "Drop the price of brioche so the peasants can afford it, since there's no bread."

Actually, Patick, I learned in my HS French class that what she referred to was "cake" (I forget the French word) which is the crust of bread that sometimes sticks to the bottom of brick ovens and gets scraped off every so often and feed to pigs.

So, while the correct term was "cake" it doesn't make sense in the modern meaning we think of today. Although we still do talk about mud "caking" to the bottom of our shoes sometimes.

But, of course, we will never really know what she said or didn't say since most French at the time couldn't stand "that Austrian woman" and the propaganda against her was over the top.

BTW, my attempt at a joke was since we've had Obama and our free Obamaphones it is now time for us to have our "cake." Yea, I know, if I have to explain the joke it really isn't much of a joke . . .

No offense intended. And I did understand that you're being humorous. It's just one of my little quirks. Even if it's for the sake of a joke, if there's misinformation (or worse, disinformation), I tend to interject to correct it. No matter how trivial.

For instance, I was watching a performance of "Nunsense" (an off-Broadway show about five nuns who put on a variety show to inter four nuns at the convent who suddenly died from botulism from a vichyssoise made by Sister Julia, Child of God. (Groan...)

After one of the nuns (who also happens to be a ballerina) performs her own original creation, "The Dying Nun," the outraged Reverend Mother asks her, "Who do you think you are? Sally Field?"

"Yes," the nun replies, "And they like me! They really like me!"

I, of course, felt the need to explain to my sister (who attended that show with me) is that while Sally Field is often misquoted as having said, "You like me! You really like me!" what she actually said was "And I can't deny the fact that you like me! Right now! You like me!" (At around 3:30 in the video.)

I'll vote for lujlp, too, and hope that he does not kill off all my friends.

If lujlp does not run, I will support Rand Paul, who outshines, by far, nearly all of the other 534 members of Congress. He also appears to actually believe in liberty, unlike all the GOP deadwood and the rabid communist Democrats.

I disagree with banning homosexual conversion therapy. If somebody has homosexual attractions and does not like it, why can't he be allowed to try this therapy? Why can't parents be allowed to have their kids undergo this therapy? As long as it is not cruel or abusive, like the example Amy posted on here some time ago, I don't see the problem.

But, according to Chris Christie, if you think you're a homosexual and do not like it, tough shit.

mpetrie: "Why can't parents be allowed to have their kids undergo this therapy? As long as it is not cruel or abusive . . ."

But, that is the problem, conversion therapy is junk science and it is, in and of itself, abusive.

The arguement of letting parents do whatever they want to their children doesn't fly with me. Children have rights too.

Why not let Muslim parents mutilate their daughter's genitals so that sex is painful (there, that will keep her from being a slut!)? Why not let Middle-East and South Asian parents in the US and UK ship their 16-year old daughters off for "holiday" back to their home country so that they can be married off to an older man in an "arranged marriage"? And if they bring shame to the family, why not just kill them? How far do we let "parent's rights" undermine the well-being of the child?

"Conversion therapy" is considered "not useful, and harmful" by all major therapy organizations and all main stream therapists. It is nothing more than snake-oil salesmanship. Parents who are upset at hearing that their child is "gay" might be willing to believe anyone and do anything to "cure" that child.

Homosexuality is NOT an illness that needs a cure - and that is the problem with conversion therapy, it tells the young, scared, vulnerable minor that they are "sick" and need to be cured. THAT is the harm. period.

Christie lost my respect when he brown-nosed (not a racial term BTW) Obama after Hurricane Sandy; But, the fact that he was willing to sign this bill (it would have been law without his signature anyway) allows me to gain some of that respect back. It could be he was just pandering for votes or he could be looking at issues and making informed decisions without the blindness of ideology. (most likely the former, but hey don't all politicians do that anyway?) I just might vote for him!

And, mpetrie, you state that "according to Chris Christie, if you think you're a homosexual and do not like it, tough shit." I not sure what news media outlet you read; but, this law only applies to MINORS, not adults. Adults will still be free to throw their money away if they so desire. But keep this crap away from kids!

P.S. Patrick, Sister Julia, Child of God. That is SO funny! I love bad, really bad, puns. (must be the faggot in me!) I now want to see Nunsense.

