Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/24/2001 5:33:45 AM EDT
Early this morning I was watching the news, when the editor of TIME magazine came on to talk about his choice for "Man Of the Year". He kept saying how it came down to Rudy or Bin Laden. He went on to say that he really had a tough choice to make. I simply do not understand this man, can someone out there explain this to me. I dont understand how this fat, self serving, immoral, unAmerican, pinko, liberal, swine of a man can even consider choosing Bin Laden as "Man of the Year". I simply dont understand. I thought he was joking, I really did. I'm still fuming about this a-hole getting on TV and insulting the families and memories of all those dead people. I was so pissed off I had to go for a 2 hour jog in the freezing rain and I'm still pissed. I wish I had been in the studio; I would have punched his pinko lights out on live TV! I'm writing a letter to TIME magazine today; and I hope that everyone else on this forum does so as well. Its time we let this overtly liberal swine know that he is alone, and very out of touch with the people of this great country.
Link Posted: 12/24/2001 5:35:25 AM EDT
They selected Rudy Guliani yesterday. Relax. It might have been a PR ploy by TIME to generate interest where there really wasn't any.
Link Posted: 12/24/2001 5:43:13 AM EDT
Sure, Rudy won but it takes a real lack of sentiment and an extremely slanted view point to even consider nominating this man. Why dont we just elect serial rapist for the spirit of doing things "their way" then?
Link Posted: 12/24/2001 5:44:34 AM EDT
Supposedly the "Man Of The Year" cover goes to the guy who's done the most to influence world events. I would have to agree that this POS was responsible for influencing major world events. However, I think it would be in bad taste to see this scumbag POS on the cover of a major publication in what would appear to many as an honor. It would also alienate many readers as well and I'm sure that also played into their decision.
Link Posted: 12/24/2001 5:58:21 AM EDT
Making OBL Time's 'Man of the Year' would have been the equivalent of making Andrea Yates, the Houston mother who drowned her five children, 'Mother of the Year.' I mean, in terms of impact, what Mrs. Yates did had a terrific impact on the lives of her children. And it certainly got a lot of people talking about motherhood, what it means to be a mother, post-partum depression, insanity as a defense in a criminal trial, responsibility of fathers, child-planning, birth control, and a myriad of other issues, as well. So by using the same criteria that Time claims to be using, Andrea Yates is 'Mother of the Year', hands down! Can you think of any other Mother who's had a greater impact? (Hint - see below!) Eric The(See!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 12/24/2001 6:22:48 AM EDT
Well, I certainly do not mean to defend Time Warner and I thought that considering him was ludicrous but I did like their statement about NOT choosing him. They said that it was not Osama who is truly significant this year instead it is what has happened in the US AFTER the attack that is truly important... I agree. Man of the Year for me...? Easy; George W. Bush, hands down.
Link Posted: 12/24/2001 7:10:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/24/2001 7:07:57 AM EDT by Network]
Like someone already said: The criterium for Man-of-the-Year is he/she who most affected the year's news - for good or bad. I believe that the AssaHola Khomeini was it back in '79. I think it should have been BinLaden this year, but who really gives a !$^%@?
Top Top