LOL

NO wonder, with TIME magazine just propagating the views of america's conservative elite

TIME magazine is shit.

LOL BUSH, what a fucking idiot.

___________________
Looking forward to:
Ian Holing - Blue Wave
Dogzilla - Frozen (Dub)
Sassot - Whatever (Aly & Fila Remix)

So Pierre Laval was once Time's Man of the Year. He was a great leader of France who later got killed for collaberation with the Nazis.

Stalin was Man of the Year 1939 and 1942.

Hitler was 1938 and Ayatollah Khomeni was 1979. So mass murderers can be on there too.

Do any of you remember when the Ayatollah's body fell out of the coffin on live TV? That was pretty funny considering how Jimmy Carter (Man of the Year 1976) fucked over the Shah and Persia in general.

Just so you know, Iran was called Persia before 1979.

EDIT: Don't forget Planet of the Year 1988: Endangered Earth. We are all going to die! AAHHHHHHHHHH!!!! 16 Years later and still kicking! Go Capitalism! Rape the earth and its people while socialistic nations crap on themselves due to massive welfare programs. Socalistic nations need to rape the earth of its riches to help pay for its old people and citizens who are bums.

Last edited by Reverend_Trance on Dec-19-2004 at 23:00

Well The Winner of Person of the Year 2004 was disturbing until I looked back at previous winners of this prestigious prize.

quote:

Ayatullah Khomeini(Iran) "Rarely has so improbable a leader shaken the world" King Faisal "Saudi led OPEC price hikes that roiled world markets" Richard Nixon "Opened China's door, devalued dollar..." Joseph Stalin "The U.S.'s new ally in war against Hitler" Joseph Stalin AGAIN. "Paved the way for Hitler's war by signing secret pact with old enemy" Adolf Hitler "His figure strode over Europe with all the swagger of a conqueror"

So Bush won for the second time. Great! That pretty much puts him neck and neck with Stalin.

As for me... I'll stick with my Newsweek subscription.

Time magazine points out WHY and WHY NOT should the person be person of the year, they do not just nominate someone and say "Gee, well this might be a splendid idea." Bush might be the man of the year because of his awesome war on terrorism or it could be because he is an "Imperialistic shmuck". Furthermore, it's relevant which is it. What is, hower, is that they nominate someone by their impact on the world. So, like it or not Bush made more of an impact then the smelly chicken shit arabs or whoever else. Bad or Good that's your opinion...the world still turns in America's favour.

___________________
First thing we learn about emotion, is that it has it's price. A complete paradox. But without control, without restraint, emotion is C H A O S.

quote:

Originally posted by BigManwithaPlan Well The Winner of Person of the Year 2004 was disturbing until I looked back at previous winners of this prestigious prize.

lol same here! saw the title on bbc, was like WTF, then i saw who had been winning that earlier and i was laughing again.

tho there are many nice people that won it too, but it doesnt necesairly have to be a good thing

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew tho there are many nice people that won it too, but it doesnt necesairly have to be a good thing

get off the fence, dude

anyway

quote:

Originally said by George W. Bush "Sometimes you're defined by your critics," he says. "My presidency is one that has drawn some fire, whether it be at home or around the world. Unfortunately, if you're doing big things, most of the time you're never going to be around to see them [to fruition], whether it be cultural change or spreading democracy in parts of the world where people just don't believe it can happen. I understand that. I don't expect many short-term historians to write nice things about me."

quote:

Originally posted by Sevas Stra Time magazine points out WHY and WHY NOT should the person be person of the year, they do not just nominate someone and say "Gee, well this might be a splendid idea." Bush might be the man of the year because of his awesome war on terrorism or it could be because he is an "Imperialistic shmuck". Furthermore, it's relevant which is it. What is, hower, is that they nominate someone by their impact on the world. So, like it or not Bush made more of an impact then the smelly chicken shit arabs or whoever else. Bad or Good that's your opinion...the world still turns in America's favour.

