Do celebrities campaign against terrorism?

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Just curious because now Paul McCartney wants to ban cluster munitions. Story. Maybe if they used their positions to speak out against the people who cause us to use cluster munitions and landmines, then we wouldn't have to use them.

My favorite quote: "'It would be great to outlaw these cowardly weapons,' he said." Ah, because it's your ass on the line out in that APC in the desert, isn't it Sir Paul?
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Are you saying that because terrorists kill civilians it's OK for the US military to kill civilians because the terrorists started it?
Didn't a couple GI's get blown up when a little girl found an unexploded cluster bomb and then gave it to them as a gift?
I wouldn't have a problem with cluster bombs if they detonated 100%, or if they didn't detonate during a certain time interval they would automatically go inert.
For example if they were made water permeable and disabled by rain water.
But as it stands now, they stay dangerous indefinitely, and are akin to landmines, and are a long term risk to children and civilians in general.
 

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
2
0
Does he really need to affirm his stance against terrorism? I highly doubt that he supports killings of innocent civilians, and I would think that one could assume or infer that...
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,022
17
81
Left Out on the Left Coast
  • ...These Tinsel Town tarts and toads had no problem shoving off some conservative boob to the sidelines, but god forbid it should happen to them...
Campaign against terrorism? They weren't really even opposed to intervention when Clinton took non-U.N.-approved military action in Kosovo, let alone get riled up about terrorism. They seem to pick and choose their battles in mysterious ways.
rolleye.gif
 

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
2
0
"It's a weird feeling being out of sync with the country, isn't it?"

It's a weird feeling being out of sync with the entire world outside your own xenophobic bubble, isn't it?

The irony runs deep!
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Yeah I like the way those Leftist Celebs did that Benefit for the Victims of the Terrorist Attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. Wait that doesn't count does it because O'Rielly decided he needed to find a reason to denounce them for it.

I swear, some of you are just a bunch of Hysterical Ornery Old Ladies
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,022
17
81
If being out of sync with the entire world, means such total success ... oh well!

CharityChannel's O'Reilly Links
  • Renata Rafferty, a CharityChannel Advisory Board member, appears on The O'Reilly [Factor] and discusses accountability issues concerning the United Way in the wake of the 9-11 terrorist attacks...
Fight the power
  • After a long siege, the United Way's "September 11th Fund" has finally seen the light. Like the Red Cross 90 days ago, the United Way has now done a policy reversal and will release $75 million dollars in donations to the 9-11 families just in time for Christmas.
Oh, what a worm he is!
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Still has nothing to do with the fact that they helped raise some of that money only to be attacked by O'Rielly. Sure the United Way needed to be kicked in the Arse over the way they handled it but there was no reason to deride the Celebrities who raised the money.

Of course in doing so he was just pandering to the typical Fox Audience.
 

Jimbo

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,641
0
76
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Still has nothing to do with the fact that they helped raise some of that money only to be attacked by O'Rielly. Sure the United Way needed to be kicked in the Arse over the way they handled it but there was no reason to deride the Celebrities who raised the money.

Of course in doing so he was just pandering to the typical Fox Audience.

You have your "cause and effect" reversed Red.
First O'Rielly went after the Red Cross and The United Way for NOT distributing the money promptly.
THEN George Cloony went after O'Rielly for having the audacity to criticize The Red Cross and The United Way. :Q

Only after O'Rielly went after the charities did things begin to move and money get distributed. You also fail to point out that The Red Cross had originally planned to use some of the Sept. 11 money for "pet" causes (unrelated to Sept. 11) and to additionally hold on to some of the money for "reserve".
What good is all of the fund-raising in the world if none of it gets distributed?

Bill O'Rielly absolutely did the right thing here, and should be applauded regardless of what you think of his politics or Fox News viewers.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
NO... they donate money to groups like Hamas and Hezbollah though -- gotta help the underdog
 

Piano Man

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2000
3,370
0
76
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Just curious because now Paul McCartney wants to ban cluster munitions. Story. Maybe if they used their positions to speak out against the people who cause us to use cluster munitions and landmines, then we wouldn't have to use them.

My favorite quote: "'It would be great to outlaw these cowardly weapons,' he said." Ah, because it's your ass on the line out in that APC in the desert, isn't it Sir Paul?


