So if I read this post correctly, in actuality you have no idea WHO has donated to what charitable causes or HOW MUCH they have donated. But you do know that whatever the amount is, it isn't as meaningful as the amount you donate because you KNOW you donate a higher percentage of your income to charity than the left wing celebrities and elite athletes because ... well just because you know you do.ace85 said:
Bill and Hillary
- Thread starter Avery
- Start date
I was using 2 examples
1) Was Rosie O'Donnel who "PUBLICALLY" so everyone could praise her (after 911) donated a million and challenged others to donate a million, which she deemed as significant. So in this case I DO know. The interesting thing is she got lots of grief for calling out others. So in that case good for her.
2) Warrick Dunn publically (in speaking with Peter King) announced what he would do. Again I have knowledge of this as fact.
My suggestion is that celebrities make money from the common man, and choose most often to donate through in kind donations (auction items) charitable concerts etc. This money comes from the common man.
I give more credibillity and respect to those who don't make donations of their hard earned cash, along with with their in kind donation.
Look at Bill Gates - he gives billions of dollars away, and will continue to do so through his ongoing foundation. This is significant. $50,000 from some over paid athlete is nice, but they could do so much more.
1) Was Rosie O'Donnel who "PUBLICALLY" so everyone could praise her (after 911) donated a million and challenged others to donate a million, which she deemed as significant. So in this case I DO know. The interesting thing is she got lots of grief for calling out others. So in that case good for her.
2) Warrick Dunn publically (in speaking with Peter King) announced what he would do. Again I have knowledge of this as fact.
My suggestion is that celebrities make money from the common man, and choose most often to donate through in kind donations (auction items) charitable concerts etc. This money comes from the common man.
I give more credibillity and respect to those who don't make donations of their hard earned cash, along with with their in kind donation.
Look at Bill Gates - he gives billions of dollars away, and will continue to do so through his ongoing foundation. This is significant. $50,000 from some over paid athlete is nice, but they could do so much more.
Last edited:
So based on one example (Rosie) you can tar all with the same brush -- "good old left wing celebrites" -- is how you characterized them. And then based on one example "Warrick Dunn" you can characterize all athletes as cheap overpaid bastards.
OK, I follow that so far...
As for the fact/opinion/whatever that celebrities only give "in kind" donations I don't know if that's true -- seen a few rock concerts and big events, charity auctions -- where that is the case but I don't think that's all they do. I suspect that more than a few celebs have written some big cheques in their time to causes they support and believe in. Maybe I'm wrong about that but I don't think so.
Since I don't really believe that celebs only organize events where the common man hands over his hard earned moola, I don't disrespect them for organizing a little shindig like LiveAid, FarmAid, Concert for Bangladesh etc, every once in a while.
But I am puzzled as to the statement that celebs "make money from the common man"(I'm assuming you mean we the people buy tickets to their movies, buy their records, in short purchase the product they are creating) as if this is somehow a unique (or less than honourable) way to make money.
Doesn't Bill Gates make money the same way? I mean, isn't that how money is made -- create a product that people want to buy. And heck, if that product is yourself, all the better, means a lot less heavy lifting.
OK, I follow that so far...
As for the fact/opinion/whatever that celebrities only give "in kind" donations I don't know if that's true -- seen a few rock concerts and big events, charity auctions -- where that is the case but I don't think that's all they do. I suspect that more than a few celebs have written some big cheques in their time to causes they support and believe in. Maybe I'm wrong about that but I don't think so.
Since I don't really believe that celebs only organize events where the common man hands over his hard earned moola, I don't disrespect them for organizing a little shindig like LiveAid, FarmAid, Concert for Bangladesh etc, every once in a while.
But I am puzzled as to the statement that celebs "make money from the common man"(I'm assuming you mean we the people buy tickets to their movies, buy their records, in short purchase the product they are creating) as if this is somehow a unique (or less than honourable) way to make money.
Doesn't Bill Gates make money the same way? I mean, isn't that how money is made -- create a product that people want to buy. And heck, if that product is yourself, all the better, means a lot less heavy lifting.
