Time Magazine Massively Cops Out, Names Everybody Person of the Year

Who cares who Time names person of the year. Just another gimmick. :rolleyes:
 
Hitler and Khomenni were once Time's "Men of the Year". So, you now know what I think of the whole thing...
 
Time's "Man Of The Year" isn't always a praise, traditionally, they name someone who has affected the world (positively,negatively or both) on a large scale, both of which above named men have. Personnally, Bush should have been named or at least a runner up... what they did is a massive cop-out.
 
At least I finally won something. Wait, I don't upload videos, blog, or have a myspace account. I guess that means I don't count.
 
95DevilleNS said:
Time's "Man Of The Year" isn't always a praise, traditionally, they name someone who has affected the world (positively,negatively or both) on a large scale, both of which above named men have. Personnally, Bush should have been named or at least a runner up... what they did is a massive cop-out.

Bush Jr. won the awad in 2001 or 2002, IIRC...
 
95DevilleNS said:
Time's "Man Of The Year" isn't always a praise, traditionally, they name someone who has affected the world (positively,negatively or both) on a large scale, both of which above named men have. Personnally, Bush should have been named or at least a runner up... what they did is a massive cop-out.
If Time's Libs named President Bush "Man of the Year" it could be perceived as "praise." What they did was refuse to do anything that could be construed as giving Bush credit. Correct me if I'm wrong but President Bush has never been chosen Time's "Man of the Year," which is amazing.
 
Why would it be so amazing if he hadn't. Just because you're president does that mean you should automatically be chosen?
 
rmac694203 said:
Why would it be so amazing if he hadn't. Just because you're president does that mean you should automatically be chosen?
Whaaat? :D
 
rmac694203 said:
Why would it be so amazing if he hadn't. Just because you're president does that mean you should automatically be chosen?

Because Bush has had a large impact globaly. He was named though in 2000 & 2004 (also in 1990 along w/ Senior). He should have been named again over the "Everyone" thing. The "Ipod" should have won over "Everyone".
 
MAC1 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but President Bush has never been chosen Time's "Man of the Year," which is amazing.
I was just saying why would it be so amazing if he hadn't been chosen.
 
Fair enough. But it seems to me that every US president has impacted the world in a significant way. Does that mean that every president should be chosen at least once?
 
rmac694203 said:
Fair enough. But it seems to me that every US president has impacted the world in a significant way. Does that mean that every president should be chosen at least once?

Some a lot more than others. I am not exclusively saying Bush should have been picked for 2006, I am just saying that picking "Everyone" over Bush or someone/something else is pathetic.
 
You're right about that. I don't really care, I was just trying to make a point. I'm sure Bush was deserving of his being chosen, good or bad.
 
95DevilleNS said:
Because Bush has had a large impact globaly. He was named though in 2000 & 2004 (also in 1990 along w/ Senior). He should have been named again over the "Everyone" thing. The "Ipod" should have won over "Everyone".
OK. Then my theory has been discredited since he was named in 2000 & 2004. However, the "Everyone" thing is idiotic. I guess if Time judged strictly within the criteria of a person that has influenced the world the most, then Bush could have been chosen again.
 
rmac694203 said:
Fair enough. But it seems to me that every US president has impacted the world in a significant way. Does that mean that every president should be chosen at least once?

Bill Clinton never impacted the world in a significant way. All he ever accomplished was diminishing the dignity of the office of President. Neither did Carter, unless you call the only 'misery index' in the history of this country a significant impact.

Bush should be Man of the Year simply because of his Churchillian stance against Al Qaeda during a time when the rest of the world and half of America doesn't believe we are at war.
 
fossten said:
Bill Clinton never impacted the world in a significant way. All he ever accomplished was diminishing the dignity of the office of President. Neither did Carter, unless you call the only 'misery index' in the history of this country a significant impact.

Bush should be Man of the Year simply because of his Churchillian stance against Al Qaeda during a time when the rest of the world and half of America doesn't believe we are at war.

Technically Bill did... With the fiasco the Repubs made over his extramarital affair/lying, the news spread from continent to continent and the world laughed at us for making such a big deal about a guy lying about having an affair to save his own ass.
 
Not really..............

95DevilleNS said:
Technically Bill did... With the fiasco the Repubs made over his extramarital affair/lying, the news spread from continent to continent and the world laughed at us for making such a big deal about a guy lying about having an affair to save his own ass.

they were not laughing at us, but with us. As we were all laughing at the stupidity of the American people voting for such an aZZ as Clinton, not once but twice. His indiscretions were legendary long before he made it to the White House. Is he any worse than anyone else, probably not. Is he any better, Hell no.
 
95DevilleNS said:
Technically Bill did... With the fiasco the Repubs made over his extramarital affair/lying,
Actually it was called PERJURY and conspiracy to commit perjury.

the news spread from continent to continent and the world laughed at us for making such a big deal about a guy lying about having an affair to save his own ass.
You still don't get it. Probably never will. Strong arguments can be made saying impeachments was not a good strategy or punishment. But saying it was just "some guy lying about an affair" completely misses the reality of the situation and the severity of what he did.
 
bufordtpisser said:
Is he any worse than anyone else, probably not. Is he any better, Hell no.

