PDA

View Full Version : George W. Bush named 'Man Of The Year' by Time magazine


Mossopp
19-12-2004, 22:18
Oh, for f#cks sake!

NEW YORK - President Bush’s bold, uncompromising leadership and his clear-cut election victory made him Time magazine’s “Person of the Year” for 2004, its managing editor said on Sunday.

Time chose Bush “for sticking to his guns (literally and figuratively), for reshaping the rules of politics to fit his 10-gallon-hat leadership style and for persuading a majority of voters this time around that he deserved to be in the White House for another four years,” Jim Kelly wrote in the magazine.

Bush was also Time’s choice to appear on the cover in 2000 after winning the presidential election despite losing the popular vote.

His father, President George H. W. Bush, was named “Man of the Year” in 1990 for what Time called his mastery of foreign policy and his wavering domestic record.

“Obviously many supporters of the president will be pleased, many people who do not support the president will probably sigh,” Kelly said.

“But even those who may not have voted for him will acknowledge that this is one of the more influential presidents of the last 50 years.”

Kelly said he and his staff debated giving the award to others including Karl Rove, the president’s influential political adviser, and filmmakers Michael Moore and Mel Gibson.

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.

American aviator Charles Lindbergh was Time’s first “Man of the Year” in 1927. Some selections have been notoriously unpopular, such as Adolf Hitler in 1938, Joseph Stalin in 1939 and 1942, and Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979.

This year the magazine named the conservative “Power Line” as its first “Blog of the Year.” Kelly said blogs, Web sites that often mix news, gossip and opinion, are “here to stay.”

I love how the article says the chosen person can affect lives "for good or for ill" but yet neglects to mention which side of the fence Bush is on. :rolleyes:
I guess it's too risky for a high-profile magazine like Time to expose Bush for the immoral, money-grabbing, war-hungry, stupid son of a whore that he is!
What the fuck is wrong with America? They should've given this "honour" to Michael Moore -at least he's trying to do what's best for the United States. What's best for the U.S. has never been something that concerns the Bush family!

DAZ
19-12-2004, 22:52
Oh, for f#cks sake!
I guess it's too risky for a high-profile magazine like Time to expose Bush for the immoral, money-grabbing, war-hungry, stupid son of a whore that he is!
!
:done:
How that stupid f*ckwit Bush can be named man of the year is beyond me.
There must be so many others who have done work for charity or something more deserving of this.

thegurgi
19-12-2004, 23:04
They should've given this "honour" to Michael Moore -at least he's trying to do what's best for the United States. What's best for the U.S. has never been something that concerns the Bush family!

Wow, the ammount of things wrong with that statement... i can't even begin. I don't Like Bush at all... but, wow... you think he'd be any better... you really don't have your facts straight at all......... nope.

But it makes sense, Man of The Year doesn't really mean "The Best Man of the Year" ... but "The Man who made most of an Impact This Year"... and i'd dare say, he takes the cake!

... just to say, can't any of you think levelheadedly about this whole Bush thing, i mean, i know so many of you don't like him at all, i don't either, but whenever he comes up you just go "Americans are so stupid" blah blah blah Bush is an idiot blah blah blah. I mean, just look at what it says about the award and you'd understand where it comes from, he certainly had EVERYONE talking this year, it makes perfect sense... so just live with it, we have to

Mossopp
19-12-2004, 23:06
Wow, the ammount of things wrong with that statement... i can't even begin.... but, wow... you think he'd be any better... you really don't have your facts straight at all......... nope.
In your opinion.
Care to elaborate?

thegurgi
19-12-2004, 23:10
He's a documentary maker! what more? He tells people what to think by editing... he's not exactly changing the world with real action just skewing facts to gain their support! That's why he wouldn't deserve it at all. I'd rather it go to someone a bit more honest (but that doesn't seem to exist in the world anymore)

Mossopp
19-12-2004, 23:23
Moore presents facts. There's no "skewing" involved!

thegurgi
19-12-2004, 23:28
yes there are! i've seen his film and while i don't claim to know everything about what's going on in my own country, but there are some serious things wrong with what he presents in "F911" and "Bowling for Columbine" ... even my very liberal brother found that the way he shows these things are VERY "skewed"

Mossopp
19-12-2004, 23:56
So give me some examples.
Seriously, I'm interested to hear your views.

thegurgi
20-12-2004, 00:05
hahaha, it's been so long i can't think of any, but i remember being incredibly unsure about 1/2 of both movies, it's just about reading between the lines in these instances and not believing everything your told, especially from the highly conservative and highly liberal... If i ever feel like watching the movie again, i'll give you some examples though (i'll pm you or something)

coolasfcuk
20-12-2004, 00:21
Of course Moor's documentaries are very biased and manipulative, and not 100% truth .... but that's their goal, to get provoke emotions, to get you thinking ... etc
I dont agree with you, thegurgi, when you say he doesnt deserve it at all, because he is documentarist .... his documentaries made big impacts, and i dont know of a single person that lives in USA and havent seen them.

