Bill and Melinda Gates, Bono named Time's People of the Year

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by mac-er, Dec 18, 2005.

  1. mac-er macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    #1
  2. capone2 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Location:
    chelsea-nyc
    #2
    i just saw it !

    I can't believe it and i dont agree with it, just because they gave so much money away ?? It should have the men and women in uniform. MISTAKE>

    Steve got the People who mattered in 2005 nod! and the Google guys! Thats cool.
     
  3. rdowns Suspended

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #3
    I'm sure I'll get flamed for this but I don't agree with naming the men and women in uniform as People of the Year. I support our troops and not the war. The fact is, they are doing what they signed on to do.
     
  4. dsyntax macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Location:
    Norcal
    #4
    yeah

    I like the idea of naming an actual person or identifiable small group of people for the distinction. Naming the huge group "US Armed Forces" is crazy.
     
  5. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #5
    Lame. Lamer. Lamest.

    I love U2, but duh....

    How about the people in the hurricane devastated (there are still mountains of garbage in N.O.) areas that lost EVERYTHING.
     
  6. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #6
    It's supposed to be someone (or some people) who affected news the most. I don't see how any of this year selections did.
     
  7. cantthinkofone macrumors 65816

    cantthinkofone

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    Location:
    Missouri, USA
    #7
    weren't the men and women of the armed forces named people of the year last year?
     
  8. Deepdale macrumors 68000

    Deepdale

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Location:
    New York
    #8
    I am with you on this. The naming of large groups or entities detracts from the personal accomplishments or influence exerted by individuals. With possible changes affecting many citizens because of the changing nature of the Supreme Court, maybe next year Time will name the federal judiciary as "people" of the year and FEMA as the collective recipient of the prestigious Bozo award for impersonation of clowns trying to help, but failing in the process.
     
  9. Seasought macrumors 65816

    Seasought

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    #9
    I couldn't bear to read through the rest of the article. Turning them into some sort of romantic figures on a crusade kind of turned me off from caring.

    It's hard for me to give them credit when so much bad has overshadowed him and the company with regard to other sectors.

    As for U2, I hate their music but I respect their political agenda.
     
  10. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #10
    I'm really serious about the hurricane thing.

    My stepsister is fortunate enough to live in the Garden District in New Orleans and was spared, but she says the rest of the city is still in ruins - piles of refirgerators, garbage, junk - just horrible. And everyone seems to have forgotten.

    Then there are the other two hurricanes that destroyed the south and Florida.


    Up yours, TIME.
     
  11. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #11
    Everyone don't get too mad now. There is a list of the other people they chose on the CNN.

    "Along with Darth Vader, CIA agent Valerie Plame and Pope Benedict XVI, Time tapped:

    Apple computer chief Steve Jobs"

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/18/time.poy/index.html

    jon
     
  12. Jovian9 macrumors 68000

    Jovian9

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Location:
    Planet Zebes
    #12
    Well, as long as a camera is around and it's a good cause, Bono will be there with his glasses on.
     
  13. Deepdale macrumors 68000

    Deepdale

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Location:
    New York
    #13
    Let's get a jump on 2006 and make it very easy for the magazine to just name Mac Forums as the people of the year. It would make more sense than Vader and the pope and be far less Time consuming in the end.
     
  14. rosalindavenue macrumors 6502a

    rosalindavenue

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2003
    Location:
    Virginia, USA
    #14
    If the criteria is "the year's biggest newsmaker," then it is a poor choice. However, I do think that Bill and Melinda Gates deserve enormous credit for their philanthropy. Gates is the richest man since Rockefeller and he is handing out money for good causes in a Rockefeller-like manner. Here's a New York Times article about the great philanthropists.
     
  15. 2nyRiggz macrumors 603

    2nyRiggz

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Location:
    Thank you Jah...I'm so Blessed
    #15
    bono....sucks. thats all i got to say about that.

    Bless
     
  16. dubbz macrumors 68020

    dubbz

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    Alta, Norway
    #16
    Yes, I agree that B&M do much good. But I also thought it was rewarded to those who had the biggest presence in the news this year. :confused:

    There's certainly people/things that's had more effect.

    Was this all based on user votes? Could explain the choice. People aren't always good at reading instructions :p
     
  17. GFLPraxis macrumors 604

    GFLPraxis

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    #17
    They give away money and become people of the year.

    That's just stupid.

    Time should measure giving away money in percentages and pay attention to how the money is obtained.

