Time Magazine's Person of the Year...

[GTaudiophile]

Drum-roll please...

 

[moshquerade]

good morning GT
*rolls over* *sleepy eyed*
*KISS*



and i agree with Time's person(s) of the year. i appreciate that these people put their lives on the line for our freedoms.

 

[StageLeft]

I have to say that Time was giving a hand job to the public's patriotism on this one. Calling it cheesy would be a vast understatement. Person of the year should denote a person of significance. One who has changed the world in a significant way. You drop the average US soldier out of the military and it's the same military. On a single basis they are of little significance (that's why the military has thousands of them, you see).

Time could have given the award to a general or to Bush as head of the military, but giving it to the "individual soldier" is like calling mentally retarded kids special, or taking away graded exams in school so that the stupid kids don't feel bad about themselves.

Soldiers are no more an integral part of our society than bus drivers. Won't don't they get a pat on the head too? Oh, that's right - because there are thousands of them and no single one is of much importance to anybody except their immediate family.

This gets a rolling eyes score of

/

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I have to say that Time was giving a hand job to the public's patriotism on this one. Calling it cheesy would be a vast understatement. Person of the year should denote a person of significance. One who has changed the world in a significant way. You drop the average US soldier out of the military and it's the same military. On a single basis they are of little significance (that's why the military has thousands of them, you see).

Time could have given the award to a general or to Bush as head of the military, but giving it to the "individual soldier" is like calling mentally retarded kids special, or taking away graded exams in school so that the stupid kids don't feel bad about themselves.

Soldiers are no more an integral part of our society than bus drivers. Won't don't they get a pat on the head too? Oh, that's right - because there are thousands of them and no single one is of much importance to anybody except their immediate family.

This gets a rolling eyes score of

/

dude you CANNOT compare military personnel to bus drivers.

 

[DrPizza]

Maybe Time ran into the same problem that I had the other day... I was trying to figure out who would be named person of the year and drew a complete blank. Any other comments from me would have to be directed to the politics forum, a place I avoid like the plague because I find it too depressing.

 

[StageLeft]

dude you CANNOT compare military personnel to bus drivers.

I just did. Both are important to society. OK, what about doctors vs. soldiers? Why wasn't time person of the year given to surgeons then? They are FAR more important, on an individual basis, than soldiers.

 

[ThaGrandCow]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I have to say that Time was giving a hand job to the public's patriotism on this one. Calling it cheesy would be a vast understatement. Person of the year should denote a person of significance. One who has changed the world in a significant way. You drop the average US soldier out of the military and it's the same military. On a single basis they are of little significance (that's why the military has thousands of them, you see).

Time could have given the award to a general or to Bush as head of the military, but giving it to the "individual soldier" is like calling mentally retarded kids special, or taking away graded exams in school so that the stupid kids don't feel bad about themselves.

Soldiers are no more an integral part of our society than bus drivers. Won't don't they get a pat on the head too? Oh, that's right - because there are thousands of them and no single one is of much importance to anybody except their immediate family.

This gets a rolling eyes score of

/

As a member of the military myself, that hurts.

On the other hand I also

ed when I saw that they gave it to the soldiers. Time has given the person of the year to groups of people the last couple of years. It's prettymuch a cop-out. It went to the whistleblowers last year I believe, and didn't it also go to the firefighters or policemen in 2001? Get back to giving it to one specific person.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

dude you CANNOT compare military personnel to bus drivers.

I just did. Both are important to society. OK, what about doctors vs. soldiers? Why wasn't time person of the year given to surgeons then? They are FAR more important, on an individual basis, than soldiers.

question for you Skoorb: have you ever had anyone you were close to go to war?

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

dude you CANNOT compare military personnel to bus drivers.

I just did. Both are important to society. OK, what about doctors vs. soldiers? Why wasn't time person of the year given to surgeons then? They are FAR more important, on an individual basis, than soldiers.

You're from Canada, how can you understand the value American's place on the military when you come from a nation that is militarily defunct?

 

[StageLeft]

Time has given the person of the year to groups of people the last couple of years. It's prettymuch a cop-out. It went to the whistleblowers last year I believe, and didn't it also go to the firefighters or policemen in 2001? Get back to giving it to one specific person.

That's EXACTLY my point. It's a huge "feel good" cop-out. I don't want to belittle soldiers, because they are very important to society and do something I would personally not want to do, so that wasn't the intent of my post at all.

But, the award is PERSON of the year not PEOPLE of the year, which is why I think giving it to groups of people is silly. I was going to joke that they probably would have given it to the firemen and policemen in 2001. I can't believe they really did it!

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow
As a member of the military myself, that hurts.

On the other hand I also

ed when I saw that they gave it to the soldiers. Time has given the person of the year to groups of people the last couple of years. It's prettymuch a cop-out. It went to the whistleblowers last year I believe, and didn't it also go to the firefighters or policemen in 2001? Get back to giving it to one specific person.

i agree with ya ThaGrandCow, Time is too chicken to pick out ONE person.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Skoorb

dude you CANNOT compare military personnel to bus drivers.

I just did. Both are important to society. OK, what about doctors vs. soldiers? Why wasn't time person of the year given to surgeons then? They are FAR more important, on an individual basis, than soldiers.

question for you Skoorb: have you ever had anyone you were close to go to war?

My grandfather served in WWI and in WWII, and that aside your question is utterly meaningless to my stance on this issue. The award is for person of the year, not people. It's that simple.

