a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:13 pm
Nice going, but then again what do you expect from a left wing nut job rag.
Nice going, but then again what do you expect from a left wing nut job rag.
Page 1 of 2
Nice going, but then again what do you expect from a left wing nut job rag.
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:42 pm
What the fuck are you babbling about?
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:46 pm
Don't worry about it.Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:What the fuck are you babbling about?
Haven't you heard of dementia?
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:33 pm
Mikey is just pissed that his hero didn't make the cover of his latest edition of Tiger Beat.
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:54 pm
He's talking about how Felchco will want to suck the skin off his nutsack when he sees that picture.Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:What the fuck are you babbling about?
Are you suddenly unconversant with basic propaganda techniques?
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:07 am
Collector's item of libtard extremism. Get a copy asap cuz they may be rare before you realize it.
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:17 am
Not surprising when you have dumb fucks with Che Guevara T shirts. Nothing much else says, it's cool to celebrate a mass murderer---it's hip.
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:27 am
Big O, your kids were probably in diapers the last time that rag was relevant.
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:58 am
I wonder if Dr. Dzhokhar is gonna buy five copies for his mother.
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:01 am
Mikey wrote:I wonder if Dr. Dzhokhar is gonna buy five copies for his mother.
:|
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:04 am
more misplaced outrage, just like the Zimmerman verdict. RS isn't celebrating the perp, just documenting what happened and may have led to it. They call him a failed monster on the cover, what's the problem? You don't like the celeb pic? Get over it.
why is it that people always need something to be pissed off about?
why is it that people always need something to be pissed off about?
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:28 am
You just lost conservative victimization cred with that take.War Wagon wrote:more misplaced outrage, just like the Zimmerman verdict. RS isn't celebrating the perp, just documenting what happened and may have led to it. They call him a failed monster on the cover, what's the problem? You don't like the celeb pic? Get over it.
why is it that people always need something to be pissed off about?
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:29 am
Yeah, that's was "misplaced outrage" alright. Nothing about vigilante justice to be outraged about, eh Whitey?War Wagon wrote:more misplaced outrage, just like the Zimmerman verdict
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:56 am
Believe it or not, the kid probably didnt pose for a lot of pics with a scowl on his face and a burning American flag in the background.
I'm dumbfounded why this is a big deal.
I'm dumbfounded why this is a big deal.
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:05 am
Only African American's can kill other African American's and get away with it. /End of debate
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:16 am
Wolfman wrote:
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:36 pm
A worthy send up.
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 9:12 pm
Wolfman wrote:
Nice going, but then again what do you expect from a left wing nut job rag.
They should have had him wearing a hoodie.
I don't really understand all the criticism. There are like 15 or 20 public photos of the guy, and we've seen them all. They chose the one that fit the cover and fit the article, which apparently asks "How did a seemingly decent kid turn into a monster ?" It's an important question, but one that many Americans don't really want to consider; we want our heroes really good and our bad guys really bad.
Bin Laden was worse, he killed a lot more people; are Time and Newsweek glorifying him ?
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 9:35 pm
Spot on, Screwey. George shoulda just laid there and let that colored kid monkey-stomp him to death. The audacity of some folks...Screw_Michigan wrote:Yeah, that's was "misplaced outrage" alright. Nothing about vigilante justice to be outraged about, eh Whitey?War Wagon wrote:more misplaced outrage, just like the Zimmerman verdict
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 9:40 pm
No, they were reporting the news. RS is perceived to be commentary on music and celebrity.M2 wrote:Bin Laden was worse, he killed a lot more people; are Time and Newsweek glorifying him ?
That said, that pic helped them accomplish their objective: Attain relevancy (for a month, anyway) and sell more magazines. Nothing to see here...
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 9:42 pm
Papa Willie wrote:True - but those mags weren't exactly trying to make a hero out of ObL like RS is this little guy. RS is desperate, though. They've lost a lot of readers over the years, so this is just another example of "bad press is good press".
The RS cover is just a drop in the bucket.
I don't recall the same kind of backlash regarding these McVeigh covers, although it was in the days before the social media age...
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 9:49 pm
I didn't even know Rolling Stone was still in business
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 9:50 pm
Truman wrote:No, they were reporting the news. RS is perceived to be commentary on music and celebrity.M2 wrote:Bin Laden was worse, he killed a lot more people; are Time and Newsweek glorifying him ?
Rolling Stone has been doing legitimate articles for decades:
Is Tsarnaev more of a monster than Charles Manson ? Who knows, I'll let the history books decide that, but both are worthy of examination.
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:00 pm
Perhaps Rolling Stone should have gone with this photo, of Tsarnaev being apprehended on the boat, released by one of the officers who took him into custody. Note the laser sight on his forehead.
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:22 pm
Papa Willie wrote: RS is a bunch of cock-chewing moronic SF faggots that will do ANYTHING to survive. They're trying to say "he didn't mean to, the conservatives made him do it". And I can say that will full confidence - without even having read the article.
I imagine that the vast majority of the people upset by the cover haven't actually opened an issue of Rolling Stone in a decade. The cover may typically feature celebrities, but there's always one or more news stories announced in large type as well. Here are the four recent covers... the investigative reports include Gangster Bankers, The NRA vs. America, Rape & the Military, What Obama Must Do About the Climate Crisis and The Truth about the Bailout.
Papa Willie wrote:They should seriously just stick to music. Then again - their reviews have almost always been the opposite of what is truth in that, and they've always put liberal licking shit deposits (like Springsteen) up on a pedestal where they have no business in being at.
