ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
edited December 2008
I think that's 1938. The dude, I believe, is supposed to be Hitler. Notice the bodies hanging from the wheel?
Say what you like about the origins of Man of the Year, but they had balls when they named Hitler, because they weren't simply saying, "Look at him, he's important", they were saying he was a douchebag.
'38 or '39, whichever one had Hitler as man of the year. The more germaine point is that he is playing an organ of death on the cover. Being 'person of the year' does not require a glamorous cover. Putting Bin Laden on it would not have required balls, it would have required an inventive art department.
I don't really think Time could have chosen Bin Laden as Man of the Year, and lasted another three months. The backlash would have been horrible. Yes, many of us here understand the point of Man of the Year, but picking a man who was behind killing thousands of people on American soil that many people were very, very sore with would have been a bad move.
Time picked Hitler, Stalin (twice), and Ayatollah Khomeini, and they're still around. I don't think picking Bin Laden would have sank them. There would have been an uninformed public backlash, for sure, but they would have gotten through.
And really, all this would be solved if they renamed it from the deliberately misleading "person of the year" title to a more accurate "newsmaker of the year".
I don't really think Time could have chosen Bin Laden as Man of the Year, and lasted another three months. The backlash would have been horrible. Yes, many of us here understand the point of Man of the Year, but picking a man who was behind killing thousands of people on American soil that many people were very, very sore with would have been a bad move.
Time picked Hitler, Stalin (twice), and Ayatollah Khomeini, and they're still around. I don't think picking Bin Laden would have sank them. There would have been an uninformed public backlash, for sure, but they would have gotten through.
And really, all this would be solved if they renamed it from the deliberately misleading "person of the year" title to a more accurate "newsmaker of the year".
Only reason I think it would have hurt them worse is because it was on American soil, where they base their magazine. It would have been either misread as praizing the guy, or making money by being sensational. Neither of which are true, but would have had a big backlash.
Maybe not have sunk them, but enough to hurt them for awhile.
They will probably say Barack Obama was the first African-American president.
Instant history lesson.
If that is all he is remembered for I will feel bad for him. Times man of the year Black guy in the white house, name? Who cares hes black.
Here is hoping he makes an impact, whether for good or for ill so that history can remember him as something more than the color of his skin.
Or perhaps the next 4 men of the year can all be him again. Why? Still a black man in the White House.
You seem to be missing the point: a black man becoming president has upgraded the ambitions of children of all backgrounds, his style of politics has changed the way politics is played, his use of the internet (and the way it, in turn, treated the election) has changed the public perception of how technology can be used, his rhetorical style focusing on a few issues in depth (see his speech triumvirate) rather than shotgunning unspecific promises (see McCain's "out of Iraq, balance the budget, raining candy speech and the NYT article about Social Security that professed that it couldn't find anything from McCain except a promise that he would fix it) coupled with a detailed website (as well as his thoughtful, deliberate rhetorical style) has changed how politicians, and possibly members of the general public, present themselves, his being from Chicago will influence what the sport of politics is (in Chicago, golf has to share its position of influence with basketball), his campaign organization will influence both campaigns and other outreach-oriented organizations (I wouldn't have been surprised had Obama tried to give his campaign network/framework to a charity of community organizer group), his campaign inducted a generation into politics, and his defeat of Senator Clinton destroyed the style of public relations and campaigning that President Clinton pioneered.
The fact that McCain started trying to ape these things (badly) makes me think that, even had Obama lost, he still should have been the Person of the year.
Palin is a runner up because she's made the GOP a laughing stock, caused the Republican party to try to pull itself apart in a fight between true believers and the marginally sane, and became a perfect illustration of what not to do.
