somewhat. i'm more tired of the divise,hate filled posts and attempts to insult others.
2007-02-11 06:19:31
·
answer #1
·
answered by b 5
·
2⤊
3⤋
yea, yet they don't fairly care basically gotta submit an effective the front for the regular public, god forbid they offer up a number of their luxury or convenience to help children who're ravenous to demise. they might undertake one or 2 of the gorgeous ones and characteristic a nanny enhance it cuz that is the "in" aspect to do perhaps quite of having 5 multi-million dollar houses they could use a number of that money to construct a pair million houses for persons that fairly want it. If it takes 80 5 cents an afternoon to feed a ravenous newborn what number youngsters would Maddox's $2 hundred T-blouse feed?
2016-12-04 01:20:03
·
answer #2
·
answered by kwiatkowski 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is only more disturbing to me because I can't even afford to feed myself. With only a part time, low wage position, I can't even afford anything other than $1.00 TV dinners and .69 cent packages of hot dogs. I was refused any welfare food stamps.
So, if they want to feed children, let them get involved with the organizations in AMERICA where they are citizens. Charity begins at home...or at least that WAS the old saying. Sure, children in other countries need food, but if the celebs want to do something constructive, on their off time they can go teach the parents of these children some skills of some sort to sell what they could create and make money.
This 'helpless' stuff is for the birds and American citizens should own half the countries we're helping if you want to get technical.
2007-02-11 06:27:38
·
answer #3
·
answered by chole_24 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Celebrities have mighty big egos that need to be fed on a regular basis. Their African flings are easy to find because there's so much wrong with Africa.
For years, various organizations have raised money for the poor and starving in Africa, and for many of us, we responded to this call. Eventually, we began to realize this money was being used to make a very few, very rich. Or, it was used to buy arms and ammunition for the next uprising. Or, it was used to promote genocide. Rarely did this money go to what or where it was intended, so for me, it's now a spectator sport in spite of what George Clooney and his father Nick has to say about that.
I'm quite sure Clooney's ego is being stimulated because of his generosity, and hopefully he will keep doing what he's been doing, at least until his next movie script comes along.
2007-02-11 06:28:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by briang731/ bvincent 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Amen,and Unicef has had too many scandels in the past,no one wants to donate or help Unicef because of it.Google Unicef and anyone can see all the scandels they have been guilty of.They were involved with the oil for food scandel.Many people are unaware of Unicef's reputation.
2007-02-11 06:23:24
·
answer #5
·
answered by jnwmom 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
I agree. I'm most of all fed up with Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, Fat Rosie O'Donel, etc.....they all think their freaking politicians. If you want to run for office, then run. Quit putting down every republican that is spoken about.
2007-02-11 06:25:54
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
I couldn't agree more!! Kind of like when Tim McGraw, and his c0ck eyed wife, Faith Hill got on CNN, and pissed and moaned about the "victims" of Hurricane Katrina. Celebs have lost all sense of reality.
2007-02-11 06:23:08
·
answer #7
·
answered by mojojo66 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
Children in need?, bloody well stay in need
why are they forgotten when they become adults?
2007-02-11 06:21:45
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
I agree they may give away some but its so they look good and don't have to pay it in taxes.
2007-02-11 06:21:24
·
answer #9
·
answered by Ummm 2
·
3⤊
1⤋
IT'S A SIMPLE CASE OF DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO. CELEBRITIES ARE FOR THE MOSTLY LIBERALS & DON'T BELIEVE IN SPENDING THEIR OWN MONEY.
2007-02-11 06:22:25
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