• TIME magazine names Obama Person of the Year.
    84 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Megafan;38890852]Uh no, actually it hasn't. The inauguration (as well as the new Congress) that follows a general election doesn't happen until January of the next year, so in this case January 2013. [editline]19th December 2012[/editline] Yeah, that.[/QUOTE] It won't be any different and as far as I'm concerned he no longer has to worry about being elected for a second term thus should be what he wanted to be. And so far, that has been shit except for taxing the rich. Do you disagree?
ha, the only other 2 people who have been picked twice are FDR and "the american soldier" [QUOTE=laserguided;38890897]It won't be any different and as far as I'm concerned he no longer has to worry about being elected for a second term thus should be what he wanted to be. And so far, that has been shit except for taxing the rich. Do you disagree?[/QUOTE] I'm sorry but obama isn't going to collectivize farms
[QUOTE=laserguided;38890897]It won't be any different and as far as I'm concerned he no longer has to worry about being elected for a second term thus should be what he wanted to be. And so far, that has been shit except for taxing the rich. Do you disagree?[/QUOTE]Yes because a month and a half after being reelected is hardly any time to do anything. You're intentionally over simplifying the issue to make it seem more severe and caustic than it really is. You're just playing spin, really. Congress hasn't even started its new session yet, so almost nothing will get done.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;38890968]Yes because a month and a half after being reelected is hardly any time to do anything. You're intentionally over simplifying the issue to make it seem more severe and caustic than it really is. You're just playing spin, really. Congress hasn't even started its new session yet, so almost nothing will get done.[/QUOTE] So I'm not allowed to be critical of his full support of the AWB simply because some mentally ill person went on a rampage with a illegally acquired assault rifle and the fact that he did not support a Palestinian non-member state bid like almost all of Earth did? He has nothing to worry about, so this is the true Obama.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38890954]ha, the only other 2 people who have been picked twice are FDR abd the american soldier[/QUOTE] P sure Stalin was picked twice too
Kim il-sung was the best choice.
[QUOTE=Winters;38891022]P sure Stalin was picked twice too[/QUOTE] oh right, forgot about him >.< and FDR was picked 3 times
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38891069]oh right, forgot about him >.< and FDR was picked 3 times[/QUOTE] Harry S. Truman George Marshall Mikhail Gorbachev George W. Bush Lyndon B. Johnson
[QUOTE=The Maestro;38890739]Really, I've got nothing against Obama,and I even kind of like him on a personal level, but when he is constantly honored and imbued with this romantic, saintly personality it just feels like we're living in some Stalininist dictatorship where we're made to think our leader is some divine being. Of course there's also the extremist right wing people that find his every breath abhorrent, but you can't deny that outside of their circles there's some cult-like fanaticism going on there.[/QUOTE] Glorification of almost everything is a distinct USA thing. I don't see how you feel that's Stalinist. Russia doesn't glorify in the same sense. Unless USA=Russia. That's an intriguing thought. [editline]19th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=laserguided;38890897]It won't be any different and as far as I'm concerned he no longer has to worry about being elected for a second term thus should be what he wanted to be. And so far, that has been shit except for taxing the rich. Do you disagree?[/QUOTE] A real Cro-Redneck ladies and gentlemen.
[QUOTE=Super_Nova;38891209]Harry S. Truman George Marshall Mikhail Gorbachev George W. Bush Lyndon B. Johnson[/QUOTE] Winston Churchill as well.
[QUOTE=Bomimo;38891270]Glorification of almost everything is a distinct USA thing. I don't see how you feel that's Stalinist. Russia doesn't glorify in the same sense. Unless USA=Russia. That's an intriguing thought. [editline]19th December 2012[/editline] [B]A real Cro-Redneck ladies and gentlemen.[/B][/QUOTE] I don't know what you mean by that..
He doesn't deserve this at all. He's about as engaging as a pile of chewed gum and he's about as active as a rock. As much as I dislike him, Kim Jong would have fit better than Obama would have.
[QUOTE=Strongbad;38891358]He doesn't deserve this at all. He's about as engaging as a pile of chewed gum and he's about as active as a rock. As much as I dislike him, Kim Jong would have fit better than Obama would have.[/QUOTE] It's supposed to be influence on the [I]world[/I]. In one day, Un sent the world into a tizzy over a launched satellite.
