Print Page | Close Window

Is It A Sin To Hate These Commercials?

Printed From: Commercials I Hate!
Category: The Message Board
Forum Name: Commercials You Hate !!!!!
Forum Description: Go here to voice your opinions
URL: http://www.commercialsihate.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=27136
Printed Date: 17 Jan 2019 at 2:56am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Is It A Sin To Hate These Commercials?
Posted By: MrCleveland
Subject: Is It A Sin To Hate These Commercials?
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2018 at 3:45pm

I feel bad for these children who must suffer from the pains that are in these commercials, but...do they have to shove these commercials down our throats?


-------------
Thank God for kids who love Obscure Things.

Lee Hazelwood (1929-2007)



Replies:
Posted By: PaWolf
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2018 at 6:08pm
MrC? Don't hate.
It isn't you and it isn't Shriners Hospitals.
It's the effect of all the others on top of valid, close-to-home requests such as these where the beneficiaries are the innocent young within our arm's length to assist - where anyone can make a difference with anything.
This gets diluted when others see their causes as worthy of tear-jerking commercials and the broadcast channels take their money with indifference, when in fact, it would seem some sort of review process should be in place for what is reasonable and what isn't, such as the clubbing of baby seals in Canada. 
Those hurt to watch and they take your money...but there really isn't much they can do short of starting a war, where as Shriners makes positive change in many lives and there is a lot anyone can do with however much they can spare.





-------------
X               <sig.nature>
"What we do for ourselves dies with us, What we do for others is and remains immortal." - Albert Pike


Posted By: aka ron
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2018 at 6:22pm
Is it a sin to hate Mike Strahan?



Is it a sin that I want to do Marlow Thomas?



-------------
I can't complain but sometimes I still do.


Posted By: PaWolf
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2018 at 7:25pm
Originally posted by aka ron aka ron wrote:

Is it a sin to hate Mike Strahan?



Is it a sin that I want to do Marlow Thomas?

LOL
Given Ms Thomas is 81, I'd say you're a wretched sinner for even thinking about taking advantage of the elderly.
And how does Michael Strahan figure in to this again, Sir?LOLWink


-------------
X               <sig.nature>
"What we do for ourselves dies with us, What we do for others is and remains immortal." - Albert Pike


Posted By: msmadz
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2018 at 8:31pm
Pa,Michael Strahan is a spokesperson for st. Judes.

-------------
The artist formerly known as Madawee





Posted By: msmadz
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2018 at 8:48pm
And funny shriners was mentioned. This morning beloved and I were fixing coffees when that commercial came on. Beloved wasn't watching and thought the little boy was some old man talking! So I turned my back and sorry to say but he does sound like an elderly man.

-------------
The artist formerly known as Madawee





Posted By: PaWolf
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2018 at 8:50pm
Originally posted by msmadz msmadz wrote:

Pa,Michael Strahan is a spokesperson for st. Judes.
WinkThis I know, Maddy - even the shirt he is wearing should provide a hint...he's one very good gentleman.
I was messing with aka..look up a couple of posts and you might see a more honest thought from me.


-------------
X               <sig.nature>
"What we do for ourselves dies with us, What we do for others is and remains immortal." - Albert Pike


Posted By: tikibagger
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2018 at 9:20pm
Originally posted by msmadz msmadz wrote:

And funny shriners was mentioned. This morning beloved and I were fixing coffees when that commercial came on. Beloved wasn't watching and thought the little boy was some old man talking! So I turned my back and sorry to say but he does sound like an elderly man.


yeah that one threw me as well--the kid thats older now has become a good spokesperson, but the girl with shoulder hand-pretty face and all--made me reach for my wallet becuz NO amt. of money can fix that.

Hate em? A little..but thats not due to subject matter, its due to repetition and really cliched TIMING--not DURING Christmas but right after these ALL show up


-------------
Baggin the tiki since the 90s


Posted By: msmadz
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2018 at 9:28pm
I think they air all this sh*t for people who want a tax write off. And to make you reach for the bottle more during the festive holidays.

-------------
The artist formerly known as Madawee





Posted By: PaWolf
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2018 at 9:35pm
^^^Confusedyikes.

-------------
X               <sig.nature>
"What we do for ourselves dies with us, What we do for others is and remains immortal." - Albert Pike


Posted By: msmadz
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2018 at 9:50pm
Originally posted by PaWolf PaWolf wrote:

^^^Confusedyikes.


LOL that about sums it up, Pa. The

-------------
The artist formerly known as Madawee





Posted By: commercialssuck
Date Posted: 29 Dec 2018 at 6:14am
Originally posted by PaWolf PaWolf wrote:

Originally posted by msmadz msmadz wrote:

Pa,Michael Strahan is a spokesperson for st. Judes.
WinkThis I know, Maddy - even the shirt he is wearing should provide a hint...he's one very good gentleman.
I was messing with aka..look up a couple of posts and you might see a more honest thought from me.


Uhhhh, you might want to look again. That's NOT a shirt. That is the st jude logo on the screen.


Posted By: commercialssuck
Date Posted: 29 Dec 2018 at 6:20am
I simply won't give to any of these so called charities because, one, I hate having my emotions manipulated into giving money. And two, most of these mega "charities" actually give so little to the cause. The ceo's and the higher ups make triple digit salaries, and millions go to making and airing the commercials.

If I give to any charity, it will be a local one where I know they do the most with the money.

And Marlo Thomas? God, I want to smack her smug arrogant face!!!! How many plastic surgeries you think she's had? And botox. At 81, I wonder what she would look like au natural. Probably not all that sexy!


Posted By: tikibagger
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2018 at 3:05pm
she has Michael/LaToya/Janet Jackson NOSE--shaved down pretty close to the bone


-------------
Baggin the tiki since the 90s


Posted By: tikibagger
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2018 at 3:13pm
Also FINALLY--maybe some will DARE to air their feelings about this like-minded topic

MS Yule Drool-am i a BAD PERSON?

search it--i am curious as to why zero responses entailed


-------------
Baggin the tiki since the 90s


Posted By: PaWolf
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2018 at 3:22pm
Originally posted by commercialssuck commercialssuck wrote:

Originally posted by PaWolf PaWolf wrote:

Originally posted by msmadz msmadz wrote:

Pa,Michael Strahan is a spokesperson for st. Judes.
WinkThis I know, Maddy - even the shirt he is wearing should provide a hint...he's one very good gentleman.
I was messing with aka..look up a couple of posts and you might see a more honest thought from me.


Uhhhh, you might want to look again. That's NOT a shirt. That is the st jude logo on the screen.
I stand corrected.


-------------
X               <sig.nature>
"What we do for ourselves dies with us, What we do for others is and remains immortal." - Albert Pike


Posted By: aka ron
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2018 at 4:33pm
There are WAY too many of these ads playing on TV!





-------------
I can't complain but sometimes I still do.


Posted By: ThatNerdInPhilly
Date Posted: 31 Dec 2018 at 2:23am
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)




-------------
------
"This Has Swag."
~ Idiot from an iHop Commercial.


Posted By: tikibagger
Date Posted: 31 Dec 2018 at 2:46pm
wow--funny if REALLY un-PC..i like him better now that hes a Lil Mister--he seems more committed to his cause--still a disturbing commercial YES i am a bad person


-------------
Baggin the tiki since the 90s


Posted By: sgtrock21
Date Posted: 31 Dec 2018 at 5:53pm
Originally posted by tikibagger tikibagger wrote:

wow--funny if REALLY un-PC..i like him better now that hes a Lil Mister--he seems more committed to his cause--still a disturbing commercial YES i am a bad person
I noticed his voice is changing.

-------------
EEEEts All so REEEdEEEculous


Posted By: Clint
Date Posted: 31 Dec 2018 at 11:06pm
Agree with the first part but in al fairness, St. Jude's gets a pretty high score as far as how it spends donations and its transparency.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12847


-------------
Get off my lawn!


Posted By: Clint
Date Posted: 31 Dec 2018 at 11:07pm
Sorry - that was in reply to tikibagger.

-------------
Get off my lawn!


Posted By: msmadz
Date Posted: 31 Dec 2018 at 11:35pm
Originally posted by Clint Clint wrote:

Agree with the first part but in al fairness, St. Jude's gets a pretty high score as far as how it spends donations and its transparency.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12847


I agree,Clint. St. Judes is 100 percent on the up and up regarding donations.

You all know this was started by marlos dad, Danny, right? He claimed if he ever made it big in Hollywood he would find a way to give back. Hence. St. Judes. Let's give the man a standing o

-------------
The artist formerly known as Madawee





Posted By: DarkRealmStar
Date Posted: 01 Jan 2019 at 12:07am
Originally posted by msmadz msmadz wrote:

Originally posted by Clint Clint wrote:

Agree with the first part but in al fairness, St. Jude's gets a pretty high score as far as how it spends donations and its transparency.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12847


I agree,Clint. St. Judes is 100 percent on the up and up regarding donations.

You all know this was started by marlos dad, Danny, right? He claimed if he ever made it big in Hollywood he would find a way to give back. Hence. St. Judes. Let's give the man a standing o
Absolutely!  And Marlo too, for her continuing in her Dad's footsteps and dedication to St. Judes.  Proves "That Girl" was not some fluffy bimbo.  Big smile

God Bless all those babies, little children and the bigger kids.

Definitely a worthy charity to be donating to.


Posted By: tikibagger
Date Posted: 01 Jan 2019 at 2:52pm
Only thing with Marlo is that nose job--Danny kept that honker of his full career--and yeah, i know its different for GURLS but her current model is no bueno...at her age no sense in messing with it tho


-------------
Baggin the tiki since the 90s


Posted By: Thor
Date 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.
 
 


Posted By: ThatNerdInPhilly
Date 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.


Posted By: TV_Casualty
Date 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.


Posted By: PaWolf
Date 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


Posted By: DarkRealmStar
Date 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


Posted By: tikibagger
Date 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


Posted By: DarkRealmStar
Date 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


Posted By: TV_Casualty
Date 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.


Posted By: msmadz
Date 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





Posted By: DarkRealmStar
Date 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:



Posted By: zippyjet
Date 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.


Posted By: DarkRealmStar
Date 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:

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6493" rel="nofollow - https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6493


Posted By: Jimbo
Date 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!!!


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 09 Jan 2019 at 9:21am
^  So who gets to decide which charities get funded?  Lemme guess---the Dems?  LOL
 
 


Posted By: ThatNerdInPhilly
Date 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.


Posted By: tikibagger
Date 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


Posted By: Jimbo
Date 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!!!


Posted By: aka ron
Date 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.


Posted By: Thor
Date 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.
 
 


Posted By: Jimbo
Date 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!!!


Posted By: PaWolf
Date 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


Posted By: Thor
Date 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.
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Jimbo
Date 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!!!


Posted By: MrCleveland
Date 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)


Posted By: PaWolf
Date 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


Posted By: DarkRealmStar
Date Posted: 13 Jan 2019 at 10:01pm
“To do good is noble. To tell others to do good is even nobler and much less trouble.”

― Mark Twain



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2015 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk