Your donations pay for the CIH Forum hosting and software.
Please help the CIH Forums by disabling AdBlock Plus on this page.
Forum Home Forum Home :: The Message Board :: Commercials You Hate !!!!!
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Is It A Sin To Hate These Commercials?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Is It A Sin To Hate These Commercials?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Message
Thor View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Location: Rockaway, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 57857
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2019 at 12:42am
Originally posted by ThatNerdInPhilly ThatNerdInPhilly wrote:

Not a sin. But there is an odd sense of sight guilt hating the f out of these commercials, for me at least.

I feel this kid had more energy in the older ads - when he was younger. I think he lost a little pep in his step in these new ads. No pun intended...really, no pun.

(Ok, I'm going to hell for that)


 
 
I've noticed his voice is changing, too.  He may not be as appealing as a teen.  They should probably start grooming some newbie to fill his wheelchair---I mean shoes.
 
 
Back to Top
Sponsored Links



Back to Top
ThatNerdInPhilly View Drop Down
Junior Executive
Junior Executive
Avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2014
Location: Philadelphia
Status: Offline
Points: 2012
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ThatNerdInPhilly Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2019 at 3:50pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:



I've noticed his voice is changing, too.  He may not be as appealing as a teen.  They should probably start grooming some newbie to fill his wheelchair---I mean shoes.


Yeah, I thought the same exact thing. There was an ad a few months ago with this new kid coming to Shriners, he was scared. Alec with his deeper voice calmed the new kid down. Kind of felt like he was passing the torch. Since then, he's been in a few more ads.

(edit - the commercial) 


You nailed it, Shriners can't have deep voice Alec continuing as a spokesman - donations will drop like a rock. So they think "let's get Kaleb, he's small, in a wheelchair, and sounds like a Disney character."



...Kaleb reminds me a little of the Nazi in The Blues Brothers.  Is that wrong??

------
"This Has Swag."
~ Idiot from an iHop Commercial.
Back to Top
TV_Casualty View Drop Down
Junior Executive
Junior Executive
Avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Status: Offline
Points: 592
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TV_Casualty Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jan 2019 at 7:46pm
What I wonder about are those women who wear those colored bandanas after losing their hair from chemo. Do they really think people will make fun of them for being bald as a result of cancer? If not, why bother wearing them? No reason to be insecure about cancer.
Back to Top
PaWolf View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar
Hoary Ol' Chestnut... doncha know....

Joined: 15 Apr 2008
Location: GreatWhiteNorth
Status: Offline
Points: 40193
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote PaWolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jan 2019 at 9:01pm
^^^Keeps the head warm.
X               <sig.nature>
"What we do for ourselves dies with us, What we do for others is and remains immortal." - Albert Pike
Back to Top
DarkRealmStar View Drop Down
Junior Executive
Junior Executive
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
Points: 3186
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote DarkRealmStar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jan 2019 at 9:41pm
Originally posted by TV_Casualty TV_Casualty wrote:

What I wonder about are those women who wear those colored bandanas after losing their hair from chemo. Do they really think people will make fun of them for being bald as a result of cancer? If not, why bother wearing them? No reason to be insecure about cancer.
As a breast cancer survivor who lost my hair from chemotherapy, I can answer your question.  Yes, there are people who will make fun of you because they see you as odd (bald woman) or weak (having the audacity to get cancer) and will go after the weak with ridicule or pity.  It also invites well-meaning strangers from asking if you have cancer.  Yes, there are true idiots out there.

I never wore a bandana; I wore hats, but you could still see that there was no hair under the hat.  I didn't get a wig because they are expensive and the baldness only lasts a few (but long) months, and then your hair starts growing back.  I didn't work in an office or need to look "normal" while I worked as much as I could through chemo and radiation, but if I had, depending on the office atmosphere or wherever I was that I needed to look like I always look, I would have gotten a wig.

Also, I was in the sun a lot and needed protection!  It was amazing how red my neck got because I didn't have my usual hair providing a shield.

