11 thoughts on “Why People Hate Hollywood “Liberals””

  1. Again, the dufuss who gave them the docs eventually claimed they were fake too. His story is that he was set up by evil genius Carl Rove. Of course that’s B.S., but the fact that he felt the need to come up with such nonsense shows that even he knows the docs don’t stand up to any examination.

  2. They will find Bush’s National Guard records with Obama’s birth certificate. Of course only one of those is viewed as a discredited conspiracy theory.

    That JFK was assassinated by anything but a socialist, 9/11 was an inside job, Iraq was a war for oil, Bush was AWOL, and that we had a budget surplus in 2000 are all conspiracy theories that just wont go away.

    I don’t know if they should but it would be nice if our friends to the left recognized all the crazy stuff they believe in. I am sure conspiracy theories will be vogue again in 2016.

  3. What’s unbelievable is giving credibility to those that lost it. Doing that takes away their own. They should all be unemployed.

  5. I hate them because of their phony “compassion.” In that, they aren’t much different from non-Hollywood “liberals,” in that their “compassion” is exercised at other people’s forced expense (“generous with other people’s money,” as the saying goes). But the Hollywood branch of the Hive, like the Park Avenue Pinks on the East Coast, have the bucks to give all the poor and disadvantaged they’re allegedly so concerned with a decent if unlavish home, health insurance, money to pay off their debts. etc. Instead they’d rather pour the money into electing power-junkies like Obama and Clinton so that in turn these creatures can force the rest of us to pay for Hollywood’s “compassion.”

    1. Yes, they were very worried about Iraqi deaths when Bush was President and blamed our troops for them despite the vast majority of dead Iraqis were killed by Syrian and Iranian proxies. Now, with genocide in Iraq and Syria, Democrats are all, “Meh, f those people.” or, “Someone should really do something about that.”

  6. It’s ridiculous to try to re-litigate the Bush AWOL charge. We don’t need to look at his National Guard record from the 70s to judge his suitability as president, we can evaluate what he actually did as president. It’s as silly as evaluating Obama in 2015 based on his connections to Ayers and Khalidi — and sure enough, that’s what Rand does in his next post.

    1. I’m not “re-evaluating” Obama in light of that. I’m pointing out that he has confirmed by his behavior in office the associations we pointed out at the time.

      1. If the Red Diaper Baby in the White House had repudiated or denounced Ayers and Khalidi–as various ex-communists did when they moved “right”–along with repudiating and denouncing the socialist New Party, his Commie father (from whom he says he gets his dreams), etc., et al, Baghdad Jim might have a point. Instead it’s the usual BJ bilge.

        In fairness, after being in his congregation for, what?–ten years?– Obama did repudiate and denounce Rev Wright. Oh, wait, never mind . . .

    2. “It’s ridiculous to try to re-litigate the Bush AWOL charge.”

      Ridiculous for whom? For Rather and crew or people pointing out that the AWOL story was a complete fabrication pushed by a biased media outlet to change the course of the Presidential election?

      “We don’t need to look at his National Guard record from the 70s to judge his suitability as president”

      Well yeah, it’s a bit late to say that considering he isn’t President anymore and hasn’t been for almost 8 years. What was your position at the time though? (rhetorical question)

      “It’s as silly as evaluating Obama in 2015 based on his connections to Ayers and Khalidi”

      Lol, we have a President that supports domestic terrorism in the name of the Democrat party. Rand is right, those associations were a foreshadowing of the policies and people Obama supported during his administration. It’s big news, like if McCain or Romney were past members of the KKK.

Comments are closed.