Dodd agreeing that this fuckin piece of shit has nice hair irritates me even more.TehBatGetsBraked wrote:Fucking cunt swabbing dinosaurs this really fucking infuriates me
Boston Marathon Bombing
Alright but that's just a small thing but these fucking idiots are turning this piece of filth into a fucking celebrity.Law wrote:Dodd agreeing that this fuckin piece of shit has nice hair irritates me even more.TehBatGetsBraked wrote:Fucking cunt swabbing dinosaurs this really fucking infuriates me
I said he was a scumbag. Its not like I said he was a good guy. As for Rolling Stone putting him on the cover, I really think it was just a ploy to stay relevant as a magazine, with a bit of controversy stirred up gets people talking and I think that was their mission. Aim higher Rolling Stone.Law wrote:Dodd agreeing that this fuckin piece of shit has nice hair irritates me even more.TehBatGetsBraked wrote:Fucking cunt swabbing dinosaurs this really fucking infuriates me
I'm actually sorry for complementing a maniac bomber, really not the right thing to do. Sorry everyone.
Posts: 4705
Joined:
May 2013
Am I the only one who thinks the cover isn't totally bad? It's not like they're gloryfing him, just writing an article about him. I've seen much worse covers and articles than that when actually the writer puts the baddie in a positive light.
It's just that it isn't the right magazine to do it on. For instance, Time Magazine is much more appropriate.theseeker9175 wrote:Am I the only one who thinks the cover isn't totally bad? It's not like they're gloryfing him, just writing an article about him. I've seen much worse covers and articles than that when actually the writer puts the baddie in a positive light.
^ thisLaw wrote:It's just that it isn't the right magazine to do it on. For instance, Time Magazine is much more appropriate.theseeker9175 wrote:Am I the only one who thinks the cover isn't totally bad? It's not like they're gloryfing him, just writing an article about him. I've seen much worse covers and articles than that when actually the writer puts the baddie in a positive light.
Dodd wrote:^ thisLaw wrote: It's just that it isn't the right magazine to do it on. For instance, Time Magazine is much more appropriate.
Apology accepted. I know you didn't mean anything by it.Dodd wrote: I'm actually sorry for complementing a maniac bomber, really not the right thing to do. Sorry everyone.
For me at least, it has nothing to do with the article. It's the fact they have him depicted on the cover as some sort of teen celebrity. It's tasteless.theseeker9175 wrote:Am I the only one who thinks the cover isn't totally bad? It's not like they're gloryfing him, just writing an article about him. I've seen much worse covers and articles than that when actually the writer puts the baddie in a positive light.
They've also semi-sexualized him by emphasizing his nice features, as opposed to giving a dark look to it of some kind.
-Vader
-Vader
We all have to admit that he is quite handsome.Addicted2Movies wrote:Thoughts on this:
