A look at the core of liberalism

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
53,984
Reaction score
6,844
Points
1,860
Location
United States
It's hard to wrap your mind around this. While liberals cry about wealth inequality, Hollywood liberals (wallowing in tens of millions of dollars) are passing out $167,000 gift-bags to the losers at the Oscars. Think of how many starving children could be fed with the money spent on just one of these gift bags. Think about how many uninsured Americans (thanks to Obama and the Democrats forcing most of America out of their health insurance) could be insured with the money spent on just one of these gift bags. Now multiply that by 21.

Over $3.5 million dollars spent on smut promoting promiscuity by the people who cry about "wealth inequality". Do multi-millionaires who hoard their own wealth really need $5,000 "orgasm boosters" and "luxury condoms" for free? I'm fairly certain Reese Witherspoon can afford all of those items (and more) as easily as I can afford a pack of gum. Why wouldn't a Hollywood liberal stand up and demand that all of the money for these products be redirected into public schools or homeless shelters?

As Andrew Wilkow says almost daily, "Socialism is for the people - not the socialist". A liberal lives for opulence. They will demand that you redistribute your money so that they may remain wealthier than you (while at the same time convincing themselves that they "care" about the less fortunate since they were willing to force you to redistribute your money). But you won't see any of them share their own extreme wealth - even when their own aunt, brother, and nephew are suffering in real poverty (ahem, Barack Obama). You'll never see any of them pass on a $30,000 ball gown so that a food shelter can feed the hungry (ahem, Michelle Obama). You'll never see any of them pass on limousines to extravagant (not to mention wasteful) awards ceremonies so that our veterans can receive the care and support they deserve (ahem, Hollywood liberals). And you'll certainly never see any of them pass on a $10 million private jets and multiple million-dollar homes so that the homeless can have shelters - not to mention reducing the carbon footprint (ahem, Al Gore).

Oscar swag bags 167 000 and racy
 

PaintMyHouse

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
44,141
Reaction score
2,760
Points
1,815
Location
...No Worse Enemy
It's hard to wrap your mind around this. While liberals cry about wealth inequality, Hollywood liberals (wallowing in tens of millions of dollars) are passing out $167,000 gift-bags to the losers at the Oscars. Think of how many starving children could be fed with the money spent on just one of these gift bags. Think about how many uninsured Americans (thanks to Obama and the Democrats forcing most of America out of their health insurance) could be insured with the money spent on just one of these gift bags. Now multiply that by 21.

Over $3.5 million dollars spent on smut promoting promiscuity by the people who cry about "wealth inequality". Do multi-millionaires who hoard their own wealth really need $5,000 "orgasm boosters" and "luxury condoms" for free? I'm fairly certain Reese Witherspoon can afford all of those items (and more) as easily as I can afford a pack of gum. Why wouldn't a Hollywood liberal stand up and demand that all of the money for these products be redirected into public schools or homeless shelters?

As Andrew Wilkow says almost daily, "Socialism is for the people - not the socialist". A liberal lives for opulence. They will demand that you redistribute your money so that they may remain wealthier than you (while at the same time convincing themselves that they "care" about the less fortunate since they were willing to force you to redistribute your money). But you won't see any of them share their own extreme wealth - even when their own aunt, brother, and nephew are suffering in real poverty (ahem, Barack Obama). You'll never see any of them pass on a $30,000 ball gown so that a food shelter can feed the hungry (ahem, Michelle Obama). You'll never see any of them pass on limousines to extravagant (not to mention wasteful) awards ceremonies so that our veterans can receive the care and support they deserve (ahem, Hollywood liberals). And you'll certainly never see any of them pass on a $10 million private jets and multiple million-dollar homes so that the homeless can have shelters - not to mention reducing the carbon footprint (ahem, Al Gore).

Oscar swag bags 167 000 and racy
Why do you hate the rich, little puppy?
 
Last edited:
R

rdean

Guest
It's hard to wrap your mind around this. While liberals cry about wealth inequality, Hollywood liberals (wallowing in tens of millions of dollars) are passing out $167,000 gift-bags to the losers at the Oscars. Think of how many starving children could be fed with the money spent on just one of these gift bags. Think about how many uninsured Americans (thanks to Obama and the Democrats forcing most of America out of their health insurance) could be insured with the money spent on just one of these gift bags. Now multiply that by 21.

Over $3.5 million dollars spent on smut promoting promiscuity by the people who cry about "wealth inequality". Do multi-millionaires who hoard their own wealth really need $5,000 "orgasm boosters" and "luxury condoms" for free? I'm fairly certain Reese Witherspoon can afford all of those items (and more) as easily as I can afford a pack of gum. Why wouldn't a Hollywood liberal stand up and demand that all of the money for these products be redirected into public schools or homeless shelters?

As Andrew Wilkow says almost daily, "Socialism is for the people - not the socialist". A liberal lives for opulence. They will demand that you redistribute your money so that they may remain wealthier than you (while at the same time convincing themselves that they "care" about the less fortunate since they were willing to force you to redistribute your money). But you won't see any of them share their own extreme wealth - even when their own aunt, brother, and nephew are suffering in real poverty (ahem, Barack Obama). You'll never see any of them pass on a $30,000 ball gown so that a food shelter can feed the hungry (ahem, Michelle Obama). You'll never see any of them pass on limousines to extravagant (not to mention wasteful) awards ceremonies so that our veterans can receive the care and support they deserve (ahem, Hollywood liberals). And you'll certainly never see any of them pass on a $10 million private jets and multiple million-dollar homes so that the homeless can have shelters - not to mention reducing the carbon footprint (ahem, Al Gore).

Oscar swag bags 167 000 and racy
Considering the billions Hollywood brings to this country every year, GOP hate surprises me. At least they aren't getting subsidies like Republicans with their farm subsidies and oil companies with their subsidies. Perhaps Republicans should learn a few things.

Hollywood catching its big break in other countries
 

Clementine

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
12,919
Reaction score
4,801
Points
350
It's hard to wrap your mind around this. While liberals cry about wealth inequality, Hollywood liberals (wallowing in tens of millions of dollars) are passing out $167,000 gift-bags to the losers at the Oscars. Think of how many starving children could be fed with the money spent on just one of these gift bags. Think about how many uninsured Americans (thanks to Obama and the Democrats forcing most of America out of their health insurance) could be insured with the money spent on just one of these gift bags. Now multiply that by 21.

Over $3.5 million dollars spent on smut promoting promiscuity by the people who cry about "wealth inequality". Do multi-millionaires who hoard their own wealth really need $5,000 "orgasm boosters" and "luxury condoms" for free? I'm fairly certain Reese Witherspoon can afford all of those items (and more) as easily as I can afford a pack of gum. Why wouldn't a Hollywood liberal stand up and demand that all of the money for these products be redirected into public schools or homeless shelters?

As Andrew Wilkow says almost daily, "Socialism is for the people - not the socialist". A liberal lives for opulence. They will demand that you redistribute your money so that they may remain wealthier than you (while at the same time convincing themselves that they "care" about the less fortunate since they were willing to force you to redistribute your money). But you won't see any of them share their own extreme wealth - even when their own aunt, brother, and nephew are suffering in real poverty (ahem, Barack Obama). You'll never see any of them pass on a $30,000 ball gown so that a food shelter can feed the hungry (ahem, Michelle Obama). You'll never see any of them pass on limousines to extravagant (not to mention wasteful) awards ceremonies so that our veterans can receive the care and support they deserve (ahem, Hollywood liberals). And you'll certainly never see any of them pass on a $10 million private jets and multiple million-dollar homes so that the homeless can have shelters - not to mention reducing the carbon footprint (ahem, Al Gore).

Oscar swag bags 167 000 and racy
Why do you hate the rich little puppy?

It's not the rich little puppy, it's the hypocritical little snakes that are the problem.
 

PaintMyHouse

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
44,141
Reaction score
2,760
Points
1,815
Location
...No Worse Enemy
It's hard to wrap your mind around this. While liberals cry about wealth inequality, Hollywood liberals (wallowing in tens of millions of dollars) are passing out $167,000 gift-bags to the losers at the Oscars. Think of how many starving children could be fed with the money spent on just one of these gift bags. Think about how many uninsured Americans (thanks to Obama and the Democrats forcing most of America out of their health insurance) could be insured with the money spent on just one of these gift bags. Now multiply that by 21.

Over $3.5 million dollars spent on smut promoting promiscuity by the people who cry about "wealth inequality". Do multi-millionaires who hoard their own wealth really need $5,000 "orgasm boosters" and "luxury condoms" for free? I'm fairly certain Reese Witherspoon can afford all of those items (and more) as easily as I can afford a pack of gum. Why wouldn't a Hollywood liberal stand up and demand that all of the money for these products be redirected into public schools or homeless shelters?

As Andrew Wilkow says almost daily, "Socialism is for the people - not the socialist". A liberal lives for opulence. They will demand that you redistribute your money so that they may remain wealthier than you (while at the same time convincing themselves that they "care" about the less fortunate since they were willing to force you to redistribute your money). But you won't see any of them share their own extreme wealth - even when their own aunt, brother, and nephew are suffering in real poverty (ahem, Barack Obama). You'll never see any of them pass on a $30,000 ball gown so that a food shelter can feed the hungry (ahem, Michelle Obama). You'll never see any of them pass on limousines to extravagant (not to mention wasteful) awards ceremonies so that our veterans can receive the care and support they deserve (ahem, Hollywood liberals). And you'll certainly never see any of them pass on a $10 million private jets and multiple million-dollar homes so that the homeless can have shelters - not to mention reducing the carbon footprint (ahem, Al Gore).

Oscar swag bags 167 000 and racy
Why do you hate the rich, little puppy?

It's not the rich little puppy, it's the hypocritical little snakes that are the problem.
What's hypocritical about accepting a gift others paid for? He's just whining about Hollywood but I bet he loved American Sniper, made by Hollywood...
 

S.J.

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
37,666
Reaction score
7,597
Points
1,140
Location
So. Cal.
I remember when the Hollywood liberals had a "march on Washington for the homeless". They recruited a bunch of homeless people to march from one end of D.C. to the other and all the outspoken Hollywood liberals were there. When they got to the other end of D.C. there were two tents. One was for the homeless and the other was for the Hollywood stars (and the camera crews). In the "stars" tent there was wine and cheese and other delicacies. In the homeless tent there were soup and sandwiches. That sort of said it all.
 

PaintMyHouse

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
44,141
Reaction score
2,760
Points
1,815
Location
...No Worse Enemy
I remember when the Hollywood liberals had a "march on Washington for the homeless". They recruited a bunch of homeless people to march from one end of D.C. to the other and all the outspoken Hollywood liberals were there. When they got to the other end of D.C. there were two tents. One was for the homeless and the other was for the Hollywood stars (and the camera crews). In the "stars" tent there was wine and cheese and other delicacies. In the homeless tent there were soup and sandwiches. That sort of said it all.
Yeah, they used common sense and figured that the homeless would need real food, not brie on a cracker and a glass of Cabernet.
 

S.J.

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
37,666
Reaction score
7,597
Points
1,140
Location
So. Cal.
I remember when the Hollywood liberals had a "march on Washington for the homeless". They recruited a bunch of homeless people to march from one end of D.C. to the other and all the outspoken Hollywood liberals were there. When they got to the other end of D.C. there were two tents. One was for the homeless and the other was for the Hollywood stars (and the camera crews). In the "stars" tent there was wine and cheese and other delicacies. In the homeless tent there were soup and sandwiches. That sort of said it all.
Yeah, they used common sense and figured that the homeless would need real food, not brie on a cracker and a glass of Cabernet.
No, they wouldn't lower themselves to rub elbows with those dirty sub-humans they never reach into their own pockets to help.
 

