Bush is to be awarded ..Man Of The Year..

I agree with you MaskAvatar, I believe that any given president has influence enough be good or bad to our nation and is important enough evil or not, to be in the first page of a magazine.

After all a president does hold the higher offices in the nation. Right?

It's not the Presidency that makes this man so deserving, it's the manner of conduct during the "presidency" that brings specific attention to him. There may be thousands upon thousands of other people advancing the cause of humanity much better than Bush, who is doing quite the opposite, but the "man of the year" is not just about positive contribution.

AND THE MAN OF THE YEAR AWARD GOES TO:

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
There may be thousands upon thousands of other people advancing the cause of humanity much better than Bush, who is doing quite the opposite, but the "man of the year" is not just about positive contribution.

OK, darn, got your point now, thanks I finally got what you mean,

I kind of slow lately, most be the time change.

as posted byMaskedAvatar
...but the "man of the year" is not just about positive contribution

Let me guess, if Michael Moore would have made "man/person of the year," it would have been because of his "positive contributions"?
I guess with the results of the election's and now TIME naming Mr. Bush "person of the year," all this amounts to the 'gift' that keeps on giving, eh?



seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted byMaskedAvatar
...but the "man of the year" is not just about positive contribution

... if Michael Moore would have made "man/person of the year," it would have been because of his "positive contributions"?
I guess with the results of the election's and now TIME naming Mr. Bush "person of the year," all this amounts to the 'gift' that keeps on giving, eh?



seekerof

Michael Moore is not "man of the year". George W Bush is. I am unable to get your point.

Several people have asked in the past couple of months for pro-Bush members to keep a log at ATS of any positive contribution that Bush has made to humanity every day. There has been no such log or any record of any positive contributions.

So, it goes to show, you don't have to be doing something good to be popular with the masses or be Time magazine's "man of the year". Previous tyrants and criminals who have been accorded this status are testimony to that.

[edit on 19-12-2004 by MaskedAvatar]

Originally posted by PistolPete
These choices were all real controversial and had nothing to do with their "humanity":

Yeah as I said, the owner of times magazine is a fellow Skull and bones member. That would explain why he would have such admiration and fascination with dictactors/fascists.

[edit on 19-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]

as posted by Masked Avatar
I am unable to get your point.

Of course your not able to, because your dealing with the 'here and now,' since that it is Bush who was nominated for "person/man of the year." If that was the applied case, then you would willingly accept that Bush won Ohio then, correct?



seekerof

[edit on 19-12-2004 by Seekerof]

They've touted dictators before, nothing new. It's just sad to see that Bush is even considered a man.

Deep

Originally posted by Seekerof
Of course your not able to, because your dealing with the 'here and now,' since that it is Bush who was nominated for "person/man of the year." If that was the applied case, then you would willingly accept that Bush won Ohio then, correct?
[edit on 19-12-2004 by Seekerof]

The Bush administration's participation in election fraud is another feather in the cap of Time magazine's nominee, but I doubt that Ohio really had that much to do with the magazine's selection of Bush. Readers of the Time cover story please advise.

Otherwise, anyone that can follow seekerof's logic please chime in: I think he has exceeded himself here, like his often misunderestimated hero.

Time's has their criteria for "man of the year". It's whoever has
made the most impact on the news for either good or bad. Or
someone with alot of controversy around them.
So I'm not surprised it's Bush.

As others have pointed out, you don't have to be a saint to be Time's Man/Person of the Year. Whether you like Bush or not, he's the President of the most powerful nation in the world.

Infinite, your description of our President offends me. If you don't like our President, stay on your side of the Atlantic.

Marg, if America offends you so much, what's keeping you here? I've been to Puerto Rico quite a few times. The weather is mostly good and the beer is cheap, not to mention other pleasures of the flesh.

Collectively, you Bush-bashers wouldn't amount to a pimple on the behind of the Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America.

Collectively, you Bush-bashers wouldn't amount to a pimple on the behind of the Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America.

But I guess you would


Regarding the point that Bush has been selected as man of the year by bones Times. It does not matter what the criterium is. The average man is going to hear "man of the year"

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Marg, if America offends you so much, what's keeping you here? I've been to Puerto Rico quite a few times. The weather is mostly good and the beer is cheap, not to mention other pleasures of the flesh.

Collectively, you Bush-bashers wouldn't amount to a pimple on the behind of the Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America.

Hey, thanks for the kind comment but as you know is nothing I can do about being an American I am one after all, island or not island.

And remember Grady is nothing wrong with American is bush the one that is the wrong thing for American.

So I guess I will remind a Bush basher American after all.

By the way I am glad that your flesh got the pleasures it deserved.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
But I guess you would

I'd proudly serve as a pimple on GW's behind. I've served in more lowly postions, having been a Marine recruit.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
But I guess you would

I'd proudly serve as a pimple on GW's behind. I've served in more lowly postions, having been a Marine recruit.

Well at least you know your place. I got to respect you for that. Be careful, someone might just "pop" you in a position.

Escape to Puerto Rico? Last time i was conscious it was under US control...what happened since???

I really Don't see anything wrong with this choice I think bush deserves it I am probably the only one who thinks he deserves it

[edit on 19-12-2004 by Thug69]

In terms of affecting the world negatively, I would have thought that Kofi Annan would have been a better choice. Or Jacque Chirac. Oh wait, Chirac is in the past; he got thrown out of Iraq.

OK, how about Aristide and the Cannibal Army? Or, for sheer numbers of lives affected, how about the Janjaweed Militiamen?

Originally posted by dgtempe
Escape to Puerto Rico? Last time i was conscious it was under US control...what happened since???

What can I said, you know, I would love to be in PR right now with all the fiestas and parrandas navidenas going on, but I will still be an American and will still be agaisnt bush.