George Bush.
http://www.time.com/time/personofthe...004/story.html
Thoughts, agree, disagree?
Take care all.
Printable View
George Bush.
http://www.time.com/time/personofthe...004/story.html
Thoughts, agree, disagree?
Take care all.
Disagree. Bush shouldn't have been elected to Person of the Year. Although he has done a great job of been re-elected. He still has the war in Iraq follow him. I don't know excactly how it should be then, maybe Colin Powell or some sort of sportsman that did a great job. Or maybe a East-European politian like Saakasvili
No, I don't really agree.
Plus I heard he's trying to kill all the wild horses. How nasty can you get?
Eh. I don't hate Bush or anything, but I think there're better people they could've picked.
While I'm not exactly anti-Bush, naming him Person of the Year seems pretty absurd to me. Person of the Year shouldn't be based on pure achievement, but integrity and positive actions. I'm sure that plenty of people in the public eye have had a more positive effect on the world than President Bush over the past year, and it seems unfair that they should not be acknowledged over a man who accomplished a lot, but for all the wrong reasons.
Making Charles Manson Person of the Year would be a better example for the kids than this absurdity.
I have the same opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rye
That award is so wrong.... he doesn't deserve it!
Huh. Not really. :rolleyes2Quote:
Originally Posted by Axamenta
I'm not anti-Bush by any means, but I don't necessarily agree with this award, for the same reasons Czech. gave. And what's the deal with the wild horses? I don't think I've heard anything about that.
Yay :D :p
Bush is a wanker.
They should have picked Ken Jennings.
Oh, and this is not a thread to call Bush names, so quit it.
Very fitting.I heard even Stalin and Hitler were the persons of the year of that stupid newspaper.
That wasn't meant to be taken literally. I was just trying to state I find it kind of absurd that a mass murderer would become Person of the Year.Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonsEcho
[q="Czech. Republic"]Person of the Year shouldn't be based on pure achievement, but integrity and positive actions. I'm sure that plenty of people in the public eye have had a more positive effect on the world than President Bush over the past year, and it seems unfair that they should not be acknowledged over a man who accomplished a lot, but for all the wrong reasons.[/q]
The thing is...person of the year is given to the person who influenced the news/world the most in that given year. That's why hitler and stalin both won it. That's why Osama bin Laden almost won it in 2001.
Oh, that would explain a lot. To be honest, this sort of thing has never interested me, so I wasn't entirely sure what it was about.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennator
Still, its rather misleading to use the title 'Person of the Year', which suggests the person has had a positive impact on the world. Quite why an award such as this should exist at all is beyond me.
I dont think he should have won it this year. Last year would have been the year for him. If i was him i wouldnt consider this an honor based on the lives ruined, and lost to achieve this title.
bTw i am anti-bush
Bush does not, under any circumstances, deserve this award.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azar
You guys are bashing Bush for all the wrong reasons, as well as Time.
Has anyone considered that this was a below average year? Because Bush is a below average person, it makes sense to pick him in a below average year. Sure there's billions of below average people, but you need face time to show off your below averageness. That's what Bush did.
So the title is quite fair in all honesty.
If it's by impact on the world, I can see him getting the award, although it does seem more like good old American egocentrism. However, if the award is supposed to be about people who've had positive influences upon the world, I would say in no way does he deserve it.
If you look at it that way, Yasir Arafat is the clear winner simply because his death affects nearly a billion people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Behold the Void
Hence the comment about American egocentrism.
I disagree, but for different reasons. Time says that Bush "rewrote the rules of politics" or something trite like that. But I think people like Karl Rove would have more to do about that (and thus more deserving of the award, not that I think Karl Rove is a virtuous individual or anything like that).
So the things they praised Bush for are probably the accomplishments of other people.
Again? Isn't that illegal?
Person of the Year is about who grabs the most attention in the media.
In 2001, people were angry that Osama Bin Laden was in consideration for the cover. Because of business decisions, Time put Rudy Juliani on the cover. So PotY(giggle) isn't some award for achievement. I think that's what people have confused here. The headlines this year weren't really that great.
No, Bush is a winner. A winner of 'person of the year' that is.Quote:
Bush is a wanker.
So, if I bomb another country I can win this award? Sweet!
Nah, you'll have to bomb at least three.
I only count two countries bombed by bush, not three. Which is the third?
Alot of you are hatin' on Bush. Well man, I dont really care if he won person of the year. Good for him. If it was another person, on the other hand like Yasar Arafat who won the nobel peace prize (ha! what a joke), that would be... YEah right!!
What is wrong with Arafat winning the nobel peace prize?
At the time, nothing - peace between Israel and Palestine seemed attainable.. It was after he received the prize that he slipped back into terrorism and using the Palestinian people to further his own financial gains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
Well, he has to beat Bush to get it, doesn't he? He can't just TIE.
I agreed with the headline... until I read this post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamaneko
Hmm...i,d say he was the worthy winner. He has influenced the world so much, and yasser arafat may well win it next year when his death truely starts to affect the world.
George Bush has made the world stand up and take notice of USA and the rest of the western world, making us realise the hypocrisy of these *democratic* tyrants, making us realise the true failure of democracy, and that approx 158 million Americans are completly insane or maybe brainwashed.
IN other words, he has made us realise , no matter how big a threat islamic terroism is, its just a drop in the bucket compared to American Imperalism...
wow, i do spout sum crap...
I think Colon Powell deserves it for getting the hell out of Bush's cabinet.
So what? Hitler nearly got Time Person of the Century. It's about the person's influence on his/her times, not whether the influence was a good thing or not.
I disagree!! (The thing about Bush being the person of the year)
All of a sudden, it makes sense why he won (*'-')bQuote:
Originally Posted by aeris2001x2
I don't like Bush. I have every reason to, especially because I'm European. Although, he's probably the most powerful man in the world he doesn't deserve to be the person of the year. In my opinion it should be Janet Jackson for that Super Bowl thing... it really made people pissed, which was so funny.
You mean it's not called "Man of the Year" anymore? :confused: