Bush wins " person of the year" award by time magazine

spooiirt!!

Here's a link to the BBC story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4109373.stm

There's a particularly interesting section in this story where it lists some of the previous winners of this prestigious award - Adolph Hitler in 1938 and Joseph Stalin in 1942. Says it all really...

bonkey

spooiirt!! wrote:

Says it all really...

What should say it all is the basic premise of the award.

Time choose the individual (or, as was the case last year, a "class" of individual) who have had the most influence on the world in the past year.

Whether you love or hate him, agree or disagree with him, I think it would be hard to claim that Bush has not been a central figure in the last year's world. From the ongoing situation in Iraq, through the world's focus on the US elections, Bush is undoubtedly the right choice for the award.

I honestly can't think of anyone who has had more impact in the past 12 months.

The right choice.

jc

gandalf

And the winner of the most impact craters in Iraq is.........................George Jr !!!

http://www.2dtv.co.uk/movie/Arnie_and_Bush.swf

Hairy Homer

My God I'm agreeing with Bonkey!!!!! What's wrong here?????

Time says it's award goes to that person, or persons or organisation that has done most for better or worse to change the world in the previous 12 months.

Past winners do indeed include Hitler, Stalin (twice I believe) Ayatollah Khomeini.....and Andy Grove from Intel.

As well as numerous popes, Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela and all sorts of other nice cuddly people.

I live in hope..........

cdebru

I see so its not best person of the year

then Bonkey is right W is the winner no question

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

did osama win in 2001?

if not, why not?
surely time aren't saying there's more to the planet than the Us.

I scoff at that

Sparks

Mordeth wrote:

did osama win in 2001?

Dammit. Beaten to the punch by 15 minutes. Though I would argue that it ought to have been the 19 terrorists on the planes that deserved the award. I mean, if Osama got it for being their inspiration, then Leo Strauss ought to be getting the award this year, not Bush.

Imposter

IIRC, "The American Soldiers" won last year. Not the coalition of the willing's soldiers, just the american soldiers. I think they may have a slight bias. In saying that Dubya probably deserves it this year for bad rather than good reasons.

ixoy

Mordeth wrote:

did osama win in 2001?
if not, why not?

From snopes.com:

Time avoided the controversy by naming New York mayor Rudy Giuliani as their Person of the Year for 2001, disdaining Osama bin Laden as a "garden variety terrorist":

Though we spent hours debating the pros and cons of naming Osama bin Laden, it ultimately became easy to dismiss him," said managing editor Jim Kelly. "He is not a larger-than-life figure with broad historical sweep . . . he is smaller than life, a garden-variety terrorist whose evil plan succeeded beyond his highest hopes."

Hmmm... It seems to be the argument that the one action - which reshifted world policy - isn't enough because it was just one action, rather than a prolonged series of them (as you may say with Bush). Still I think there was a strong element of appeasement and not wanting their magazine to be shafted royally by the moral indignant and righteousness of the likes of the Wal-Mart chain.

Gurgle

Time is just propaganda for the most part these days. They sometimes try to give the 'other' point of view but very carefully written so as not to upset the average american.

EKRIUQ

George Bush jr is to most Americans the most powerful and respected president in there generation, and if any of the Bush bashing that goes on here went on in the states there be an outcry against the instigators.

ixoy

Some choice quotes from Time's article:

Bush was recognized for "reshaping the rules of politics to fit his 10-gallon-hat leadership style," according to Time. The magazine's editors recognized Bush "for sharpening the debate until the choices bled, for reframing reality to match his design, for gambling his fortunes -- and ours -- on his faith in the power of leadership."

Damning with faint praise? Has anyone read the full article in question? Interview aside, it'd be interesting to see if the article is just a fawning tribute or a reasoned critique.


Regardless, I still think there was a case to made for Osama Bin Laden as Man of the Year 2001.

cdebru

TIPPTOP wrote:

George Bush jr is to most Americans the most powerful and respected president in there generation, and if any of the Bush bashing that goes on here went on in the states there be an outcry against the instigators.

Just as well we dont live in america but in a democracy were we can speak our mind then.