That is some of the worst logic I"ve ever heard. They MADE US use cluster bombs. Riiight. That's like a guy with an AK shooting a kid with a BB gun because the kid MADE HIM use the AK. WTF.
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
Originally posted by: Jimbo
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
First O'Rielly went after the Red Cross and The United Way for NOT distributing the money promptly.
THEN George Cloony went after O'Rielly for having the audacity to criticize The Red Cross and The United Way. :Q

Only after O'Rielly went after the charities did things begin to move and money get distributed. You also fail to point out that The Red Cross had originally planned to use some of the Sept. 11 money for "pet" causes (unrelated to Sept. 11) and to additionally hold on to some of the money for "reserve".
What good is all of the fund-raising in the world if none of it gets distributed?

Bill O'Rielly absolutely did the right thing here, and should be applauded regardless of what you think of his politics or Fox News viewers.

What exactly were the "pet" causes of the red cross? I mean when you donate to a organization Red Cross you trust their judgement
in how their money is distrubed. I mean there was a 9/11 fund that was open for donation. Why couldnt directly donate into that?

When 9/11 happened other very noble causes such as Hunger in Africa took backrow seats to the 9/11 cause. This is both good and bad, good that people are donating... but bad because theres just waaaay too much focus on 9/11 when there are other problems in the world.

It the greatest outpouring of donations towards charity and the greatest donation of blood in history of our nation. There was so much blood donated most of it went bad.

I'm sorry but the Self Rightous O'Reilly is just a ignoramus in this situation, people like him only see in black and white.
 

Jimbo

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,641
0
76
Wednesday, November 07, 2001
By Bill O'Reilly


Well, more wild reaction to our ongoing investigation into the charities set up to help the grieving families of the terror attacks. George Clooney has the lead role in this evening's Talking Points memo. Mr. Clooney sent me a letter today about my criticism of celebrities that refuse to issue a statement about the charity situation.





(Click here to read Clooney's complete letter.)

The letter says in part, "Mr. O'Reilly, you ran a story that has no basis in truth. What is not important is your attack of the performers who gave their time to raise money during the telethon for the September 11 Fund. What is important is your accusation that the fund is being mishandled and misused. That, sir, as you know, is nothing short of a lie.

The fund is not only the most successful single fund raiser ever, it is also doing exactly what it is designed to do."

Well, George Clooney is entitled to his opinion, but facts are facts. On October 9, the president of the United Way, which is distributing the money from the celebrity telethon, appeared on The Factor and here's what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

O'REILLY: Less than 10 percent of the money that you've raised from the September 11 Fund, and that was the big fund with the special with the movie stars and everything, has been distributed. Now do you have to be cautious about giving the money? Do you have to take this long?

RALPH DICKERSON, JR., PRESIDENT, UNITED WAY: Well, I tell you what. There's both an immediate need of cash assistance.

O'REILLY: Right.

DICKERSON: Rental payments, mortgage payments.

O'REILLY: Right.

DICKERSON: Just some longer term needs.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Well, it is those longer term needs that are in question. Tomorrow on The Factor, we'll get an update on the United Way's progress. But as of today, listen to this George Clooney, the September 11 Fund has collected $250 million. Just $35 million of that has been given out, but not directly to the families.

That money was given to other charities. Many of the grieving families, most of the ones that we've spoken with, have heard nothing from the September 11 Fund. And confusion is everywhere. I'll also remind Mr. Clooney that the Red Cross is only giving the families 20 percent of the money it has received after 9/11. The other 80 percent's going for other things.

And The Wall Street Journal is reporting that not one cent has been given out by Mayor Giuliani's Twin Towers Fund, which raised more than $100 million for the families of the firefighters and police officers killed. The mayor's office says the fund is again, for long-term needs.

Are you getting the picture here, George? Talking Points believes that all the celebrities involved in fundraising for the families have a responsibility to care about what happens to the money they asked for. Mr. Clooney can call me any name he wants, but facts are facts. And his letter is silly. Here's how it closes.

"You're right, Mr. O'Reilly, we the celebrities lied, all of us. Of course, we weren't too busy to give The Factor a statement. And if you were Peter Jennings or Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Charley Rose, we would've dropped everything and explained what we know.

You see, Bill, these are journalists. So yes, we lied when we said we were too busy to do your entertainment show. We were just trying to not hurt your feelings."

What can I say? I believe Mr. Clooney's tone speaks for itself.