You seem to be missing the point: a black man becoming president has upgraded the ambitions of children of all backgrounds, his use of money has changed the way politics is played, his use of the internet (and the way it, in turn, treated the election) has changed the public perception of how technology can be used, his rhetorical style focusing on a few issues in depth (see his mindless repitition) rather than actually discussing issues, and showing an actual plan (see McCain's "out of Iraq, balance the budget, raining candy speech and the NYT article about Social Security that professed that it couldn't find anything from McCain except a promise that he would fix it) coupled with a detailed website (Which was wonderful at obscuring things he did not want to talk about) has changed how politicians, and possibly members of the general public, present themselves, his being from Chicago will influence what the sport of politics is (in Chicago, golf has to share its position of influence with basketball), his campaign organization will influence both campaigns and other outreach-oriented organizations ( And yet I am still waiting for an answer posed to one of his campaign organizers who flew from California to speak in my class. Lots of rhetoric, no facts.), his campaign inducted a generation into politics (By turning the presidential election practically into a popularity contest.), and his defeat of Senator Clinton destroyed the style of public relations and campaigning that President Clinton pioneered.
The fact that McCain started trying to ape these things (badly) makes me think that, even had Obama lost, he still should have been the Person of the year.
Palin is a runner up because she's made the GOP a laughing stock, caused the Republican party to try to pull itself apart in a fight between true believers and the marginally sane, and became a perfect illustration of what not to do. Don't grab a pretty face in the ass end of nowhere and toss her on the world stage without spending a lot of time prepping her. She was tossed out of her league, and frankly her handlers did a shitty job
Hope i got those fixes right, cannot edit the thing. Anyway Obama doesn't move me. He was good at obfuscating the issues he was weak on, avoiding addressing anything, and making lots of feel good promises of change and hope. Sorry I do not want change and hope, i want a comprehensive plan on how you plan to fix things, complete with what it will cost, where the money is coming from, and how you plan to do it.
Obama outspent his opponent, his Charisma and style of speech carried the day. However none of the won him man of the year. Being a black man won him man of the year. That to me is the sad part.
Obama outspent his opponent, his Charisma and style of speech carried the day. However none of the won him man of the year. Being a black man won him man of the year. That to me is the sad part.
I'm pretty sure a white guy who beat the Clintons and the republicans and who raised more money than Jesus would have won too. In fact, I'm pretty sure McCain would have gotten it if he had won the election.
Also, a detailed down-to-the-numbers plan while someone is running for President? The only person who could possibly do that is an incumbent, and even then it would be insanity. Times change, and making concrete promises on the campaign trail simply means you'll disappoint people even harder after the election. Read my lips. All these presidential candidates started campaigning 2 years ago. You think any of the spending plans they could have written then would make any sense now?
Only folks like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich can do that, because they'll never be President in a million years anyway.
Zoolander on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Being a black man won him man of the year. That to me is the sad part.
If you can look at Obama's incredible success and influence this year and simply shrug it off as him "being a black man" than I am afraid that your view of reality of profoundly skewed.
Being a black man won him man of the year. That to me is the sad part.
If you can look at Obama's incredible success and influence this year and simply shrug it off as him "being a black man" than I am afraid that your view of reality of profoundly skewed.
Well, he does blame Palin's problems on her handlers.
They will probably say Barack Obama was the first African-American president.
Instant history lesson.
If that is all he is remembered for I will feel bad for him. Times man of the year Black guy in the white house, name? Who cares hes black.
Here is hoping he makes an impact, whether for good or for ill so that history can remember him as something more than the color of his skin.
Or perhaps the next 4 men of the year can all be him again. Why? Still a black man in the White House.
I should have put in the “So far, history will remember him as……â€
You may be evolved past the point of judging people by skin color, but that doesn’t mean the whole country is. For a country with a rich history of racial division to elect a non-white guy is pretty good.
Besides the obvious he would still be good choice because for the longest time he was the underdog in the elections. Many thought we would see a Clinton 2.0 presidency. I think he was on the forefront of using new types of outlets to reach many who would otherwise not be interested in a campaign (aka young people).
