P@triot
Diamond Member
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
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