If ever there was a clear (and recent) example of this, it is with the proposed mosque near ground zero in New York. The WH released a statement that this matter should be handled locally. It was a smart move, after all does the president have to comment on every event that occurs in the US. Anyway, Obama, in his "wisdom" threw that out the window and stuck his nose in on a Friday night while speaking to a group of Muslims. Totally un-necessary (since nobody is denying the right, just questioning the morality). Does this sound like the actions of a smart man?

Just because this guy can read a tele-prompter, and doesn't have a southern accent, the far left label him smart. DG, you're right this is the dimmest "genius" I've ever seen. ...and he does the same thing over and over. In his own words, he "acted stupidly".

Conferring mostly.  I think we are saying the same things, but with different slants.

Reactionary is.  And I agree. We rarely start, but usually finish.

I agree.  But if a 3rd party - running on that platform, becomes a spoiler, it will also move one side or the other (probably republicans) to actually put some muscle behind their talk.

The drug cartels already have hits out on a couple of sheriffs in AZ.  If any of them succeed, that may be the impetus that moves the issue onto the front burner as well/

requirement for a good president?  yes. Classification?  no.  Obama is one that knew nothing, knows nothing, and is determined to remain that way.  Carter was idealistic, but hardly world knowledgeable.  The rest may not have been when elected, but they did have one thing on those 2.  Advisers who were.

The reality is that most presidents are world knowledge poor.  What makes a good one different from a bad one is who they pick to help them learn on the job.

That will be his legacy.  His mangled use of the English language that was not scripted on a Teleprompter - He acted stupidly

First, let me clarify.  I not just saying that homosexuality is going to cause the decline.  For Babylonian Empire, there was a seismic shift in in the flow of the Euphrates which cause several key northern cities to be completely abandoned.  In Twilight of a Great Civilization, shows the influx of these cities to other cities caused there to be individualistic, most of these people were trying to get back to the lifestyles they were accustomed to, which caused a decay in values because they no longer cared about the fellow citizen and were going to back at whatever means possible.  Most of these people were trying to get back to the lifestyle that they were accustomed to back in their home cities that they abandoned.  This shift in attitude and shift in northern cities caused the Babylonian empire to weaken.

Edward Gibbon (The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire), Pitirim Sorokin (Crisis of our age, Social and Cultural Dynamics, Power and Morality), and J.D. Unwin (Hopousia: The Sexual and Economic Foundations of a New Society), each show a massive decline and correlative pattern of family in Roman empire (the latter three show it in the ancient Greece).  Each go into the decay of the family and the sexual practices.  This caused a decay not just in the family unit but in values as well.  Causing internal strife. 

There have been a lot of studies that show that pedophilics don't wake up and decide to have sex with little kids.  These studies have shown that they have been exposued to hardcore porn at a young age.  Eventually want that sexual release at any cost and are drawn to the innocence and virgin that a child has.  Man's eyes are bigger than his stomach in other words people crave more than what they actually need.  Your point goes well with my following statement:

Since history has a tendancy to repeat itself, societies that have had an anything goes attitude (these three societies exhibited this) causes everything to go.

Sorry ID, didn't mean to get off the topic.  I shouldn't have brought it up.

I figured you were conferring.  I don't think a sheriff being taken out would do this unless a lot of sheriffs are being gunned.  Last week, several border guards got shot and I think one was killed.

Presidents aren't expected to know everything but they are expected to hire people that do.  Its hard to be a politician and to be world knowledgeable.  You've got your own constituents to worry about, then how to escape paying taxes, while fooling around with several people on the side, making sure that you're back in DC in time to vote for your own pay raise, and every once in a while throw the bone to the media.

Homosexuality is not the cause, but a symptom.  Interesting theory.

Normally I would agree - but the situation in AZ has become so politicized, the gunning down of a Sheriff (who is elected, unlike a border agent who is just a working guy) would be a match on the powder keg.  Under any other circumstances (say a Sheriff in SC or someplace away from the center of things), I agree that it would not cause a galvanization of opinion.

