I tend to agree with you here, but only to the extent that the organization has a marketing (instead of disbursement) mission. If so, they have merely utilized the girl's prominence.
yes, and everyone out there who ever profits from anything is whoring themselves out as well. again, welcome to capitalism.
a lot of not-for-profit organizations have marketing, ricter. a lot of them. that is how they attract donations and participation. this particular one just was interested in promotion of the owner's clothing line (or whatever the article claims) than the cause. but that, again, is not bristol's fault.
Oh I understand the highest value of capitalism as it is practice these days. Capitalism in its current form is not only amoral, it is mostly immoral. Currently capitalism is Godless capitalism. So when Bristol is a spokesslut for abstinence she is really just lying to make money. If Bristol had really been a morally driven person when it comes to her position on abstinence, she wouldn't have boned her boyfriend. People who claim to be on a moral mission but are actually whoring themselves out for money, like Palin, are not really a good choice for the position of advancing a morally driven argument. Like mother, like daughter...
Not exactly. She, and anyone else who took the organization's money, was dealing with someone who had engaged in fraudulent activity. Key words: non-profit, donations, fraud, big payday. I bet you would gladly sell a bag of shit to an unsuspecting buyer if you could get away with it. And all in the name of, and under the umbrella of, capitalism. I find it fascinating that the very people who are so enthralled with the word are perfectly willing to drag it through crap. I also happen to like capitalism, however, I hold it to a slightly higher standard than "anything goes."
hey, we kind of agree on something for once. I don't have a big problem with this news. The way I see it: helped raise money for a good cause, and she made a nice chunk of change for herself too. I don't know, doesn't bother me too much. Also considering her age, I don't think it's a big deal.
"let he who is without sin throw the first stone." i guess that is you, huh optional? you must be as clean as a whistle. sorry, i'm trying to say that without laughing.
please show me where bristol was part and parcel to the fraud. furthermore, i didnt see any fraud charged to the fund in the first place. all i see is a tax release. i'll settle for some proof that shows where she had any knowledge of any wrong doing whatsoever. without that, youre just assuming. not that i'm shocked you would do that without any facts. here's hoping you back up your accusations with fact.