Thats one rich bitch

Montana wrote:

That's right! We shouldn't judge people for being uncharitable. Since when do others owe anyone anything?

It was her money to do what she damn well pleased with it and I can't believe she's being judged for that!

Montana, I disagree.
I think we all owe each other.
If you have money like LH did, and since you can't take it with you, once your family is well taken care of a great portion of the remainder should be spread among those who need it most.

Remember all that It Takes a Village crap from a few years ago? Well, I think that applies mostly to people that have more money than God and consider leaving it to a housepet.

I give to charities, and if I won a huge sum of money you better believe I would do good things with it.....albeit after I bought a 50' Sea Ray.
But, I would definitely give to those less fortunate, or establish scholarships or something to benefit others.

As far as my dog...well, he came from a shelter and he's not too picky; he'd be happy with any family member.
The cat? she doesn't care one way or the other.

But Montana, you weren't stinkin' rich.....rich enough to leave millions to a dog?
I hear what you're saying though.

happycat wrote:

But Montana, you weren't stinkin' rich.....rich enough to leave millions to a dog?
I hear what you're saying though.

Hey, she obviously loved her dog :-D

Montana wrote:

happycat wrote:

But Montana, you weren't stinkin' rich.....rich enough to leave millions to a dog?
I hear what you're saying though.

Hey, she obviously loved her dog :-D

yeah, I love my dog too. I gave him part of my sausage biscuit this morning.
But he knows not to touch my wallet or my checkbook.

Also, the logical extension of your argument is that, since, in your experience (this is implied) most people are not charitable, Leona Helmsley should not be expected to be charitable.

Thus we should not judge mankind in general for being largely uncharitable?

Phoenix32890 wrote:

I would not have done what Leona Helmsley did, but it is not for me to judge what she did.

fine but just about 2 weeks ago ...

Phoenix32890 wrote:

I use this as an example, but I have seen the exact same scenario over and over again. Why is it that people do not like to speak ill of the dead?

To me, a person was what he was, warts and all. I have no compunctions, when discussing the deceased, about bringing up negative things, if appropriate in the context of the discussion.

How do YOU feel about this?

I feel like you've got a bit of a double standard on this issue.

~~~

The woman was a bitch in life, and found a way to be a bitch in death.

Why you'd choose to defend her, I can only speculate about.

~~~

You should be pleased that people aren't changing their opinion simply because Ms. Helmsley died.

Phoenix32890 wrote:

What pisses me off are those people who do a 180 at the death of a despised individual

Well, I'm with Phoenix and Montana on this one. I don't believe anyone has the right to decide how your money is being spent, whether you're dead or alive.

What was she supposed to do with it? Good Lord.

"She ordered that cash from sales of the Helmsley's residences and belongings, reported to be worth billions, be sold and that the money be given to the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust." So from what I can see, she donated BILLIONS to a charity trust, and her only crime is spending more on her dog than her grandchildren, two of whom were cut out for reasons known to them.

What's wrong with that?

I'm thinking the few grandchildren that were left out just may not have been worthy of any money from her. Just because someone is family doesn't give them dibs on the assets of others, regardless of who they are.
Maybe they treated her like crap.