George Bush Time Magazine person of the year 2004

by Brian Vernon Tue Dec 21, 2004 01:48

Taim mishasta ar fad. Leighidh me inniu go bhfuil Time Magazine owned by a Boner friend of GWB, fear leis an ainm Henry Luce or Henry Lucent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones

AMY GOODMAN: Who are the other reporters who are Skull and Bones?

ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: There's a list of them going back to Henry Lucent in New Haven. There are the founders of "Time" magazine. "Time" and "Newsweek" have Skull and Bones origins, which is kind of strange.

Just look at way Time attempts to endow him with a Patrician Grandad Benevolence. Jaysus, he could run for Pope with that expression.

by start thinking Tue Dec 21, 2004 03:48

we should not forget that the Time Magazine made Adolf Hitler the man of the the year 1936.

by start thinking Tue Dec 21, 2004 03:51

sorry. I did first not see that u already mentioned hitler: and yes, it was in 1939.

by Spiff Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:09

Apparently Satan is the front runner fro next year.

by ared dread Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:30

Nah you cant enter two years on the trot, Bush beat him into second place this year.

by Michael Hennigan Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:49

Maybe Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir?

- oh sorry, he's from Africa and nobody gives a damn!

by frank Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:51

I think its about who had the most impacy on Time readers, not who's the next Catholic saint, or most underrated trotskyist.

by radical jonny Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:59 radicaljonny at yahoo dot ie

My God, the media/political/corporate elite picked one of their own?

What a shock!

by Brian Vernon Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:45

It's having an impact of a different kind also.

From an American blogger this morning:

"Just heard on the radio that TIME's subscription numbers have plumetted in the 'blue' states and foreign subscriptions, already quite low, have actually dipped into the negative, with customers demanding a refund for the last four years. Restraining orders are being placed on any mail delivery employee who comes within 50 feet of a mailbox while in possession of this issue. "

by redjade Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:52

Time Magazine nominates many kinds of people as 'man of the year' and yes Hitler was one one them and so was Joseph Stalin, Winston Churchill and Ayatollah Khomeini. I don't think Time was endorsing Khomeini in 1979.

Time does not endorse as much as it highlights someone who impacted the previous year in some significant way.

In 1982 Time also gave the Man of the Year award to 'The Computer' - so it's an honour not just for men but also things.

That said, Time Magazine is also a zeitgeist of the times and being so has fully participated as member of the media arm of the US war machine. Bush also may have been awarded this time around for the simple reason that he may have been actually elected in 2004. (I did say may)

→ Man of the Year: Adolf Hitler
January 2, 1939
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauMemorial/TimeCover.html
Führer of the German people, Commander-in-Chief of the German Army, Navy & Air Force, Chancellor of the Third Reich, Herr Hitler reaped on that day at Munich the harvest of an audacious, defiant, ruthless foreign policy he had pursued for five and a half years. He had torn the Treaty of Versailles to shreds. He had rearmed Germany to the teeth--or as close to the tooth as he was able. He had stolen Austria before the eyes of a horrified and apparently impotent world.

George W in the presence of history's 'Great Men' (Question: siting in whose seat?!)

by Brian Vernon Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:16

Michael the Sudan war has been going on 21 years and [you are right nobody cared] the media didn't care to bring it to the worlds attention until it suited them and their masters in Washington and London.

Not to detract from the undoubted suffering of the people, I think the Sudan issue is a timely media distraction. To make Jack Straw and other foreign minister twats look like they are doing something other than overseeing the slaughter of a nation.

If there hadn't been a "Sudan" it would have been necessary to create one. Remember those Thatcher Arms Deals under the guise of "AID" and Export Credit Guarantees to African countries? Where did the Sudanese Gov get fighter aircraft, tanks, helicopters?

This is what third world aid means to the British.

Look at the spin a US webbie puts on it :
.....the Moslem of the north vs the native African Christian and Animists in the south, In Soudan 300 languages, 500 tribes. Govt.of Omar Hassan Ahmad el Bechir, National Islamic Front vs Popular Army for the liberation of Sudan(APLS) Force Alliance of Sudan (FAS)

Notice the use of "native African Christian" (itself an anachronism), they might as well have said "the invader herectic moslem".

by rwtyw Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:29

Just because Time gave him 'Person of the Year' doesn't mean they are endorsing him. That title is given to the person who had most affect on the previous 12 months. Hence Hitler winning in 1939 and Bush (war, election etc.) winning now. Doesn't mean they like him though.

by correction Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:47

"Notice the use of "native African Christian" (itself an anachronism), they might as well have said "the invader herectic moslem"."

