Time Magazine Announces Their “Person Of The Year” Award

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Time Magazine Announces Their “Person Of The Year” Award

  1. Gamecock says:

    The legacy press pushes their Cultural Marxist agenda, and gives direct support to the unDemocratic party.

    And then appeals to us for sympathy when their journalists are attacked. Sorry, Time, I’m not leaping to your defense. Start defending our country and maybe then we can talk.

  2. GW Smith says:

    When I was growing up in the 60s Time was the “Republican” rag and Newsweek was the “Democrat” rag. Time “seemed” to be more trustworthy and less hyperbolic. What happened? The SLWs went into journalism to save the world and this is what we have today, total BS! The whole field is poisoned. Everyone’s an advocate. No one’s objective. Which is why I now hang out here a lot.

    • Bob Cherba says:

      I subscribed to Time from about 1958 to 1990. Maybe it went from bad to worse following Watergate when journalists all wanted to “make a difference” by going after conservatives. When I stopped subscribing after more than 30 years, I wrote the Time editors a letter expressing disappointment in the magazine’s left turn and bias. I stopped listening to NPR about the same time, when it became the Clinton-apologist, gay, femininist network. (Now you can add catastrophic climate change to all of the above.)

    • Johansen says:

      That’s an interesting perspective of the ’60’s. In the 1980’s, CNN was viewed as fresh and straight-talking… So was USA Today

  3. Mark Luhman says:

    The Left always loves tyrants.

  4. John of Cloverdale, Western Australia says:

    I nominate Texas for 2018 in doing its bit to MAGA.

    • John of Cloverdale, Western Australia says:

      Not a person I know but maybe they could they change it for this year. Fracking could be the second choice :-)

    • czechlist says:

      Texas’ oil was a major factor in the ally’s victory in WWII

      • Gamecock says:

        And refining. American aircraft engines had far greater power output than the Germans, because American fuels had substantially higher octane rating.

        • Johansen says:

          That’s right, Gamecock… We had 150 octane fuel. That meant the P-51 could operate at a higher intake manifold pressure than the 109, for instance, resulting in greater speed and altitude, even though the 109 had slightly larger displacement engine

          • Phil. says:

            Due to its superior Rolls-Royce Merlin engine. Typically ran on 87-100 octane fuel, they were tested with 150 octane fuel in mid-1944 which was used particularly for intercepting V-1 flying bombs. The P-51 that were run with 150 octane had some problems with fouling.

          • Gamecock says:

            Fouling comes from running too rich.

          • Phil. says:

            Not in the case of the 150 octane fueled P-51s, it was lead fouling due to the high amount of tetraethyl lead used to achieve the high octane number.
            ” The same type of lead fouling as described in a and b above happened in the case of the P-51 except that is was probably more serious than in either of the other two types. Using 130 grade fuel with 4½ cc. of lead, the average operational P-51 could last 5 missions (roughly 25 hours) before the fouling required plug change. With 150 grade fuel containing 6 cc. of lead, 10 to 12 hours, or normally 2 missions, was the average length of time between spark plug changes or cleaning. “

          • Gamecock says:

            Ahh . . . makes sense. It would take a lot to get 150 octane.

          • Phil. says:

            Indeed it does, the Cessna I fly uses 100LL which contains ~1cc/gal of TEL, so the Merlin engine used up to 6 times more! That’s a lot of lead.

  5. Psalmon says:

    Time spent the entire 1980s propagandizing how Reagan would fail…Reaganomics…Military Spending…Star Wars & Reykjavik…

    It never ended, and they never understood their own question.

    The key is not to care what they think.

  6. Chauncey Chapman III says:

    excellent

  7. feathers says:

    I won the award in 2006. Actually so did “you”.

    Come on, this entire thing is an absolute joke!

  8. Gator says:

    No self promotion here, or any childish jab at Trump. Just saints in journalistic garb.

  9. AndyDC says:

    Time Magazine makes excellent toilet paper.

  10. Jimmy Haigh says:

    What this? No woman of the year? No trans-cis-bi-sexual (who identifies as a goat) of the year? Come on Time! Surely you can do better than this!

    • Gamecock says:

      What about Elizabeth Warren, identifying as a Cherokee?

      She ENABLES all the trans-cis-bi-sexuals who identify as a goat. Hers will surely have the greatest long term effect on humanity. And goatdum.

    • Gamecock says:

      There is a leading candidate for the unDemocrats for 2020: the Hispanic Beto O’Rourke.

      Who was curiously born to Irish parents, and named Robert Francis O’Rourke.

      • Phil. says:

        Grew up in El Paso, Texas, in an hispanic neighborhood, apparently family nickname for him to distinguish from his grandfather and commonly used by other kids at school. Ted Cruz focussed on it to emphasize that he was a ‘real’ hispanic, don’t know whether it worked for him though, especially since he does the opposite by going by ‘Ted’ instead of Rafael.

  11. Phil. says:

    The Time ‘Person of the Year ‘ cover wasn’t supposed to be an honor rather: “a person, a group, an idea, or an object that “for better or for worse… has done the most to influence the events of the year”. The Hitler cover clearly illustrates that since if you look carefully you’ll see corpses hanging in the background! More recently there started to be a backlash in the US because it was perceived to be an expression of support for the selection (starting with Khomeini). So in recent years they’ve moved away from such selections. Khomeini certainly qualified based on the selection criterion in the same way Hitler and Stalin did.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.