Celebrities are part of the 1%

1. 58

   logic,commonsenseposted 13 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.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      lobobrandonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
2. 76

   skyfireposted 13 years ago

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

   replyreport
   1. 61

      JBBlackposted 13 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         skyfireposted 13 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
   2. 60

      wanderlust65posted 13 years agoin 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...

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Barbara Kentonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

         replyreport
3. 61

   dfuntanarposted 13 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.

   replyreport
4. 89

   brittanytoddposted 13 years ago

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

   replyreport
5. 60

   wanderlust65posted 13 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...

   replyreport
6. 78

   psycheskinnerposted 13 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.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Eric Newlandposted 13 years agoin 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?

      replyreport
7. 60

   Valerie60posted 13 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.

   replyreport
8. 60

   knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

   "Celebrities" do not run the world.

   replyreport
9. 82

   WriteAngledposted 13 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.

   replyreport
10. 59

    Hollie Thomasposted 13 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"

    replyreport