At least Sandra Bullock gets it.

[jkenn19]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6781783/


Wonder if other celebs will jump on the bandwagon?

 

[Czar]

nice

I know that jackie chan and jet lee donated a few hundred thousand dollars, but nothing close to this

 

[miketheidiot]

:thumbsup:

 

[ReiAyanami]

wasn't keanu reeves something like he kinda gives all his money away randomly although not always a charitable cause? he's never owned a house also

 

[biostud]

Didn't Bill Gates donate $3x10^6?

 

[Grunt03]

Yes it is great that some will do this but it is not their responsibility.......

 

[raildogg]

:thumbsup:

 

[judasmachine]

good for her. i kind of prefer people to do it anomynously though.

 

[SuperTool]

Those damn Liberal Hollywood Elites are at it again!

 

[rickn]

hopefully she starts a trend. :thumbsup: for Sandra

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Those damn Liberal Hollywood Elites are at it again!

Well actually, by definition, donating money is liberal. You don't have to BE a liberal, but giving money to people in return for nothing is more left than right

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Those damn Liberal Hollywood Elites are at it again!

Well actually, by definition, donating money is liberal. You don't have to BE a liberal, but giving money to people in return for nothing is more left than right

and libs are bad because??!?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Those damn Liberal Hollywood Elites are at it again!

Well actually, by definition, donating money is liberal. You don't have to BE a liberal, but giving money to people in return for nothing is more left than right

and libs are bad because??!?

I didn't say they were bad...I was pointing out that donating a lot of money IS liberal in response to jokes about the "liberal hollywood elites" whiners. After all, donating a lot of money to people who need it is something a liberal would do...and that's a good thing

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Those damn Liberal Hollywood Elites are at it again!

Well actually, by definition, donating money is liberal. You don't have to BE a liberal, but giving money to people in return for nothing is more left than right

and libs are bad because??!?

Because it's "Wealth Redistribution Scheme" by "Liberal Media Elites"
Bullock is redistributing her wealth to the needy. It's part of her socialist agenda. The appropriate capitalist conservative action would be to buy $1M worth of tea from Shri-Lanka, and let the money trickle down to those hurt by the tsunami.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Those damn Liberal Hollywood Elites are at it again!

Well actually, by definition, donating money is liberal. You don't have to BE a liberal, but giving money to people in return for nothing is more left than right

and libs are bad because??!?

Because it's "Wealth Redistribution Scheme" by "Liberal Media Elites"
Bullock is redistributing her wealth to the needy. It's part of her socialist agenda. The appropriate capitalist conservative action would be to buy $1M worth of tea from Shri-Lanka, and let the money trickle down to those hurt by the tsunami.

all the tea has drowned

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Those damn Liberal Hollywood Elites are at it again!

Well actually, by definition, donating money is liberal. You don't have to BE a liberal, but giving money to people in return for nothing is more left than right

and libs are bad because??!?

Because it's "Wealth Redistribution Scheme" by "Liberal Media Elites"
Bullock is redistributing her wealth to the needy. It's part of her socialist agenda. The appropriate capitalist conservative action would be to buy $1M worth of tea from Shri-Lanka, and let the money trickle down to those hurt by the tsunami.

That's what I was getting at, although with much less sarcasm

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Those damn Liberal Hollywood Elites are at it again!

Well actually, by definition, donating money is liberal. You don't have to BE a liberal, but giving money to people in return for nothing is more left than right

and libs are bad because??!?

Because it's "Wealth Redistribution Scheme" by "Liberal Media Elites"
Bullock is redistributing her wealth to the needy. It's part of her socialist agenda. The appropriate capitalist conservative action would be to buy $1M worth of tea from Shri-Lanka, and let the money trickle down to those hurt by the tsunami.

all the tea has drowned

At the very least she could have used $1M to build a sweatshop to make Sandra Bullock merchandise and hire those in desperate need for next to nothing. That would be the "Compassionate Conservative" thing to do. There is nothing compassionate in giving a man in need clean drinking water so he doesn't get Cholera. It's much more compassionate conservative to give him a job so he can eventually afford his own clean drinking water and Cholera medicine.

 

[yllus]

Bravo for Ms. Bullock.

Actually charity in this manner would be a fairly classic conservative ploy, if you wish to think of conservatives are completely ruled by self-interest. (Because apparently political ideology determines one's level of selflessness...) Who benefits if thousands or millions enter the poorhouse? There's no profit in that - better to revitalize those people into working, producing and consequently consuming individuals.