PaintMyHouse

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
44,141
Reaction score
2,760
Points
1,815
Location
...No Worse Enemy
I remember when the Hollywood liberals had a "march on Washington for the homeless". They recruited a bunch of homeless people to march from one end of D.C. to the other and all the outspoken Hollywood liberals were there. When they got to the other end of D.C. there were two tents. One was for the homeless and the other was for the Hollywood stars (and the camera crews). In the "stars" tent there was wine and cheese and other delicacies. In the homeless tent there were soup and sandwiches. That sort of said it all.
Yeah, they used common sense and figured that the homeless would need real food, not brie on a cracker and a glass of Cabernet.
No, they wouldn't lower themselves to rub elbows with those dirty sub-humans they never reach into their own pockets to help.
Yeah, you got nothin', as usual, just like fuzzy puppy.
 

S.J.

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
37,666
Reaction score
7,597
Points
1,140
Location
So. Cal.
I remember when the Hollywood liberals had a "march on Washington for the homeless". They recruited a bunch of homeless people to march from one end of D.C. to the other and all the outspoken Hollywood liberals were there. When they got to the other end of D.C. there were two tents. One was for the homeless and the other was for the Hollywood stars (and the camera crews). In the "stars" tent there was wine and cheese and other delicacies. In the homeless tent there were soup and sandwiches. That sort of said it all.
Yeah, they used common sense and figured that the homeless would need real food, not brie on a cracker and a glass of Cabernet.
No, they wouldn't lower themselves to rub elbows with those dirty sub-humans they never reach into their own pockets to help.
Yeah, you got nothin', as usual, just like fuzzy puppy.
Your opinion, which isn't worth a shit since you're a known troll and Obama cock sucker.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
55,867
Reaction score
13,601
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
"A look at the core of liberalism"

Actually it's a look at yet another ridiculous lie from the right.

Nowhere in the article is anyone or anything identified as 'liberal.'
 

gallantwarrior

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
25,570
Reaction score
7,236
Points
280
Location
On my own 200 acres of the Frozen North
It's hard to wrap your mind around this. While liberals cry about wealth inequality, Hollywood liberals (wallowing in tens of millions of dollars) are passing out $167,000 gift-bags to the losers at the Oscars. Think of how many starving children could be fed with the money spent on just one of these gift bags. Think about how many uninsured Americans (thanks to Obama and the Democrats forcing most of America out of their health insurance) could be insured with the money spent on just one of these gift bags. Now multiply that by 21.

Over $3.5 million dollars spent on smut promoting promiscuity by the people who cry about "wealth inequality". Do multi-millionaires who hoard their own wealth really need $5,000 "orgasm boosters" and "luxury condoms" for free? I'm fairly certain Reese Witherspoon can afford all of those items (and more) as easily as I can afford a pack of gum. Why wouldn't a Hollywood liberal stand up and demand that all of the money for these products be redirected into public schools or homeless shelters?

As Andrew Wilkow says almost daily, "Socialism is for the people - not the socialist". A liberal lives for opulence. They will demand that you redistribute your money so that they may remain wealthier than you (while at the same time convincing themselves that they "care" about the less fortunate since they were willing to force you to redistribute your money). But you won't see any of them share their own extreme wealth - even when their own aunt, brother, and nephew are suffering in real poverty (ahem, Barack Obama). You'll never see any of them pass on a $30,000 ball gown so that a food shelter can feed the hungry (ahem, Michelle Obama). You'll never see any of them pass on limousines to extravagant (not to mention wasteful) awards ceremonies so that our veterans can receive the care and support they deserve (ahem, Hollywood liberals). And you'll certainly never see any of them pass on a $10 million private jets and multiple million-dollar homes so that the homeless can have shelters - not to mention reducing the carbon footprint (ahem, Al Gore).