[QUOTE=download;38890653]Oh hi [img]http://i.imgur.com/ph1QL.jpg[/img] Time person of the year isn't much[/QUOTE] You can't deny though that he was very influental even if in a negative way.
It seems like a cop-out, but it is true that Obama winning instead of Romney will probably influence the world more than almost any other event or person. [editline]19th December 2012[/editline] Also: Person of the Year has never been about doing good. It only became that recently, when they decided to not let Osama become the person of the year in 2001. Obviously for Obama they mean good.
Obama is an incredible man for many reasons, he isn't the greatest president, but he is far far away from being the worst. However, i feel there were much better candidates for "Person of the Year" no matter how superficial the title is.
how did he get person of the year? what was the voting for?
[QUOTE=Bomimo;38891270]Glorification of almost everything is a distinct USA thing. I don't see how you feel that's Stalinist. Russia doesn't glorify in the same sense. Unless USA=Russia. That's an intriguing thought.[/QUOTE] The cult of personality was a pretty defining characteristic of Stalinist Russia, that's what he means by 'glorification'.
This wasn't the first cop-out they had done where the winner defaults to the President. Just look at the 1998 Person of the Year poll: [quote="Wikipedia"]Time Magazine held its first online poll to decide the Person of the Year. Wrestler and activist Mick Foley won with over 50% of votes. Foley was removed from the poll, and the award was given to Clinton and Starr.[/quote] May be a bad example, seeing as there were two Persons of the Year that year, but I digress.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38890641]Obama isn't that great. The only reason he won was because of his speeches and a bad opposing candidate. His second term hasn't been good in my eyes so far.[/QUOTE] Oh hey you're one of those who expects a single person to unfuck all the shit done in the US ever since 2000 or so with a backwards government that doesn't wants to give up its dosh.
Oh yeah? I was Time person of the year in 2006. Try to beat that scrub.
[QUOTE=dass;38891753]Oh hey you're one of those who expects a single person to unfuck all the shit done in the US ever since 2000 or so with a backwards government that doesn't wants to give up its dosh.[/QUOTE] Am I? I'm pretty sure I only called him out on two issues and supported him for taxing the rich. You're one of those people who doesn't read.
[QUOTE=Francisco;38891554]how did he get person of the year? what was the voting for?[/QUOTE] Just like real life voting in elections, the editorial team decided irrespective of the outcome
while I'm glad they didn't go with his constantly caricatured big grin, the picture has me mixed. idea is great, but the grey-blue fill light is ugly (thought it does bring out the age in his face), and the weird foggy aura is just wonky I can't stop laughing at how many people think romney would be sitting in the office already had he been elected, and that anything that as happened since election day wouldn't have happened otherwise. I think the reasoning is sound, he's plowed throguh a LOT despite the major amount of shit he's had to wade through to do any of it, and has actually leveled and started taking back things like unemployment and the economic depression when things were plummetting by the time he took office. I'm sure there's plenty of people who've done something extraordinary this year in fields like medical research or the advancement of technology, but the sheer weight and broad swath of people affected by what obama has pushed through is an impressive factor to take into account. I think the efforts rigging the POTY vote leaderboard were impressively carried out though, grats to all who participated.
Good for Obama, he deserves it.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38891853]Am I? I'm pretty sure I only called him out on two issues and supported him for taxing the rich. You're one of those people who doesn't read.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=laserguided;38890641]Obama isn't that great. The only reason he won was because of his speeches and a bad opposing candidate. His second term hasn't been good in my eyes so far.[/QUOTE] Oh, I thought you were saying his second term that started a few months ago hasn't been good. My bad.
[QUOTE=Medevilae;38892756]The [I]second[/I] term doesn't start until January aren't you a bit judgmental judging that which hasn't happened yet[/QUOTE] I already addressed this on the first page. Its as if you don't know what I mean.
[QUOTE=Medevilae;38892756]The [I]second[/I] term doesn't start until January aren't you a bit judgmental judging that which hasn't happened yet[/QUOTE] still, what he has done so far since the election hasn't been incredibly optimistic or reassuring.
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;38891760]Oh yeah? I was Time person of the year in 2006. Try to beat that scrub.[/QUOTE] I won in 1996 and 2006, beat that scrubs.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;38892828]still, what he has done so far since the election hasn't been incredibly optimistic or reassuring.[/QUOTE] Exactly. He has nothing to worry about since he was re-elected. This is how he will act in his 'official second term'.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.