Bush named 'Person of the Year' Press Trust of India Washington, December 19

President George W Bush has been named Time Magazine's Person of the Year "for sticking to his guns" and for quashing lingering doubts about his legitimacy with his clear election victory, the magazine announced on Sunday. Bush got the nod "for sticking to his guns (literally and figuratively), for reshaping the rules of politics to fit his ten-gallon-hat leadership style and for persuading a majority of voters this time around that he deserved to be in the White House for another four years,' Managing Editor Jim Kelly wrote.

Time's annual year-end ritual comes as Washington prepares for Bush's inauguration ceremony next month, and as Baghdad prepares for elections the US president insists will go on despite unrelenting violence.

His clear victory over Democrat John Kerry in November contrasted with election results in 2000, when the Supreme Court ultimately halted legal battles over recounts of disputed ballots in the razor-tight race against Al Gore.

That left legions of Americans convinced that his presidency was illegitimate -- doubts that receded after the September 11, 2001 attacks but surfaced again amid anger over the war on Iraq.

Bush's approval rating now is just about where it was in the lead-up to this year's election, 49 percent, according to results of a Time poll also unveiled.

And half of Americans still think the United States is headed in the wrong direction, the survey found -- the kind of numbers that many thought indicated a defeat for Bush in balloting.

Re: bush named time's person of the year

i sort of saw this coming. time is not saying he is the best person of the year, just the one who made the most news. under that criteria he is the person of the year.

in 2001 they almost made bin laden the man of the year.

It's harder to admit you've done or seen things wrong than sticking to your guns.

Re: bush named time's person of the year

[quote=rickyfuller]i sort of saw this coming. time is not saying he is the best person of the year, just the one who made the most news. under that criteria he is the person of the year.

in 2001 they almost made bin laden the man of the year.[/quote]

Exactly.

Re: bush named time's person of the year

[quote=rickyfuller] time is not saying he is the best person of the year, just the one who made the most news. under that criteria he is the person of the year. [/quote]

Under that framework, I'd be hard-pressed to disagree. Of course, you know that's not how W views it -- I'm sure this gives him more fuel for his fire. Now, not only is he on a mission from God, but even the heretical "liberal media" has crowned him...

boy oh boy.

I loved how CNN was quick to point out that Bush joins other Person's of the Year such as Adolf Hitler in 1938, Joseph Stalin in 1939 and 1942, and Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. That's right George Bush joins his equals!! WHooaaa WHoooo! Great Job! Hopefully next year he will join these great men in annhilating millions and causing suffering and pain for all those around him for many years to come. Thanks CNN for being on the ball!!!

:Homer:

That's easy scoring from CNN, kinda dissapoints me from them. It's also an art to be a good loser you know...

Well it just means most influential person.

I can't think of a person who impacted the World more this year minus rummy.

Think Rove should have got it. His story on the dynamics of coming from behind to win would be amazing insight into what the democrats need to fix to provide better balance in the country.

What a fuck. I think William Hung should have got it.

A fucking travesty? Propping Yasser Arafat up for a nobel peace prize is a fucking travesty.

CNN is a joke, btw. It's moving along the lines of the Anti-american BBC.

its not a travesty, the person of they year is the person who has the most impact on the world(obviously concentrated on the US.) not the most popular. get over the fact that bush is the president, we are probably saving face as a country that we stuck with him, rather than run to the other idiot kerry.

its not a travesty, the person of they year is the person who has the most impact on the world(obviously concentrated on the US.) not the most popular. get over the fact that bush is the president, we are probably saving face as a country that we stuck with him, rather than run to the other idiot kerry.

[quote=thesightless]its not a travesty, the person of they year is the person who has the most impact on the world(obviously concentrated on the US.) not the most popular. get over the fact that bush is the president, we are probably saving face as a country that we stuck with him, rather than run to the other idiot kerry.[/quote]

Oh, I agree.

CNN is not anti-american by a long shot, I think it's rather pro-american, altough maybe not patriottic-with-no-questions-asked...

Be glad there is someone looking at the other side of the stories, this should give you the opportunity to filter out the new from both sides.

[quote=White_Hindu]What a fuck. I think William Hung should have got it.[/quote]

now thats a thought.

[quote=White_Hindu]What a fuck. I think William Hung should have got it.[/quote]

now thats a thought.

[quote=Yao]CNN is not anti-american by a long shot, I think it's rather pro-american, altough maybe not patriottic-with-no-questions-asked...

Be glad there is someone looking at the other side of the stories, this should give you the opportunity to filter out the new from both sides.[/quote]

CNN is indeed anti-american. They are looking on one side of the story, through one side of the prism. All results end up in one column. Against our intrests. Giving every issue that is opposed to US policy the benefit of the doubt, while ignoring the other side to provide an appropriate response.

