"TeaBagger crowd: polite. The nutjobs who were bussed to Town Halls didn’t get their way paid to Sarah’s $100,000 speech"

Quite frankly, I have a different perspective. The reason there is such a furor, a brouhaha in the MSM over the fee paid to Sarah Palin, whether that be brom Mr. Ebert, Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow or any of the rest of the left wing loons in the MSM, boils down simply to one thing: JEALOUSY.

They are all jealous of Palin, and her abilities. How dare she, a nobody, who came out of nowhere, with nothing be able to command such a fee? That is what gets them where it hurts. Right in the ego, and the pocketbook.

Go get 'em Sarah! I hope she drives them all into cardiac arrest..

The "Tea Party" is a complete sham – the same tired, arcane, belief-driven, ignorance-fed, pandering "values" pablum that's infected and degraded American conservativism for decades dressed up to look like a "libertarian" groundswell. Look no further than the THREE (so far) TP-connected guys trying to take down Ron Paul for proof of this.

From where I survey, if the only choice is still between a "liberal" elite and a "conservative" lowest-common-denominator (also known as "the people")… between intellect and ignorance, between reason and "values"… then a thinking man no longer really HAS a choice.

And for this, I am sad.

All it will take to completely destroy the narrative is to find a way to replace the associated press. If Breitbart can do this, then the MSM will become meaningless to the public. The news networks have already been compromised. The NY Times and other major papers are slowly becoming relevant and are financially dying. The AP is the last brick in the wall. We have plenty of pundits and "experts" on both sides of the spectrum. But the liberal side still reports the actual news (only small exception is Fox News). And ultimately the only way to control (and hopefully abolish) the narrative is to report (not comment) on the actual news.

Hold on a minute. If I remember right isn't Al Gore paid speak? I think the last number I heard for him was 150,00.. so wheres the outrage over JabberJaw being paid for the same thing?

Oh right.. right. Nevermind. Its that "liberal thing" and I wouldnt understand.

"Did Ebert stop to consider how many of those ”teabaggers” might be Ebert fans who follow him on Twitter?"
Ex-Ebert follower here. Watched him and Siskel for years. Quit listening to him when he went politico.

Thank you.

I've now seen the light. I now realize I'm just an ignorance rube bitterly clinging to my guns and religion.

I'm now going to defer to my intellectual superior like you.

I await further instruction.

All Hail MovieBob, may he and those like him lead us to paradise.

If you follow a movie critic on Twitter, chances are you follow him because you admire his ability to critique the many offerings of Hollywood.

*boggle*

Movie reviews can be useful. However, if you follow *anyone* that religiously on Twitter, chances are you follow him because you don't have a life. Why anyone cares about movie critic tweets is disturbing.

Hey Ebert, how's my teabag taste?

and a "conservative" lowest-common-denominator (also known as "the people")… between intellect and ignorance, between reason and "values"…

You couldn't make the point any more clear, Hail Bob.
You and the rest of your ilk know better than us common folk. Thanks for everything you do.
Hail Bob. (LOL, Thanks for the wit, fellow peasent Panzer.)

Ebert is still around? I thought he died. I guess that was the other guy, the smarter one. Oh well. Never watched him again after that.

His critical faculties have degraded to the point of (without hyperbole) worthlessness. I check his twitter and marvel over how mad (in the crazy sense) he now seems. I think his writing will fall to the wayside as film history progresses. To not be entirely negative his need to be continually seen as cutting edge prompts him to tweet some interesting links that I might not have seen otherwise.

It just makes me so sad when someone I used to think well of opens their mouth, or their twitter account, and proves how truly shallow their world is and how little experience they have with people outside their little liberal group. It makes his reviews all suspect that his world view is so limited.

If he would actually attend a tea party or talk to people who have different views than his own, he might learn something and broaden his whole world, but instead he sits at his liberal dinner parties surrounded by people with a view of the world as limited as his own.

I think if he went to a tea party it would blow his mind how wide a range of people he would meet, instead he depends on MSNBC to inform him. I met people of every color and every political party all who just want a more responsive and responsible government. Instead of informing himself and others he is trying to tear down personally everyone who he is told by the MSM and his liberal friends are bad people.

Does he really believe he is so superior in his knowledge and thinking to such a large portion of the population of the United States? Apparently he does. Does he really believe trashing them all as "tea baggers", that disgustingly gutter term, is not doing damage to his reputation as well as his country? Maybe he just doesn't really care about that part of the population, and the country as a whole.

Ditto!

I love how the survey Ebert is sending tea-baggers to is both misspelled and contains grammar errors.
You can't buy that kind of irony.

Vainamoinen and Bob Smith: Many intelligent people USE Twitter. I was reluctant to try it, but once I found the Conservative community, I have adopted Twitter as my primary social media site. It has value, but you have to take the plunge to understand it.

It really annoys me for people to think that Twitter is only for inane tweets. But, I once felt that way. Now, I am enlightened.

Sarah Palin's Nashville speech was the most significant oration of the 21st century.

See:

http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/te...

Does he really believe he is so superior in his knowledge and thinking to such a large portion of the population of the United States?

It's like children rebelling against their parents. The fact of the matter is by and large most liberals are intellectually, morally and physically inferior to Conservatives. They lash out at their betters as demonstrated by their 8 year temper tantrum during the Bush years, they have a minimal intellect which requires them to be taken care of by govt, they're too irresponsible to make their own decisions so they have a union do it for them, most major in homosexual studies or multi-cultural nonsense, few are able to reconcile their bank accounts, etc.

The dumbest people in America are entirely on the left. What other group of people is stupid enough to believe the breath they exhale is a pollutant? Liberals are bitter because they know they are dumb, they know they are useless and they know they are losers, which is why they're embarrassed to call themselves liberals. They're followers as witnessed by their bootlicking of some jugeared political neophyte that has Zero accomplishments.

What can you expect from a man who makes his living criticizing the productive lives of others.