He does, it just seems that many athletes and celebrities conveniently forget who pays their way.lenharper said:So based on one example (Rosie) you can tar all with the same brush -- "good old left wing celebrites" -- is how you characterized them. And then based on one example "Warrick Dunn" you can characterize all athletes as cheap overpaid bastards.
OK, I follow that so far...
As for the fact/opinion/whatever that celebrities only give "in kind" donations I don't know if that's true but I suspect that more than a few celebs have written some big cheques in their time to causes they support and believe in but maybe I'm wrong.
But I am puzzled as to the statement that celebs "make money from the common man"(I'm assuming you mean we the people buy tickets to their movies, buy their records, in short purchase the product they are creating) as if this is somehow a unique (or evil) way to make money.
Doesn't Bill Gates make money the same way?
And there are some that do more, but the in kind donation which is what you saw after 911 is a big cop out for me.
As for athletes and celebrities, there is a great deal made about the amount they are giving back, and much public play about the role they are playing, SEAN PENN eg, lots of comments about it etc. etc.
Oprahs big donation didn't go with out a bunch of fanfare. It is all part of the spot light craving means.
I am curious as to why you are such an apologist for the selfish over paid athelete and meglomaniac celbrities.
Also what did Bill Gates set up his foundation with 20 - 25% of his net worth.
That is huge.
Sorry I'm too stupid to make those cute little call and response posts but my response is in the body of your quote.
No doubt. As is the amount Paul Newman contributes each year. Sure it's not as much money as Gates (but as a percentage of his net it's comparable).ace85 said:He does, it just seems that many athletes and celebrities conveniently forget who pays their way.]
I think I could say the same thing about many CEO's etc. Quite a few of those SandL guys did. So did Conrad etc etc...
[And there are some that do more, but the in kind donation which is what you saw after 911 is a big cop out for me.
As for athletes and celebrities, there is a great deal made about the amount they are giving back, and much public play about the role they are playing, SEAN PENN eg, lots of comments about it etc. etc.
Oprahs big donation didn't go with out a bunch of fanfare. It is all part of the spot light craving means.]
Heard quite a bit about the largesse of Bill Gates, Frank Stronach as well. seems like everyone's got a press agent these days.
[I am curious as to why you are such an apologist for the selfish over paid athelete and meglomaniac celbrities.]
Not really an apologist but I think that just because one is famous it doesn't mean that every action one takes is strictly self aggrandizement. And I'll bet the positve bumph that Bill Gates and Frank Stronach get when they do something nice makes them feel pretty good about themselves as well.
Also what did Bill Gates set up his foundation with 20 - 25% of his net worth.
That is huge.
Paul Newman is not a LEFT Wing Celebrity
And he obviously doesn't highly publicize his contributions.
I guess to clarify I tend to take issue with the spot light cravers, the ones that publically try to sway public opinions during elections (utopian, why can't we all just get along, while I walk around with body guards and live in a fenced in home, celbrities). On the surface it looks athough they are doing a lot, but really they are giving very little.
And he obviously doesn't highly publicize his contributions.
I guess to clarify I tend to take issue with the spot light cravers, the ones that publically try to sway public opinions during elections (utopian, why can't we all just get along, while I walk around with body guards and live in a fenced in home, celbrities). On the surface it looks athough they are doing a lot, but really they are giving very little.
I tend to characterize the left wing celebrities, as those who support the democrats, not for their policies, but because they are not the "Republicans".lenharper said:Newman is an active supporter of the Democratic Party and that seems to be what passes for left wing these days (or at least how many of the posters on this board define "left wing"). I am heartened that you don't think that is the case.
Most of these "celelbrities" act as though they dispise "big corporate america" and "lobbiests" but obviously fail to look into the mirror.
They condem the practices, and don't even realize they are adopting a don't beat them join them.
You know, it would be great if you could actually provide an example or two about what you are talking about. There are plenty of voters and supporters of both political parties who vote "against" the other guy as much as they vote "for" their candidate. I don't think that particular phenomenon is more prevalent in the Democratic party. I would say the rhetoric in the last American election was about equal "anti Bush/anti Kerry."
