I've heard great things about Brangelina. An insider tells me that the only reason Jolie still acts is because she wants to make more money for her causes in Africa.
Why do we cater to Celebs?
- Thread starter bos
- Start date
I've heard great things about Brangelina. An insider tells me that the only reason Jolie still acts is because she wants to make more money for her causes in Africa.
I don't think it's a "double-standard". It's a highly liberal media telling society that this type of behavior is "ok". Take a gander at the television "shows" on t.v. now. You'll be hardpressed to find one that isn't about someone cheating on their husband or having premarital sex with anyone they can. It's disgusting.
I very much admire what they do and wish more would do the same. I would like to think if I had the money and fame I would use that for those who need it most. I dont care what Oprah says, I dont buy her BS philanthropy.
Kind of like when she ''gave away'' those Pontiacs? They made it sound as if Oprah paid for them with her own money when Pontiac donated them. I'll willing to bet more than half those people never kept the car because they would not have been able to afford the gift tax.
Exactly. Whatever she does she makes sure her stupid face is on it. Just like the Katrina ordeal. She made sure a camera was on her the whole time. There were tons of celebs who helped out in the aftermath who were never on TV. They were in the water helping people.
Oprah started a magazine which she named after herself. Then she puts her own face on the cover of every issue. If that's not the height of conceit, I don't know what is.
I tend to disagree with that. Take Jamie Lynn Spears for example. A teen pregnancy is no laughing matter and often requires a lot of help and guidance, but we as a community look down on her and think to ourselves how could anyone in their right mind ever do this, as if it has never happened before. If anything I would say it is the opposite in the way that we expect our celebs to be perfect and when they aren't we chastise them. Also, sadly having a child before marriage is becoming less and less of a bad thing...
Actors are like anybody else in our society, some good and some bad. Maybe they throw their weight around more because they are rich, and I don't like that whether they are an actor, athlete, or rich executive. I probably admire Paul Newman as much as I do any American.
If they want to put their time and money behind certain issues then more power to them. If you don't like it, don't pay attention. Fact is, there are alot of things going on in this world that ALOT of people wouldn't know about if celebs didn't get attention for it (Darfur, Tibet, etc...).
The two actors mentioned here are Democrats. The same is true of the current governor of California.
Just responding to politics that had been introduced unchecked. :wink: No more derailing.
He's Republican. A liberal republican (is that possible) by the way.
After re-reading your original post, I think you are referring to that he was only an actor, like the other two??? Correct???
(Please don't move this thread to the cave)
Last edited:
Sorry - that's what I meant. That Republican actors also get involved. Charleton Heston is another example. I was just pointing out that all sides do it, whether it's right or wrong.
