SAM_Hard8 50 Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 OK so Time pussed out again and missed the obvious answer.Should have been "The Tea Party"Time has chosen groups before and love 'em or hate 'em who has changed us the most this year? Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 OK so Time pussed out again and missed the obvious answer.Should have been "The Tea Party"Time has chosen groups before and love 'em or hate 'em who has changed us the most this year?those bastards. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 Some would argue that the Tea Party has yet to actually accomplish anything. Perhaps they could be a candidate next year after the new wave of Republicans come into office and get to work on their main goal of reducing the deficit. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 Some would argue that the Tea Party has yet to actually accomplish anything. Perhaps they could be a candidate next year after the new wave of Republicans come into office and get to work on their main goal of reducing the deficit.after they work on their first goal which is to pass tax cuts that increase the deficit. Cagey buggers. Link to post Share on other sites
Roll the Bones 74 Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 after they work on their first goal which is to pass tax cuts that increase the deficit. Cagey buggers.Or trying to pass laws banning Karma and trying to take away the right to vote kinda stuff. Link to post Share on other sites
Skeleton Jelly 2 Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 OK so Time pussed out again and missed the obvious answer.Should have been "The Tea Party"Time has chosen groups before and love 'em or hate 'em who has changed us the most this year?Maybe, but you also can't argue with their choice of...um, it doesn't say anywhere in this thread who it is.*googling*Mark Zuckerberg.Yeah, the man invented Facebook this year, which is, like, all over the place and stuff. Wait, that was seven years ago? Oh, but there was that movie this year, so same same.Why is he person of the year this year?Some would argue that the Tea Party has yet to actually accomplish anything.That's not what the person of the year award is about."for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year."The Tea Party was actually the runner-up. Followed by Wikileaks guy Julian Assange, Afghan president Hamid Karzai, and then the Chilean miners. Link to post Share on other sites
SlapStick 0 Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 Wasn't it a public vote? Link to post Share on other sites
Skeleton Jelly 2 Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 Wasn't it a public vote?No Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,756 Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 Yeah, the man invented Facebook this year, which is, like, all over the place and stuff. Wait, that was seven years ago? Oh, but there was that movie this year, so same same.Why is he person of the year this year?It's 100% because of the movie, which is really strange. They could have made a really good case for him back when they only had 100,000,000 users.Wasn't it a public vote?no.EDIT: SKELLLLLETONNNN JELLLLYYYYYYY!!! *shakes fist toward heaven* Link to post Share on other sites
Untilted 158 Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 To me a good choice would have been the Wikileaks guy Link to post Share on other sites
custom36 5 Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 To me a good choice would have been the Wikileaks guyYup. I can't think of someone more influential this year than Julian Assange.Unless it's "Good person of the year"? Then it becomes more subjective. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 Yeah, Zuckerberg seems like an odd choice, unless they're doing it for his entire body of work (like when Scorsese won best director for The Departed). Link to post Share on other sites
JubilantLankyLad 1,957 Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 Yeah, Zuckerberg seems like an odd choice, unless they're doing it for his entire body of work (like when Scorsese won best director for The Departed).It seems clear that he's just the choice that's going to piss off the fewest people. Tea Party is too polarizing, as is Assange, so they pussied out. Time was stronger than this in the past and I find it fairly disappointing. Link to post Share on other sites
Skeleton Jelly 2 Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 Time was stronger than this in the past and I find it fairly disappointing.Maybe, but they haven't been for a while. Bin Laden should've been the choice in 2001 over Guil Giuli...over Rudy and Hitler probably should've been the choice for person of the century. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,353 Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 I haven't read a single article in Time magazine in probably 10 years or more. if it wasn't for dentists offices, that rag would no longer exist. It's been a shell of it's former glory for years and years. Link to post Share on other sites
JubilantLankyLad 1,957 Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 Maybe, but they haven't been for a while. Bin Laden should've been the choice in 2001 over Guil Giuli...over Rudy and Hitler probably should've been the choice for person of the century.Fair enough. I just added that sentence to preemptively answer "No way man! They picked Hitler once!" Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 they picked zuck partly because he is donating half his net worth to charity sometime. I've seen the headline but didn't bother to read it. Link to post Share on other sites
Skeleton Jelly 2 Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 they picked zuck partly because he is donating half his net worth to charity sometime. I've seen the headline but didn't bother to read it.Should be person of the year when he actually does it then. Ooh, I wonder if this is my way in to being named FCP Featured Member. Note to Bob: I hereby promise to donate half my net worth to charity sometime.*fingers crossed* Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 they picked zuck partly because he is donating half his net worth to charity sometime. I've seen the headline but didn't bother to read it.So, if I donate half my net worth, do I get to be the Time person of the year? Because, if so, Habitat for Humanity should prepare to get a juicy check for $300 in the near future. Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 I haven't read about their selection process, but that's my guess. Link to post Share on other sites
JubilantLankyLad 1,957 Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 So, if I donate half my net worth, do I get to be the Time person of the year? Because, if so, Habitat for Humanity should prepare to get a juicy check for $300 in the near future.apparently science, much like crime, does not pay. Link to post Share on other sites
Roll the Bones 74 Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 they picked zuck partly because he is donating half his net worth to charity sometime. I've seen the headline but didn't bother to read it.Bill Gates started it and then Warren Buffett added most of his wealth. Basically, Gates called on all Billionaires to donate the majority of thier wealth in one way or another and most have (20 or so and counting) are giving or leaving it to Gates charitable foundation which is well established. It's an amazing amount of money and could do amazing things in many diverse fields especially health, wiping out diseases and Aids. Alot goes to Africa and scholarships, etc.For example, Buffett alone gave 37 Billion. the UN's budget is 12 Billion. Link to post Share on other sites
dapokerbum 0 Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 Maybe they should give back to the country that made them so great. and by that I mean send every person in america $34.36.I'm anxiously waiting. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 They had an internet vote, and Assange won by a huge margin. I think they were afraid of the repurcussions if they actually gave it to him. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,353 Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 and Hitler probably should've been the choice for person of the century. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now