Good for him. He deserves it.

I'm not really surprised with this. Obama appeared on Time's cover at least half a dozen times over the past year and had its journalists lined up to sing his praises over the same time period. While his election IS historic, I think the honor may have meant more in the coming years, after Obama has proven himself to be Person of The Year for more than just winning an election.

My guess is the same people who have deflected all criticism of Obama by saying that we should "wait until he is sworn in and actually does something" will have no problem with him being named "man of the year."

Damn, even Matt Drudge is showing him respect...

"Every year since 1927, TIME has named a Person of the Year and featured him or her on their cover. The criteria for selecting the Person of the Year is defined as the person, who 'for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year.'"

Fairly simple criteria. So like Obama or not, who would you suggest instead?

For Time to pick Obama is a no brainer.

Like they really discussed anyone else--lol

They only have to decide whether to put the halo photo or the one of Obama's head in the right top corner of this page onthe cover..

My #6 was a serious question. Based on their criteria, if not Obama then who would you suggest?

... and why.

I think that Texan that killed shot and killed the intruders at his neighbors house should get the nod.
Either him, or that God Hates Fags guys for protesting soldiers funerals.

Is James Earl Ray eligible this year?

Yes, I would agree if TIME selects Obama for Time of the year.

But the irony and hypocrisy is that TIME was overly biased in promoting Obama and denouncing McCain. What a shame! What a lack of journalistic integrity. BIAS, thy name is TIME magazine --- Or Time magazine, thy name is BIAS!

"But the irony and hypocrisy is that TIME was overly biased in promoting Obama and denouncing McCain."

Not even John McCain would have the nerve to say that. It wasn't Time's fault that McCain chose Palin for a running mate or that he didn't have a clue about the economy. The "fundamentals of the economy are sound" indeed.

Time's WORST Person of the Year: BUSH

People's Time of the Year is.....4:20

You Obama supporters are all wet. Mike Phelps.

Danni, I'm not talking about who won/lose the election --- I just pointed out to the shameless manner Time covered the whole cycle. But of course, you still don't get it.

You non-Obama supporters are all fags. Fred Phelps

That tape self-destructed in 10 seconds flat. Jim Phelps

Call me, Sannie :)

Jim Felch

Bush should be Time's "Man of the Year" because he is all everyone can talk about.

"But of course, you still don't get it."

Or

your're a sore loser.

You still don't get it.

(My candidate lost, but I'm not like some liberals wallowing in hatred for Bush for 8 years). I'm glad I did not vote for Obama, because I can consider him a mere human who is occupying the White House, who will die one day and his rotten body if not cremated will become wormfood. Glad not to entertain the messiah complex for Obama. Also glad Oprah's exotic spiritual talk has no influence over me.

But I will pray for Obama so the nation will run smoothly.

Regarding those Obama pics in Time:

For a while, Jack[the photographer] put the negatives in a safety-deposit box, so that they could not be used until after the election, when there would be no chance they could be used for a political purpose.

Boy that has got to piss some stategist on the right off. If they had access to these pics they could have run wild and created all kinds of innuendos.

"But I will pray for Obama so the nation will run smoothly."

So, if the nation runs smoothly is it your prayers or Obama's leadership that is responsible???
Why didn't you pray for the nation to run smoothly while Bush was president?

lol at Danni.

Good question Danni. I'd like to know the answer to that myself.

Either;

1) God doesn't take requests from Takeitez anymore (ever since he prayed that Palin would rape him while reciting the book of psalms).

or

2) It's a hollow gesture.

or

3) Takeitez is in complete agreement with everything Bush does.

God has indicated that his cellphone service minutes for the month have expired because of all the time he spent talking to Takeitez. So Takeitez is on his own for the rest of the month. Which isn't a problem because Takeitez knows what God is thinking and therefore can speak for God without needing God's input and without hesitation. As he usually does. And the world is at peace.

"they could have run wild and created all kinds of innuendos."

What kind of innuendos would those be? That he smokes and sits around in chairs?

I wonder what elections will be like in 30 years, when every candidate in America is screwed because of pictures of them puking at a club that they put on facebook in college.

What kind of innuendos would those be? That he smokes and sits around in chairs?

#28 | Posted by JOE at 2008-12-17 04:23 PM | Reply |

I for one would have started the rumor that he was "Jefferson's" little bother in Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

"You seen the new Playboy? Beau Dereks's tits. I like sex"

Jefferson's Brother: My brother's gonna kill us! He's gonna kill us! He's gonna kill you and he's gonna kill me, he's gonna kill us!
Jeff Spicoli: Hey man, just be glad I had fast reflexes!
Jefferson's Brother: My brother's gonna shit!
Jeff Spicoli: Make up your mind, dude, is he gonna shit or is he gonna kill us?
Jefferson's Brother: First he's gonna shit, then he's gonna kill us!
Jeff Spicoli: Relax, all right? My old man is a television repairman, he's got this ultimate set of tools. I can fix it.