Madeline Albright, who hates the size of our economy and military as it competes in the world(as she so adamantly preaches), wants us to shred the 'superpower' status through her marxist view of the world and share everything equally, because we do not deserve to be who we are now. Madeline Albright is a regular guest-host on CNN. All she does is spew propoganda that tarnishes our image. She's so negatively anti-american.

She sees no moral difference between us and N Korea.

She sees no moral difference between us and China.

She sees no moral difference between us and the middle-east.

It's all our fault in her eyes. We breed the violence throughout the world because 'we have it all'. She doesn't see the difference between communism and democracy.

She actually said on television that we are too big of a superpower to contain the technology that we have today. So what does she do? She shares it with China and N Korea.

And to see her spew her [i]anti-american[/i] rhetoric so shamelessly, carelessly and so vehemently on television in a time of war, only emboldens our enemy and deminishes our goal. Sure, it's free speech they say, but what happened in Vietnam, is starting to happen in Iraq, because it harms our intrests abroad.

Inside the Vietnamese museum that contains war memorabilia, a general once stated, the only reason we were defeated as we had to pull out, was through the media. We had them defeated during the tet offensive he says UNTIL Walter Kronkite started spewing his anti-american rhetoric that harmed us and our image.

You ask any troop serving in the middle east and they will tell you one thing. It's not as bad as it looks on television, and through the mainstream print media.

When you get down to brass tax, it's all anti-american.

We're fighting a PC war now.

But you see, we have NO moral difference between ANYONE! Everyone is the same, we're all alive, we all live on Earth, we all control the fate of our race.

I have noticed that sometimes when we in Europe think something is not anti-american, but rather in the middle, a lot of republicans are already in the red zone, meaning they consider it very anti-american. Makes it a bit harder to determine the political middle, too...

^^^^ Totally agreed, Yao. I also never get the feeling that CNN is anti-american. Totally non-critical (that agree with everything the government does) media can only be found under totalitarist regimes, IMHO Each has his own definition of patriotism and a lot of people confuse it for nationalism, which is an entirely different thing (and again IMHO, this is more often with the right "political option").

as well he should be.. :RockOn:

I totally agree thatbeing man of the year has nothing to do with bieng popular .. keryy was so weak as an opponent so americans were left with nothing but shit

[quote=DragonFire]I totally agree thatbeing man of the year has nothing to do with bieng popular .. keryy was so weak as an opponent so americans were left with nothing but shit[/quote]

Dragonfire from NOLA? Is it?

Just wondering.

[quote=DragonFire]I totally agree thatbeing man of the year has nothing to do with bieng popular .. keryy was so weak as an opponent so americans were left with nothing but shit[/quote]

I would've voted for Joe Lieberman. Maybe Richard Gephardt.

But Kerry? LOL

this is indeed a load of bull, i believe the cover called him "an american revolutionary" lol

^Well yeah he's a revolutionary. He's driving this country to shit. :P

:CrackUp:

[url]http://www.mixcomunicaciones.com.ar/2005/[/url]

:shock:

:D

^^^^ :CrackUp: :CrackUp: :CrackUp: Is this true :Who: :CrackUp:

Thanks Arielus, great link...

that's what i call an Utopia :P

That is what I call my wet dream... :mrgreen:

Re: bush named time's person of the year

Bush will go down in history as one of our greatest Presidents. You all are just a bunch of pussy cry babys.

:CrackUp:

maybe in [i]your[/i] book.

[quote=arielus][url]http://www.mixcomunicaciones.com.ar/2005/[/url]

:shock:

:D[/quote]

Dam, I kept waiting for a punch line that never came. :evil: I love this hippy $hit. If only the world was so naive and simple. 'Can't we all just get along!!!'

[quote=cosmo][quote=DragonFire]I totally agree thatbeing man of the year has nothing to do with bieng popular .. keryy was so weak as an opponent so americans were left with nothing but shit[/quote]

I would've voted for Joe Lieberman. Maybe Richard Gephardt.

But Kerry? LOL[/quote]

i thought dean was great. i would have voted for him in a heartbeat. and it's so sad how the media killed him in the end. i look back at his "screech" and it really wasn't that bad. don't know about lieberman, he is kind of shady. gephardt or wesley clark would have been ok too. just an overall weak term for democrats, i guess.

sadly for the political balance, its only gonna get worse for the party unless they embrace dean. hillary clinton will not get elected. she is a snub little go-getter who actualy had to move to the most liberal state to get elected there. and she only won b/c guiliani didnt run. she is the definition of partisan politics, always out speaking on how bad the other side is, and never actually talking about what she is trying to accomplish or finding a bettter way. and john kerry would lose by a even bigger margin i feel. too much bad things said about the leadership from the democratic side. :?

Wesley Clark is the one I trusted most, but I'm not an American...

maybe in [i]your[/i] book.[/quote] :CrackUp:

[quote=arielus][url]http://www.mixcomunicaciones.com.ar/2005/[/url]

:shock:

:D[/quote]

LOL Ari! That would be awesome... I think I could cry if I heard something like that happening in the real world.