Big Bill Clinton gets a pretty good amount to spout his nonesense, maybe even a little hottie on the side, but you will not hear anyone complain about that either.

If the Sarah Palin Story were brought to the screen with Julia Roberts in the role, Ebert would effuse about the Feminist Saga of the gutsy woman who took on the Power Establishment yet retained her folksy manner of speech and her family despite all obstacles thrown in her path by the Power Structure. He'd be all atwitter.

I for one think the replies here don't understand what Movie Bob means. And I am intrigued by his meaning.

Can Ron Paul get a fair shake in the Tea Party establishment? Paul is the epitome of Tea Party, but if the guys in charge are still banishing him to a counter-convention then Movie Bob is right: its a sham.

Minor details not to be dwelled upon, he is still a whizbang compared to Bush. I mean look at how right he is about global warming, I think all this white stuff covering the USA is a product of global warming.

It amuses me to no end that Sarah Palin will still be tormenting Ebert all the way to his grave. His last Tweet (as he is no longer able to speak)won't be his beloved "Rosebud", but 'teabag'. The guy is just a nasty elitist snob, a condescending pseudo-intellectual jerk.

Who cares what that old queen thinks.
His taste in movies blows (always has).

I think you are partly right. He probably is upset that he has the hots for someone out of his league. However, I'm pretty sure that Ebert would be more interested in Todd than Sarah.

I once turned down the aisle in a downtown Chicago bookstore and was stopped by Roger who (was a larger man then) blocked the narrow aisle. He was reading his own book. For quite some time. Enough said.

Your proof is Ron Paul?

I'll never forget reading one of his entries in his syndicated column. A reader had a question about the purpose of the scene in FARGO where Marge Gunderson meets up with a high school classmate (who's heritage is Asian) at a supper club — who then proceeds to put The Moves on Marge. Ebert had some sort of overly-long, intellectualized answer about story plot. But he completely missed the point:

The Coen Brothers took a gorgeous opportunity of a talented Asian-American actor (Steve Park), who could do a spot-on Minnesota Norwegian accent! And it was — what the Coen's do well — FUNNY!

And Roger's columns never, ever looked the same to me after that. He completely missed it…

I remember when she wore white and that was some kind of KKK signal lol Apparently the right uses all kinds of hidden meanings for racism that only the left seems to know about or understand, I guess Sarah has taken it to a new level and doesn't even need words to incite her crowds to violent racism. Now that's funny stuff, why aren't Stewart et al goofing on that stuff?

Right on Cowboy! That's how I see it! People are jealous of Sarah Palin but do you see them standing up there and taking beatings like her to help keep America free? I don't see anybody else up there.

It makes me sad too, very much so. I grew up in Chicago watching Siskel & Ebert on WTTW and reading their reviews. I was always thrilled when they appeared on Carson or Letterman. I entered "Beat Siskel" and "Outguess Ebert" each time the Oscars rolled around. They were part of what made the movies very special to me.

So yes, to see someone whom I cherished as a such a positive force in my life transform into a completely negative one makes me very sad. And it isn't that I disagree with him (indeed, I have plenty of times in the past without having to turn in my fan card). It's that he completely trashes, mischaracterizes, and otherwise belittles and demeans my viewpoints in such vicious, superficial ways. And I think maliciousness is precisely his intent. I'm not offended that he's liberal. I'm hurt that he doesn't know well enough in his old age to appreciate that so many who have cherished him do not share his political views. He's chosen instead to completely polarize a following he built over a generation, and he's done so with contempt towards the Right, not respect.

So after 30 years of fan support, I'm pigeonholed as a racist, homophobic, violent, angry, etc. merely because I hold conservative values. Gee, have I earned the right to say, "you're welcome, Roger?"

The letters in "Roger Ebert" can be rearranged to read: "Bore Regret"

The first word describes what he is.

The second word is the emotion I feel when I inadvertently channel surf into one of his criticisms.

Some people get wiser, have more understanding of the world and take a broader view as they age. Ebert got just the opposite, bitter, narrow minded, uninformed and angry. I'm sad for him and his family…does he even have a family? He comes across as a guy who sits at his computer alone and reads KOS.

Roger Ebert must write for Captain America.

wasn't siskel eberts gay lover?

Hello Pam and Thank You Breitbart —I have always enjoyed Ebert's reviews but you are so right — his language and his message of slamming a party he does not respect will forever and in the future be touted by me as OVER! Such language and such messaging is more than crass or required. Thank you for pointing this out — these poor liberal schlubs are dropping off my favored-radar like flies!!! And so it goes! Enlightenment — great; Liberal's bashing with their trite drivel inserted in their messaging — loser-esque; and Breitbart Media outlets — priceless!!!!
Marks

he does excuse that as a 'youthful indiscretion'…

But it is seriously bad stuff. And he is lucky Gene Siskel teamed up with him or eles he'd be just another lefty critic…

Roger obviously likes the term "tea-bagger", so lets accept his premise. I say we keep "sticking our ideas in his face and ram them down his throat".

"Better a teabagger for libertry than a butt-boy for Obama and Darth Soros."

That has got to be put on a T-shirt! I love it!

re: teabagger
In 1776, the Tories referred to the Revoltionaries as "Yankee Doodles." This was not supposed to be complimentary. It was supposed to be insulting. Instead of festering over it, our Founders took the term and made it their own. They embraced it, owned it and took the sting away. To this day, Americans lovingly refer to themselves as Yankees.

When I hear the word teabagger, I wonder when some clever Conservative song writer will have the audacity turn it into a catchy little tune.

Tell a lie loud enough and often enough and pretty soon people will believe it. This can be done by selectively leaving out key bits of info, or by blatantly ignoring the truth- like when the LSM reported that only 100,000 people attended a Tea Party in Wash DC when Purdue Univ reported that 1.7 million attended and the DC police estimated that hundreds of thousands could not get to the Mall due to infrastructure overload.