Okay, Joe and 101, I laughed.
Ya happy now, galldangit?

"I think that Texan that killed shot and killed the intruders at his neighbors house should get the nod. Either him, or that God Hates Fags guys for protesting soldiers funerals. Is James Earl Ray eligible?"

The bogus paratrooper os back, perhaps from an enforced stay in a straitjacket somewhere, but I gotta think that this poor obsessed sicko needs further attention. His (???) heroes seem to be some Texas gun nut, the psychotic gay-hating Kansas minister and the man who murdered Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. If THIS doesn't merit a bounce, what in the world might? herm

Bush was called for the war and to send a message to terrorists --- and not to worry about what the world and the liberals think of him.

Sometimes God dismantles things to bring a better situation. Death and resurrection. The economic crisis is only a phase where many countries and companies needed to be shaken and exposed --- so a better situation can emerge.

Better days are ahead. Not because of Obama, but he got lucky to be getting into office at a time when recovery will come from above. So yes, I will pray that Obama will not mess up the blessings God is about to unleash to America and the world.

Credit goes to God, not Obama. Still I am obligated by my faith to pray for whoever occupies this high office, and so I will pray for Obama and his team.

Post #34 was in answer to post #24

Oh shut up Moral Orel.

Jeff:

"for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year."

1938 Adolf Hitler
1939 Joseph Stalin
1942 Joseph Stalin
1979 Ayatollah Khomeini

Jolly good job by Time!

Clearly, there are not nearly enough
African-Americans gracing the cover of
their fine magazine.

Be Well.

"I'm not really surprised with this. Obama appeared on Time's cover at least half a dozen times over the past year and had its journalists lined up to sing his praises over the same time period." #2 | Posted by bartimus

Close but no cigar.

From MSNBC: "Obama appeared on half of Time covers"

"First Read took a look back to see which magazine -- Time or Newsweek -- won the battle of who put Obama on the cover the most in 2008."

"That means Obama's face or name has somehow made it onto the cover of Time just about half of the time this year (25 out of 52 issues -- 48%)"

"Newsweek has had 49 issues this year so far (through Dec. 22), so Obama has been featured on about a quarter of its covers as well."

"In contrast, the Republican nominee, John McCain, made the cover of Newsweek just four times the entire year, and twice he shared it -- once with Obama and once with Sarah Palin."

"McCain appeared on the cover of Time five times in 2008, three of which were shared with Obama."

Perhaps Time Magazine could have nominated the American Voter for Man of the Year'. The American Voter accomplished what was previously considered impossible by genuinely considering both a woman and a dark skinned candidate for POTUS. Additionally, the American Voter accomplished the previously impossible feat of electing the dark skinned candidate as POTUS.

On second thought, screw the American Voter. What can the American Voter give back to Time Magazine?

Actually I heard the Time guy on the radio this afternoon and he said it was a toss up between Obama and the American Voters.

"Time's Person of the Year: Obama"

I dunno a lot but I do know I wuz robbed by a buncha know-nothin', see nothin', say nothin' jography and spelling bee pussies.
~Joe the Plumber

Obama: weasel of the year, well deserved!
'38 Hitler
'39 Stalin
'42 Stalin
'57 Khrushchev
'77 Sadat
'07 Putin

Hey, I think it's cool that someone who voted against Obama will now pray for him--seems to me that's like McCain telling us we should support him, give him a chance. I also think the criteria are way vague. Oh, and for the record, if you think Obama is all spiritual talk, you haven't been listening post-nomination. Not only that, but what's wrong with being inspiring? And why is there an assumption that everyone who voted for Obama thinks he's the Messiah? That's like assuming that everyone who voted for Bush is a reactionary tool of the neoconservative think tank known as PNAC. Heh.

"Sometimes God dismantles things to bring a better situation. Death and resurrection. The economic crisis is only a phase where many countries and companies needed to be shaken and exposed --- so a better situation can emerge."

#34 | Posted by takitez

So you don't believe there is free will.

Everything is either predetermined or adjusted.

Then what's the point if the story has been already written? Doesn't matter what we do as our parts in the Great Play have already been penned.

And if God is stepping in here and there, why is God doing such a half-ass job? If you're gonna shovel the manure out of the stall, get all of it: why leave half of it to rot and and continue stink up the joint?

