SubscribeTime Mag Picks Putin For Thug Of The Year
From those droolers over Communist dictators at Time Magazine:
A Tsar Is Born
By ADI IGNATIUS
No one is born with a stare like Vladimir Putin’s. The Russian President’s pale blue eyes are so cool, so devoid of emotion that the stare must have begun as an affect, the gesture of someone who understood that power might be achieved by the suppression of ordinary needs, like blinking. The affect is now seamless, which makes talking to the Russian President not just exhausting but often chilling. It’s a gaze that says, I’m in charge…
Isn’t he dreamy?
One hopes “Adi” is an impressionable schoolgirl, or else this is quite a psychotic write-up, even for Time Magazine.
Meanwhile, we are also informed of the (surely crushed) also-rans:
Fourth Runner-up: David Petraeus
The commanding general in Iraq fought America’s most difficult foreign war - and one at home
Third Runner-up: Hu Jintao
China’s leader depends on ancient wisdom and communist doctrine to guide a modern empire
Second Runner-up: J.K. Rowling
Harry’s done - which means the best-selling author in history has some secrets she can finally share
First Runner-up: Al Gore
Bono writes that the former Vice President, now a Nobel laureate, has become America’s environmental conscience
That’s right. General Petraeus’s work didn’t even rank above the scribblings of a housewife who writes fantasy books for juveniles of all ages.
It didn’t even compare to Mr. Gore and his magnificent Powerpoint slide show.
But Time’s gushing description of the “winner” just says it all:
Person of the Year: Vladimir Putin
At significant cost to the principles that free nations prize, he’s brought Russia roaring back to the table of world power
“Roaring back” in the sense that Russia is benefiting for the moment from $100 a barrel oil. When that has ended, they will be “roaring back” with cap in hand.
And since when did Time ever give a fig about the principles of free nations? Not for a generation, at least.
Of course Time could not celebrate the feats of General Petraeus. That would mean admitting to how much they have lied about the Iraq war and for how long.
In fact, it is a small miracle they didn’t bestow their cheesy award upon John Murtha, or Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi. Or someone of similar stature and achievement. When all that counts is how much you have done or tried to do to destroy the US.
Instead, Time opted to boost another one of their America-hating allies on the world stage. He is their current champion.
(He’s even supplying nuclear fuel to Iran. It’s hard to top that for all-around “greatness” in the minds of the editors at Time.)
Still, it is a bit of a shame that Hugo Chavez wasn’t quite as effective at rigging his last referendum as Mr. Putin, or he would have given Mr. Putin a run for his money.
After all, Mr. Chavez is even more of a Communist than Mr. Putin. Indeed, he is almost as red as Time. — Which is not to be confused with “read,” which Time is not at all.
And they wonder why?
Related Articles:
- Time Says Hillary Is A "Pragmatic Moderate"
- Time Mocks: "Americans Win War on Terror!"
- Time Gets A Big Laugh Out Of Hamas Victory
- Time: US Can Keep Chavez From Going Castro
- Time Magazine Cuts 250 More, Closes Bureaus
- Chavez, Ahmadinejad Lead Time's Man Of Year
- Time's Haditha Reporter: "All Is Lost In Iraq"
- Time Mag Pronounces Republican Party "Dead"
- Time Celebrates Reporter Who Spied For NVM
- Time Magazine Massacred The Truth In Haditha
- Tim McGirk Re-Invents Haditha Video Source
- Time Mag Finally "Corrects" Its Haditha Story
- Time Mag Finds Solace In Al-Zarqawi's Death
- Time Mag "Eliminates" Another 250 Employees
34 Responses to “Time Mag Picks Putin For Thug Of The Year”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:00 am
From the same page on TIME.com:
Interactive
Russia & China: A Common Cause
Should the two giants stand against the U.S. together? How long can Russia control nearly one-third of the Asian continent while its population dwindles? Here’s a look at the bear and the dragon, side by side.
I guess we see where their loyalties lie.
But lets not forget this is the same liberal rag that named Hitler “man of the year”
December 19th, 2007 at 10:19 am
And on the same page “People who mattered”
heres a few:
You tube Snow man?
Hugo Chavez
The Jena 6
December 19th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
I’m sure it was very hard not to award this to Gore. But the liberal heart is just too infatuated with our enemies. Here’s a guy that wants to:
help nuclearise Iran
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f.....A9679C8B63
usurp international territory in the Artic
http://www.geotimes.org/aug07/.....80107.html
control Europe’s energy supply
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/bg2083.cfm
And so much more. How could Time resist?
