Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: One.org

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    513

    One.org

    I thought i'd seen the most expensive ad ever today. It was the 60 seconds ad of one.org that features actors, musicians and religious leaders. Among them are:

    Al Pacino
    Brad Pitt
    Tom Hanks
    Cameron Diaz
    Justin Timberlake
    George Clooney
    Penelope Cruz
    Jamie Foxx
    Bono
    Puff Daddy
    Jewel
    Antonio Banderas
    and many many others.

    the full commercial will air on their website soon. For now, a sneak preview (short version)

    There also is a 30 second version (hosted by tripod so probably down very soon).

    All they need is your (digital) autograph and ofcoarse to spread the word. As starsky would say, DO IT!

    I thought this post would be allowed since wht was really supportive with the Tsunami disaster, it's chairity and this time doesn't involve a donation or money other than 5 seconds of your time to sign-up.
    Last edited by ic3d; 04-18-2005 at 06:08 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Kuwait
    Posts
    10,620
    and the money goes to support AIDS community?
    Bashar Al-Abdulhadi - KuwaitNET Internet Services Serving customers since 1997
    Kuwait's First Webhosting and Domain Registration provider - an ICANN Accredited Registrar

    Twitter: Bashar Al-Abdulhadi

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    6,834
    I saw an advertisement for this on television, and was interested -- most likely because of the celebrity appearances. I checked out the website, and, while their cause is good-hearted, I think they are being a bit unrealistic in asking for the U.S. government to direct one percent of its budget towards fighting poverty and AIDS -- approximately $16 billion. Without inputting my biases, do they actually think that the Bush administration -- let alone any administration -- would even consider doing something like that? That's not an unheard-of amount of money (it is a lot), but while it's easy to have the desire or wish to cure world hunger, I think they're looking through rose-colored glasses in assuming that, with $16 billion, we could accomplish almost anything (according to their website). Have they considered the resources they'd need? Manpower, trucks, airplanes -- the means by which to deliver said resources and build schools or whatever they're suggesting --, peacekeeping troops and efforts in the less peaceful areas where there will undoubtedly be conflict between resources and different tribes before, during, and after the effort, etc. will all be required, not to even mention the moral weight of obligation that we will carry with us afterwards; many people will feel guilty, shameful, and regretful that we didn't help everyone in the world. It just gets to be a huge mess when you really think about it, and I don't think "one.org" even took that into account, or, as I said before, are seeing through rose-colored glasses.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts
    1,033
    Puff Daddy is a religious leader?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    6,834
    Originally posted by IvialisRyan
    Puff Daddy is a religious leader?
    Of course. They're considering him for the papacy.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    513
    I think you are right SniperDevil. But on the other hand, i think with more governments from (western) countries the ammount of money (altough it's a lot) perhaps is possible. So many governments waste so mutch money on nothing (small example, they re-tiled the perfectly fine road next to my house for the 4th time this year..) But if we block the goal out and think about money, it is possible that an investement like this will pay itself (partially) back.

    And if it's not, it only took a few seconds of our time anyway

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    513
    Originally posted by SniperDevil
    Of course. They're considering him for the papacy.
    lol!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    6,834
    Originally posted by ic3d
    I think you are right SniperDevil. But on the other hand, i think with more governments from (western) countries the ammount of money (altough it's a lot) perhaps is possible. So many governments waste so mutch money on nothing (small example, they re-tiled the perfectly fine road next to my house for the 4th time this year..) But if we block the goal out and think about money, it is possible that an investement like this will pay itself (partially) back.

    And if it's not, it only took a few seconds of our time anyway
    I don't quite understand what you're suggesting; would you mind elaborating? Block what goal? Think about money? And how would it take only a few seconds of our time? It would take more than $16 billion dollars as well as many, many resources.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,052
    We've already pissed away 163 billion dollars in Iraq. If we can spend that money on an ******** war, what wrong with spending 16 billion on some "actual" good? It's not as if these conservatives are fiscally responsible, not to mention it might make America look passionate to many who view us as a war mongers. So I don't see it as being a huge hurdle, especially since they're marketing this idea to many groups. With enough people behind them, it call easily happen. They're petitioning the government, so it's very different then just asking our law makers to give money away for free. This reminds me of a famous quote:

    "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." -Margaret Mead

    Im sure this organization has has a better idea of what it would take to get the job done then any of us. They have obviously already have a vast amount of resources to pull in the people they did to this commercial. Im sure they didn't just think "WE NEED 16 BILLION DOLLARS", that this money is well calculated, not to mention volunteers, and donations from companies (for instance; ford & united airlines.)

