@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.

Same with "in god we trust"

in fact, if you read the Bill of Rights, Constitution, and Articles of Confederation, the word God does not show up anywhere.

Our founding fathers would be very much against god being on our money or in a national song.

@sqrl

sorry, i got a little carried away there.

But like others said, she doesn't know jack about history.

Additionally, I have only one reason to dislike her and demonize her, although there are two options for me to choose from.

1) Mandatory creationism in schools
2) Abstinence only sex-ed

I will never see eye to eye with anyone who believes either of these two things. It's not just a religious standpoint, it's an outright psychosis of religious fanatacism. Evolution is a fact. It's a cold hard fact. Too many people allow the Bible to dictate to them, whereas a large population of both our own, and other religions using the Bible, urge the masses that the Bible is simply a metaphorical text intended to help us lead better lives. It is not intended as the end all be all in dictating our lives. I'm not even going to mention what the penalty for her daughter's "adultery" is according to the Bible.

Additionally, about your point about the founding fathers saying they would have approved; No, they never would have. This country was founded on religious freedom and a separation of church and state. I'm not talking about back in the Pilgrim days, which were FUBAR as it is, I'm talking about when the foundation was laid for the future of this country, God was never a part of it. All this "under God" bullshit is the complete opposite of that.

To the extent of all the things I mentioned, I can't trust a word she says.

As per your point about Obama saying 57 states, he obviously meant 47 states and was just really tired from campaigning. Even a 6 year old can tell you there's 50 states.

No surprise here. It was clear that the main reason she quit as governor was because she discovered that there is some serious money to be made telling republicans exactly what they want to hear.

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.

First: Points 1 and 2 are legitimate policy issues that I take issue with myelf.  But neither discredit her as an imbecile unworthy of debate.  You are actually the one being unreasonable by refusing to engage eye-to-eye on that issue and discuss the merits of your position (a position we share mind you).  People don't have their mind changed by being huffed at and told they're just too religious to understand.

Second: Your view of her historical knowledge is based on what?  The comments of a few aides and a couple of on-camera gaffes? As I said in my last post, wouldn't this also disqualify Biden and probably Obama as well?  This is such an absurd and subjective standard of which gaffes are severe enough that it is honestly silly to even consider.

People are human, give them the benefit of the doubt like you do with Obama and the 47 vs 57 states.  So you know, I give him the benefit of the doubt on that issue, my point is that you can't give it for the politicians you like and then not do the same for the ones you dislike while pointing to those gaffes saying "See see!!!".

Third: The founding fathers point is tangential at best really, so I won't get into a secondary debate on it here.

@Sqrl

Sorry, but there is a difference in saying our founding fathers were for something they weren't, and being to tired to realize your saying 57, and not 47. Are you suggesting that Sarah was to tired to know what the founding fathers thought, or that Obama really didn't know how many states we had?

While I think a cable news organization landing a former governor as a political analyst is great for the news organization, regardless of who that former Governor is (so I disagree with theprof00), I do have to say he is absolutely right that her religious views are unworthy of debate.

She is a religious nut job.

my problem with the policy issues is that they're religiously based; hardline christian at best.

You have a fair point, though. I should try to be more engaging and see eye to eye. But, nothing I do will change it, or anyone's opinion of her.
Those things I mentioned, coupled with some of her other issues (abortion etc etc) make me think she has a strong religious agenda here, and she possibly will never change her stance on these things. Anything that is decided based on religious codes, has absolutely no support from me.

It may seem like I'm solely giving Obama benefit of the doubt, but the two occurences are unique. On one hand you have a mistake that couldn't be even mistaken as a serious statement, and on the other hand you have a mistake which is the underpinning for her entire view of America. The only way the two would be similar is if Obama actually had some strange belief that there were, in some way, more than 50 states. For example, if he visited Cuba, and dominican republic, Quebec, and Japan and said he was hoping for their votes.

Anyway, for you, I will give her benefit of doubt on that. However, I cannot let it drop that she is a religious fanatic who cherry picks her own set of moral codes from a 2k year old metaphor.

In regards to your question: I'm sorry you missed it but I clearly stated what I believe in regards to Obama and the 58 states gaffe.

As for them being different, I must contradict you.  First to correct you on the founding father's though:

Religion was a huge part of the founding of this nation, you can believe otherwise if you'd like but you do so at odds with all historical fact.  Her gaffe here was in not knowing when the Pledge was written and that it was changed later to add the bit about god, but her point is still valid.  Namely that our founding fathers saw the Nation strengthened by religious beliefs and that those values were good enough for them at the time and thus good enough for her now. The validity of the conclusion can be questioned certainly (that the nation is strengthened) but not the historical correctness of their belief in it. For that one simply has to look at one of the most important lines of the Declaration of Independence:

"We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."

The document also talks about "nature's God", the "creator", etc.....it is clearly a major part of their beliefs and plays a fundamental role in the founding of the nation.  This is even more evident from the letters and correspondence between the key players involved at the time.  Her thought that they would approve of the "under god" portion of the Pledge is hardly a stretch when one understands the meaning of the Divine Providence language in the declaration of independence.

As for whether they are different, they really aren't.  They are human errors of a different sort to be sure, but they are human errors that partisan individuals with an axe to grind try to make into a mountain despite their blatantly being little more than a mole hill. They are little more than political footballs that people who cannot or will not engage on serious issues use to sound like they are talking about important issues. 

I don't expect to change what you believe about her by any means. 

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 have never understood why a devoutly religous person should be denied consideration if they are being up front about their beliefs and positions.   Wouldn't it be the specific beliefs and positions that make you not vote for them and not the religion?  But we digress at this point.

Like I said originally there are plenty of good reasons to dislike her and I can even see where religion would qualify even if I don't agree with the assessment.