Cont'd

I'm sure some social conservativism comes into play there and on that I would disagree with the Tea Partiers. Look at Scott Brown and Sarah Palin. Both espouse the same economic/fiscal beliefs, but he is moderate socially and she is not. Yet both are respected by the Tea Party community. So while sometimes libertarians can get a little kooky in the "social" department (even for me, and I don't identify as a social conservative), you are right that he has something to say about the MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM OF TODAY: THE ECONOMY!

So I also await an answer to MovieBob's question: Why isn't Ron Paul a part of it, if only to show how the Tea Party movement really is not about PARTY, but about agreement on the economic and fiscal issues. I went to the 9/12 march with a Conservative and a Liberatarian, so it's not that far out there.

What davidj said.
Ebert= 3 dollars, 1 bill.

The MSM is already meaningless. Just a couple of day's ago, Dan Rather was tearfully saying
"A truly free and independent press is the RED beating heart of democracy and freedom,"

Begging the Enlightened One to save Journalism

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2009/08/0...
.

indeed.. we're getting a whole lot of that warm snow up here too.

MovieBob – who gives a rat's ass? I don't' care if the damn thing is funded by George W. Bush, Pat Robertson, and the Ghost of Ronald Reagan. The movement is about fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, and smaller government. As long as it stays about those things, who cares if the GOP is "in on it"? More power to them for finally getting behind these concepts. God knows they didn't when they actually had power!

My question to the Tea Partiers is this. Why did you wait for it to get so bad? Where were you when the Republicans were stabbing us in the back with their spending? Its like the idiotic war protesters who were out in force until Obama took over. Now, no protests, despite the fact that he is conducting the same war in Iraq and increasing troops in Afghanistan. It's not about the actual policy, its about getting "their guy" in office. Its wrong when they do it, and its wrong when we conservatives let our Republican reps get away with it.

Perhaps you'd like to list for us all the "grassroots" movements you consider to be "legitimate". You know, so that we can tell if we're being faked-out or not.

I hope your ridiculous hatred for the tea party gives you a heart attack. You're definitely going to have one with the way you carry on.

So I was right. You ARE a crappy reviewer.

The irony here is Ebert really is a "teabagger".

And despite that, George W. Bush found it in his heart to wish him well back when he had surgery.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4XVWLZ4NYU&fe...

Of course he's not – he's an isolationist. We aren't. That's not the only difference. He's a freaking wack-job and nobody is going to vote for him except for other wack-jobs, morons like you. So get the hell over it already.

His questions give incredible insight into the liberal mind. This crap makes you a well informed voter? Hmmm, how do you answer question number 2? Ebert is such an elitist ass.

OMG, I could have become the next McDonalds law suit due to scalding coffee spilling where it should not.

Will try and be more considerate of those readers with a hair-trigger funny bone.

Apparently the better of that pair of critics left this world early and left behind the worst.

Are you as sad about your unbridled display of thoughtlessness as you are about your clichéd stereotyping? For you, I'm sad.

You're evil–oh, yeah, right–wasn't payin' attention–sorry. Well, you're probably a racist, too.

Roger Ebert has fans????

Perhaps its time ebert joins Micheal Jackson in the afterlife so we focus on his positive accomplishments rather suffer his asininity?

Another reason I want to see her in the top job…

She's fearless….

First, Mb, I want to debate whether or not you are really capable of "thinking"…because for months, we haven't seen it…

6) He mentions political parties, but no political ideologies. They are not the same.
7) He puts a LOT of trust in his "answer guide", considering how vast the Internet is. Then again, he's putting a lot of trust in a man with very little political experience. He's obsessed with Sarah Palin's political resume. Here's one for him: How many full terms did Obama serve in the Senate?
9) It's hard to say if Obamacare is Constitutional – it's too long for anyone to read in its entirety. I'm leaning towards "no".
10) Is Ebert showing off his, um, "wit" to his fans? I mean, "Teabaggers" in the title is a sign to me that there may be some snobbery involved.

Because his social positions are almost as bad as a Dimocrats or Repugnantlicans can be…

Fiscal ONLY…then leave the social to the states to decide…

Most of the stuff will get put down…because the states won't want to pay for it…

Here is the page for Ebert's Journal archives:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/archives.html

Someone help me out here. Some of his most vicious and misinformed stuff has been removed (by the Sun Times?). I can't find this Palin thing I'm talking about, nor can I find another article where he railed against McCain for not shaking Obama's hand properly (no, I'm not kidding!).

Albuquerque, NM's contribution to national stupidity…

Sorry, folks…I wasn't on the jury…

Ooohhh…ouch…

For the Win…

Better than a "tosser" anything…

Teabaggers are dumb. I don't think we need Roger Ebert to tell us that – it's proved time and time again. And there aren't as many of you as Fox would like us to believe. Your cause is dead even in your own party. You'd cut your own nose off to spite your faces. I think most of you are just racists and bigots and the rest of you are sheep who follow the claptrap of the racists and bigots.

And – there's a big difference between actors and sports figures being paid huge amounts and public figures seeking office who recieve huge sums. You always put up strawman arguments. You're all too easy.

Talk to me in 10 years and let's all see how the hopey changey thingy that your people are talking about goes….

You just keep thinking that way, sweetheart.

You're just about where we want you. All I have to is set my windage…

So, we've gone from leaderless, loose confederation, old white people to "this powerful", organized, etc in what, three months?

hmmmm…..

I wonder why all the fear?

I'd return the favor to Roger and call him an inane, fat f*ck, douchebag, jagoff… but that would be an insult to inane, fat f*ck, douchebag, jagoffs.

But, I hope he keeps it up. Remember how well the "George W. Bush is teh stoopid" tactic worked?

Ebert hasn't been relevant for a decade. He gives every movie 3 or 4 stars so he's no longer taken seriously as reliable film critic. Sadly, it appears that the cancer (or the cancer drugs) has affected his mind and exposed him as an angry, hate-filled liberal.

How did we go from leaderless old white people to ……."this powerful"?

Are ya gettin' skeered?