Rolling Stone's investigative reporting... is probably the best in the US now.
Tabibi is an impressive journalist. The cover is to make the magazine money. It's a free market after all. Don't like it ? Don't buy it.
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:47 pm
Papa Willie wrote: I haven't bought it in about 30 years. And quit trolling about it's "investigative reporting". It's one of the most biased chunks of shit anywhere, and that's saying a helluva lot. Even as a teenager, I quickly saw and understood how painfully gay & fucked up they were. Sorry that you haven't progressed to that level of maturity yet.
Matt Taibbi has a new piece available on Rolling Stone's website saying basically the same thing... that people generally agree with the 70's Dr. Hook song that only self-described "big rock singers" get on the cover of Rolling Stone, and they just don't know that Rolling Stone has long been in the "hard news" business as well. To Taibbi, the gap between perception and reality is largely responsible for the outcry. ( Taibbi says that's been part of the magazine's focus since its inception.)
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 2:30 am
Why do you hate personal responsibility?Truman wrote:Spot on, Screwey. George shoulda just laid there and let that colored kid monkey-stomp him to death. The audacity of some folks...Screw_Michigan wrote:Yeah, that's was "misplaced outrage" alright. Nothing about vigilante justice to be outraged about, eh Whitey?War Wagon wrote:more misplaced outrage, just like the Zimmerman verdict
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 2:59 pm
Self defense is the most basic form of personal responsibility, moron.Screw_Michigan wrote:Why do you hate personal responsibility?
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 3:12 pm
I guess vigilantes aren't responsible for their behavior, eh you wetbacked piece of shit?
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 3:15 pm
You DO realize Martin attacked Zimmerman, correct?Screw_Michigan wrote:Why do you hate personal responsibility?
“He jumped out from the bushes, and he said, ‘What the fuck is your problem, homie?’ And I got my cell phone out to call 911 this time, and I said, ‘I don’t have a problem.’ And he goes, ‘Now you have a problem,’ and he punched me in the nose,” Zimmerman told the investigator.
Zimmerman said the blow knocked him to the ground, and Martin got on top of him.
“He puts his hand on my nose and my mouth, and he says ‘You are going to die tonight,’ ” said Zimmerman. “As he banged my head again, I just pulled out my firearm and shot him… He is mounted on top of me, and I just shot him, and he falls off. And he’s, like, ‘Alright you got it, you got it.’ “
Read more: http://fox59.com/2013/07/01/george-zimm ... z2ZbBnhgUK
Why do YOU hate the Constitution?
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 3:25 pm
You DO realize Zimmerman initiated the entire confrontation, right? Fuck off, cunt.Truman wrote:You DO realize Martin attacked Zimmerman, correct?Screw_Michigan wrote:Why do you hate personal responsibility?
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 3:35 pm
Wrong again, shitdick. Tr'noggle was killed during the commission of a violent crime in a straight up, cut and dried case of self-defense.
Asking a stranger what they are doing in your neighborhood isn't initiating a confrontation. Punching somebody in the fucking face IS initiating a confrontation. I'm not in the least bit surprised to see that you are too fucking stupid to understand that.
Asking a stranger what they are doing in your neighborhood isn't initiating a confrontation. Punching somebody in the fucking face IS initiating a confrontation. I'm not in the least bit surprised to see that you are too fucking stupid to understand that.
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 3:37 pm
Doing it while armed? Yeah, that's no big deal.mvscal wrote: Asking a stranger what they are doing in your neighborhood isn't initiating a confrontation.
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 3:42 pm
Oh. So Zimmerman pulled his weapon and then physically attacked Martin with his nose as Trayvon came up from behind? Well, then, that changes things...Screw_Michigan wrote:You DO realize Zimmerman initiated the entire confrontation, right? Fuck off, cunt.Truman wrote:You DO realize Martin attacked Zimmerman, correct?Screw_Michigan wrote:Why do you hate personal responsibility?
You're gonna make a swell journalist, Screwey: If the facts don't fit the truth, make 'em up.
Die in a South African necklacing.
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 3:44 pm
Just because concealed carry isn't legal in the District doesn't mean that it's illegal in other places that actually acknowledge the constitution.Screw_Michigan wrote:Doing it while armed? Yeah, that's no big deal.mvscal wrote: Asking a stranger what they are doing in your neighborhood isn't initiating a confrontation.
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 3:46 pm
Oh OK, so what's legal and what's not determines if something is right or not.
Die of ass AIDS.
Die of ass AIDS.
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 3:47 pm
Assault is legal in Florida?Truman wrote: Just because concealed carry isn't legal in the District doesn't mean that it's illegal in other places that actually acknowledge the constitution.
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 3:52 pm
Of course not, which is why Zimmerman had legal precedent to use deadly force on Martin. Now you're catching on, Screwey..Screw_Michigan wrote:Assault is legal in Florida?Truman wrote: Just because concealed carry isn't legal in the District doesn't mean that it's illegal in other places that actually acknowledge the constitution.
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 4:22 pm
What difference does that make? Zimmerman didn't draw his weapon until after the niqqer violently assaulted him.Screw_Michigan wrote:Doing it while armed? Yeah, that's no big deal.mvscal wrote: Asking a stranger what they are doing in your neighborhood isn't initiating a confrontation.
Re: a Rolling Stone should gather no mas
Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 3:28 am
Truman wrote:and I said, ‘I don’t have a problem.’ And he goes, ‘Now you have a problem,’ and he punched me in the nose,”
This doesn't surprise me, Justin Bieber is running amok as well. WTF is going on down there?