Register  |  Sign In
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Jun 24, 2025 5:17 pm



Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 Time Name's Bush Person of the Year 
Author Message
New Server, Same X
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:07 pm
Posts: 28301
Location: ... siiiigh...
Post 
Dr. Lecter wrote:
Token Brown Dude wrote:
Paris Hilton?


:lol:


What about Chyna? :lol:


How about all celebs with sex tapes this year?

Time Magazine Presents: The Year of the Sex Tape Scandal Women!

_________________
Ecks Factor: Cancelled too soon


Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Profile
You must have big rats
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 92093
Location: Bonn, Germany
Post 
Mr. X wrote:
Dr. Lecter wrote:
Token Brown Dude wrote:
Paris Hilton?


:lol:


What about Chyna? :lol:


How about all celebs with sex tapes this year?

Time Magazine Presents: The Year of the Sex Tape Scandal Women!


The list includes Paris Hilton, Chyna, Gena Lee Nolin, Pamela Anderson and Rusty :lol:

_________________
The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!

Image


Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:52 pm
Profile WWW
Indiana Jones IV

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:07 pm
Posts: 1684
Post 
That's the worst cover picture I have ever seen.


Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:54 pm
Profile WWW
now we know
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:31 pm
Posts: 68316
Post 
Person of the year to BUSH :shock: no thanks

My choice would have been:

Kelly Holmes
Wayne Rooney
Michael Jackson :lol:
Sylvester Stallone

These would all be infront of George Bush in my opinion ;)

_________________

STOP UIGHUR GENOCIDE IN XINJIANG
FIGHT FOR TAIWAN INDEPENDENCE
FREE TIBET
LIBERATE HONG KONG
BOYCOTT MADE IN CHINA



Sun Dec 19, 2004 4:42 pm
Profile WWW
All Star Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 4679
Post 
Algren wrote:
Person of the year to BUSH :shock: no thanks

My choice would have been:

Kelly Holmes
Wayne Rooney
Michael Jackson :lol:
Sylvester Stallone

These would all be infront of George Bush in my opinion ;)


Or even Ricky Gervaise! Love that avatar, algren.


Sun Dec 19, 2004 4:44 pm
Profile WWW
now we know
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:31 pm
Posts: 68316
Post 
Beeblebrox wrote:
Algren wrote:
Person of the year to BUSH :shock: no thanks

My choice would have been:

Kelly Holmes
Wayne Rooney
Michael Jackson :lol:
Sylvester Stallone

These would all be infront of George Bush in my opinion ;)


Or even Ricky Gervaise! Love that avatar, algren.


Ohhhh DEFINATELY GERVAIS!!!! forgot about him, oops!! He wins it hands down.

Cheers, it is a brill av :D

_________________

STOP UIGHUR GENOCIDE IN XINJIANG
FIGHT FOR TAIWAN INDEPENDENCE
FREE TIBET
LIBERATE HONG KONG
BOYCOTT MADE IN CHINA



Sun Dec 19, 2004 4:53 pm
Profile WWW
rustiphica

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:59 pm
Posts: 8687
Post 
Rod wrote:
I didn't say anything :P


you said everything you hippy.


Sun Dec 19, 2004 5:46 pm
Profile
Angels & Demons

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:19 pm
Posts: 233
Location: Iceland
Post 
Krem wrote:
lovemerox wrote:
lmao...I cannot believe this! The person of the year is someone responsible for thousands of deaths?!?! :lol:
Sometimes stuff just never ceases to amaze me

Person of the year is not the same thing as the goodiest person fo the year.

Adolf Hitler was once named person of the year, for instance.


But they chickened out on naming Osama Bin Laden the man of the year 2001 even though they were under considerate pressure to do so. They chose Rudolph Guilliani instead and then wrote a huge article about why Bin Laden had not been chosen, and it was apparently because he was "too evil."

_________________
"Lick me in the arse, quickly, quickly. Lick my arse beautifully, really clean. Lick it, that's an oily desire. It's only good smeared with butter. Lick me, lick me!"
~ Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, "Leck mich am Arsch", K231, Vienna, 1782


Sun Dec 19, 2004 5:53 pm
Profile WWW
now we know
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:31 pm
Posts: 68316
Post 
Eyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, Fonzie!!!!

Nice sig rusty :D

_________________

STOP UIGHUR GENOCIDE IN XINJIANG
FIGHT FOR TAIWAN INDEPENDENCE
FREE TIBET
LIBERATE HONG KONG
BOYCOTT MADE IN CHINA



Sun Dec 19, 2004 5:55 pm
Profile WWW
rustiphica

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:59 pm
Posts: 8687
Post 
Shad wrote:
Krem wrote:
lovemerox wrote:
lmao...I cannot believe this! The person of the year is someone responsible for thousands of deaths?!?! :lol:
Sometimes stuff just never ceases to amaze me

Person of the year is not the same thing as the goodiest person fo the year.

