Posted on 08/24/2010 9:36:32 AM PDT by cyogerst
Here at The Concession Stand, NRB’s pop culture division, we are sustained by a steady stream of boneheaded remarks from celebrities grand and small. One of the gifts that keeps on giving is Chicago-Sun Times film critic turned political pseudo-blogger Roger Ebert.
Ebert was recognized by the National Society of Newspaper Columnists as one of the best bloggers of 2010 for his “clarity and depth.” Such an accolade is laughable when you objectively consider an average Ebert post. Far from deep or clear, a typical Ebert rant is a long piece of well crafted gibberish.
In his most recent post, “Ten things I know about the mosque,” Ebert takes on opponents of the Cordoba House project near ground zero of the 9/11 attacks. In usual Ebert fashion, his post lacks an overall thesis and wanders aimlessly between several barely related thoughts. In light of this stream-of-consciousness writing style, answering Ebert requires point-by-point refutation. Hence, here are ten things I know better than Roger Ebert.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
And anything on TV is an infomercial, making him nothing more than Billy Mays in drag.
Was he raised Methodist or Catholic?
Either way, it shows.
Excellent piece. I don’t have time to read the whole thing now, but what I have read shreds the juvenile “logic” of Ebert.
Oppressives like Ebert are not known for anything other than sactimonious blather rivaling an Elmer Gantryesque carny verbosity with the oppositional defiant disorder of a three year old.
In contrast, the late Gene Siskel was a devout member of a very conservative synagogue, and was a good family man.
yep
“Oppressives like Ebert”
Good description. We need to start using these as part of our lexicon. The left has re-labeled lots of things to their advantage (e.g. “choice” “affirmative action” “diversity”)
“Progressives” = Oppressives, used interchangeably with Depressives.
The “instinctive” reaction of most Americans, post 9/11, is a deep suspicion of an Islamist flimflam artist stirring up publicity so he can hustle millions from Saudi princes and gullible U.S. liberals.
What does being Catholic have to do with it? I am, and I disagree with everything Ebert says.
This man has no right.
Gene balanced out the esoteric crap of Ebert.
I rarely read Ebert’s reviews. He is vehemently
anti-American and anti-Christian probably anti-semetic
too.
I miss Siskel. His reviews were grounded more
realistic.
As do I, but don’t let that get in the way of his prejudice.
Erbert cashed in with the thumbs idea and that — not his criticism — is his claim to fame. In serious criticism he is nothing more than a footnote about thumbs.
A great tour de force refutation of the deranged Roger Ebert’s spew fest. Ebert is a collasal bore who seems to think his voice is a needed or wanted one in the national debate. It’s not.
This is worth a FULL READ.
“What does being Catholic have to do with it? I am, and I disagree with everything Ebert says.”
In his/her little world, some Christians are more equal than others. Don’t let it bother you. People like that rot in hell.
This clown Ebert endorsed Algore in 2000. Need I say more? Like I’m going to listen to one of his movie reviews.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.