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 hard to say. I think one of two things will happen for sure...

The less likely, but more desirable outcome will be a third party. Most people think like I do, and just sacrifice personal freedoms (become Republican) or financial freedoms (become Democrat) to fight for the things they find more important. I think as time goes on, more and more people will become independent. If that mass of people can form a party that can really change things, I would be extremely happy.

What will most likely happen, is Washington will continue to be less and less efficient, and continue to make the worst possible choices for the American people. In the end, it will mean we will fall for the same reason every county who was no concurred fell… economic collapse. When that happens, there are so many possible reactions the American people could take, I don’t want to try and predict it.

I will say this though. If we don’t do something in the next 5-10 years fundamentally different then the way we have been doing things for the last 50, something bad is going to happen. We cannot continue to operate this way.

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.

Is this the quote in question? "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's will."

My initial understanding of this quote would seem to suggest that she was rather suggesting that we not proceed without a headnod from God, as it were, which is rather opposite of what you fear.  What's more, I think what she was more hinting at is that we were to ensure that that this war was good and just (at least, within my own Christian experiences, that's often an implication).

Also, I doubt Congress would go along with the president in an act of war should such a situation arise,  nor do I know if Palin is one to go around insisting others believe her own prophetic messages (certainly, the Bible demands rather rigorous tests for such people), and if she could not provide any evidence of it, perhaps (if she's clear thinking), she would not proclaim it.

Don't worry, I understand, thanks for pointing my mistake out. I don't know why I thought she would be a journalist. In my defense the article in the OP does just seem to switch between calling her a commentator and a contributor, maybe I got confused. But I guess neither commentator or contributor are strictly the same as journalist so I have no excuse. Sorry.

Certainly sounds like it would pass the game industry's definition of journalism.

:P

No, just after seeing a lot of things she had said.. makes me not trust her ability to recognize realty from religion. I am not saying anyone else needs to share my views about this, it's just how I feel. Some people just creep me out, and she is one of them.

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.

I don't expect you to be persuaded by it, and I have yet to make a comment in this thread (or these forums) suggesting what others should think of Sarah Palin. I am just saying what I think about her, and about the radically religious.

She is a religious fanatic. That might mean all she ever does it use god to direct how she conducts herself on a personal level, but it's not something I am willing to risk.

There are also millions of drug addicts in the world that never let there addiction influence there work life, but I wouldn't want to vote one of them into office either.

How long is her contract for? And does Fox realized that she'll skip out on the job pretty early saying that there's no point in being a lame duck commentator?