It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Time Man of The Year

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sentinel412
reply to post by yeahright
 

Everything is starting with little issues, little conspiracies. This is just a partial conspiracy to push an agenda further. But a lot of little conspiracy is equal with a big conspiracy. What Time is doing is simple mass manipulation, nothing more. They've chosen a known face, who actually did nothing in this year, other than he was on the front page of few newspapers, because there was a movie about him. Other then that, Zuckerberg, while I don't have anything against him, doesn't deserve this prize at all as he was a Celeberity in this year, but nothing else. But if TIME is giving award to Celebrities nowadays, well, okay, but tell this to the people when they're creating a big hype around the ultimate nothing. On this way Chuck Norris could be the Time of the year, because he also appeared million times on YouTube and people created a legend around him.
edit on 15-12-2010 by Sentinel412 because: (no reason given)


Are you serious? Tell me you're not! How is disclosing the public's choice but ultimately leaving the naming of "The Man of the Year" to the editors manipulation?

Yes, Chuck Norris could be man of the year if the editors so chose, guess what, he may also be if they let the polls determine the out come!

When you start your own magazine feel free to pick who you chose to put on the cover and assign titles as you wish.

Let me ask, who would you vote for? Why would you vote for him/her?




posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by endlessknowledge
Regardless of what you think about Assange, you can't really refute that he should have won.

I guess we can all be thankful that Lady Gaga didn't win.



Umm...On what do you base that I or no one else can refute who should've won? Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why he should have won? Is it because there are more useless threads here on ATS regarding him than of anyone else? If that is the criteria sign me up!



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 01:10 AM
link   
the xionists could never let julian win when one of their 'chozen' was ready to make more billions.

read the protokols, they clearly state how the media must make billionaires into celebrities.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   
I realize that the editors reserve the right to name whoever they want for person of the year but still... Assange had 20x the number of votes that Zuckerberg had. Not to mention, Assange was rated at 92% while Zuckerberg was at 52% It's pretty clear that Time is not acting in the common interest of the people.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by CayceFan
Are you serious? Tell me you're not! How is disclosing the public's choice but ultimately leaving the naming of "The Man of the Year" to the editors manipulation?

Yes, Chuck Norris could be man of the year if the editors so chose, guess what, he may also be if they let the polls determine the out come!

When you start your own magazine feel free to pick who you chose to put on the cover and assign titles as you wish.

Let me ask, who would you vote for? Why would you vote for him/her?


In more reasoned and better times I would agree with you. From your opinions so far I do not think we are too different, but I tend to agree with extreme measures in extreme circumstance. Our rights are, more and more, completely stripped away.

What choice do we intelligent people have, if we do not fight the majority with all methods available to us? Making a separate magazine would not change the fact that TIME still has majority readership. The point is to force TIME to back down. To fix its #. So the majority can actually get something similar to the "truth".

And really, that is what this is all about. Truth. The truth is, there is something wrong with the world today.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   
if i were in mark zuckerberg's shoes... i'd hold a news conference and hand the "award" to julian. here ya go julian... the people have spoken and I don't need to help time magazine lie to its subscribers and witnesses. thanks for keeping my subscribers at facebook so busy

edit on 12/16/2010 by deadruby2006 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Time magazine is basically telling us a new(not really new) method of exchanging trivial useless information has more merit than those trying to expose lies and corruptions behind the various governments of the world.

Yep. You just gotta read between the lines. When you do, you'll finally see the hidden picture, there's a middle finger between those lines.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by CayceFan


Are you serious? Tell me you're not! How is disclosing the public's choice but ultimately leaving the naming of "The Man of the Year" to the editors manipulation?

Mocking wouldn't help you in this debate. Tsk-tsk-tsk.

Now it was clear and present manipulation. It always was a manipulation. Maybe in the U.S. it's called as "Clear and present Democracy", but in my country we're calling it as "Rigged". You know, here at the other side of the ocean we still know what is the difference between clear votes and rigged ones.


When you start your own magazine feel free to pick who you chose to put on the cover and assign titles as you wish.

Sorry, but if I would have a newspaper, I wouldn't ask the opinion about people and make them to believe their vote actually counts something. Right now what TIME did was a very spineless act as they made the readers believe their vote count something (While they used this act to simply boost their view.).


Let me ask, who would you vote for? Why would you vote for him/her?

Well, not for Zuckerberg as he did nothing in this year. But let's see... I can give you a few tips... the people of Greece whose is stepping up against the IMF or some scientists whose actually DID something for humanity or someone who actually DID something for people. Politicians would be not on my list as they actually DID NOTHING in this year throughout the world... other than lick the ass of some bankers and corporations. What Zuckerberg did in this year, other than played the Celebrity and had a movie? Nothing at all. And comparing Assange to Zuckerberg... well, Assange did a bit more than Zuckerberg in this year (And I'm still not saying he should win this title, but Assange would be in the first three.).

TIME is now a celebrity newspaper, which is pushing hidden agenda from the background and showing you the middle finger as it chosen it side in the invisible war (They've chosen the side of the psychopath liars.).
edit on 16-12-2010 by Sentinel412 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sentinel412
Julian was the first.....