Now that I think about it the man of the year should have been “The 2008 Electionâ€. This one has been a crazy ride.
You seem to be missing the point: a black man becoming president has upgraded the ambitions of children of all backgrounds, his use of money has changed the way politics is played, his use of the internet (and the way it, in turn, treated the election) has changed the public perception of how technology can be used, his rhetorical style focusing on a few issues in depth (see his mindless repitition) rather than actually discussing issues, and showing an actual plan (see McCain's "out of Iraq, balance the budget, raining candy speech and the NYT article about Social Security that professed that it couldn't find anything from McCain except a promise that he would fix it) coupled with a detailed website (Which was wonderful at obscuring things he did not want to talk about) has changed how politicians, and possibly members of the general public, present themselves, his being from Chicago will influence what the sport of politics is (in Chicago, golf has to share its position of influence with basketball), his campaign organization will influence both campaigns and other outreach-oriented organizations ( And yet I am still waiting for an answer posed to one of his campaign organizers who flew from California to speak in my class. Lots of rhetoric, no facts.), his campaign inducted a generation into politics (By turning the presidential election practically into a popularity contest.), and his defeat of Senator Clinton destroyed the style of public relations and campaigning that President Clinton pioneered.
The fact that McCain started trying to ape these things (badly) makes me think that, even had Obama lost, he still should have been the Person of the year.
Palin is a runner up because she's made the GOP a laughing stock, caused the Republican party to try to pull itself apart in a fight between true believers and the marginally sane, and became a perfect illustration of what not to do. Don't grab a pretty face in the ass end of nowhere and toss her on the world stage without spending a lot of time prepping her. She was tossed out of her league, and frankly her handlers did a shitty job
Hope i got those fixes right, cannot edit the thing. Anyway Obama doesn't move me. He was good at obfuscating the issues he was weak on, avoiding addressing anything, and making lots of feel good promises of change and hope. Sorry I do not want change and hope, i want a comprehensive plan on how you plan to fix things, complete with what it will cost, where the money is coming from, and how you plan to do it.
Obama outspent his opponent, his Charisma and style of speech carried the day. However none of the won him man of the year. Being a black man won him man of the year. That to me is the sad part.
Actually, the how of how he won was encapsulated in the "how much-none" thing in the last debate. Obama did his homework and was prepared, McCain didn't even check up on the things he was planning on ahead of time.
Well, he does blame Palin's problems on her handlers.
The majority of problems in most candidates come from the handlers. Both sides did a bad job in this election, however Palin needed a lot more work, and they had less time.
Frankly this election did not thrill me, the speeches did not move me. The facts I wanted never presented themselves, and neither candidate did a good job.
Offering change is all well and good, tell me what change, and how you manage to accomplish that. I never saw that.
What disillusioned me the most was the political volunteers I talked to. The one who came in from California to speak to our current issues in business. He had 50 minutes to answer questions, and after five minutes we had stripped him of the lines he had been taught. We wanted to know facts, and figures. The best he could offer was talking about how he had seen secret memos saying Obama budget was planning on overspending by 25 trillion, but it was ok because McCains plan called for 30 trillion.
When talking to the volunteers at the ground floor it was even sadder. Some had no idea of what either candidate voted for. Some supported him because he was black. Because he promised change, but had no idea what that meant. Hell when I challenged one of them got incredibly offended when I dared to question how a retired trauma nurse could know more about medical realities than her parents, who were Statisticians who worked in Washington. She seemed offended when I pointed out the job of a Statistician is largely the manipulation of facts. 50% of the people in that argument thought I had called her parents liars, the other 50% thought she was an idiot.
Obama did a wonderful job motivating the masses. He got quite a bit of people involved in the political process. I give him major props for managing that. However these same people, while supporting him, were not necessarily doing it because they understood his message, or even agreed with his message. Hell most of the ones I talked to could not coherently form a message other than hope + change = ??? umm profit. I do not mean the average voter, I mean the average volunteer supporting him.