I am being honest. Although I have tweeted some things to you that look at homosexuality from a religious point of view, I don't have any notion of actually stopping homosexuals from being homosexuals. It's a relatively benign orientation, and they're consenting adults. I'm just saying that the option of conversion therapy should be available. And yes, parental rights trumps the utopian notion of homosexuality being normal and positive (although the occurrence itself is quite normal).

However, should a positive evolutionary purpose for homosexuality make itself evident (and there may be one, I don't know), I'll eat my hat and offer my apologies to you and the others on this forum.

By the way, you asked if I ever knew a homosexual. Yes, I did. I shared a house with him and a good friend of mine. He is one of the nicest people I know.

"The arguement of letting parents do whatever they want to their children doesn't fly with me. Children have rights too."

Sorry, but that's just not true - although it is often said by those who do not understand what "rights" are.

That is why children have guardians.

Someone with rights is capable of defending, and paying for them by performing the commensurate responsibilities.

I stand corrected about the bill, Charles. Thanks for the info.

Actually, just to reiterate, Chris Christie bans conversion therapy for minors only. Once they reach 18, the new adult can do whatever he wants. He did not, as mpetrie says, "ban[] homosexual conversion therapy."

He banned putting minors in conversion therapy.

And children do have rights.

For instance, you can move to another country, take your children with you. You can acquire the citizenship of the country for yourself and your children. You can renounce your U.S. citizenship if you choose.

You cannot, however, renounce citizenship on behalf of your child. Like it or not, your child is still a U.S. citizen, and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it.

Can the minor child renounce his own U.S. citizenship? Yup. If he can convince a consulate that he knows what he's doing, is not under duress and understand everything he loses by renouncing U.S. citizenship.

So, a child has the right to retain his U.S. citizenship, whether the guardian likes it or not. And he has the right to renounce it, if he can convince a consulate of his understanding and need, and the adult cannot do it at all.

Also, if the guardian is in some way inadequate, children have the right to pursue emancipation. Guardian can't do a damned thing about that either.

Children have a right to an education. Yes, a parent may homeschool a child. But can a parent say, "I don't want my child to have an education"?

I'd like to see you try it. Trust me, you will not own your child much longer.

That also goes for their rights to food, clothing, shelter and safe places to play. If you think a parent can choose to deprive a child of any of those things, the law will rock that parent's world in ways they never thought possible.

Charles, if you want to see "Nunsense," I'll start posting links to it tomorrow. I'll post them all one or two at a time, in order.

I'm sure Amy's link section tomorrow will be something like "You link me! You reeeally link me!" And then she'll include a note that properly identifies it as "a paraphrase of a popular misquote of Sally Field."

"But can a parent say, "I don't want my child to have an education"?

I'd like to see you try it. Trust me, you will not own your child much longer"

Freeschooling. Also known as unschooling. aka: no schooling

"safe places to play"

Has there been some mass CPS action I was unaware of, taking all kids from the inner cities of the US?

I don't like Christie. He said some good things about unions. Other than that, he and I have little in common.

I like Cruz. I like Rand. I even like Flynne's Trump suggestion. But what I'd really, really like is a couple that doesn't bring shame to me, representing my country. I'm really envying the British the last few years. No, Will and Kate and the rest of the royals don't really rule and make no law. But they're pretty classy representatives. At this point I'd settle for that, since the last 3 presidents at least have sucked ass in regards to policy under them.

"

Here's a real triple slam for ya:

Justin Amash as Spaker of the House
Ted Cruz as Senate Majority Leader (needs a GOP Senate, of course)
Rand Paul for President!

I'd take the job. My first act would be to arrange the assassination of the Vice-President, the Speaker of the House, and the entire Cabinet. My second would be to resign from office.

Maybe the first one could be accomplished with a nuclear strike on Washington, DC, if I could arrange to be elsewhere at the time. . .

It's just one of my little quirks. Even if it's for the sake of a joke, if there's misinformation (or worse, disinformation), I tend to interject to correct it. No matter how trivial.

Unless ofcourse you are the source of misinformation, then those who dare point it out will face your wrath via being ignored (but not really ignored)

" I don't have any notion of actually stopping homosexuals from being homosexuals. "

Ah ok....

"It's a relatively benign orientation"

Hmm very odd phrasing but ok? I wouldn't necessarily call heterosexuality or any sexuality benign because I tend to use that word for either tumors or eccentricities. But ok....I accept....I guess...

"And yes, parental rights trumps the utopian notion of homosexuality being normal and positive "

So tell me how you REALLY feel. Don't tiptoe.

