Now that the Boston bomber, who "is a person after all" has done made it on the cover of da rolllllliiiing stooooooones, just gots da ask, Where's Martin??? Must be racism, is all I can think :confused: :confused: Okay, boys and girls, let us hear it..1 2 3, "we got golden fingers...we take all kind of pills to give us all kinda thrills....our smiling face...with a lotta sex....got a ole lady named cocaine katy...."..Dr Hook Cover Of The Rolling Stone - YouTube
They've crossed the line this time. Should have known better.
What's the big deal? It's just a picture. :confused:
I would imagine the article somehow excuses his actions and goes into some political drama about what the motivations are. It seems that Rolling Stone can take anything and make it political, with quite a slant in one direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
Of course, that's their usual stance. The answer is not to say they shouldn't publish it. It's a free press and they can publish what ever they want. The answer is to not buy any issues and encourage others to do the same. You can also contact any advertisers. Their wallet is the place to show your displeasure.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Stop it. Stop using Logic and freedom of choice. The Europeans might get upset.
And yet, this makes me ask one, simple question: did anyone actually read the article, in it's entirety, and then comment about it? With 'on the street' interviews, what one gleans from the participants is 'no, they didn't', making all this hubbub about the cover of said magazine nothing more than an exercise in faux-intellectualism.
Couldn't resist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ux3-a9RE1Q
I predict massive sales for Rolling Stones. Controversy sells.
Is it really that bad if someone offers an alternative view to the mainstream thinking?!Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Should we ban all those who provide diversity to our world?