"If Tsarnaev's face looked like the back of an old man's balls and they put him on the cover, no one would be complaining; "
wtf is he trying to say here?
I really can't say I'm surprised. I think Rolling Stone Magazine is easily the most repulsive branch of the liberal media. The sheer, unbridled hatred and hypocrisy seen in each issue (Usually by that pitiful d-bag of a writer Matt Taibbi) is mind- boggling. They regularly hold up and praise as heroes all manner of lawless scum (i.e. The Palin email hacker, the Mojave Desert Cross thief, a teenager who organized a massive interstate dope shipment, etc.), doing the same for Tsarvaev is no real stretch. Seriously, I know the writers whinily said "Oh, you right- wing bigots should actually read the article, we don't praise him in the article, boo hoo hoo," but the real issue isn't them including an article about the bomber; It's using his picture for the COVER of that issue. It's a relatively rare occasion when a person seen on the cover of an issue of Rolling Stone is portrayed in a negative light in the article focusing on him or her. You can see from the side of the cover that that particular issue also featured stories relating to Willie Nelson and Jay- Z, among others; Why not use one of them for the cover photo instead, and have the Tsarnaev story be one of the ones labeled to the side? Oh, I forgot: Doing that wouldn't be "Edgy" enough for the vermin writers/ editors of that despicable rag.