Here's something to talk about: Bush 2004 Time Man of the Year

[Drew]

You know, with Gemstone down and all we could use a little flame war to keep us busy.


http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2004/story.html

[Hulkein]

Good for him. Had Kerry won I'm sure it would've been him. This election and all of the buzz surrounding it (F911, bin Laden tapes) was probably the biggest story of the year... was definitely the longest lasting.

[Tsa`ah]

Time's annual honors have more to do with impact than they do moral fiber.

After all, Hitler had that "honor" as well.

[Ravenstorm]

What's to argue about? I wouldn't disagree. They don't base their choice on who's wonderful or popular or nice. Hitler also made the list. Bush is almost certainly the most influential and controversial figure of the year so wins hands down.

Raven

edit: Damn you, Tsa'ah. You beat me by a minute.

[Edited on 12-20-2004 by Ravenstorm]

[Numbers]

When Bush was told the news of him getting Time's Man of the Year award, he looked at his watch and said, "3:15"

[Rutilcaper]

Hilter was named man of the year in 1936, before he started slaughtering Jews by the thousand.

You really think someone who killed over 10 million people would get awarded man of the year?

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Rutilcaper
Hilter was named man of the year in 1936, before he started slaughtering Jews by the thousand.

You really think someone who killed over 10 million people would get awarded man of the year?

That's a straw argument at best.

Stalin was man of the year in 42. Hitler still made the top 100 of the century.

Again, in case you have some disability, the "honor" goes toward those who had the biggest impact on said year, not moral fiber.

If we go with your argument, Hitler would not have been named in the Time 100. Do note that the criteria are identical when comparing the Time 100 to each year's "Person".

Maybe perhaps read Time Magazine's own splash on it?

[Back]

My top three minds of the past.

Marx. Freud. Einstien.

Top minds of now?

Hawking.

[Back]

PS. How did G W Bush get that article? Easy. He took a loan out on it. Whats another few billion bones?

[TheEschaton]

I was seriously irate when Time didn't name Gandhi Person of the Century in 2000. He was in the Top 3, I think, with FDR and Einstein, I believe, and was discounted because his ideas were "unrealistically idealistic".

Fuck that!

-TheE-, checking in from Africa. Merry Christmas all! See you sometime in the new year. Kinda odd having a 100 degree Christmas in the middle of summer (and the rainy season). Argh.

[Parkbandit]

I'm just glad it wasn't Kerry as Man of the Year.

:bye: So sorry.

[DeV]

Kerry wouldn't have gotten man of the year even if he'd won the election.

Bush deserved it. He's had the biggest impact worldwide, whether it's been good or bad is questionable and/or controversial.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I'm just glad it wasn't Kerry as Man of the Year.

:bye: So sorry.

Kerry wasn't even in the running ... Moore was however.

[Parkbandit]

Kerry wasn't in the running because he didn't win. If he had won the Presidency.. then I imagine HE would be Man of the Year.

That was my point actually.

[Tsa`ah]

Eh, I disagree.

Kerry had little impact on 2004. Had Kerry won we would be looking at Moore or a host of other non-Kerry candidates.

Kerry was just a smile and a handshake, nothing more.

[DeV]

Kerry hasn't had much if any of an impact at home or worldwide. I don't see why he would have even been considered. :shrug:

Edited to acknowledge that Tsa'ah beat me to it.

[Edited on 12-20-2004 by DeV]

[GSTamral]

At the current pace, I believe Ariel Sharon will be the frontrunner for the 2005 Man of the Year. He will start the 3rd world war at some point in time, and at the current pace, it will be sooner and not later, permanently crippling the peace process. He should have won this year as well. Not only him, the entire nationalist movement in his country have shown the world that people of the Jewish faith is just as likely as the Muslim one in the region to subvert to things such as assassinations, bloodshed, and killing innocent women and children in the name of promoting and spreading religious holy land or possession.

