General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here. |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
|
Russian's recent success is due entirely to oil prices which Putin did not create, and his "stabilization of Russia" has been a slow decade long process (if you agree with it or not). I can certainly agree the mans been hugely influential in totality but 2007 has certainly not been some kind of blow-out year for him. Like wise Rollings has been riding a decade long phenomenon which has largely begun to ebb. Only Gore can be said to be having a super blow out year, in no other time in his life has he gotten such unmitigatedly good press or been in the public eye in such a positive light.
Of course after last years TOTAL AND COMPLETE SHARK JUMP this is a marked improvement. |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
|
You have to remember that the Time Person of the Year is not an honour or a positive thing, it's an award to the person who influenced the news most that year. They even had to explain why in 2001 Rudy Guiliani won it, rather than Osama bin Laden, since clearly the latter created the news more, just because they didn't want the backlash. The same way reason they had to explain why Einstein won over Hitler in Person of the Century. This is why political leaders win it most of the time however good or bad they were. The only US presidents never to win it were just because they were boring and/or short-lived.
Putin has probably created more news than Gore in the last year, though it's relatively close. Good call ![]() |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|