That part of Africa has been Christian longer than most of Europe has been Christian. And yes, The Islamiscist government has been enforcing itself on the native Christian & Animist beliefs of the inhabitants of Southern Sudan.

by redjade Tue Dec 21, 2004 13:27

and what was he trying to tell Canada?

by Brian Vernon Tue Dec 21, 2004 13:28

Test:

Black

by Brian Vernon Tue Dec 21, 2004 20:44

This is interesting in a tree hugging hippy numerologist kind of way.

http://www.bushisantichrist.com/

And this is sick in a sick kind of way.

http://www.bushislord.com/index.php

by Barry Wed Dec 22, 2004 02:52

Im beginning to get worried there mightnt be a person of the year in 2005. The world is undoubtedly heading for something cataclysmic.

Ill be going to my mass this Christmas and New year for sure. All you atheists out there can snigger away. If Armageddons coming Ill be keeping myself right.

(And I might even pop into a mosque and have an each way bet)

by Barry Wed Dec 22, 2004 03:23

and paid more attention to detail. I am now OFFICIALLY shitting myself and will not sleep tonight, or possibly ever again.

Now Im wondering why 4 of the buggers biographers have mysteriously committed "suicide" - the last one shooting himself twice in the head ( pish !!) If thats not something out of the Omen I dont know what is.

No-one could be as stupid as Bush in real life and even remeber how to breathe. The Prince of Darkness has indeed decieved us all.

And his no1 fan on this site is ...... DEVIL DOG !!!! ( I knew there was something unholy about him as well)

All joking aside, that has me genuinely worried.

by The Devil and George Warmonger Bush - The Black House Bullies Wed Dec 22, 2004 09:18 666 The Tenth Level of Hell Suite 666 666-666-Hell Ext. 666

All those WMD's used on the Iraqis by His Unholiness must have made a big impression on the Corporate Mess Media.

by i used not. Wed Dec 22, 2004 12:12

tobe conceived by such parents,
to be born into such a family,
and not left on any doorstep.
to goto such good schools,
to get into bones (the american copy),
to get good jobs,
to get elected,
to be believed.
to be thought great.

by Brian Vernon Wed Dec 22, 2004 13:36

What was yer man's name in the Omen?

Thorn!!!!

Bush!!!!!

I'm away to mass, later all!!

by Brian Vernon Wed Dec 22, 2004 14:15

Here is the email I sent:-

I cannot believe what I have just read, you have made George Bush
>man of the year? Are your braindead or simply blind? ...perhaps both.
>
>I cannot put into words how sickening I find this news. It is truely
>disturbing that your magazine would make a murdering bastard like
>Dubya man of the year. You should be removed from your position and
>thrown out into the streets for doing such a thing. I am not even
>American and if I were I would not vote for either the left or the
>right, can anyone say Skulls & Bones?
>
>
>Truely I will never ever read another one of your magazines, I had
>long been suspicious of your secret alliances with certain lunatics
>on this planet but this surreal and truely unbelievable piece of
>news is the final straw.
>
>Your magazine and all its affiliates are simply mouth pieces for
>facist propaganda. You can't even tell the truth on 911, throwing
>critical information out of the window and going along with the
>official 'conspiracy theory' that makes absolutely no sense to
>anyone with a braincell-clearly something you lack.
>
>You disgust me right to my very core and I can assure you that these
>sentiments are felt by just about every country on the planet and
>half of America, hell, even those who voted for Bush would probably
>agree.
>
>I will ensure that your magazine receives nothing but that which it
>deserves from the outlets I write for and the people I associate
>with.
>
>I can think of over 7 billion human being who should of that got
>honour instead of Bush. But standing behind him in that long list is
>now you.
>
>Get out of journalism you cretin.
>
>
>Truely disgusted,
>
>
>Philip H****


Here is TIME's reply:-

Dear Reader:

We regret your disappointment over the selection of President Bush as
TIME's Person of the Year. But perhaps we should remind you of the
traditional standard by which the editors make their annual choice.
The Person of the Year is not an award or a tribute. The question at
the center of the selection process is, Who or what, for better or
worse, has affected the way we live today? The answer to that
question could be a force for good (for example, Winston Churchill,
Man of the Year, 1940; Dwight Eisenhower, 1944) or for evil (Adolf
Hitler, Man of the Year, 1939; Ayatullah Khomeini, 1979). And to the
latter, President George W. Bush must be added for 2004 -- there is
no one else whose agenda and actions in the past year had such
universal impact. As managing editor Jim Kelly noted in his Letter
From the Editor, Bush has had his highs and lows over the past four
years, but in the end he prevailed in the 2004 election by
"persuading a majority of voters this time around that he deserved to
be in the White House for another four years."

