T Nation

Hysterical Rolling Stones on Palin and Political Landscape

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/23318320/mad_dog_palin/print

No psychological problems in that author. Move along.

I’ll never understand these Five Minutes Hates against Palin. I mean, many of the criticisms that can be leveled against her can also be leveled against Obama. I find some of her various Evangelicalisms to be annoying and a poor representation of Christianity, but then again, look at the “church” Obama went to - it was “pastored” by a guy who likes to engage in conspiracy theorism, political rants, cultivation of racial hate, and liberation theology FROM THE PULPIT, in complete disregard of the warning in James 3. It’s as if Obama’s church grabbed the nearest schizophrenic homeless man off a park bench and installed him in the office of teaching elder.

In contrast, Palin’s church believes in “literal six day creationism” (gasp!), in conversion therapy for homosexuals (gasp!), converting Jews (gasp! Jesus and the apostles did the same thing!) and in some sort of pre-millenial, pre-tribulatonal eschatology and doesn’t believe in the global warming hysteria. As much as I find Jack Van Impe, Tim LaHaye, et al annoying and wrong-headed, they’re not exactly cultivating strife with their neighbors from their various “pulpits,” as is “Rev.” Wright.

Then again, why are we even comparing Palin to Obama? SHE’S A VP CANDIDATE, NOT THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE!!1!!11!! I find these Five Minutes Hates rather irrational and I think they speak to the psychology of those who engage in them.

This is the best part of the article:

Do you ever read of Rolling Stone and their colleagues giving equal time to Islamic doctrine centered around Surah 9? Of course not. The “primitive beliefs” part applies only to Christianity and Judaism, which was one of the very foundational aspects of our civilization.

I trust Rolling Stone for nothing …It is an irrelevant publication…I didn’t even know people actually still read it at all.

How come Palin is “unqualified” to be a VP? And what makes her any less qualified than BO?

Call me crazy, but I guess I’d rather have a first term governor as VP than a first term senator as the big P regardless of party affiliation. At least there is some executive experience there.

PR:

She is being attacked because as I’ve said many times; Palin is the “X” factor that puts McCain over the top.

I think that the attacks on her merely strengthen her supporters resolve.

Mufasa

Here’s what Sarah Palin represents: being a fat fucking pig who pins “Country First” buttons on his man titties and chants “U-S-A! U-S-A!” at the top of his lungs while his kids live off credit cards and Saudis buy up all the mortgages in Kansas.

Did FightinIrish write this line?

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I’ll never understand these Five Minutes Hates against Palin. I mean, many of the criticisms that can be leveled against her can also be leveled against Obama. [/quote]

It is worth noting that the same criticisms of Palin also hold true for two other candidates in this race, John McCain and Barack Obama. As politicians, both men are more narrative than substance…

As is noted in the article.

[quote]Christine wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I’ll never understand these Five Minutes Hates against Palin. I mean, many of the criticisms that can be leveled against her can also be leveled against Obama.

It is worth noting that the same criticisms of Palin also hold true for two other candidates in this race, John McCain and Barack Obama. As politicians, both men are more narrative than substance…

As is noted in the article.[/quote]

Super. So where’s the Five Minutes Hate against Obama from Rolling Stone? I expect that it won’t be forthcoming…

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Christine wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I’ll never understand these Five Minutes Hates against Palin. I mean, many of the criticisms that can be leveled against her can also be leveled against Obama.

It is worth noting that the same criticisms of Palin also hold true for two other candidates in this race, John McCain and Barack Obama. As politicians, both men are more narrative than substance…

As is noted in the article.

Super. So where’s the Five Minutes Hate against Obama from Rolling Stone? I expect that it won’t be forthcoming…[/quote]

Who says they have to give equal consideration to each candidate?

[quote]Christine wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Christine wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I’ll never understand these Five Minutes Hates against Palin. I mean, many of the criticisms that can be leveled against her can also be leveled against Obama.

It is worth noting that the same criticisms of Palin also hold true for two other candidates in this race, John McCain and Barack Obama. As politicians, both men are more narrative than substance…

As is noted in the article.

Super. So where’s the Five Minutes Hate against Obama from Rolling Stone? I expect that it won’t be forthcoming…

Who says they have to give equal consideration to each candidate?

[/quote]

Well, they very clearly don’t. They’ve just chosen the neurotic route: hate someone with the very same characteristics of someone from whose nuts you swing. “I hate person X because they have ‘primitive beliefs’. I love person Y in spite of their ‘primitive beliefs’ (which I outlined above).” I find that neurotic.

Wow man. I feel sick after reading that. Really. Clearly that person has issues. I feel sorry for him.

If you have hate in your heart… LET IT OUT!

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Christine wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Christine wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I’ll never understand these Five Minutes Hates against Palin. I mean, many of the criticisms that can be leveled against her can also be leveled against Obama.

It is worth noting that the same criticisms of Palin also hold true for two other candidates in this race, John McCain and Barack Obama. As politicians, both men are more narrative than substance…

As is noted in the article.

Super. So where’s the Five Minutes Hate against Obama from Rolling Stone? I expect that it won’t be forthcoming…

Who says they have to give equal consideration to each candidate?