Of course, as always, he's invited to appear and debate with me on The Factor, but there's really very little of that around. We've presented the facts. What we've reported is true. What we do here is real life, not Hollywood.

And that's the memo.

The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day

Time now for the most ridiculous item of the day. Lots of buzz about Matt Drudge column, which cites TV ratings showing The Factor beating our main competition, Larry King, by a wide margin. Mr. Drudge quotes an anonymous CNN executive as saying, in reaction to that, "I don't understand the appeal of O'Reilly, never underestimate the stupidity of the American public."

Whoa, this guy must be hanging out with George Clooney.

Unfortunately, an anonymous Fox producer is also quoted as saying some ridiculous things about Mr. King, which I'm not going to repeat. I will tell you that we respect Larry King and all our competition, and that people who attack others using anonymity are true weasels, whether they work for CNN or for Fox.

That kind of stuff is ridiculous


Mano a Mano: Bill vs. George Clooney
 

Jimbo

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,641
0
76
The Red (Double) Cross

Red Cross, and its Liberty Disaster Relief Fund, has come under a storm of criticism for allegedly delaying aid to the victims' families, failing to cooperate with other charities and government agencies that are trying to coordinate relief, and diverting a large portion of the funds for use in future, unrelated disasters.

Less than two months after the attacks, and after more than $564 million had already been raised, Red Cross spokeswoman Dana Allen admitted that Liberty Fund donations would not all be used for the September 11 attack victims. "We also need to make sure we're ready to help as the nation engages in military action, and as we respond to more terrorist threats."

Former Red Cross President, Dr. Bernadine Healy, echoed the response. "We have been so straightforward in saying what we are using the money for," Healy told BusinessWeek. "The disaster relief involves this entire country, and its readiness for future terrorist events, for healing, for grieving."

Stacy Palmer, editor at the Chronicle of Philanthropy, was skeptical: "One of the biggest mistakes the American Red Cross made was they didn't move fast enough to say what they're going to do with all the money," Palmer told the Los Angeles Times. "And so far, there aren't a lot of explanations coming that the average person who donated money is going to be happy about."

Daniel Borochoff, President of the American Institute of Philanthropy, says there is nothing in principle wrong with the Red Cross using major disasters to subsidize other relief efforts - just tell donors beforehand. "If they are going to do that, they have to say so explicitly. It can't be in the fine print," says Borochoff. The Red Cross has a long history of diverting donations, and has been criticized before for not using donations specifically raised for particular disasters - some requiring intervention by local officials to require them to pay up on donations the public intended their contributions to be used for.

In 1995, the Red Cross raised $13 million to aid victims and families of the Oklahoma City bombing. But when this proved to be far more money than it said it needed - it spent $2.6 million on victims - the charity earmarked the surplus to fund other less-publicized disasters.

In 1997, the Red Cross collected $16 million to aid victims of the Red River flood in Minnesota and North Dakota. But state officials were angered to find out that more than a year later the organization still had not spent $4 million of the contributions to benefit victims.

Minnesota's then-Attorney General Hubert Humphrey III held harsh public hearings that resulted in a scathing 40-page report to push for the release of the unspent victim funds. Humphrey did not accuse the organization of fraud, but said it was not candid enough with donors: "When you make appeals at a time of great emotion and stress, you have a significant responsibility to see to it that you use the funds for the purpose you state."

As the Red Cross controversy heated up, Bill O'Reilly, of Fox News' O'Reilly Factor jumped all over the story. Acting more like a pit bull than a news analysis anchor, O'Reilly chewed and clawed through every major charity organization. A few weeks after the September 21, 2001 national telethon, America: A Tribute to Heroes, - which raised $128,167,000 - O'Reilly got his second wind and went after the celebrities that he felt were not sufficiently pressuring the charities to deliver on their promises.

O'Reilly can be credited for doing much to expedite charitable distributions, through on-air pressure, emotional appeals from many of the families of the victims, and constant calls for a government investigation.

Washington was apparently listening. On November 6, 2001, a congressional hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's oversight panel was convened to determine donor intent and whether the Red Cross misled donors.

With former Red Cross President, Dr. Bernadine Healy in attendance, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer testified: "I see the Red Cross, which has raised hundreds of millions of dollars that was intended by the donating public to be used for the victims of September 11 - I see those funds being sequestered into long-term plans for an organization."