I mean really. We're just a bunch a good ol' boy, pick-up drivin, unedumacated, toofless, bible-totin' ya-whos…..ain't we? Don no the ferst ting 'bout none a dat orgenizin' stuff. Got me a cuzin been to dat dere state collige but, she's mah wife.

Same sound, different drum.

Ron Paul has more than few screws stripped.

"I think most of you are just racists and bigots and the rest of you are sheep who follow the claptrap of the racists and bigots."

Which just proves that you are a bigot.

I would have never of known about this had you not posted it….I do not know why critics even exist.

He IS just another lefty critic.

Ebert once told fellow Chicago newspaperman Mike Royko that Beyond the Valley of the Dolls was supposed to be satirical. Royko's response: "Yes, but did the director know that?"

And the Brits were fish and the Scandinavians were moose…

"Did Ebert stop to consider how many of those ”teabaggers” might be Ebert fans who follow him on Twitter? I wonder how many of them read his movie reviews for guidance on their entertainment choices."

No, because they don't. What a ridiculous thing to even bring up.

If he hates her now just think about how pi$$ed he's going to be when she becomes President!!!

Don't bother trying to comment on Ebert's little quiz forum – he only approves of those he likes, those that agree with him, or compliment him profusely.

Ebert is another liberal who wants with all of his heart to believe that non-liberals are racists, especially the tea partiers. Yes, it's a yawn of a cliche of a stereotype. But Ebert is married to an African American woman – well known to be a lovely, kind woman, unlike Mr. Condescending. So, he probably thinks co-opting her feelings will score him some husband points. That, and the fact that he rubs elbows with vapid movie stars who hang out with Chavez.

Uh…you do see that Big Hollywood has a twitter feed over there on the right, right?

Let me guess… Don't tell me… You're a fan of Michael Moore!!!

It's simply delicious that to prove that conservatives/tea party attendees "always put up strawman arguments," your drivel is filled with them. Psst – liars and those who are wrapped up in their cocoon of ideology are exposed in arguments when they arrogantly use superlatives such as "always," "never," "everyone," and "all" with no proof whatsoever. Obama does that, too, BTW.

Interestingly, at the last tea party I attended, there were many Democrats and Independents there who are sick of Obama's "tax and spend" agenda, too. And uh, oh, Jon – some were minorities… you claim we are "racists and bigots" because we disagree with Congress and Team Obama when we exercise our right to disagree with the government, but according to Rev. Sharpton, blacks CAN'T be racist. So what would you call a black or a Native American or a Hispanic who attends tea parties??? Are they racists/bigots, too? Or maybe it's just YOU, Jon, for having a peabrain and lumping millions of Americans together into one stereotype like Archie Bunker did on the TV show from the 1970s "All in the Family." (I'm guessing you would have opposed women's right to vote and the 1960s civil right movement as well – you've shown your true character, or lack thereof, here).

Quite a quandary… need a ladder to get yourself out of this idiotic corner you've painted yourself in, Jon?
ROFL

Like most Leftists, so full of himself it's inconceivable that insulting you would run you off.

You wrote: "If you're not on Twitter then you don't have any friends."

Crikey, you're a pitiful soul with no concept of real life. Enjoy your Twitter, and I'll enjoy not being a slave to a cyber social network.

And FYI – you are wrong about FOX and the tea party concept – it was initiated more than 200 years ago with our colonists rebeling against the British monarchy. Present-day, it was Rick Santelli, who as a TV business advisor at CNBC, actually got the ball rolling with his now-famous on-air rant in February 2009. Common knowledge, old news… except to ignorant liberals who are too lazy to bother ferreting out facts. Much like FOX News being accused by Media Matters for airing unflattering stories about Pres. Bill Clinton LONG before FOX News actually existed – LOL. Media Matters know that most libs are too dense to ever challenge their spoon-fed information, so they can make stuff up, and Nocturnal Spook and others of that brain-dulled ilk will be nice little sheep in accepting it.

If Palin is a puppet, then her puppet master is… who? The RNC rarely agreed with her until recently, Team McCain leaked fabrications out about her during the presidential campaign, liberal bloggers were deliberately trying to make her go bankrupt with frivolous lawsuits liberal media attacks her, the MSM has made it their mission to destroy her. Who's left, for goodness sake? RNC didn't embrace her writings on her Facebook account until recently… many were disturbed and decried Palin, including Newt Gingrich, that she was supporting conservative NY candidate Doug Hoffman instead of their pick, RINO and turncoat Dede Scozzafava (the woman who quit the campaign on Halloween and switched to the Democrat side the following day).

On the other hand, Obama has "puppet boy" written all over him… and George Soros and the SEIU are just the tip of the iceberg.

Nocturnal Spook, you're failing at trying to debate with the grownups… maybe graduate high school and then come back. In the meantime, backing your silliness with facts is actually a GOOD thing to do, despite your inclination to not worry about such pesky things like facts.

I wonder how much Ebert is paid for his often shallow movie critiques. Some evil corporation is probably footing the bill, I expect, so honor should dictate his retirement.

In all seriousness, the man probably does not have that long to live.

He wants to be remembered for this?

He's a cancer survivor and he spends his time acting like a baby on Twitter?

Come on Roger, you owe it to yourself and the late Gene Siskel, not to mention Roger Corman and all the wild Amazon women back in the day to just be quiet.

Every time the term "teabagger" is used, I reply with my liberal equivalent – Fister. Just think of the communist clinched fist raised in the air, the power-to-the-people fist and what do you have? Liberals. It's childish, I know. But they do not like it and they get the point. The only reason they use the terms is they believe, in their intellectual superiority, that we have not idea we are being insulted. Not being a devient person, I had no idea what it was. And those who continue to use the term just show themselves to be the small, snarky, self-loathing potty-mouths they really are.