From this moment I boycott the TIME Magazine.



I second the boycott nomination. Subscription cancelled.

Time Magazine - you are Pathetic!!!!!

-E2



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by eniranjanrao
 



Well, unlike Amazon, Zuckerburg/Facebook did NOT shut down WikiLeaks' page.

I'll give him that.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

The editors of Time have always chosen their Person of the Year. It has never been determined by a public vote or poll, ever. It wasn't supposed to be determined by a vote this year. There was a poll. More people who participated in the poll thought Assange should've been Person of the Year. The editors disagreed.

Since a good number of the people participating in the poll were likely clueless about what it's supposed to represent, I'm not all that surprised the editors went in another direction. They still posted the results of the poll. What's the big deal?

Y'all are funny.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


This should tell people that Time Magazine, like most of the media magazines, follow an agenda that matter's little about the small man but more about the one with corporation interests...



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Back in the time, Time's person of the year really meant something like

link
Today the same cannot be said about the organisation.

I happen to agree with Colbert.
Colbert: "TIME's person of the year is Mark Zuckerberg. Sorry Julian Assange, I guess you didn't violate enough peoples privacy."



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by xavi1000
Lol ,People voted for Julian Assange and Time choose this bilionaire

Time will sourely lose some customers.



Time doesn't need paying customers. Everyone must have figured out by now they're part of the propaganda machine.

The CIA can keep Time funded forever spreading their propaganda.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Julian Assange should have gotten it.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sentinel412

Originally posted by CayceFan


Are you serious? Tell me you're not! How is disclosing the public's choice but ultimately leaving the naming of "The Man of the Year" to the editors manipulation?

Mocking wouldn't help you in this debate. Tsk-tsk-tsk.

Now it was clear and present manipulation. It always was a manipulation. Maybe in the U.S. it's called as "Clear and present Democracy", but in my country we're calling it as "Rigged". You know, here at the other side of the ocean we still know what is the difference between clear votes and rigged ones.


When you start your own magazine feel free to pick who you chose to put on the cover and assign titles as you wish.

Sorry, but if I would have a newspaper, I wouldn't ask the opinion about people and make them to believe their vote actually counts something. Right now what TIME did was a very spineless act as they made the readers believe their vote count something (While they used this act to simply boost their view.).


Let me ask, who would you vote for? Why would you vote for him/her?

Well, not for Zuckerberg as he did nothing in this year. But let's see... I can give you a few tips... the people of Greece whose is stepping up against the IMF or some scientists whose actually DID something for humanity or someone who actually DID something for people. Politicians would be not on my list as they actually DID NOTHING in this year throughout the world... other than lick the ass of some bankers and corporations. What Zuckerberg did in this year, other than played the Celebrity and had a movie? Nothing at all. And comparing Assange to Zuckerberg... well, Assange did a bit more than Zuckerberg in this year (And I'm still not saying he should win this title, but Assange would be in the first three.).

TIME is now a celebrity newspaper, which is pushing hidden agenda from the background and showing you the middle finger as it chosen it side in the invisible war (They've chosen the side of the psychopath liars.).
edit on 16-12-2010 by Sentinel412 because: (no reason given)



I guess if you treat Time Magazine as your "bible" I could see why you might be upset. For me, I don't read it and even if I did, its a magazine and meant to entertain.

I'm entertained!

It seems as though you place such a great importance on who wins as if Times selection bounds you to a certain mindset. I think maybe you give Time or any/all other such trivial outlets too much credit.

No one in their right mind believes that a silly title (as famous and anticipated as it may be) in an entertainment magazine means anything. Time asking my opinion on who I think should win sets no expectations of meaningfulness for me but rather just another tidbit of entertainment they provide when reading the results.
edit on 16-12-2010 by CayceFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by EFGuy

Originally posted by CayceFan
Are you serious? Tell me you're not! How is disclosing the public's choice but ultimately leaving the naming of "The Man of the Year" to the editors manipulation?

Yes, Chuck Norris could be man of the year if the editors so chose, guess what, he may also be if they let the polls determine the out come!

When you start your own magazine feel free to pick who you chose to put on the cover and assign titles as you wish.

Let me ask, who would you vote for? Why would you vote for him/her?


In more reasoned and better times I would agree with you. From your opinions so far I do not think we are too different, but I tend to agree with extreme measures in extreme circumstance. Our rights are, more and more, completely stripped away.

What choice do we intelligent people have, if we do not fight the majority with all methods available to us? Making a separate magazine would not change the fact that TIME still has majority readership. The point is to force TIME to back down. To fix its #. So the majority can actually get something similar to the "truth".

And really, that is what this is all about. Truth. The truth is, there is something wrong with the world today.


The truth you say? The truth is that TIME magazine is printing their opinion based on their criteria as to whom is "Man of the Year." There is no wrong selection.

I once had an employer tell me "your problem is you always think your opinions are right." DUH! think about that for a minute, of course I think my opinions are right, that's why it's called MY opinion. So TIME magazine made a selection based on their opinion, period. It's ridiculous to even try and debate this further.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join