As for why Bush won is obvious, as said above, its not who is the BEST, but : "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". Should you have any doubts thats the W this year?

Of course, you know that if Bush hadnt won the election, it would probably be another choice, but thats a different story ...

thegurgi
20-12-2004, 00:27
and i dont know of a single person that lives in USA and havent seen them.
I know quite a few, and i don't think his documentaries made as big of an impact as so many think he has.

kishkash
20-12-2004, 04:13
SCORE!

luxxi
20-12-2004, 08:40
What the fuck is wrong with America? They should've given this "honour" to Michael Moore -at least he's trying to do what's best for the United States.

What? Lie through his teeth to push an agenda? That's what Bush does. If you have to choose between which liars made bigger impact I'll always go with liar who has more important job.

:newyear:

DAZ
20-12-2004, 12:03
The more i think about it the more i realise what a stupid award this actually is.
I bet GW is proud he got this award.
For example did any magazines bother to give an award to Christopher Reeve or his family?(they may have i genuinely don't know)
On the Michael Moore point..I like what he's trying to do but for me he goes for cheap point scoring rather than trying to actually do anything.
(slightly off topic here but..I always found our own Mark Thomas always got better results than Moore ever would.(in Europe anyway.)
John Pilger and George Monbiot have also exposed corruption better than Moore as well.
If you want to read a good book go for Captive State by Monbiot.It certainly opens your eyes to what is going on in Britain and the 1st chapter with the Skye Bridge protests and Robbie the Pict is infuriating and hilarious.

luxxi
20-12-2004, 14:27
The more i think about it the more i realise what a stupid award this actually is.
I bet GW is proud he got this award.

You do realise that that this isn't for "most positive man of the year"? Seeing how Hitler got it (1938), Stalin (1942) and Homeini (1979)


For example did any magazines bother to give an award to Christopher Reeve or his family?(they may have i genuinely don't know)

And what world-shattering event did he do?

freddie
20-12-2004, 14:35
You do realise that that this isn't for "most positive man of the year"? Seeing how Hitler got it (1938), Stalin (1942) and Homeini (1979)

Exactlly. It's far from an accolade status. They considered Osama Bin Laden as well, a year or so back.

luxxi
20-12-2004, 14:39
Exactlly. It's far from an accolade status. They considered Osama Bin Laden as well, a year or so back.

I think it was in 2001.

:newyear:

QueenBee
20-12-2004, 14:58
I think I kind of agree with the award-thingie.. He wasn't the BEST man, but he made such a big impact, I mean, there were so many discussions about him... It's like, everybody thinks SOMETHING of George W. Bush.

spyretto
20-12-2004, 22:25
Not surprised at all...I actually was telling a friend of mine just 2 weeks ago that Bush is gonna turn into a hero and after he steps down he's gonna be regarded as a peace maker.
Jee, man, I've come into the position of cracking a lot more "unpredictable" things than that, how can this one be considered a big deal...this is elementary stuff sister, mind manipulation of the third degree. :D
He was re-elected after all, WASN'T HE?


but now we see how the "hero" gonna fix the situation in Iraq coz its pretty screwed up at the moment :eek:

what a D-O-R-K

PS. Queenbee, wake up! ( No I haven't seen Moore's stuff and I'm not gonna see it, I'd rather not watch a rigged thing about the man when I got my own opinion about the man. Don't matter what Moore says, he's just another liberal pawn :lol: )

QueenBee
21-12-2004, 06:32
PS. Queenbee, wake up!
I just did. :gigi:

spyretto
21-12-2004, 07:50
I meant it another way ;)

I wouldn't be surprised if Bin Laden talks to Bush on the red (white? :D ) phone - everyday. Doesn't surprise you that Bin Laden has become a "ghost" figure nobody can find? oh , common now :dead:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041221/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rumsfeld

oh dear :lol: It seems the US admin deliberately prolonging this war :lol:

DAZ
21-12-2004, 12:01
[QUOTE=luxxi]You do realise that that this isn't for "most positive man of the year"? Seeing how Hitler got it (1938), Stalin (1942) and Homeini (1979)
QUOTE]

Yes i do...now. :bum:

spyretto
24-12-2004, 08:00
That sucks...How come Saddam and Bin Laden didn't get it yet? :D

luxxi
24-12-2004, 09:07
That sucks...How come Saddam and Bin Laden didn't get it yet? :D

OBL was close to getting it in 01 but people were threatening to cancel their subscrptions so magazine balked. :rolleyes:

:newyear:

spyretto
24-12-2004, 09:26
oic...well, maybe he'll get it the day "Captain Stupid" declares the US economy has gone to pot.

freddie
24-12-2004, 12:22
I wonder if people threatened to quit subscribtions back in the day when Hiter and Stalin got it. Or maybe they weren't quite as stupid as they are today and they actually got the PURPOSE of this title back then still.

