Obama...2012 Person of the Year (Page 2)

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-19 10:52 AM

TriRSquared - 2012-12-19 9:20 AM I nominate Obama for "person who has won the most awards for doing jack-squat" award.

It’s hardly an “award”. Even Time doesn’t characterize it as such. It’s an acknowledgement of the person, people or things that have been the primary news drivers for the preceeding year. Stalin, Kenneth Starr, “the Computer”, Middle America, the Ayatolla Khomeini, “American Women”, and “You” (yes, Time’s 2006 “Person of the Year” was “You&rdquo have all been recognized in the past.

Fine... "accolade"....  I was also talking about the Nobe Peace Prize, yet another "accolade" the man does not deserve.

I agree.  The snarky "fixed" reply is getting pretty old.  State your dissenting opinion.  Don't change other people's words.

It's played out.

mr2tony - 2012-12-19 11:19 AM

TriRSquared - 2012-12-19 10:13 AM

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-19 10:52 AM

TriRSquared - 2012-12-19 9:20 AM I nominate Obama for "person who has won the most awards for doing jack-squat" award.

It’s hardly an “award”. Even Time doesn’t characterize it as such. It’s an acknowledgement of the person, people or things that have been the primary news drivers for the preceeding year. Stalin, Kenneth Starr, “the Computer”, Middle America, the Ayatolla Khomeini, “American Women”, and “You” (yes, Time’s 2006 “Person of the Year” was “You&rdquo have all been recognized in the past.

Fine... "accolade"....  I was also talking about the Nobe Peace Prize, yet another "accolade" the man does not deserve.

I'm guessing they didn't ask your opinion, but I am -- why didn't he deserve it?

The Peace Prize?

Zombie Nazi's? I recommend Dead Snow. An awesome holiday movie to watch with the kids.

mr2tony - 2012-12-19 9:19 AM

TriRSquared - 2012-12-19 10:13 AM

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-19 10:52 AM

TriRSquared - 2012-12-19 9:20 AM I nominate Obama for "person who has won the most awards for doing jack-squat" award.

It’s hardly an “award”. Even Time doesn’t characterize it as such. It’s an acknowledgement of the person, people or things that have been the primary news drivers for the preceeding year. Stalin, Kenneth Starr, “the Computer”, Middle America, the Ayatolla Khomeini, “American Women”, and “You” (yes, Time’s 2006 “Person of the Year” was “You&rdquo have all been recognized in the past.

Fine... "accolade"....  I was also talking about the Nobe Peace Prize, yet another "accolade" the man does not deserve.

I'm guessing they didn't ask your opinion, but I am -- why didn't he deserve it?

Surely this is a rhetorical question?

Why haven't you won 4 Pulitzers?

IMO, the most important issue on the table for him to focus was the economy.  He had one full term to do something, but really didn't do much.  Getting Bin Laden and reforming health care were his big "wins" and I consider those minor when you look at what is happening to the US compared to other countries.  So should he be named Person of the Year for what he has improved upon in this country?  I don't believe so.

However, Person of the Year is often given to a person or group of people who have generated a lot "ruckus" and he's certainly done that!

 Now this thread is going somewhere! The left vs. right COJ debates are like beatin a dead horse.

Zombies that are nazis? We can all find common ground discussing zombienazis!

What about moon Nazis?

mr2tony - 2012-12-19 2:16 PM

mcgilmartin - 2012-12-19 11:54 AM

mr2tony - 2012-12-19 9:19 AM

TriRSquared - 2012-12-19 10:13 AM

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-19 10:52 AM

TriRSquared - 2012-12-19 9:20 AM I nominate Obama for "person who has won the most awards for doing jack-squat" award.

It’s hardly an “award”. Even Time doesn’t characterize it as such. It’s an acknowledgement of the person, people or things that have been the primary news drivers for the preceeding year. Stalin, Kenneth Starr, “the Computer”, Middle America, the Ayatolla Khomeini, “American Women”, and “You” (yes, Time’s 2006 “Person of the Year” was “You&rdquo have all been recognized in the past.

