Michelle Obama rents Hollywood Hills home, possibly scoping out L.A. move, report says

[Anonymous]

He should do something respectable like open a modeling agency or a university scam, or better yet throw a stripper golf party for rich pedos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of what they are currently doing in LA based. It wouldn’t surprise me.

And they can do what they want. They are private citizens these days who have both made a ton of money.

...by exploiting the Presidency.

Amazing role models, aren't they.

Like Biden middle-class Joe and his $14 million.

What a crowd.

Do you think Dick Cheney bought his Eastern shore estate off his wife's books? Please. He rode his government service all the way to Halliburton.

No, not instructive except if you also cried foul when the Cheneys and the Reagans did so. FWIW, I don't think the Bushes needed to do this and didn't do it. And, moreover, I don't necessarily fault the Clintons and Obamas for pounding cash as the GOP - every other week - threaten to put them and other Dems in jail.

I see.

The Obamas and the Bidens learned their financial moves from Dick Cheney.

Very instructive.

[Anonymous]

Stuff like this emboldens the Warren/Sanders faction of the Democratic party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of what they are currently doing in LA based. It wouldn’t surprise me.

And they can do what they want. They are private citizens these days who have both made a ton of money.

...by exploiting the Presidency.

Amazing role models, aren't they.

Like Biden middle-class Joe and his $14 million.

What a crowd.

But let me guess, you think Trump is a real honest public servant, don’t you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He should do something respectable like open a modeling agency or a university scam, or better yet throw a stripper golf party for rich pedos.

Or charge taxpayers for personal trips to HIS properties every weekend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obama is voting for Trump. Now that he has money he would like to keep some of it.

If the alternative is Bernie, Warren or Harris, he'd be crazy not to

That's what happens when you allow your party to be decimated under your watch, losing 1,000 seats in 8 years. You lose the bench and then...

[Anonymous]

To the "what a crowd" poster:

I guess you prefer pedophiles, rapists, draft dodgers, black out drunk SCOTUS judges and grifters?

You people are loathsome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the "what a crowd" poster:

I guess you prefer pedophiles, rapists, draft dodgers, black out drunk SCOTUS judges and grifters?

You people are loathsome.

You forgor to add violent thugs and anti-Semites to your list.

90% of the disgusting people exhibiting all those antisocial behaviors belong to the Dem Party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of what they are currently doing in LA based. It wouldn’t surprise me.

And they can do what they want. They are private citizens these days who have both made a ton of money.

...by exploiting the Presidency.

Amazing role models, aren't they.

Like Biden middle-class Joe and his $14 million.

What a crowd.

But let me guess, you think Trump is a real honest public servant, don’t you?

Nope. None of the names mentioned is above making a buck. Their motives aren't altruistic.

[Anonymous]

I think it's the whole limo liberal thing that annoys people. The private schools, the best address in town, that sort of thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's the whole limo liberal thing that annoys people. The private schools, the best address in town, that sort of thing.

So if you announce that you don’t care about the poor and disadvantaged and do nothing for them, it’s fine to live like royalty, is that what you’re saying? That if you’re going to live that elite lifestyle just don’t do anything or say anything that demonstrates concern for those less fortunate than you. Because being a hypocrite is far worse than being stingy and uncharitable. Better to be greedy and uncaring than to be a hypocrite. That seems to be the idea, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's the whole limo liberal thing that annoys people. The private schools, the best address in town, that sort of thing.

So if you announce that you don’t care about the poor and disadvantaged and do nothing for them, it’s fine to live like royalty, is that what you’re saying? That if you’re going to live that elite lifestyle just don’t do anything or say anything that demonstrates concern for those less fortunate than you. Because being a hypocrite is far worse than being stingy and uncharitable. Better to be greedy and uncaring than to be a hypocrite. That seems to be the idea, right?

It's far less hypocritical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's the whole limo liberal thing that annoys people. The private schools, the best address in town, that sort of thing.

So if you announce that you don’t care about the poor and disadvantaged and do nothing for them, it’s fine to live like royalty, is that what you’re saying? That if you’re going to live that elite lifestyle just don’t do anything or say anything that demonstrates concern for those less fortunate than you. Because being a hypocrite is far worse than being stingy and uncharitable. Better to be greedy and uncaring than to be a hypocrite. That seems to be the idea, right?

It's far less hypocritical.

conservatives statistically donate more money to charities. Liberals legislate a lot of social engineering for the poor -like being anti charter school - but dont send their kids to low SES public schools if they can find any other option. The Obama's certainly didnt -even pre presidency when he was a "community organizer" . Yes, limo liberalizing is extremely hypocritical and that's what people find distasteful about the growing excess of the Obama brand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's the whole limo liberal thing that annoys people. The private schools, the best address in town, that sort of thing.

So if you announce that you don’t care about the poor and disadvantaged and do nothing for them, it’s fine to live like royalty, is that what you’re saying? That if you’re going to live that elite lifestyle just don’t do anything or say anything that demonstrates concern for those less fortunate than you. Because being a hypocrite is far worse than being stingy and uncharitable. Better to be greedy and uncaring than to be a hypocrite. That seems to be the idea, right?

It's far less hypocritical.

conservatives statistically donate more money to charities. Liberals legislate a lot of social engineering for the poor -like being anti charter school - but dont send their kids to low SES public schools if they can find any other option. The Obama's certainly didnt -even pre presidency when he was a "community organizer" . Yes, limo liberalizing is extremely hypocritical and that's what people find distasteful about the growing excess of the Obama brand.

Conservatives donate more but that’s mostly because they tend to give a lot to faith based organizations (not necessarily charities)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's the whole limo liberal thing that annoys people. The private schools, the best address in town, that sort of thing.

+1.

The Obamas are world-champs at that.

First they move to uberrich uberwhite Kalorama...and now rent a crazy-expensive house in uberrich uberwhite Hollywood Hills.