jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (16 posts)

Celebrities are part of the 1%

  1. 68
    logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago

    According to MSN's Wonderwall:

    Victoria Beckham puts nightingale poop on her face to exfoliate it.
    Jay-Z celebrated his latest album with $250,000 worth of champagne.  Didn't hear how much the rest of the party cost.   His server got a $50,000 tip.
    Rihanna pays her hairdresser $3,300 a day.
    Diddy's son got a $390,000 car for getting on the honor roll.  His second one.  The other was for his 16th birthday.

    When is there going to be an Occupy Hollywood movement?  How about an Occupy Broadway?  The rich snobs pretend they care about the 'little people' but they are no better than the robber barons that caused the economic meltdown.

    1. lobobrandon profile image82
      lobobrandonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Actually it's their money they can do as they please.

  2. skyfire profile image71
    skyfireposted 5 years ago

    Whatever, I respect some of the Hollywood celebs for their charity work, especially Angelina Jolie.

    1. JBBlack profile image60
      JBBlackposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sometimes the charity can't be separated from international poverty tourism.  Sort of disgusting to watch ultrarich walk through super impoverished areas without fundamentally changing what's happening there.

      1. skyfire profile image71
        skyfireposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Celebs, you and me can't change the very system that is responsible for all this. However, changing life from slums or from poor countries is possible and I think if anyone is doing that then it's much better.

    2. wanderlust65 profile image62
      wanderlust65posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Giving to charity does not only confine to the celebrities, there are also lots of people outside the celebrities world  who are doing charity works yet unrecognized. Helping the less fortunate people is not mandatory but for those individuals with a golden heart--sharing  is always the language of their soul...

      1. Barbara Kenton profile image56
        Barbara Kentonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        How true that is...and that is true love..love your neighbor as yourself

  3. dfuntanar profile image62
    dfuntanarposted 5 years ago

    You can't just go about "occupy <insert here>" just because they're rich and can afford the luxuries in life that you can't.  What they want to do with their hard earned money, is their own business.  As long as they pay what is due to them, and they earn their money fair and square, you don't have any right to tell them otherwise.  And they absolutely have no obligation whatsoever to give to the needy, be thankful enough that some of them actually give to charity.

  4. brittanytodd profile image92
    brittanytoddposted 5 years ago

    I live in LA and there was an Occupy movement...just sayin'...

  5. wanderlust65 profile image62
    wanderlust65posted 5 years ago

    Giving to charity does not only confine to the celebrities, there are also lots of people as well from outside the celebrities world  who are doing charity works yet unrecognized. Helping the less fortunate people is not mandatory, however, for those individuals with a golden heart--sharing  is always the language of their soul...

  6. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    People are allowed to do whatever the heck they want with their income, the community gets their share via tax.  So long as they don't evade tax, i don;t care what they do.

    A person on minimum wage could be just as outraged that I spend my money on a dog-walker when they can't afford good child care. But it's my money.

    1. Eric Newland profile image62
      Eric Newlandposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Why...why...people like you are the reason the Occupy movement exists! I think. I'm still not sure what their platform is, but if they've made themselves clear on one point it's "Waaaahhh."

      Also, I think celebrities do a lot of good by drawing attention to a cause. What does more good? If a movie star donates a million dollars or if they convince a million other people to donate $10 apiece?

  7. Valerie60 profile image59
    Valerie60posted 5 years ago

    So many people donate more than money; they give time and energy and a good heart to the cause. I think its great for celebrities who do such things, however, its their money, they can do whatever they like with it! I don't see any difference. Whatever works may not always work the same way for the same people. Charity begins at home.

  8. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "Celebrities" do not run the world.

  9. WriteAngled profile image93
    WriteAngledposted 5 years ago

    As far as I am concerned, "celebrities" deserve to be ignored. It is only because of the pathetic mentality of media-brainwashed people that these nonenties are placed on a pedestal and worshipped. If they were seen for the uncultured ignoramuses that the vast majority of them are and treated with the contempt they deserve, their obscenely inflated incomes would rapidly vanish.

  10. Hollie Thomas profile image61
    Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago

    It depends who the "celebrity" is. I don't adore anyone other than my children. But I definitely prefer Alexi Sayle to the bunch of celebrities we vote into the House of Commons. At least he's got the bollocks to speak up about the Rothschilds and the "politicians"

 
working