Imposter

ixoy wrote:

Some choice quotes from Time's article:
Damning with faint praise? Has anyone read the full article in question? Interview aside, it'd be interesting to see if the article is just a fawning tribute or a reasoned critique.

article
(or at least the first 1/4 of it)
Try: this
for all of it. I'm not sure if it'll work for everyone.

GuanYin

Quoting Dylan Moran:

"George Bush is a see-er and a thinker, a poet and a scholar.... the bald headed eagle of love"

ionapaul

cdebru wrote:

Just as well we dont live in america but in a democracy were we can speak our mind then.

Don't worry, he gets criticised as much by his opponents in the States as he does here. They are already working hard on making his upcoming inaugeration (that doesn't look quite right but you know what I mean) the most secure ever - remember the protests the first time around! That said, much of the bitterness we saw the first time stemmed from the accusation that he stole the election, something that cannot be said this time. No shortage of ammunition for protesters to use, though - think of the past 4 years!

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

cdebru

ionapaul wrote:

Don't worry, he gets criticised as much by his opponents in the States as he does here. They are already working hard on making his upcoming inaugeration (that doesn't look quite right but you know what I mean) the most secure ever - remember the protests the first time around! That said, much of the bitterness we saw the first time stemmed from the accusation that he stole the election, something that cannot be said this time. No shortage of ammunition for protesters to use, though - think of the past 4 years!

Iam not so sure seen chevy chase getting a lash on Fox for mocking W

cdebru

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

That may have been true in the past but americans are very intolerant of criticism of their leader

Imposter

I've read the first one an a half pages of the 4 page article and skimmed the rest of it and all it really seems to talk about is his reelection and the strategies he used. That and stuff that is prior to 2004. Hardly enough to qualify someone as person of the year imo.

ixoy

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

To a degree yes. The censorship that does exist is self-imposed though. Wal-Mart, for example, refusing to stock certain magazines is an example of them catering for a particular viewpoint and is more self censorship. Then there's the FCC, which censors their shows far more heavily than we ever would. So it's good in some areas, poor in others.

RuggieBear

Mordeth wrote:

did osama win in 2001?

if not, why not?
surely time aren't saying there's more to the planet than the Us.

I scoff at that

Time did seriously consider giving O. Bin Laden the "award" in 2001 but felt it would have been commercial suicide and so chickened out....they felt a boycott could have ruined them....just think Liverpool, Sun and the Hilborough disaster but in a market the size of america's

cdebru

ixoy wrote:

To a degree yes. The censorship that does exist is self-imposed though. Wal-Mart, for example, refusing to stock certain magazines is an example of them catering for a particular viewpoint and is more self censorship. Then there's the FCC, which censors their shows far more heavily than we ever would. So it's good in some areas, poor in others.

Freedom of speech seems to be reserved for the pro war neo con religous right.

Winters

Hitler won the Time award and so did "The US Soilder" last year or so.

Can you really care what Time thinks?

koneko

cdebru wrote:

Just as well we dont live in america but in a democracy were we can speak our mind then.

Have you been in the States recently? There's plenty of opposition to Bush there, quite a few of the people I spoke to are more Anti-Bush than anyone on Boards.

cdebru

koneko wrote:

Have you been in the States recently? There's plenty of opposition to Bush there, quite a few of the people I spoke to are more Anti-Bush than anyone on Boards.

Yes i was there a couple of months ago
what amazed me was the lack of coverage of the war in Iraq I watched a local news station it was probably mentioned once in a whole month.

then to find out that 20% of the people that voted tought the issue of wether gays should marry was more important than their soldiers getting their asses blown up in Iraq or that the US is borrowing $2 billion a day is not really suprising when you see the news they get

Hobbes

koneko wrote:

Have you been in the States recently? There's plenty of opposition to Bush there, quite a few of the people I spoke to are more Anti-Bush than anyone on Boards.

Depends on where in the US you go TBH.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Gurgle

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

That strict law being that pornography must be readily available in every newsagent and video shop.
:rolleyes:
Yes, damn this Nanny state.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

?

Sand

Bush is a pretty obvious choice really - given hes the center of such unreasoning hatred of so much of the world, and won such a resounding triumph in the US elections to put the allegations of 2000 to bed, its hard to argue who else has dominated the world stage this year.