Mossopp
24-12-2004, 12:55
Basically, I think if anyone other than Bush had won this year there'd be a major uproar. "How dare they not honour our leader in these uncertain days?!" Blah blah blah...
Time are just covering their asses and taking the easy way out. :rolleyes:

spyretto
24-12-2004, 14:21
Yeah but the truth of the matter is, if there were no elections in the U.S. this year, the Democrats too would have put up with it, kept it quiet and Bush would be heralded as a new American superhero, dealing with the real enemy of America as he should.
Not that would change much the situation he's stuck up with now. So you have to look not at what people do, but why they do what they do.
And of course we live in the era of utter stupidity and total manupulation of the masses, whereby they can persuade anybody that black is white and white is black as long as it's said by CNN and NBC. There used to be some smokescreen where they'd try to conceal, distort and turn things upside down so much that one could be confused and not see beyond all the bullshit. But now it has gone way passed the land of the ridiculous.

What can one say, nobody would go in the streets to stir a revolution. We better all board a ship of fools and sail for the land of neverland... :bebebe:

And basically, modern democracy is a load of bollocks; you go every 4-5 years and elect the lesser of the two evils and then he has the power to do whatever the hell he wants to do. If that is demo-cracy, the "rule of the people" then I'm Mahatma Ghandi. They better go back and see what democracy used to be in the times of Ancient Athens.

madeldoe
24-12-2004, 16:28
SCORE!

:laugh:



woo! soldiers still in iraq during the holidays, eating crappy food and sleeping in a cold bed. we definately should praise and award the man responsible

forre
25-12-2004, 00:24
George W. Bush named 'Man Of The Year' by Time magazine
Anything strange with it? I bet he'll be running as a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize next year too. Since Yasser could make it then why not Georgy? :p

nath
25-12-2004, 16:29
And basically, modern democracy is a load of bollocks; .... If that is demo-cracy, the "rule of the people" then I'm Mahatma Ghandi. They better go back and see what democracy used to be in the times of Ancient Athens.
It´s a subjective point of view.....it´s true that in the "Ancient Athens", citizens had the power to vote for another chief of war if they thought that the present wasn´t enough good but.. among other things, foreigners, Slaves and Women...couldn´t vote..
Moreover,Platon thought that a "democracy with a such quality or performance" could only take place in a city having at maximum 7000 habitants... with more habitants, the idea of democracy would be associated with less quality.

spyretto
27-12-2004, 05:23
Actually the world originates from the 5th c. BC Athens and means the rule of the demos. The demos was consisted of every male citizen over the age of thirty, and each one would serve for at least one term at the Council - which was the equivalent to our modern parliament.
It's true that women and slaves were not represented at that time, but later, under Solon's legislation, all slaves were declared free, and later, under Pericles,the newly-aquired :p slaves were represented in the Council which was now formed by the 500 "best" - according to merit, not wealth or family citizens. All that 2500 years ago...
I think that instead of what we have today - the tyranny of the majority, sometimes even the minority - and since the Athenian system is impossible to be implemented, I'd rather see the abolition of that flawed model of "democracy" altogether and the return of the monarchy. One person respected by everybody to be chosen to run the country. He would elect his government according to merit not interest and would have to get the approval of the people for important decisions - such as taking the country to war. After a term he would decide who the his successor would be. ( another well-respected member of the community ).
I think the Chinese used to do that for centuries.

nath
27-12-2004, 11:18
I think that instead of what we have today.... I'd rather see the abolition of that flawed model of "democracy" altogether and the return of the monarchy. One person respected by everybody to be chosen to run the country. He would elect his government according to merit not interest and would have to get the approval of the people for important decisions - such as taking the country to war. After a term he would decide who the his successor would be. ( another well-respected member of the community )..:spy:..it´s may be because I read too much your posts that I become very pessimistic here...

He would elect his government according to merit ....."according to merit" could have absolutely opposite definitions in relation with the context...it seems "according to merit" has had a lot of catastrophic "past history" in many dictatures....

He .... would have to get the approval of the people for important decisions - such as taking the country to war... After a term he would decide who the his successor would be. ( another well-respected member of the community )..So the people would be able to decide by itself, without knowing with precision which are all the economical, diplomatical, ethical, military ....stakes, if it accepts or not a war...but the same people won´t be able to choose by itself its next chief ?... :eek:

who the his successor would be. ( another well-respected member of the community )....this expression rejoins , in my brain, the "previous danger" of .."according to merit"...


One person respected by everybody to be chosen to run the country. ..Does it/he/she exist ? ;) ...I´m surprised by a such proposition from your part, spyretto,...It presupposes that all the chiefs would be the wiser of the wiser...a true fairy-tail...:D