Fine... "accolade"....  I was also talking about the Nobe Peace Prize, yet another "accolade" the man does not deserve.

I'm guessing they didn't ask your opinion, but I am -- why didn't he deserve it?

Surely this is a rhetorical question?

Why haven't you won 4 Pulitzers?

Because I done been cheated! The guy who sits next to me won one for his work on the 9/11 coverage for the Wall Street Journal. No, but really, I'm interested in hearing why TriR believes Obama didn't deserve the Nobel Peace Price. Obviously some very smart people thought he deserved it.

He was inaugurated in Jan of 2009.  Nominations have to be submitted by Feb.  The short list is finalized by May.  He was awarded the Prize in Oct 2009.  That's less than 9 months in office.  That's less than 1 month to make the nomination list.  During which time he did what exactly??

Before his election he was a one term Senator.  What did he really do to promote peace?  The Nobel comittie said they were influenced by a speech he gave about Islam and his efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation.  A speech.

His track record?  Still in Afghanistan (with a higher body count than Bush had in 8 years).  Air strikes in Lybia. The Benghazi mess. Drone strikes in Pakistan that have killed civilians on multiple occasions.

Even he basically admitted he did not deserve it: http://web.archive.org/web/20091011231018/http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9B7MB401&show_article=1

This is not an anti-Obama because he's Obama rant.  He simply does not deserve it.  I'd say the same if they tried to give it to Bush.

The runner up that year?   Dr Jim Garrow.  A man who devotes his life to saving Chinese female babies from certain death due to the "one child policy".  It's estimated he's saved over 40,000 children in less than 11 years. 

Of course Europe loves Obama.  Which is why I nominate him to go fix the EU mess after he's done screwing up the US.

Yeah, but is he a moving public speaker?

<---- (it's a joke people)

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-19 3:05 PM

TriRSquared - 2012-12-19 10:13 AM

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-19 10:52 AM

TriRSquared - 2012-12-19 9:20 AM I nominate Obama for "person who has won the most awards for doing jack-squat" award.

It’s hardly an “award”. Even Time doesn’t characterize it as such. It’s an acknowledgement of the person, people or things that have been the primary news drivers for the preceeding year. Stalin, Kenneth Starr, “the Computer”, Middle America, the Ayatolla Khomeini, “American Women”, and “You” (yes, Time’s 2006 “Person of the Year” was “You&rdquo have all been recognized in the past.

Fine... "accolade"....  I was also talking about the Nobe Peace Prize, yet another "accolade" the man does not deserve.

Not to mince words, but even "accolade" implies that it's a recognition for an acheivement, and that's not with this is. It's a designation given to the person that the editors feel is the biggest newsmaker of a particular year. It's not dependant on whether the person did good things or bad things, only that they were in the news a lot. He's the sitting president. He won an election that lots of people didn't predict that he'd win, and he ordered the operation that killed Bin Laden. All newsworthy, don't you think? Who do you think would have been a better choice? FTR, I agree with you about the Nobel Prize. Not only was he not in office long enough, a president who oversees both the expansion of the war and the drone program, regardless of whether you feel that either was justified, is not someone who should be rewarded for his efforts towards world peace.

Then that will be the sitting US president every single year. 

The Mars Curiosity Rover (remember they chose "things" too) would have been a better choice.  The engineering and technology behind that program and spot on execution is staggering.

TriRSquared - 2012-12-19 2:08 PM

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-19 3:05 PM

TriRSquared - 2012-12-19 10:13 AM

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-19 10:52 AM

TriRSquared - 2012-12-19 9:20 AM I nominate Obama for "person who has won the most awards for doing jack-squat" award.

It’s hardly an “award”. Even Time doesn’t characterize it as such. It’s an acknowledgement of the person, people or things that have been the primary news drivers for the preceeding year. Stalin, Kenneth Starr, “the Computer”, Middle America, the Ayatolla Khomeini, “American Women”, and “You” (yes, Time’s 2006 “Person of the Year” was “You&rdquo have all been recognized in the past.

