What is Digg?Sponsored by Paramount Pictures
TIME calls 'The Lovely Bones' "engrossing" & "enthralling". view!
time.com - TIME reviews Peter Jackson's new film, which is part thriller, part fantasy & part love story.
135 Comments
- DivisibleByZero, on 10/11/2007, -4/+56I call BS on this. Ann Coulter looks like Skeletor.
- tablehead, on 10/11/2007, -12/+49It is a clever form of subtle slander. Fox is giving both sides a chance to speak, but uses appearances to color their world view. You have to admit it is a pretty clever way to get around charges of bias. You cannot prove in a court of law that somebody is "ugly". It is Karl Rovian style junk-mail marketing tactics. This is what happens when rich biased sneaky people run the media.
- masgrada, on 10/11/2007, -4/+31Did anyone ever notice how during the debates for the president ' 04 they would change the color of Kerry's screen to make him look real blue? And it wasn't one debate, every single debate. It was so obvious because Kerry's orange and red light were both the same odd color on TV. (Ya know their little talk timer lights.)
George bush was a nice warm tone and completely different than the cold looking Kerry. It's a real common thing to do in movies/TV/pictures to give people a subtle and subconscious difference. - mwsherman, on 10/11/2007, -18/+44I can't wait until the Ron Paulies start bombing The Economist for not talking more about Ron Paul.
- sobriquet, on 10/11/2007, -7/+33Look at Hannity and Colmes. The conservative Hannity, a tan square jawed gentleman. Stocky and charismatic. Then the liberal Colmes, pale and balding, thinner than his counterpart. Not someone you'd expect to pick up a football on weekends. This is such an excellent use of subtle suggestion many people probably never noticed.
- jarinudom, on 03/31/2008, -2/+24Just take a look at Hannity and Colmes as an example
Colmes looks like a burn victim - Gawain23, on 10/11/2007, -5/+25Gotta love the last sentence.
- brstilson, on 10/11/2007, -8/+26"Liberals like someone who looks liberal (hippy)"
Neocon lie #6739: Hippies still exist - hikaruzero, on 10/11/2007, -5/+20"To all you Ron Paul backers: ***** YOU. I don't want to see this country ruined by the policies of an insane lunatic. Bush has already done enough damage that we're at least a decade and a half from a recovery unless we get a progressive president in 2008. Ron Paul would damage the last vestiges of what used to be a great country. Now we're just a country of idiotic middle men who try to horn in on any money making opportunity instead of being a leader in manufacturing, technology and diplomacy. So ***** you all."
You're dumb, man. There, I said it. But let me back it up.
Ron Paul pretty much stands for everything that Bush doesn't. He stands for a small government that doesn't intervene in people's affairs, he calls for peace, a smarter foreign policy, bringing the troops home, and legalizing marijuana among other things.
You're dumb, man, if you think that just because he's running on the Republican ticket, he is anywhere near Bush-mentality. I know a few Democratic candidates (*cough* Hillary *cough*) that are closer to Bush's platform than Ron Paul. - SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17Alan Colmes does look like Skeletor...
- satanatnmtedu, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15I seriously doubt that is true.
- brstilson, on 10/11/2007, -6/+18"So, your point is that you want Colmes replaced, not because of his views or abilities, but because you think he is ugly?"
Either that, or replace Hannity with someone who looks more like the typical neo-con. - KMye, on 10/11/2007, -6/+17I've never subscribed to the Economist, but I probably about 20 issues/year, and it's incredibly objective and informative. It will be one of the last hopes for honest analysis if the WSJ is bought by News Corp.
- Zain123, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13Digg users, or even internet bloggers/commentators, are not representative of the world.
- JerodSlay, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12They're not very objective: "During the debate Ron Paul, a feisty libertarian from Texas who stands no chance at all..."
- jbehan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11What the hell is wrong with having a beard?
- jobenly, on 10/11/2007, -6/+16Exactly. That's why Cheney goes on news channels when Bush wants to promote some new policy. You can't help but melt when you see a winning smile like his.
- phineous, on 10/11/2007, -15/+22Just in case you weren't aware, they had to let you know what to think. Ron Paul stands no chance at all.
Did they write that before the debate? Because I seem to remember he won in several polls.
Say it with me now:
Ron Paul stands no chance at all!
Louder!
Ron Paul stands no chance at all!
I can't hear you!
Ron Paul stands no chance at all!
I wonder if people will see how journalism has crossed the line to propaganda. - FriedTurkey, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9It's just that Colmes is the most passive liberal who allows himself to get talked over by Hannity daily. Plus you can tell Colmes has no input into the topics addressed.
