Aussiemite From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 976 times:
OBL would have been great however to many people would have cancelled their subcriptions and at the end of the day TIME is in the business of making money, and making OBL man of the year isn't making money.
Giuliani is a better man for the job then Bush as other people sugested.
Hepkat From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 2341 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 973 times:
Aussiemite, while that's true, the fact is that Time's purpose is to (objectively) report the news, the truth of the matter. When you take such a tast upon yourself, and establish decades of reputation on it, then you have to be willing to suffer it no matter what the cost.
It is a very unpopular fact, but OBL did have the greatest influence on us this year. If people can't accept this fact, then they're not living in reality, this includes all those more interested in a politically correct choice than the naked truth.
ADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 958 times:
I had no idea who Guiliani was before he was given the award. What has he done? Nothing important. There were plenty of people in NYC who did far more than he did, who sacrificed far more and who *I* will remember long after this nobody is forgotten.
I remember the poignant pictures of firefighters, police, volunteers .. not some stupid politician who has benifitted from this disaster and who sent the police to arrest the firefighters in NY ... dear god! what a "politically correct" decision Time Magazine has made, losing all it's credibility.
For time magazine to name him is simply an indication of what they are about. Nothing.
I don't know if I would support OBL for man of the year, I think that would be offensive to over 285 million people but i'm sure there are plenty of others who would have been more appropriate.