cnn.com/2004/US/12/19/time.m … index.html
Hitler was man of the year once too.
(Someone had to say it.)
God bless the police state!
One needs to bear in mind that ‘Time’ has chosen, over the past few years, Bush junior has won the title twice, and his pop has won the title too. As did “the american soldier” in 2003.
It kindof leads one to consider the POSSIBILITY that ‘Time’ is perhaps just a little bit biased towards the right wing… the gun ho.
Since when is popular media an unwavering supporter of the national government? I don’t see how this can be deemed acceptable in a free country.
HAHAHAHAHHA! HA! HAHA! HA! snort HA! HAHAHAHAH! HcoughcoughHAHAHAHAHA!
Yeah, so’s the New York Times! And the Washington Post! And the Village Voice! These are all right-wing publications! HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
[quote=“wudjamahuh”]
Since when is popular media an unwavering supporter of the national government? I don’t see how this can be deemed acceptable in a free country.[/quote][/quote]
uhh…errr…hmmm…Time is “an unwavering supporter of the national government” by their choice?..And you find this “unacceptable in a free country” ?
The lack of logic here is baffling.
[quote=“wudjamahuh”]One needs to bear in mind that ‘Time’ has chosen, over the past few years, Bush junior has won the title twice, and his pop has won the title too. As did “the American soldier” in 2003.
It kindof leads one to consider the POSSIBILITY that ‘Time’ is perhaps just a little bit biased towards the right wing… the gun ho.
Since when is popular media an unwavering supporter of the national government? I don’t see how this can be deemed acceptable in a free country.[/quote]
Perhaps you could ask this question to the Federal Liberals in Canada. Liberal aparatchik media titan Izzy Asper has made it a policy that journalists working in his papers can not be too vocal against the Liberals.
Similarly, the Globe and Mail takes a very strong Liberal line. So do useless entities such as the CBC and CTV with their useless talents ( Ralph Benmurgui for one). If you are going to criticize other countries and leaders, take a good look in your own “stinking” backyard." 
Actually, if you read carefuly the article writer’s reasons for choosing ANY person of the year, Bush makes perfect sense, regardless of your political leanings. As writer, Jim Kelly, says: The winner must be “the person or persons who most affected the news and our lives, for good or for ill, and embodied what was important about the year, for better or for worse,” he said.
In other words, the winner is not chosen based on likeability or good deeds but on INFLUENCE. And like it or not, Bush has certainly been one of the most influential people in recent history.
Why then didn’t Bin Laden win after making such a splash?
I remember seeing Time criticized for exactly this reason when they decided not to give it to OBL. It was pretty well understood at the time that everyone agreed OBL was person of the year – they were simply unwilling to take the revenue hit they predicted they would suffer follow an OBL person of the year cover. So they went for fluff and readership numbers over substance. shrug Being Time, I don’t recall many people being surprised at the decision.
He seems like a good choice to me. My understanding is that the nomination doesn’t mean a person is great, just influential. It would be hard to come up with someone else who has wreaked so much havoc and created so much divisiveness in the world in 2004 as Dubya. Time has named plenty of liars, scoundrels and mass murderers as Persons of the Year in the past:
Newt Gingrich 95
Ayatullah Khomeini 79
Nixon 71, 72
Stalin 42, 39
Hitler 38
Chiang Kai and Madame Shek 37
time.com/time/personoftheyea … e/stories/
Based on the above, Dubya seems to be an appropriate choice.
Nelson Mandela and Yasser Arafat, et al 1993
Bill Clinton 1992
Deng Xiaoping 1978 and 1985
Jimmy Carter 1976
American women 1975
Lyndon Johnson 1964
John F. Kennedy 1961
Nikita Kruschkev 1957
I guess some of them are more “dangerous incompetents” than scoundrels, though.
[quote]
time.com/time/personoftheyea … e/stories/
Based on the above, Dubya seems to be an appropriate choice.[/quote]
Nah. He definitely deserves better company than Jimmy Carter, our worst-ever president, and Bill Clinton, our second-worst-ever.
(Un?)Fortunately, Mother Theresa does not appear to have ever made the list.