- speerross, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7"During the debate Ron Paul, a feisty libertarian from Texas who stands no chance at all, suggested that Middle Eastern terrorists attacked America “because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for ten years.” Mr Giuliani fired back: “That's an extraordinary statement...that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th.” The conservative audience erupted in approval."
I don't know a huge amount about the Republic nomination race in the US but Ron Paul sounds like a good guy with some good policies. That he had the guts to come out and say that is astounding, and the amazing thing he is correct. I'm sure there haven't been many US B-52's carpet bombing the middle east since the first Gulf War but the CIA and other US government organisations and US business have been funding militancy in the area for years. Hell, Al Queda was set up under YOUR dollar. Yeah your tax dollars funded the rise of the most powerful terrorist organisation yet all in the name of fighting communists. Giuliani is a fool if he hasn't heard it before. I don't know what to believe about these September 11th theories but Ron Paul just layed out the number 1 reason (albeit simplified) for current terrorist activity against the USA and how would Giuliani combat it? The same failed foreign policy that caused the terrorism. - lordmike, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9"Look at Hannity and Colmes. The conservative Hannity, a tan square jawed gentleman. Stocky and charismatic. Then the liberal Colmes, pale and balding, thinner than his counterpart. Not someone you'd expect to pick up a football on weekends. This is such an excellent use of subtle suggestion many people probably never noticed."
I noticed!... it's a technique that is brilliantly described by Ray Bradbury in Farenheit 451. In fact, the Hannity and Colmes show is almost directly ripped out of that scene in the book. - lithuin, on 10/11/2007, -6/+12@tablehead
At the same time, if you are letting an editorialist's physical appearance color your reception of his message, you are a hopeless putz and aren't fit to hve an opinion.
(Not you specifically, tablehead, but you in the general sense.) - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7What's with the beard hate? :(
- christopheles, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11It shouldn't surprise anyone; it's the Economist. I'm sure Mr. Paul looks very tiny from across the pond.
- satanatnmtedu, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9*****. I don't care what someone looks like. I care about how they think, and WHAT they think about the issues.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8It's not only that Colmes is hideous, he is, but it's also how milk toast of a personality is. The show could be renamed Hannity and the guy who tells him its time to cut to commercial break, and nobody would know the difference.
It's a common tactic for conservatives to fall back on attacking someone based on their looks. John Kerry looks French. Michael Moore is fat. Rosie O'Donnell looks like a bull dyke. Hillary Clinton wears pantsuits.
Now get someone freakishly ugly with a total lack of conviction, spine, and charisma, and you have the perfect foil for Hannity. And they found the perfect one. And no I don't excuse the other side for things like calling Coulter mannish looking, I think that's ridiculous too. Though by no means is it used in such excess. - coodies4ever, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6the economist saying paul has no chance probably has to do with the fact that they go by official polls, and not the unscientific online/text message polls that paul supporters swamp en masse FYI. i like ron paul but i haven't yet seen an actual, scientific national poll that shows him with any significant popularity (compared to the big 3)
links would be appreciated if such a poll exists - apetrie, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7I don't understand how what Paul said is seen as so radical, and never heard of before. Really? Seriously? Because the rest of the western world has pretty much been screaming that at the top of its lungs since this whole crap started. Are Americans so cut off from the rest of the world and so reliant on purely American media that they can really honestly say they have never heard anyone state before that American foreign policy did a lot to contribute to the atmosphere that caused 9/11? That opinion has been "out there" and well-supported by history and facts for a very long time.
- gruvsf, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7I have read the Economist, and I think they lean right of center. However, I guess even conservative print media can call out other non-objective media as well if they see it as such. I applaud the Economist for their article.
- my4boyz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4If you don't Digg Ron Paul, you will be digging your own grave.
Now go back to watching Dancing with the Stars or something. Sorry to have bothered you. - fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7"Because I seem to remember he won in several polls."
Has any one of these polls been conducted in the real world (not the internet)? - colinmhayes, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4some men like to look like babies.
- FlaG8r, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7They are not conservative, they are Republican and Neocon. They take talking points directly from the RNC and repeat them throughout the day. They sure as Hell are not centrist.
- KMye, on 10/11/2007, -17/+20Not talking more about him? I think they'll wish it talked less.
FTA: "During the debate Ron Paul, a feisty libertarian from Texas who stands no chance at all..."
Nevertheless, you're right the bombing and burying will commence shortly...I love this magazine for telling it how it is, about Fox News, and RP. - n8glenn, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7Actually, most of that article seemed to be a slanted take on the republican debate, absolutely ignoring the popularity enjoyed by Ron Paul after his comments about terrorism. They completely rule him and the other second tier candidates out, but give more of a chance to some actor who I've never even heard of who isn't even running yet? Rudy was clearly being disingenuous and based on the polls people know it, but all they can say is that Rudy is "pulling away"?
- Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5My main two problems is. 1. If they nicest person on your debate is john Mcain you have a probem. 2. Secondly what Paul said about the 911 attacks makes a lot more sense than most reasons for why we were attacked on 911. To me this just made Gilluni look like a fool.
- xdre, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7It might *look* centrist, but the end-result is subtly but distinctly not.
- AllnightChemist, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6It makes whatever point you're trying to make invalid. (Unless you're James Lipton.)
- Kallstar, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4LOL everyone with the least bit of sense can clearly see this is only about Hannity and Colmes. While I grant you that Colmes looks like some mutant who lived under a power plant his entire life, he's not the ugliest person I've seen on TV. The only good looking people on fox are the handful of hot females that you'll also find on every other network. Face it, most of the population is fairly ugly, and if such stupidity sways your opinion on any given topic, you really don't qualify to do any rational thinking to begin with. I have a feeling even if they only allowed identical twins on Fox, people would still bitch about the dumbest things. Her face is slightly chunkier!! Is that a mole?? Why is hear makeup so uneven!!! That one is showing more cleavage! Just watch the freaking news and start making fun of the content.. its much easier.
- gmason08, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4@greyfedora-Please don't take my reply to you as confrontational, that is definitely not my intent.
I think several aspects of the predominating manner with which candidates are vetted is very flawed and harms us all. It is currently far more along the lines of a car salesman's pitch than a rational process to elect the BEST leader.
I consider it irrelevant and manipulation when widely consulted "news" sources go down the road of telling people so and so Can't win or is fringe, etc. That is an attempt to manifest a self fulfilling prophecy.
How about this concept to narrow the field and determine the best leader:
Give us straight, uneditorialized info on all the possibles, the full unedited report of exactly what they say not what someone says they said; what they have done and what they want to do and how consistent have they been regarding past promises. Distribute/disseminate hard facts widely/equally and let the people decide, i.e. let info flow let people make their informed choice.
No smearing, No manipulation, No dirty tricks, No talk of who has the most money/best haircut/hottest spouse/etc.
Who has the BEST ideas? - VinceNoir, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5If the average viewer is simply basing their political opinion on how someone looks, we've got huge problems in terms of the ability for the average viewer to be manipulated by propaganda. Fox is propaganda. Anyone who buys into what Fox says is simply being manipulated. I don't base my political opinions on looks. I base them on how close a speaker or candidate is to my own values and belief system. If they support:
1. Laws and rules to protect the weak and powerless
2. Order and justice throughout all aspects of life with no regard for the individual (yes you read that right)
3. Freedom to all as long as those freedoms don't interfere with the lives of the weak and powerless
Then I'll likely side with them. But if they are some kind of Ayn Rand believing monstrosity who celebrates "the self", then I will knife them in the back (figuratively speaking) every time. - Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5I agree. It was part of the 911 commision reports also. Unfortunatly most americans are either so apathetic they never read it or so retarded they beleive the government is the one who launched the 911 attacks so they didnt read the 911 commision report because they think it is fake or something.
- FearlessFreep, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Wonder how many liberal commentators just yelled "Hey, I'm not ugly!" just because they had been on Fox?
- lordmike, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7"Either that, or replace Hannity with someone who looks more like the typical neo-con."
Oh, but I don't think that would be suitable for television... certainly not during "family hour"! ;-) - ubuwalker31, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4@nymphochik (#6792863)
don't worry, the world will be able to vote for an American President sooner than you'd think... - hgb5150, on 10/11/2007, -8/+10I hope the poster was being sarcastic when he applauded The Economist for "objectivity." Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Who were the pundits they had on? The article doesn't say, so I have no way of judging for myself.
They have had Kirsten Powers on in the past, and she's liberal and beautiful (in my opinion). - Atertract, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It's been said here before and I'll say it one more time: The Economist is not objective, at least not in this article, and probably not at all. This article read like an entertainment piece dissecting the latest celebrities. The jab at Fox News seems to be an effort from one conservative news source to divorce itself from one that has no credibility. Accurate and amusing, but not proof of any sort that The Economist is objective. The Nation isn't objective either, but at least it says up front: "we are biased, this is our take."
- Area417, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@brstilson
I'm no neocon and I discount Moore because he plays pretty fast and loose with the facts himself. - apetrie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1For c, see directly above your own comment.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1302
If I read it correctly on the 16th I think it says he is on 3%, up from 1% in Jan. That's from New Hampshire I think.
I came over this while I was looking for that link (might be of interest, I dunno, I havn't read it yet)
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/are-pollsters-censoring-ron-paul-from-states-polls.html -
Show 51 - 100 of 135 discussions
