• 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

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
Don't like it, don't hate it, don't particularly care much about the cover. Can't even begin to fathom why I should be offended.
 
I'm not offended, but I don't like it when the media publicizes killers. There is evidence that some killers and terrorists do it for the publicity. I don't think that killer's names or faces should be included in national/regional news stories unless they were famous before the crime. It is only relevant to the people in the immediate community, so it may be appropriate to mention the killer's name in the local media, but not beyond that community. I would not legislate this, it should just be standard journalistic practice to leave out their name and picture, as they already do with minors involved with crimes.

It bothers me that (for example) I know know the name of the guy who John Lennon. The newspapers should just refer to him as "the A-hole shot John Lennon."
 
A good father would be against his kids being exposed to this.

Yes you are right,so what is your point?
A good father wouldn't bring trash into his own home for his kids to be exposed to it.
A good father is supposed to teach their children not to play with trash themselves.
A good father is supposed to teach their children to dispose of their own trash.
A good father is supposed to instill values into their children so that they do not become trash themselves.
It is not my job to clean up everyone else's trash.
I'm a chef,not a garbageman.Me and my wife has always ran a "clean" household for our children.
How other people raise their kids is none of my concern,as long as those little monsters they are raising do not hurt my own children.Then it becomes my concern.

A good father is not only supposed to protect his children from the trash in the world,but to teach them how to deal with it themselves when they become of age.

It was because both me and my wife were too busy trying to raise our children to be productive and prosperous citizens to be concerned about who is on the cover of a magazine that our daughters are where they are at now.
My eldest daughter was too busy trying to get good grades, going to law school,passing the bar exam,landing a job at a large investment firm,striving to get promotions,meeting the man she loves,marrying him,buying a house,having a set of twins and raising my grandchildren themselves to worry about who is on the cover of Rolling Stone.
My middle daughter was to busy trying to get good grades,going to college to learn business management,going to culinary school to learn how to be a chef (just like her father),meeting the man she loves,marrying him,becoming the head chef of a nice fancy restaurant,buying a house,and her and her husband saving enough money to open up their own restaurant to worry about who is on the cover of Rolling Stone.
My youngest daughter was too busy getting good grades,getting to college,passing pre-med,going to a damn good medical college,and trying to graduate it to worry about who is on the cover of Rolling Stone.

Me and my wife have taught our daughters to follow their dreams,keep their eyes on the prize,and not let themselves be distracted by such trivial bull**** like who is on the cover of Rolling Stone.
That is why we Verthaine's are a prosperous and wealthy family.
We let others worry about the trash in the world.We are too busy trying to rise above the trash.
 
Right do people think Hunter S. Thompson was a music critic?
I suspect most people will have no clue who that is. Personally, I liked his second book - I never did read Las Vegas ... :)
 
Why would anyone be surprised or upset over this? Rolling Stone is clearly run by dope smoking liberals. Terrorists are probably their heroes.
Toe that Party Line!!! :lol:
 
I stopped buying RollingStone when they did the Manson cover, haven't purchased an issue since. Hopefully enough folks will feel the same way about this cover and do the same.
 
The Rolling Stone use to be about music and entertainment before they developed a journalistic style known us *Liberal Rag.
 
Bottom line is the guy is a chicken chit terrorist murderer. I don't care if he's pretty, a retard or brain dead. Nor do I care how and why he got that way.

So, RS, do the right thing and make it disappear.
 
CVS, Walgreens and now Rite-Aid. Usually don't go there because they're a little high, but I'm spending money at all three today.
 
So you're one of those rather odd parents that thinks hiding reality from their kids is a good thing?
No, he's one of those concerned parents who thinks your idea of exposure might be dangerous for his kids.
 
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

My concern about this issue ranks right up there with what color dress Michelle Obama is wearing.

Rolling Stone is a private company and if they want to put something on the cover that might offend people that's their business. If I was making decisions for them I damned sure wouldn't do it but I don't even read that trash much less consult with them.
 
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

It doesn't piss me off but I do think it is poor taste to put a terrorist on the cover a magazine that is normally used for musicians, actors, people involved in the acting and music industry,models and occasional political figures. If they want to write a article about a terrorist then fine, but don't put his photo on the cover of a magazine.The article inside the magazine is irrelevant when there is a photo of the terrorist on cover looking like a rock star or some other celebrity.
 
Maybe they don't care because they feel magazines can put whoever they want on the cover?




I wouldn't have put him on the cover, but I don't run the Rolling Stone magazine.

No one is forced to buy the magazine, which certainly has the 1st Amendment right to put whoever and/or whatever they want on the cover or in the magazine.

If we make this illegal, whats next?




"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen." ~ Tommy Smothers
 
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:



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.

Since I haven't read the article I can't say what their intention is, but I believe in the saying don't judge a book by its cover.
 
Since I haven't read the article I can't say what their intention is, but I believe in the saying don't judge a book by its cover.

There's another saying, "a picture's worth a thousand words."
 
I dunno....a convicted rapist played a comic cameo in a popular film comedy (Hangover Part 2)...and nobody batted an eye.

This piece was not the same sort of obvious endorsement of the man that the Tyson thing was.
 
Since I haven't read the article I can't say what their intention is, but I believe in the saying don't judge a book by its cover.

A valid point for sure, but given what I know about Rolling Stone magazine, I thought it was a fair assumption. Of course, given all the controversy and outrage surrounding the magazine cover, I am a bit tempted to read the article just to see if people are rightly upset with Rolling Stone or are just making a big deal about nothing. I won't give that rag any of my money though:lol:. I'll just try to find it in a bookstore.
 
A good father would be against his kids being exposed to this.

Actually, a good father could use this as a tool to teach their kids how people can often be side tracked by the stupidest things. Especially in the day-and-age of social media. Another non-issue-issue manufactured by faux outrage. "Good Americans" verses those who actually have the audacity to not care about such things. Some folks even have a hard time with the phrase suggesting his family failed him . . . when it was quite obvious, by the brother's actions after the bombing, prove that their family must have failed them in some manner or form. Or, aren't we responsible for raising our children now-a-days? A lot of much about nothing is all I got to say. Who decides what the new Anti-American controversy is going to be? Who is in charge of making this an issue? Seriously, whoever they are . . . they are douche bags of the highest order.
 
Who buys the rolling stone magazine is what I want to know..



Meh. The guy looks like an Arab.
 
Oh, this goes beyond party lines, my friend. Liberalism/Leftism is its own religion. ;)
That comment by itself tells me where you stand. When people base their life on religion they seldom see anything else.
 
No, he's one of those concerned parents who thinks your idea of exposure might be dangerous for his kids.
Momma's apron strings are more dangerous than information about the world they'll be facing some day.
 
Back
Top Bottom