Whos the dude on the 2nd cover ?

Can't they just quit the pretense and rename their magazine Obama instead of Time. So shameful. Especially the doctor cover.

The only times I read Time Magazine is when I'm at my doctor or my dentist. And thankfully, they're ALWAYS 7 or 8 years old.  

"Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country."-John Adams

                    I would rather read Mad-mag, than this rag-mag.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/07/30/michelle-obamas-toxic-veggie-nightmare-white-house-organic-gar/?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl3|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailyfinance.com%2F2009%2F07%2F30%2Fmichelle-obamas-toxic-veggie-nightmare-white-house-organic-gar%2F

The First Garden is polluted. Maybe a Super Fund site?

Time or any other magazine.

When you have elected THE SAVIOR, a god/man who was descended from Abraham, Peter, Paul, Mary, Joseph, Moses ---- Correction, I meant Bill Ayers, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Saul Alinsky, Rev. Al Sharpton, and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, he deserves the covers on Time and NewsWeek, and the fawning (defined as: To exhibit affection or attempt to please, as a dog does by wagging its tail, whining, or cringing) by the media.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"I'm reminded every single day, that I am not a perfect man. I will not be a perfect president." ~ Barack Hussein Obama

Has more freaking books and special Magizines on this President then I have ever seen. 

I'm sick of it.  I wonder when this President is out of office in 2012, will they do the same for the new one?

Nope, never happen.

It's like watching that stupid bird on TV running around shouting, "I'mm coo coo for Coco Puffs!!!!"

"Obama lied, transparency died!" Michelle Malkin

Well, I thought it would be fun to go back and look at Times cover shots of President Bush during his first 6 months in office. Here's Time's covers during the period: Jan 1 - July 31, 2001

President Bush got one cover picture. The headline? "BUSHWACKED" Well, that was sweet.

Along the way... this Jan 8, 2001 cover popped up: "How to Survive the Slump?" How refreshing that Time Mag. noticed that Bush inherited a "slump." But did they really want to talk about it? After proposing in, This Time It's Different, that according to many economists, this slump wouldn't necessarily result in a recession (everyone in Washington was talking about the coming recession), we get quite an interesting take on the stock market on Jan. 8th, 2001 (my bold):

With the market apparently headed straight up, traditional advice about diversification among stock market sectors and other investment classes, such as bonds and cash, came to be seen as quaint and obsolete.

Let's see, the foundation of the dot.com economic bubble of the Clinton era, the NASDAQ, was down 53% from it's March 2000 highs. On March 13, 2001, progressive (socialist) economist, Dean Baker of CEPR said:

"The decline in the stock market was an entirely predictable event for anyone familiar with basic arithmetic, even if the exact timing could not be known in advance. The nation's political leaders chose to ignore the stock market bubble... or the reappearance of budget deficits in a decade or two. As a result, millions of families have seen their dreams of a secure retirement or their children's college education vanish with the stock market bubble. The level of negligence of the nation's political leaders [of the late 90's - 2000]  in ignoring the stock bubble exceeds anything since the days of Herbert Hoover."

Time Magazine ('wha's he talking about') and the rest of the MSM, who generally greatly adore Dean Baker, decided not to hear, and not to share with the public, what Bush inherited.

(:~/ gary

maybe?