Fox Is Now More Fair and Balanced. Sarah Palin Joins.

[Sqrl]

damkira said:

@Sqrl

Actually, you'll find that the words "Under God" were never originally part of the pledge of allegiance. They were added in 1954.

Its ok that you or I didn't know that, but for someone who could possibly have been president it shows a dangerous lack of knowledge of American history.. add that the same person thought Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 and doesn't understand why there is a North and South Korea and you have someone who would severely embarrass this country in the eyes of the world. Her lack of knowledge won't, however, hinder her career as a Fox News commentator at all.

 

And did it show a dangerous lack of knowledge for Obama to think there were 56 58 (sorry I missremembered the number) states?  That's not even American history that is current knowledge that 3rd grade students around the world could tell you without pause.  And if you watch the clip he thinks about his answer before he gives it, its not blurted out by any means....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

Or is it dangerous that the next president can't speak about an important issue when his teleprompter goes out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omHUsRTYFAU

I'm sorry but I think you're really stretching to try and say flubbing a trivial piece of information like this is some earth-shattering disqualification. Or that Palin and Obama are alone in their occasional inability to speak clearly and make sense on important issues.  I wish we had better choices as politicians but it is selective memory at best to think Palin alone on this.

The entire point I'm making here is that I don't feel the need to make my arguments against Obama, political policy disagreements, through gaffes and flubs that he arguably may or may not have meant to say or that arguably do or do not reperesent his actual knowledge.  This is called intellectual honesty and it is something desperately lacking those who attack Palin.  I find this bizarre since there are a myriad of intellectually honest ways to attack Palin about  issues and positions she clearly and undeniably holds rather than having to first assert that the claim of some aide is correct in order to believe the argument you're making.  Or to buy into a specific interpretation of a quote or set of facts surrounding a situation before your argument is even valid... 

Avoiding the legitimate and substantive political discussion people reveal their lack of confidence in their own arguments.  Palin is a juicy target on some of her publicly held political beliefs but instead we get people who want you take it from her political enemies that she doesn't know about N. and S. Korea and from this second information you are supposed to infer that she is incompetent and then not even give her credence to discuss the policy issues.

If that isn't avoidance I don't know what is.