Quote: ThirstyMan wrote in post #2Yeah, the guy skates through life without any personal accomplishments and he gets accolades as he drifts.
Actually, Obama was a very good choice.
The Time Person of the Year designation is not an "accolade". The criteria for Time’s Person of the Year designation is “for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year.”
Thus, in 1938, the Man of the Year was Adolf Hitler and, in 1979, the Man of the Year was the Ayatollah Khomeini.
Imagine America’s future if Obama had not managed to win reelection. Contrast that to America’s future with four more years with Obama as President. Imagine how Obama will be able to do more damage to the wealth, power and prestige of America than Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin were ever able to. Think about that and the criteria of “for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year.”
Yes, Obama was the obvious choice. Let’s just pray that, 88 years from now, if Time’s Magazine still exists, Obama does not truly deserve to be the Time Person of the Century.
Let's see. Zero took a record that included 8+% unemployment, continuing foreclosures, massive increases in the numbers of citizens on welfare, GDP growth in the toilet, a country crushing deficit and turned it into a big win. Let's be honest here. Out of all the people on this phoney list, this makes the most sense to me.
As far as I'm concerned, [Time's] credibility is seriously lacking in judgement.
I terminated my subscription to Time way back when Reagan ran against Mr Peanut (1980). In one article they supposedly quoted spokescritters for Reagan, Mr Peanut, and John Anderson on the matter of the Iranian hostages. The quotes were all unattributed and somehow, just somehow, the supposed quote from the Reagan spokesman displayed a cynicism and political opportunism that was truly offensive.
Three quotes in one article, not one attributed, and the Reagan one bordering on the abhorrent. Ended my subscription, haven't paid any attention to Time since.
Quote: Cincinnatus wrote in post #7As far as I'm concerned, [Time's] credibility is seriously lacking in judgement.
I terminated my subscription to Time way back when Reagan ran against Mr Peanut (1980). In one article they supposedly quoted spokescritters for Reagan, Mr Peanut, and John Anderson on the matter of the Iranian hostages. The quotes were all unattributed and somehow, just somehow, the supposed quote from the Reagan spokesman displayed a cynicism and political opportunism that was truly offensive.
Three quotes in one article, not one attributed, and the Reagan one bordering on the abhorrent. Ended my subscription, haven't paid any attention to Time since.
I musta missed that article.
I hung on to my subscription for another 10 years until the 1992 election when, after exposing all of Clinton's hideous character flaws, they became his cheerleader in the election. I had been continuing to read TIME because I wanted to know what the enemy was doing, but after that, it became literally nauseating to read what the bilge they were publishing.
Quote: ThirstyMan wrote in post #2Yeah, the guy skates through life without any personal accomplishments and he gets accolades as he drifts.
Actually, Obama was a very good choice.
The Time Person of the Year designation is not an "accolade". The criteria for Time’s Person of the Year designation is “for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year.”
Thus, in 1938, the Man of the Year was Adolf Hitler and, in 1979, the Man of the Year was the Ayatollah Khomeini.
Imagine America’s future if Obama had not managed to win reelection. Contrast that to America’s future with four more years with Obama as President. Imagine how Obama will be able to do more damage to the wealth, power and prestige of America than Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin were ever able to. Think about that and the criteria of “for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year.”
Yes, Obama was the obvious choice. Let’s just pray that, 88 years from now, if Time’s Magazine still exists, Obama does not truly deserve to be the Time Person of the Century.
OK, I can see your point. It doesn't make the pain any less. The next four years of his influence are going to be hard to swallow but realizing the company he keeps with that "honor" [Stalin Hitler and the Ayatolla] does help.
RIGHT'S RIGHT 
Print view
Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:44 am
reply
