• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rolling stone cover (1 Viewer)

Does the Rolling Stone cover offend you

  • yes, it pisses me off

    Votes: 15 26.3%
  • no, I like it

    Votes: 1 1.8%
  • don't care, yaaaawn

    Votes: 41 71.9%

  • Total voters
    57

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,697
Reaction score
5,704
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A terrorist on the cover? WTF

" The cover of Rolling Stone magazine has most often been the domain of musicians, actors, comedians, and the occasional politician. But this week, the periodical has raised eyebrows by letting Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev grace the famous front.

Read more: Rolling Stone features Boston bombing suspect on cover | Fox News
 
The picture itself does not bother me since plenty of infamous people have been on the cover of magazines before. I am a bit irritated with the caption though:

How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam, and became a monster."

I don't know why the media cannot seem to hold this guy accountable for his actions. They want to blame everything else except the individual.
 
Two people have said they don't care. WHY NOT? Step right up and say why you don't care. What do you care about, Kim Kardshians f**** baby?

Maybe they don't care because they feel magazines can put whoever they want on the cover?
 
Two people have said they don't care. WHY NOT? Step right up and say why you don't care. What do you care about, Kim Kardshians f**** baby?

Sure - and I didn't even vote.

I don't care because it's the ROLLING STONE magazine. I've never cared about the publication, thus, I feel nothing. It's the same as his face being on the front of any other magazine. It's not like they set their standards high for moral figures and ethical standards, to boot, they've put all sorts of unethical and immoral people on the cover who wrapped their lives around drugs and light poles.
 
I wouldn't care because Rolling Stone mostly sucks. That being said, they picked a really bad photo. They inadvertently or purposefully made the guy into a Jim Morrison, which, yes, would justifiably upset a lot of people. But it also gets us talking about it, which is what print magazines need.
 
I probably only care honestly because it happened to my hometown, where I normally stand for the marathon, and hurt my friends.
 
Freedom of speech and freedom for the press. They can publish this if they want and I can choose not to buy it and say it was insensitive and paints the murderous terrorist in a good light.
 
They still print Rolling Stone?

Any other cover people I don't care about that I have missed as well?
 
A terrorist on the cover? WTF

" The cover of Rolling Stone magazine has most often been the domain of musicians, actors, comedians, and the occasional politician. But this week, the periodical has raised eyebrows by letting Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev grace the famous front.

Read more: Rolling Stone features Boston bombing suspect on cover | Fox News

I saw the cover but couldn't care less. I stopped giving Rolling Stone any credibility back about the time that they started calling Jane's Addiction talented. If they couldn't get music right then I figured their political commentary had to be even worse.
 
It pisses me off primarily because our country took in
his family and he and his brother paid us back by
terrorizing an American tradition!

As to Rolling Stone I haven't ever bought one
and don't intend to now.
 
Perhaps it's just a marketing/advertising ploy?

You know, to get attention?
To get people talking about The Rolling Stone magazine again?

Seems to have worked.

:doh
 
I saw the cover but couldn't care less. I stopped giving Rolling Stone any credibility back about the time that they started calling Jane's Addiction talented. If they couldn't get music right then I figured their political commentary had to be even worse.

I could generally follow their reviews, but not specifically agree on much. If I could get the general vibe that "you might want to listen to this" then I would. Otherwise, meh. And yes, their political understanding is about on par with whatever MTV could muster.
 
CVS and Walgreens have already said they won't sell it.
 
Maybe they sought to start a discusiion that was different to the usual "They hate us so we must hate them back harder!" crap.
 
Big whoop. 20% of the people that made Time magazine's Man of the Year have been genocidal, murderous asswipes.
 
As was said, Rolling Stone can put whoever they want on their cover and people will buy it or not, or never again. Charles Manson was on the cover back in the day too.

1374076265000-XXX-manson-1970-rolling-stone-1307171152_3_4.jpg



It's the picture that is disturbing. It does not jibe with calling him a monster in the text of the cover. We probably wouldn't be talking about it had he more resembled a remorseless Timothy McVeigh.


time_mcveigh.jpg
 
Two people have said they don't care. WHY NOT? Step right up and say why you don't care. What do you care about, Kim Kardshians f**** baby?

Because it's a worthless rag written by liberal hipsters who are still trying to maintain relevance long after Cobain splattered the contents of his skull all over a wall. Their opinion on anything, especially music, doesn't mean **** to me.
 
Because it's a worthless rag written by liberal hipsters who are still trying to maintain relevance long after Cobain splattered the contents of his skull all over a wall. Their opinion on anything, especially music, doesn't mean **** to me.

Some others have said basically the same thing, fair enough.
 
A terrorist on the cover? WTF

" The cover of Rolling Stone magazine has most often been the domain of musicians, actors, comedians, and the occasional politician. But this week, the periodical has raised eyebrows by letting Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev grace the famous front.

Read more: Rolling Stone features Boston bombing suspect on cover | Fox News

As with Zimmerman, I'm prepared to wait until his trial, hear the evidence if it's not held in private, and watch the outcome before I condemn either the person or a magazine who puts his picture on the cover. I've seen pics of Osama bin Laden on the cover of Time, Newsweek, and any number of others - don't recall hearing this kind of hand-wringing and moaning then.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom