NationStates Jolt Archive

Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/time100) has just published its list of the 100 most influential people. Senators Clinton and Obama made it. Queen Elizabeth made it. Borat made it. Kate Moss made it. Leo DiCaprio made it.

The President didn't.

I don't care who sits behind the desk in the Oval Office, just the fact that one is President of the United States makes them exceedingly influential. One word from the president in a press conference or speech can influence people to take actions in virtually any country in the world. The Democrats at this very moment are being forced to back off from their demands for immediate surrender in Iraq. The position they're adopting has been heavily influenced by the actions of George Bush.

The fact that Time chose to ignore him just underlines the bias that we already knew existed.

You honestly expect those lists to be even remotely indicative of who is and who isn't influential? We're talking about Time Magazine, here.

Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/time100) has just published its list of the 100 most influential people. Senators Clinton and Obama made it. Queen Elizabeth made it. Borat made it. Kate Moss made it. Leo DiCaprio made it.

The President didn't.

I don't care who sits behind the desk in the Oval Office, just the fact that one is President of the United States makes them exceedingly influential. One word from the president in a press conference or speech can influence people to take actions in virtually any country in the world. The Democrats at this very moment are being forced to back off from their demands for immediate surrender in Iraq. The position they're adopting has been heavily influenced by the actions of George Bush.

The fact that Time chose to ignore him just underlines the bias that we already knew existed.

I guess that very same bias didn't exist until just this year, then? Because this year's list is the first that omits President Bush.

Honestly, right now, I'm not sure that Shrubya does qualify. Not only is he a
Lame Duck, he's a Lame Duck with a tiny approval rating. He is basically being ignored by GOP candidates, to try and avoid his stain. He may have power, but he isn't all that influential anymore.

Why would the liberal media have a bias now, and not every year before this one? Maybe they're just trying to send a message how pathetic this administration is?

In all honesty I would sooner take orders from Kate Moss than Bushevik.

Honestly, right now, I'm not sure that Shrubya does qualify. Not only is he a
Lame Duck, he's a Lame Duck with a tiny approval rating. He is basically being ignored by GOP candidates, to try and avoid his stain. He may have power, but he isn't all that influential anymore.

Shhh. Don't let anything as troublesome as reality remove the rose tinting from Myrm's tidy little black & white worldview.

Anyone who stamps his foot and screams "I'm important!" probably isn't. And that's about the maturity level that the "Commander Guy" has been showing recently.

The fact that Time chose to ignore him just underlines the bias that we already knew existed.
This is pure speculation, but I suggest that the reason Time has not mentioned him is for precisely the opposite reason you suggest. It is not slanderous, but rather a subtle cover-up.

If Time were to give Bush the position of influence that he does indeed posess they would need to go over the events of the past year with a fine-toothed comb. And do you appreciate just how much of a dent that would leave the credibility of the current President? Climate change, crime, welfare, Terrorism, the economy, international relations, military ventures... It is not that he is not influential - far from it - but rather that his influence is so fiercely negative no matter which way you pull it that to award him for it would be regarded as treasonous.

To leave him off is an example of astonishing deference and respect to the position that this man holds. It might not say much of the man himself, but then again, there's not much positive that can be said at this point.

If Time were to give Bush the position of influence that he does indeed posess they would need to go over the events of the past year with a fine-toothed comb. And do you appreciate just how much of a dent that would leave the credibility of the current President?


Dent? Are you labouring under the impression that Mr. Bush had true credibility at any point in his stint as American Strongman, then?

Dent? Are you labouring under the impression that Mr. Bush had true credibility at any point in his stint as American Strongman, then?

Are you under the impression that most of these celebrities have any credibility at all?

Sorry bud, but Bush is pretty much influence-free these days...even the candidates of his own party are scrambling away from the prospect of being associated with him.

Dent? Are you labouring under the impression that Mr. Bush had true credibility at any point in his stint as American Strongman, then?
I'm not talking about the man himself, I'm talking about the position of the Presidency. Myrm's stance was that the President was due influence simply by virtue of being President; that being the case, I'm suggesting that the position is itself being "honoured" in as much as it can be by hiding the actively malignant actions that its current bearer has engaged in.

Are you under the impression that most of these celebrities have any credibility at all?

I don't think this thread was written with my impression of the relative credibility of celebrities in mind, rather it is concerned with Time Magazine's editorial decision to not include George W. Bush in a list of influential people.

So who really cares what impression I might have of Leonardo DiCaprio?

I'm not talking about the man himself, I'm talking about the position of the Presidency. Myrm's stance was that the President was due influence simply by virtue of being President; that being the case, I'm suggesting that the position is itself being "honoured" in as much as it can be by hiding the actively malignant actions that its current bearer has engaged in.

I'm not really arguing the point - just Mr. Bush's credibility as President. Seeing as this is a list of people - that's people, not positions or titles or offices - I think Time's editorial decision is understandable.

I'm not really arguing the point - just Mr. Bush's credibility as President. Seeing as this is a list of people - that's people, not positions or titles or offices - I think Time's editorial decision is understandable.
I agree with you on its understandability, but I think he should probably have been included anyway. He might not be credible, but it's certainly difficult to say the decisions and actions of his regime have not been influential, regardless of how damaging that influence has been and how potentially slating its publication would be.

Hey what's that sound? Oh yeah, more conservabitchin'.

http://roflcat.com/images/cats/emo.jpg

Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/time100) has just published its list of the 100 most influential people. Senators Clinton and Obama made it. Queen Elizabeth made it. Borat made it. Kate Moss made it. Leo DiCaprio made it.

The President didn't.

I don't care who sits behind the desk in the Oval Office, just the fact that one is President of the United States makes them exceedingly influential. One word from the president in a press conference or speech can influence people to take actions in virtually any country in the world. The Democrats at this very moment are being forced to back off from their demands for immediate surrender in Iraq. The position they're adopting has been heavily influenced by the actions of George Bush.

The fact that Time chose to ignore him just underlines the bias that we already knew existed.

Typical Bushevik crybabying.

Honestly, if Time Magazine honored every incompetent, self-absorbed boob in its issues the Amazon would be one giant patch of dirt and stumps.

I'm not talking about the man himself, I'm talking about the position of the Presidency. Myrm's stance was that the President was due influence simply by virtue of being President; that being the case, I'm suggesting that the position is itself being "honoured" in as much as it can be by hiding the actively malignant actions that its current bearer has engaged in.
Someone who can read and comprehend. Thanks.

Every time a President has a press conference, every time he makes a signing statement, every time he issues a press release, he causes certain actions to be taken or rescinded. In fact, this President could completely change the course of the fight against Islamist terrorists by deciding to withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

If you don't see that position carries just a little more influential than Queen Elizabeth, then you're as biased as Time.

What's that, President Bush is one of the very few people ever to be listed 3 or more times in the Time 100 list.

Where's the Bias now?

Surely TIME has a right wing bias, that it has listed one of the worst President in US history more times than truly influential and competent members of society.

Because Time doesn't choose to verbally felate the president by feeling the need to sycophantically state "oh but we can't forget the President of course" when they put a list of influential people together hardly smacks of bias.

If you don't see that position carries just a little more influential than Queen Elizabeth, then you're as biased as Time.
Or maybe you just arn't British and have a conservative bias?
Conservatives could never possibly be biased, it is always the media and their liberal bias.

If we are going to list influential people by virtue of their position, why bother have the top 100 most influential people every year? Each year they can release a list of the leaders of every country. That way you can't bitch about media bias, everyone learns something, and you get to see every most influential person in the world.

Someone who can read and comprehend. Thanks.

Every time a President has a press conference, every time he makes a signing statement, every time he issues a press release, he causes certain actions to be taken or rescinded. In fact, this President could completely change the course of the fight against Islamist terrorists by deciding to withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

If you don't see that position carries just a little more influential than Queen Elizabeth, then you're as biased as Time.

You seem to still be missing the fact that he is one of the only people to have ever been on the list 3 times.

Oh, they don't put him down for another year! Boo-freakin-hoo. Grow up. If not mentioning is liberal bias, obviously Time is conservative bias, because he has been on the list more times than practically anyone else.

He wasn't listed because Lame Duck presidents have very little influence, especially ones whose approval ratings are so low because of his policies that failed to woo the American public when things went sour.

TIME's never struck me as a particularly biased publication... in fact I find it quite good on that front. What do other NSGers think of it?

And yeah, the President is an unpopular idiot who'll be gone soon, so not as influential as some.

You seem to still be missing the fact that he is one of the only people to have ever been on the list 3 times.

Oh, they don't put him down for another year! Boo-freakin-hoo. Grow up. If not mentioning is liberal bias, obviously Time is conservative bias, because he has been on the list more times than practically anyone else.

Don't waste your time pointing out facts. Facts are a foundation of liberalism and thus stating facts just shows your liberal bias.

He wasn't listed because Lame Duck presidents have very little influence, especially ones whose approval ratings are so low because of his policies that failed to woo the American public when things went sour.

That's a very good point, really. Congress isn't giving into every whim of El Presidente Busho anymore, he's lost a great deal of his way-to-far-reaching powers that he shouldn't have had to begin with, he's getting smacked around, and very few Republicans want to be associated with him. In truth, he's pretty much a non-issue right now. His influence has waned greatly since the elections.

So, Myrmi is just be knee-jerkist because he doesn't realize that:

A)He was very influential(Thus why he is one of the most mentioned people on the list).

and

B)Now? Not nearly as much.

Don't waste your time pointing out facts. Facts are a foundation of liberalism and thus stating facts just shows your liberal bias.

No, you have it wrong. Reality has a liberal bias.

Mike Bloomberg was just on the radio and he explained this. Basically, in his opinion, washington politicians are for more irrelevant than you are led to believe and real change - therefore influence - comes from Mayors and Governors because they have to actually run things. Unlike pols in washington who mostly indulge in posturing and partisan bickering. Never actually accomplishing that much.

Then he said he didn't watch any of the debates, because he's not really interested in politics and anyway and who cares who can give the most glib answer to a stock question. He's never hired anyone on their basis to provide snappy sound bites, and the american public shouldn't either.

Then he badmouthed washington some more.

Good interview I though.

There are dead people more influential than Bush is right now - and I don't mean religious figures.

Hey what's that sound? Oh yeah, more conservabitchin'.

http://roflcat.com/images/cats/emo.jpg

As opposed to the shrill liberal whining that you and others have made a hobby here? :rolleyes:

Get a grip on yourself.

Oh, wait...I'm sure you've already got that grip. And there's Vaseline involved, too, no doubt.

Reposting what I posted in the comments:

What exactly did President George W. Bush do this year to warrant his attendance at a popularity contest?

.... Aside from being the chief executive of the world's sole superpower, George W. Bush has been neither as active nor as well-received this year as he has been during any previous year in his administration. That's to be understood; he's been the President for six years and doesn't have to worry about being re-elected in '08. I gather that he was left off Time's list because the editors are disappointed that he didn't do as much this year as he did in previous years?

This isn't an OMG LIBRUL MEDIA BIAS, people. Remember, Bush was featured on every other Time 100 since his ascendance to the White House. I suppose he simply didn't do enough this year to merit inclusion.

subsequently corrected, as I don't think it's been "every" other Time 100, but my point stands.

Bush is a lame duck, with poor approval ratings and little support in Congress or anywhere else. He's also done very little to exert his "influence", so no matter how much he might potentially have, he hasn't been using it much. QED.

Myrmidonisia: my thoughts are summarised as "Cry me a river, build a bridge, and get over it."

Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/time100) has just published its list of the 100 most influential people. Senators Clinton and Obama made it. Queen Elizabeth made it. Borat made it. Kate Moss made it. Leo DiCaprio made it.

The President didn't.

I don't care who sits behind the desk in the Oval Office, just the fact that one is President of the United States makes them exceedingly influential. One word from the president in a press conference or speech can influence people to take actions in virtually any country in the world. The Democrats at this very moment are being forced to back off from their demands for immediate surrender in Iraq. The position they're adopting has been heavily influenced by the actions of George Bush.

The fact that Time chose to ignore him just underlines the bias that we already knew existed.

Has someone replaced you with a pod? I don't remember you being this ridiculous in the past--conservative, sure, but not stupidly so.

Someone who can read and comprehend. Thanks.

Show us all you can read and comprehend by responding to this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12608700&postcount=3) and this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12608958&postcount=19) post.

But you don't want to. Trolls don't want the thread to end before people get sufficiently riled.

Nor do the anti-Bushies that rule NSG. This thread will, no doubt, run 100+ pages, almost all of the posts being "Dubya is TEH EBIL!!!eleven"

Get over yourselves already. I suggest some Vaseline and Kleenex.

OH, WAIT! Those are corporations! EBIL CORPORATIONS!!!1one

Get your hands out of your pants already.

Nor do the anti-Bushies that rule NSG. This thread will, no doubt, run 100+ pages, almost all of the posts being "Dubya is TEH EBIL!!!eleven"

....riiiiiiight.

Did you forget your meds today?

Someone who can read and comprehend. Thanks.

Every time a President has a press conference, every time he makes a signing statement, every time he issues a press release, he causes certain actions to be taken or rescinded. In fact, this President could completely change the course of the fight against Islamist terrorists by deciding to withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

If you don't see that position carries just a little more influential than Queen Elizabeth, then you're as biased as Time.

Here's the reason your OP is so utterly ridiculous that it barely deserves mocking. Your complaint, if it has any merit at all (and that's debatable for reasons stated elsewhere in this thread) is limited to this list and this list alone. It does not show, as you claim in the thread title, media bias, either for the magazine or for the news media as a whole.

As opposed to the shrill liberal whining that you and others have made a hobby here? :rolleyes:

Get a grip on yourself.

Oh, wait...I'm sure you've already got that grip. And there's Vaseline involved, too, no doubt.

Nor do the anti-Bushies that rule NSG. This thread will, no doubt, run 100+ pages, almost all of the posts being "Dubya is TEH EBIL!!!eleven"

Get over yourselves already. I suggest some Vaseline and Kleenex.

OH, WAIT! Those are corporations! EBIL CORPORATIONS!!!1one

Get your hands out of your pants already.
Wow. Two "liberals like to masturbate jokes" in short succession. Do you run out of material that easily?

....riiiiiiight.

Did you forget your meds today?

Did you forget reality today?

Nor do the anti-Bushies that rule NSG. This thread will, no doubt, run 100+ pages, almost all of the posts being "Dubya is TEH EBIL!!!eleven"

Get over yourselves already. I suggest some Vaseline and Kleenex.

OH, WAIT! Those are corporations! EBIL CORPORATIONS!!!1one

Get your hands out of your pants already.

... wait, what?

Did you forget reality today?

oooooh buuuuuuuurn. How am I ever going to get over that devastating comeback, demonstrating such a mastery of wit and verbal prowess?

I wish i could come up with such a biting and scathing insult to match. I have not seen such a scathing rebuttal since Suzzy Henderson stunned me in the 4th grade with "I know you are, but what am I?"

Nor do the anti-Bushies that rule NSG. This thread will, no doubt, run 100+ pages, almost all of the posts being "Dubya is TEH EBIL!!!eleven"

Get over yourselves already. I suggest some Vaseline and Kleenex.

OH, WAIT! Those are corporations! EBIL CORPORATIONS!!!1one

Get your hands out of your pants already.

Funny, I was just about to say, "Dubya is TEH EBIL!!!eleven"

And so was everyone else!

Everyone, but you. How do you tolerate being so damned good? So... unique? A rebel, even, against the unwashed hordes of Anti-Bushies with their hands lasciviously and liberally in their pants? A place, no doubt, your hands would never go. You are a martyr and a role model, and of course one of the few Patriotic Americans, for which I salute you. With my hands in my pants.

Nor do the anti-Bushies that rule NSG. This thread will, no doubt, run 100+ pages, almost all of the posts being "Dubya is TEH EBIL!!!eleven"

Get over yourselves already. I suggest some Vaseline and Kleenex.

OH, WAIT! Those are corporations! EBIL CORPORATIONS!!!1one

Get your hands out of your pants already.

It's not the repetition of the masturbation jokes that strike me, but that we are first instructed to masturbate, then promptly ordered to cease.

It's not the repetition of the masturbation jokes that strike me, but that we are first instructed to masturbate, then promptly ordered to cease.
The liberal media are sending him signals through the airwaves that are affecting his thought processes. Maybe he needs a tinfoil hat.

It's not the repetition of the masturbation jokes that strike me, but that we are first instructed to masturbate, then promptly ordered to cease.

Maybe it has something to do with the tortured relationship conservatives have with sex? ;)

Or maybe it has something to do with the mutual masturbation sessions that spring up in these threads. Get over yourselves, kiddies.

Or maybe it has something to do with the mutual masturbation sessions that spring up in these threads. Get over yourselves, kiddies.

I don't see any mutual masturbation.... anyway, if you don't like mutual masturbation, why are you posting so much in the "Sexiest NSer" thread? Those always end up mutual masturbation sessions, too!

Maybe it has something to do with the tortured relationship conservatives have with sex? ;)

Gee, I'm not into BDSM, so I don't know where you're getting this from.

I'm a conservative, and I don't have any "tortured relationship" with sex.

More "shit flinging" from you - flinging unsupported shit about the posters who are conservative, and hoping it will stick...

I don't see any mutual masturbation.... anyway, if you don't like mutual masturbation, why are you posting so much in the "Sexiest NSer" thread? Those always end up mutual masturbation sessions, too!
Ah, but that one is supposed to. :p

Mutual masturbation? I thought we were harassing delusional conservatives.

Or maybe it has something to do with the mutual masturbation sessions that spring up in these threads. Get over yourselves, kiddies.

Wait, if we were already masturbating, why'd you tell us to get over ourselves by masturbating? Infact, you make it sound like masturbation is causing all the trouble, how would it help us?

Incidentally, is it possible to pronounce ÿöänhëúý?

why are you posting so much in the "Sexiest NSer" thread?

Aelosia.

I don't see any mutual masturbation.... anyway, if you don't like mutual masturbation, why are you posting so much in the "Sexiest NSer" thread? Those always end up mutual masturbation sessions, too!

I suggest lots and lots of Vaseline for you. Enjoy. Might help you out when you stroke The Nazz, TPH, Arthais, Dina, etc. I'm sure you don't want calloused hands.

Aelosia.

As if that were a bad thing. :p

Gee, I'm not into BDSM, so I don't know where you're getting this from.

I'm a conservative, and I don't have any "tortured relationship" with sex.

More "shit flinging" from you - flinging unsupported shit about the posters who are conservative, and hoping it will stick...

What does BDSM have to do with this? Having a tortured relationship with sex doesn't necessarily mean causing another person pain--it means being emotionally distraught at the conflict between what your god tells you is acceptable in sexual conduct and following your physical and emotional desires, and that is very common among religious conservatives.

Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/time100) has just published its list of the 100 most influential people. Senators Clinton and Obama made it. Queen Elizabeth made it. Borat made it. Kate Moss made it. Leo DiCaprio made it.

The President didn't.

I don't care who sits behind the desk in the Oval Office, just the fact that one is President of the United States makes them exceedingly influential. One word from the president in a press conference or speech can influence people to take actions in virtually any country in the world. The Democrats at this very moment are being forced to back off from their demands for immediate surrender in Iraq. The position they're adopting has been heavily influenced by the actions of George Bush.

The fact that Time chose to ignore him just underlines the bias that we already knew existed.

In the midst of your little whine-fest you forget that they names him man of the year in both 2000 and 2004 right? You are a jacktard. Check-mate

Aelosia.

http://www.mcpasd.k12.wi.us/kms/Web_Clip_Art/images/VOTE_1.jpg

*nods*

I suggest lots and lots of Vaseline for you. Enjoy. Might help you out when you stroke The Nazz, TPH, Arthais, Dina, etc. I'm sure you don't want calloused hands.

Do you ever contribute, or do you just bitch and stomp your feet? I've yet to see you actually add something to a discussion other than your mopping "Look at me" nonsense.

I suggest lots and lots of Vaseline for you. Enjoy. Might help you out when you stroke The Nazz, TPH, Arthais, Dina, etc. I'm sure you don't want calloused hands.

Your obsession with Vaseline is disturbing. It suggests you haven't had much experience with other lubricants. Even KY Jelly is far superior to Vaseline--you might want to try it. Releasing some of that pent-up pressure might relax you some.

Do you ever contribute, or do you just bitch and stomp your feet? I've yet to see you actually add something to a discussion other than your mopping "Look at me" nonsense.

I've yet to see you do anything more than spew the typical lefty diarrhea. Care to offer more than that? Please...surprise me...

What does BDSM have to do with this? Having a tortured relationship with sex doesn't necessarily mean causing another person pain--it means being emotionally distraught at the conflict between what your god tells you is acceptable in sexual conduct and following your physical and emotional desires, and that is very common among religious conservatives.

I mentioned BDSM as a humorous interjection. Obviously, you have to slam everything I post, so you fail to perceive humor when it's posted.

I'm a religious conservative, and know many religious conservatives, and none of us have a problem with sex. We're not even remotely emotionally distraught because we have no conflict - we're not sitting around waiting for Jesus to tell us what is or is not acceptable sexual conduct.

Thank you for flinging more shit that doesn't stick, Mr. Strawman.

I suggest lots and lots of Vaseline for you. Enjoy. Might help you out when you stroke The Nazz, TPH, Arthais, Dina, etc. I'm sure you don't want calloused hands.

So basically, you're some self-proclaimed "conservative" and you're surrouned by the evil "liberals," who you are trying to paint as a bunch of masturbating children. Yet you do post in the "sexy NSer" threads, indicating a desperate loneliness and desire to reclaim a lost childhood - or worse, a desire to mingle sexually with the "kiddies" who you pretend to dislike.

How very interesting.

EDIT: Everyone, I recommend backing off this thread unless you have something on-topic to say; the current dialogue appears to be degenerating into flamebaiting and personal attacks.

I've yet to see you do anything more than spew the typical lefty diarrhea. Care to offer more than that? Please...surprise me...

Sure...sure...


Anyway, to the point-so now not felating the president is bias? That's new.

Your obsession with Vaseline is disturbing. It suggests you haven't had much experience with other lubricants. Even KY Jelly is far superior to Vaseline--you might want to try it. Releasing some of that pent-up pressure might relax you some.

And yet another asshat that can't handle opposing opinions. Well done, kiddie. Run along now. Maybe you can figure out how to spell "whiny" with your blocks.

There is no evidence of media bias in Time's choice: As such, I declare the threat a free fire zone for spam. I shall henceforth flee.

I suggest lots and lots of Vaseline for you. Enjoy. Might help you out when you stroke The Nazz, TPH, Arthais, Dina, etc. I'm sure you don't want calloused hands.
There are two Funny Bits to this:

1) The suggestion that if a bunch of people all agree about something, it can't possibly be because they're right. It must be because they are "masturbating" one another.

2) The clear implication that mutual masturbation is a bad thing. I feel sad for you. :(

You seem to still be missing the fact that he is one of the only people to have ever been on the list 3 times.

Oh, they don't put him down for another year! Boo-freakin-hoo. Grow up. If not mentioning is liberal bias, obviously Time is conservative bias, because he has been on the list more times than practically anyone else.

stop being pat of the "factual community" of biased liberals. If we have to rely on facts and evidence then Myrm won't be able to post anymore.

So basically, you're some self-proclaimed "conservative" and you're surrouned by the evil "liberals," who you are trying to paint as a bunch of masturbating children. Yet you do post in the "sexy NSer" threads, indicating a desperate loneliness and desire to reclaim a lost childhood - or worse, a desire to mingle sexually with the "kiddies" who you pretend to dislike.

How very interesting.

Wow...an entirely ignorant post...

Anyway, to the point-so now not felating the president is bias? That's new.

So...Monica Lewinsky must be a fountain of unbiased knowledge?

Is the media biased? YES! Is it necessarily a liberal bias? No. They are just biased. Everyone needs to remember that.

Wow...an entirely ignorant post...

I think it was right on. You're clearly a very, very angry little man with a disturbing obsession with children masturbating.

And yet another asshat that can't handle opposing opinions.

Err.

Your only opinions have beeen that we should masturbate, and that we should stop masturbating. I suppose by definition we have to be opposed to one of them, but...

EDIT: Everyone, I recommend backing off this thread unless you have something on-topic to say; the current dialogue appears to be degenerating into flamebaiting and personal attacks.
I thought attacking the asinine persecution complex of the conservatives and their delusion of liberal bias in everything they don't like was the point of the thread?

Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/time100) has just published its list of the 100 most influential people. Senators Clinton and Obama made it. Queen Elizabeth made it. Borat made it. Kate Moss made it. Leo DiCaprio made it.

The President didn't.

I don't care who sits behind the desk in the Oval Office, just the fact that one is President of the United States makes them exceedingly influential. One word from the president in a press conference or speech can influence people to take actions in virtually any country in the world. The Democrats at this very moment are being forced to back off from their demands for immediate surrender in Iraq. The position they're adopting has been heavily influenced by the actions of George Bush.

The fact that Time chose to ignore him just underlines the bias that we already knew existed.

I didn't know Neal Boortz was a member of NationStates, but he is right. Some of these people I've never even heard of. Tina Fey has more influence than Bush? Who in the hell is Tina Fey? I've never heard of her or Tzipi Livni for that matter. And Liu Qi while he may be the big fish in Beijing, why is he listed ahead of Hu Jin Tao?

I mentioned BDSM as a humorous interjection. Obviously, you have to slam everything I post, so you fail to perceive humor when it's posted.

I'm a religious conservative, and know many religious conservatives, and none of us have a problem with sex. We're not even remotely emotionally distraught because we have no conflict - we're not sitting around waiting for Jesus to tell us what is or is not acceptable sexual conduct.

Thank you for flinging more shit that doesn't stick, Mr. Strawman.

So I guess it's just a coincidence that the people leading the fight against gay rights, against abortion and access to birth control, against a woman's right to choose, who preach abstinence-only sex ed, who are constantly harping on television, radio, and whatever other mediums they can find that sex outside of Biblically proscribed norms is sinful and punishable by God are religious conservatives, huh? Just a coincidence?

It wasn't liberals who were fighting against AIDS funding in the 80s under Reagan. No--conservatives were not only fighting that research, they were funding billboards like the one in my hometown that said "AIDS--Judgment has come!" So spare me your "my friends and I are religious and we're not conflicted" line please. If that's true--and I have my doubts-then you're the rare one among your brethren, and you fucking well know it.

I think it was right on. You're clearly a very, very angry little man with a disturbing obsession with children masturbating.

Yes, that's it. Nice try. :rolleyes:

Nor do the anti-Bushies that rule NSG. This thread will, no doubt, run 100+ pages, almost all of the posts being "Dubya is TEH EBIL!!!eleven"

Get over yourselves already. I suggest some Vaseline and Kleenex.

OH, WAIT! Those are corporations! EBIL CORPORATIONS!!!1one

Get your hands out of your pants already.

Wow, you most certainly have sand in your vagina today.

Point #1 President Bush has been on the list three times, more than any other President

#2 President Bush has been named Person of the year by the same magazine in 2000 and 2004.

#3, if President are so important than the list could be called "the top 100 presidents."

#4 He has little power now except for his veto pen. His influence has diminished because he has ostricized his administration through his bully tactics now that he doesn't have a friendly congress. He's a lame duck, and I know that makes you angry.

Once you can stop your masterbatory insults and the like maybe you can return to have a sensible conversation. Until then you will be ignored by anyone with a shred of intellect.

As opposed to the shrill liberal whining that you and others have made a hobby here? :rolleyes:

Get a grip on yourself.

Oh, wait...I'm sure you've already got that grip. And there's Vaseline involved, too, no doubt.

Nor do the anti-Bushies that rule NSG. This thread will, no doubt, run 100+ pages, almost all of the posts being "Dubya is TEH EBIL!!!eleven"

Get over yourselves already. I suggest some Vaseline and Kleenex.

OH, WAIT! Those are corporations! EBIL CORPORATIONS!!!1one

Get your hands out of your pants already.

Did you forget reality today?

Or maybe it has something to do with the mutual masturbation sessions that spring up in these threads. Get over yourselves, kiddies.

I suggest lots and lots of Vaseline for you. Enjoy. Might help you out when you stroke The Nazz, TPH, Arthais, Dina, etc. I'm sure you don't want calloused hands.

As if that were a bad thing. :p

I've yet to see you do anything more than spew the typical lefty diarrhea. Care to offer more than that? Please...surprise me...

And yet another asshat that can't handle opposing opinions. Well done, kiddie. Run along now. Maybe you can figure out how to spell "whiny" with your blocks.

Wow...an entirely ignorant post...

Yes, that's it. Nice try. :rolleyes:

And you say we can't handle opposing opinions? Have you even expressed something remotely approaching an opinion in this thread?

This is why I ignored Cluichstan. He's batshit insane.

I thought attacking the asinine persecution complex of the conservatives and their delusion of liberal bias in everything they don't like was the point of the thread?

Not quite. It should be worded more neutrally, such as "Discussing the lack of inclusion of George W. Bush on the list of 100 Most Influential People by Time Magazine, and the claims of 'liberal media bias' that have arisen as a result.", as your proposal tends to translate into "Calling Myrmidosinia, Cluichstan, The Nazz, Cannot think of a name, and anyone else unfortunate enough to post here bad names."

Yes, that's it.

Quite so.

Nice try. :rolleyes:

Try at what, good sir? I'm just offering an opposing opinion. You clearly can't handle it.

(Possibly due to your aforementioned psychological problems.)

While our Achillean friend has a point about the POTUS being one of the most influential people in the world due solely to his position, I would think that Time also based its decision on another important factor: how influential the President actually was in comparison to the amount of possible influence he could have had.

In that respect, Bush was not nearly as influential as he could have been. A good example of this is the US Congress's current opposition to the POTUS in regards to Iraq. This is the first time this has happened in US history, and is strongly indicative of Bush's waning, and perhaps insignificant, influence.

Err.

Your only opinions have beeen that we should masturbate, and that we should stop masturbating. I suppose by definition we have to be opposed to one of them, but...

Don't forget "And everyone but me in this thread is anti-Bush."

In addition, while I hate to sound anal-retentive, please refrain from personal attacks (e.g. "[Cluichstan]'s batshit insane"). They're not worth it.

Not quite. It should be worded more neutrally, such as "Discussing the lack of inclusion of George W. Bush on the list of 100 Most Influential People by Time Magazine, and the claims of 'liberal media bias' that have arisen as a result.", as your proposal tends to translate into "Calling Myrmidosinia, Cluichstan, The Nazz, Cannot think of a name, and anyone else unfortunate enough to post here bad names."

*raises hand* I haven't been called very many bad names. I think I'm being left out.

And you say we can't handle opposing opinions? Have you even expressed something remotely approaching an opinion in this thread?

Dammit Nazz, beat me to it again.

*raises hand* I haven't been called very many bad names. I think I'm being left out.

You're a big fat stupid head.

And you say we can't handle opposing opinions? Have you even expressed something remotely approaching an opinion in this thread?

This is why I ignored Cluichstan. He's batshit insane.

I do express opinions, but then you "batshit-insane" lot ignore them.

Let's face it, TPH, you ignore anyone who doesn't agree with you. You're a twat. End of story.

Don't forget "And everyone but me in this thread is anti-Bush."

In addition, while I hate to sound anal-retentive, please refrain from personal attacks (e.g. "[Cluichstan]'s batshit insane"). They're not worth it.

wait...who are you?

Egghiccup;12609257']Maybe they can teach you how to spell "whiney" afterwards. Although you will have to wash your hands before touching the blocks.
Maybe he was trying to spell whinny and was going to get into how liberals are all zoophiles.

Not quite. It should be worded more neutrally, such as "Discussing the lack of inclusion of George W. Bush on the list of 100 Most Influential People by Time Magazine, and the claims of 'liberal media bias' that have arisen as a result.", as your proposal tends to translate into "Calling Myrmidosinia, Cluichstan, The Nazz, Cannot think of a name, and anyone else unfortunate enough to post here bad names."

I'll be slightly fair to him in that his comment to me wasn't entirely unsolicated. The post where he 'insulted' me wasn't on topic and was in fact a dig on him. It doesn't fit the over all pattern of his here of just pissing and moaning because it was something directly related to him.

That's the best I can give him (maybe that the first post he responded to wasn't a rhetorical masterpiece, if we felt generous).

Egghiccup;12609257']Maybe they can teach you how to spell "whiney" afterwards. Although you will have to wash your hands before touching the blocks.

Both are possible spellings. And let's not even go into whinge.

In a (probably futile) attempt to get this back on track;
Someone who can read and comprehend. Thanks.

Every time a President has a press conference, every time he makes a signing statement, every time he issues a press release, he causes certain actions to be taken or rescinded. In fact, this President could completely change the course of the fight against Islamist terrorists by deciding to withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

If you don't see that position carries just a little more influential than Queen Elizabeth, then you're as biased as Time.
Of course the position is influential. But let's not beat around the bush (no pun intended); it is probably the common view of the writers of Time that the current administration has made a dog's ear of the standing of the US in so many ways, regardless of what their political allegiances are. Including GWB on this poll from their perspective would be entirely an appeal to his standing as the US President, and this would raise questions on the very value and necessity of that role. Should the government be allowed to do what it has done unchecked, and should so much power be held at the highest level? That is the sort of thing they'd end up talking about, and to do so now would probably result in calls from their political opponents for the magazine to be shut down for encouraging treason.

If I'm right about it, I suspect they will continue to remain silent until after the next election. The suggestion that the role of the President needs to be rethought is not one they can make publicly under this administration and in the current polarised political climate.

I didn't know Neal Boortz was a member of NationStates, but he is right. Some of these people I've never even heard of. Tina Fey has more influence than Bush? Who in the hell is Tina Fey? I've never heard of her or Tzipi Livni for that matter. And Liu Qi while he may be the big fish in Beijing, why is he listed ahead of Hu Jin Tao?

Tina Fey is a current cultural icon, or something--star of the media darling show "30 Rock," which shows that media's infatuation with itself extends to ludicrous degrees sometimes. Tzipi Livni is an Israeli politician who may be the next Prime Minister--she's in the process of trying to take down Olmert from the inside right now.

As for the why's of the list, I'd imagine that there's something that passes for an explanation in the articles that accompany the photos. It would likely be unsatisfying to read if past experience is any indication.

wait...who are you?

I'm Naestoria...?

You know, I've been thinking about something. I admit my opposition to most conservatives, but I had to think recently why that is.

I like to think of myself an openminded fellow, able to hear all sides of the argument. So why such virulent opposition I feel?

Then I remember, it's reasons like this post. You see, it speaks volumes to the current conservative ideology. Most rational people research a position, weigh the pros and cons, and come to a conclusion. Then they're able to back that conclusion up.

As we see here however, the current conservative ideology is to take a position, and attack anyone who disagrees. I have to wonder, why are so many conservative folks entirely unable to defend their position? Why do we see posts like this, ignoring all foundation in fact, spewing forth an opinion, then not even failing to respond, but outright ignoring evidence to the contrary?

I have to ask...why ar eyou incapable of defending your points? Why can't you actually defend your argument? Why is it whenever pressed for your rationale, you spew vitrol, rather than answering.

Now don't get me wrong...I really don't give a fuck about you or what you have to say, but from some standpoint...why are you utterly and totally incapable of rationally defending your position? Is it because, when all is said and done, your position is so untenable as to defy any ability to defend it?

Are your positions so bereft of consistancy that you are totally unable to defend it? Why cling so dogmatically to an ideology that you are incapable of justifying?

I do express opinions, but then you "batshit-insane" lot ignore them.

I quoted your every post in this thread. If there's an opinion in there on the thread topic, please, point it out. We'd love to read it.

Stephen Colbert > Tina Fey. Stephen Colbert got, what?, two words put in the dictionary in the course of a year?

In a (probably futile) attempt to get this back on track;

Of course the position is influential. But let's not beat around the bush (no pun intended); it is probably the common view of the writers of Time that the current administration has made a dog's ear of the standing of the US in so many ways, regardless of what their political allegiences are. Including GWB on this poll from their perspective would be entirely an appeal to his standing as the US President, and this would raise questions on the very value and necessity of that role. Should the government be allowed to do what it has done unchecked, and should so much power be held at the highest level? That is the sort of thing they'd end up talking about, and to do so now would probably result in calls from their political opponents for the magazine to be shut down for encouraging treason.

If I'm right about it, I suspect they will continue to remain silent until after the next election. The suggestion that the role of the President needs to be rethought is not one they can make publicly under this administration and in the current polarised political climate.
Also, as the OP pointed out, the office of President will pretty much ALWAYS carry as much influence as the United States carries. That's just how our government works. Any US President would automatically be on the Time List, no matter what, if we allow the influence of their OFFICE to be the determining factor.

If the list of 100 is going to have any meaning at all (and that is certainly debatable!) then I think you've at least got to try to look at the individual and what they are choosing to do with their particular office or station or job or whatever it is.

I do express opinions, but then you "batshit-insane" lot ignore them.

Okay, total seriousness here, Cluich:

I'm trying to give you a fair shake right now. I'm reading through the thread, and I am honestly not sure what opinions you are referring to. Can you please point to the opinions you have stated in this thread, so I can see your side of this?

I am not being sarcastic about this.

Also, as the OP pointed out, the office of President will pretty much ALWAYS carry as much influence as the United States carries. That's just how our government works. Any US President would automatically be on the Time List, no matter what, if we allow the influence of their OFFICE to be the determining factor.

If the list of 100 is going to have any meaning at all (and that is certainly debatable!) then I think you've at least got to try to look at the individual and what they are choosing to do with their particular office or station or job or whatever it is.

shhhh, don't say that. If you do that, then you'd have to admit that while the office of the president carries influence, bush has truly and utterly failed to live up to a fraction of the positive influence his office could be capable of.

Then Cluichistan would have to tell you, quite improbably, to go jerk off.

Also, as the OP pointed out, the office of President will pretty much ALWAYS carry as much influence as the United States carries. That's just how our government works. Any US President would automatically be on the Time List, no matter what, if we allow the influence of their OFFICE to be the determining factor.

If the list of 100 is going to have any meaning at all (and that is certainly debatable!) then I think you've at least got to try to look at the individual and what they are choosing to do with their particular office or station or job or whatever it is.

Like I said, if we are going to put people on the list because of their office, it might as well just be an annual list of all the world leaders.

Like I said, if we are going to put people on the list because of their office, it might as well just be an annual list of all the world leaders.

That and their counterparts in business. I mean, wouldn't you say that Sergey Brin is more influential than Tina Fey?

Stephen Colbert > Tina Fey. Stephen Colbert got, what?, two words put in the dictionary in the course of a year?

Well, one wasn't really credited to him technically. Not that he isn't the one who popularized it.

But yeah. Any time he mentions something a whole lot of people do it, he almost got a bridge named after him, people are rooting for his turtle, trying to lure his son the eagle across borders, had a mayor in Canada's birthday named "Stephen Colbert Day" (was it in Canada? I might have that wrong). Changed the information on elephants in Wikipedia...that's quite the cult of personality.

It's kind of an interesting cunundrum, because he is a parody of the cults of personality that are television pundits and he has in that act arguably become a bigger one than they could hope to achieve. It's kind of a (Life of) Brian/Howard Beale trap.

That and their counterparts in business. I mean, wouldn't you say that Sergey Brin is more influential than Tina Fey?
There wouldn't be any room for people in business. It would just be all world leaders, the end. Despite being nobodies, they automatically get on because they are the leader of their country. People who are influential by being independently powerful don't matter. Duh.

That and their counterparts in business. I mean, wouldn't you say that Sergey Brin is more influential than Tina Fey?

Of course, if one wanted to get technical, both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have far more influence than Hillary Clinton and Barak Obamah, given how the first two are the senate majority leader and speaker of the house respectively, and the other two are only junior congressmen.