The hearing was contentious at times, with Representative Billy Tauzin (R-LA) saying, "What's at issue here is that a special fund was established for these families. It was specially funded for this event, September 11, and it is being closed now because we are told enough money's been raised in it, but we're also being told, by the way, we're going to give two-thirds of it away to other Red Cross needs."

Dr. Healy testified that the Red Cross always made clear that some of the money would be used for "future critical priorities." Tauzin interrupted saying, "What's at issue here is that a separate fund was established for these families," he said, pounding the table. "We are hearing from families that their needs are not being met."

Eight days after the hearings, the Red Cross reversed its position and announced that all donations to the Liberty Fund would go to aid the victims and their families. Said interim president Harold Decker, "Americans have spoken loudly and clearly that they want our relief efforts directed at the people affected by the September 11 tragedies."

After a November, December 2001 surge in payouts to more than 55,000 individuals and family members, the Liberty Fund has only distributed $15 million since the previous three-month report dated April 30, 2002 - and still has almost $400 million remaining to be distributed.

According to the American Red Cross' (ambiguous) six page Liberty Disaster Relief Fund Quarterly Report dated August 1, 2002, the distribution of funds continues to move at a snail's pace.

Liberty Fund officials say it expects to eventually pay out a total of $943 million overall, including a $133 million budget for continued disaster relief over a three-to-five year period, based on demonstrated need, primarily in areas of mental health and uncovered health care, as well as long-term family support and service coordination.

Liberty Fund
Total Contributions $ 988,000,000
Total Distributions to Date $( 458,000,000 )
Immediate Disaster Relief ( 95,000,000 )
Fund Stewardship ( 37,000,000 )
Total Funds Spent
$ ( 590,000,000 )

Balance Remaining $ 398,000,000*

* The Quarterly Report dated August 1, 2002 states that the Fund expects to distribute a total of $708 million to the families of the deceased or missing, persons seriously injured in the attacks, displaced residents and economically impacted individuals, and disaster responders - and a total of $943 million overall.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: Piano Man
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Just curious because now Paul McCartney wants to ban cluster munitions. Story. Maybe if they used their positions to speak out against the people who cause us to use cluster munitions and landmines, then we wouldn't have to use them.

My favorite quote: "'It would be great to outlaw these cowardly weapons,' he said." Ah, because it's your ass on the line out in that APC in the desert, isn't it Sir Paul?


That is some of the worst logic I"ve ever heard. They MADE US use cluster bombs. Riiight. That's like a guy with an AK shooting a kid with a BB gun because the kid MADE HIM use the AK. WTF.

You apparently don't listen to yourself. The causes for the use of cluster munitions, among a great many other munitions, are terrorism, WMD proliferation, and defiance of cease-fire agreements. The fact is that limiting our use of legitimate weapons puts our troops in danger, but I suppose since you're fat and happy at your keyboard that's ok with you.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Yeah I like the way those Leftist Celebs did that Benefit for the Victims of the Terrorist Attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. Wait that doesn't count does it because O'Rielly decided he needed to find a reason to denounce them for it.

I swear, some of you are just a bunch of Hysterical Ornery Old Ladies

Yes, they broke up their stream of anti-US campaigns to raise money for the terrorist victims. I haven't seen any grand statements about them deploring terrorist violence, and I would be exceptionally surprised if they would start a similar benefit for the fallen or wounded soldiers.

I swear, some of you are just a bunch of Red-faced Blustering Contrarian Boobs.
 

Judgement

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
3,816
0
0
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Just curious because now Paul McCartney wants to ban cluster munitions. Story. Maybe if they used their positions to speak out against the people who cause us to use cluster munitions and landmines, then we wouldn't have to use them.

My favorite quote: "'It would be great to outlaw these cowardly weapons,' he said." Ah, because it's your ass on the line out in that APC in the desert, isn't it Sir Paul?


Almost all celebrities are ill-informed about the situation in which they are protesting against, it is actually pretty pitiful. I don't know of any that could actually stand up and have a debate about the situation with anyone who knows even just a little about whats actually going on. I've found celebrities for the most part only protest the things that make them look peaceful and politically correct. They would also rather protest a topic in the spotlight as opposed to something less people are interested in hearing about.. I wonder why
rolleye.gif

 

Format C:

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,662
0
0
Originally posted by: Jimbo
The Red (Double) Cross ...
Liberty Fund
Total Contributions $ 988,000,000
Total Distributions to Date $( 458,000,000 )
Immediate Disaster Relief ( 95,000,000 )
Fund Stewardship ( 37,000,000 )
Total Funds Spent
$ ( 590,000,000 )

...