As with anything, your Mileage may have varied. Although i really, really wanted to ask them what Obama planned to do about women's suffrage.
Offering change is all well and good, tell me what change, and how you manage to accomplish that. I never saw that.
You are seriously going to make me pop a blood vessel.
Sorry? However after engaging my bullshit filter, my feasibility filter, taking off the rose colored glasses, and looking at our economic state the promises of either candidate failed to deliver. Sorry being a different face in office does not count as "change" in my book.
Motivating the masses behind a catchy message? Seen that before.
Higher taxes for some, lower taxes for others. Yep seen that before
Underfunded social programs? Cant really fund them without raising taxes. Those small businesses will just have to make some cut backs. Economic times are tough. Higher taxes on businesses, higher unemployment. More money for social programs, more demand for social programs. Check.
Years of legislation aimed at semi-automatics, as well as being against CCW's. Check. Official policy on website talking about how the rights and weapons of sportsmen (bolt action rifles, and pump shotguns) will be respected. Check.
Oh well at least the gun panic buying is good for the economy. I suppose the recent surge in gun sales alone make him deserve man of the year.
Offering change is all well and good, tell me what change, and how you manage to accomplish that. I never saw that.
You are seriously going to make me pop a blood vessel.
Sorry? However after engaging my bullshit filter, my feasibility filter, taking off the rose colored glasses, and looking at our economic state the promises of either candidate failed to deliver. Sorry being a different face in office does not count as "change" in my book.
Motivating the masses behind a catchy message? Seen that before.
Higher taxes for some, lower taxes for others. Yep seen that before
Underfunded social programs? Cant really fund them without raising taxes. Those small businesses will just have to make some cut backs. Economic times are tough. Higher taxes on businesses, higher unemployment. More money for social programs, more demand for social programs. Check.
Years of legislation aimed at semi-automatics, as well as being against CCW's. Check. Official policy on website talking about how the rights and weapons of sportsmen (bolt action rifles, and pump shotguns) will be respected. Check.
Oh well at least the gun panic buying is good for the economy. I suppose the recent surge in gun sales alone make him deserve man of the year.
I... he's not even in office yet, and you're saying he failed to deliver?
Offering change is all well and good, tell me what change, and how you manage to accomplish that. I never saw that.
You are seriously going to make me pop a blood vessel.
Sorry? However after engaging my bullshit filter, my feasibility filter, taking off the rose colored glasses, and looking at our economic state the promises of either candidate failed to deliver. Sorry being a different face in office does not count as "change" in my book.
Motivating the masses behind a catchy message? Seen that before.
Higher taxes for some, lower taxes for others. Yep seen that before
Underfunded social programs? Cant really fund them without raising taxes. Those small businesses will just have to make some cut backs. Economic times are tough. Higher taxes on businesses, higher unemployment. More money for social programs, more demand for social programs. Check.
Years of legislation aimed at semi-automatics, as well as being against CCW's. Check. Official policy on website talking about how the rights and weapons of sportsmen (bolt action rifles, and pump shotguns) will be respected. Check.
Oh well at least the gun panic buying is good for the economy. I suppose the recent surge in gun sales alone make him deserve man of the year.
You sound like a Ron Paul kind of guy.
Zoolander on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Offering change is all well and good, tell me what change, and how you manage to accomplish that. I never saw that.
You are seriously going to make me pop a blood vessel.
<snip>.
There we go. See, you don't agree with Obama's policies, particularly gun control. That's fine, if a little gun nutty. But don't pretend he never gave specifics. As the campaign went on his agenda became increasingly refined and specific mainly because people kept baselessly asserting that his candidacy had no substance, and they continued to do so pretty much until Election Day, so now when I still am reading a month and a half after the election is over that Obama has never told us how he is going to accomplish change, it drives me a little crazy.
