Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Time's "Man Of The Year" isn't always a praise, traditionally, they name someone who has affected the world (positively,negatively or both) on a large scale, both of which above named men have. Personnally, Bush should have been named or at least a runner up... what they did is a massive cop-out.

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Time's "Man Of The Year" isn't always a praise, traditionally, they name someone who has affected the world (positively,negatively or both) on a large scale, both of which above named men have. Personnally, Bush should have been named or at least a runner up... what they did is a massive cop-out.

Originally Posted by rmac694203

Why would it be so amazing if he hadn't. Just because you're president does that mean you should automatically be chosen?

Originally Posted by rmac694203

Why would it be so amazing if he hadn't. Just because you're president does that mean you should automatically be chosen?

Originally Posted by MAC1

Correct me if I'm wrong but President Bush has never been chosen Time's "Man of the Year," which is amazing.

Originally Posted by rmac694203

Fair enough. But it seems to me that every US president has impacted the world in a significant way. Does that mean that every president should be chosen at least once?

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Because Bush has had a large impact globaly. He was named though in 2000 & 2004 (also in 1990 along w/ Senior). He should have been named again over the "Everyone" thing. The "Ipod" should have won over "Everyone".

Originally Posted by rmac694203

Fair enough. But it seems to me that every US president has impacted the world in a significant way. Does that mean that every president should be chosen at least once?

Originally Posted by fossten

Bill Clinton never impacted the world in a significant way. All he ever accomplished was diminishing the dignity of the office of President. Neither did Carter, unless you call the only 'misery index' in the history of this country a significant impact.

Bush should be Man of the Year simply because of his Churchillian stance against Al Qaeda during a time when the rest of the world and half of America doesn't believe we are at war.

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Technically Bill did... With the fiasco the Repubs made over his extramarital affair/lying, the news spread from continent to continent and the world laughed at us for making such a big deal about a guy lying about having an affair to save his own ass.

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Technically Bill did... With the fiasco the Repubs made over his extramarital affair/lying,

Originally Posted by bufordtpisser

Is he any worse than anyone else, probably not. Is he any better, Hell no.

Originally Posted by Calabrio

Actually it was called PERJURY and conspiracy to commit perjury.

You still don't get it. Probably never will. Strong arguments can be made saying impeachments was not a good strategy or punishment. But saying it was just "some guy lying about an affair" completely misses the reality of the situation and the severity of what he did.

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

If he didn't lie and take measures to cover up the lies about his extramarital affair, then what exactly did he lie (perjure) about?

Originally Posted by Calabrio

He was being sued in a sexual harrassment case. By lying, and by engaging in a conspiracy to have other's lie, he denied a woman her civil rights and her right to a fair trial.

He wasn't on trial for "cheating on his wife." He didn't lie to simply "prevent embarrassment."

But it is important to note just how low his character must be, targeting chubby interns, and having them perform lewd sexual acts, and then corrupting them and the pressuring them to commit perjury.

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

The Paula Jones deal doesn't smell fishy to you at all? Why did she wait 3+ years to file the lawsuit.

I think you're judging too much here, there are several factors you aren't considering, maybe Bill likes "chubby" women, maybe something about her personality just clicked with him, lots of 'maybes' to consider. As far as "courrupting" her, she was/is a grown woman, the choice was hers to make.... Yea the dude cheated on his wife, but who's business it is really? It's between him and his wife.

I don't agree that he cheated on his wife in the Oval Office, that is his workplace and he should have kept his personal affairs out of it, especailly considering he was the President. I have a hunch you and the others that ride Clinton hard over this is because he's a Democrat, if a republican had done the same exact thing, you'd be more forgiving.

Originally Posted by fossten

That's such a routine spewing of Democrat talking points I don't even know where to begin. Why don't we start with your oblivious ignoring of Calabrio's remarks? You have completely forgotten or are just willfully ignorant of the FACTS:

Bill Clinton used his presidential power to attempt to interfere in a civil suit by committing and suborning perjury. He tried to cover up an affair and attempted to tamper with a witness and obstruct justice. Then he lied about it straight to your face and everyone else's. As far as Paula Jones waiting to file the suit, she was within the statute of limitations, so what's your problem? She can file suit anytime she wants, it's her legal right, which by the way Clinton attempted to subvert.

The point I've made is that that is a disgrace for the leader of the free world to do such a thing. His law license was revoked and he was found in contempt of court, all the while brazenly attacking and assassinating the character of the investigator HIS justice department appointed to find out the facts. You Clinton apologists try to make this a personal thing, but he's the one who brought that house of cards down on himself.

Look at the big picture - he disgraced the office by his actions, and history will remember that. Too bad you and others like you are blind to those facts.

As far as an affair being his personal business, that's preposterous. We just had an outraged White House press corps screaming bloody murder about Laura Bush's malignant cancer on her leg that was removed. If anything is personal business, it would be medical information, but the press corps was in high dudgeon about not being informed about it sooner. So don't lecture me about how Clinton's affair, which was made public through HIS LYING AND BREAKING OF THE LAW, should be none of anybody else's business.

By the way, Deville, congratulations on being named TIME Mag's person of the year. I know you worked hard for it, and you deserve it, as does everyone else who was named.

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

You have shown your bias point of view towards Clinton time and time again, best president, worst president or mediocre president it wouldn't matter. All you see is "Democratic President" and we all know how you feel towards Democrats.

Hey look, I agree with you, Laura's cancer shouldn't have been public knowledge.

Yes, he did in lie, we all know this fact, point is, he shouldn't have been asked questions of a personal nature, especailly something about his and his wife's private sex life. Paula Jones being "harressed" in 1992 had nothing to do with Monica giving Bill a "BJ" in 1997, Monica did it willfully, she wasn't coerced or bullied into it. Add to it, Paula filed just three days prior to exceeding the statue. If you want to believe Jones just happened to file the lawsuit and it was only a coincidence that Bill was having an affair with Monica at the time go ahead.

Thanks, and a big pat on the back to you too, we're all winners.

Originally Posted by fossten

Which just shows how ignorant you are of the facts. Monica Lewinsky WAS tied to the Paula Jones lawsuit, despite your ignorance and despite your protestations. But this has already been addressed on this forum before, and since you seem so unwilling to face facts, I'm not going to bother rehashing it.

Suffice it to say that you're wrong, and you don't even want to know the truth, because if you did, you'd do a simple google of the words Paula Jones Lewinsky affidavit. Then you can read up on how Clinton deliberately tried to tamper with a legal trial. This information is irrelevant of any bias I might have, it's public knowledge and you are willingly and willfully ignorant.

So be it.

Originally Posted by 97silverlsc

Hey Fossie,
How many issues of Time have you bought so far, and how many hours have you spent holding it in front of yourself with one hand?