Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Rolling Stone Cover? This is why it is wrong....warning Graphic Photo. [View all]Logical
(22,457 posts)191. I have no issue with them not carrying it. But they are wrong not too. And...
Who is saying they have to carry it? Please post a link where someone wants to force them to.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
194 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Rolling Stone Cover? This is why it is wrong....warning Graphic Photo. [View all]
sheshe2
Jul 2013
OP
Tired argument...do you acknowledge that if you were missing a leg right now courtesy of Jahar
BeyondGeography
Jul 2013
#76
I think the people getting their knickers in a twist over this are ridiculous.
Spider Jerusalem
Jul 2013
#2
Of course it is. The whole point was "How did someone with this much potential go so wrong?"
NYC Liberal
Jul 2013
#7
If you can't figure out the difference between one day of "display" laid flat, and a month
MADem
Jul 2013
#23
My personal view, as someone from the Bay State, is that the magazine cover is tasteless.
MADem
Jul 2013
#28
Are you sure about that? I keep asking for a copy of that cover, and no one can come up with it.
MADem
Jul 2013
#134
Who's whining? I'm just pointing out what is obvious to anyone reading this thread.
MADem
Jul 2013
#188
No. I do not agree. Otherwise they would have used one of his "normal kid" shots, not a "glamour
MADem
Jul 2013
#131
Rolling Stone is published every two weeks, issues are not on the stand for a month but for two
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2013
#94
I don't 'claim to be a big expert'--I have read the thing off and on since the late sixties.
MADem
Jul 2013
#123
They love this attention. Just like the people trying to ban movies. It always....
Logical
Jul 2013
#56
No one is trying to "ban" anything. Some businesses are saying "We won't sell your shit. Buy it
MADem
Jul 2013
#133
You can think whatever you'd like, and others can have the very same impression of you.
MADem
Jul 2013
#137
Indeed, as are you--and you can even do so quite proudly and smugly, if you'd like. nt
MADem
Jul 2013
#140
Look, you don't have to share your innermost thoughts with me. I understand that you're a bit upset
MADem
Jul 2013
#161
The article is online--most people have read it, and while it doesn't plow much new ground, the
MADem
Jul 2013
#187
You are most welcome. I think they don't quite realize it yet, but they're hoisting themselves upon
MADem
Jul 2013
#144
Not even the most basic facts are correct, hard to read past the glaring errors. Rolling Stone is
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2013
#93
How did they react when that same picture was on the front page of pretty much every newspaper?
Spider Jerusalem
Jul 2013
#72
"I think the people getting their knickers in a twist over this are ridiculous."
sheshe2
Jul 2013
#91
obama was on their cover. did you protest then? his policies have killed FAR more people nt
msongs
Jul 2013
#3
The regulations and 'ZONING' of the Texas plant is the fault of Governor Perry and Texas - not Obama
Tx4obama
Jul 2013
#166
So the best way to prevent it from happening in the future is to stick head in sand
dogknob
Jul 2013
#8
Damn, now I'm going to have to subscribe to the first magazine I'll have paid for in years
Fumesucker
Jul 2013
#14
Oh, your glee in boasting that leftist hippie rag is going under is all the impetus I need
Fumesucker
Jul 2013
#17
It just doesn't look like a good business decision to me. That's all I wanted to get across.
ReRe
Jul 2013
#21
Banned in Boston. Why folks from other places are not always in that chorus....
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2013
#102
It was a huge publicity blitz for them, make no mistake--no one buys magazines in July anyway.
MADem
Jul 2013
#25
He also publishes US WEEKLY, that will put whatever it needs to on the cover to drive sales.
MADem
Jul 2013
#49
I'm afraid there's only one POV that is "acceptable" to some....and that is that people who object
MADem
Jul 2013
#189
Thank, I will make a point to go to my local purveyor and getting a copy
nadinbrzezinski
Jul 2013
#112
Those are weekly news magazines, not a music-entertainment magazine that does the odd
MADem
Jul 2013
#51
That is not the case. First Amendment applies to government, but other entities
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2013
#122
Boston happily gave up its right in regards to warrantless searches during this ordeal...
egduj
Jul 2013
#55
I always feel that "honoring a loss" without looking at any other part of a tragedy fosters an odd
Brickbat
Jul 2013
#63
Were you equally "bothered" by all the people who had convicted Zimmerman
Common Sense Party
Jul 2013
#88
Then I applaud your even-handedness. But on DU, saying "let's wait for the evidence,
Common Sense Party
Jul 2013
#103
I wonder at the reaction here if George Zimmerman were put on the cover of Guns and Ammo.
cigsandcoffee
Jul 2013
#92
I disagree. On the cover of Rolling Stone, pretty much anyone looks like a pop star.
cigsandcoffee
Jul 2013
#105
Visuals have a stronger impact than words, and Rolling Stone knows this.
cigsandcoffee
Jul 2013
#110
except that RS isn't trying to pass the patriot act, nor is it trying to bash the victims of boston.
HiPointDem
Jul 2013
#184