The fact that the other two are running for president doesn't alter their political capabilities right now.

or maybe, JUST maybe, shock and awe, this list was refering to CULTURAL influence, and not POLITICAL influence?

No no no, must be left wing conspiracy to leave out Bush...ignoring the fact that Reid and Pelosi, who have FAAAR more actual influence than Clinton and Obama, were also omitted.

Like I said, if we are going to put people on the list because of their office, it might as well just be an annual list of all the world leaders.
This is just my personal opinion, but for me the most interesting parts of the Influential People list are when they talk about the people who are influential for unusual reasons.

I mean, yeah, the US President is influential. Dur. The richest man in the world is influential. Dur. Of course.

What's cool to read about is some random person who, say, engineers a new type of bean which can survive in more extreme climates and can thereby save millions from starvation by providing a whole new food supply.

As opposed to the shrill liberal whining that you and others have made a hobby here? :rolleyes:

Get a grip on yourself.

Oh, wait...I'm sure you've already got that grip. And there's Vaseline involved, too, no doubt.

Nor do the anti-Bushies that rule NSG. This thread will, no doubt, run 100+ pages, almost all of the posts being "Dubya is TEH EBIL!!!eleven"

Get over yourselves already. I suggest some Vaseline and Kleenex.

OH, WAIT! Those are corporations! EBIL CORPORATIONS!!!1one

Get your hands out of your pants already.
Or maybe it has something to do with the mutual masturbation sessions that spring up in these threads. Get over yourselves, kiddies.

Take your own advice before you go blind.

Of course it's biased, this is almost purely opinion, not fact. It's impossibe to write opinions without bias.

* munches popcorn *

I prefer when a media outlet admits bias. Then it's right out there. It's better than the alternative, which is trying to pick and choose what you trust.

You honestly expect those lists to be even remotely indicative of who is and who isn't influential? We're talking about Time Magazine, here.exactamente.

even the pathetic FIFA Power-rankings are more accurate.

I go for a varitey of new sources from around the world. I figure the truth will be in there somewhere. I also believe Reuters is fairly unbiased.

He has veto power now, but he is not 'influential' in that his opinions change the way people think about things.

Obama and Hilldog Clinton are likely to be the next president, one with a friendly congress. Their influence is probably on the ascendant, while Bush's is definitely plummeting.

Buh buh buh, mymydosa says it a liburil consperacey!

I guess the "liburil biyess" extends to Condo-leeza rice and John Roberts, arnold schwartzeneger and David petreus huh?

You should apologize for posting this garbage, myrmi, it's graffiti.

Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/time100) has just published its list of the 100 most influential people. Senators Clinton and Obama made it. Queen Elizabeth made it. Borat made it. Kate Moss made it. Leo DiCaprio made it.

The President didn't.

I don't care who sits behind the desk in the Oval Office, just the fact that one is President of the United States makes them exceedingly influential. One word from the president in a press conference or speech can influence people to take actions in virtually any country in the world. The Democrats at this very moment are being forced to back off from their demands for immediate surrender in Iraq. The position they're adopting has been heavily influenced by the actions of George Bush.

The fact that Time chose to ignore him just underlines the bias that we already knew existed.

I think it's more that Time understands the sad fact that celebrities are a bigger influence on people's lives than the politicians who run this country. After all, only a small pecentage of the elligible voters in the country vote in elections, and yet tabloids sell just fine.

If one, isolated 'incident' happens and you can jump to a conclusion like that, why isn't Myrmi jumping on the global warming bandwagon? Last month was the hottest on record!

I think it's more that Time understands the sad fact that celebrities are a bigger influence on people's lives than the politicians who run this country. After all, only a small pecentage of the elligible voters in the country vote in elections, and yet tabloids sell just fine.
Sadly, most people know more about Brittney Spears life, than the voting records of potential canidates.

I don't see how Donald Trump, the man who literally chose who the Ms. America pageant winner and has shaped actual primetime TV (sorry, Rosie... the View doesn't count) and shaped her image to America, didn't make the list...

When Rosie O'Donnell, member of the View and outspoken critic of Donald Trump on a personal level, who hasn't really proved to be much of an influence to anyone that we know of, did.

Unless Trump did. I dunno... I was just skimming the list to see which A-list personalities made it. Did he? I mean, this seems to me like its a cop out like the Person of the Year thing.

exactamente.

even the pathetic FIFA Power-rankings are more accurate.

Owie.

If one, isolated 'incident' happens and you can jump to a conclusion like that, why isn't Myrmi jumping on the global warming bandwagon? Last month was the hottest on record!

Clearly Global Climate change a huge conspiracy that every scientist, government and oil company is in on.

Has anybody mentioned that Osama has made the list?


*adding fuel to the fire*:cool:

You know, I'm as guilty of this as everyone else on this thread, I presume, since the "debate" has gone on as long as it has, but did anyone else notice that the article Myrmi linked to doesn't actually use the term "most influential people"? It's titled "The people who shape our world" and the tag line is "Here's our list of the 100 men and women whose power, talent or moral example is transforming the world." By those basic criteria, is it really a surprise that Dubya's not on this list but Chief Justice John Roberts and Secretary of State Condi Rice is? Arnold Schwarzenegger's on the list, as is General Petraeus, but because Bush isn't on there, it's liberal bias?

Has anybody mentioned that Osama has made the list?


*adding fuel to the fire*:cool:
I was just about to do so. ;) Raul Castro is on the list as well.

Has anybody mentioned that Osama has made the list?


*adding fuel to the fire*:cool:
Don't forget Al Gore.

Don't forget Al Gore.

Oh noes! It's t3h libiril bias!!!!!

Are you under the impression that most of these celebrities have any credibility at all?

Pee Wee Herman has more credibility that the Dubya these days. The cold light of day is here.

You know, I'm as guilty of this as everyone else on this thread, I presume, since the "debate" has gone on as long as it has, but did anyone else notice that the article Myrmi linked to doesn't actually use the term "most influential people"? It's titled "The people who shape our world" and the tag line is "Here's our list of the 100 men and women whose power, talent or moral example is transforming the world." By those basic criteria, is it really a surprise that Dubya's not on this list but Chief Justice John Roberts and Secretary of State Condi Rice is? Arnold Schwarzenegger's on the list, as is General Petraeus, but because Bush isn't on there, it's liberal bias?
Even though you, too, can read and comprehend, you're going to claim that the President of the United States has less power to transform the world than the Governor of California. Or even Rosie O'Donnell?

The only way this omission makes any sense is because Time Magazine is making an editorial comment. Because it's an editorial comment, it's bias. [joshing]Much more so than any of those puny examples of Fox News bias you rave about. [/kidding]

Pee Wee Herman has more credibility that the Dubya these days. The cold light of day is here.
The argument is over power and influence. How one can affect the world...Not credibility.

The argument is over power and influence. How one can affect the world...Not credibility.

Well, I think the Nazz defined what kind of influence they were talking about...and PW Herman still comes out trumps....

Well, I think the Nazz defined what kind of influence they were talking about...and PW Herman still comes out trumps....
Sure, someone that can order a carrier battle group to sail anywhere on Earth, someone who can order a cruise missile strike at a moment's notice, someone who gets to throw out the first pitch on Opening Day, that someone has less power to influence world events than Pee Wee Herman? Sorry, you're as biased as Time.

I forgot the most important part...Someone who can change the law of the land with the stroke of a pen...that's a lot more power than Nancy Pelosi has.

The argument is over power and influence. How one can affect the world...Not credibility.

Chris Farley has more influence than President Bush right now.
His position by itself has influence, he, as a person, doesn't. Influence is based on credibility and capabilities.

Even though you, too, can read and comprehend, you're going to claim that the President of the United States has less power to transform the world than the Governor of California. Or even Rosie O'Donnell?

This list is not about potential, and what's more, the fact that you were trying to use it to make a point about the media in general is still ridiculous.

Sure, someone that can order a carrier battle group to sail anywhere on Earth, someone who can order a cruise missile strike at a moment's notice, someone who gets to throw out the first pitch on Opening Day, that someone has less power to influence world events than Pee Wee Herman? Sorry, you're as biased as Time.

So basically you would prefer it Time just listed all national leaders? Just a big list of presidents, premiers, etc etc... all of them have more potential influence than Pee Wee, so... thats what you would logically be looking for?

Sure, someone that can order a carrier battle group to sail anywhere on Earth, someone who can order a cruise missile strike at a moment's notice, someone who gets to throw out the first pitch on Opening Day, that someone has less power to influence world events than Pee Wee Herman? Sorry, you're as biased as Time.

But does he do any of that? He refused to throw out a first pitch on Opening day this year because he was afraid he'd get booed--which he would have been. At this point, I think if he tried to launch a cruise missile strike, he might face open rebellion from his generals.

I don't care who sits behind the desk in the Oval Office, just the fact that one is President of the United States makes them exceedingly influential.

Sure you do.

You would be bitching if that happened to President Clinton?

Chris Farley has more influence than President Bush right now.
His position by itself has influence, he, as a person, doesn't. Influence is based on credibility and capabilities.

Sorry pal, power is based on position. Influence is based on power. Only in an egalitarian society will your claims have any basis in fact.

Sure, someone that can order a carrier battle group to sail anywhere on Earth, someone who can order a cruise missile strike at a moment's notice, someone who gets to throw out the first pitch on Opening Day, that someone has less power to influence world events than Pee Wee Herman? Sorry, you're as biased as Time.

I forgot the most important part...Someone who can change the law of the land with the stroke of a pen...that's a lot more power than Nancy Pelosi has.

Yes, the POTUS has that sort of ifluence, but the question then arises: Did Bush use this influence? And if so, was it effective? If the answer is No to either of these two questions, then Time is correct in that he is not influential. He can't even influence Congress to pay for the current war, which is a first in US history.

Sure, someone that can order a carrier battle group to sail anywhere on Earth, someone who can order a cruise missile strike at a moment's notice, someone who gets to throw out the first pitch on Opening Day, that someone has less power to influence world events than Pee Wee Herman? Sorry, you're as biased as Time.

I forgot the most important part...Someone who can change the law of the land with the stroke of a pen...that's a lot more power than Nancy Pelosi has.

.....but thats not the kind of influence its about.

Time clearly has a liberal bias.

http://i.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2004/1101041227_400.jpg

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/time100walkup/article/0,28804,1611030_1610841_1609760,00.html

http://weaselhut.net/time100.png

Is it just me or does Bush appear as #97 for this year?

You can check it if you want, but this is what I found when I scrolled down the list.

Time clearly has a liberal bias.

http://i.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2004/1101041227_400.jpg

Don't forget the Ann Coulter cover and glowing story a while back either.

Sorry pal, power is based on position. Influence is based on power. Only in an egalitarian society will your claims have any basis in fact.

Who is the most likely to be told to go fuck themselves if they asked some one to go make them a sandwich, Chris Farley or George W. Bush?

And I guess you support the idea then that "Top 100 Most Influential People" should just be a list of world leaders every year as opposed to influential people based on their actual influence on people.

Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/time100) has just published its list of the 100 most influential people. Senators Clinton and Obama made it. Queen Elizabeth made it. Borat made it. Kate Moss made it. Leo DiCaprio made it.

The President didn't.

I don't care who sits behind the desk in the Oval Office, just the fact that one is President of the United States makes them exceedingly influential. One word from the president in a press conference or speech can influence people to take actions in virtually any country in the world. The Democrats at this very moment are being forced to back off from their demands for immediate surrender in Iraq. The position they're adopting has been heavily influenced by the actions of George Bush.

The fact that Time chose to ignore him just underlines the bias that we already knew existed.

ROFLCOPTER!

But does he do any of that? He refused to throw out a first pitch on Opening day this year because he was afraid he'd get booed--which he would have been. At this point, I think if he tried to launch a cruise missile strike, he might face open rebellion from his generals.
But, he can change the law of the land with a signing statement, can't he? How's that for power. Not a single Congressman, or even a single Governor can say that.

Get your hands out of your pants already.

As soon as you get your head out of your ass. Neither you nor Mrymi would be bitching about a Democratic president being left off the list, in fact you'd likely be laughing. He was left off because he's a lame duck, not because everyone else hates him.


EDIT He didn't even get left off!

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/time100walkup/article/0,28804,1611030_1610841_1609760,00.html

http://weaselhut.net/time100.png

Is it just me or does Bush appear as #97 for this year?

You can check it if you want, but this is what I found when I scrolled down the list.


That is a list of who readers thought should be on, I don't think Let It Rain was the real most influential person in the world.

But, he can change the law of the land with a signing statement, can't he? How's that for power. Not a single Congressman, or even a single Governor can say that.That's still up for debate, largely because it hasn't been challenged yet, and I suspect that's why Bush didn't just use a signing statement on the funding bill he was given. Can't challenge a veto other than to override it, but you can challenge a signing statement.

Corbournne;12609892']That is a list of who readers thought should be on, I don't think Let It Rain was the real most influential person in the world.

I looked for a list and that was the one I found. I didn't see a list in the link given in the OP so I went a-huntin'.

As soon as you get your head out of your ass. Neither you nor Mrymi would be bitching about a Democratic president being left off the list, in fact you'd likely be laughing. He was left off because he's a lame duck, not because everyone else hates him.


EDIT He didn't even get left off!

No need to go after him anymore. He's no longer with us, at least not in this incarnation.

But, he can change the law of the land with a signing statement, can't he?

No. This has been brief answers to stupid questions.

For the more involved answer, it is "no, because the president does not have the power to create or modify laws"

I looked for a list and that was the one I found. I didn't see a list in the link given in the OP so I went a-huntin'.

Yea, well, there was. :D

But, he can change the law of the land with a signing statement, can't he? How's that for power. Not a single Congressman, or even a single Governor can say that.


....even were that literally true , its still not that kind of list.

As for the why's of the list, I'd imagine that there's something that passes for an explanation in the articles that accompany the photos. It would likely be unsatisfying to read if past experience is any indication.
I've read a few. They're all touchy-feely things that gloss over even the good points of the subject. They've got to print a hundred of the things, so what would we expect? Besides, how else could Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton be presented as likable people?

No. This has been brief answers to stupid questions.

For the more involved answer, it is "no, because the president does not have the power to create or modify laws"
What about Executive Orders, or Presidential Proclaimations, as I prefer to call them? I think it was the Clinton lacky, Paul Begala, that described it best -- "Stroke of the pen, law of the land, pretty cool, huh?"

BUSH SHOULD NOT BE ON THERE! And it's a good thing he's not, whatever he did that was influental, it woudln't put him on the top 100. And the fact that Obama and Clinton are on there makes me want to use TIME for TP. George Washing would qualify, Abraham Lincon would, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Jesus Chris, Martin Luther' Mohammad, Mosses, Martin Luther King Jr., Maybe the Beatles and George Lucas, but Bush, Clinton and Obama, NO, ABSOULUTELY NOT! Oh, yeah and DeCaprio and the others? He's a fine actor but not one of the world's 100 most influental.

TIME can't give a rank in the list based on someone's position alone, or the list would be boring. Every year it would be 'The 100 Most Influential Heads of State and CEOs'. Yeah, we know heads of state have power. You don't have to tell us. Much of the point is to show non-politician types changing the world.

I've read a few. They're all touchy-feely things that gloss over even the good points of the subject. They've got to print a hundred of the things, so what would we expect? Besides, how else could Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton be presented as likable people?

Obviously you didn't read the Pelosi one--Newt Gingrich wrote it, which I would consider another dagger in your already necrotic theory of Time's liberal bias.

And I met Pelosi when I lived in her district--she's quite likable in person, as long as you're not threatened by powerful women, that is. Just saying.

What about Executive Orders, or Presidential Proclaimations, as I prefer to call them? I think it was the Clinton lacky, Paul Begala, that described it best -- "Stroke of the pen, law of the land, pretty cool, huh?"

All of which can be overturned by Congress, if they pass a veto-proof law--not quite the same as the theory behind signing statements, are they?

Why pay attention to lists like these? When you see American Idol judges and Paris Hilton on the list, one would think it would be just a tiny bit suspect.