Time is just propaganda for the most part these days. They sometimes try to give the 'other' point of view but very carefully written so as not to upset the average american.

Yep, I give them the odd read now and again - their style of reporting on the the US presidential elections is quite odd. They concentrate more on the personality, character quirks and anecdotes about the candidate than any detailed examination of their politics. The idea seems to be more to describe what sort of person the candidate is rather than what sort of politician they are - but given the drive towards the non-offensive poll driven center from both flanks theres little enough to divide candidates these days past their personalities.

Just as well we dont live in america but in a democracy were we can speak our mind then.

Balaclavas. Pistols. Kneecaps.

To a degree yes. The censorship that does exist is self-imposed though. Wal-Mart, for example, refusing to stock certain magazines is an example of them catering for a particular viewpoint and is more self censorship.

Walmart is a private enterprise though, not a public library. It sells stuff it feels will make it a profit whilst not driving away customers. Freedom of speech is not dependant on compelling others to publicise that speech.

I think DaveIRLs point is pretty solid though. The libel laws in the US as I understand them are much more in favour of the journalist than here. AFAIK in Ireland the burdern is on the journalist to prove what theyre writing is true, whereas in the US the burden is upon the subject to prove what the journalist is writing is not true. There are obvious ups and downs to that, but it does allow for journalists to say what the dogs on the street know without fear of being sued. On the other hand, Journalists in Ireland had a much tougher time exposing the corruption endemic in Ireland.

Freedom of speech seems to be reserved for the pro war neo con religous right.

Whereas in Ireland roving hordes of arts students dont roam the land looking to prevent people excercising their freedom speech because those arts students have decided that they dont like that point of view?

Yeah, Irelands the place where everyone defends youre right to speak even if they dont agree with what youre saying.

Sparks

Sand wrote:

won such a resounding triumph in the US elections

That's incorrect.

Balaclavas. Pistols. Kneecaps.

Freedom of speech zones. Patriot Act. Secret Service. FBI. Gitmo.
I'll take living in a country with a terrorist problem over living in a country that doesn't need one, thanks.

Gurgle

Sand wrote:

Yeah, Irelands the place where everyone defends youre right to speak even if they dont agree with what youre saying.

Not sure if that was sarcasm, but heres something to back it up:

Thread

Article

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sparks

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Well, for one thing, we don't have freedom of speech zones...

Blackjack

Gurgle wrote:

Not sure if that was sarcasm, but heres something to back it up:

Thread

Article

Damn, beaten to it.

On the Incitement of Racial Hatred stuff I was making the point that in the US it's your right to free speech to express your belief that white people are superior beings or whatever but in Ireland you can't always.

I would personally think that the law in Ireland in this case would be a GOOD thing.

Would you like to show me all the examples you can find of people having more rights to free speech in Ireland than in the US? I can't find any.

was there not an issue of where they could not publish pictures of US
Soldiers arriving back into the US in Caskets?

See what people miss the point on is while yes Bush is restricting American's rights with things like the Patriot Act they still have more freedom because they were so free to begin with.

Agree with the sentiment, but undoing the freedoms, is that not a form of oppression?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sand

That's incorrect.

If you say so. Either way he put those pinko liberal babykilling communists in their place*

* Actually, honestly Im dont care, democrat or republican its all the same - I just said it to wind up the arts students who have so emotionally attached themselves to the Kerry campaign - you guys should checkout Truthmedia.

Freedom of speech zones. Patriot Act. Secret Service. FBI. Gitmo.

Sinn Fein banned from media. Special crinimal courts. Special Branch. Curragh internment.

Hell, all youve got are buzzwords - freedom of speech zones are simply areas set aside for the usual rent a mob protestors to rant on whilst not compromising security of a political rally. Again, freedom of speech is not dependant on publicising that speech.

The patriot act? Sure, it might be objectional on grounds of violating privacy or whatever but it doesnt ban freedom of speech, no more than the anti-hate laws that most would argue are responsible. Secret serivce and FBI? Sorry have protection of people at high risk of assassination like the US prez or federal investigation of crimes suddenly become orwellian since the Clinton presidency? Gitmo - isnt the evil empire of the US actually protecting their rights in the Supreme Court last I heard? What a bunch of evil nazi bastards eh?