Adolf Hitler was once named person of the year, for instance.


But they chickened out on naming Osama Bin Laden the man of the year 2001 even though they were under considerate pressure to do so. They chose Rudolph Guilliani instead and then wrote a huge article about why Bin Laden had not been chosen, and it was apparently because he was "too evil."


I think that Osama deserved that one. Look at how he changed the world.

*p.s. Why you hate Turkey there shad? You think you're better then the Turkish?


Sun Dec 19, 2004 5:55 pm
Profile
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:30 pm
Posts: 12096
Location: Stroudsburg, PA
Post 
lovemerox wrote:
lmao...I cannot believe this! The person of the year is someone responsible for thousands of deaths?!?! :lol:
Sometimes stuff just never ceases to amaze me


Hitler and Stalin also were men of the year. It's not necessarily meant to be an honor, but a recognition as to who most influenced our lives in the past year.


Sun Dec 19, 2004 6:33 pm
Profile WWW
now we know
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:31 pm
Posts: 68316
Post 
Mike Ventrella wrote:
Hitler and Stalin also were men of the year. It's not necessarily meant to be an honor, but a recognition as to who most influenced our lives in the past year.


Yeh thats true.

_________________

STOP UIGHUR GENOCIDE IN XINJIANG
FIGHT FOR TAIWAN INDEPENDENCE
FREE TIBET
LIBERATE HONG KONG
BOYCOTT MADE IN CHINA



Sun Dec 19, 2004 6:36 pm
Profile WWW
Angels & Demons

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:19 pm
Posts: 233
Location: Iceland
Post 
This is actually the second time George W. Bush is chosen as man of the year by Time. They also did it in 2000.

I'd argue that this award is pretty America-centric. It is very rare for non-Americans to receive it. Last time it happened was more than ten years ago when Pope Ioannes Pavlvs II was chosen.

Mike Ventrella wrote:
Hitler and Stalin also were men of the year. It's not necessarily meant to be an honor, but a recognition as to who most influenced our lives in the past year.


It's true that Time has sometimes stuck to the criteria, e.g. when they picked Hitler and Khomeini, but that is not always the case. Like I have already said, they chickened out on picking Osama Bin Laden in 2001 and chose Rudolph Guilliani instead. According to stories in respected newspapers they didn't pick Bin Laden because they thought it would offend readers and advertisers.

This awards lost much of it's credibility then I would think. On Time's website, it says that the rule of selection is "Person of the year is the individual or group of individuals who have had the biggest effect on the year's news"

How can anyone argue that Guilliani was a better pick than Bin Laden, seeing that rule of selection?

_________________
"Lick me in the arse, quickly, quickly. Lick my arse beautifully, really clean. Lick it, that's an oily desire. It's only good smeared with butter. Lick me, lick me!"
~ Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, "Leck mich am Arsch", K231, Vienna, 1782


Sun Dec 19, 2004 6:51 pm
Profile WWW
Angels & Demons

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:19 pm
Posts: 233
Location: Iceland
Post 
rusty wrote:
*p.s. Why you hate Turkey there shad? You think you're better then the Turkish?


I don't want Turkey to join the EU. Unfortunately negotiations between the two parties began two days ago with Turkey wanting a complete membership after ten years.

_________________
"Lick me in the arse, quickly, quickly. Lick my arse beautifully, really clean. Lick it, that's an oily desire. It's only good smeared with butter. Lick me, lick me!"
~ Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, "Leck mich am Arsch", K231, Vienna, 1782


Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:00 pm
Profile WWW
rustiphica

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:59 pm
Posts: 8687
Post 
Shad wrote:
rusty wrote:
*p.s. Why you hate Turkey there shad? You think you're better then the Turkish?


I don't want Turkey to join the EU. Unfortunately negotiations between the two parties began two days ago with Turkey wanting a complete membership after ten years.


Why don't you want them to join the EU?


Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:01 pm
Profile
Angels & Demons

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:19 pm
Posts: 233
Location: Iceland
Post 
rusty wrote:
Shad wrote:
rusty wrote:
*p.s. Why you hate Turkey there shad? You think you're better then the Turkish?


I don't want Turkey to join the EU. Unfortunately negotiations between the two parties began two days ago with Turkey wanting a complete membership after ten years.