Thank you for writing. We appreciated having the opportunity to
respond to your concerns.

Best wishes.

TIME Letters

by day after solstice Wed Dec 22, 2004 14:21

to talk to them about the genome, and that cloned sheep, and life for young italians on drugs in london squats, and so on.. And they gave me a little bible and a cross, (everyone gets a little bible and a cross) and the weird thing is, the Vatican gift set bible doesn't have revelation in it. Aint that weird, they just give their visitors the synoptic gospels of Constantine's time and no weird "end of the world bit".
Hollywood and Sam Neil and the J witnesses gave us
the other thing didn't they?

by me again Wed Dec 22, 2004 14:57

I mistakenly entitled it "American" Friend, oops he'll kill me if he see's that.

by redjade Thu Dec 23, 2004 15:37

1951: Mohammed Mossadegh
Jan. 7, 1952

From TIME Magazine:
http://www.iranian.ws/bio/men/mohammed_mossadegh.htm

He was Mohammed Mossadegh, Premier of Iran in the year 1951. He was the Man of the Year. He put Scheherazade in the petroleum business and oiled the wheels of chaos. His acid tears dissolved one of the remaining pillars of a once great empire. In his plaintive, singsong voice he gabbled a defiant challenge that sprang out of a hatred and envy almost incomprehensible to the West.

There were millions inside and outside of Iran whom Mossadegh symbolized and spike for, and whose fanatical state of mind he had helped to create. They would rather see their own nations fall apart than continue their present relations with the West. Communism encouraged this state of mind, and stood to profit hugely from it. But Communism did not create it. The split between the West and the non-Communist East was a peril all its own to world order, quite apart from Communism. Through 1951 the Communist threat to the world continued; but nothing new was added--and little subtracted. The news of 1951 was this other danger in the Near and Middle East. In the center of that spreading web of news was Mohammed Mossadegh.

Also:
Mohammed Mossadegh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddeq

Democratically elected and overthrown by CIA in 1953

by liam0 Sat Dec 25, 2004 06:33

ah now churchill was hardly a warcriminal?
you must be a shinner, and your only idea of history is the bad bad english givin us irish a hard time! are you a socialist or a republican or what? make up your fucking mind because you can't be both

by Barry Sat Dec 25, 2004 21:50

James Connolly, Liam Mellowes, Frank Ryan...what did they know about republicanism or socialism. Obviously they were very mixed up people. Tell us how that is Liam, enlighten the world.

And sure the English never done us any harm either. As for Churchill being a war criminal, nonsense. Sure them Kurds were asking for a good gassing.

by Harry Rea - The National Men's Council of Ireland Sat Dec 25, 2004 22:29 hrea at eircom dot net

What is going on in Canada should act as a warning to the people of Ireland. In that former British colony a lack of moral leadership both by senior politicians and by the clergy has lead to a decline in moral values to the point that Canada is singled out internationally as being a 'haven for sexual predators of children'.

What is ominous for Ireland is the increasingly close ties between Ireland and Canada, especially political, cultural and legal. The other parallel of course is the absence of any moral fibre evident in our Taoiseach.

Of particular note for concern is the way that our Taoiseach has allowed himself to be used by his masters in Europe to bring the integrity of the Irish people into disrepute and potentially make them the butt of "Irish logic jokes" for years to come.

I am not talking here about his observance of truth or family values – not at all.

I am talking about Christmas and I am talking about the fact that he was awarded the honour by his colleagues in Europe as the "European Statesman of the Year" and himself is on record of saying that he sees his greatest achievement was in persuading all the EU countries to sign up for the new EU Constitution.

A Constitution which replaces all national Constitutions including our own Bunreacht Na hÉireann. One which refuses to acknowledge the existence of God.

He did this despite being presented with 100,000 signatures from Ireland by Dana Rosemary Scallon and with 50 million from all over Europe requesting that God be acknowledged in the EU Constitution.

He did this despite being the head of our government and sworn to uphold our Constitution which clearly places God at its heart and Christianity as the guiding power in its sense of morality and justice.

It is worth repeating the opening paragraphs of Bunreacht Na hÉireann.

"In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,

We, the people of Éire, Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial, Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,

And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations, Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution."