    I rather see my tax dollars spent on curing hunger and aids then taking the lives of innocent people and bunker blasting nuclear missles.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,029
    Well they are spending billions and billions (not sure how much so far) on the war they should at lease be able to spend money where it is needed. I mean if the government put all that money into America it would of done a lot of good, but no.... can't do that!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Duluth MN
    Posts
    3,863
    Not all of that 163 billion for the war is all war related. Most of it is the cost of re-building iraq, and the region to establish a solid democracy.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,029
    Originally posted by amish_geek
    Not all of that 163 billion for the war is all war related. Most of it is the cost of re-building iraq, and the region to establish a solid democracy.
    Why can't they use the money where it is really needed? I mean come on I can think of many things that needs work done, but nothing is being done. If we left Iraq a long time ago we would not be spending all this money that my children and their children will be paying for most likley. How is it fair that we have to pay for what the government wants to do in another country? When America has many problems as it is that could of been fixed or have helped.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    6,834
    I don't disagree with either of you -- in principle, morally speaking. Yes, it would be just great to end -- even partially -- world hunger, to spread education and teach those in need of knowledge, to help to occupy people worldwide in steady jobs, enough to feed their families and enjoy some of the "human rights" and luxuries that we, Americans, do.

    Yes, yes, yes; all of that is great. There is no limit to what one can do with enough money and enough resources. The only problem is, once we start, we won't stop, and it will turn into more of a nation-building, Iraq-like movement to "end oppressive and genocidal governments", "spread democracy", and everything else we're hearing in American politics today. There is no way we could shove all of that aside and just "provide basic needs to billions around the world." It just doesn't work that way; nice to think about, not very realistic in actuality. When there's a donor, there's a reason. The current administration (or any future administration even distantly resembling the foreign policies of the current one) would most definitely not just dedicate $16 billion dollars to spread "human rights" across the world, in countries where authoritarian and supposedly "terroristic", non-democratic governments currently rule or reign.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Alabanza
    Posts
    306
    Just saw it on MTV few minutes ago.. kinda like the ad though... "We dont need your money.. just your voice" ..

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    6,834
    Originally posted by LOTR
    Just saw it on MTV few minutes ago.. kinda like the ad though... "We dont need your money.. just your voice" ..
    Funny (and unsurprising) though, how the second real way listed to "voice" your opinion (besides signing the so-called "declaration" -- though probably meaningless in effect -- and sending the "declaration" to your friend) is to buy bracelets for a dollar each -- at a minimum of ten.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    The Woodlands, Tx
    Posts
    5,974
    You could spend $1 billion and give a meal to every person in Africa.

    There's a sad truth to this though.....
    Tomorrow they will be hungry again.

    So how come we can help all those in other countries, but we cant help those right here in our own country. I can go 10 miles down the road to an area where people are just as bad off as those in Africa.

    America to me looks like this. Uncle Sam has a gaping rotting infected wound in his foot. (people of his own country that need help) Yet Uncle Sam's brain is busy helping other people (countries) giving away the medicine he needs for himself, so he has a foot that's about to rot off. The more he gives to others instead of helping himself, the more that infection will spread.

    I think we need to come up with an effective solution to poverty here in the U.S. first. Until then, we certainly cant solve poverty anywhere else. If I was down in poverty in the United States, I know I would get better support from the U.S. government in another country than my own. That my friends is really a sad case.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    6,834
    Originally posted by Webdude
    So how come we can help all those in other countries, but we cant help those right here in our own country. I can go 10 miles down the road to an area where people are just as bad off as those in Africa.
    On that point, I beg to differ.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Proud She-Geek
    Posts
    1,723
    Originally posted by IvialisRyan
    Puff Daddy is a religious leader?
    Actually it's P Diddy now

    Of course. They're considering him for the papacy.
    Or Pope P Diddy I after the announcement

    LOL
    <?php echo "Signature here"; ?>

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,029
    Originally posted by SniperDevil
    On that point, I beg to differ.