If they can't even name the person directly whom they are giving the award to perhaps they shouldn't be giving the award

 

[StageLeft]

i agree with ya ThaGrandCow, Time is too chicken to pick out ONE person.

It looks like we agree. That's all I'm saying - they should pick out one person. If they want to pick out the commander in chief all the power to them!

 

[ohtwell]

They should have given it to Peter Jackson. Look at all he's done for society over the last three years!


: ) Amanda

 

[ThaGrandCow]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow
As a member of the military myself, that hurts.

On the other hand I also

ed when I saw that they gave it to the soldiers. Time has given the person of the year to groups of people the last couple of years. It's prettymuch a cop-out. It went to the whistleblowers last year I believe, and didn't it also go to the firefighters or policemen in 2001? Get back to giving it to one specific person.

i agree with ya ThaGrandCow, Time is too chicken to pick out ONE person.

I say pick Saddam as man of the year. The award doesn't go to the most helpful person, it goes to the most influential person of the year, either good or bad. The main reason we sent over our thousands of troops and began the war was because of Saddam. If that's not the most influential person this year I can't think of who is.

 

[TheAudit]

I do think it is a bit of a cop-out but who else had the most impact on the world this year?
You could say the President but then they would argue that while he had the final say on matters he wasn't actually
the one doing the work. And continuing to do the work right now.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Skoorb

dude you CANNOT compare military personnel to bus drivers.

I just did. Both are important to society. OK, what about doctors vs. soldiers? Why wasn't time person of the year given to surgeons then? They are FAR more important, on an individual basis, than soldiers.

question for you Skoorb: have you ever had anyone you were close to go to war?

My grandfather served in WWI and in WWII, and that aside your question is utterly meaningless to my stance on this issue. The award is for person of the year, not people. It's that simple.

If they can't even name the person directly whom they are giving the award to perhaps they shouldn't be giving the award

the issue was also you comparing people in the military to bus drivers. that needs a retraction.

 

[DainBramaged]

Correction...Time has just announced it's new Person of the Year

*drumroll*

Michael Jackson

err....

maybe not.

 

[TheAudit]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Skoorb

dude you CANNOT compare military personnel to bus drivers.

I just did. Both are important to society. OK, what about doctors vs. soldiers? Why wasn't time person of the year given to surgeons then? They are FAR more important, on an individual basis, than soldiers.

question for you Skoorb: have you ever had anyone you were close to go to war?

My grandfather served in WWI and in WWII, and that aside your question is utterly meaningless to my stance on this issue. The award is for person of the year, not people. It's that simple.

If they can't even name the person directly whom they are giving the award to perhaps they shouldn't be giving the award

the issue was also you comparing people in the military to bus drivers. that needs a retraction.

I agree with you. A bus driver is a bus driver. A doctor wasn't given the award because was there a major cure discovered during the past year - did they find a cure for HIV or cancer?

What was the major news story of this year - Iraq. They were going to pick someone that was related to Iraq.

 

[FoBoT]

sounds good to me

 

[JEDI]

damn..i was hoping for Paris Hilton. Hey, she covers the Requirements that Time has for Person of the Year.

 

[ThaGrandCow]

Originally posted by: JEDI
damn..i was hoping for Paris Hilton. Hey, she covers the Requirements that Time has for Person of the Year.

The force doesn't help with your linking skills, does it?

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
That's all I'm saying - they should pick out one person...

umm, they did. "The magazine's editors chose the nameless soldier to represent the 1.4 million men and women who make up the U.S. military"

btw, its their friggin award, they could give it to a canary for all that matters.

 

[StageLeft]

the issue was also you comparing people in the military to bus drivers. that needs a retraction.

Bus drivers are very important to society, although I will admit that without them our society could function, whereas it couldn't without soldiers, so there's my retraction - however, I do maintain that the average doctor is more important than the average soldier.

A doctor wasn't given the award because was there a major cure discovered during the past year - did they find a cure for HIV or cancer?

What was the major news story of this year - Iraq. They were going to pick someone that was related to Iraq.

Well, research and new drugs and new medical advancements are made every year. Soldiers have been around forever, and every year soldiers are in battle and every year they die and every year they make a difference. BTW your last sentence "they were going to pick someone" <- they didn't pick anybody, they picked a group as "person" of the year If I join the military at 18, go through training, and then I'm in iraq suddenly _I_ am person of the year?

umm, they did. "The magazine's editors chose the nameless soldier to represent the 1.4 million men and women who make up the U.S. military"

btw, its their friggin award, they could give it to a canary for all that matters.

No, they did not. They simply tried to use semantics to allow them to include a group of 1.4 million men and women under the guise of "person of the year". OK, let's say I'm wrong. Well, how does that nameless soldier suddenly become person of the year? What did he do that was so special that none of the other soldiers did? they merely used him as a way to shuttle the entire military under the guise of "person of the year".

Admit it: Time did not pick a person for person of they year. They picked people for person of the year.

Sure it's their award and they can pick whomever, but what does that mean. If they pick a stick of ram as person of the year will you say that "It's their award; they can do whatever they like."? I'm not disputing their right to do whatever they like. I'm just taking issue with it, because they picked wrong on this. You, by definition, cannot pick a group of people as person of the year. It's like having an award for "smartest person in the world" and you give it to a group of people. It's flat out incorrect.

Hussein probably should have won it, but I guess if they pick the military it will probably sell more copies.

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]