I also happen to think that guys like Bono and Geldof are acutely aware that they are lobbiests -- it is their main way of drawing attention to causes they support -- they lobby almost twenty/four seven and I would bet they know exactly what they are doing. Also, inviting Bill Gates on stage is certainly not a rebuffing of corporate America, in fact I would say it is an excellent example of forging a partnership with corporate America.
I would also say that if one wants to effect meaningful change (whether one belongs to the left or the right) one should work within the system which is what smart people on both sides of the political fence are doing.
I also happen to think that guys like Bono and Geldof are acutely aware that they are lobbiests -- it is their main way of drawing attention to causes they support -- they lobby almost twenty/four seven and I would bet they know exactly what they are doing. Also, inviting Bill Gates on stage is certainly not a rebuffing of corporate America, in fact I would say it is an excellent example of forging a partnership with corporate America.
I would also say that if one wants to effect meaningful change (whether one belongs to the left or the right) one should work within the system which is what smart people on both sides of the political fence are doing.
EG. Michael Moore - FOR ONE.lenharper said:You know, it would be great if you could actually provide an example or two about what you are talking about. There are plenty of voters and supporters of both political parties who vote "against" the other guy as much as they vote "for" their candidate. I don't think that particular phenomenon is more prevalent in the Democratic party. I would say the rhetoric in the last American election was about equal "anti Bush/anti Kerry."
I also happen to think that guys like Bono and Geldof are acutely aware that they are lobbiests -- it is their main way of drawing attention to causes they support -- they lobby almost twenty/four seven and I would bet they know exactly what they are doing. Also, inviting Bill Gates on stage is certainly not a rebuffing of corporate America, in fact I would say it is an excellent example of forging a partnership with corporate America.
I would also say that if one wants to effect meaningful change (whether one belongs to the left or the right) one should work within the system which is what smart people on both sides of the political fence are doing.
The Democrats tend to PIT labor Versus Corporate America which is always fun.
Humor me and tell me why you think Hollywood is so consistently Democrat. Just curious of your opinion.
Just so you know the far right simply makes me laugh, not much differently then Ralph Nader. I am fiscally conservative socially conservative / moderate.
I tend to see a lot of people from the left Bill Mahar, John Stewart, preaching from their pulpits in negative / distructive ways, under the guise of social commentary. I find it tiresome.
Do you honestly think Michael Moore is unaware that he is a lobbyist?
While you may be in disagreement with his politics I think Moore knows enough about the machinations of politics to see that he view gets heard. I beleive he makes no bones that he is using the power that he has to advance his agenda. Remember your point was that these guys are "unaware" of what they are doing, I believe MM is completely utterly aware of what he is doing, whether you like it or not is a different story.
I think that the majority of people in Hollywood (not all -- I may be wrong but I think the majority of Hollywood types that have run for office have done so under the GOP banner -- Arnold, Sonny Bono, the dude from the love boat) lean toward the Democratic party because they believe the Democrats better represents the same values they believe in (just as most fundamentalist or "born again" Christians tend to lead toward the Republicans because they believe the Rep share their values).
As for the bill mahr thing -- i think negativity in the current political climate in the US is pretty much split evenly across the board -- the right got rush and o'rielly the left got mahr and stewart.
So now that I've tried to answer your questions when are you going to get to mine.
1. how do you know that "left wing" celebrities donate insignificant amounts of thier wealth?
2. instead of rebuking corporate america, don't events like Live8 show how the "left" has actually built an effective partnership with corporate america?
3. don't you think that both parties practice the "anti" card -- ie; anti-Kerry, anti-Gore. There are plenty of memoirs out there by both republican and democratic strategists who speak of how both parties have made ANTI campaigning the cornerstone of election strategy.
While you may be in disagreement with his politics I think Moore knows enough about the machinations of politics to see that he view gets heard. I beleive he makes no bones that he is using the power that he has to advance his agenda. Remember your point was that these guys are "unaware" of what they are doing, I believe MM is completely utterly aware of what he is doing, whether you like it or not is a different story.