Why does this have to become an attack on faith or belief? Maybe it's just nice that someone will pray for another person. The comment here seemed sincerely offered, not like "I'll pray for him because he's bound to fuck up" but "I'll pray for him 'cause he's got a tough gig." Whether it works or not, who cares? If it's sincerely offered, then it's nice, like saying "I sincerely hope you will succeed in your efforts." (Btw, I'm an atheist, or at best an agnostic.)

OKAY I will be the first one to say it

time magazine man of the year

remember that once upon a time so was adolf hitler and I Dont mean the little kid from the story the other day..

NO SERIOUSLY............I feel like a well known retound radio commentator said the other day..
the man of the year shouldnt be a person..it should be the economy because with out that, we very well might have a president mccain and we all know that time would NEVER have made him this cover boy

BL2 - go back and read the selection criteria, then tell us who fits that bill better this year.

The economy issues came to a head too late in the year to qualify, IMO.

but IF I did that then I couldnt get my dig in about obama being a product of the economy dive into the toilet..........

SEESH MAN ...havent you posted here before? LOL

Ha! I'm glad to see someone on here being honest about having fun tweaking.

"it should be the economy because with out that, we very well might have a president mccain and we all know that time would NEVER have made him this cover boy"

Obviously, in denial about Republican responsibility for the economy. Funny thing, the same folks called it "that great Bush economy" a couple of years ago. Somehow though, it stopped being the Bush economy when it went south.

BL2 - go back and read the selection criteria, then tell us who fits that bill better this year.
The economy issues came to a head too late in the year to qualify, IMO.
#48 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Next year it'll be the people of the United States who are attempting to survive the effects of eight years of kakistocracy and thuggery.

Ha! I'm glad to see someone on here being honest about having fun tweaking.

#50 | Posted by pragmatist at 2008

well thanks for that and so go to the awards site and add one more for me....HEE HEE

oh shit and then doc gets on here and ruins the whole thing............

please tell me as I have to go

what in the fuckin wide world of sports is
"kakistocracy'..........pull that out of your shit stained pants did you???? lol

Of course, if you consider that deregulation is at the root of this problem, you have to go back much further than Bush (ever hear of Reagan). If you look at economic ideology, go to the same place. If you want to look at the Fannie/Freddie problem, I have it on fairly good authority that the Dems have some responsibility too. I find it alternately horrifying and hilarious that so many people leap to party divides and finger-pointing. Various members of Congress are guilty--it ain't all one side or the other. I think that some who whine about the media (Rush Limbaugh, Howie Carr) and blame them for the divide are guilty of the same behavior.

PRAGMATIST deregulation created an opportunity to create a housing bubble but it still would not have formed without extremely low interest rates, held at 1% to insure Bush's reelection in 2004.
His father blamed Alan Greenspan for his defeat in 1992 because he did not lower interest rates and thus allowed the recession to become apparent.
As soon as interest rates began to go back to reasonable levels the bubble began to burst and the economy began to tank.
Therefore, you can pretend Dems not pushing for more regulation of Fannie and Freddie is responsible for the economic crisis but the truth is that it was the bursting of the housing bubble.
Rush, and the rest of the right wing LIARS will tell pretend that ANYONE except those responsible for our situation is to blame but then they are paid handsomely to do that. They would gladly tell any other lie their masters instructed them to tell.

Danni, you actually are using logic. Yay. In short supply here. I personally am not blaming anyone. I know some bipartisan folks who have pointed fingers at Dems for votes in, I think, 04 and 06, Fannie/Freddie stuff. I do not, nor will I, listen to Rush Limbaugh. He's a hatemonger, and he contradicts himself left and right (joke). So I'm not pretending anything, just trying to point out that one can not blame this solely on the Bush administration. I'm also uncomfortable with conclusions such as "held at 1% to insure Bush's reelection in 2004." That sounds like interpretation/supposition. But maybe you're making a larger point that I'm missing. I haven't tracked this stuff till recently, though I do get my ideas from a variety of sources (representing a variety of biases). It seems to me that a great many posters here are trumpeting their party lines from whatever sources they consult. (See my notes about the divide.)

I'm also uncomfortable with conclusions such as "held at 1% to insure Bush's reelection in 2004." That sounds like interpretation/supposition. But maybe you're making a larger point that I'm missing.

prag,

danni is 100% partisian and needs to blame all ills on ronald reagan. she insists that low interest rates are the cause of the housing bubble.

she repeats this over and over and over and willingly chooses to ignore the real cause of this which is a total lack of lending disciplines allowing people to borrow 110% LTV with shitty credit and then selling that shit as a decent securities.

that isn't a partisian argument.....both parties are to blame for that.

Low interest rates were healthy....still are.

danni just has to blame reagan for it.

