Time's Man of the Year in 2001

[istewart]

Shouldn't this have been Osama bin Laden, not Giuliani?

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't this have been Osama bin Laden, not Giuliani?

[/ QUOTE ]

It probably should have been been Osama, but uniting behind someone (Giuliani) regardless of political party was good for many people. So he got it, probably for people to feel better about the whole thing.

[kenberman]

shouldn't you be making a Nazi post soon?

[Jack of Arcades]

It definitely should have been Osama.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't this have been Osama bin Laden, not Giuliani?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trying to end up on a Terrorist Watch List?

[mmbt0ne]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
shouldn't you be making a Nazi post soon?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hitler was a Man of the Year. Was he more more deserving because the people he killed were Europeans a couple thousand miles away?

I actually agree with OP, so long as we're still basing the title on the person who had the biggest effect on humanity that year. It would be hard to argue otherwise. I guess it just depends on how you think the title should be given out.

[istewart]

No. Hitler was Time's Man of the Year. Stalin was Time's Man of the Year.

In terms of importance, it's clearly bin Laden. Obviously 9/11 is 9/11, and Time might as well have just shut down shop rather than do this, but that doesn't mean they had to pick the wrong man.

[deacsoft]

[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't this have been Osama bin Laden, not Giuliani?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/deacsoft/twoplustwo/46415689_l.jpg

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
No. Hitler was Time's Man of the Year. Stalin was Time's Man of the Year.

[/ QUOTE ]

This I did not know.

[ QUOTE ]
In terms of importance, it's clearly bin Laden. Obviously 9/11 is 9/11, and Time might as well have just shut down shop rather than do this, but that doesn't mean they had to pick the wrong man.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree but you have to agree that there are some people that would compare your OP to blasphemy.

[asofel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't this have been Osama bin Laden, not Giuliani?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/deacsoft/twoplustwo/46415689_l.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

i do believe we have the first confirmed 'that was [censored] stupid so here's a pic' usage....nothing like the birthing of a cliche...

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
shouldn't you be making a Nazi post soon?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hitler was a Man of the Year. Was he more more deserving because the people he killed were Europeans a couple thousand miles away?

I actually agree with OP, so long as we're still basing the title on the person who had the biggest effect on humanity that year. It would be hard to argue otherwise. I guess it just depends on how you think the title should be given out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't really referring to the content of the original post, but rather the intent behind it. this is the guy who started previous threads about Nazi's and deformed babies...

[istewart]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
shouldn't you be making a Nazi post soon?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hitler was a Man of the Year. Was he more more deserving because the people he killed were Europeans a couple thousand miles away?

I actually agree with OP, so long as we're still basing the title on the person who had the biggest effect on humanity that year. It would be hard to argue otherwise. I guess it just depends on how you think the title should be given out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't really referring to the content of the original post, but rather the intent behind it. this is the guy who started previous threads about Nazi's and deformed babies...

[/ QUOTE ]

Then yeah, obviously I should get back to writing a Nazi post.

[mmbt0ne]

Ahhh, good call. I didn't realize that.

[TimTimSalabim]

Clearly, it should have been Carlos Mortensen.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't this have been Osama bin Laden, not Giuliani?

[/ QUOTE ]

It should have, but too many people would have complained. Clearly he was about a billion times more important in 2001 than guiliani was.

This is a different time than when Hitler or Stalin or whoever was named the man of the year.

[El Barto]

Osama should not have been man of the year. The attack was not the real story, our response to the attack was the story. We could have done nothing if we chose to. Remember, we invaded Afghanistan in 2001, that was our choice, it was not foreordained.

[Jack of Arcades]

No.

[mmbt0ne]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
Osama should not have been man of the year. The attack was not the real story, our response to the attack was the story.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with nothing you just said. How was the attack not THE story? I get 150 channels on satellite, 87 of them were covering the attack for a solid week.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
No.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think Tim McVeigh, Charles Manson, and any terrorist who has a successful attack should be considered for Man of the Year?

Hitler and Stalin led countries and had armies of millions under their control, a totally different situation.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]


I agree with nothing you just said. How was the attack not THE story? I get 150 channels on satellite, 87 of them were covering the attack for a solid week.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the week's coverage after the first day was about the rescue/recovery effort. So maybe Guiliani was the right choice since that effort seemed to revolve around him.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think Tim McVeigh, Charles Manson, and any terrorist who has a successful attack should be considered for Man of the Year?


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
, a totally different situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Jack of Arcades]

Tim McVeigh and Charles Manson were clearly the biggest newsmakers of their year. Yes.

[andyfox]

I didn't like their 1947 decision either.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't like their 1947 decision either.

[/ QUOTE ]

How old were you in 1947? Like 35?

[stabn]

How did you feel about 43?