For disgracing the office of the Presidency in such a blatant and disrespectful manner, and thumbing his lying nose at the American people when he said, "I did NOT have sex with that woman..." he is FAR worse than Reagan, Bush, Ford, and even Nixon. At least Nixon had the respect to resign rather than drag the country through a scandal. Hell, former Clinton staffers are still in trouble with the law - Sandy Burglar the most recent example.
 
Calabrio said:
Actually it was called PERJURY and conspiracy to commit perjury.

You still don't get it. Probably never will. Strong arguments can be made saying impeachments was not a good strategy or punishment. But saying it was just "some guy lying about an affair" completely misses the reality of the situation and the severity of what he did.

If he didn't lie and take measures to cover up the lies about his extramarital affair, then what exactly did he lie (perjure) about?
 
95DevilleNS said:
If he didn't lie and take measures to cover up the lies about his extramarital affair, then what exactly did he lie (perjure) about?

He was being sued in a sexual harrassment case. By lying, and by engaging in a conspiracy to have other's lie, he denied a woman her civil rights and her right to a fair trial.

He wasn't on trial for "cheating on his wife." He didn't lie to simply "prevent embarrassment."

But it is important to note just how low his character must be, targeting chubby interns, and having them perform lewd sexual acts, and then corrupting them and the pressuring them to commit perjury.
 
Calabrio said:
He was being sued in a sexual harrassment case. By lying, and by engaging in a conspiracy to have other's lie, he denied a woman her civil rights and her right to a fair trial.

He wasn't on trial for "cheating on his wife." He didn't lie to simply "prevent embarrassment."

But it is important to note just how low his character must be, targeting chubby interns, and having them perform lewd sexual acts, and then corrupting them and the pressuring them to commit perjury.


The Paula Jones deal doesn't smell fishy to you at all? Why did she wait 3+ years to file the lawsuit.

I think you're judging too much here, there are several factors you aren't considering, maybe Bill likes "chubby" women, maybe something about her personality just clicked with him, lots of 'maybes' to consider. As far as "courrupting" her, she was/is a grown woman, the choice was hers to make.... Yea the dude cheated on his wife, but who's business it is really? It's between him and his wife.

I don't agree that he cheated on his wife in the Oval Office, that is his workplace and he should have kept his personal affairs out of it, especailly considering he was the President. I have a hunch you and the others that ride Clinton hard over this is because he's a Democrat, if a republican had done the same exact thing, you'd be more forgiving.
 
95DevilleNS said:
The Paula Jones deal doesn't smell fishy to you at all? Why did she wait 3+ years to file the lawsuit.

I think you're judging too much here, there are several factors you aren't considering, maybe Bill likes "chubby" women, maybe something about her personality just clicked with him, lots of 'maybes' to consider. As far as "courrupting" her, she was/is a grown woman, the choice was hers to make.... Yea the dude cheated on his wife, but who's business it is really? It's between him and his wife.

I don't agree that he cheated on his wife in the Oval Office, that is his workplace and he should have kept his personal affairs out of it, especailly considering he was the President. I have a hunch you and the others that ride Clinton hard over this is because he's a Democrat, if a republican had done the same exact thing, you'd be more forgiving.

That's such a routine spewing of Democrat talking points I don't even know where to begin. Why don't we start with your oblivious ignoring of Calabrio's remarks? You have completely forgotten or are just willfully ignorant of the FACTS:

Bill Clinton used his presidential power to attempt to interfere in a civil suit by committing and suborning perjury. He tried to cover up an affair and attempted to tamper with a witness and obstruct justice. Then he lied about it straight to your face and everyone else's. As far as Paula Jones waiting to file the suit, she was within the statute of limitations, so what's your problem? She can file suit anytime she wants, it's her legal right, which by the way Clinton attempted to subvert.

The point I've made is that that is a disgrace for the leader of the free world to do such a thing. His law license was revoked and he was found in contempt of court, all the while brazenly attacking and assassinating the character of the investigator HIS justice department appointed to find out the facts. You Clinton apologists try to make this a personal thing, but he's the one who brought that house of cards down on himself.

Look at the big picture - he disgraced the office by his actions, and history will remember that. Too bad you and others like you are blind to those facts.

As far as an affair being his personal business, that's preposterous. We just had an outraged White House press corps screaming bloody murder about Laura Bush's malignant cancer on her leg that was removed. If anything is personal business, it would be medical information, but the press corps was in high dudgeon about not being informed about it sooner. So don't lecture me about how Clinton's affair, which was made public through HIS LYING AND BREAKING OF THE LAW, should be none of anybody else's business.

By the way, Deville, congratulations on being named TIME Mag's person of the year. I know you worked hard for it, and you deserve it, as does everyone else who was named.
 

Members online

Back
Top