Offering change is all well and good, tell me what change, and how you manage to accomplish that. I never saw that.
You are seriously going to make me pop a blood vessel.
<snip>.
There we go. See, you don't agree with Obama's policies, particularly gun control. That's fine, if a little gun nutty. But don't pretend he never gave specifics. As the campaign went on his agenda became increasingly refined and specific mainly because people kept baselessly asserting that his candidacy had no substance, and they continued to do so pretty much until Election Day, so now when I still am reading a month and a half after the election is over that Obama has never told us how he is going to accomplish change, it drives me a little crazy.
The fact that his website has a whole section devoted to the issues and what he will do in detail only adds to the absurdity of the claim. I'm not sure how much more specific this guy wants or needs.
Sorry? However after engaging my bullshit filter, my feasibility filter, taking off the rose colored glasses, and looking at our economic state the promises of either candidate failed to deliver. Sorry being a different face in office does not count as "change" in my book.
Yeah, fucking Barack Obama.
He's been in the presidency for negative 32 days, and he still hasn't accomplished everything he promised.
Sorry? However after engaging my bullshit filter, my feasibility filter, taking off the rose colored glasses, and looking at our economic state the promises of either candidate failed to deliver. Sorry being a different face in office does not count as "change" in my book.
What the fuck? What the hell are you taking? The man's not even in fucking office yet, and you're already dismissing what he promised during the campaign as a failure?
I know it's the hip and cool thing to be all cynical and dismissive of politics and act like South Park is the height of political discourse for 20-somethings right now, but maybe you could at least wait for January 21 before labeling him as a failure?
Sorry? However after engaging my bullshit filter, my feasibility filter, taking off the rose colored glasses, and looking at our economic state the promises of either candidate failed to deliver. Sorry being a different face in office does not count as "change" in my book.
What the fuck? What the hell are you taking? The man's not even in fucking office yet, and you're already dismissing what he promised during the campaign as a failure?
I know it's the hip and cool thing to be all cynical and dismissive of politics and act like South Park is the height of political discourse for 20-somethings right now, but maybe you could at least wait for January 21 before labeling him as a failure?
Or, you know, give him some fucking time in office to enact the change he seeks to see if he walks the walk.
Sorry? However after engaging my bullshit filter, my feasibility filter, taking off the rose colored glasses, and looking at our economic state the promises of either candidate failed to deliver. Sorry being a different face in office does not count as "change" in my book.
I know. Obama totally biffed the first encounter with space aliens, and his position on mutant rights has cost us several major cities. I'm not at all surprised that Robocop is proving a viable Primary challenger.
Sorry? However after engaging my bullshit filter, my feasibility filter, taking off the rose colored glasses, and looking at our economic state the promises of either candidate failed to deliver. Sorry being a different face in office does not count as "change" in my book.
I know. Obama totally biffed the first encounter with space aliens, and his position on mutant rights has cost us several major cities. I'm not at all surprised that Robocop is proving a viable Primary challenger.
Oh please, you know they aren't going to amend the constitution to allow cyborgs to take public office.
Sorry? However after engaging my bullshit filter, my feasibility filter, taking off the rose colored glasses, and looking at our economic state the promises of either candidate failed to deliver. Sorry being a different face in office does not count as "change" in my book.
I know. Obama totally biffed the first encounter with space aliens, and his position on mutant rights has cost us several major cities. I'm not at all surprised that Robocop is proving a viable Primary challenger.
Oh please, you know they aren't going to amend the constitution to allow cyborgs to take public office.
We already have one as the governor of California. It's only a matter of time.
Sorry? However after engaging my bullshit filter, my feasibility filter, taking off the rose colored glasses, and looking at our economic state the promises of either candidate failed to deliver. Sorry being a different face in office does not count as "change" in my book.
I know. Obama totally biffed the first encounter with space aliens, and his position on mutant rights has cost us several major cities. I'm not at all surprised that Robocop is proving a viable Primary challenger.