    Yes other people from other countries starve, but does that mean we should just ignore are own people to help other countries? I know of many people in this country just in Montana who do not even have a home.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,052
    Originally posted by amish_geek
    Not all of that 163 billion for the war is all war related. Most of it is the cost of re-building iraq, and the region to establish a solid democracy.
    Well when the big country destroys the little country under false pretenses... thats the price you and I pay. We were never under any obligation to spend 163 billion on Iraq what so ever until we made the mistake of invading them.

    The cost to you, I, and every other american here is 163 billion dollars to date any way you want to slice it.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    6,834
    Originally posted by Torith
    Yes other people from other countries starve, but does that mean we should just ignore are own people to help other countries? I know of many people in this country just in Montana who do not even have a home.
    Nor do I disagree that there are indeed Americans in sometimes awful poverty. However, I posted those pictures to reinforce the sheer level of something that I consider beyond poverty; something unspeakably inhuman; it's very shocking and disturbing, and nothing in America compares to it. One of our family friends went to Kenya and witnessed just the tiniest bit of "poverty" there on the sides of roads and in supposedly "tourist" villages there, however there are people many, many times worse off than those. At least the people whom he visited had means of sustenance and enough money to be minimally nourished and healthy.

    I suppose it's a fact of life, but, as a fellow human, nourished, fed, and generally taken care of to the best and fullest extent I desire, it is a rather disturbing sight.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,029
    I understand and I am sad to see people in that state that they are in right now. I am not saying we should just stop giving money, but we should look putting money where it is needed. The 160+ billion I could think could of been used for America, and say countries who are in need of food, and water. I just think the money should be used better then it is right now.


    Originally posted by SniperDevil
    Nor do I disagree that there are indeed Americans in sometimes awful poverty. However, I posted those pictures to reinforce the sheer level of something that I consider beyond poverty; something unspeakably inhuman; it's very shocking and disturbing, and nothing in America compares to it. One of our family friends went to Kenya and witnessed just the tiniest bit of "poverty" there on the sides of roads and in supposedly "tourist" villages there, however there are people many, many times worse off than those. At least the people whom he visited had means of sustenance and enough money to be minimally nourished and healthy.

    I suppose it's a fact of life, but, as a fellow human, nourished, fed, and generally taken care of to the best and fullest extent I desire, it is a rather disturbing sight.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    6,834
    Originally posted by Torith
    I understand and I am sad to see people in that state that they are in right now. I am not saying we should just stop giving money, but we should look putting money where it is needed. The 160+ billion I could think could of been used for America, and say countries who are in need of food, and water. I just think the money should be used better then it is right now.
    And I would definitely agree with you. If we were to have, at our complete discretion, uninfluenced by politics and fear, $160 billion to spend on absolutely anything to help ourselves or the world, I believe we would use it, or at least much of it, on humanitarian campaigns, both domestically and overseas -- that is, if we had $160 billion extra to spend (meaning not to create a deficit; as a surplus), completely uninfluenced and unswayed by politics, national fear, and paranoia.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    The Woodlands, Tx
    Posts
    5,974
    Originally posted by SniperDevil
    On that point, I beg to differ.
    Those are the extreme cases..... and our country has been helping for years, and they are still like that. There are many churches who support the hungry, and many millions donated to them. Yet there are still those like this. I am 35, I remember seeing pictures like that on TV as a kid. If after all these years there are still people like that, then evidently we are going about it the wrong way.. The more we feed, the more kids they have.

    "Yeah, let's have all the kids we want, the Americans will feed them"

    I'm sure if you asked a starving couple in such an area in Africa if they mind if we put birth control in their food, they probably woulnd mind. Means they can have sex all they want without having to worry about kids to feed. Do that long enough, and you eventually bring the population down enough that we can actually bring them out of the poverty.

    From now to 30 years ago, how much money and food has gone to these places? I'm not saying "dont" feed them, I am simply saying to try something different in order to actually make a "change" in the situation. In 30 years, I have seen much change in the poverty there. If they still have bony kids there with the "starvation potbellies", we arent doing much more than simply keeping them alive to produce more kids.

    I'm not being cold shouldered, I'm being realistic.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,144
    If we did anything like that you know how MANY people would consider us racists?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •