Bush?!? Person of the Year?!?

[Blackhawk]

Those who ignore history (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a89GiENabyZk&refer=top_world_news)

This is my first post though I've enjoyed reading your forums.

This post is not for those who think George is the greatest thing since sliced bread. If my post bothers you, respond. If I don't answer your reply don't be surprised....I don't suffer fools well.

For those of you as appalled as I am, it just can't get any better than this, can it?

[Keeblergiant]

Can you really expect anything else out of Time magazine? There are plenty of other people who would be better off with this title...

[RavenWhitefang]

Welcome to the board Blackhawk. Enjoy the forums :D

http://www.exego.net/notes/eitan/user/George%20Bush%201.JPG

[repentantsinner]

No way he's alienated the US from the world. :gtfo:

[Blackhawk]

Thanks for the welcome, sure I'll enjoy it here.

Hitler -- Man of the Year 1938
Stalin -- Man of the Year 1941? and 1943?

[Blackhawk]

Excellent pic, btw. Very telling.

[substand]

I suppose you applauded when they wanted bin Laden as the person of the year? Or did you just remain silent?

[Blackhawk]

I suppose you applauded when they wanted bin Laden as the person of the year? Or did you just remain silent?

Actually, this is the first I've heard of this.

Why would I applaud? Perhaps for the great job he did for us in Afghanistan as a paid CIA assest?

Which of the different Osama bin Ladens' I've been shown on these films do you think I should have applauded?

[substand]

http://money.cnn.com/2001/12/09/news/column_wastler/ is just one of many columns that mentions bin Laden's candidacy for Time's Person of the Year.

I was not aware that you didn't realize that Time's POY is not neccesarily an honor, but just supposed to be the person who affected headlines the most during the year.

And it was my understanding that we worked through Pakistan's intelligence agency during the afghan war vs. the soviets. If you have info otherwise, would you please share a link?

[Blackhawk]

I was not aware that you didn't realize that Time's POY is not neccesarily an honor, but just supposed to be the person who affected headlines the most during the year.

Oh, I did realize. Even with my understanding of the <snicker> "liberal media" I guess I was just shocked at the positive press given to Bush.


And it was my understanding that we worked through Pakistan's intelligence agency during the afghan war vs. the soviets. If you have info otherwise, would you please share a link?

You understood correctly.

Crick (http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1)


As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow’s invasion in 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar - the MAK - which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war.
What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan’s state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA’s primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow’s occupation.

So what? If I buy a house through a realtor
I am still the one buying the house and still ultimately responsible for what I get.

If I arrange a dope deal through a middleman am I any less guilty of breaking our draconian drug laws?


Indeed, to this day, those involved in the decision to give the Afghan rebels access to a fortune in covert funding and top-level combat weaponry continue to defend that move in the context of the Cold War. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee making those decisions, told my colleague Robert Windrem that he would make the same call again today even knowing what bin Laden would do subsequently. “It was worth it,” he said.

The CIA got what it paid for with our money.

[MetalMilitia]

Time magazines' person of the year is someone that has 'grabbed international attention' or had an 'impact' the world scene...- for the better or for the worse.

...and now we have George W. Bush as person of the year for the second time. How has his legacy changed since 2000? Well, this '2004 person of the year' has stranded the '2003 person of the year'...... the American Soldier, in Iraq.

Sure he grabs a lot of news, but you cant honestly tell me there wasn't something more ground-breaking or interesting than this tool again.

[substand]

So what? If I buy a house through a realtor
I am still the one buying the house and still ultimately responsible for what I get.

If I arrange a dope deal through a middleman am I any less guilty of breaking our draconian drug laws?

Well, "so what" is because you claimed he was a paid CIA asset, which of course, does not seem to be true if they had to go through a link. It would be more accurate to have said that he got his hands on CIA money through the MAK which got it through the ISI. Your statement that he was a CIA asset would lead the lesser educated among us to beleive that someone in the CIA had contact with bin Laden directly, directly worked with him, and directly paid him.

[Blackhawk]

Well, "so what" is because you claimed he was a paid CIA asset, which of course, does not seem to be true if they had to go through a link. It would be more accurate to have said that he got his hands on CIA money through the MAK which got it through the ISI. Your statement that he was a CIA asset would lead the lesser educated among us to beleive that someone in the CIA had contact with bin Laden directly, directly worked with him, and directly paid him.

If a general orders a certain location "taken" by a certain group of troops and, by result, a certain pfc kills a man in that location should we believe that he has met/is paid by/was personally trained by/ has lunch with that particular general?

