2007-03-14 02:49:27 · 13 answers · asked by Fiesty Redhead 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Celebrities
She's an absolute wacko. A humanitarian doesn't buy kids. A humanitarian would have financially blessed the family and done whatever it took to keep them together. The Vietnamese child I can understand because he's been orphaned since birth. But the other two had families that loved them. A humanitarian doesn't break up a home. She's a whore and he's a cheater and yet our society places them on a pedastool. If Anniston was our sister, we would not turn the other way and call Jolie anything but what she really is: a wacko whore.
2007-03-14 03:48:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
She is a humanitarian. Her actions speak for her. She uses her money to promote those humanitarian causes. She's changed from those early wild and crazy years. Apparently she wants very little to do with the media (and they don't like it) so they manufacture all sorts of garbage. It's obvious that Brad saw what a REAL woman is made of. That's why they are together, they share the same interests. Things that have a deeper meaning than someone's show going off the air, or putting your career before starting a family.
2007-03-14 15:24:55 · answer #2 · answered by Rag Doll 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm not a Jolie fan but I do believe that she is truly a humanitarian, that much I respect her for (and that's about all that I can respect her for - her acting leaves much to be desired and the home-wrecking thing - I won't go there). But she is but the media is turning it into a circus. Remember when she adopted (I can't remember if it was the first or second baby) and her father made it public - she actually disassociated herself from him because of it. She did not want it publicized. The media got a hold of him because of her father and they have not stopped hounding her ever since.
2007-03-14 11:53:31 · answer #3 · answered by Slim Shady 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
She's just trying to cover up her bad choices in life. If she gave the money she's spent on the children she's adopted to the poor it would have done a lot more for many children. She's called the children a burden before and don't believe you talk about your children that you love in that manner. You know that the nannies do all the work while she acts out her humanitarian role.
2007-03-14 10:00:27 · answer #4 · answered by solotrovo 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
RETARDS!!!! dont u see Angie does not need any publicity. She's the most beautiful and most kind person in the industry alot of men want her and alot of women want to be her and shes the best actress out there, trust me she dont need no publicity if thats what she wanted she would have shaved her hair off like britney she's basically tyhe only actress out there that goes into the camps and actually devotes her heart and soul into all those poor people. u dont see or hear of any other of these rich *** famous people doing none of that. She aint no hungry ***** and if she adopts kids from different countries is cause they need it the most people are dying and starving out there!!! here in the U.S people go to childrens and family and lie and get food stamps, Medicaid and even housing. Out in Cambodia, Namibia, Ethiopia, and alot more city's and countries people are dying of aids and other disease and there are many starving people out there. EVERYBODY should be PROUD of her and support her and Brad. Someday i will be rich and famous and i will stand by her side to support and help all of those people.
2007-03-14 10:25:04 · answer #5 · answered by damaris2805 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, I know people will disagree, but I believe she is sincere about what she is doing. One reason I believe this is when she adopted the first baby, she didn't tell anyone. Her father did. That's one of the reasons she doesn't talk to him, because she was trying to preserve her family privacy at the time and he outed the adoption. I don't see her giving interviews. I see reporters following her around.
2007-03-14 10:51:42 · answer #6 · answered by HipHopGrandma 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would have to go with psycho. How many other humanitarians invite film and camera crews to follow them to all the third world countries they visit. Here's a bowl of rice...make sure you get my good side....
2007-03-14 10:06:36 · answer #7 · answered by ○•○•Cassie•○•○ 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
i think she is a humanitarian. yes, most celebrities only care about themselves and only do things if it benefits their status, but i think she is genuine. she actually goes over to poor countries herself and donates money and such. you don't see lindsey lohan or anybody else doing that.
2007-03-14 09:54:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would say more a humanitarian.
2007-03-14 09:57:50 · answer #9 · answered by Tony M 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's hard to say. I just want to know why she doesn't adopt a child from the United States.
2007-03-14 09:53:03 · answer #10 · answered by staisil 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