Ebert is married to a black women thus is probably affected by the same group-think mentality that causes over 90% of blacks to vote Democrat.

I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

I would tell Roger Ebert "what he can do" with his article ... but I'm actually convinced he would! 

mclantiere

Because he is completely unable and unwilling to use well-reasoned persuasion to make his point, he creates an "Us against Them" screed based on ignorance, paranoia, and hatred in order to stroke the egos of his narrow-minded readers...if he has any.

So, one thumb up for Roger Ebert!  One guess as to where it is.... 

MSM: the suicidal suspension of reason and conscience.

Wow, where'd you get that great picture of Ebert?  And how'd you squash it so he looks like an evil troll?  lol.

I would contend that Ebert isn't even a very good movie reviewer.  I stopped watching that show shortly after Siskel died.  It was obvious who the talent on that show was.

When comments are posted on this 'journal' of his, he sometimes edits them and throws in responses.  To several posts, he asks angry conservatives to 'explain how Bush won in 2000'.  So it seems that this man is one of many angry liberals who still think that Bush 'stole' the election in 2000 and that Gore should have been president.

I chose not to respond to his article - but to his comments.  In one of them, he asks a conservative comment who was upset that Roger called Bush a 'thief' and wanted to know where he got it from.  Roger responded thusly: 'Then explain how Bush was elected in 2000'.

My answer was this:

1) Gore lost the initial vote
2) Gore lost the first recount
3) Gore lost the second recount
4) Gore lost the third recount
5) Gore contested the results of the election and set the stage for what has since become standard operating procedure in elections, not just in the US, but across the entire globe: when you lose, accuse your opponent of cheating and contest the results.

Gore was an odious man who has done more to destroy faith in free elections than any other person in modern history.  It was a glad day when he finally slunk off the national political stage in disgrace.  Alas, he continues to afflict the world with his hypocritical eco-drivel.  The man is a ghoul who feasts on the money of fools from whom he has panhandled millions with his weapons of fear and guilt.  He lives in luxury while commanding everyone else to live 3rd world lifestyles.

I think that Roger will be furious, because he obviously worships at the altar of Al Gore and, like other liberals, think he's a prophet of global warming.  Just goes to show - if you don't believe in God, you'll believe in anything - even Al Gore.

I must take issue with one thing you said:

"In his latest opinion piece, Roger Ebert proved that he is very skilled at one thing and one thing only - movie reviews."

Personally, I think he sucked at that, too. 

"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest

...who couldn't write, and hated anyone who could.

I feel the same way about movie critics.

-Dave

The election of 2010 will be our last chance to save our republic. -Neal Boortz

Let's see, I am a registered Republican but:

1) I have a Bachelors Degree.

2) I wasn't abused.

3) I do not resent authority.  I was taught by my parents to respect authority.

4) I believe I have common sense.  How else could I graduate from college and hold a job in law enforcement.

5) I do not "hate" someone for trying to help me but I want to help myself first.  I'm not looking for handouts from the government.

I am blue collar and older but am I supposed to ashamed of that?

Ebert is a typical liberal elistist.  In their eyes if you don't make a million dollars a year, drink wine at the country club or vote Democrat you are a piece of shit.

I would rather be a blue collar police officer that has a loving family and friends that really care about me than a white collar elistist snob that would stab you in the back to make a buck. 

"They are told to oppose, even hate, those who might be trying to help them."

  Yep, we are just too stupid to know whats good for us. 

  The libs don't like us because we won't mind our betters as do the unions and minorities.

Is he referring to pretty much the entire Democratic Party circa 1850-1880, the Southern Democrats circa 1850-1971, or simply the Ku Klux Klan that was founded by Democrats and has no member identify himself as Republican? 

Just like the other libs... they think History is the least important subject you can study.

"In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress."

-John Adams

I have read a few of his "opinion pieces".  What strikes me odd about him is the the relentless hate of anything tied to republicans, his lack of concern for the plight of the poor youth and people of Chicago where the results of liberal government are on full display and his complete and total self worship.

If it has subtitles they seem to double whatever grade they'd give any film. I always thought a fun experiment would be to add subtitles to a Clint Eastwood film, just to see how they'd review it. Only someone as well-established as Clint and a few others dare admit they're conservative. Like many, I watch review programs to see clips from the movie while paying very little heed to the critic's opinion of the film. For that I tend to rely more on IMDB as the opinion of a 1000 strangers is worth far more than Ebert's opinion.

I remember that he and Siskel originally panned Star Wars, only to re-review it a few weeks later and decide it was a good movie after all. Perhaps their publishers told them to or they just didn't want their audience to see how out of touch they were. 

Ebert's real fear is the same as many leftists: polls show that the majority of Americans identify with conservatism over liberalism, God over atheism. All those years in control of the MSM and public schools and they still haven't won - it gives me a little hope.

E. Burke "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

I think we need to come up with a different term for the leftist elite.  I know that "elite" is being used correctly in this sense, but it just seems to have a positive connotation.  "Elite" is something that people strive to be.  Not only that, but you generally have to earn it and prove it.  Something the leftists never do.

I would suggest that we go back to that old standards "pinko", as they are not quite communists, but are on the way there.  Of course "commie bast***s" works well, too.

One problem with liberals, especially those in the entertainment industry, is that they are always craving attention.  I believe this article was written so that Ebert could get attention for himself.  I have no doubt that he believes everything he wrote, but you will notice that he really didn't think through his points. 

He begins the article by saying: " I've had these thoughts for some time, but have been reluctant to
express them. Now so many others have voiced them that it's pointless
to remain silent."  Whaaaaaat?  You would think that if so many others voiced them, that one more voice in a screaming crowd wouldn't be heard.

Republicans as racist:  When did Robert (KKK) Byrd become a Republican?

Republicans as  blue collar, less affluent, more unemployed, less educated base.  That's funny because I always hear that Republicans are white, rich guys who own Wall Street.

He's trying to stir up a frenzy and see how rabid everyone can get.  But Conservatives never take the bait.

Senility 

"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security."