Middlemen do not change the situation.

[Blackhawk]

You do realize that to recieve this title is pretty much a giant slap in the face? This is not really an honor to receive this title....that's your ignorance showing. I can prove it.

click the link damnit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_the_Year)!

"The title is, in ignorance, sometimes mistakenly assumed to be an honor."

wow.

Your link says nothing about Bush having the title bestowed on him being either negative or positive.....You've proved nothing.


Jesus Christ...just read the explanation provided by Time (http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2004/story.html) as to why Bush was voted as person of the year.

"For sticking to his guns (literally and figuratively), for reshaping the rules of politics to fit his ten-gallon-hat leadership style and for persuading a majority of voters that he deserved to be in the White House for another four years, George W. Bush is TIME's 2004 Person of the Year"

Wow! They really wiped the floor with his image, there.

"persuading a majority of voters that he deserved to be in the White House for another four years"

My god! The gaul of these people....kids might read this!!!!!




How can you expect ppl to believe that you're truly appalled?

I don't expect people to believe anything.

You, least of all.

[substand]

If a general orders a certain location "taken" by a certain group of troops and, by result, a certain pfc kills a man in that location should we believe that he has met/is paid by/was personally trained by/ has lunch with that particular general?

You're not talking about a general giving orders to a group of troops. You're not talking about a CIA asset either.

If I am an agent and I am sleeping with Joe's sister, she is my asset. Joe is a friend of Mike. Any information I learn about Mike that she learned from Joe does not make either Mike or Joe an asset of mine. The chick is my asset.

What you're talking about is a general who gives orders to a group of soldiers to infiltrate the enemy and find out some information. that group of soldiers then hires a foreigner to find information. who then finds someone else to find information, who then finds the information, and the final result, removed 10 times from the general, you are calling an "asset."

Under your example, the Soviets that the mujahedin were fighting were also "CIA assets."

[edit: forgot to quote]

[Blackhawk]

You're not talking about a general giving orders to a group of troops. You're not talking about a CIA asset either.

If I am an agent and I am sleeping with Joe's sister, she is my asset. Joe is a friend of Mike. Any information I learn about Mike that she learned from Joe does not make either Mike or Joe an asset of mine. The chick is my asset.

What you're talking about is a general who gives orders to a group of soldiers to infiltrate the enemy and find out some information. that group of soldiers then hires a foreigner to find information. who then finds someone else to find information, who then finds the information, and the final result, removed 10 times from the general, you are calling an "asset."

Under your example, the Soviets that the mujahedin were fighting were also "CIA assets."

[edit: forgot to quote]

I'm not going to spend much more of my time trying to explain this to you.
How you could get to the enemy being an 'asset' from what I said is beyond me. An asset would be something or someone considered valuable or useful. The CIA that provided our money/weaponry/training to Osama and his ilk through the Afghanies would consider Osama to be an asset. He would be considered useful or valuable to them. In other words, an asset. The Soviets, on the other hand, who recieved no training/money/weaponry to help them in their endeavor and, in fact, had goals in conflict with the CIA would be considered a liability

[substand]

If I am an agent and I am sleeping with Joe's sister, she is my asset. Joe is a friend of Mike. Any information I learn about Mike that she learned from Joe does not make Joe an asset of mine. The chick is my asset.


How you could get to the enemy being an 'asset' from what I said is beyond me.

You said middlemen do not change the situtation. How is Joe my asset?

[Blackhawk]

If I am an agent and I am sleeping with Joe's sister, she is my asset. Joe is a friend of Mike. Any information I learn about Mike that she learned from Joe does not make Joe an asset of mine. The chick is my asset.



You said middlemen do not change the situtation. How is Joe my asset?

LOL.

Never met Joe. Never called him your asset and I hope you are going to let Joes' sister down nicely.

From what you've said, she sounds like an awfully nice gal.

WAIT! My wife thinks she understands what you're trying to get at.

OSAMA IS SLEEPING WITH AFGHANISTAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Blackhawk]

Your avatar explains everything I needed to know.

As I said, "I don't suffer fools well.".

[dutchie]

If I am an agent and I am sleeping with Joe's sister, she is my asset. Joe is a friend of Mike. Any information I learn about Mike that she learned from Joe does not make Joe an asset of mine. The chick is my asset.



You said middlemen do not change the situtation. How is Joe my asset?
JOE!! JOE!! SUBS IS PORKING YOUR SIS!!

[Dead Man Walking]

Originally Posted by substand
If I am an agent and I am sleeping with Joe's sister, she is my asset. Joe is a friend of Mike. Any information I learn about Mike that she learned from Joe does not make Joe an asset of mine. The chick is my asset.



You said middlemen do not change the situtation. How is Joe my asset?

JOE!! JOE!! SUBS IS PORKING YOUR SIS!!

How is Joe getting any information from Mike? OMG!! JOE IS DOING MIKE!!! SIS AND JOE,, AND THEN THE AGENT IS SHARING WITH SIS!!! ASSET? ASS ET!!! ET TOO BRUTUS?

Joe is the asset, or the ass for telling his sister anything, and then the chick gets it in the middle... What a wicked quadrangle... :spy:

[substand]

As I said, "I don't suffer fools well.".


WAIT! My wife thinks she understands what you're trying to get at.
OSAMA IS SLEEPING WITH AFGHANISTAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You must have a hard time living with yourself and your wife then. I was just trying to brag that I was sleeping with Joe's sister, as dutchie pointed out. A point that obviously flies beyond your realm of comprehension. Obviously Osama would not be sleeping with Afghanistan, because I don't think there is evidence that he is bisexual, and he would have to be sleeping with men and women to be sleeping with Afghanistan.


How is Joe getting any information from Mike? OMG!! JOE IS DOING MIKE!!! SIS AND JOE,, AND THEN THE AGENT IS SHARING WITH SIS!!! ASSET? ASS ET!!! ET TOO BRUTUS?

No no no no.... you don't seem to get it. Joe is Mike's friend. They talk like friends. Joe is his sister's brother. They talk like sister and brother. Joe's sister is my girlfriend, and we do it. We talk like girlfriend and boyfriend, and I overhear some stuff. Joe is not gay, and he's not incestuous... neither of which I could say about you with any confidence. However, I am wondering about this ass fetish you seem to have.

[substand]

ET TOO BRUTUS?

WTF does that mean?

[Blackhawk]

WTF does that mean?

Purported to be Ceasars last words when he saw Brutus among his murderers.

Et Tu Brutus......You too, Brutus?

[Blackhawk]

You must have a hard time living with yourself and your wife then. I was just trying to brag that I was sleeping with Joe's sister, as dutchie pointed out. A point that obviously flies beyond your realm of comprehension. Obviously Osama would not be sleeping with Afghanistan, because I don't think there is evidence that he is bisexual, and he would have to be sleeping with men and women to be sleeping with Afghanistan.





Nah. It's just that our discussion wasn't going anywhere but confusionville and I seriously couldn't follow your analogy....Needed some humor.

Safe enough to say that I don't like Bush. Then again, I would be hard pressed to name a politician I do like.

[substand]

I realize what "Et tu, Brutus" means... But since he was trying to be smart and slag me off, I thought I'd ask what Et TOO Brutus meant.

Sorry.


Nah. It's just that our discussion wasn't going anywhere but confusionville and I seriously couldn't follow your analogy....Needed some humor.

Sounds good. We'll end it then. =)

[Blackhawk]

I realize what "Et tu, Brutus" means... But since he was trying to be smart and slag me off, I thought I'd ask what Et TOO Brutus meant.



Woops. Just trying to be helpful. Sorry.

[Bigsky770]

. . .Well, this sucks. I'm always the last to know. . . ::)):

Joe (Bigsky770) :Bog:

[dutchie]

I realize what "Et tu, Brutus" means... But since he was trying to be smart and slag me off, I thought I'd ask what Et TOO Brutus meant.

Actually, it's "et tu, Brute?"

But.. who gives a ---- anyway? :indec:

[substand]

there's a long discussion of how it "should" be used in english at about.com http://forums.about.com/ab-ancienthist/messages?msg=3874.15

but i beleive you are right. i don't know latin like i do spanish (and even my spanish is not completely fluent, though i could probably translate the meaning of sentances and paragraphs (etc) pretty well... basically, I know a lot of common latin phrases...

in any case, the point i was going to make was relating it to spanish and how you conjugate verbs. The familiar sense you would use "tu" when speaking to someone, while in a more general sense you would use "usted." I would assume its similar in latin, and while Brutus or Brute is not a verb, it does go to how you would address someone. In this case (if it were spanish) you could use either the familiar sense or the general sense. My best ignorant guess is that Latin would be similar (seeing how spanish is based on it) so perhaps you could use Brute or Brutus, depending on the idea you wanted to convey..

this is all off topic though, so i apologize.