It is far easier for a man to go around bald than a woman.  Trust me on that.  Wink
Back to Top
tikibagger View Drop Down
Junior Executive
Junior Executive
Avatar

Joined: 12 Dec 2014
Location: AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 2043
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tikibagger Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jan 2019 at 11:52pm
i saw a black lady on Price Is Right--(& yes i watch GARBAGE)this A.M. and she looked perfectly natural bald..not sure if she was a cancer survivor or not, actually--it as just fine
I think if the rest of you is relatively upkept, its not that unusual anymore
Baggin the tiki since the 90s
Back to Top
DarkRealmStar View Drop Down
Junior Executive
Junior Executive
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
Points: 3186
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DarkRealmStar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jan 2019 at 2:34am
Originally posted by tikibagger tikibagger wrote:

i saw a black lady on Price Is Right--(& yes i watch GARBAGE)this A.M. and she looked perfectly natural bald..not sure if she was a cancer survivor or not, actually--it as just fine
I think if the rest of you is relatively upkept, its not that unusual anymore
Huh?  Confused
Back to Top
TV_Casualty View Drop Down
Junior Executive
Junior Executive
Avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Status: Offline
Points: 592
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote TV_Casualty Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jan 2019 at 7:38pm
Originally posted by DarkRealmStar DarkRealmStar wrote:

As a breast cancer survivor who lost my hair from chemotherapy, I can answer your question.  Yes, there are people who will make fun of you because they see you as odd (bald woman) or weak (having the audacity to get cancer) and will go after the weak with ridicule or pity.  It also invites well-meaning strangers from asking if you have cancer.  Yes, there are true idiots out there.

I never wore a bandana; I wore hats, but you could still see that there was no hair under the hat.  I didn't get a wig because they are expensive and the baldness only lasts a few (but long) months, and then your hair starts growing back.  I didn't work in an office or need to look "normal" while I worked as much as I could through chemo and radiation, but if I had, depending on the office atmosphere or wherever I was that I needed to look like I always look, I would have gotten a wig.

Also, I was in the sun a lot and needed protection!  It was amazing how red my neck got because I didn't have my usual hair providing a shield.

It is far easier for a man to go around bald than a woman.  Trust me on that.  Wink


Thanks for that. Never knew there are still so many people who make fun of cancer patients.
Back to Top
msmadz View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar
8+ years on CIH

Joined: 15 Apr 2008
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 9394
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote msmadz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jan 2019 at 1:01am
Originally posted by TV_Casualty TV_Casualty wrote:

Originally posted by DarkRealmStar DarkRealmStar wrote:

As a breast cancer survivor who lost my hair from chemotherapy, I can answer your question.  Yes, there are people who will make fun of you because they see you as odd (bald woman) or weak (having the audacity to get cancer) and will go after the weak with ridicule or pity.  It also invites well-meaning strangers from asking if you have cancer.  Yes, there are true idiots out there.

I never wore a bandana; I wore hats, but you could still see that there was no hair under the hat.  I didn't get a wig because they are expensive and the baldness only lasts a few (but long) months, and then your hair starts growing back.  I didn't work in an office or need to look "normal" while I worked as much as I could through chemo and radiation, but if I had, depending on the office atmosphere or wherever I was that I needed to look like I always look, I would have gotten a wig.

Also, I was in the sun a lot and needed protection!  It was amazing how red my neck got because I didn't have my usual hair providing a shield.

It is far easier for a man to go around bald than a woman.  Trust me on that.  Wink



Thanks for that. Never knew there are still so many people who make fun of cancer patients.



Because most people are assholes. That's like so called tough people making fun of children.
The artist formerly known as Madawee



Back to Top
DarkRealmStar View Drop Down
Junior Executive
Junior Executive
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
Points: 3186
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DarkRealmStar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jan 2019 at 5:41pm
Speaking of Shriners Hospitals for Children:  Not an ad, but a video featuring patients doin' a little backup singing:

Back to Top
zippyjet View Drop Down
Junior Executive
Junior Executive
Avatar

Joined: 30 Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, Md.
Status: Offline
Points: 1844
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote zippyjet Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2019 at 8:01pm
I have a sleazy off the wall sense of humor and yes, I admit sometimes laugh at these tear jerker spots (damaged humans, not our furry friends) if I haven't hit the mute button. At least they generate money for somebody probably the CEO and execs who knows? But I'll put up with these over those cheesy over the top BS commercials with the Value's Pass It On. Remember Murtlepacker and the soft ball? Or the one with the buff athletes (women) next to, showing up the touched kids...
I approve this message.
Back to Top
DarkRealmStar View Drop Down
Junior Executive
Junior Executive
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
Points: 3186
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DarkRealmStar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2019 at 10:51pm
Shriners Hospitals for Children was founded in 1922 and is a non-profit charity with 22 medical facilities in North America.

Charity Navigator info:

Back to Top
Jimbo View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 48567
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jimbo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2019 at 3:44am
The way I see it...

The top 20% of the wealthiest Americans possess 80% of all financial assets in the US.

The richest 1% of the American population own 35% of the country's total wealth.

The next 19% own 51% of the total wealth.

As such, the top 20% of Americans own 86% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population own 14%.

Therefore, they shouldn't even need to run these ads that appeal to people who can scarcely afford to pay their own bills, much less make whatever little donations they can afford.

The top 1% to 20% should be fully funding all these charities.

Just a handful of America's billionaires could easily afford to toss $100 million each into the pot annually, and eliminate the need for solicitation of donations from the general public.
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!
Back to Top
Thor View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Location: Rockaway, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 57857
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Thor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2019 at 9:21am
^  So who gets to decide which charities get funded?  Lemme guess---the Dems?  LOL
 
 
Back to Top
ThatNerdInPhilly View Drop Down
Junior Executive
Junior Executive
Avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2014
Location: Philadelphia
Status: Offline
Points: 2012
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ThatNerdInPhilly Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2019 at 1:55pm
I saw a new ad this morning about "Tommy." Look, I don't want to come off like a d*ck
 - I'm sure Shriners does a lot of great things, I just find the commercials a bit...tacky. 

So we know Alec, the famous spokes-kid is now older, deeper voice. I, another poster, already mentioned the "cuteness" factor is gone...so they will find other kids to make us feel some guilt for not dropping $$$ when people immediately see the ads (twisted, but that's how it works I guess.)

But to revert back to younger Alec in the new commercials - it just seems slimy to me.


------
"This Has Swag."
~ Idiot from an iHop Commercial.
Back to Top
tikibagger View Drop Down
Junior Executive
Junior Executive
Avatar

Joined: 12 Dec 2014
Location: AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 2043
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tikibagger Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2019 at 2:27pm
Originally posted by DarkRealmStar DarkRealmStar wrote:

Speaking of Shriners Hospitals for Children:  Not an ad, but a video featuring patients doin' a little backup singing:


wtf Foreignor hardly your most CONTEMPORARY choice for this
Baggin the tiki since the 90s
Back to Top
Jimbo View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 48567
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jimbo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2019 at 4:53pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

^  So who gets to decide which charities get funded?  Lemme guess---the Dems?  LOL


Seems to me that people's consciences would decide that.

Republicans types always love to point out that members of their party are the ones who give the most to charities, and we all know that the wealthiest segment of society is dominated by super wealthy corporate chieftains, most of whom are Republicans.

So maybe the fact that these charities still need to beg money from the rest of us, is just a case of Republicans not having much in the way of consciences??


Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!
Back to Top
aka ron View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: WI
Status: Offline
Points: 26769
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aka ron Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2019 at 5:51pm
And this guy...I think he plays the guitar or something. You give hunger a bad name!  C'mon Jon!  You can't afford to cover my donation?  We're just an old retired couple living on a fixed income.



He could rock the house!


I can't complain but sometimes I still do.
Back to Top
Thor View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Location: Rockaway, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 57857
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jan 2019 at 9:07am
Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

^  So who gets to decide which charities get funded?  Lemme guess---the Dems?  LOL


Seems to me that people's consciences would decide that.


 
No.  That's the way it's done now.  With the government deciding, it would be...
 
Seems to me that people's consciences whose palms get greased would decide that.
 
And then 90% would have to go to government administrative costs, anyway.
 
 
Back to Top
Jimbo View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 48567
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jimbo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jan 2019 at 3:45pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

^  So who gets to decide which charities get funded?  Lemme guess---the Dems?  LOL


Seems to me that people's consciences would decide that.


No.  That's the way it's done now. 


No it actually isn't. Hence, the entire point (which you obviously missed) of what I was saying.

If the top 20% were VOLUNTARILY donating what they could easily afford to, there would be no need for charities like Shriners and the ASPCA etc, etc, to spend huge amounts of money they could be putting to better use, running TV ads soliciting donations from people who are struggling to make ends meet themselves.

Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

With the government deciding, it would be...

Seems to me that people's consciences whose palms get greased would decide that.

And then 90% would have to go to government administrative costs, anyway.


You'll have to point out to me where I ever said anything about "thet thar danged ol' gub'mint" getting involved.

You brought up government and political party, not me.

My point was that MORALLY, these billionaires and multi-hundred millionaires on BOTH SIDES should be 100% financially supporting these organizations VOLUNTARILY as a matter of conscience, not govt mandate.

It was AFTER you brought up the subject of political party, when I pointed out that Republicans, who we know are the most represented party in the über wealthy strata of society, are the ones who mostly aren't stepping up to the plate and fulfilling their moral obligation.

And it applies to liberal entertainment types, too.