Why pay attention to lists like these? When you see American Idol judges and Paris Hilton on the list, one would think it would be just a tiny bit suspect.
Because it makes a good topic for conversation. Clearly I failed to persuade anyone that Bush should have made the TIME list, but it was a nice diversion from some dull paper work.

Because it makes a good topic for conversation. Clearly I failed to persuade anyone that Bush should have made the TIME list, but it was a nice diversion from some dull paper work.

I do agree with the fact the leader of the United States will be placed on the list by default given the effect he has on the world at large. Even with Bush, though I see him as now a virtual non-entity, it is still true he has influence just by having the position he has. It is of course a negative influence but one nonetheless.

Because it makes a good topic for conversation. Clearly I failed to persuade anyone that Bush should have made the TIME list, but it was a nice diversion from some dull paper work.

You know, I could have sworn, based on the OP and the thread title that your real purpose was to persuade people of the media's liberal bias, not that Bush belonged on the list. :rolleyes:

The President didn't.

I don't care who sits behind the desk in the Oval Office, just the fact that one is President of the United States makes them exceedingly influential. One word from the president in a press conference or speech can influence people to take actions in virtually any country in the world.
Ugh. Suck his cock a little harder why don't you.

If I wasn't on that list, it's a stupid list so don't worry about it.

If I wasn't on that list, it's a stupid list so don't worry about it.

His absence isn't what makes it a stupid list.

In fact, it's the only redeeming quality in an otherwise fatuous exercise in fawning rectal stimulation.

You know, I could have sworn, based on the OP and the thread title that your real purpose was to persuade people of the media's liberal bias, not that Bush belonged on the list. :rolleyes:

I failed at that too, but keeping to a topic around here is like hitting a moving target.

What about Executive Orders, or Presidential Proclaimations, as I prefer to call them? I think it was the Clinton lacky, Paul Begala, that described it best -- "Stroke of the pen, law of the land, pretty cool, huh?"
Again, why isn't this just a list of all world leaders then if position is the penultimate decider of influence?

Again, why isn't this just a list of all world leaders then if position is the penultimate decider of influence?

I would tend to think that it is a list of culturally influential people. You know, those who influence how people live, act, and even think on a daily basis. The Shrub, in this regard, has very little(If any) influence left in this idea. Does have have political influence? Yes. Not much cultural influence, though.

Myrmi, I want to try a different tactic this time. Let's be blunt about the real bias of the media: Money. Faux isn't Conservative just because its readers are Conservative, its Conservative because it has an economic niche there. Now, lets be blunt, what kind of Americans read Time? Pretty average Americans. Now, how does the average American feel about George Bush?

The answer, in case you were wondering, is "They hate his guts". Now, do you think Time is more likely to disinclude the President because of a Liberal Conspiracy to control the media, or because they thought he wouldn't be a popular choice? Hint: they didn't think he would be popular.

That's why Time includes entertainers. It's because Americans who are obsessed with Hollywood and New York bullshit want to read about their empty-headed celebrity of the week. It's all about the $, Myrmi.

But you knew that.

What about Executive Orders, or Presidential Proclaimations, as I prefer to call them? I think it was the Clinton lacky, Paul Begala, that described it best -- "Stroke of the pen, law of the land, pretty cool, huh?"

An executive order is not law unless promulgated pursuant to congressional authority.

It is not unheard of for an executive agency, or even the executive himself, to make legally binding regulations. For example, the FDA, the FDC, the IRS, the now defunct INS, all are executive agencies that created regulation which were legally binding. However they may only do so when Congress allows them to do so. An executive order has no force of law unless Congress allows it to.

It is only law when Congress decides to give the president power to make orders with the force of law. When an executive order becomes law it is not through the power of the president, but the power of congress. The president can not decide when orders can be issued with the force of law, only Congress may.

So..yes, what about them?

Aelosia.

What will Aelosia bring to the table if we vote?

There are two Funny Bits to this:

1) The suggestion that if a bunch of people all agree about something, it can't possibly be because they're right. It must be because they are "masturbating" one another.

2) The clear implication that mutual masturbation is a bad thing. I feel sad for you. :(

I now feel sad about my lack of experience.

Happy now? You made a virgin cry (on the inside).

"Calling Myrmidosinia, Cluichstan, The Nazz, Cannot think of a name, and anyone else unfortunate enough to post here bad names."

Like 2X4B? Though that is a bit of jerky name it is nowhere near as bad as 2Q4B

I doubt the President is losing any sleep on whether he's on such a list or not.

I remember a poll that put Johnny Vegas and Ricky Gervais on the list of the 50 sexiest male celebrities!!

I'd be happy if that were the case but i doubt it is

Has anyone mentioned that Condoleeza Rice has appeared more times than Clinton? Hmmm...

Yep, must be that good old liberal bias showing through. Or could it be that they don't want to create a trend that would require them to include the US President every year from now on.

I wonder if the conservatives will be complaining when Obama is President and isn't on the list some year. I'm guessing, no.

It's not bias just because people don't constantly lean conservative. I'm sorry that you don't see the difference.

Why oh why did you revive this turkey of a thread?

Why oh why did you revive this turkey of a thread?

Sarkozky was elected and he won't let Turkey join the E.U. Where else can it go?

Has anyone mentioned that Condoleeza Rice has appeared more times than Clinton? Hmmm...

Yep, must be that good old liberal bias showing through. Or could it be that they don't want to create a trend that would require them to include the US President every year from now on.

I wonder if the conservatives will be complaining when Obama is President and isn't on the list some year. I'm guessing, no.

It's not bias just because people don't constantly lean conservative. I'm sorry that you don't see the difference.

It's also interesting to note that Time got Michael Behe to write the article on Richard Dawkins, but every right-wing figure seemed to be reviewed by another right-winger. This is clear evidence of liberal bias (kudos to pharyngula).

It's also interesting to note that Time got Michael Behe to write the article on Richard Dawkins, but every right-wing figure seemed to be reviewed by another right-winger. This is clear evidence of liberal bias (kudos to pharyngula).That seemed to be Time's gimmick on a lot of these people--Newt Gingrich writing on Nancy Pelosi, for instance. What editor thought it was a good idea to have the person least qualified to describe someone do just that? There's contrarianism, and then there's stupid, and I think I know where this decision falls on that axis.

That seemed to be Time's gimmick on a lot of these people--Newt Gingrich writing on Nancy Pelosi, for instance. What editor thought it was a good idea to have the person least qualified to describe someone do just that? There's contrarianism, and then there's stupid, and I think I know where this decision falls on that axis.

Do you have examples of right wingers being reviewed by another right winger in the same way example by Newt and Nancy or Behe and Dawkins?

Do you have examples of right wingers being reviewed by another right winger in the same way example by Newt and Nancy or Behe and Dawkins?

I looked at it when this thread came up, but no others really jump to mind.

Edit: here's an example from the other side. Donna Brazile, Gore's campaign manager in 2000, wrote about Condi Rice, though they have the similarity of both being powerful black women in politics. RFK Jr. wrote about Arnold Schwarzenegger, but they have the connection through both being very green. They're not as opposite as Behe and Dawkins or Gingrich and Pelosi.

I looked at it when this thread came up, but no others really jump to mind.

Edit: here's an example from the other side. Donna Brazile, Gore's campaign manager in 2000, wrote about Condi Rice, though they have the similarity of both being powerful black women in politics. RFK Jr. wrote about Arnold Schwarzenegger, but they have the connection through both being very green. They're not as opposite as Behe and Dawkins or Gingrich and Pelosi.

I suppose that depends on how you look at it. They both have the similarity of being "experts" on evolution or they were both speakers of the House. That's similar.

However, I admit I don't really buy that argument. Having Behe review Dawkins is like having the Pope (at the time of Galileo) review Gallileo.

Why oh why did you revive this turkey of a thread?

http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/7485/motivator4574243gz8.jpg

http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/7485/motivator4574243gz8.jpg

Two days is hardly a Zombie, and it was an accident. I was reading a current thread about it in moderation and I thought it was still ongoing. If I'd known it had expired, I'd have avoided it.

Two days is hardly a Zombie,
When you get an idea, you go with it.

The Queen went to Jamestown and the KENTUCKY DERBY before she met with Bush.

This should be a fairly good indication of how influential he is.