NationStates Jolt Archive

President George W Bush

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a89GiENabyZk&refer=top_world_news

I had hoped it would be the Swift Boat Vets or Pat Tilman, but I appreciate their pick, also. Your comments?

Should have been David Ortiz....

well, he is american president who start war in Iraq, and cause the world wide terror to increase.
I think you can say that he was the most important person on the last year.

That's pretty stupid. This looks like a case of "hey, he's president, he should get to be man of the year, right?" I'm sure that there have been people who contributed at least as much without fouling up on such a regular basis.

I hear they have a two page layout of him snorting in grad school.

I'm sure that there have been people who contributed at least as much without fouling up on such a regular basis.

Ozzy Osburne :D

Well, half of me thinks that Time is being very lazy, and the other half thinks they're probably correct in so far as GWB was probably the most important and influential person in shaping the World over the last year. Ignoring the arguments whether it was a good or bad thing.
However, they could have done without this sort of sycophantic drivel:
The president was chosen "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,'' Time Managing Editor James Kelly wrote.
I mean, how far up GWB's butt do they really need to get?
TIME magazine - a fair and unbiased magazine. :rolleyes:

Didn't they nominate Osama bin Laden in 2001?

TIME magazine, I might have read you before, but no more. How ANYBODY can like the idotic, warmongering president that apparently failed 3rd grade English, and has no common sense, and is a lapdog of the rich, is beyond me. Ah well. America the Stupid is where I'm stuck, but they can't make me happy about it.

In full agreement, Demented Hamsters. However, Karl Rove should at least share it. The man's a genius. An absolutely evil genius, but a genius nonetheless. Bush would be back in Texas running oil companies into the ground if it weren't for Rove.

President George W Bush

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a89GiENabyZk&refer=top_world_news

I had hoped it would be the Swift Boat Vets or Pat Tilman, but I appreciate their pick, also. Your comments?
What's that slurping noise I hear? Kinda like a vacuum underwater, or something :eek: :D

I mean, how far up GWB's butt do they really need to get?
TIME magazine - a fair and unbiased magazine. :rolleyes:
If you actually knew anything about Time, you'd know that almost every President gets the "Person of the Year" title once, and usually twice. That includes Bill Clinton (2), Jimmy Carter (1), and Lyndon Johnson (2).

If you actually knew anything about Time, you'd know that almost every President gets the "Person of the Year" title once, and usually twice. That includes Bill Clinton (2), Jimmy Carter (1), and Lyndon Johnson (2).
...which just means they are well practiced at sucking/brown nosing :eek: :D

Why the fuck do you care what TIME Magazine says? TIME is one of the shittiest news magazines out there. It's just pictures, diagrams, and stupid pop culture shit.

I'm curious what people will say ten years from now if Iraq ends up with a democratically elected government as a shining example to next door neighbors Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria which inspire their people to pressure THEIR governments for more freedom and democracy. A democratic, wealthy and prosperous Iraq would be the best possible thing, not just for that region, but for the entire globe. It's something to consider.

No guarantee it will happen, but if Bush leaves office in 4 years with a stable democratic government in Afghanistan and a democratic, prosperous Iraq, what will all the Bush haters have to say then? His "stupidity" and "war-mongering" will look a lot more like "doing the right thing for the long term". I'm no great fan of his, personally, but I can see the long term benefits of showing the Arab world that they DON'T have to live in repressive monarchies or equally repressive religious oligarchies.

did anyone suspect otherwise?

I'm curious what people will say ten years from now if Iraq ends up with a democratically elected government as a shining example to next door neighbors Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria which inspire their people to pressure THEIR governments for more freedom and democracy. A democratic, wealthy and prosperous Iraq would be the best possible thing, not just for that region, but for the entire globe. It's something to consider.

No guarantee it will happen, but if Bush leaves office in 4 years with a stable democratic government in Afghanistan and a democratic, prosperous Iraq, what will all the Bush haters have to say then? His "stupidity" and "war-mongering" will look a lot more like "doing the right thing for the long term". I'm no great fan of his, personally, but I can see the long term benefits of showing the Arab world that they DON'T have to live in repressive monarchies or equally repressive religious oligarchies.


I suspect the current PM will get elected in Iraq and the people will not accept him. The Shrub will not accept a Shiite Iman controlled goverment so the fighting will continue.

Afhanistan is far from becoming stable. A coworker is from there and has relatives in Kabul and Kandahar(sp). They report there are some improvements(ie a major road between the two cities), but it is far from stable!

Time will tell.

I don't think he will repair either countries myself. You don't take 2 countries where one has been in a state of war for 20 years and the other under a totalitarian goverment and go "poof" it's all better now. It will take time.....

ick...anyone but Bushy http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/images/icons/icon8.gif

it should have been Jon Stewart. ^__~

No guarantee it will happen, but if Bush leaves office in 4 years with a stable democratic government in Afghanistan and a democratic, prosperous Iraq, what will all the Bush haters have to say then?

