Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,226
The one in Lebanon was the day before Paris in an ISIL attack and at least as many people died, but who is aware that it even happened?
milking disaster media wise
- Thread starter ~>Dg<~
- Start date
The one in Lebanon was the day before Paris in an ISIL attack and at least as many people died, but who is aware that it even happened?
It is like Benedict Cumberbatch lending his "time" and "fame" to ask people to donate to the Syrian refugee crisis.
A man who just bought a £10 million mansion.
Makes me want to punch him in his peculiar looking face.
Last edited:
I'm not sure that that's the same thing...
Changing your profile picture on facebook and "liking" stuff isn't really going to do much.
That guy might actually inspire people to donate, I don't know but it's not really the same. It's almost like you're begrudging him having and spending his own money on himself...
so predictable
but i will bite.Do you not see something incredibly juxtaposed within his head? A man who is supposedly so passionate about the poor homeless refugees, just bought a vast swathe of land and a massive house, spending £10 million in the process, just for himself.
It is hilarious.
Last edited:
Mob rule. It isn't any different to that gay pride thing that kicked off a while ago. Everyone including Schwarzenegger (who used to call them girly men) has the same profile picture.
Was there ever a time just be yourself? Stop being a trend follower. Doh *face palm* mob rule.
It killed 43 people, 129 died in Paris, it would literally take you 1 minute to Google that.
so predictable
Do you not see something incredibly juxtaposed within his head? A man who is supposedly so passionate about the poor homeless refugees, just bought a vast swathe of land and a massive house, spending £10 million in the process, just for himself.
It is hilarious.
So in summary, he can only promote charitable causes if he gives all his money away to said cause?
I had the same thoughts about that, and cringed when I saw people I thought weren't sheep, joining in.
Who said that?
You've stated that it's hilarious that he both promotes a charitable cause whilst also being in the process of buying a £10,000,000 home.
You are suggesting that they are at odds with each other and that it should be one or the other.
What's the solution? He ceases to promote charitable causes, or he ceases retaining such quantities of disposable income?
Because if he doesn't spend it on that home, he's still got £10 million he can spend as he wants. Why is spending it on a home any worse than having it and not doing anything with it, or spending it on himself via other means?
Last edited:
They are at odds with one another. I never said he should spend ALL his money on helping though. That would be stupid.
Your issue seems to be around him spending that amount of money on himself.
My issue is that they do not practice what they preach, none of them.
One can safely assume Benedict has more than enough money to last him for the rest of his lifetime and more.
One can then presume that someone who is so passionate about this cause ( a great cause i might add), someone who implores others to donate their money to it, would want nothing more than to donate the excess money that they no longer need to said cause.
For example, you would have thought someone who wants for nothing and already has a vast fortune would no longer need more money and instead would donate all future earnings to give war torn refugees a home, comfort and food/water.
But will he? Don't make me laugh. Like all the rest, he will bleat at the general public about it with dough eyes and mock sincerity, whilst he banks his next cheque for $20 million dollars for whatever the hell he acts in next, spending it on larger houses and nicer cars.
And how exactly do you know that he isn't making donations?
You don't, but your issue is clearly that he isn't donating enough if he has 10 million to spend on a home.
Which is exactly where you're implying that he should be giving all his money to charity.
What is actually hilarious is that you think people are hypocrites if they give charity unless it's all their disposable income that they don't "need".
You don't, but your issue is clearly that he isn't donating enough if he has 10 million to spend on a home.
Which is exactly where you're implying that he should be giving all his money to charity.
What is actually hilarious is that you think people are hypocrites if they give charity unless it's all their disposable income that they don't "need".
Yes that is my issue. It is the big horrible glaring issue that totally undermines his puerile lectures to an audience that just paid (some of them) £1000 a ticket to see him play Hamlet and get paid handsomely for it no doubt.
So then you are under the impression he should donate all his money, else there's no use to his promotion of charitable donations.
You just said you weren't saying that.
No i am not. Why keep putting words in my mouth?
We are talking vast, vast sums of money here. I would not begrudge anyone for living comfortably and still donating some money to charity but we are not talking about that here.
We are talking about living to excess, complete excess to the detriment of those that you pretend to care about so much. We are talking £10 million mansion excess. He will no doubt be hitting the $20 million + a movie club soon. What is he going to do with all that money? He isn't going to give it to middle eastern refugees, i can tell you that now.
Stop looking at it as so black and white (hur durr must give all their money if they give to charity or give nothing), as it is not.
This is taken from a Daily Mail article unfortunately but it is absolutely right:
"It's all very well for emoting celebrities and opportunist politicians to demand that Britain opens the door for unlimited numbers of 'refugees'. What they never explain is where all these people are supposed to live and how our already overstretched public services can be expected to cope.
If Cumberbatch steps out of his gilded cage at the Barbican, he might notice that London is full to bursting and grinding daily to a halt.
We may not be taking as many Syrians as some other countries, but over the past few years we have absorbed more than eight million immigrants. The numbers are still increasing by 300,000 a year and short of leaving the EU altogether, which Call Me Dave refuses to countenance, the Government has no idea what to do about it.
Cumberbatch is wealthy enough to insulate himself from the problems caused by mass immigration. Like most liberal luvvies, it's all upside for him, affording access to cheap domestic staff and exotic restaurants.
He's not competing with migrants for low-paid work, experiencing difficulty finding an affordable home or getting a doctor's appointment. His new son probably won't have any trouble securing a suitable school place. He'll be going to Harrow, like his dad."
Do you think the same thing about people wearing poppies last week or black arm bands?
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,119
- Location
- Shepley
Probably devastated she can't stick her phone in someone's face as they cough up their insides following multiple gunshot wounds and ask them how they feel right now.