Fine... "accolade"....  I was also talking about the Nobe Peace Prize, yet another "accolade" the man does not deserve.

Not to mince words, but even "accolade" implies that it's a recognition for an acheivement, and that's not with this is. It's a designation given to the person that the editors feel is the biggest newsmaker of a particular year. It's not dependant on whether the person did good things or bad things, only that they were in the news a lot. He's the sitting president. He won an election that lots of people didn't predict that he'd win, and he ordered the operation that killed Bin Laden. All newsworthy, don't you think? Who do you think would have been a better choice? FTR, I agree with you about the Nobel Prize. Not only was he not in office long enough, a president who oversees both the expansion of the war and the drone program, regardless of whether you feel that either was justified, is not someone who should be rewarded for his efforts towards world peace.

Then that will be the sitting US president every single year. 

The Mars Curiosity Rover (remember they chose "things" too) would have been a better choice.  The engineering and technology behind that program and spot on execution is staggering.

Curiosity doesn't have the ability to bring down the most powerful nation in the world.  According to Rush Limbaugh, Obama winning will do just that.  Plus, Curiosity wasn't the first rover to make it to Mars.

But really, it was the most expensive presidential election ever. The winner immediately faced the fiscal cliff and the enactment of the major provisions of Obamacare. We're on the cusp of either being out of the recession or nose-diving back in.  Obama (or Romney had he pulled it out) is the obvious choice.  You could argue for Kim Jong Un with his missile launches, or Ahmadinejad pushing for his nuclear weapons. But neither man has really accomplished anything yet.  Travon Martin/George Zimmerman started out big, but faded in to nothing. Someone with the Olympics maybe, Oscar Pistorius if you want a feel good story. Malala, the girl the Taliban shot, or Egypt's new president Mohammad Morsi could have taken it.  I'm trying to remember anything in the world that was bigger than the election, but I'm coming up empty.  The election was the news story for 11 of the 12 months in 2012.  Nothing was bigger this year.

However, I think Time got it wrong.  I would have given it to the SuperPacs. 

mr2tony - 2012-12-19 3:09 PM

TriRSquared - 2012-12-19 2:08 PM

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-19 3:05 PM

TriRSquared - 2012-12-19 10:13 AM

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-19 10:52 AM

TriRSquared - 2012-12-19 9:20 AM I nominate Obama for "person who has won the most awards for doing jack-squat" award.

It’s hardly an “award”. Even Time doesn’t characterize it as such. It’s an acknowledgement of the person, people or things that have been the primary news drivers for the preceeding year. Stalin, Kenneth Starr, “the Computer”, Middle America, the Ayatolla Khomeini, “American Women”, and “You” (yes, Time’s 2006 “Person of the Year” was “You&rdquo have all been recognized in the past.

Fine... "accolade"....  I was also talking about the Nobe Peace Prize, yet another "accolade" the man does not deserve.

Not to mince words, but even "accolade" implies that it's a recognition for an acheivement, and that's not with this is. It's a designation given to the person that the editors feel is the biggest newsmaker of a particular year. It's not dependant on whether the person did good things or bad things, only that they were in the news a lot. He's the sitting president. He won an election that lots of people didn't predict that he'd win, and he ordered the operation that killed Bin Laden. All newsworthy, don't you think? Who do you think would have been a better choice? FTR, I agree with you about the Nobel Prize. Not only was he not in office long enough, a president who oversees both the expansion of the war and the drone program, regardless of whether you feel that either was justified, is not someone who should be rewarded for his efforts towards world peace.

Then that will be the sitting US president every single year. 

The Mars Curiosity Rover (remember they chose "things" too) would have been a better choice.  The engineering and technology behind that program and spot on execution is staggering.

I think `guns' would've been a good choice. Maybe next year.

perhaps a co-winner?  Guns AND Roses???   Yeeeeah!!!

 Awesomeness. I gotta download that!!