And for bringing elections to Afghanistan for the first time ever and for scheduling elections in Iraq for the first time since 1958. That evil bastard. What next? Getting rid of Libya’s wmd program? Helping contain North Korean aggression against the South? That evil little twit! Return of 4 million refugees who had spent their time farming out their children as drug runners and whores (both male and female) in Iran and Pakistan but now have been able to return to their own country. That f***ing gunslinging cowboy idiot. Er that was what you meant to say MT? I know how much you “care” about women and children’s rights as well of those of refugees, but naturally since Bush is the one to deliver this after all these decades of talk by the “right-thinking” agencies you support, he is to be roundly attacked for “political” reasons. Where is Comrade Stalin with his appropriate thinking when you need him?
[color=red]*[/color]Anyone want to discuss just exactly what it was that Jimmy Carter “accomplished?” I have yet to hear of anyone actually mention anything that the man did that was worthy of historic accolades. Now, that is very different from Reagan, even Nixon had his exit from Vietnam and peace with China, Eisenhower, Truman but what were Carter’s accomplishments or hell even Kennedy’s or what about Clinton. These will be the three presidencies recalled for their wasteful nonaccomplishment of anything significant. A true pity. For many, a true tragedy.
[color=red]*[/color]Moderator’s Note: In a new thread, of course… 
Nelson Mandela and Yasser Arafat, et al 1993
Bill Clinton 1992
Deng Xiaoping 1978 and 1985
Jimmy Carter 1976
American women 1975
Lyndon Johnson 1964
John F. Kennedy 1961
Nikita Kruschkev 1957
I guess some of them are more “dangerous incompetents” than scoundrels, though.
[quote]
time.com/time/personoftheyea … e/stories/
Based on the above, Dubya seems to be an appropriate choice.[/quote]
Nah. He definitely deserves better company than Jimmy Carter, our worst-ever president, and Bill Clinton, our second-worst-ever.
(Un?)Fortunately, Mother Theresa does not appear to have ever made the list.[/quote]
That is debatable 
Hmm. Conflict. Should I believe some anonymous right-wing gun-freak forumosa addict or should I believe an internationally renowned Nobel laureate? 
[quote]Nobel Prize laureate for Economics George A. Akerlof lashed out at the government of US President George W. Bush, calling it the “worst ever” in American history . . .
“I think this is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history. It has engaged in extradordinarily irresponsible policies not only in foreign policy and economics but also in social and environmental policy,” said the 2001 Nobel Prize laureate . . .[/quote]
commondreams.org/headlines03/0729-06.htm
Well, he is entitled to his views but just remember they said the same thing about Reagan and who do you think will be remembered with respect by history: Bush or Clinton? Reagan or Carter? Nixon or Johnson? Kennedy or Eisenhower? Hmmm? What dya think? hahaha
Hmm. Conflict. Should I believe some anonymous right-wing gun-freak forumosa addict or should I believe an internationally renowned Nobel laureate?
[quote]Nobel Prize laureate for Economics George A. Akerlof lashed out at the government of US President George W. Bush, calling it the “worst ever” in American history . . .
“I think this is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history. It has engaged in extradordinarily irresponsible policies not only in foreign policy and economics but also in social and environmental policy,” said the 2001 Nobel Prize laureate . . .[/quote]
commondreams.org/headlines03/0729-06.htm[/quote]
What do you expect from a faculty member from the People’s Republic of Berkeley?
Hmm. Conflict. Should I believe some anonymous right-wing gun-freak forumosa addict or should I believe an internationally renowned Nobel laureate?
[quote]Nobel Prize laureate for Economics George A. Akerlof lashed out at the government of US President George W. Bush, calling it the “worst ever” in American history . . .
“I think this is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history. It has engaged in extradordinarily irresponsible policies not only in foreign policy and economics but also in social and environmental policy,” said the 2001 Nobel Prize laureate . . .[/quote]
commondreams.org/headlines03/0729-06.htm[/quote]
I am not anonymous. Anyone who has been to a happy hour in the last six months has probably met me.
Yasser, that Nobel Prize sure is A rat fat prize! Of course, the committee leaked that the main reason they gave it to Carter was because he opposed Bush’s policies. . . . 
Maybe MT did not mean anonymous but eponymous or perhaps ubiquitonomous or even iniquitonomous? could be. He is a Democrat after all and we know with the failing educational standards…
[quote=“MaPoSquid”]…, and Bill Clinton, our second-worst-ever.
[/quote]
That’s right. The new right likes piss poor economics and massive budget deficits. See that is why Clinton was so shit. My God, just what did he think he was doing developing a surpless and sustained high growth. What a complete arsehole!
PS fred, your memory seems to be short re carter. http://www.forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopic.php?p=189058&highlight=carter#189058