    EDIT:

    And what is up with this?
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1142156,00.html

    EDIT 2: After reading it, it looks like a big appeal to emotion; "Bill Gates did this after making money, then that"- nothing to do with Microsoft stopping their business practices.
     
  18. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #18
    I'm sorry, I guess it's my own opinion but I find that a lousy excuse. Sure a homeless person can give away a $1 and probably have a higher ratio than Bill Gates, but that dollar is hardly going to help anything. Sure it's high up on the moral and ethical scale, but in reality, Bill is doing a lot more. Could he do more, of course, but it's still more than most.

    I suppose I feel that's a benefit of being rich.

    jon
     
  19. illegalprelude macrumors 68000

    illegalprelude

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    #19
    if thats the case, then Africa should be Times person of the year. their worse off
     
  20. GFLPraxis macrumors 604

    GFLPraxis

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    #20
    True, but then you can look at how the money is obtained.

    Bill Gates makes his money off a software monopoly and illegal practices (and he simply takes the fines and keeps doing it). Then he gives 1% of the money he makes (much of it by ignoring laws) to charity and bam, he's instantly Person of the Year.

    And about percentages, a homeless person can give away $1 to someone and if that's most of his income, he's giving at a greater cost to himself than Bill. I find that more commendable (but granted it is not going to get him Person of the Year).
     
  21. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #21
    "but I cahnt peter, it's fer the stahrvin' childrin"
     
  22. Les Kern macrumors 68040

    Les Kern

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2002
    Location:
    Alabama
    #22

    This whole line of thought makes no sense at all. $1.00 is just not a billion. And a billion is still a billion even if it come from a billionaire. And just what is an acceptable level of charity that will pass your test? 10%? 20% Really? So YOU decide what is really charity and what is more a way to get "Person of the Year"?
    And can you really say he made all his money illegally? Of COURSE he didn't. Can you say that he has all his money liquid? Of COURSE he doesn't.
    But you can sit there typing away, PISSED off that Gates is giving BILLIONS away to some whom otherwise would have NO help. Who the F*** are you anyway? God? Nah, just bitter for some unknown reason.
    Merry Christmas. Time to upgrade to Office X dude.
     
  23. GFLPraxis macrumors 604

    GFLPraxis

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    #23
    No, you don't understand. I said that the above poster is correct that that wouldn't get someone person of the year. What I'm saying is that that someone would be giving more of himself than Bill Gates is. He wouldn't be making much of a difference, because he can't, but that man would be worthy of just as much respect.

    I'm also saying it depends on what percentage and how the money was obtained and other things the person does. I mean, if we're talking about a guy who earned two billion dollars because he created some incredibly good product or service or did something else good to earn it, then gives half of it to charity, vs a guy with 100 billion who gives one or two to charity and obtained his billion by creating a crappy product and using market dominance to force it onto consumers even in direct opposition of the law, really, who is more deserving of a Person of the Year award?

    Wow, way to completely miss the point. I'm not ticked off that Bill Gates is giving away money. It's a good thing that he's at least giving away some of it. I'm ticked off that he can do all kinds of unethical things in the business world, rip off millions of consumers, entire countries, break laws, but he donates some money and that AUTOMATICALLY makes him "Person of the Year" and a good person. He's basicly BUYING his way into being hailed as man of the year, and because he throws some money at charities then anything he does is ignored.

    Stating Bill Gates does some good things with his money is fine. But I think that if someone gets Person of the Year, it shouldn't be because they did good things with their money while doing all kinds of unethical things on the side to make that money.

    The arguement can be made that Bill Gates did quite a lot of bad in the world in addition to the good. Is that really Person of the Year material?


    Your opinion and my opinion may differ, but you don't have to be so angry about it. Please, discuss rationally.
     
  24. Henri Gaudier macrumors 6502a

    Henri Gaudier

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Location:
    France
    #24
    S**t Floats

    Bono - at least now he's getting acknowledgement for all his pro establishment " we're capitalists with a heart" drivel. Rock.

    Bill Gates - oh he's nice, it's that terrible boy Microsoft that he hangs around with that's to blame.

    & as for the truly saccharine "Men & women in uniform" Automata! These are the people which enable the black hearted Judeo-Christian war mongerers in and around governments to play out their dreams. Without people willing to serve in their armies see how fast Bush, Rumsfeld & Zackheim are to get to Iraq to get their hands dirty.

    As for the black hearted Muslim war mongerers - at least they tend not to travel far from home!
     
  25. TheMonarch macrumors 65816

    TheMonarch

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #25

    Oh no... Waaay off... B&M Gates have given about half their worth to charity... Much more than a couple of billion...
     

Share This Page