Rich Liberals? Should they even exist?
Even though I'm a card-carrying cynic, there are times when I'm still amazed at the complete and total hyprocacy of liberals.
I was reading an article in The Weekly Standard that was discussing possible Democrat panic if any polls were released that had Billary trailing any of the Republican candidiates.
In that artice is this little nugget: "She’s a terrible candidate. She has not only failed to attract big crowds. She’s having trouble raising big money from those described by Politico as 'rich liberals.' "
Isn't the term "rich liberal" an oxymoron? If not, shouldn't it be?
Since they continually rail against what they see as a motal sin (income inequality), wouldn't their honest and logical next move be to give most of their holdings away, keeping only what they need?
I know, I know, expecting logic from a liberal is like expecting the sun to rise in the west. I'd just never considered what a two-faced, "do as I say not as I do" position it was to be a rich liberal
I was reading an article in The Weekly Standard that was discussing possible Democrat panic if any polls were released that had Billary trailing any of the Republican candidiates.
In that artice is this little nugget: "She’s a terrible candidate. She has not only failed to attract big crowds. She’s having trouble raising big money from those described by Politico as 'rich liberals.' "
Isn't the term "rich liberal" an oxymoron? If not, shouldn't it be?
Since they continually rail against what they see as a motal sin (income inequality), wouldn't their honest and logical next move be to give most of their holdings away, keeping only what they need?
I know, I know, expecting logic from a liberal is like expecting the sun to rise in the west. I'd just never considered what a two-faced, "do as I say not as I do" position it was to be a rich liberal