Ebert=irrelevance. Another fruitcake media/entertainment type voicing their naive tunnel vision view about something he truly knows little about. Ebert needs to come out of his cave every few months into the sunlight, if he did he would realize he is rapidly losing his audience and livelyhood. He is angry and a petulant little boy. Grab a twinkie and go escape back into your never world in front of your movie screens you pansy. Two thumbs up! FABULOUS, That movie was SUPER! " I wish my brother were here" Get a job you chinball wizard.

Part 2: When word got around the web that Seitzman wrote that, he defended himself by saying his feminism made his remark all the more appropriate:

Let me point out that I wrote an entire movie about sexual harassment (North Country — click on the link over there on the right side of your screen). Don’t you get it? I’m not insulting Sarah Palin, SHE IS INSULTING ME.

If she is going to tell me that the reason she’s qualified to follow up on her threats of war with Russia and its thousands of nuclear warheads (that’s n-u-c-l-e-a-r, by the way), is because on a clear day she can actually see Russia from her igloo window, then we have every right to take her on in both a serious manner and in the form of boundless ridicule.

Ideology is everything to guys like Ebert. It doesn't matter how intelligent and educated you might be — if you come out on the wrong side politically, you're an idiot, and should not only be ignored, but denounced every time your name is mentioned.

We're not there yet…BUT, the Dimocrats won't show at the forums…

And the Repugnantlicans that are there get run at speed through multiple wringers…

TEA Movement attendees are now politically savvy, and have to have the correct attitude…

I heard one wanting to be Governor on the radio today take a mis-step over Constitutional rights on guns, and when he's at the forum, I plan to slap him down with it right in front of a few hundred very angry people…we need him out of the race early, anyway….

You just have to get the right people to tweet with…like when you need to put out an "All Call" to bring the world to the State Legislature, so you can buttonhole the local Legislators to either support or oppose certain bills…

Then its a sword, and a very sharp one to swing…

Never let an enemy have sole possession of a weapon…

It's grammatical errors…that's irony!

Whenever someone starts something like this, all you have to do is go to history. Here's a great list from I believe it's the Wilmington, NC, Star News. Pass it around.

(full link with answers): http://forums.starnewsonline.com/eve/forums/a/tpc...

Question #1. During whose administration did the signature of an African-American first appear on U.S. currency? During that of a Republican or a Democrat President?

Question #2. Was the first African-American diplomat appointed by a Republican or a Democrat President?

Question #3. Was the first African-American popularly elected U.S. Senator a Republican or a Democrat?

Question #4. During the late 1950’s, William Monroe “Willie” Rainach, Sr., a Louisiana state legislator, led the “Massive Resistance” to desegregation in his state. Was Willie a Republican, or a Democrat?

Question #5. In 1957, nine African-American students attempted to enroll in Little Rock’s Central High School. When they were barred entry by Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus, the President of the United States ordered federal troops to the school to assure their access to an education. Was Faubus a Republican, or a Democrat? Was that President a Republican or a Democrat?

Question #6. In September 1962, U.S. Air Force veteran James H. Meredith enrolled as the first African-American student at the University of Mississippi. Governor Ross Barnett strongly opposed his entry into the school. Was Barnett a Democrat or a Republican?

Question #7. In 1965, the nation’s eyes were focused on the Selma Voting Rights Movement and three Selma-to-Montgomery marches. Marchers were opposed by the White Citizens’ Council and the Ku Klux Klan. On “Bloody Sunday,” March 7, 1965, about 600 civil rights marchers left Selma and walked east. At the Edmund Pettus Bridge they were confronted and attacked by state troopers and sheriff’s deputies. During this time, Theophilus Eugene “Bull” Connor, Alabama Public Safety Commissioner, became infamous for his brutal tactics against Civil Rights activists. Was “Bull” a Republican or a Democrat?

Question #8. A sitting U.S. Senator once held the position of Exalted Cyclops in the Klu Klux Klan. Although he never served in the Armed Forces, he once wrote, “I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side.” Of which party is he a member? Republican or Democrat?

Question #9: In the U.S. Senate’s passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which political party had the highest percentage of its Senators vote for the Act? Republicans or Democrats?

Question #10. Was the first female African-American Cabinet member appointed by a Republican or a Democrat President? (Trick question.)

Question #11. When you compare the makeup of the Cabinet members who served under Democrat President Jimmy Carter with the Cabinet members appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, which President appointed the highest percentage of African-Americans to his Cabinet?

Question #12. Was the first African-American popularly elected Governor a Republican, or a Democrat?

Question #13. When was the race barrier broken with regard to the position of Secretary of State of the United States? Under a Republican or Democratic administration?

Question #14. When was the race barrier broken with regard to the position of Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States Armed Forces? During a Republican or Democrat President’s administration?

Question #15. When the first African-American member of the U.S. Armed Forces engaged in action for which he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, was the President at the time a Democrat or a Republican?

" the same tired, arcane, belief-driven, ignorance-fed, pandering 'values' pablum that's infected and degraded American conservativism for decades dressed up to look like a 'libertarian' groundswell."

Arcane = esoteric. I sense a malapropism here. A fine ingredient for a tirade about others' ignorance.

HA! Well said, cheers mate!

Fortunately, no mature adult cares anything about "twitter". Talk about the biggest waste of time on the planet! (following some celebrities stupid comments on every minute of their life! Really people, if there are any adults out there who actually read those stupid twitter messages, you really need to get a life!)

"Bring it on" oooh I'd be scared.
Not.

Hi I'm a disappointed Alaskan. Sarah Palin promised to be different; she proved to be ignorant. She is simply a pretty face that the tea party boys would like to, ahem, get behind. Her speeches lack substance, as did her brief stint as governor of our state. Don't feel bad. I fell for her rhetoric at first. Then came her brilliant sole-source 'bid request' to build a gas pipeline… it went to a Canadian firm. Then came her dealings with fish processing laws that profited her husbands commercial fishing business. Speaking of that husband – he is a secessionist who Co-governed Alaska behind our backs. So this is the lady these people want to support? She quit on Alaska. What makes you think she has anyone's best interest at heart but her own? THIS is why people are up in arms about her. Those not enamored by her beehive, hear her words for what they are: inane pandering blather.