I think I can guess.

Gay people choose to be gay. See I said it for you.

But but.....

WHETHER OR NOT HOMOSEXUALITY HAS A POSITIVE EVOLUTIONARY ADVANTAGE IS IRRELEVENT. Gay conversion therapy does not work much like praying a disease to go away. It actually makes people suicidal.

Hence society has given legal protection to minors from their parents because children are NOT property.

Anyways if you study evolution you know most shit that goes down just happens because it happens. People think evolution has some super duper grand purpose for the human race. It doesn't. Much like your god, it doesn't give two shits about how the individual comes out or whether the human race is wiped out because everyone comes out gay.

Sorry, Patrick, but you have confused yourself. In cases you cite, the State becomes the guardian of the minor.

Such fuzzy thinking is what leads to such ridiculous ideas as the "right" to a job, food and shelter - which some insist the means to provide such be taken from some by force and administered by government, famously inefficient and totally excused if the cause is "just".

No, 'waste, you have deliberately misconstrued my statement to avoid admitting you're wrong. Which you are, and you know it.

I said children have the right to these things. And they do.

And furthermore, I'd like to see how a guardian is going to stop a child from taking steps to become an emancipated minor. Which the child can do, and the adult cannot stop it. It's entire the discretion of the judge. Ergo, it's a right that the law gives the children.

But you said that children have no rights. I just named one.

A parent cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their child. But the child can do that for himself (if he can convince the consul that he wants to, understands what he's doing and he's not under duress). Ergo, that is another right that the child has, that the guardians cannot interfere with.

But you said that children have no rights. Obviously, they do.

Charles: (must be the faggot in me!)

You're gay? I didn't know that. That's disgusting! Gross! Pervert!

Well, you're just going to burn in hell when you die! They're going to have to bury you face down so you can see where you're going, that's all! Ugh!

I feel like I need a shower, now that I talked to a gay guy! I didn't know Amy allowed faggots on this board!

Okay, now that that's out of the way, Charles, as soon as Amy makes a link thread for today, I'll start posting the links to a production of "Nunsense."

He smiled benignly. His intentions were purely benign. Ppen, you're certainly describing appropriate uses for the word "benign," but I think you're overlooking the basic definition.

mpetrie, when there is no evidence that conversion therapy is successful (and there isn't; and not even conversion therapists pretend that they can turn a gay guy straight), and it's been found that it does much harm (such as inducing self-loathing feelings that leads to suicide), I agree with Christie that you should not be allowed to force your child into conversion therapy.

In fact, I think doing such a thing should be seen as child abuse. If your child wishes to pursue it when he's eighteen, that's his right and his choice; he's now a legal adult and can make his own decisions. But when he's a minor, no one should have the right to push him into proven dangerous "therapies."

Remove the minors part of the legislation, and then what?

I think there's a serious First Amendment question here, and we should tread very, very lightly.

I don't agree with gay conversion therapy, but the idea of the government banning something because the experts believe it to be wrong is the exact reasoning they used to try to shut down the blogger who was advocating for the paleo diet.

We should err on the side of speech, not on the side of government-approved experts.

(Removing the fact that this was directed at minors, for the sake of argument.)

No AB; this isn't a first amendment issue; outlawing harmful "therapy" directed at minors is the issue. There is no "for arguments sake" here.

An authority figure telling a minor that he/she is "sick" when he/she isn't is harmful. period.

That is what has been outlawed.

Just imagine for a minute if the government stepped in and outlawed "snake oil" because they found too many were trying to sell it and folks who were desperate for a "cure" bought it and ended up making their child sicker. Would you claim "first amendment" then? I suspect not.

Further, there is the whole notion that somehow or other "homosexuality" is something that needs to be "cured." If folks cannot see the harm in that, well, then I cannot explain it to them. Maybe, I should just pray to their gods to "cure" them of their ignorance?

Mpetrie, I've always considered myself to be benign. So, thank you for the compliment.

Patrick, I've always thought being buried face down would be a great way for me to spit on those below me, for eternity!

I still think if the choice is Hillary or Christie, then I will vote for Christie. But, maybe there will be some dark horse we don't know about yet (for the record "dark horse" is NOT a racial term)

If I could pick the president?