Well, Reagan (and/or his advisors) is partly to blame. It wasn't called Reaganomics for nothin'. Trickle-down theory is still a popular idea, and I think it has failed. But that's my take--I'm not an economist. I agree that it's not a partisan argument; I even said that once or twice. However, Danni at least offered an argument with some logical basis (if... then). Too much of the discussion here is finger-pointing and attacks on one party or the other. This is the true reflection of bias and muddied thinking in this country, not a supposed left-wing bias or the alleged evils of FOX TV. If we don't all start to really listen to one another, our country and our world cannot get better. (How's that for idealism mixed with pragmatism?)

Well, Reagan (and/or his advisors) is partly to blame. It wasn't called Reaganomics for nothin'. Trickle-down theory is still a popular idea, and I think it has failed. But that's my take--I'm not an economist. I agree that it's not a partisan argument;

I agree also. There is merit to the argument against trickle-down economics as well.

However, Danni at least offered an argument with some logical basis (if... then).

Yes she has. And it has been debunked every time on this issue.

Thanks, Eberly, for engaging in actual discussion.

Where has her argument been debunked? Other than here, I hope...

My guess is the same people who have deflected all criticism of Obama by saying that we should "wait until he is sworn in and actually does something" will have no problem with him being named "man of the year."

#4 | Posted by JOE at 2008-12-17 12:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Being named Man Of The Year now requires one to be sworn in as president? Who knew!

Obviously, in denial about Republican responsibility for the economy. Funny thing, the same folks called it "that great Bush economy" a couple of years ago. Somehow though, it stopped being the Bush economy when it went south.

#51 | Posted by danni

OH..POOR DUMB DANNI JUST COINCIDENTLY WHEN PELOSI-REED TOOK OVER

rein.........wow.....nice shot....
I just wish that I could have gotten that in ..

all during the 'great bush economy' danni and others here were telling us how bad it was and refused to acknowledge even the slightest approval of the LOW unemployment rates...LOWER than blowjob billy EVER HAD which really hurt them....
and all of the other stuff that WE kept bringing up and they kept trying to pull down

and now I guess RUSH WILL BE RIGHT AGAIN>....the left will be telling us how good the economy was during bush's term so they can blame the downturn on him.
typical liberal bullshit

Again, it's no more the Bush economy than the strong economy in the Clinton years was the "Clinton economy." And it's just stupid to assume that something as big, complicated, and long in coming as the economy crisis can be simply and easily laid at the feet of those currently in power. An economic crisis like this is YEARS in the making. This is as foolish as blaming 9/11 on the Bush administration--it takes years to plan that sort of operation. So yes, I think there are some on the left who are as foolish and illogical as those on the right. (And no, I don't buy into conspiracy theories, though they make damned fun--and often thought-provoking--fiction.)

Rusty, which month of Chimpy's reign of error did the unemployment rate fall below 3.8%?

1998 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4
1999 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.2 5.4 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.8
2006 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.7 5.0
2008 4.9 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.7 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.7

prag....good point
as I have said repeatedly when posts about bush's economy have come down.......
he got a recession from clinton and so on and so on......

and rein....so when I talked about that rate being low all I got from leftists was that it was incorrect because it wasnt counted correctly

and now when you want to play up blowjob billy, you use all the same figures...well which is it???

oh yeah thanks for the chart...
is it just an accident that it went upward right around..or after

oh lets see...

hhhhmmmm la di dah.....oh yeah there it is

SEPTEMBER 11, 2001...............

and lets see...lets look back a little

hhmmm economic figures going up and up and up..
DOTCOM BOOM..........well of course...........

and graphs always make me a little dizzy........lol

LOW unemployment rates...LOWER than blowjob billy EVER HAD which really hurt them

~Rusty Trombone

Brainiac, which month during Chimpy's clusterfuck did the unemployment rate get below 3.8%? I'll answer it for you. It didn't.

uh excuse me sir

but I went to the site you listed and had it go to 1992 through 1998

and NOT ONE SINGLE MONTH did it say anything anywhere CLOSE to this 3.8 figure you posted
if I did it wrong let me know...but the info you gave me
proves me right.....so unless you can show me where I got the wrong info....then your argument makes no sense..

let me try it again

OKAY....got it....I didnt go far enough.....

so what does that mean then??

as to the argument of this issue???

then a more fair thing to say would be that the bush figures were lower than MOST of the clinton years.........hows that???

AND IT also proves my contention as well that posters here NEVER gave bush any credit for that rate and as you HAVE PROVEN...during most of his time it was low.....for sure lower than most other countries

again.........my point is that leftists now will change thier whole tune about the so called bush economy so they can make a point that he made it bad and THUS...will NEVER HAVE TO lay any blame on barry wayne.............

PS...you have to admit that blowjob was pretty lucky too to be there in a time of dotcom explosions and other things like that........