Yup, I tried to post. No such luck.

I give your grammar a thumbs down.

your argument fails the ad hominem test

I'm not even planning to begin to wipe up your spitting; it'd be like trying to fix New Orleans with GWB's intelligence. You're simply jealous and whiny.

it became even stupider and more useless, as you have.

But Gore's an intellectual. I mean he dropped out of both law school and divinity school…

I've lost a LOT of respect, intellectually, for Ebert over the past several years (I salute him for bravery in fighting his medical issues, however). So what changed?

Sure, I've changed some. But while Siskel & Ebert were major influences on my appreciation & love of film, Ebert has made an explicit policy shift in regard to political expression. I'm not sure his views have changed much, but he kept them largely private until the past few years. I also don't fault him for that, (he's entitled) but the wackiness of his views have lead me far away.

I couldn't care less that he's liberal. What's most disappointing is that he has instead shown himself to be an arrogant, political lightweight, engaging in ad hominem attacks as a matter of routine, demonstrating little grasp for the logic of discourse, and is completely intolerant of views other than his own, even in the face of facts which he quickly dismisses. He has jumped on fallacious stories time and again, only to retreat without so much as an apology. During the 2008 campaigns, for instance, he wrote numerous attacks against Palin (Lord Almighty, he HATES that woman!), making bizarre, downright conspiratorial claims regarding the mystic influence she wields upon bloodthirsty, racist audiences who yell "kill him! Kill him!" (in reference to Obama) at her altar. He explained that the mere subtlety of her smile told these hounds what to do, that she could suggest her tacit agreement with their violent overtones by a mere hand waive. Whoa…..

Remember that "kill him!" story? Turns out it was completely bogus. Ebert would have known that if he had bothered to check, but he simply removed his online "Journal" entry from the Sun Times site. Try to find those entries (even the much-circulated one demonizing Palin as an "American Idol" contestant). They're gone.

Agree or disagree with Mr. Ebert's political views – it's up to you.

But to make malicious jokes about his cancer, or about him being a cancer survivor, is just plain mean. Has he really offended you so much that you can stoop to such spiteful and tasteless comments?

I may disagree with many liberal views just as much as the rest of you, but as the daughter of a cancer victim, I find these jokes very insulting. And all for the sake of a cheap laugh, nothing more.

Perhaps instead of bashing someone's health, a REAL discussion would be better. Those mean commentors are doing in the exact thing the author of this article criticized Mr. Ebert for: "trashing their ideological opposites rather than engaging in thoughtful debate".

PS. Twitter isn't just for idiots. Sarah Palin has one, after all.

Oh noes! Somebody that a lot of people listen to doesn't agree with me! I must make ad homenim attacks about what a doofball he is!

Hey, Roger. Just wanted to thank you again for Beyone the Valley of the Dolls. Along with Night of the Lepus, it's quite possibly the worst movie in recent memory. Couldn't have done it without you.

Oh, and next time you say teabagger, why don't you just come out and call us testicle suckers or testicle danglers because that's what the term means. Oh, and why don't you say it to our faces and see what happens, instead of hiding like a coward behind your pathetic tweets.

Take care and you might want to lighten up on the pork rinds and twinkies. You're reaching Michael Moore proportions only without the talent.

Pretty dumb comment. The idea that you guys can't even see what it is the rest of us can't stand about Palin is super infuriating. Congrats on having a job.

Ah…so nice to see noblesse oblige in action. That you've condescended to even post here among the "ignorant" is overwhelming…our hearts swell with gratitude at your patronage. Imagine….a 'thinking" man here to tell us that reason and values are dichotomous, that only liberals possess intellect.

BTW, ignore the background laughter…really, we're laughing with you.

A good of jealousy, for sure, is behind their temper-tantrums, but the real root of their hate is fear. Sheer FEAR.

The more genuine the conservative, the more fear he or she generates among the liberals, and the more fierce are their attacks. The left cannot conceal their abject hate for anyone who even so much as dares to exhibit publicly those awful reminders of (God-fearing) decency and patriotism.

Listen chuckles…

If I wasnt so busy laying a world-class Tea Partier-style hump into you sister (or is it your mom – I can't tell) right now, I'd comment further on the diarrhea that passes for your opinion.

As it stands, however, I'll ask you shut the hell up and go get me another Coke, douchenozzle.

The credibility of the right wing conservatives here as decent human beings is very hard to believe when the comments against him are not only abusive but also inhumane.

Slag the man for his political points of views and voice, but to slag him for his cancer and his obesity? Not only have you mocked him for having cancer, but also making fun of his obesity that no longer applies to him. I can't even call such comments ignorant – it's absolutely, appallingly, inhumane.

It's no wonder that you are all against universal health care. You would rather fund wars killing people than provide opportunity of simple healthcare for everybody.

You should, at least, show some intelligence and restrain yourselves from mocking a disabled man.

Teabagger is a label I have learned to like ever since we crammed massachusett down their liberal throats.

I remember reading Royko as a teenager in San Diego and loving his columns. I love hearing stories about him.

In fact, a thunderous number of right-leaning politicians are courting the coalition…especially on the local levels…

Big bloc of votes right there…all waiting for a pick-up…

Split? Only if you don't try to play…

Tell us why grammar errors is wrong.

It's very disappointing to me personally because I grew up admiring Ebert. I wanted to be a movie critic, and I kept a scrapbook of his columns and movie reviews for a couple of years in the late 70s, when I was just a boy.

He's mainly unreadable now, and it's obvious that he yearns to be something more than a movie critic. I think he wants to be Frank Rich. Imagine that.

His film reviews are bad now. If he isn't casually spoiling major plot developments without warning, he's slipping in grotesque political asides that would make Garrison Keillor blush. But his occasional forays into straightforward punditry are even worse. They read like comments at Daily Kos and rely upon the same, tired liberal tropes that wouldn't be deemed printable if they came in anonymously via email.