"Oh, look, it's snowing in hell!"

Oh, and by the by, an American newspaper chose an American president to be person of the year? How unforeseeable.

This is his third year in being TIME's "Person of the Year". I can't even think of anyone who was that person twice.
Personally, though, I'd like to seen either Karl Rove or Donald Rumsfeld. It was both their best year in their career. But I respect this choice.

President George W Bush

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a89GiENabyZk&refer=top_world_news

I had hoped it would be the Swift Boat Vets or Pat Tilman, but I appreciate their pick, also. Your comments?

It should have been Michel Moore or Arafat.

This is his third year in being TIME's "Person of the Year". I can't even think of anyone who was that person twice.
Personally, though, I'd like to seen either Karl Rove or Donald Rumsfeld. It was both their best year in their career. But I respect this choice.

I'd have to agree. Congratulations to Bush, he deserves it, but there are otherts who probably deserved it more.

For Man/Person of the Year, back to 1927
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_the_Year

Year Person
1927- Charles Lindbergh
1928- Walter Chrysler
1929- Owen Young
1930- Mahatma Gandhi
1931- Pierre Laval
1932- Franklin Delano Roosevelt
1933- Hugh Johnson
1934- Franklin Delano Roosevelt (2nd time)
1935- Haile Selassie
1936- Wallis Simpson
1937- Chiang Kai-Shek and Soong May-ling
1938- Adolf Hitler
1939- Joseph Stalin
1940- Winston Churchill
1941- Franklin Delano Roosevelt (3rd time)
1942- Joseph Stalin (2nd time)
1943- George Marshall
1944- Dwight Eisenhower
1945- Harry Truman
1946- James F. Byrnes
1947- George Marshall (2nd time)
1948- Harry Truman (2nd time)
1949- Winston Churchill (2nd time)
1950- The American Fighting-Man
1951- Mohammed Mossadegh
1952- Queen Elizabeth II
1953- Konrad Adenauer
1954- John Dulles
1955- Harlow Curtice
1956- Hungarian Freedom Fighter
1957- Nikita Khrushchev
1958- Charles De Gaulle
1959- Dwight Eisenhower (2nd time)
1960- U.S. scientists
1961- John F. Kennedy
1962- Pope John XXIII
1963- Martin Luther King Jr.
1964- Lyndon Johnson
1965- William Westmoreland
1966- Twenty-Five and Under
1967- Lyndon Johnson (2nd time)
1968- Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, William Anders
1969- The Middle Americans
1970- Willy Brandt
1971- Richard Nixon
1972- Richard Nixon (2nd time) and Henry Kissinger
1973- John Sirica
1974- King Faisal
1975- American Women
1976- Jimmy Carter
1977- Anwar Sadat
1978- Deng Xiaoping
1979- Ayatollah Khomeini
1980- Ronald Reagan
1981- Lech Walesa
1982- The Computer
1983- Ronald Reagan (2nd time) and Yuri Andropov
1984- Peter Ueberroth
1985- Deng Xiaoping (2nd time)
1986- Corazon Aquino
1987- Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev
1988- Endangered Earth ("Planet of the Year")
1989- Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev (2nd time)
1990- George H. W. Bush
1991- Ted Turner
1992- Bill Clinton
1993- Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk, Yasser Arafat, and Yitzhak Rabin
1994- Pope John Paul II
1995- Newt Gingrich
1996- David Ho
1997- Andy Grove
1998- Bill Clinton (2nd time) and Kenneth Starr
1999- Jeffrey P. Bezos
2000- George W. Bush
2001- Rudolph Giuliani
2002- Whistleblowers: Cynthia Cooper, Sherron Watkins, and Coleen Rowley
2003- The American Soldier
2004- George W. Bush (2nd time)

For Man/Person of the Year, back to 1927
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_the_Year

<snip>

So there were others. Thanks for telling me. You did forget, however, that George Walker Bush shared the Person of the Year with his father, as junior ran the campaign for senior.

Wow, lots of horrible people on that list. I sometimes wonder how the editors at TIME can even look themselves in the mirror, if they intend for the "man of the year" to be somebody who does GOOD for the world. Khomeini, Stalin, Deng Xiaopeng, Nixon, Khruschev, Ted Turner, Hitler, FDR ... on and on and on they pick very influential people who do enormous harm.

I can see the long term benefits of showing the Arab world that they DON'T have to live in repressive monarchies or equally repressive religious oligarchies.

Just one question: If these people didn't want to live in these monarchies or religious oligarchies, why are they fighting against the Americans? My opinion: they don't want a government like the one we have. We're taking away everything they've ever known. It would be like a bunch of slodiers coming here and ousting our government. We'd fight against that.

Then again, TIME seems to have strange choices for their People of the Year. Like Hitler and Stalin in '38 and '39 respectively.





Allah grant the mujahideen victory in this life and Jannah in the next.

Wow, lots of horrible people on that list. I sometimes wonder how the editors at TIME can even look themselves in the mirror, if they intend for the "man of the year" to be somebody who does GOOD for the world. Khomeini, Stalin, Deng Xiaopeng, Nixon, Khruschev, Ted Turner, Hitler, FDR ... on and on and on they pick very influential people who do enormous harm.

FDR did enourmous harm? How do you figure?

Wow, lots of horrible people on that list. I sometimes wonder how the editors at TIME can even look themselves in the mirror, if they intend for the "man of the year" to be somebody who does GOOD for the world. Khomeini, Stalin, Deng Xiaopeng, Nixon, Khruschev, Ted Turner, Hitler, FDR ... on and on and on they pick very influential people who do enormous harm.

The 'Man of the Year' thing isn't about who's done the most good for the world. It's who's been the most influential that year, good or bad.

For Man/Person of the Year, back to 1927
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_the_Year

Year Person
1927- Charles Lindbergh
1928- Walter Chrysler
1929- Owen Young
1930- Mahatma Gandhi
1931- Pierre Laval
1932- Franklin Delano Roosevelt
1933- Hugh Johnson
1934- Franklin Delano Roosevelt (2nd time)
1935- Haile Selassie
1936- Wallis Simpson
1937- Chiang Kai-Shek and Soong May-ling
1938- Adolf Hitler
1939- Joseph Stalin
1940- Winston Churchill
1941- Franklin Delano Roosevelt (3rd time)
1942- Joseph Stalin (2nd time)
1943- George Marshall
1944- Dwight Eisenhower
1945- Harry Truman
1946- James F. Byrnes
1947- George Marshall (2nd time)
1948- Harry Truman (2nd time)
1949- Winston Churchill (2nd time)
1950- The American Fighting-Man
1951- Mohammed Mossadegh
1952- Queen Elizabeth II
1953- Konrad Adenauer
1954- John Dulles
1955- Harlow Curtice
1956- Hungarian Freedom Fighter
1957- Nikita Khrushchev
1958- Charles De Gaulle
1959- Dwight Eisenhower (2nd time)
1960- U.S. scientists
1961- John F. Kennedy
1962- Pope John XXIII
1963- Martin Luther King Jr.
1964- Lyndon Johnson
1965- William Westmoreland
1966- Twenty-Five and Under
1967- Lyndon Johnson (2nd time)
1968- Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, William Anders
1969- The Middle Americans
1970- Willy Brandt
1971- Richard Nixon
1972- Richard Nixon (2nd time) and Henry Kissinger
1973- John Sirica
1974- King Faisal
1975- American Women
1976- Jimmy Carter
1977- Anwar Sadat
1978- Deng Xiaoping
1979- Ayatollah Khomeini
1980- Ronald Reagan
1981- Lech Walesa
1982- The Computer
1983- Ronald Reagan (2nd time) and Yuri Andropov
1984- Peter Ueberroth
1985- Deng Xiaoping (2nd time)
1986- Corazon Aquino
1987- Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev
1988- Endangered Earth ("Planet of the Year")
1989- Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev (2nd time)
1990- George H. W. Bush
1991- Ted Turner
1992- Bill Clinton
1993- Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk, Yasser Arafat, and Yitzhak Rabin
1994- Pope John Paul II
1995- Newt Gingrich
1996- David Ho
1997- Andy Grove
1998- Bill Clinton (2nd time) and Kenneth Starr
1999- Jeffrey P. Bezos
2000- George W. Bush
2001- Rudolph Giuliani
2002- Whistleblowers: Cynthia Cooper, Sherron Watkins, and Coleen Rowley
2003- The American Soldier
2004- George W. Bush (2nd time)



Damn Time really loves Stalin!

Wow, lots of horrible people on that list. I sometimes wonder how the editors at TIME can even look themselves in the mirror, if they intend for the "man of the year" to be somebody who does GOOD for the world. Khomeini, Stalin, Deng Xiaopeng, Nixon, Khruschev, Ted Turner, Hitler, FDR ... on and on and on they pick very influential people who do enormous harm.

Hmm, not sure about Deng Xiaoping. Tiananmen was horrific, that cannot be denied, but his importance in shaping modern China cannot be denied, either. The shape of the world today would be very different if it hadn't been for Deng. Remember, one doesn't have to be a saint, or even a good person, to be a great person in terms of influence.

The 'Man of the Year' thing isn't about who's done the most good for the world. It's who's been the most influential that year, good or bad.You nailed it. And they chickened out in 2001 when they didn't name Osama Bin Laden Person of the Year--he had the greatest effect on the world that year and continues to affect it. I understand why they chickened out--they'd have had their asses handed to them in subscription cancellations--but they still chickened out.

Time's Person of the Year is not based on who has done the most good in the world, though a number of their picks were forces for good. The person picked is their opinion of the most influential.

Top 100 for the century:

http://www.time.com/time/time100/