Oscar swag bags 167 000 and racy
Why do you hate the rich, little puppy?
Why do you hate the working class?
 

gallantwarrior

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
25,570
Reaction score
7,236
Points
280
Location
On my own 200 acres of the Frozen North
I remember when the Hollywood liberals had a "march on Washington for the homeless". They recruited a bunch of homeless people to march from one end of D.C. to the other and all the outspoken Hollywood liberals were there. When they got to the other end of D.C. there were two tents. One was for the homeless and the other was for the Hollywood stars (and the camera crews). In the "stars" tent there was wine and cheese and other delicacies. In the homeless tent there were soup and sandwiches. That sort of said it all.
Yeah, they used common sense and figured that the homeless would need real food, not brie on a cracker and a glass of Cabernet.
Bullshit alert!!
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
53,984
Reaction score
6,844
Points
1,860
Location
United States
It's hard to wrap your mind around this. While liberals cry about wealth inequality, Hollywood liberals (wallowing in tens of millions of dollars) are passing out $167,000 gift-bags to the losers at the Oscars. Think of how many starving children could be fed with the money spent on just one of these gift bags. Think about how many uninsured Americans (thanks to Obama and the Democrats forcing most of America out of their health insurance) could be insured with the money spent on just one of these gift bags. Now multiply that by 21.

Over $3.5 million dollars spent on smut promoting promiscuity by the people who cry about "wealth inequality". Do multi-millionaires who hoard their own wealth really need $5,000 "orgasm boosters" and "luxury condoms" for free? I'm fairly certain Reese Witherspoon can afford all of those items (and more) as easily as I can afford a pack of gum. Why wouldn't a Hollywood liberal stand up and demand that all of the money for these products be redirected into public schools or homeless shelters?

As Andrew Wilkow says almost daily, "Socialism is for the people - not the socialist". A liberal lives for opulence. They will demand that you redistribute your money so that they may remain wealthier than you (while at the same time convincing themselves that they "care" about the less fortunate since they were willing to force you to redistribute your money). But you won't see any of them share their own extreme wealth - even when their own aunt, brother, and nephew are suffering in real poverty (ahem, Barack Obama). You'll never see any of them pass on a $30,000 ball gown so that a food shelter can feed the hungry (ahem, Michelle Obama). You'll never see any of them pass on limousines to extravagant (not to mention wasteful) awards ceremonies so that our veterans can receive the care and support they deserve (ahem, Hollywood liberals). And you'll certainly never see any of them pass on a $10 million private jets and multiple million-dollar homes so that the homeless can have shelters - not to mention reducing the carbon footprint (ahem, Al Gore).

Oscar swag bags 167 000 and racy
Considering the billions Hollywood brings to this country every year, GOP hate surprises me. At least they aren't getting subsidies like Republicans with their farm subsidies and oil companies with their subsidies. Perhaps Republicans should learn a few things.

Hollywood catching its big break in other countries
That is fall-down hilarious. Do you have any idea how many trillions oil companies and Wall Street bring into this country every year RDean? And yet all you liberals do is cry about the wealth of those executives.

RDean proving even a liberal's hypocrisy has hypocrisy. :lmao:

I love when a liberal attempts to defend the indefensible hypocrisy of their party. They sound so stupid. You just can't bring yourself to admit how bad your side looks on wealth, can you RDean?
 
Last edited:

NYcarbineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
117,063
Reaction score
13,858
Points
2,210
Location
Finger Lakes, NY
It's hard to wrap your mind around this. While liberals cry about wealth inequality, Hollywood liberals (wallowing in tens of millions of dollars) are passing out $167,000 gift-bags to the losers at the Oscars. Think of how many starving children could be fed with the money spent on just one of these gift bags. Think about how many uninsured Americans (thanks to Obama and the Democrats forcing most of America out of their health insurance) could be insured with the money spent on just one of these gift bags. Now multiply that by 21.

