- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 31,163
- Reaction score
- 22,316
- Location
- US of A
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
It is not the response... it is the most influence. Bin Laden's influence on THE WORLD far exceeded that of Guliani. FAR EXCEEDED.
The award has no significance and the criteria used to award it is proof of that...
Then tell it to the people who voted for Guliani.
Jesus man. Obama won it. Oh ****ing well.
You are talking about it and worked up about it as is much of the right wing in this nation. That seems to show it has significance if only to pull your chain.
I could care less that he won the award. I am debating people that thinks that the award has merit or that he "deserved" it. Calm down.
Lern2speek.
It is, "learn to speak" jackass... :lol:
T'was the joke buddy boy.
Obviously... and I thought it was just as obvious that I was making a joke of your joking, thus turning the tables, as it were.
You got me.
What did Obama influence in 2012 other than his campaign spending a chitload of money?
Well, I don't know... he's only the president of the USA... the most powerful and influential country on the planet
The man defied historical precedents and won despite having a 24/7/365 media and political machine out to destroy him before he ever took the oath of office.
Damn right he should be man of the year.
Stalin won it twice, . That let's you know the value of that award. :roll:
Yeah, so did Eisenhower, Reagan and GW. Totally discredited.
Are you going to actaully compare those three with Stalin? If so I will gladly dismiss you are completely irrelevant from now on.
The man defied historical precedents and won despite having a 24/7/365 media and political machine out to destroy him before he ever took the oath of office.
Damn right he should be man of the year.
No, it's you who seems to be following false logic. You say the fact that Time made Stalin and Hitler their POTY means the award is totally discredited, failing to mention all the other people who have received it. Until 1979 it was a title assigned to the person "based on what the magazine describes as who they believed had a stronger influence on history and who represented either the year or the century the most". Having a strong influence does not presuppose that influence is always benign. People seem to be getting bent out of shape because they mistake POTY as some kind of Oscar for public personae. It's not an award or an accolade. In fact I'd say it is more like our own AHOTY, some people want to win it because asshattery is an ambiguous term, as is 'influential'.
Is it discredited by being assigned to unpopular people? Only if you think it's an accolade and only if you believe it has some intrinsic credit or kudos to begin with.
BTW, please feel free to dismiss me as completely irrelevant all you want. I was never under any illusion that anything I say here is relevant to anything except DP. Nor should you be.
Were you watching the same TV the rest of us were? With the exception of fox news, the entire mainstream media has been sucking his d*** for the past 5 years.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?