I was a Time magazine subscriber for some years, and what you are describing is the Time magazine of the past. Nowadays Time is basically about the US and what is of interest there (the reason why i *was* a subscriber). If you look at the person of the year for the last few years that trend is very obvious. Rudy Giuliani was a particular peculiar and patriotic choice, and the "whistleblowers" of Enron, CIA, and some other company didn't really affect the world as a whole but only the US. While Bush may have deserved his first nomination, there's little he has done this year which have affected world affairs. True, he has kept to his politics and stayed the most unpopular president in the world ever, but that's hardly newsworthy. In the US on the other hand, he recieved a lot of press during the election period, which might be the reason for this year's award.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I was a Time magazine subscriber for some years, and what you are describing is the Time magazine of the past. Nowadays Time is basically about the US and what is of interest there (the reason why i *was* a subscriber). If you look at the person of the year for the last few years that trend is very obvious. Rudy Giuliani was a particular peculiar and patriotic choice, and the "whistleblowers" of Enron, CIA, and some other company didn't really affect the world as a whole but only the US. While Bush may have deserved his first nomination, there's little he has done this year which have affected world affairs. True, he has kept to his politics and stayed the most unpopular president in the world ever, but that's hardly newsworthy. In the US on the other hand, he recieved a lot of press during the election period, which might be the reason for this year's award.

So if not Bush, who do you think should have been person of the year? Seriously, I can't imagine a person in the media more so than him ...

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I was a Time magazine subscriber for some years, and what you are describing is the Time magazine of the past. Nowadays Time is basically about the US and what is of interest there (the reason why i *was* a subscriber). If you look at the person of the year for the last few years that trend is very obvious. Rudy Giuliani was a particular peculiar and patriotic choice, and the "whistleblowers" of Enron, CIA, and some other company didn't really affect the world as a whole but only the US. While Bush may have deserved his first nomination, there's little he has done this year which have affected world affairs. True, he has kept to his politics and stayed the most unpopular president in the world ever, but that's hardly newsworthy. In the US on the other hand, he recieved a lot of press during the election period, which might be the reason for this year's award.

Dude are you kidding me? first off, Ruidi Guiliani got his because of the great job he did after 9/11 while the eyes of the world were watching. Second of all, this election was a huge world event as was the whole Enron scandal. And since when isn't the U.S. the central of pretty well everything and everything?

___________________
First thing we learn about emotion, is that it has it's price. A complete paradox. But without control, without restraint, emotion is C H A O S.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider So if not Bush, who do you think should have been person of the year? Seriously, I can't imagine a person in the media more so than him ...

You just gave me an idea to a thread. I'll post my suggestions in there. But I didn't think that the award was a simple result of maximum media coverage? I thought we were talking about extraordinary impact on world affairs?

quote:

Originally posted by Sevas Stra Dude are you kidding me? first off, Ruidi Guiliani got his because of the great job he did after 9/11 while the eyes of the world were watching. Second of all, this election was a huge world event as was the whole Enron scandal. And since when isn't the U.S. the central of pretty well everything and everything?

As part of the non-US world I can assure you that "the eyes of the world" did not rest on Guiliani for many seconds. I've heard and read that line many times in US news, but the coverage around here was minimal. To a great deal of us it was more interesting to see how events unfolded on the diplomatic circuit, then in Afghanistan, and subsequently Iraq. And Enron, well it was covered, but was definately not the story of the year. I can't even recall it headlining a news broadcast.
As to your last comment: Go explore the world.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic You just gave me an idea to a thread. I'll post my suggestions in there. But I didn't think that the award was a simple result of maximum media coverage? I thought we were talking about extraordinary impact on world affairs? As part of the non-US world I can assure you that "the eyes of the world" did not rest on Guiliani for many seconds. I've heard and read that line many times in US news, but the coverage around here was minimal. To a great deal of us it was more interesting to see how events unfolded on the diplomatic circuit, then in Afghanistan, and subsequently Iraq. And Enron, well it was covered, but was definately not the story of the year. I can't even recall it headlining a news broadcast. As to your last comment: Go explore the world.

explored and my statement stays. Good luck with the whole Denmark thing while you're at it. You don't understand the basic concept of political and economic impact.

___________________
First thing we learn about emotion, is that it has it's price. A complete paradox. But without control, without restraint, emotion is C H A O S.