Ummm, exactly what does this mean... "Fund Stewardship ( 37,000,000 )"... ?

 

Jimbo

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,641
0
76
Originally posted by: Format C:
Originally posted by: Jimbo
The Red (Double) Cross ...
Liberty Fund
Total Contributions $ 988,000,000
Total Distributions to Date $( 458,000,000 )
Immediate Disaster Relief ( 95,000,000 )
Fund Stewardship ( 37,000,000 )
Total Funds Spent
$ ( 590,000,000 )

...

Ummm, exactly what does this mean... "Fund Stewardship ( 37,000,000 )"... ?

Their "cut" for managing the fund. :disgust:

 

Format C:

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,662
0
0
Originally posted by: Jimbo
Originally posted by: Format C:
Originally posted by: Jimbo
The Red (Double) Cross ...
Liberty Fund
Total Contributions $ 988,000,000
Total Distributions to Date $( 458,000,000 )
Immediate Disaster Relief ( 95,000,000 )
Fund Stewardship ( 37,000,000 )
Total Funds Spent
$ ( 590,000,000 )

...

Ummm, exactly what does this mean... "Fund Stewardship ( 37,000,000 )"... ?

Their "cut" for managing the fund. :disgust:

Thats what I figured. The lame asses. Nice little windfall for their "stewardship". I wonder if the $988,000,000 figure includes the interest earned on the amount donated. You know the money wasn't just stuck in a non-interest bearing account somewhere. Sounds like charity is big business for some. I wonder if they'll ever come out with an IPO. Sounds like a pretty lucrative deal to me. ;)
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I've posted links several times in OT how United Way and thier pressure tactics at work and company pickniks are a bunch of grifters who extort from us and have been busted with multimillion dollar saleries, and taking vacations like lifestyles of the rich and famous and haing massive expense accounts. However they are still more effecient than the goverment who for every dollar they collect in taxes for welfae something like 17 cents actucally gets to those who need it.
 

BarneyFife

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2001
3,875
0
76
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Just curious because now Paul McCartney wants to ban cluster munitions. Story. Maybe if they used their positions to speak out against the people who cause us to use cluster munitions and landmines, then we wouldn't have to use them.

My favorite quote: "'It would be great to outlaw these cowardly weapons,' he said." Ah, because it's your ass on the line out in that APC in the desert, isn't it Sir Paul?


You really have no clue...
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,949
133
106
The sing songy song and dance man lifts his head out of strawberry fields and mutters his usual empty drug induced verbatim while conversing with judy in the sky with diamonds..have another hit of the bong..paul. Then contemplate the white rabbit...
 

ConclamoLudus

Senior member
Jan 16, 2003
572
0
0
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Originally posted by: Jimbo
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
First O'Rielly went after the Red Cross and The United Way for NOT distributing the money promptly.
THEN George Cloony went after O'Rielly for having the audacity to criticize The Red Cross and The United Way. :Q

Only after O'Rielly went after the charities did things begin to move and money get distributed. You also fail to point out that The Red Cross had originally planned to use some of the Sept. 11 money for "pet" causes (unrelated to Sept. 11) and to additionally hold on to some of the money for "reserve".
What good is all of the fund-raising in the world if none of it gets distributed?

Bill O'Rielly absolutely did the right thing here, and should be applauded regardless of what you think of his politics or Fox News viewers.

What exactly were the "pet" causes of the red cross? I mean when you donate to a organization Red Cross you trust their judgement
in how their money is distrubed. I mean there was a 9/11 fund that was open for donation. Why couldnt directly donate into that?

When 9/11 happened other very noble causes such as Hunger in Africa took backrow seats to the 9/11 cause. This is both good and bad, good that people are donating... but bad because theres just waaaay too much focus on 9/11 when there are other problems in the world.

It the greatest outpouring of donations towards charity and the greatest donation of blood in history of our nation. There was so much blood donated most of it went bad.

I'm sorry but the Self Rightous O'Reilly is just a ignoramus in this situation, people like him only see in black and white.

There's some good irony to that last line. Just after reducing him to an ignoramus you denounce him with: "People like him only see black and white." I disagree with O'Reilly on a great number of things, but I would say the Red Cross doesn't need $37,000,000 to hold on to money for people.