Obama Person of the Year:


#1

Time magazine has named the re-elected President Obama its “Person of the Year” for 2012. “For finding and forging a new majority, for turning weakness into opportunity and for seeking, amid great adversity, to create a more perfect union, Barack Obama is TIME’s 2012 Person of the Year,” writes editor Richard Stengel.

Obama is Time’s Person of the Year

Here we go again: He did all that? Wow, I must have not been paying attention…:sick:


#2

And I’m up for a Noble Peace prize for my efforts at forging an alliance with the spider in my garage and the bugs outside. I could care less about who Time thinks is the Person of the Year.


#3

With Times readership tanking, one would think the publishers would strive to pull the Times back from the precipice of the left, but NOOOOooo it keeps crawling closer and closer to the edge. When you see the choices, their whole editorial staff must be made up of Marxist stooges. or islamist extremeists.


#4

I voted for the Mars Rover. :frowning:


#5

and I’m sure if the rover knew, he would stop roving all over Mars:redface:


#6

Birds of a feather:

Adolf Hitler: Man of the Year, 1938

Monday, Jan. 02, 1939

Adolf Hitler’s Rise to Power
Hitler Exhibit Opens in Germany
Kristallnacht in Words and Photographs
Auschwitz After 65 Years
Email Print Share Reprints
Follow @TIME
Greatest single news event of 1938 took place on September 29, when four statesmen met at the Führerhaus, in Munich, to redraw the map of Europe. The three visiting statesmen at that historic conference were Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of Great Britain, Premier Edouard Daladier of France, and Dictator Benito Mussolini of Italy. But by all odds the dominating figure at Munich was the German host, Adolf Hitler.

Führer of the German people, Commander-in-Chief of the German Army, Navy & Air Force, Chancellor of the Third Reich, Herr Hitler reaped on that day at Munich the harvest of an audacious, defiant, ruthless foreign policy he had pursued for five and a half years. He had torn the Treaty of Versailles to shreds. He had rearmed Germany to the teeth— or as close to the teeth as he was able. He had stolen Austria before the eyes of a horrified and apparently impotent world.

Read more: Adolf Hitler: Man of the Year, 1938 - TIME


#7

I think they tried to explain things like that away by saying that selecting someone as “man of the year” simply means that he (or it - remember when they selected a computer?) had a great effect on the world that year. I seem to remember that Yassar Arafat made it once, too.


#8

And I think Uncle Joe (Joseph Stalin, of assassination, sending people to the gulag, and communist fame) did one time too. And I think they also used that “great effect” excuse. Yeah, eliminating millions of people (“purge”) did indeed have a great effect on Russia, but it certainly wasn’t a good one.

In fact, his purges of the military leadership almost gave Hitler a victory in Operation Barbarosa (his invasion of Russia.)

Anyway, apparently the Time Man of the Year does not necessarily have to have had a “good” impact.

Interestingly, when Joe Sixpack sees that award and cover, he thinks Time is endorsing that individual as a good person, and reasons that if Time says he/she is “good”, it must be true. I mean, really, when you see “Man of the Year”, wouldn’t you bet it’s a safe assumption that the award refers to a “good” person?

I think that is one of the ways the left promotes their “heroes”.


#9

The Person of the Year doesn’t have to be good. They’ve also picked Putin and the Ayatollah and Nixon. It’s pretty apparent that not all men of the year are good. They’re just that. “Men of the year”. meaning the person who had the most impact that year.


#10

So why not call it an “Impact Acknowledgement,” and be upfront about the nature of said impact? Personally, I think the whole thing is a crock.


#11

Well what exactly about “man of the year” implies goodness to you? Especially when they say that they pick a person who “for better or for worse done the most to influence the events of the year.”

Seems pretty upfront.


#12

Another Dog and Pony Show. Just like the Nobel Prize. Laughable, at best.


#13

:frowning: So many better candidates.


#14

Because the word man has certain implications that doesn’t leave room for reprehensible behavior. Not well-known in modern society because so many words with value implications have been watered down, but they knew better in 1938…


#15

[quote=“Trekky0623, post:9, topic:37538”]
The Person of the Year doesn’t have to be good. They’ve also picked Putin and the Ayatollah and Nixon. It’s pretty apparent that not all men of the year are good. They’re just that. “Men of the year”. meaning the person who had the most impact that year.
[/quote]So, umm, winning the election during tough times (you helped maintain) gets you person of the year?

"For finding and forging a new majority, for turning weakness into opportunity and for seeking, amid great adversity, to create a more perfect union, Barack Obama is TIME’s 2012 Person of the Year,"
Stupid.


#16

ozombie warning…

,

l


#17

The Times is a magazine who’s time has come and went. It is no longer relevant except to do obeisance to Emperor Obama. It is not worth lining the birdcage,and all the good it would do is catch the poop,and p*ss off the bird.


#18

Time’s Person of the Year “award” has pretty much always been about perceived impact in a given year rather than goodness. Even setting partisan politics aside, check out 1938, 1939, 1942, 1957 and 1979. And for the partisan-minded loathers, “Iron Pants” Johnson, FDR and Bill Clinton represent the Ds, while Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and G. W. Bush represent the Rs.