Time man of the year

[RIJIMMY]

record number on food stamps
record deficit
unclear tax implications for estates, individuals, companies
incredibly divided country

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

record number on food stamps
record deficit
unclear tax implications for estates, individuals, companies
incredibly divided country

Of which not all is his fault.

This is the second time but it is not unusual for Presidents.

Of course, last year they named the protestor and in the past decade Vlady Putin

[fishbones]

Surprisingly, I didn't even make the short list this year.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Surprisingly, I didn't even make the short list this year.

That's 'cause you are over 6'

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Of which not all is his fault.

This is the second time but it is not unusual for Presidents.

Of course, last year they named the protestor and in the past decade Vlady Putin

I believe all 4 i listed are his fault and are under his control.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Not that I'm making comparisons, but Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin (twice), and Ayatollah Khomeini were named Time Man of the year before.

It has more to do with who drove the news that year than accomplishments

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Not that I'm making comparisons, but Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin (twice), and Ayatollah Khomeini were named Time Man of the year before

and those individuals greatly influenced history.
Has Obama? How? Take away his race and tell me how he has changed history? Whats his impact? Medicore at best. But Mediocre has become the new Great

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

and those individuals greatly influenced history.
Has Obama? How? Take away his race and tell me how he has changed history? Whats his impact? Medicore at best. But Mediocre has become the new Great

At the time they were named Man of the Year....it wasn't history.

and you don't think 30 years from now what Obama has done isn't going to influence history...postively or negatively?

Like I said...it has more to do with how that person drove the news the past year than anything else.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Give this a read...an interview with the editor on how they choose the man of the Year..

Choosing the Person of the Year: TIME Editor Jim Kelly - TIME


Jim Kelly: Well, the classic definition of TIME's Person of the Year is the person who most affected the events of the year, for better or for worse. I think what has happened over the years is that the Man of the Year title, Person of the Year title, has become non-honorific. It was never meant to be solely that.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I believe all 4 i listed are his fault and are under his control.

He has been at the helm for 4 years, he has spent a jillion dollars, and for much of that time, his party controlled both houses of the legislature. He was in a position to exert a great deal of influence on these issues. He didn't create the subprime mortgage crisis, but he deserves much of the blame for the pathetic recovery.

The man added almost $5 trillion to our debt in 4 years. What do we have to show for that? Unemployment that is 0.1% lower than when he took office. Median income that is $4000 lower than when he took office. Rising fuel costs, rising medical costs, rising food costs (I guess cows and wheat are racist).

[Swimmer]

Should be some guy who lost his job several years ago and for one reason or another couldn't land another one, but kept his chin up and applied, and applied, and applied again until something fell his way and he started working again. Time man of the year should this non-descript individual with his straight back to the photographer, dress in wrinkled pants and suit coat (because he hasn't been able to afford going to the dry cleaners yet again) carrying the lunch pail or briefcase to his first day at the new job. You may want to consider having a woman dressed the same as the man standing beside each other in the picture, and the heading be Time Man and Woman of the Year.

Thats who ought to be Time Man of the #^&#^&#^&#^&ing Year!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

Should be some guy who lost his job several years ago and for one reason or another couldn't land another one, but kept his chin up and applied, and applied, and applied again until something fell his way and he started working again. Time man of the year should this non-descript individual with his straight back to the photographer, dress in wrinkled pants and suit coat (because he hasn't been able to afford going to the dry cleaners yet again) carrying the lunch pail or briefcase to his first day at the new job. You may want to consider having a woman dressed the same as the man standing beside each other in the picture, and the heading be Time Man and Woman of the Year.

Thats who ought to be Time Man of the #^&#^&#^&#^&ing Year!

One of the better posts I've seen in a long time. Problem is, that guy you described isn't going to vot ethe way the editors at TIME want us to vote. Remember, TIME's last editor was Jay Carney, who is now the official spokesman for the Obama administration.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

Should be some guy who lost his job several years ago and for one reason or another couldn't land another one, but kept his chin up and applied, and applied, and applied again until something fell his way and he started working again. Time man of the year should this non-descript individual with his straight back to the photographer, dress in wrinkled pants and suit coat (because he hasn't been able to afford going to the dry cleaners yet again) carrying the lunch pail or briefcase to his first day at the new job. You may want to consider having a woman dressed the same as the man standing beside each other in the picture, and the heading be Time Man and Woman of the Year.

Thats who ought to be Time Man of the #^&#^&#^&#^&ing Year!

brilliant - the working (or seeking work) common man. So true.

[buckman]

With the hell reads TIME Magazine ???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by buckman

Who the the hell reads TIME Magazine ???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIJIMMY]

Obama says GOP is too focused on getting better of him in fiscal cliff talks than doing what's best for the country.

[Jim in CT]

TIME said that Obama is the "Architect of the New America"

Interesting, since all Obama did for 4 years is suggest that someone else, anyone other than he, was to blame for all the malaise within the New America.

TIME went on to say that there is "a new demographic, a new cultural America that he is now the symbol of"

I agree. Obama's election in 2008 was the ultimate victory of 1960's radicalism over 1950's traditionalism. Hip-hip-hooray.

[scottw]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;975639]TIME said that Obama is the "Architect of the New America"

QUOTE]

I don't know if he's the architect as they started drawing up the plans a long time ago.....ever wonder how they came up with a gazillion pages of ObamaCare legislation just like that?....he's definitely cutting the ribbon on the "New America"....guess we'll see what kind of foundation was laid and whether it can support the additional weight somewhere down the road

[spence]

Haters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Haters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"You might be a progressive ideologue if:


4. You find that people who don't agree with you are idiots or racists or mean-spirited...

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

"You might be a progressive ideologue if:


4. You find that people who don't agree with you are idiots or racists or mean-spirited...

Not even close.