I think that the majority of people in Hollywood (not all -- I may be wrong but I think the majority of Hollywood types that have run for office have done so under the GOP banner -- Arnold, Sonny Bono, the dude from the love boat) lean toward the Democratic party because they believe the Democrats better represents the same values they believe in (just as most fundamentalist or "born again" Christians tend to lead toward the Republicans because they believe the Rep share their values).
As for the bill mahr thing -- i think negativity in the current political climate in the US is pretty much split evenly across the board -- the right got rush and o'rielly the left got mahr and stewart.
So now that I've tried to answer your questions when are you going to get to mine.
1. how do you know that "left wing" celebrities donate insignificant amounts of thier wealth?
2. instead of rebuking corporate america, don't events like Live8 show how the "left" has actually built an effective partnership with corporate america?
3. don't you think that both parties practice the "anti" card -- ie; anti-Kerry, anti-Gore. There are plenty of memoirs out there by both republican and democratic strategists who speak of how both parties have made ANTI campaigning the cornerstone of election strategy.
Michael Moore condems Big Corporate America and their Lobbying ways (that was a big part of ROGER and ME) his hypocrissy is annoying.lenharper said:Do you honestly think Michael Moore is unaware that he is a lobbyist?
While you may be in disagreement with his politics I think Moore knows enough about the machinations of politics to see that he view gets heard. I beleive he makes no bones that he is using the power that he has to advance his agenda. Remember your point was that these guys are "unaware" of what they are doing, I believe MM is completely utterly aware of what he is doing, whether you like it or not is a different story.
I think that the majority of people in Hollywood (not all -- I may be wrong but I think the majority of Hollywood types that have run for office have done so under the GOP banner -- Arnold, Sonny Bono, the dude from the love boat) lean toward the Democratic party because they believe the Democrats better represents the same values they believe in (just as most fundamentalist or "born again" Christians tend to lead toward the Republicans because they believe the Rep share their values).
As for the bill mahr thing -- i think negativity in the current political climate in the US is pretty much split evenly across the board -- the right got rush and o'rielly the left got mahr and stewart.
So now that I've tried to answer your questions when are you going to get to mine.
1. how do you know that "left wing" celebrities donate insignificant amounts of thier wealth?
2. instead of rebuking corporate america, don't events like Live8 show how the "left" has actually built an effective partnership with corporate america?
3. don't you think that both parties practice the "anti" card -- ie; anti-Kerry, anti-Gore. There are plenty of memoirs out there by both republican and democratic strategists who speak of how both parties have made ANTI campaigning the cornerstone of election strategy.
Negative Yes. Left and Right. Maher and Stewart (especially Stewart) pretends to play the news and is happy if people think it is the news, but then pretends he is just "entertainment". It is a false message.
Jennings even took issue with it.
Celebrities, are happy to publically proclaim donations, promote "donated concerts" etc. etc. They seem happy to use these tragedies to promote their celebrity and politics, which seems reprehensible. The media "making stories of this" but not reporting reality. The reality is
Rosie O'Donnell is actually a good example. She called out celebrities for this very reason, said here is a million and I challenge all you guys to step up and match it. She got grief for it. Some of the back lash was "our contributions are non of anyones business". I find that a convenient reality.
It is no different than Oprah showing up at a grocery store and giving everyone in the store free groceries (paying for everyone's grocery orders), but conveniently ensuring news organizations etc. knew all about it.
Maybe I am wrong on "celebrities" maybe the majority are really great people that aren't self serving opportunists.
I tend to think that is the minority.
Why do you think they are so left leaning though.
I tend to think it is easy to condem corporate america, be a proponent for lax drug laws and "personal freedoms" etc. etc while you live in your gated community with your security and body guards.
You know, you start out a post with a perjorative "humour me" which is OK, as far as I'm concerned it's like yeah whatever and I answer the best I can but all you can do is say the same the same thing over and over again and make blanket statements about the actions of all based on the actions of a few individuals. Too bad, it could have been an interesting discussion...