December 19th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
The article I read coming out of Europe stated that Putin enjoys an 85% or better approval rating. That in it’s self is significant anywhere, anytime a politician is involved. I’m sure a lot of the support is do to following drunk boy Yeltsin and the economic fiasco he ran.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
An article I read coming out of Europe stated that Putin enjoys an 85% or better approval rating. That in it’s self is significant anywhere, anytime a politician is involved. I’m sure a lot of the support is do to following drunk boy Yeltsin and the economic fiasco he ran.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Well all of those in Europe who disapprove of Putin have all comitted “suicide” or mysteriously ended up dead. I guess that’s one way to bolster your popularity. Time Magazine, reaching out to idiots since it’s inception.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Wow - Two commies and the crazed Goracle in the top five popular MSM heroes for 2007. Words don’t need to describe what these people are thinking. I bet Hugo’s pissed tho. Maybe Cameron D. can poke her cute Mao totebag full of special oils and herbs and rush to console him.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Have any of you bothered to actually read the criteria for how they award the disctinction of Man of the Year? It has nothing to do with honoring anyone or recognizing good deeds. It has to do with who made the biggest impact on the news in the past year. Way back when, Hitler was the Man of the Year and Stalin was twice. Did the 1930s Time editorial staff wish to honor Hitler? No, they were simply acknowledging (quite inarguably) that in the previous year, Hitler had impacted the news more than any other person.
In 2001 they gave the distinction to Rudy Giuliani, when in fact it should have probably gone to Osama bin Laden, but they feared backlash from yokels unwilling to take the time to actually learn what the title of Man of the Year meant before they expressed their outrage. Perhaps they should have had the same concerns this year, as some people still can’t be bothered to learn before they start complaining.
Based on the criteria, I’m still not so sure that Putin should have won it — there are a few others who have made a bigger impact on the news in ‘07 than he did. But Patraeus shouldn’t have won it either, regardless of whether you think he’s done a fantastic job or a horrible one, as he was not the #1 newsmaker of the year.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
“TIME’s Person of the Year is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world—for better or for worse”
That’s exactly how Time magazines spells it out, No arguing that.
However, Time magazine clearly is in love with Putin, And the article bears witness to that.
The magazine has not been clear eyed for years ( if it ever was ) nor has it been impartial and honest.
Remember the burning tires at a dump being reported as a downed plane in flames.
MeMeMe, raising your nose hardly raises you I.Q.
It does however make you come off as a snobby troll.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Is MeMeMe a “Koskid” troll?
From http://littlegreenfootballs.co.....ly&rss
UPDATE at 12/19/07 9:54:49 am:
And let’s not forget the Kos Kidz, who respond with their usual class: Daily Kos: Breaking: Fire at White House Eisenhower Ex.Office, Updated 3x.
Might be hard to light
what with being soaked in Bush and Cheney’s urine and feces.
by MeMeMeMeMe on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:29:33 AM PST
December 19th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
“But Patraeus shouldn’t have won it either, regardless of whether you think he’s done a fantastic job or a horrible one, as he was not the #1 newsmaker of the year.”
It turning around the war in Iraq was not the top story of the year, I’d like to know what was.
December 19th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
“Have any of you bothered to actually read the criteria for how they award the disctinction of Man of the Year? It has nothing to do with honoring anyone or recognizing good deeds. It has to do with who made the biggest impact on the news in the past year.”
By the way, I forgot to thank you for that. I don’t think any “Man Of The Year” discussion is complete without someone pointing out that abstruse fact.
This will make about the fiftieth year I remember hearing it.
December 19th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
“But Petraeus shouldn’t have won it either, regardless of whether you think he’s done a fantastic job or a horrible one, as he was not the #1 newsmaker of the year.”
“If turning around the war in Iraq was not the top story of the year, I’d like to know what was.”
No kidding SG, if your talking about the year 2007, Petraeus should have won hands down. But then, the MSM would have to admit to the success going on in Iraq and that we ARE winning this war. (Might just be too much humble pie for TIME magazine to absorb.)
December 19th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Abstruse, Thanks for the new word SG.
Here’s a thought about disclaimers like the one mentioned.
Its an obfuscation, It is intended to to derail any thoughts of impropriety.
December 19th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Well, as MSM “honors” commies and whack jobs by keeping them in the news all year, it makes sense commies and whack jobs get the award for making the most news all year.
General Petraeus’ successful plan and implementation has saved the lives of many, many people and has possibly cleared the way for lasting peace in a historically savage place but he was kept out of the news because of his links to the hated administration.
You know, freakin aliens could appear in a spaceship the size of Cuba and would not get MSM coverage if they supported any Bush policy. Heck, they’d probably be blamed for 9/11.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Investors Business Daily puts it nicely:
December 19th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
SG, Does that mean we can tell the troll to kiss this?
Not on the left cheek, Not on the right cheek, But right in the middle?
Now the troll knows where to kiss Me, Me, Me.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Thank God this Country has had the right people , in the right places at the right times . We slip once in awhile , but we get back to an even keel , over time . But PUTIN ? No agenda here comrade .
December 20th, 2007 at 2:01 am
For pure “biggest impact on news” for the year, shouldn’t the winner (sadly) be Britney Spears?
The MSM has certainly mentioned her daily for at least the past year.
December 20th, 2007 at 2:53 am
Based on your posted criteria MeMeMe, shouldn’t Times’ “Man of the Year” have been President Bush?
Hell, his name likely appeared in more news articles than all the next 5 runner-ups combined, given the prevalent BDS that exists in the MSM and all the negative liberal op-eds that have targeted him.
I dare say that a Google news search would reveal that very fact. Alas, I have neither the time nor inclination to confirm my supposition but I truly believe my opine is correct.
December 20th, 2007 at 3:01 am
Sorry, I couldn’t resist at least a small peek at some Google results;
Putin, 20.2 million hits.
Bush 244 million hits.
No contest, Bush wins hands down.
http://www.google.com/search?s.....mp;q=putin
http://www.google.com/search?s.....amp;q=bush
December 20th, 2007 at 3:06 am
So by the criteria of the most newsworthy person of the year how come Britany Spears wasn’t named Man of the Year? No matter how you slice this stupidity it still quacks like stupidity.
December 20th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
How much Time lied about Iraq and for how long? As I recall, it was in the late summer of 2003 that Time started saying things were not going as great in Iraq as the administration claimed. They also said that we needed more troops in Iraq. They kept these “lies” going for years, while President Bush sneered at the “filter” and assured us that he had the real information and things were going just fine.
In January, 2007 Bush described the results in Iraq as “slow motion failure” and called for - that’s right - more troops. Some lies. Some liar.
December 20th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
“As I recall, it was in the late summer of 2003 that Time started saying things were not going as great in Iraq as the administration claimed. They also said that we needed more troops in Iraq. They kept these “lies” going for years, while President Bush sneered at the “filter” and assured us that he had the real information and things were going just fine.”
Your memory is mistaken, FW. Time did no such thing.
Instead, Time insisted that the war in Iraq was lost. That it was a civil war that we could not win. That Iraq needed to be divided.
They asserted these fallacious and defeatist opinions as fact early and often:
iraq site:time.com - Google Search
http://www.google.com/search?n.....tnG=Search
And I won’t even mention their lies about the “Haditha massacre.”
But nice try.
December 20th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Why am I a troll? I made a relevent point. Just because it’s not something you all agree with doesn’t make me a troll.
December 20th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
I think all the talk about who might or should have “won” this dubious distinction is a moot point. Why would anyone want to win it and be put in the same catagory as Hitler or some of the other members of the Rogue’s Gallery that have been so “honored” in the past. Personally, if it was me, I’d be sweating out the possibility of winning. Let all the jerks in the world be honored by Slime magazine. It’s obvious by their falling circulation that nobody reads the rag anyway. Hell, due to the chemicals in the slick pages, it isn’t even good for starting the fire in the fireplace on Christmas Eve.
I’m outta here until after Christmas, so to all my friends here at S & L, and in the spirit of the season, to even the trolls and secular progressives, MERRY CHRISTMAS! Remember to drive safe, drink in moderation and enjoy the time with your families and friends. I sure plan on it.
Oh, and to our resident S & L Democrat NCJ…..Merry Christmas to you too!
December 30th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Too bad our President is never portrayed so mysteriously. The leader of the free world, and what? No, don’t dare look closer, he’s just a little beady eyed chil- uh, man from Texas who can’t speak English. F- Bush! Ooh la la, Putin, such pretty eyes!
December 30th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
smdoyle….wtf are you talking about. To be honest, I don’t have a clue about what your post above is supposed to mean. If it’s sarc, then please, don’t quit your day job!
December 30th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
smdoyle has been successfully cornered, and is now back the room sporting that long sleeved fashion accessory that all morons must wear from time to time when the “voices” start telling them to speak out loud for them. smdoyle has a signed pair of the snags panties kept in a zip loc bag in the nurse’s station….and is allowed to “play” with them if the doses of psychotropic drugs are taken without any fuss. Freakin typical liberal lunatic….read that post….medication is evident, or lack of it.
December 30th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Warmonger Infidel, should’ve saved you’re last comment for sheehanjihad’s insane post. sheehanjihad, you know what they say about liberals: You can always tell what they’re up to by what they’re accusing you of.
December 30th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
smdoyle……To begin with, I didn’t accuse you of anything. I just commented that your post made no sense. Well, actually, it made as much sense as that other troll LBD’s posts. And are you suggesting that sj is a liberal? Really? You don’t spend much time here I see. A liberal sj is about as feasible as a Muslim Jesus.
December 30th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Must be the end of the year bringing them all out of the woodwork!
December 30th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
He just called SJ a liberal, Bwhahahaha.
Oh my sides hurt.
December 30th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
smdoyle is definatly on medication…..oh my sides. What a dork. Must be a thing going on in the ward…. where you have to do a drive by post on a conservative site before the end of the year, or you lose your place in line at the nurse’s desk