Hollywood Celebs Cashing In On Charities (BARF Alert)

PABAAH: Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti-American Hollywood ^

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Ahh... Now we know exactly why you're taking that position. You're in Washington. All I've got to say is thank God I was born and raised in flyover country, where people care more about their fellow man than money. Really, that saltwater is affecting you.

[HairOfTheDog]

No.... I just know what I am talking about.

Have you ever spent a minute fundraising for a charity?

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Have you spent a minute caring for someone besides yourself? It's not socialism. Screwing the little man who donates out of the caring of his own heart just to line the pockets of Hollywood hypocrites is.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Why can't they donate their time? They don't have to accept every little charity that comes along. Why do they have to take money from these events? There is no reason they have to accept that money. If everyone adopted your ideas, there'd be no such thing aqs a charity, just a way to make an extra buck. Or is a Hollywood idiot's time worth motre than mine?

[HairOfTheDog]

Oh good grief. Yes.... I have done charity work for the last several years. When you have worked in one and successfully raised funds without spending a cent doing it, then I hope you will let all these other charities know how to learn from you.

Likewise, when you are famous enough to be getting mail from everyone under the sun asking for you to travel and speak, tell me about it.

You are looking at this all bass-ackwards. You are acting like they are seeking out charities to sucker money out of. A celebrity like an actor or a politician who is in demand sets a fee to speak and a schedule of availability.... if you are a corporation or a college or a charity event, you contract with the speaker for a time and amount. It is a business deal for the speaker, for a group that hopefully they can speak well to, but they didn't choose the cause as much as the cause chose them.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

ALBATROSS; BOOTEDOVEREDGE; BOYCOTTEVERYTHING; CHARITY; FIREFUTONTORPEDO; GREED; HOLLYWWOD; IMATROLL; THISISSPAM; TROLLBAIT; UNSTABLEREALITY; VANITYTHYNAMEISJON; Click to Add Keyword
For all of you losers who added these stupid ass keywords, go screw yourselves. You're obviously incapable of thinking of anyone but yourselves. You aren't what conservatism is about. Thank you, Jon, for keeping us informed on the actions of the Hollywood elitists.

[HairOfTheDog]

Why do they have to take money from these events? There is no reason they have to accept that money.

They can, and I am sure some do, adopt some causes they are especially drawn to without money.... but that is their choice. The cost for the other people who want them to speak is known up front... it isn't like they just sucker-punch them with a bill later.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

What I'm objecting to is the idea that these people should get any money for charity work. I'm not saying that no money should be spent on charity. As for the mail part, I'm sure celebrities have trash cans.

[Shooter 2.5]

The Red Cross didn't see a dime of our money but my wife and I spent the weeks after 9-11 volunteering at the Harry Hines facility in Dallas. All the phone calls from relatives trying to find missing friends and relatives were routed to there.

It was time worth doing and also very sad.

One call was a guy trying to find his girlfriend. She was described with her workstation on one of the upper floors. He said we could identify her by a crucifix she wore.

[HairOfTheDog]

Again, you have it bass-ackwards. It isn't about whether they have trash cans.

If celebrities only made themselves available to the few 'causes' that were close to their hearts enough to work for for free, those other charities that might hire them would not get the value of their name or the money brought in by bringing that name to their event.

The charities benefit from being able to buy those speakers. Speakers that drew in the big crowd of big donors that only a big name will draw. It is a win-win.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

The charities are just as guilty as the actors. What part of helping others don't you understand? If I went to Habitat for Humanity and said that I'd do work for them, but I'd have to charge, I'd be laughed away from the place, would I not?

[GOPJ]

Do they do it for free for Democrats? Or is it in exchange for power?

Everyone has to pay them. But we're supposed to give up SUV's for their many air conditioned mansions.

Cosby needed that 75,000 to pay for the property taxes on one of his 4 homes:)

[WinOne4TheGipper]

WHAT PART OF THEY COULD SIMPLY TURN THEM DOWN DON'T YOU GET? It's win-win for everyone except people that DONATE their time and money.
charity-n- a voluntary giving of money or other help to those in need.

[HairOfTheDog]

Yes, you would be laughed at. You aren't 'somebody'.

And if you were holding a fundraiser hoping to raise several million dollars, you aren't going to get anyone to come to it with big checkbooks with you as the Keynote Speaker either.

People go to see "Bill Cosby" do a talk that also raises money for something, or "Norman Schwarzkopf" do a talk that raises money for something. They won't go to a 'fundraiser with will1776 speaking'.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

You know what? No matter how much you sugarcoat it, defend it, or anything else, your argument is still sh*t and I am not biting.

[GOPJ]

Someone needs to take a good hard look at these charities.

Most of them run a borderline scam on the people who support them.

Here's how it works: One charity serves 200 clients, they then refer those 200 to another charity and so on. By the time your done, United Way is saying 30,000 people have been "served", but if you take out the duplicates, it's the same 650 going from place to place.

Nonprofits are a liberal full employment act. Just keep passing those "clients" around.Few get real help and all the social worker types have jobs...

And as far as all the tax write offs these liberal organizations use to help liberal businesses that need speakers -- then again, that's another story.

[discostu]

They're called appearance fees, anybody that's tried to put on a sci-fi convention is quite familiar with them.

[HairOfTheDog]

Nonprofits are a liberal full employment act. Just keep passing those "clients" around.Few get real help and all the social worker types have jobs...

You bet some of them are!

'Charity' and 'non-profit' are broad brushes.... from liberal to conservative causes.... and I am sure, the full range of efficiency and service.

This isn't so much about where any particular charity is good, but whether it is ethical for them to hire a $75,000 speaker to keynote a function where they can raise a couple million in operating funds. The return in that case seems pretty good.... they could spend more on stamps and mailers asking for donations and actuall 'net' less.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

And it would be perfectly fine if they would donate their time like everyone else. See my last post.

[Fintan]

...actress Camryn Manheim got a $24,000 Harley motorcycle to emcee an event.

 

Gives a whole new meaning to the word "hog"...