Oh please, you know they aren't going to amend the constitution to allow cyborgs to take public office.
They did add those provisions to allow Cheney to assume the mantle of the Presidency after Bush was outted as an evil shapeshifter during his last press conference. Seems like extending that from "partially non-organic" to "fully cybernetic humanoids" would just be a formality if it was truly the will of the people.
Sorry? However after engaging my bullshit filter, my feasibility filter, taking off the rose colored glasses, and looking at our economic state the promises of either candidate failed to deliver. Sorry being a different face in office does not count as "change" in my book.
I know. Obama totally biffed the first encounter with space aliens, and his position on mutant rights has cost us several major cities. I'm not at all surprised that Robocop is proving a viable Primary challenger.
Oh please, you know they aren't going to amend the constitution to allow cyborgs to take public office.
They did add those provisions to allow Cheney to assume the mantle of the Presidency after Bush was outted as an evil shapeshifter during his last press conference. Seems like extending that from "partially non-organic" to "fully cybernetic humanoids" would just be a formality if it was truly the will of the people.
But that just opens the door to robot rights. And you just know those fat cats in congress aren't going to allow that.
Offering change is all well and good, tell me what change, and how you manage to accomplish that. I never saw that.
You are seriously going to make me pop a blood vessel.
Sorry? However after engaging my bullshit filter, my feasibility filter, taking off the rose colored glasses, and looking at our economic state the promises of either candidate failed to deliver. Sorry being a different face in office does not count as "change" in my book.
I thought you just said that Obama didn't tell you what he wanted to accomplish. Good to see you weren't as willfully ignorant about the campaign as you seemed to imply.
Sorry? However after engaging my bullshit filter, my feasibility filter, taking off the rose colored glasses, and looking at our economic state the promises of either candidate failed to deliver. Sorry being a different face in office does not count as "change" in my book.
I know. Obama totally biffed the first encounter with space aliens, and his position on mutant rights has cost us several major cities. I'm not at all surprised that Robocop is proving a viable Primary challenger.
Oh please, you know they aren't going to amend the constitution to allow cyborgs to take public office.
They did add those provisions to allow Cheney to assume the mantle of the Presidency after Bush was outted as an evil shapeshifter during his last press conference. Seems like extending that from "partially non-organic" to "fully cybernetic humanoids" would just be a formality if it was truly the will of the people.
But that just opens the door to robot rights. And you just know those fat cats in congress aren't going to allow that.
The anti-cyborg lobby does wield a lot of power, no doubt. I don't think they'd have the political capital to stall something that has gained this much momentum amongst the metahuman population, though. It would be like trying to repeal the laws that legalized Mutant Growth Hormone; the backlash would bury them.
The anti-cyborg lobby is doomed to fail in the long run. Human politicians can only be so corrupt, while thanks to the new Intel chips robots can run at millions of teracorruptions per second. Congressmen will simply not be able to keep up.
The anti-cyborg lobby is doomed to fail in the long run. Human politicians can only be so corrupt, while thanks to the new Intel chips robots can run at millions of teracorruptions per second. Congressmen will simply not be able to keep up.
I think you just wrote the Human Rule Party's new campaign literature for them. Kudos.
Posts
Say what you like about the origins of Man of the Year, but they had balls when they named Hitler, because they weren't simply saying, "Look at him, he's important", they were saying he was a douchebag.
Assuming my eyes are working.
And really, all this would be solved if they renamed it from the deliberately misleading "person of the year" title to a more accurate "newsmaker of the year".
Only reason I think it would have hurt them worse is because it was on American soil, where they base their magazine. It would have been either misread as praizing the guy, or making money by being sensational. Neither of which are true, but would have had a big backlash.
Maybe not have sunk them, but enough to hurt them for awhile.
If that is all he is remembered for I will feel bad for him. Times man of the year Black guy in the white house, name? Who cares hes black.
