SQ_Crazies wrote:

derek bomar wrote: i don't think you understand why they named him man of the year

LOL, you'll blindly defend anyone who falls in your party. You're clueless.

This has got to be a fucking joke--as big a joke as Obama winning the Nobel. Bernanke?! LMFAO!

wow

And don't worry, I totally understand how they name people to this distinction. Has nothing to do with being a good person, but he is far from the MOTY anyways.

cbus4life wrote: You guys don't understand the award.

Yes, it has been given to great people who have done a ton of good, but that isn't part of the criteria.

Hitler and Stalin were given this in 1938 and 39, respectively. I even think Stalin received it another year.

You've got plenty of chances to complain about media bias, but this is not one of them.

*Yawn*

-No, we understand the award fine. You don't understand why people are upset about Bernanke being named "man of the year". Giving the man any kind of distinction regardless of the criteria for said award is, I think, very wrong in this case. Even moreso than the aforementioned Bin Laden snafu by Time Magazine. It's basically giving pub to a man, that while he obviously has tremendous power, does not deserve this pub in a positive manner. In essence, he is taking a spot from someone that should be put in the spotlight that would/could be far more deserving. But, in the end, no one's right, no one's wrong...but, I would hold firm in saying that I think Time Magazine is making a blunder by putting that man on the cover and subsequently giving him positive pub.

visionquest wrote:

cbus4life wrote: You guys don't understand the award.

Yes, it has been given to great people who have done a ton of good, but that isn't part of the criteria.

Hitler and Stalin were given this in 1938 and 39, respectively. I even think Stalin received it another year.

You've got plenty of chances to complain about media bias, but this is not one of them.

*Yawn*

-No, we understand the award fine. You don't understand why people are upset about Bernanke being named "man of the year". Giving the man any kind of distinction regardless of the criteria for said award is, I think, very wrong in this case. Even moreso than the aforementioned Bin Laden snafu by Time Magazine. It's basically giving pub to a man, that while he obviously has tremendous power, does not deserve this pub in a positive manner. In essence, he is taking a spot from someone that should be put in the spotlight that would/could be far more deserving. But, in the end, no one's right, no one's wrong...but, I would hold firm in saying that I think Time Magazine is making a blunder by putting that man on the cover and subsequently giving him positive pub.

what do you think he's done poorly, and what would you have done differently had you been in his shoes? And I still don't think you really get it...

Don't argue with Derek.

If bin Laden came out and said he was a democrat and supported Obama--derek would support bin Laden. He's that party blind.

Oh wait, the terrorists do support Obama--wonder why...

ccrunner609 wrote: Naming this tool man of the year just made this award worthless to the next guy.

It isn't even necessarily a freaking "award." People have received this for nothing that has to do with being a good person, ala Stalin and Hitler.

SQ_Crazies wrote: Don't argue with Derek.

If bin Laden came out and said he was a democrat and supported Obama--derek would support bin Laden. He's that party blind.

Oh wait, the terrorists do support Obama--wonder why...

that's the dumbest fucking post i've ever read on here

Well it's a good thing you don't read most of your own shit then.

Derek isn't supporting Bernanke you guys.

He is just saying that it is not surprising Time gave him this title, given what has happened over the past year, the power he controls, etc., etc.

Of course i would have been fine with bin Laden being given the "award" as well, because of the way that he influenced the entire world over the course of a year.

It isn't necessarily a "distinction." THey aren't giving it him to because of all the "good" that he has done.

No, he's supporting Bernanke. Trust me.

SQ_Crazies wrote: No, he's supporting Bernanke. Trust me.

You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. But, let's say I was defending him. What has he done poorly that you would have done differently?

Ok, I could answer your question--and I already know how you're going to take this, so save me--but before I answer that, I have question. Why the fuck do you honestly think I would have a discussion with YOU about this? I already know it wouldn't be worth the time wasted.

good answer dude

Bahaha! You too, that was too easy to predict.

you're pathetic

Really?

I'm not the one who enjoys the big government dick in my ass.

SQ_Crazies wrote: Really?

I'm not the one who enjoys the big government dick in my ass.

I would respond by saying you like small dick in your mouth, but that's your dad - and if this is ban worthy then please take it down - this clown doesn't know what the hell he's talking about

LOL, neither do you because I'm not married. Smooth move, grade A shit talker.

fixed

I'm not into the name calling thing derek, so I won't do that...however, you have repeatedly asked "what would you have done differently?" Are you seriously wondering this? You are intimating that Bernanke has in fact done everything right, or you would not ask the question. In turn, I would have to question, why would you need to ask that question. Seriously, if you really are saying that everything he's done has been good, nay, "helped" our country, that I'm apt to believe that you are party blind. Because, the guy has done A TON to hurt our country. He's made the FED more powerful and bereft of oversight...which, I don't have to say...is BAD...real, real bad. If you believe otherwise...fine, I'll respect that...but, if you truly believe this pawn/robot of the government is doing anything other than protecting big banks/big gov't, then, I feel for you. However, I will respect your opinion.

LOL, classy!

visionquest wrote: I'm not into the name calling thing derek, so I won't do that...however, you have repeatedly asked "what would you have done differently?" Are you seriously wondering this? You are intimating that Bernanke has in fact done everything right, or you would not ask the question. In turn, I would have to question, why would you need to ask that question. Seriously, if you really are saying that everything he's done has been good, nay, "helped" our country, that I'm apt to believe that you are party blind. Because, the guy has done A TON to hurt our country. He's made the FED more powerful and bereft of oversight...which, I don't have to say...is BAD...real, real bad. If you believe otherwise...fine, I'll respect that...but, if you truly believe this pawn/robot of the government is doing anything other than protecting big banks/big gov't, then, I feel for you. However, I will respect your opinion.

Dude, where did I say I think everything he's done has been correct? I am just questioning you sheep who come on here and spew hate for the guy without citing specifics. As to your specic mentioned here, that's not a reason for him to be not considered for The MOTY for Time, it's the opposite...which is my point.

SQ_Crazies wrote: LOL, classy!

just trying to keep it on your level

LOL, right because I called your father an incestural fag...

derek bomar wrote:

visionquest wrote: I'm not into the name calling thing derek, so I won't do that...however, you have repeatedly asked "what would you have done differently?" Are you seriously wondering this? You are intimating that Bernanke has in fact done everything right, or you would not ask the question. In turn, I would have to question, why would you need to ask that question. Seriously, if you really are saying that everything he's done has been good, nay, "helped" our country, that I'm apt to believe that you are party blind. Because, the guy has done A TON to hurt our country. He's made the FED more powerful and bereft of oversight...which, I don't have to say...is BAD...real, real bad. If you believe otherwise...fine, I'll respect that...but, if you truly believe this pawn/robot of the government is doing anything other than protecting big banks/big gov't, then, I feel for you. However, I will respect your opinion.

Dude, where did I say I think everything he's done has been correct? I am just questioning you sheep who come on here and spew hate for the guy without citing specifics. As to your specic mentioned here, that's not a reason for him to be not considered for The MOTY for Time, it's the opposite...which is my point.

Sheep? Seriously...sheep? I'm done. I tried. Just thought the guy is a douche who didn't deserve the distinction that's all. Didn't wanna be called names. And, I'm not changing your mind...you're just as much of a sheep as the rest of us.