Discussion in 'On Topic' started by EYOB, May 5, 2008.
And yes, the magazine's borders are green not red.
I find it offensive.
To me it just seems like an allegory for winning a battle. I don't really see anything offensive.
A lot of people died getting that flag there and it's a symbol of the turning point during WWII. I just think it is a slap to the face to those who had paid the ultimate sacrifice. IMO, at the very least, Time magazine could have definitely chosen something more tasteful.
how can they compare the efforts of our war veterans with this eco shit?
it doesn't even make sense. if the issue was about the world now become more ecologically stable then it would at least be the right theme (a turning point in a war), however we're still "losing" that battle so why they chose the flag raising is beyond me.
I dont find it offensive
It reminds me of an infomercial i saw once that screamed, "ARE YOU LOSING THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE?! WELL YOU NEED TO GET HYDROXY-ROX-THE-FAT-SOX!".
That image is one of those images that shouldn't be fucked with at all, not even if its an important issue. IMO, it would be like putting pictures of skinny concentration camp jews on the cover of Time to "combat anorexia".
who declared war on the weather?
Feel free to email your opinion to the Letters to the Editor section [email protected]
How the fuck is this offensive?
Because alot of marines died on the way to the top of that hill, half those guys in the picture didn't make it home and the other half suffered from PTSD for the rest of thier lives. Hippies using the image of sacrifice to promote thier agenda which they carry out from the safety of Starbucks is disgusting
I can't find it offensive or it throws my belief out the window there are too many whiners in America. I understand people died taking that picture and what it stood for, however we do live in a free country, and the people in that picture died protecting that. Freedom of speech & expression is one thing they died for that day.
Then let me freely express that using that picture was in extremly bad taste
And that is your right, as long as it stops there. But with this cover there have been so many threats against time, one vet said every one there was going to hell, etc.
and he is free to express himself that way.
What a shitty cover.
when something becomes a criminal act it is no longer "free speech". i can't say i'm going to blow up your building and claim i can say whatever i want under the first amendment. there's limitations to every thing.
I think distasteful is a better word, rather than offensive. They could have easily re-enacted the pose with a global warming theme that used a tree. They also could have created an artistic drawing of the scene using a tree. Instead they chose to use the original picture and replace the U.S. flag with a tree.
I'm curious as to what you are referencing when you comment about Time receiving "so many threats"? Surely you don't consider the comment from Donald Mates saying "It’s an absolute disgrace... Whoever did it is going to hell" to be a threat? He's an 82 year old Iwo Jima veteran who has a right to be ticked about altered picture.
Assuming his comment was not the threat you were referring to, I did a few quick searches yet was not about to find any information online about Time magazine receiving threats. Care to share your information?