It might be considered a symptom in as much as tolerance is a symptom of a society that has lost its principles.

Tolerance is a good thing. But it's easy being tolerant in a society that doesn't believe in principles. Hence the more unprincipled a society is, the easier it is to be tolerant. And the easier it is to be tolerant, the more tolerant people will there be. And the more tolerant people there are, the more open will people be about their sexuality.

The actual "amount" of homosexuality in society has not changed at all. People just aren't afraid to talk about it any more.

It's like children playing Baseball on a field where your house once stood. Children playing on a field is not a bad thing and it's not the cause of the destruction of your house but it is a symptom of the destruction of your house. Trying to defend your house by targeting the right of children to play Baseball is likely to be perceived as moronic by your more intelligent neighbours. You are fighting the symptoms, not the disease.

Society should be both principled and tolerant even though being one makes the other more difficult and vice versa. But for this to happen conservatives have to defend their principles and not attack tolerance and liberals have to defend tolerance and not attack principles.

This is not what is currently happening.

People I consider weak are those who are as principled or tolerant as everybody else. It is easy to be tolerant when it is considered wrong to be intolerant and it is easy to be principled when society doesn't allow one not to be. And these are the two goals. Conservatives want a society in which people are made to be principled and liberals want a society in which people are made to be tolerant.

As for US President, I support Lieutenant Colonel Allen West.

He is currently a candidate for Congress as a Repuplican in Florida, running against Democrat Ron Klein. I have nothing against Ron Klein, who is a decent man and competent politician and whom I rather want to see in Congress too. West is currently leading by a point or two and the district is over 95% "white" and Colonel West is "black", showing that "race" doesn't appear to be an issue for "white" Republican voters.

He has a master's in "political science" which I usually hold against people, but he also has a Master of Military Arts in military history and I am a big fan of military history which I consider one of the most important subjects anyone can study and everyone should know about.

Colonel West has served in two wars and as a civilian adviser in a third.

He might become the first descendant of slaves to become President of the US! I think that would send an important signal of how much the US have changed and it would be fitting that he be a Republican.

And for those to whom skin colour is really important, note that Obama's mother was white and he is thus as white as he is black. With Colonel West in the White House, Obama would transform from first black President into last white President. The symbolism would be most excellent.

 I like the way this guy speaks too, but president? I believe that is a bit premature. I'm really tired of the "man/or woman of the minute" being held up as the solution without having produced many tangible results. I believe the current president is a prime example of that folly. If Col. West can preform consistently as well as he speaks, I'd back him 100% in a heartbeat, but not because he is the "great black hope". That's exactly the wonder kid mentality we need to get away from, no matter what the color of the person.

I consider a military career good experience for politics. It's as good as having served as a senator for 20 years and better.

The current President had a background as a community organiser before he became a real politician. I don't count that. But a military career is different.

If he can follow and give orders under fire, he has enough experience for the White House. It has nothing to do with the "great black hope".

Why?  in 2012 he will have more experience than Obama did.

I would agree with that to a point, but still no pass from me. If I had served with the man, maybe I'd feel different, but I'm looking at him like any other person would. I've seen plenty of officers in the military I wouldn't trust to supervise cleaning the floor, let alone be president. For example: At the Pentagon Colonels fetch coffee for the generals. Plenty of politics there little opportunity to shine. As I said, I like this guy, but he needs to prove himself in a civilian capacity first.

The community organizer fool the US once, I would hate any newcomer to do it again, no matter their non-political background. Just how I feel about it.

DG you know how to set a low bar! I'm seen kids in McDonald's with more leadership qualities.

Why insult McDonald employees?  They at least have an HONEST job.

Oh don't misunderstand me, it was a compliment. If an incompetent (even one with a wonderful personality) can be elected to the presidency, imagine what a young, competent McDonald's worker can aspire to? The world is their oyster.