George Washington. (Hey, if I can pick the president, I can bring someone back fromt he dead damnit)

You've got a big scary fucking guy (he was what, 6'6), who thinks the sound of gunfire whistling past him is 'quite charming', his stern gaze alone caused many to whither on the spot, he's someone who can show respect to his enemies (He captured General Howe's dog after losing a battle (the dog got lost and ended up in the rebel camp) and he sent the dog back with his compliments.

He so respected the rule of law and the ideal of the republic that he refused to allow his men to mutiny against congress over not being paid, and it was he who set the two term limit (self imposed) to ensure that Americans got used to the idea of choosing their leaders often.

He opposed involving ourselves needlessly in foreign affairs

He might have been shoved into power because of the cult of personality around the him...but goddamn it he deserved every bit of credit he ever got and then some. He's as close to the perfect political leader as anyone could ever get.

If I could pick our next president, I'd pick him, but even if I could bring him back from the dead, he'd probably refuse to take office because he'd already served 2 terms. 'l'

-------

But seriously...if I could pick the next president...well hell, why not me?

Robert, would you want to be? What do you think to accomplish?

And I don't say this as any judgment on you, but just the way Congress works. You need Congress to accomplish anything, and if they don't want to cooperate with you, you're stuck.

If we object to pluto being a planet because it does not control it's own satellite. Should we then object to earth being a planet since we do not control our own satellite?

The moon is in orbit around the sun. Gravitational pull from the sun on the moon is signifigantly stronger then the pull of earth on it. So technically we do not have our own moon.

But Patrick, thats the point, you COULD accomplish quite a lot thanks to the power Obama (that guy you think is better than Bush) claimed and exercise the president can kill any american citizen he wants to by using the magical word of power "terrorism".

As president you can legally kill any memeber of congress you want

"But you said that children have no rights. Obviously, they do."

Okay, I'll do something you don't: explain.

Children do NOT have rights as enumerated in the Constitution.

You may now name any ten-year-old who may wear a "Fuck Michigan" T-shirt to a school in Ohio, thus demonstrating the full possession of her First Amendment right of speech. Pick another.

I'm sure you can find a copy of the Bill of Rights on here somewhere.

In the process, be sure to realize that children have nothing that has not been procured for them by others.

Fuzzy-headed thinking has got you where you are, generally. You're full of ideas about what "ought" to be - that simply isn't.

It's part of why you don't deign to explain yourself when you raise a contentious point.

Carry on. Sometimes it's funny.

" It's a relatively benign orientation"

Would that the same could be said of religion, but unfortunately, no.

However, should a positive evolutionary purpose for homosexuality make itself evident (and there may be one, I don't know), I'll eat my hat and offer my apologies to you and the others on this forum. -- mpetrie98 at August 20, 2013 6:23 PM

The problem with your argument is that homosexuality has obviously been around for over two thousand years according to the Bible© and the Torah©. Why else would God™ say it was wrong?

That means that it would not occur in other animals if it was strictly a conscious choice.

So there may not be something obvious, but it exists throughout the animal kingdom.

/yawn. 'Waste, you're beginning to bore me. (Not that you haven't done it in the past. It's just that this is your first time with this particularly installment.) You change the parameters of the discussion so many times, you seem to think that if you confine it narrowly enough, you could win your point.

First you claim children don't have rights, now you're trying to suggest that they don't have rights because they aren't specifically named in the Constitution under the Bill of Rights.

If all rights were enumerated in the Constitution, then parents would have no authority over their own kids. Because the ownership of one's children isn't covered in the Bill of Rights, either.

I'm glad you think I'm funny "sometimes." I wish I could say the same for you. But for the most part, you're just annoyingly stupid.

Children, like adults, have the right to citizenship upon their birth in this country, with all the protections, privileges and immunities that entails. And no one, not even their parents, can take it away from them.

Just in case someone might be new to this board and not recognize the obvious trolling that 'Waste is engaging in. Children do have rights enumerated in the Constitution. They are "persons" and "citizens" in every sense that the Constitution employs this term. They are not "subpersons" or "subcitizens."

The government restriction against curtailing speech is not suddenly permissible if the government is dealing with a child. A child cannot be arrested for his speech, nor can a child be subject to unreasonable searches any more than adults can. Every time you see a reference to "citizen," children are included in this category. As I attempted to imply earlier by pointing that children are citizens and cannot be dispossessed of their citizenship by any act of their guardians (but, when you try to hint anything to 'Waste-product....WHOOOSH!), children are citizens. And they have Constitutional rights as such.