It was noted also that a few weeks ago when it came to President McAleese, at her reinauguration, swearing her Oath she did this only in Irish so as to play down the full impact of our Constitution's Christian basis. Her Oath in English is,

“In the presence of Almighty God I, do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will maintain the Constitution of Ireland and uphold its laws, that I will fulfil my duties faithfully and conscientiously in accordance with the Constitution and the law, and that I will dedicate my abilities to the service and welfare of the people of Ireland. May God direct and sustain me.”

Despite being sworn to uphold this Christian Constitution our Taoiseach, not only committed what many see as an act of Treason, he also made himself and Ireland the laughing stock of the world when he personally oversaw the signing of this EU Constitution which denies the existence of God, and dated it 29 October 2004 AD!!!!!

The people must distance themselves from his stupidity and show the world we understand how deeply shaped our society is by the birth of Christ and in the referendum by comprehensively rejecting the Taoiseach's God-forsaken EU Constitution.

Roger Eldridge, Chairman. National Men's Council of Ireland, Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon www.family-men.com

~~~~~~~~

"If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. ...

Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of its own existence." U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1928 (Olmstead v. United States)

by Bright Eyes Sun Dec 26, 2004 15:40

Please note that the "National Men's Council of Ireland" refered to by Harry Rea is a tiny group of right-wing misogynist individuals and is not representative of mens' groups in the country.

by jsr Mon Dec 27, 2004 18:21

It didn’t deny God's existence. The EU constitution just didn’t pick one religion over another. Where does it say there is no God? Its not the same thing as denying Gods existence. Why should it pick your God over someone else’s?

by Bright Eyes Mon Dec 27, 2004 19:01

A "lack of moral leadership both by senior politicians and by the clergy" is not something that is unique to Canada. it could well describe the politicians and clergy of any country. Why pick on Canada?
As for Ireland, our politicians are rotten to the core. It is only in recent years that feeble attempts are being made to tackle the problem of corruption. And as for our clergy, they too have been found out, both for child abuse and for their attempts to cover up those same scandals.
Furthermore, considering their backward and reactionary views on women, neither Harry Rea nor Roger Eldridge are in a position to lecture anyone else about morality. There is nothing moral about blaming women when they are generally the victims.

by matthew Mon Dec 27, 2004 19:15

I think its good that he won this award.
He has stood up for what is right and defended the american people adequately.

by Roger Eldridge - National Men's Council of Ireland Mon Dec 27, 2004 22:52 eldridgeandco at eircom dot net 07196-67138

It does deny the existence of God because it does not acknowledge our relationship with God. This means that the EU Constitution refuses to acknowledge the existence of the Irish people who are Christians.

The reason why it should acknowledge the existence of God is because the Irish Constitution does and the Irish Constitution is the highest law of the land here.

Until you organise it being changed by a referendum where the majority of people vote otherwise every law and government policy must fall within the Constitution.

The Constitution was given to the people to protect their rights from the excesses of the state. One of those founding rights acknowledges that we owe our existence to God and that God directs us.

You might not agree but you can not prevent us from having this right.

The EU Constitution will supersede our Irish Constitution and in so doing will eliminate our relationship with God.

We don't need to be part of an EU superstate. A trading relationship is good enough. The EU is totalitarian in nature. A new soviet bloc. A disaster.

by Mortal Tue Dec 28, 2004 00:15

'The EU Constitution will supersede our Irish Constitution and in so doing will eliminate our relationship with God'

Your relationship with God is your own private affair. If that relationship was strong enough it would not need the protection of a Constitution concocted by mortals. Surely 'God', being all powerful, is able to stand on his own two feet without the puny protection of any (mortal) document?

You will have to learn to respect the rights of the growing number of non-Christians, they are as entitled as you to whatever protections are offered by a Constitution, whether National or European.

by Mortal Kombat Tue Dec 28, 2004 02:57

Quote: Your relationship with God is your own private affair.

Just as your relationship with secularism is yours.

Quote: If that relationship was strong enough it would not need the protection of a Constitution.

But yours does????

Quote: Surely 'God', being all powerful, is able to stand on his own two feet without the puny protection of any (mortal) document?

Like, say, the Bible?

Quote: You will have to learn to respect the rights of the growing number of non-Christians, they are as entitled as you to whatever protections are offered by a Constitution, whether National or European.

But, correct me, didn't you just rubbish the "puny protection of any (mortal) document?"

by Harry Rea - The National Men's Council of Ireland Tue Dec 28, 2004 12:34

In answer to your statement

