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

[Sqrl]

TheRealMafoo said:

Sqrl said:

TheRealMafoo said:

Sqrl said:

I do find it somewhat odd that being religious is such a strike against her for yourself (and others).  It would seem to me refreshing that a politician would be dedicated to a set of morals and beliefs that you could rely on them following (or use against them if they don't).  This tells you what you are getting before you ever cast your vote and what to expect once they take office.

I NEVER want a leader of anything I am a part of make a choice, and justify it with "because that's the way god would have wanted it".

I feel this would be something she would do.

This is pure silliness. You are plainly advocating that rather than judge an idea on its merits you will blindly dismiss it purely for its source. 

This is the definition of an obtuse worldview.

 

It’s not a world view opinion, it’s a Sarah Palin opinion. Let’s say Obama woke up in the middle of the night and wondered to the kitchen to get a cookie. When he entered the kitchen, god appeared before him and told him to attack Iran. That he wanted to save Israel, and he had chosen Obama as the instrument to do such a thing.

If that happened to Obama, he would seek medical attention. If it happened to Palin, she would attack a nation.

My opinion and why I don’t want her as my leader.

 

It’s not a world view opinion, it’s a Sarah Palin opinion. Let’s say Obama woke up in the middle of the night and wondered to the kitchen to get a cookie. When he entered the kitchen, god appeared before him and told him to attack Iran. That he wanted to save Israel, and he had chosen Obama as the instrument to do such a thing.

If that happened to Obama, he would seek medical attention. If it happened to Palin, she would attack a nation.

My opinion and why I don’t want her as my leader.

 

 

Honestly, as someone who is agnostic if God appeared before me and was able to convince me through sufficient demonstration that they were in fact god...well I would do what he/she/it asked of me too. That doesn't make me a religious fanatic, in fact it sounds pretty damn reasonable to me.

Of course what you're really saying is that you don't believe god exists and thus this would of course have to be some sort of acute hallucinatory episode.  In which case I would ask why in the hell you're basing your choice of leader on something so extremely unlikely to occur in a healthy individual. But more to the point I know of no data which suggests religious peoples are more disposed to believe in their hallucinations than anyone else, which of course includes you, me, and Obama. Do you know of such a study?

For that reason I would say that I think your classification of Obama as someone who would not do what was asked is rather suspect, on what do you base this assumption?

At this point we are already off on a fairly bizzare disqualification measure that is based on your assumption about the individual and not based on any discernable facts that we can all agree upon readily. 

Forgive me if I'm not exactly inspired by your selection process whereby you decide how someone would react to an extremely unlikely event based on little more than your gut instinct and then pick the one you like best based on the reaction you selected for them.

Of course you are entitled to this method if you like, but I'm finding it hard to be persuaded by it.