Here is hoping he makes an impact, whether for good or for ill so that history can remember him as something more than the color of his skin.
Or perhaps the next 4 men of the year can all be him again. Why? Still a black man in the White House.
You seem to be missing the point: a black man becoming president has upgraded the ambitions of children of all backgrounds, his style of politics has changed the way politics is played, his use of the internet (and the way it, in turn, treated the election) has changed the public perception of how technology can be used, his rhetorical style focusing on a few issues in depth (see his speech triumvirate) rather than shotgunning unspecific promises (see McCain's "out of Iraq, balance the budget, raining candy speech and the NYT article about Social Security that professed that it couldn't find anything from McCain except a promise that he would fix it) coupled with a detailed website (as well as his thoughtful, deliberate rhetorical style) has changed how politicians, and possibly members of the general public, present themselves, his being from Chicago will influence what the sport of politics is (in Chicago, golf has to share its position of influence with basketball), his campaign organization will influence both campaigns and other outreach-oriented organizations (I wouldn't have been surprised had Obama tried to give his campaign network/framework to a charity of community organizer group), his campaign inducted a generation into politics, and his defeat of Senator Clinton destroyed the style of public relations and campaigning that President Clinton pioneered.
The fact that McCain started trying to ape these things (badly) makes me think that, even had Obama lost, he still should have been the Person of the year.
Palin is a runner up because she's made the GOP a laughing stock, caused the Republican party to try to pull itself apart in a fight between true believers and the marginally sane, and became a perfect illustration of what not to do.
You must have missed the year they chose Hitler.
Hope i got those fixes right, cannot edit the thing. Anyway Obama doesn't move me. He was good at obfuscating the issues he was weak on, avoiding addressing anything, and making lots of feel good promises of change and hope. Sorry I do not want change and hope, i want a comprehensive plan on how you plan to fix things, complete with what it will cost, where the money is coming from, and how you plan to do it.
Obama outspent his opponent, his Charisma and style of speech carried the day. However none of the won him man of the year. Being a black man won him man of the year. That to me is the sad part.
Also, a detailed down-to-the-numbers plan while someone is running for President? The only person who could possibly do that is an incumbent, and even then it would be insanity. Times change, and making concrete promises on the campaign trail simply means you'll disappoint people even harder after the election. Read my lips. All these presidential candidates started campaigning 2 years ago. You think any of the spending plans they could have written then would make any sense now?
Only folks like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich can do that, because they'll never be President in a million years anyway.
If you can look at Obama's incredible success and influence this year and simply shrug it off as him "being a black man" than I am afraid that your view of reality of profoundly skewed.
Well, he does blame Palin's problems on her handlers.
I wanted to ride the ignorant train to see how the other people felt.
I should have put in the “So far, history will remember him as……â€
You may be evolved past the point of judging people by skin color, but that doesn’t mean the whole country is. For a country with a rich history of racial division to elect a non-white guy is pretty good.
Besides the obvious he would still be good choice because for the longest time he was the underdog in the elections. Many thought we would see a Clinton 2.0 presidency. I think he was on the forefront of using new types of outlets to reach many who would otherwise not be interested in a campaign (aka young people).
Now that I think about it the man of the year should have been “The 2008 Electionâ€. This one has been a crazy ride.
Actually, the how of how he won was encapsulated in the "how much-none" thing in the last debate. Obama did his homework and was prepared, McCain didn't even check up on the things he was planning on ahead of time.
You didn't, unless you weren't paying attention at all during the campaign.
The majority of problems in most candidates come from the handlers. Both sides did a bad job in this election, however Palin needed a lot more work, and they had less time.
Frankly this election did not thrill me, the speeches did not move me. The facts I wanted never presented themselves, and neither candidate did a good job.
Offering change is all well and good, tell me what change, and how you manage to accomplish that. I never saw that.
What disillusioned me the most was the political volunteers I talked to. The one who came in from California to speak to our current issues in business. He had 50 minutes to answer questions, and after five minutes we had stripped him of the lines he had been taught. We wanted to know facts, and figures. The best he could offer was talking about how he had seen secret memos saying Obama budget was planning on overspending by 25 trillion, but it was ok because McCains plan called for 30 trillion.
When talking to the volunteers at the ground floor it was even sadder. Some had no idea of what either candidate voted for. Some supported him because he was black. Because he promised change, but had no idea what that meant. Hell when I challenged one of them got incredibly offended when I dared to question how a retired trauma nurse could know more about medical realities than her parents, who were Statisticians who worked in Washington. She seemed offended when I pointed out the job of a Statistician is largely the manipulation of facts. 50% of the people in that argument thought I had called her parents liars, the other 50% thought she was an idiot.
Obama did a wonderful job motivating the masses. He got quite a bit of people involved in the political process. I give him major props for managing that. However these same people, while supporting him, were not necessarily doing it because they understood his message, or even agreed with his message. Hell most of the ones I talked to could not coherently form a message other than hope + change = ??? umm profit. I do not mean the average voter, I mean the average volunteer supporting him.
As with anything, your Mileage may have varied. Although i really, really wanted to ask them what Obama planned to do about women's suffrage.
You are seriously going to make me pop a blood vessel.
Sorry? However after engaging my bullshit filter, my feasibility filter, taking off the rose colored glasses, and looking at our economic state the promises of either candidate failed to deliver. Sorry being a different face in office does not count as "change" in my book.
Motivating the masses behind a catchy message? Seen that before.
Higher taxes for some, lower taxes for others. Yep seen that before
Underfunded social programs? Cant really fund them without raising taxes. Those small businesses will just have to make some cut backs. Economic times are tough. Higher taxes on businesses, higher unemployment. More money for social programs, more demand for social programs. Check.
Years of legislation aimed at semi-automatics, as well as being against CCW's. Check. Official policy on website talking about how the rights and weapons of sportsmen (bolt action rifles, and pump shotguns) will be respected. Check.
Oh well at least the gun panic buying is good for the economy. I suppose the recent surge in gun sales alone make him deserve man of the year.
What the fuck?
There we go. See, you don't agree with Obama's policies, particularly gun control. That's fine, if a little gun nutty. But don't pretend he never gave specifics. As the campaign went on his agenda became increasingly refined and specific mainly because people kept baselessly asserting that his candidacy had no substance, and they continued to do so pretty much until Election Day, so now when I still am reading a month and a half after the election is over that Obama has never told us how he is going to accomplish change, it drives me a little crazy.
The fact that his website has a whole section devoted to the issues and what he will do in detail only adds to the absurdity of the claim. I'm not sure how much more specific this guy wants or needs.
Are you really arguing for a Flat/Fair Tax here?
Or are you just saying that keeping the things that work is a betrayal of something?
Yeah, fucking Barack Obama.
He's been in the presidency for negative 32 days, and he still hasn't accomplished everything he promised.
Worst president-elect ever.
What the fuck? What the hell are you taking? The man's not even in fucking office yet, and you're already dismissing what he promised during the campaign as a failure?
I know it's the hip and cool thing to be all cynical and dismissive of politics and act like South Park is the height of political discourse for 20-somethings right now, but maybe you could at least wait for January 21 before labeling him as a failure?
Or, you know, give him some fucking time in office to enact the change he seeks to see if he walks the walk.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Oh please, you know they aren't going to amend the constitution to allow cyborgs to take public office.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
But that just opens the door to robot rights. And you just know those fat cats in congress aren't going to allow that.
I thought you just said that Obama didn't tell you what he wanted to accomplish. Good to see you weren't as willfully ignorant about the campaign as you seemed to imply.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I think you just wrote the Human Rule Party's new campaign literature for them. Kudos.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.