Why 2012 was the best year ever
Never in the history of the world has there been less hunger, less disease and more prosperity
The Spectator 15 December 2012

It may not feel like it, but 2012 has been the greatest year in the history of the world. That sounds like an extravagant claim, but it is borne out by evidence. Never has there been less hunger, less disease or more prosperity. The West remains in the economic doldrums, but most developing countries are charging ahead, and people are being lifted out of poverty at the fastest rate ever recorded. The death toll inflicted by war and natural disasters is also mercifully low. We are living in a golden age.

Why 2012 was the best year ever The Spectator

Suck it all you haters.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Not even close.



Suck it all you haters.

-spence

2012 may be the best year ever for the planet as a whole, but it was not the best year ever for the United States Of America. And the last time I checked, Obama didn't get elected as president of the U.N. or some League Of Nations, he is the leader of this country.

So according to Spence, we should not hold Obama responsible for the fact that the economy stinks here. Rather, we should give Obama credit for the good things that are happening everywhere else, things which in reality, Obama did not contribute to.

But in Spence-world, all the good things that have happened since 6500 B.C., are thanks to Obama.

And if I'm not inclined to give Obama 100% credit for the fact that Nepal had a good wheat crop this year, Spence says I am a 'hater'.

Got it, check.

[spence]

We live in a global economy, if the world is s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g wind so will we. Things aren't perfect here at home but all the doom and gloom is just a lack of belief in the American spirit.

Suck it haters.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

You have to love the irony...

Spence points to the fact that developing countries are continuing to develop, as evidence that the world is in good shape. He also says, somehow, that Obama deserves the credit for that, but we'll put that aside.

What's the irony, you ask? The irony, and it is spectacular, is this...here, Spence celebrates the development of up-and-coming countries. But if liberals like Spence had their way, they would put an immediate halt to that development, in the name of global warming. The liberals want to tell these developing countries to stop using fossil fuels, stop driving cars, stop eating cows that fart methane gas, stop building houses that use electricity and fossil fuels, stop tapping into gas and coal resources that are literally fueling the development.

So which is it, Spence? Is that development a good thing for our planet, or a bad thing? Because if it's good for those countries to use their natural resources to develop, then kindly tell me why your ilk claim that we shoudn't do the same exact thing here with our abundant coal and natural gas resources?

You can't have it both ways, Spence. Have fun getting yourself out of that intellectual corner you backed into.

[spence]

Developing nations consume our products and technology and put Americans to work.

Globalism 101.

Read up Jim.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Developing nations consume our products and technology and put Americans to work.

Globalism 101.

Read up Jim.

-spence

Spence, I am laughing so hard I'm tearing up.

Those developing nations are buying our products? OK. That explains our massive trade surplus, our record-low unemployment, and the resurgence of the US manufacturing structure, and all the new factories being built here!

I have to get some tissues to wipe my eyes...

At least you made it through a few sentences without calling me a 'hater'.

[Swimmer]

TimeWarner is run by Henry Grunwald who last I knew was a devout Reagan republican. Grunwald was in fact made the ambassador to Austria I believe during Reagan's term in office. However, I think that Time is subservient to the liberal side of polictics. Grunwalds daughter, Mandy, has been involved in democratic politics for years as an operative for one elected official or another. Mandy is in fact Senator elect Elizabeth Warren's chief of staff. Grunwald was working for the dem's in Washington and was sent by the party to Massachusetts with Warren to do whatever she had to do to help get Warren elected. It is an interesting aside to this deal. The Grunwald's own at least two properties fronting the water just north of the Tashmoo opening on the Vineyard. I knew who she was from there, because a dear fiend did work for the family. I once jumped her jeep, so she and her brother could make the ferry. She did offer a twenty, but I turned her down. She also authored at least one children's book to good reviews.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That explains our massive trade surplus, our record-low unemployment, and the resurgence of the US manufacturing structure, and all the new factories being built here!

Trade deficits are largely a function of domestic consumption. When the Bush economy was ballooning via credit we imported more, during the recession less. I'd think that as household discretionary spending increases in emerging markets the fact that much production for these goods is already overseas would benefit local producers faster.

Though, as we've discussed before, US manufacturing in many sectors is doing quite well, especially areas like heavy machinery and commercial aviation. The challenge is that factories are more productive via technology rather than people.

A global slowdown will hurt these US exports more than anything as the companies derive increasing % of revenues from emerging markets...the EU is pretty flat.

Remember, that new office park in Shanghai is probably being built with gear from Caterpillar.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Remember, that new office park in Shanghai is probably being built with gear from Caterpillar.

-spence

Spence, in these developing nations you speak of...office parks are going up, houses are being built, roads are being built, cars are being purchased. All of that requires energy, all of that increases the environmental footprint that mankind leaves on the planet.

Do you think that development is a good thing, or a bad thing?

You seem to be saying that development is good, even though it results in a huge increase in energy consumption. If that's OK with you, then why shouldn't we tap into the massive natural gas resources that we know we are sitting on? That would put Americans to work, right?

If energy exploitation is good in other countries (to support their development), why don't liberals support that same concept here?

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

Remember, that new office park in Shanghai is probably being built with gear from Caterpillar.

-spence

Actually, it's probably not being built with gear from Caterpillar. Most likely, it's being built with equipment made by Sany or LiuGong (both Chinese) who both have much higher sales than Caterpillar in China.

Sometimes I wonder if you just say stuff and hope no one calls you out on it, or if you really are that dense? I'm pretty sure you're not that dense.