You know the drill: Bush no travel. Bush stoopid. Palin mean. Palin mean and stoopid. Rush fat. Rush fat and mean. Tea baggers mean. Tea baggers mean and racist. They no have hearts. Liberals have hearts. They good.

Google Ebert and wife (Chaz). Todd and Sarah are a bit too light and thin for Roger.

Roger Ebert, I feel sorry for you. In the twilight of your years, you have lost what respect you ever had from most of your fellow citizens. Why, Roger, couldn't you just keep your nonsensical vitriol bottled up a bit longer, and let us continue thinking you were one of the good guys? At least, not one of the bad ones? Pity.

They…um…called *themselves* teabaggers, genius. He was quoting their own stupidity.

Protip: Before deciding on your group's name, use Google, lest you accidentally Santorum yourself.

Oh, and personal note to Pam: having 9/11 serve as your "clarion call" to patriotism is like learning you love your spouse *AFTER* they get cancer. You either love this country or don't, and shouldn't require a bunch of idiots attacking to discover said love.

Thank you, Annie. Please let me know. In hindsight, of course, I wished I had saved those articles after I read them. I don't think the Sun Times ever actually prints those "Journal" entries, ie., they're online only.

The McCain thing was during the debates, so I know that was during the capaign, as was a good chunk of the Palin stuff.

I would add one more important issue to the Tea Party Movement is National Security. But, yes Bob Smith I agree with your assessment. Seeing how MovieBob views the Tea Party Movement and America, I don't trust his opinions on movies or anything else.

Does your mom know you're playing on her computer right now???

Meh. I've long been in the "If Ebert hates it, I'll probably like it" camp concerning his movie reviews. It's not like he's ever demonstrated himself to be very intelligent concerning movies, so why should he be even a tiny bit intelligent when it comes to politics? He likes movies that comport with his ideological leanings, and doesn't like movies that challenge his beliefs. It's hard to be angry with him over this. He's being honest, and revealing himself to be the petty, low-minded jerk that he's always been. Bully for him, say I. The more transparent his jackassery is, the better.

The irony of his Tweets on politics also seems to be lost upon him. Isn’t he indulging in the same freedom of speech privileges as the Tea Partiers he so casually denigrates?

Of course he is. But freedom of speech does not include freedom from mockery.

Tell a lie loud enough? Ok. You mean like:

Iraq had WMD
Abu Ghirab was just a "few bad apples"
Supply side economics can balance a budget

I lost all respect (not that I had any) for Ebert when I found out he helped write that crap movie "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls". Of course men like him and Letterman hate Palin, she would never give them the time of day. Ugly rich white men hate that.

Let's face it; movie critic is a sham occupation. Who needs them? If professional critics disappeared, what would happen? Nothing! They're not needed, especially today with the internet.

The only thing critics produce are opinions and everyone has one.

This is why Ebert is such a bitter and miserable person. What he produces has very little value, unlike hundreds of real occupations, and he knows it.

I stopped watching and listening to Ebert years ago, for ALL the reasons listed in this piece, and by the contributors.

Um, no. What you're arguing is patently absurd. The Neil Cavuto piece you cite is clearly being sarcastic/mocking/defiant towards the tone and terminology embraced by liberal critics (the real point of debate, not "who said it first"). It states at the beginning: "Score one for the tea baggers. Those silly folks with their silly protests and their often silly signs and silly outfits and silly rants. Who's silly now?"

Are you honestly arguing that he's using the term to be offensive toward Tea Partiers? That makes no sense.

The other bit is a news clip featuring Griff Jenkins and is indeed some early Fox coverage of the movement. In it, Griff interviews an organizer who makes the call to "tea bag the fools" in Washington by sending them actual tea bags in the mail. Nowhere in the piece is it apparent that the term is being used sexually, or otherwise in a consciously pejorative sense, as it has clearly been used by the Left. The only thing the piece indicates is that this Tea Party organizer was likely ignorant in this early phase – as most people were previously – of the sexual slang "teabagging." Okay, fine. The joke's on us. It doesn't come even remotely close to proving your point, however.

This is typical liberal tactic, folks: deny, deny, deny, then deliberately obstruct clarity. This is what makes it so difficult to engage in discourse with them; we have to waste time overcoming the obstructions before we can even talk about the most basic stuff.

So it's okay for Neil Cavuto to use an offensive term? He clearly says "teabaggers." It's the same word with a different verb ending. You can change an -ing to an -er and the meaning of the word is still the same: in this case it turns a verb into a noun, someone who does the act.

Apparently you need to go back to elementary grammar class.

I have to agree with you. The more the left shows their true hate-filled, condescending, elitest selves the better. They have long portrayed themselves as tolerant, loving, kind, compassionate people. We have all known that to be a lie and now they are just letting the mask slip completely off their faces.

It's only a scandal when a conservative gets a speaking fee. Remember, it's okay for a liberal to be wealthy but not a conservative. It's okay for liberals to live in gated communities, ride in limos, own yachts, private jets, and huge mansions, but not conservatives.

the bald one died, the fat one's still alive

The fact that you simply force your impression of her on everyone else is a *little* annoying… but keep up your tactics. Especially considering it worked so well when you campaigned against Bush… twice.

Congrats on winning in the end… when he didn't run.

Royko was probably the last truly fair-minded journalist to work the Opinions page; I remember him attacking Republicans and Democrats with equal gusto. He once said something to the effect that conservatives considered him their favorite liberal, and vice versa.

His collected columns are still fun to read. There's a great deal of Reagan-bashing in them, but then there's also a lot of Carter-bashing, Ford-bashing, Nixon-bashing, LBJ-bashing and a hell of a lot of Richard-Daley-bashing. His book about Daley (Boss) is an absolute necessity for anyone wishing to understand how the Chicago Machine operates and how it became as entrenched as it is.