Well, they very clearly don’t. They’ve just chosen the neurotic route: hate someone with the very same characteristics of someone from whose nuts you swing. “I hate person X because they have ‘primitive beliefs’. I love person Y in spite of their ‘primitive beliefs’ (which I outlined above).” I find that neurotic. [/quote]

You’re talking about Bill O’Reilly, right?

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

Super. So where’s the Five Minutes Hate against Obama [/quote]

ummm… on talk radio? On this website?

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

Super. So where’s the Five Minutes Hate against Obama

ummm… on talk radio? On this website?[/quote]

Try to keep up.

[quote]Christine wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Christine wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Christine wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I’ll never understand these Five Minutes Hates against Palin. I mean, many of the criticisms that can be leveled against her can also be leveled against Obama.

It is worth noting that the same criticisms of Palin also hold true for two other candidates in this race, John McCain and Barack Obama. As politicians, both men are more narrative than substance…

As is noted in the article.

Super. So where’s the Five Minutes Hate against Obama from Rolling Stone? I expect that it won’t be forthcoming…

Who says they have to give equal consideration to each candidate?

Well, they very clearly don’t. They’ve just chosen the neurotic route: hate someone with the very same characteristics of someone from whose nuts you swing. “I hate person X because they have ‘primitive beliefs’. I love person Y in spite of their ‘primitive beliefs’ (which I outlined above).” I find that neurotic.

You’re talking about Bill O’Reilly, right?[/quote]

I’m pretty sure I haven’t written anything over your head. I don’t think I could put it any more simply, aside from using shorter sentences. You and I were discussing Rolling Stone, were we not?

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Christine wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Christine wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Christine wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I’ll never understand these Five Minutes Hates against Palin. I mean, many of the criticisms that can be leveled against her can also be leveled against Obama.

It is worth noting that the same criticisms of Palin also hold true for two other candidates in this race, John McCain and Barack Obama. As politicians, both men are more narrative than substance…

As is noted in the article.

Super. So where’s the Five Minutes Hate against Obama from Rolling Stone? I expect that it won’t be forthcoming…

Who says they have to give equal consideration to each candidate?

Well, they very clearly don’t. They’ve just chosen the neurotic route: hate someone with the very same characteristics of someone from whose nuts you swing. “I hate person X because they have ‘primitive beliefs’. I love person Y in spite of their ‘primitive beliefs’ (which I outlined above).” I find that neurotic.

You’re talking about Bill O’Reilly, right?

I’m pretty sure I haven’t written anything over your head. I don’t think I could put it any more simply, aside from using shorter sentences. You and I were discussing Rolling Stone, were we not?

[/quote]

I thought you were talking about neurotic people with primitive beliefs who hate.

So, you don’t like what they choose to write about. Aren’t they an entertainment magazine?

The only problem I see is when an organization pretends to be unbiased. They do not do so.

So the writer is a madman for speaking out which is obvious?

Yes, your would be empress is butt naked. So shamelessly incompetent-naked that her interviews and the debate was pure stupidity porn.
And as to the second point, the writer is just as right: it makes me cringe thinking about how deperately some americans want to be led by the most useless and idiotic political scum.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
So the writer is a madman for speaking out which is obvious?

Yes, your would be empress is butt naked. So shamelessly incompetent-naked that her interviews and the debate was pure stupidity porn.
And as to the second point, the writer is just as right: it makes me cringe thinking about how deperately some americans want to be led by the most useless and idiotic political scum.
[/quote]

If you have hate in your heart… LET IT OUT!

[quote]Christine wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Christine wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Christine wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Christine wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I’ll never understand these Five Minutes Hates against Palin. I mean, many of the criticisms that can be leveled against her can also be leveled against Obama.

It is worth noting that the same criticisms of Palin also hold true for two other candidates in this race, John McCain and Barack Obama. As politicians, both men are more narrative than substance…

As is noted in the article.

Super. So where’s the Five Minutes Hate against Obama from Rolling Stone? I expect that it won’t be forthcoming…

Who says they have to give equal consideration to each candidate?

Well, they very clearly don’t. They’ve just chosen the neurotic route: hate someone with the very same characteristics of someone from whose nuts you swing. “I hate person X because they have ‘primitive beliefs’. I love person Y in spite of their ‘primitive beliefs’ (which I outlined above).” I find that neurotic.

You’re talking about Bill O’Reilly, right?

I’m pretty sure I haven’t written anything over your head. I don’t think I could put it any more simply, aside from using shorter sentences. You and I were discussing Rolling Stone, were we not?
[/quote]

[quote]
I thought you were talking about neurotic people with primitive beliefs who hate.[/quote]

Well, you did quote this to me:

So, if you really meant to discuss Bill O’Reilly, perhaps you should have indicated it some way in your writing.

[quote]
So, you don’t like what they choose to write about. Aren’t they an entertainment magazine?[/quote]

I’m not quite sure. They seem to be writing about politics in this instance, don’t they? Is Palin an actor or musician and I’m unaware?

I don’t see how this speaks to the neurosis found in the author’s piece: the author hates a person with the very same characteristics of a person he loves, outlined in my comment above.