Stupid rich Liberal hypocrites...

**Farnan** · November 21, 2006, 09:16 PM

I absolutely hate it when the rich Liberals come out campaigning for the government to do something about the poor. The sheer hypocracy of that gets me angry, especially when the actors do it. They want the poor to be helped with your money, but are unwilling to lower their own standards of life to help them.

I am saying that they should shut up, and I have absolutely no respect for them, and I don't believe anyone else should, unless they do the following: Donate all their money minus 2 million dollars to charities to help the poor. Not to raise awareness to help the poor, but to actually do it. No more flying on a private jet from city to city making campaigns, they should fly coach on public airplanes. If they really care about the poor, their personal comfort shouldn't be that big of a deal. No more private yachts, they can use some of that two million to go on a cruise once every few years, but they don't need a private yacht when that money could be used to help the poor they claim to care about so much.

Basically what I am challenging those rich liberals to do is to "Put their money where their mouth is."

**Sétanta** · November 21, 2006, 09:19 PM

They are politicians. They do the same thing, they just try to get different groups to vote for them.

**Farnan** · November 21, 2006, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by Mudd

They are politicians. They do the same thing, they just try to get different groups to vote for them.

They are hypocrites, I know that, which is why I am furious at them...

**Lasher** · November 23, 2006, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Farnan

They are hypocrites, I know that, which is why I am furious at them...

Just like closet homosexual Republicans.

**Bwaho** · November 23, 2006, 01:27 PM

Just like closet homosexual Republicans.

quite true

**carl-the-conqueror** · November 23, 2006, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Farnan

They are hypocrites, I know that, which is why I am furious at them...

REALLY !?!?!? some poloticians are hypocrites ! to the postal office i must write to the Times !

i dont know whats worse liberals campaigning for the poor... in there private yaught in the bahamas, or fat greedy politicians soaking money like a sponge for 'the greater good' or 'to bring democracy to the world'

**Wild Bill Kelso** · November 23, 2006, 03:57 PM

This thread is in need of some serious pruning, however, since the original offtopic post (hypocrites/homosexuality) occured 2 days ago I will let things stand as they are. That being said, anymore remarks not tied to the original aim of this thread's discussion will results in the post being deleted and the usual PM's associated with such actions..(Please dont make me do that)

WBK

**Ahiga** · November 21, 2006, 09:24 PM

So long as it does not extend to liberals in general, I'm inclined to agree.

It is admirable but also a duty that those who are rich should donate more of their money than the rest of us. Not all, because I cannot imagine us here doing so. But what Bill Gates does is admirable, and if he were to enter politics or try and make people get the government to do it, then he would need to give a lot more for him to not be a hypocrite.

There's a fine line for those who are rich or popular to merely be using their status or fame to bring acknowledgment to an issue, and for them to use their status or fame to make it seem like their point of view is superior to joe-six pack's.

**Farnan** · November 21, 2006, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by Ahiga

So long as it does not extend to liberals in general, I'm inclined to agree.

It is admirable and pretty much assumed that those who are rich should donate much of their money. Not all, because I cannot imagine us here doing so. But what Bill Gates does is admirable, and if he were to enter politics or try and make people get the government to do it, then he would need to give a lot more for him to not be a hypocrite.

There's a fine line for those who are rich or popular to merely be using their status or fame to bring acknowledgment to an issue, and for them to use their status or fame to make it seem like their point of view is superior to joe-six pack's.

Most people that make the kinds of campaigns I am talking about are liberal, though conservatives that make the same campaigns I feel the same way.

I'm not asking them to donate all of their money, I'm allowing them two million. Two million dollars is more than most people make in about 120 years of hard work, so its plenty to live. So their kids will have to work, I won't be shedding any tears about that...

**Ahiga** · November 21, 2006, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by Farnan

Most people that make the kinds of campaigns I am talking about are liberal, though conservatives that make the same campaigns I feel the same way.

I'm not asking them to donat all of their money, I'm allowing them two million. Two million dollars is more than most people make in about 120 years of hard work, so its plenty to live. So their kids will have to work, I won't be shedding any tears about that...

Well Farnan, I didn't really want to bring up this issue because its a cliched response, but a lot of us leftists have a problem with the conservatives not putting their money where their mouth is in regards to supporting Iraq but having what we perceive to be few sons and daughters of wealthy republicans going off into service. It doesn't help that some of those in power happened to be the draft-dodgers of Vietnam.

I realize you don't feel it's part of leftist ideology, but I wanted to reinforce for others that it's more to do with being in power than being a libtard.

Power corrupts, 'I support others doing it, so long as I don't have to support it directly', and so forth. When someone gets in a position of power, it's easy to exert an ideology that magically seems to flow around you, as those liberal rich folk are doing, and as some of the war hawks in power are doing.

There's not much excuse for them to be living the posh life and to be acting as though they are humanitarians to rival those who go off to work with the peace Corps.

I'd say that's the reason why U2 is continuing to be popular, because everything I've heard in recent years is Crap.

**Farnan** · November 21, 2006, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by Ahiga

Well Farnan, I didn't really want to bring up this issue because its a cliched response, but a lot of us leftists have a problem with the conservatives not putting their money where their mouth is in regards to supporting Iraq but having what we perceive to be few sons and daughters of wealthy republicans going off into service. It doesn't help that some of those in power happened to be the draft-dodgers of Vietnam.

I realize you don't feel it's part of leftist ideology, but I wanted to reinforce for others that it's more to do with being in power than being a libtard.

Power corrupts, 'I support others doing it, so long as I don't have to support it directly', and so forth. When someone gets in a position of power, it's easy to exert an ideology that magically seems to flow around you, as those liberal rich folk are doing, and as some of the war hawks in power are doing.