Not that all individuals are bad, because its not true. In fact, its a relatively tiny percentage on each side that subjects to acts of extremism. However, the veracity in which they kill, maim and murder innocents will soon force the world to make a very difficult decision.

Do you continue to allow conflict to escalate on a daily basis until war consumes the region and possibly much of the rest of the world? Or should the rest of the world make the executive decision, that for the good of mankind, force peace upon them under threat of building a military wall around the entire region, and destroying anyone, of either faith, whether innocent or not (because you simply cannot know for sure), who attempts to leave.

[Parkbandit]

I don't see a WWIII in our lifetimes. Sorry Tamral.

[GSTamral]

WW3 does not need to include the US, Europe, or any particular country. If the region breaks out into war, it will be the same effect. Israel/Palestine conflict put the world on the verge of WW3 in the 60's and 70's, and Sharon is just the type of person to do it again

[Latrinsorm]

And I thought I was totalitarian.

I don't get why Moore gets credited with being so challenging/influential. We all remember which candidate he supported in the primaries, don't we? I guess folks could say there's a large minority of people that dislike him a lot, but I don't think that translates to anything other than people disliking him.

[Parkbandit]

Yea.. the fact that Michael Moore was even in the running is laughable.

Putting out a "DOCUMENTARY" that was clearly not a "DOCUMENTARY" should not make you a contender for Man of the year.

Bullshit artist of the year maybe... but certainly not Man of the Year.

[DeV]

And Moore is still creating waves. Heh, this is proof enough of his impact.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by GSTamral
At the current pace, I believe Ariel Sharon will be the frontrunner for the 2005 Man of the Year. He will start the 3rd world war at some point in time, and at the current pace, it will be sooner and not later, permanently crippling the peace process. He should have won this year as well. Not only him, the entire nationalist movement in his country have shown the world that people of the Jewish faith is just as likely as the Muslim one in the region to subvert to things such as assassinations, bloodshed, and killing innocent women and children in the name of promoting and spreading religious holy land or possession.

Not that all individuals are bad, because its not true. In fact, its a relatively tiny percentage on each side that subjects to acts of extremism. However, the veracity in which they kill, maim and murder innocents will soon force the world to make a very difficult decision.

Do you continue to allow conflict to escalate on a daily basis until war consumes the region and possibly much of the rest of the world? Or should the rest of the world make the executive decision, that for the good of mankind, force peace upon them under threat of building a military wall around the entire region, and destroying anyone, of either faith, whether innocent or not (because you simply cannot know for sure), who attempts to leave.

Dare I even bother?

I think you and xtc should join each other in a bomb shelter and share a bong hit or something.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by GSTamral
At the current pace, I believe Ariel Sharon will be the frontrunner for the 2005 Man of the Year. He will start the 3rd world war at some point in time, and at the current pace, it will be sooner and not later, permanently crippling the peace process. He should have won this year as well. Not only him, the entire nationalist movement in his country have shown the world that people of the Jewish faith is just as likely as the Muslim one in the region to subvert to things such as assassinations, bloodshed, and killing innocent women and children in the name of promoting and spreading religious holy land or possession.

Not that all individuals are bad, because its not true. In fact, its a relatively tiny percentage on each side that subjects to acts of extremism. However, the veracity in which they kill, maim and murder innocents will soon force the world to make a very difficult decision.

Do you continue to allow conflict to escalate on a daily basis until war consumes the region and possibly much of the rest of the world? Or should the rest of the world make the executive decision, that for the good of mankind, force peace upon them under threat of building a military wall around the entire region, and destroying anyone, of either faith, whether innocent or not (because you simply cannot know for sure), who attempts to leave.

Dare I even bother?

I think you and xtc should join each other in a bomb shelter and share a bong hit or something.

OH SHIATZ!!!!! 111oneone!