Why don't you want them to join the EU?


Where do you want me to start?

1) Turkey is NOT an European country. Not geographically, not culturally, not at all.
2) Turkey's large size, combined with the poor state of its economy, means that the EU would not be able to support Turkey or absorb the possibly large number of workers that might leave it for the other member states of the Union.
3) Turkey would have enormous political power once in the Union. Its 70 million inhabitants will bestow it the second largest number of representatives in the European Parliament, after only Germany.
4) There are severe doubts on the democratic and secular nature of Turkey. The involvement of the military in Turkish politics is for example a concern.
5) The Turkish human rights record is poor and very far from European standards. Men and women aren't even fully equal in Turkey!
6) The Cyprus dispute
7) Turkey refuses to recognise the Armenian genocide.
Et cetera.

But we're taking this thread too far off-topic..

_________________
"Lick me in the arse, quickly, quickly. Lick my arse beautifully, really clean. Lick it, that's an oily desire. It's only good smeared with butter. Lick me, lick me!"
~ Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, "Leck mich am Arsch", K231, Vienna, 1782


Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:18 pm
Profile WWW
rustiphica

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:59 pm
Posts: 8687
Post 
Shad wrote:
rusty wrote:
Shad wrote:
rusty wrote:
*p.s. Why you hate Turkey there shad? You think you're better then the Turkish?


I don't want Turkey to join the EU. Unfortunately negotiations between the two parties began two days ago with Turkey wanting a complete membership after ten years.


Why don't you want them to join the EU?


Where do you want me to start?

1) Turkey is NOT an European country. Not geographically, not culturally, not at all.
2) Turkey's large size, combined with the poor state of its economy, means that the EU would not be able to support Turkey or absorb the possibly large number of workers that might leave it for the other member states of the Union.
3) Turkey would have enormous political power once in the Union. Its 70 million inhabitants will bestow it the second largest number of representatives in the European Parliament, after only Germany.
4) There are severe doubts on the democratic and secular nature of Turkey. The involvement of the military in Turkish politics is for example a concern.
5) The Turkish human rights record is poor and very far from European standards. Men and women aren't even fully equal in Turkey!
6) The Cyprus dispute
7) Turkey refuses to recognise the Armenian genocide.
Et cetera.

But we're taking this thread too far off-topic..


Just wanted to know. It's just you sounded extremly pompus with that avatar and the comments :lol: Thanks for giving me a good answer though.


Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:20 pm
Profile
life begins now
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:09 pm
Posts: 6480
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Post 
zach wrote:
Token Brown Dude wrote:
isnt the new president usually Time's Person of the year!?!?



Seems like it. Had Kerry won, I think he would have been it.


I can't imagine having to look at him on the cover, lol.

I think it was a good choice, but obvious and sorta expected.


Sun Dec 19, 2004 8:27 pm
Profile YIM
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:30 pm
Posts: 12096
Location: Stroudsburg, PA
Post 
Shad wrote:
This is actually the second time George W. Bush is chosen as man of the year by Time. They also did it in 2000.

I'd argue that this award is pretty America-centric. It is very rare for non-Americans to receive it. Last time it happened was more than ten years ago when Pope Ioannes Pavlvs II was chosen.

Mike Ventrella wrote:
Hitler and Stalin also were men of the year. It's not necessarily meant to be an honor, but a recognition as to who most influenced our lives in the past year.


It's true that Time has sometimes stuck to the criteria, e.g. when they picked Hitler and Khomeini, but that is not always the case. Like I have already said, they chickened out on picking Osama Bin Laden in 2001 and chose Rudolph Guilliani instead. According to stories in respected newspapers they didn't pick Bin Laden because they thought it would offend readers and advertisers.

This awards lost much of it's credibility then I would think. On Time's website, it says that the rule of selection is "Person of the year is the individual or group of individuals who have had the biggest effect on the year's news"

How can anyone argue that Guilliani was a better pick than Bin Laden, seeing that rule of selection?


I agree; just because their standards are one thing, it doesn't mean they keep to them.


Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:13 pm
Profile WWW
2.71828183

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:16 pm
Posts: 7827
Location: please delete me
Post 
Shad wrote:
This is actually the second time George W. Bush is chosen as man of the year by Time. They also did it in 2000.

I'd argue that this award is pretty America-centric. It is very rare for non-Americans to receive it. Last time it happened was more than ten years ago when Pope Ioannes Pavlvs II was chosen.

Mike Ventrella wrote:
Hitler and Stalin also were men of the year. It's not necessarily meant to be an honor, but a recognition as to who most influenced our lives in the past year.