“You will have to learn to respect the rights of the growing number of non-Christians, they are as entitled as you to whatever protections are offered by a Constitution, whether National or European.”

Perhaps you might enlighten us to where you consider that the Irish Constitution disentitles you to “whatever protection” you should be allowed. Clearly you have never read Bunreacht na hÉireann or you would not make such outlandish allegations.

The fact is that the opposite of what you said is true. The Irish Constitution in its Preamble refers all actions of both men and States to God. Logic will surely guide you to the truth that everything, from laws to statements to facts must have a reference. I would be intrigued to know what your substitute for the reference to God would be.

Then again, that is completely beside the point. Article 44 .2 of our protective Constitution clearly says that we are guaranteed freedom to profess or practice of religion [or not to if we so desire], and Article 44.2 says the State guarantees not to endow any religion. Article 44.3 puts all doubts on the matter of Religious belief to one side. - http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/publications/297.htm

Article 44

1. The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.

2.1° Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.

2. 2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

2.3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

You are therefore completely misguided; we already have what you said we should want. It seems to me that you would be very wise to either buy a copy of the Irish Constitution (about €3) and read it or download and save it from the web address above before it is removed altogether from our knowledge.

Remember in other countries where the people elect to have, and be bound to a Constitution, the Constitution is taught to schoolchildren from their earliest possible age as part of the standard curriculum to make sure they understand and so own their Rightful Constitutional Protections.

How then can we claim to have an education system when the most basic element of our people’s rights and the template for our very existence as Citizens of Ireland seems to be purposefully concealed from our view?

You are not on your own in not understanding the power and protection of Bunreacht na hÉireann, within the last few weeks our own Mr. Frank Fahey, the Junior Minister of State at the Dept. Of Justice, Equality & Law Reform admitted to an audience of about 50 people Galway in that he ‘never read the Irish Constitution’. How then can we have a State that is bound to maintain the regulation and directions within our Constitutions when even our Ministers are not aware of their boundaries?

Don’t you agree that there is a strange rush to dump what we do not even seem to want to understand?

Questions must be asked:

Are we stupid not to know what is going on? Are we naïve enough to believe that this vital information is not actively being promoted for our benefit? Or, are there some among us who are willing to stand up against what is clearly a horrendous corruption being aggressively perpetrated on the Irish people. Only by such a stand can we make our employees, the state, to do their job. ie follow the existing Constitution until the people change it.

by Douglas Tue Dec 28, 2004 16:21

What have the various constitutions got to do with Bush being nominated Time Magazine person of the year 2004? Please stick to the subject and stop derailing the thread.
The last comment that bears any relation to the subject at hand was the one yesterday by matthew.

by Douglas Tue Dec 28, 2004 16:33

Matthew, Bush has not "won" any award. He has been nominated, ie named, as someone who has had most effect in the past 12 months. You are welcome to back up your assertion that Bush "defended the american people adequately". How? Many feel that he has in fact created more longterm problems for the security of the American people than he has solved.
You know a man by the company he keeps - Hitler, Stalin, Churchill...

by liam0 Wed Dec 29, 2004 18:17

how can u be a socialist and republican?
coming out when there's a deportation or whatever and saying ya don't believe in borders?? and then for the rest of the year being so interested in the border and division in the north? how can ya be for the irish constitution over europe if ur a socialist?? you can't be the two.

by Absolute foreigner Wed Dec 29, 2004 22:59

Not sure who your question is for. Or did I miss something? I don't think Harry or Roger are republicans, well not of the Irish variety anyway. And I don't see any mention of the immigration issue here either.
Please clarify your question and hopefully someone will reply.

by Mac E. Velli Thu Dec 30, 2004 04:10

All this talk of different constitutions is hogwash. Constitutions are just window dressing to con you into believing you have control over your life. The real decisions are made in the boardrooms, not in the polling booths.
Live with your illusions if thats what keeps you going. But do not rely on them too much.

by Really Thu Dec 30, 2004 04:49

Quote: The real decisions are made in the boardrooms, not in the polling booths.

Really? Dont remember the luxury of voting McCreevy into Europe where the next great "constitution" (that the media has slavishly endorsed on our behalf) will dictate every aspect of our lives - including private - in the pitifully remote hope of actual, voter endorsment in the frightening paucity of Countries, allowed a say..

by epsilon Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:47

for the work for humanity, but don't undermine ours.

Stalin is gone.

The afrikaan is still on his plinth.

by Obama Thu Apr 28, 2011 13:59

What a bunch of idiots you have posting here!