But you crotchety ol right-wing geezer types just never can resist an opportunity to rail against "thet thar danged ol' gub'mint" though, can ye?





Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!
Back to Top
PaWolf View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar
Hoary Ol' Chestnut... doncha know....

Joined: 15 Apr 2008
Location: GreatWhiteNorth
Status: Offline
Points: 40193
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PaWolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jan 2019 at 3:53pm
Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

^  So who gets to decide which charities get funded?  Lemme guess---the Dems?  LOL


Seems to me that people's consciences would decide that.


No.  That's the way it's done now. 


No it actually isn't. Hence, the entire point (which you obviously missed) of what I was saying.

If the top 20% were VOLUNTARILY donating what they could easily afford to, there would be no need for charities like Shriners and the ASPCA etc, etc, to spend huge amounts of money they could be putting to better use, running TV ads soliciting donations from people who are struggling to make ends meet themselves.

Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

With the government deciding, it would be...

Seems to me that people's consciences whose palms get greased would decide that.

And then 90% would have to go to government administrative costs, anyway.


You'll have to point out to me where I ever said anything about "thet thar danged ol' gub'mint" getting involved.

You brought up government and political party, not me.

My point was that MORALLY, these billionaires and multi-hundred millionaires on BOTH SIDES should be 100% financially supporting these organizations VOLUNTARILY as a matter of conscience, not govt mandate.

It was AFTER you brought up the subject of political party, when I pointed out that Republicans, who we know are the most represented party in the über wealthy strata of society, are the ones who mostly aren't stepping up to the plate and fulfilling their moral obligation.

And it applies to liberal entertainment types, too.

But you crotchety ol right-wing geezer types just never can resist an opportunity to rail against "thet thar danged ol' gub'mint" though, can ye?





WinkFunny you should mention that - I've been noticing where a number of these high-paid athletes have clauses written into their contracts for a certain percentage of their pay to go directly to a charity of their, or their team's choice as sort of a 'buy in to the local community' (and nifty tax write-off). Sure looks good on paper.
X               <sig.nature>
"What we do for ourselves dies with us, What we do for others is and remains immortal." - Albert Pike
Back to Top
Thor View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Location: Rockaway, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 57857
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jan 2019 at 8:42pm
Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

^  So who gets to decide which charities get funded?  Lemme guess---the Dems?  LOL


Seems to me that people's consciences would decide that.


No.  That's the way it's done now. 


No it actually isn't. Hence, the entire point (which you obviously missed) of what I was saying.

If the top 20% were VOLUNTARILY donating what they could easily afford to, there would be no need for charities like Shriners and the ASPCA etc, etc, to spend huge amounts of money they could be putting to better use, running TV ads soliciting donations from people who are struggling to make ends meet themselves.

Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

With the government deciding, it would be...

Seems to me that people's consciences whose palms get greased would decide that.

And then 90% would have to go to government administrative costs, anyway.


You'll have to point out to me where I ever said anything about "thet thar danged ol' gub'mint" getting involved.

You brought up government and political party, not me.

My point was that MORALLY, these billionaires and multi-hundred millionaires on BOTH SIDES should be 100% financially supporting these organizations VOLUNTARILY as a matter of conscience, not govt mandate.

It was AFTER you brought up the subject of political party, when I pointed out that Republicans, who we know are the most represented party in the über wealthy strata of society, are the ones who mostly aren't stepping up to the plate and fulfilling their moral obligation.

And it applies to liberal entertainment types, too.

But you crotchety ol right-wing geezer types just never can resist an opportunity to rail against "thet thar danged ol' gub'mint" though, can ye?





 
Well, when you said that they should have to pay into these charities, I could only assume that the government would have to force them to.  And if not, that would be the next step.  And, with some, that's always in the cards.  Look at the Dems' latest star, that Ocasio-Cortez chick who (along with others) is demanding such things as free healthcare and free college---to be paid for via the "charity" of the rich.
 
Besides, how do you know that they're not already paying a lot to charity?  Maybe it's to charities other than St. Jude or Shriner's.  Maybe it's to ones that don't need to advertise thanks to such donors.
 
Besides, there's never a limit to how much charities need---especially if they're involved in research.  It's not as if there comes a time when someone says "OK.  We're done researching.  We've discovered everything there is to know about childhood disease and we've also cured it all".  So, it's not as if there stops being a need for more $, and therefore, continued advertising.
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Jimbo View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 48567
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jimbo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jan 2019 at 10:37pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Well, when you said that they should have to pay into these charities, I could only assume that the government would have to force them to. 


The bold underlined text in the above quote is where you erred.

Or "urred" as Charles Emerson Winchester III might have pronounced it.

As I explained previously, I was not talking about anyone FORCING them to do anything.

My point was and is that they should be doing it VOLUNTARILY.

Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

And if not, that would be the next step.  And, with some, that's always in the cards.  Look at the Dems' latest star, that Ocasio-Cortez chick who (along with others) is demanding such things as free healthcare and free college---to be paid for via the "charity" of the rich.


That's a totally different issue. She's not talking about "charity". She's talking about forcing the mega wealthy to pay the same percentage of their income as working people do, which they currently don't.

On the subject of free college, that will likely never happen. The majority of Democrats do not agree with her about it anyway. I know I don't.

As for free health care, there could be some form of govt SUBSIDIZED health care, where in cases of catastrophic illness and certain other types of critical care, the govt could step in and pay what the patient cannot afford. It would not include everyday, non life threatening stuff like colds or rashes or eye exams or sprained ankles etc, etc. Those little things that people go to doctors for everyday are what really add up and would put an unnecessary burden on any govt funded system.

Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Besides, how do you know that they're not already paying a lot to charity?  Maybe it's to charities other than St. Jude or Shriner's.  Maybe it's to ones that don't need to advertise thanks to such donors.

Besides, there's never a limit to how much charities need---especially if they're involved in research.  It's not as if there comes a time when someone says "OK.  We're done researching.  We've discovered everything there is to know about childhood disease and we've also cured it all".  So, it's not as if there stops being a need for more $, and therefore, continued advertising.


Just by virtue of the wealth ownership statistics I posted originally, it's pretty obvious they aren't donating what they could afford to. Over 80% of the wealth in the entire country is one "YUGE" sum of money. Being in the hands of so few, means that these people could afford a LOT.

I think that if one were to add up the operating budgets of all the major charities that do the really worthwhile work, then took a list of every wealthy individual or family in the country with assets in excess of say $50 million, it would become apparent that an annual donation of a small percentage of their wealth would, if not completely, at least come close to covering the costs.

If they still needed to advertise on TV, the networks could voluntarily do the right thing and give them free or highly reduced rates. Which they might already do.

The point is, that these charities should not have to beg for money from working people who are struggling to get by themselves.
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!
Back to Top
MrCleveland View Drop Down
Junior Executive
Junior Executive
Avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Status: Offline
Points: 2628
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MrCleveland Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2019 at 4:01pm
Originally posted by aka ron aka ron wrote:

And this guy...I think he plays the guitar or something. You give hunger a bad name!  C'mon Jon!  You can't afford to cover my donation?  We're just an old retired couple living on a fixed income.



He could rock the house!



My brother can't stand Bon Jovi...he dated someone who was a Bon Jovi nut and he thinks their songs are mundane...he thinks they're the WORST band ever...I've heard worse....
Thank God for kids who love Obscure Things.

Lee Hazelwood (1929-2007)
Back to Top
PaWolf View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar
Hoary Ol' Chestnut... doncha know....

Joined: 15 Apr 2008
Location: GreatWhiteNorth
Status: Offline
Points: 40193
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PaWolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2019 at 4:48pm
Originally posted by msmadz msmadz wrote:

Originally posted by TV_Casualty TV_Casualty wrote:

Originally posted by DarkRealmStar DarkRealmStar wrote:

As a breast cancer survivor who lost my hair from chemotherapy, I can answer your question.  Yes, there are people who will make fun of you because they see you as odd (bald woman) or weak (having the audacity to get cancer) and will go after the weak with ridicule or pity.  It also invites well-meaning strangers from asking if you have cancer.  Yes, there are true idiots out there.

I never wore a bandana; I wore hats, but you could still see that there was no hair under the hat.  I didn't get a wig because they are expensive and the baldness only lasts a few (but long) months, and then your hair starts growing back.  I didn't work in an office or need to look "normal" while I worked as much as I could through chemo and radiation, but if I had, depending on the office atmosphere or wherever I was that I needed to look like I always look, I would have gotten a wig.

Also, I was in the sun a lot and needed protection!  It was amazing how red my neck got because I didn't have my usual hair providing a shield.

It is far easier for a man to go around bald than a woman.  Trust me on that.  Wink



Thanks for that. Never knew there are still so many people who make fun of cancer patients.



Because most people are assholes. That's like so called tough people making fun of children.
Seriously - Thank You. Someone had to say it and I couldn't agree more.
X               <sig.nature>
"What we do for ourselves dies with us, What we do for others is and remains immortal." - Albert Pike
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.04
Copyright ©2001-2015 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.