It's true that Time has sometimes stuck to the criteria, e.g. when they picked Hitler and Khomeini, but that is not always the case. Like I have already said, they chickened out on picking Osama Bin Laden in 2001 and chose Rudolph Guilliani instead. According to stories in respected newspapers they didn't pick Bin Laden because they thought it would offend readers and advertisers.

This awards lost much of it's credibility then I would think. On Time's website, it says that the rule of selection is "Person of the year is the individual or group of individuals who have had the biggest effect on the year's news"

How can anyone argue that Guilliani was a better pick than Bin Laden, seeing that rule of selection?


I think we all know Bin Lden was the perosn of the year, but Time would have seen a severe drop in subscribers had they rigtly picked Bin Laden.

And yes it is a very US-centric award, the American media is not particualry balanced by whatever yardstick you use to measure.


Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:44 pm
Profile
Indiana Jones IV

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:07 pm
Posts: 1684
Post 
Shad wrote:
rusty wrote:
Shad wrote:
rusty wrote:
*p.s. Why you hate Turkey there shad? You think you're better then the Turkish?


I don't want Turkey to join the EU. Unfortunately negotiations between the two parties began two days ago with Turkey wanting a complete membership after ten years.


Why don't you want them to join the EU?


Where do you want me to start?

1) Turkey is NOT an European country. Not geographically, not culturally, not at all.
2) Turkey's large size, combined with the poor state of its economy, means that the EU would not be able to support Turkey or absorb the possibly large number of workers that might leave it for the other member states of the Union.
3) Turkey would have enormous political power once in the Union. Its 70 million inhabitants will bestow it the second largest number of representatives in the European Parliament, after only Germany.
4) There are severe doubts on the democratic and secular nature of Turkey. The involvement of the military in Turkish politics is for example a concern.
5) The Turkish human rights record is poor and very far from European standards. Men and women aren't even fully equal in Turkey!
6) The Cyprus dispute
7) Turkey refuses to recognise the Armenian genocide.
Et cetera.

But we're taking this thread too far off-topic..


I have to agree with Shad, though I don't live in Europe, when I want to visit Belgium, my family also didn't want the Turks to join the EU.

Best ....reason..EVER


Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:25 pm
Profile WWW
Powered By Hate
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:55 pm
Posts: 7578
Location: Torrington, CT
Post 
Shad wrote:
1) Turkey is NOT an European country. Not geographically, not culturally, not at all.
3) Turkey would have enormous political power once in the Union. Its 70 million inhabitants will bestow it the second largest number of representatives in the European Parliament, after only Germany.


I agree with the other reasons 100%, but...

1) Yeah, technically it is a European country, but the vast majority of it is in Asia.

2) You think having those shady Germans in is better? :lol:

Anyway, a rather pedestrian choice, if not surprising.

_________________
It's my lucky crack pipe.


Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:38 pm
Profile
rustiphica

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:59 pm
Posts: 8687
Post 
Jon Lyrik wrote:
Shad wrote:
1) Turkey is NOT an European country. Not geographically, not culturally, not at all.
3) Turkey would have enormous political power once in the Union. Its 70 million inhabitants will bestow it the second largest number of representatives in the European Parliament, after only Germany.


I agree with the other reasons 100%, but...

1) Yeah, technically it is a European country, but the vast majority of it is in Asia.

2) You think having those shady Germans in is better? :lol:

Anyway, a rather pedestrian choice, if not surprising.


You don't trust em either?! :lol:


Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:40 pm
Profile
Post 
If the EU just stuck to being a free trade zone, there wouldn't be any of these discussions going on now. But noooo, they just had to go and create a doomed political entity.


Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:58 pm
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:52 am
Posts: 25990
Post 
Krem wrote:
If the EU just stuck to being a free trade zone, there wouldn't be any of these discussions going on now. But noooo, they just had to go and create a doomed political entity.



Good, I've found someone else who doesn't like the EU :)


Let's place bets- when will the union collapse?

I say when the Eastern countries will decide to so things more their way and try to push France to the side. Looking at how bravely Poland insisted on having the voting system their way instead of one favouring the bigger countries, I think the Eastern European countries really have the guts to shift it towards them.

Also, I cannot believe the Germans gave up the beloved Deutsche Mark for that joke of a currency! And the Franc is gone too! :?

_________________
In order of preference: Christian, Argos

MadGez wrote:
Briefs. Am used to them and boxers can get me in trouble it seems. Too much room and maybe the silkiness have created more than one awkward situation.


My Box-Office Blog: http://boxofficetracker.blogspot.com/


Sun Dec 19, 2004 11:02 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.