You're all a bunch of anti-semitic potheads!!! How dare you have a fucking opinion opposite this asswipe of a moderator who was thrust through his mother's pussy and thus crusades for his Jewish brethren.
Watch out Tamral. Soon you'll make logical arguments he can't refute and he'll just say, "Prove it, prove it, prove it, prove it, prove it" until you finally realize he's full of shit and you'll just give up.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

[Tsa`ah]

I have so been told. :rolleyes:

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
I have so been told. :rolleyes:

You got served is the phrase that eluded you...

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
You got served is the phrase that eluded you...

One day I'll get hip ... promise.

[GSTamral]

No, you don't have to bother. Europe hates Israel just as much as Americans hate Arabs. It is one of the few areas where I tend to agree with their thought process more so than the American government's stance.

Israel is just as guilty of terrorism on the state level as individual Arab terrorists are. They are no better, just as prone to violence and mayhem, and they remain the only organization, or state, to take land by force since the nineteenth century. If they can come up with the idea to blockade their nation via building the next Berlin Wall, then it is without remorse that the rest of the world can blockade them as well.

I don't hate jewish people, muslim people, or people of any faith. But it is absolute ignorance to not recognize that Israeli leadership is just as guilty as their Arab brethren of fostering hate, terrorism, and cruel and unlawful assassinations of individuals on foreign soil, which by the way dumbass, is illegal as per the UN. It's without wonder why many nations refuse to recognize their statehood. They simply aren't any more mature or good-hearted than those they wage war with.

Anti-semitism is hating them for their faith. But there is nothing in the Jewish faith that preaches taking land by force, throwing the existing residents on the streets, and expecting them to enjoy their plight. And then continuing to do so over the course of more than half a century. That they continue to do so in the name of their holy state only furthers the necessity of the rest of the world to realize that they are as much a terrorist state as palestine. Neither side has justified actions. Neither side deserves support. Neither side has acted responsibly enough to be worthy of having the rest of the world empathize and help them. Sharon wants war and to continue to militarily expand. Palestinians resort to killing civilians in the name of religion in response. Firebomb them both until there are few enough people so that all of the remaining survivors can live comfortably and have enough land and housing to move forward.

[Artha]

They are no better, just as prone to violence and mayhem, and they remain the only organization, or state, to take land by force since the nineteenth century.

And hold it.

[GSTamral]

Artha is an anti-semitic paint chip sniffing asshole!!!!!! OMG OMG OMG OMG!!! Call the Tsa'ah police! Someone doesn't adore everything Israel does!! Racist and anti-semitic!!!!!!

If the anti-Semites want to hate, let them hate, and let them go to hell.

[GSTamral]

Stanley, there is a huge difference between hating and simply assigning equal responsibility for the troubles in the middle east to Israel. Period.

anti-Semites meaning haters of those of specific Semitic background in general, so I'm not accused as being a conspiracy Jew-ist.

Originally posted by GSTamral
Stanley, there is a huge difference between hating and simply assigning equal responsibility for the troubles in the middle east to Israel. Period.

I meant Semites of all colors.

[GSTamral]

Well you're right Stanley. Blame should not be put on Israel or the Palestinians in this conflict because assigning responsibility for the killing of those innocents would be anti-semitic. I say let's blame some Tibetan Monks then.

What?

Anyway, there's two douchebag factors in the area both of Semitic background.

Shit, I'm going to hell :no:

[4a6c1]

Damn those Tibetan monks

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by Stanley Burrell
Shit, I'm going to hell :no:

Really. Its not so bad in hell. Carnal pleasures, river of the screaming damned running right under a very nice rent-controlled view.

I'm not racist against Tibetan monks, but I do think the Shaolin priests have got the upper hand with rice-paper walking and circular breathing.

Really. Its not so bad in hell. Carnal pleasures, river of the screaming damned running right under a very nice rent-controlled view.

That gave me both the jibblies and the chuckles at the same time... :)

[4a6c1]

:D