To be honest, I hope the lunatic fringe keep on trying to paint the US as some sort of orwellian nightmare - when the sky fails to fall on their head theyll be shown up as the maniacs they are.

Not sure if that was sarcasm, but heres something to back it up:

Well you could look at the experiences of Justin Barrett or Irvine and see how deeply the right to free speech is respected in Ireland - now before you go all freaky on me, yes theyre nut cases but the right of free speech is not extended merely to those you agree with - except in Ireland of course

I can help you out with a counter example of a US politician being prevented from exercising his right to free speech by a US mob but unfortunately it would be that wolfiwitz guy and the mob would be michael moore fans so it wouldnt really count because only moore fans are allowed the right to free speech.

Gurgle

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Except for child pornography, thats just not true.
Is child porn legal in the states?

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

So incitement of racial hatred is illegal in Ireland but legal in the USA. Yes, good point, they've got better freedoms than us, I wish I lived there. :rolleyes:

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Gurgle

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Only on the incitement to hatred bill.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I will not recognize the right to view child pornography, real or fake, as a freedom. Its an abomination and anybody who thinks this should be included under a free press is at best delusional at worst a paedophile.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Not quite.

I will concede that they have some specific liberties which we do not have here - Your (only) examples being the rights to incite racial hatred and to enjoy pictures of children involved in sexual acts.
Likewise, we have some specific liberties here which they do not have, for example I am constitutionally protected from being enslaved against my will by an imperialist army and forced to murder foreigners.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Gurgle

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

No, I'm not.
I am calling anyone who argues that child pornography is OK if its fake delusional and implying that some of those people are probably paedophiles themselves.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

No, I'm trying to draw a line between freedom and liberty.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Things I disagree with - racism, paedophiles
Things GWB disagrees with - Muslims, Liberals, Socialism, Self-determination, Dissenters, Foreigners, Gay marriage, The Geneva Convention, Human rights, Civil rights, The right to life, Equality, Ethics

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

And I gave a link to the report that shows the freedom of the press in Ireland to be better than in the USA.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Conscription = Slavery imho.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Gurgle

Both I and the Bush admin agree on the restriction of liberties, we just differ on which ones

There, I've said it.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Because the reporter can't print a made up story about somebody. Thats protecting the rights of everybody.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

They're bigger. I was just going with the RSF report.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I consider myself a liberal too.
I disagree with lots of things, but most of those things I don't object to.
I disagree with Christians, Jews and Muslims (All just branches of the same religion anyway), but I would never condone any restriction on peoples rights to practise any of these religions.
Why?
Because no harm is done to anyone in the practise of these religions.

I disagree with abortion but I accept that the modern world has abortion built into its culture and I believe it would be wrong to restrict a person's right to travel, even if they announced that they were going to England for an abortion.

Do I need to explain why I think its right to restrict free speech with the incitement to hatred act?

Or why it would be wrong to allow publication of faked child pornography?

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

GWB and the 'right to life' - I'm referring to the murder of 100,000 or so Iraquis and to the scores of death warrants he signed as governor.

And I take every opportunity to whine about the cowboys in Dail Eireann.

I'm going home, I'll go googling tomorrow for examples of all the other stuff.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Conscription has always existed in America, it just hasn't been implemented for a few decades. The way its going, we're likely to see it in the next 4 years.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

No, because:
1. Switzerland is neutral, they don't invade places. The training is so that the civilian army can defend the place.

Switzerland hasn't been at war in 500 years

2. If you object, you don't even have to handle a gun

It's now possible to serve in a noncombatant role, although this isn't common. In rare instances, conscientious objectors may perform Zivildienst (civilian service) in a nursing home, sanitarium, etc. instead of joining the military, at the cost of serving 50% longer than they would in the armed forces.

Conscription in Switzerland

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

GreeBo

Christ almighty, anyone fancy talking about the person of the year award?

Gurgle

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

OK then, agreed(ish).

GreeBo wrote:

Christ almighty, anyone fancy talking about the person of the year award?

Not any more, I'm planning to be drunk in 3 hours.