Um, actually, I haven't seen much news on the Tea Party movement for some time now (I'm British), but I did see a number of the early reports from American news outlets when the whole thing was just starting out, and both "teabaggers" and "teabagging" were commonly-used phrases – crucially, not only by the newsreaders, who did indeed make puns on the subject, but also, repeatedly, by the participants themselves.

Also, there's a key error in your criticism of Ebert's questioning of that $100k Palin received. You say that "he must now know that she pledged to donate [the money] to other candidates and causes". Well, yes – he must NOW know, but necessarily implied by that phrasing is the fact that he did not know about her pledge at the time of his tweets, mostly likely because it had not yet been made. What he said was perfectly justified at the time it was said.

Besides, the question should be asked, regardless, of why she received that much money in the first place. Was she always planning to donate it? Why did she accept it to begin with?

[...] First, Roger Ebert transforms from Pulitzer Prize winner to hack political writer and angry Tweet monger. [...]

Ebert will be dead soon enough. It hardly seems worth the trouble to worry about him too much. His life is already a living hell – his throats gone and he can't eat or drink. It's pitiful.

So I guess he takes his rage out on the world.

He's the Helen Thomas of movie critics.

I don't know why Roger Ebert is tweeting and blogging so much lately on political stuff. It's just not his area of expertise. I find his simplistic, mean spirited, and crassly opinionated comments about Palin, Limbaugh, and conservatives in general especially jarring in comparison to his sophisticated film criticism. Why would Roger want to leave a slime trail of boneheaded bloviating on the internet next to his opus of delightful movie reviews. Perhaps he is more deserving of pity than censure. He is a cancer survivor who is probably only in temporary remission. From my extensive knowledge of oncology I give the guy two more years, max.

Letterman says whatever gets crowd reaction. Hie audience laughs at Palin jokes, fair or not.. Letterman did Bill Clinton intern jokes on every show for over a decade. I doubt you had a problem with those. People that say Letterman is a big lib don't know what they are talking about. He's a populist. Crying like a child about Palin jokes is pathetic. She sticks her head out there so she is fair game. She's a public figure. Stop being a bunch of babies about the Palin jokes.

My favorite Royko quote (whether it's real or imagined) is "You can't swim in the political cess pool that is Chicago and come out smelling like a rose." Care to comment on that, Pres Obama? NO? I thought not.

Absolutely untrue. Please point to a single report wherein a Tea Partier uses the term "teabagger" to refer to themselves or another member of the Tea Party. I suggest your memory is a bit faulty. Your subsequent comments though, indicate that your unsubstantiated statement on the teabagger phrase is more bias than bad recollection.

In spirit and in body.

Me thinks he (Roger and others of his ilk) protest way too much….!!!

Wait until they lose congress…these people will explode!

Ebert has outlived his dubious usefelness.

Look, the man has got his precepts and he's sticking with them. Period. There is nothing you can say or do that can possibly alter any of that. Here's what's going to happen: the tea party movement will put out of office the politicians it sees contributing to excessive spending, basically all of them, that it can replace, and these so-called elitists will be left wondering what hit them and how it happened. But it will be too late, and the likes of Ebert and Movie Bob here will live their lives repeating these precepts expressed here and eventually go to their graves having maintained these precepts without surcease or even a trace of interruption. Their advanced reasoning is quite flexible, you see. They're capable of wrapping it around everything without flinching.

Hm, I think you're right, actually–I can't find any of the reports I thought I remembered. So yeah, that may well be a case of faulty memory. That's a little worrying, actually… news reporters really shouldn't be making cracks like that, unless they're on a show which is clearly satirical, like the Daily Show. This is the first time I've been aware of that sort of immature behaviour outside of what I've seen of Fox News. Then again, I could imagine Keith Olbermann doing it. I've never been keen on him; he seems to have a very poor attitude. Almost like an American Jeremy Paxman, but even more unlikeable.

The suggestion that my subsequent comments "indicate … bias" is rubbish, by the way. Why do they suggest bias? Because they disagree with the post? Mrs. Meister made a snarky dig which, as far as I can see, suggests that Palin's pledging of the funds *after the fact* retroactively renders Ebert's objection inappropriate or incorrect. That's flawed logic.

Now, I'm open to the possibility that she always intended to pledge those funds to those (as yet unspecified) candidates and causes. My interpretation of the chronology is based entirely on Meister's use of the word "now", as I've implied, and I may well be wrong. Problematically, though, I can't find any reports containing any information about any $100k pledges, whether made before or after the appearance of Ebert's tweets. Based on the reasoning used in the first paragraph of this post and even in your post above, that would tend to suggest that no such pledges were made. It MAY, however, just be the case that my Google skills have proven inadequate. If you could link me to any articles with more information on the matter, it'd be much appreciated–I'm genuinely interested.

Can somebody tell me how these nutbar teabaggers who initially called themselves teabaggers until they found out what the slang meant can possibly be pissed off at others calling them teabaggers? Unreal.

So you used to follow Ebert because you valued his judgement. But now that he pointing out truths and inconsistencies with the right wing his good judgement is no longer valid. Typical.

What about what Ebert says is incorrect? I don't get your rant.

Noone is jealous of that nitwit Palin. Just because she is attractive and talks like a hillbilly people like her. The right wing nuts just believe whatever she says, which does not make much sense. I am amazed that anyone at all would trust this woman to run a country when she can't even handle a crappy state like Alaska without quitting and whining because people are picking her apart…get used to it…it's called Politics.

The right wing nuts are what is wrong with this country. They should just split the country and all the jesus freak, gun toting redneck hillbillies can have their own land to screw up

[...] on Bush’s “war of choice” and on what Roger Ebert, whose career has degenerated into making petty insults toward decent Americans, calls “neocon evildoing.” (There’s that nuance [...]

[...] Big Hollywood, Pam Meister notes, “Roger Ebert Trashes His Own Fans (and Palin) on Twitter”: If you follow a movie critic on Twitter, chances are you follow him because you admire his ability [...]

You must be logged in to post a comment.