Posted on 12/12/2013 8:32:51 AM PST by US Navy Vet
Kim Kardashian hit headlines last week when it was revealed that just 10 percent of the proceeds from her eBay wardrobe auction were being donated to the International Medical Corps relief fund for the victims of the Philippines Typhoon disaster.
The reality star, whose net worth is estimated at $40 million, was widely slammed for not donating at least a little more than the minimal amount required by Giving Works, eBays charitable arm. But now Kardashian is addressing the controversy on her personal website with a blog post entitled, Giving Comes From the Heart.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
It would be a receptacle if the sperm went in and stayed in. Unfortunately for the world, things have started popping out, and the 1st one is 50% Kanye.
I think the problem lies not with the fact that she gave 10%, but that she gave only 10% after advertising the auction with the proceeds going to charity.
If she held the auction, then gave 10%. Great.
Advertise and auction with proceeds going to charity, then give 10%? Public humiliation.
She said she was donating money from the auction, but only donated 10%.
Stop defending the indefensible.
She is a POS, and you are no better if you defend her.
If she claims its going to charity when it is not, then that might be fraud.
If she was only claiming 10% would go then its not
Please show me the Certificate of Divine Right signed by God and notarized by St. Peter that gives you the right to be holier than thou and dictate how any private person, POS or not, should legally spend money she has legally and legitimately earned. In this still somewhat free economy that decision is hers and hers alone.
Fraud is against the law, and I didn’t write the law.
Get a clue. Please.
You look pathetic.
The article is poorly written, but it does seem that there may have been an understanding by those who spent money at the auction that Kardashian was going to donate all of the proceeds to charity. If this is so, then she is a fraud.
Not if she misled the buyers of her auction.
I’d agree with you on that, but the article didn’t directly say she did. All of my comments were hedged by the important words “legal” and “legitimate.”
On another thread, there’s a discussion about the Pope’s pronouncement about greed.
The article should have included that information, imho. I will say though, that if she had not misled the contributors, I am guessing that her response would have been different.
Would you please point out in the article posted where it mentions that she committed fraud.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.