Time's New Person of the Year 2007: Is it completely ridiculous?

[LesOs]

<p>No, it’s not.</p>

<p>Ironically, you accuse Time of never providing any real arguments as to why they chose Putin (I haven’t read the article, so I can’t really agree or disagree with that). YOU never provide any COHERENT reason why Putin shouldn’t be person of the year. Just because Putin’s foreign policy with the US is not exactly positive shouldn’t disqualify him… He has succeeded in multiple economic reforms and consolidating political power.</p>

<p>Basically, as Snoopy and Jarn said, Putin made changes that made Russia influential again. The End.</p>

[rockermcr]

<p>

You might have been closer if you had said:</p>

<p>All cats are mortal.
Socrates is a cat.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

</p>

<p>Yeah, you’re right. One of my philosophy textbooks used a similar example, but it actually made sense. I got it wrong, though.</p>

[Pyroclasm]

<p>

@Jarn

I mean, it’s logically sound to say that “Russia is becoming influential again due to changes made in recent times. Putin made those changes. Ergo, Putin has been influential.”

</p>

<p>Actually, it isn’t. :D</p>

[Jarn]

<p>

Actually, it isn’t.

Yes, yes it is…</p>