There's not much excuse for them to be living the posh life and to be acting as though they are humanitarians to rival those who go off to work with the peace Corps.

I'd say that's the reason why U2 is continuing to be popular, because everything I've heard in recent years is Crap.

Hey I'm all in favor of a requirement to run for office being a two year tour in the military or Peace Corps. (though that is unconstitutional, thus impossible) And I won't argue that I would much rather politicians that support sending troops to war have a background in the military. If someone supported a draft I would readidly agree with your statement, but as its a volunteer military I have to disagree. Mostly because what you are saying is that a politician force his family member do something that family member doesn't want to do. I would however hope that War Hawks donate money to soldier charities...

Oh yea, if you want a good one, here is a website: http://www.moaa.org/about/about_scholarship/index.htm

**conon394** · November 21, 2006, 09:45 PM

absolutely hate it when the rich Liberals come out campaigning for the government to do something about the poor. The sheer hypocracy of that gets me angry, especially when the actors do it. They want the poor to be helped with your money, but are unwilling to lower their own standards of life to help them.

I am saying that they should shut up, and I have absolutely no respect for them, and I don't believe anyone else should, unless they do the following: Donate all their money minus 2 million dollars to charities to help the poor. Not to raise awareness to help the poor, but to actually do it. No more flying on a private jet from city to city making campaigns, they should fly coach on public airplanes. If they really care about the poor, their personal comfort shouldn't be that big of a deal. No more private yachts, they can use some of that two million to go on a cruise once every few years, but they don't need a private yacht when that money could be used to help the poor they claim to care about so much.

Basically what I am challenging those rich liberals to do is to "Put their money where their mouth is.".

Farnan

A very good emotional argument but I think there is a bit of a logical flaw with it. What if the hypothetical rich liberal in question is comfortable with the level of taxation and wealth transfer to the government but merely feels government spending priorities are incorrect – i.e. fewer aircraft carries vs. more social safety net.

Should rich neo-cons also be expected to buy a new F-22 for the Air Force or pay the salary of CIA water board expert before they advocate a policy?

**Professor420** · November 21, 2006, 09:38 PM

Good, the machine is working.

I wonder what the gross income of all "Stupid rich Liberal hypocrites" are. My guess is substantially less than the $13 trillion of the US GDP. Of which it spends approximately $400 million on anti-poverty. That's 3%. In contrast

Yes, those hypocritical rich liberals and celebs. How about the 2.5 billion spent campaigning by politicians for this midterm election?

You know, its strange, you criticize rich liberals who you admit already do things to help the poor for hypocrisy, while being so blind to your own contradictions and ignoring the fact that even just by campaigning they are doing some good, which is far more than you, or many of us, are doing to fight poverty.

**danzig** · November 21, 2006, 10:34 PM

Originally Posted by Professor420

You know, its strange, you criticize rich liberals who you admit already do things to help the poor for hypocrisy, while being so blind to your own contradictions and ignoring the fact that even just by campaigning they are doing some good, which is far more than you, or many of us, are doing to fight poverty.

Really? So a person with lets say a fortune of 100million telling concert goers to give money to say people who are hungry is helping how? What would be more effective, asking say 20,000 people to give 5 bucks or the 'famous' person simply donating say 5% of the concert tour to charity?

Ironically too conservatives give more to charity from money to blood then liberals as pointed out by another thread here.

**Ahiga** · November 21, 2006, 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by danzig

Really? So a person with lets say a fortune of 100million telling concert goers to give money to say people who are hungry is helping how? What would be more effective, asking say 20,000 people to give 5 bucks or the 'famous' person simply donating say 5% of the concert tour to charity?

Ironically too conservatives give more to charity from money to blood then liberals as pointed out by another thread here.

My friend gave me that article, but it was a guy making all these assertions without any backup except for him claiming poll this and poll that(She did just copypasta, so maybe the original one had the proof). Does the thread here have the article as well as the polls taken that show that is true?

**danzig** · November 21, 2006, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by Ahiga

My friend gave me that article, but it was a guy making all these assertions without any backup except for him claiming poll this and poll that(She did just copypasta, so maybe the original one had the proof). Does the thread here have the article as well as the polls taken that show that is true?

http://www.newswatch50.com/news/news...0-15ED407EB199

He wrote a book on it, he is a professor from Syracuse University so guess have to read his book to see what he based on it as article simply indicates its based on 10 years of data.

**~~Miraj~~** · November 21, 2006, 11:38 PM

Hypocrites? Do you mean like people who claim homosexuality is a sin in public but privately have sex with gay hookers on the weekend?

**Legio XX Valeria Victrix** · November 21, 2006, 09:45 PM

Can you maybe clarify with who these "rich liberal hypocrites" actually are? Are you talking about Hollywood celebrities like Bono who are up in arms about helping the poor but then try to move their assets to tax shelters where they don't have to pay as much, or politicians who champion legislature to help the poor and give them economic assistance?

The former is reprehensible, but I see little problem with the latter, even though politicians make a healthy sum themselves. At least they're trying. Hell, even Bono is better than stuck up *****es like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears who don't even pretend to care.

**Farnan** · November 21, 2006, 09:51 PM

I'm talking mostly about Hollywood crowd (Clooney makes 10,000,000 a film, enough to heat about one thousands houses for the winter), the Kennedy Clan (some of that mafia money could really help out a lot of people, but they would rather us spend our money), the celebs, and the ultra-rich politicians (though not every liberal politicians, but the ones that afford the summer and winter mansions, the cruise ship, and still have enough money to purchase a few African countries (I don't mean that in a racist way, I mean by the extremely low GDP in many African countries))