Over $3.5 million dollars spent on smut promoting promiscuity by the people who cry about "wealth inequality". Do multi-millionaires who hoard their own wealth really need $5,000 "orgasm boosters" and "luxury condoms" for free? I'm fairly certain Reese Witherspoon can afford all of those items (and more) as easily as I can afford a pack of gum. Why wouldn't a Hollywood liberal stand up and demand that all of the money for these products be redirected into public schools or homeless shelters?

As Andrew Wilkow says almost daily, "Socialism is for the people - not the socialist". A liberal lives for opulence. They will demand that you redistribute your money so that they may remain wealthier than you (while at the same time convincing themselves that they "care" about the less fortunate since they were willing to force you to redistribute your money). But you won't see any of them share their own extreme wealth - even when their own aunt, brother, and nephew are suffering in real poverty (ahem, Barack Obama). You'll never see any of them pass on a $30,000 ball gown so that a food shelter can feed the hungry (ahem, Michelle Obama). You'll never see any of them pass on limousines to extravagant (not to mention wasteful) awards ceremonies so that our veterans can receive the care and support they deserve (ahem, Hollywood liberals). And you'll certainly never see any of them pass on a $10 million private jets and multiple million-dollar homes so that the homeless can have shelters - not to mention reducing the carbon footprint (ahem, Al Gore).

Oscar swag bags 167 000 and racy
And yet, you RWnuts think those rich Hollywooders are overtaxed.

lolol
 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
60,814
Reaction score
9,695
Points
2,030
It's hard to wrap your mind around this. While liberals cry about wealth inequality, Hollywood liberals (wallowing in tens of millions of dollars) are passing out $167,000 gift-bags to the losers at the Oscars. Think of how many starving children could be fed with the money spent on just one of these gift bags. Think about how many uninsured Americans (thanks to Obama and the Democrats forcing most of America out of their health insurance) could be insured with the money spent on just one of these gift bags. Now multiply that by 21.

Over $3.5 million dollars spent on smut promoting promiscuity by the people who cry about "wealth inequality". Do multi-millionaires who hoard their own wealth really need $5,000 "orgasm boosters" and "luxury condoms" for free? I'm fairly certain Reese Witherspoon can afford all of those items (and more) as easily as I can afford a pack of gum. Why wouldn't a Hollywood liberal stand up and demand that all of the money for these products be redirected into public schools or homeless shelters?

As Andrew Wilkow says almost daily, "Socialism is for the people - not the socialist". A liberal lives for opulence. They will demand that you redistribute your money so that they may remain wealthier than you (while at the same time convincing themselves that they "care" about the less fortunate since they were willing to force you to redistribute your money). But you won't see any of them share their own extreme wealth - even when their own aunt, brother, and nephew are suffering in real poverty (ahem, Barack Obama). You'll never see any of them pass on a $30,000 ball gown so that a food shelter can feed the hungry (ahem, Michelle Obama). You'll never see any of them pass on limousines to extravagant (not to mention wasteful) awards ceremonies so that our veterans can receive the care and support they deserve (ahem, Hollywood liberals). And you'll certainly never see any of them pass on a $10 million private jets and multiple million-dollar homes so that the homeless can have shelters - not to mention reducing the carbon footprint (ahem, Al Gore).

Oscar swag bags 167 000 and racy
Considering the billions Hollywood brings to this country every year, GOP hate surprises me. At least they aren't getting subsidies like Republicans with their farm subsidies and oil companies with their subsidies. Perhaps Republicans should learn a few things.

Hollywood catching its big break in other countries
I don't give a damn what the rich flaunts their money on, but it is funny on one corner of their mouth they support unions and in the other side they will film a television series,say about Chicago in Toronto just so they don't have to pay Union wages.
 

gallantwarrior

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
25,570
Reaction score
7,236
Points
280
Location
On my own 200 acres of the Frozen North
I'd like to see many of the anti-gun Hollyweird crowd boycott filming any type of movie in which firearms, gun violence (hell, any type of violence), or other socially irresponsible behavior is featured. Let them put their money where their mouths are. C'mon, Hollyweird! How about you refuse to be involved in a film project featuring gun violence, or how about sexual violence?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top