A look at the core of liberalism

P@triot

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2011
60,915
11,384
2,060
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
 
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:
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
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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!!
 
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:
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
 
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.
 
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?
 

Forum List

Back
Top