A look at the core of liberalism

[Little-Acorn]

We've already had a look at the "core of liberalism".

Here:

Gruber while writing Obamacare It definitely won t be affordable we ll have to deny treatment. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And here:

Stunning U.S. compromise Iran can get the Bomb in gradual phased-in program US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[PaintMyHouse]

We've already had a look at the "core of liberalism".

Here:

Gruber while writing Obamacare It definitely won t be affordable we ll have to deny treatment. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Deny treatment? Good. See ya Gramps, money doesn't grow on trees and there are kids to feed and clothe.

 

[Little-Acorn]

And here:

Lie of the Year If you like your health care plan you can keep it PolitiFact

 

[Little-Acorn]

And here:

A look at the core of liberalism Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Ravi]

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 marketing and the free enterprise system?

 

[william the wie]

liberal = liar it's who and what they are.

 

[Zander]

Liberalism is rotten to the core....

 

[jknowgood]

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

You do realize the government makes more off a gallon of gas than the oil companies do?

 

[jknowgood]

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.

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?

He hates wall street while Obama has given them billions. What a dumbass.

 

[P@triot]

"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.'

Really CCJ? That's ther best you can do? Imply that these are conservative Hollywood elites (as if such a thing ever existed).

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 marketing and the free enterprise system?

I don't. What I hate is the repulsive hypocrisy of the modern day liberal. Don't demand socialism and the redistribution of my wealth while you hoard millions and engage in lavish waste.