Donald Sterling

BillRM wrote:

That seems more of a problem for those charities,
who are openly placing the needs of their clients behind their desire to be PC.

I have to agree with you on this one. The mission of charities is to fund research, cure sick people, or whatever purpose they exist for. If management prioritizes looking chivalrous over serving their charity's mission, that's not a good thing.

And come to think of it, that's my view of this whole affair in a nutshell. I don't like racists. I approve of naming and shaming them. But I disapprove of disgruntled girlfriends illegally bugging private conversations so they can entrap their boyfriends. I disapprove of huge media campaigns to drive someone out of town based on such illegally-bugged conversations. And I disapprove of charities side-tracking their mission to partake in such campaigns. (Though I would except the UCLA, which was clearly reacting to a bad-faith misrepresentation by Mr Sterling.) If methods like these are the price of driving Mr Sterling out of town, I'd rather not pay it and put up with him remaining in his position.

People shud NOT be penalized for being financially successful
and the poor shud not be parasites on the middle class or the rich.

People shud NOT be penalized for being financially successful
and the poor shud not be parasites on the middle class or the rich.

The rich buy the laws that the economic run under to a great degree
with ten full time lobbies for every member of congress.

They largely are building up their networths
in a more and more rig game not by any super skill or abilities.

The parasites are people who get the tax payers to build billions dollars sport stadiums
and such at the tax payer cost not the working poor.

Bravo!!! I agree. Thanks for making words for the addled... haha

Of course it is and turning down donors for PC reasons using the excuse to do so of some unproven repeat unproven theory that doing so will result in more funds coming in then not is a clear violation of those charities duty to their clients .

have you ever worked in fundraising? done any research in the area?

Quote:

have you ever worked in fundraising? done any research in the area?

blah blah blah

Quote:

like I said, it's a balancing act

Of course it is and turning down donors for PC reasons

have you ever worked in fundraising? done any research in the area?

Would you care to link to any experts and or studies that support the idea of taking sides in a conflict that have nothing to do with the charities missions and refusing donation from non-PC donors would end up being a winning scheme?

Seems that lacking the studies I am sure you will be posting here that refusing to take sides and welcoming the funds of anyone who care to support their missions would likely to be the most rewarding for them.

To say nothing of the most moral position for them to take as once more their duty is to their clients not to support some PC position or other by turning away donors.

Quote:

like I said, it's a balancing act

Of course it is and turning down donors for PC reasons

what is all this ******* PC bullshit everyone natters on about?

the reality is that a lot of big donors donate to charities for social benefits and p.r. - not because they have any interest in a particular charity. they're interested in who (other socially important donors and/or celebrities) they're going to meet at donor events and what mags they're going to get their photos in. they don't CARE about the charity.

Just speaking for myself, here:
every time that I donate to the NRA and the 2nd Amendment Foundation,
I CARE about them.

this is a piece to another reason for charities to disavow Sterling money - they could lose other donors who don't want to be on a list he is

Just speaking for myself, here:
every time that I donate to the NRA and the 2nd Amendment Foundation,
I CARE about them.

The same here as I know who they are and I have a strong desire to support their programs as my dollars are too precious to me to do otherwise.

But according to ehbeth that is not true of big donors and big donors are the only ones who matter to the charities to the point they are more then willing to write off large numbers of small donors if need be in order to be PC enough for the larger donors.

To me a charity such as UCLA kidney research program turning down millions in order to be PC mean that they have no real need for my donations as they must be rolling in funding.

It is also amusing that in order to be racially and PC correct
UCLA is willing to hurt a program that deals with a condition/disease
that affects the black population much more than other sub-groups.

To me a charity such as UCLA kidney research program turning down millions in order to be PC mean that they have no real need for my donations as they must be rolling in funding.

If Sterling really wants UCLA to have his money,
he might consider making future donations anonymously.

Re: firefly (Post 5665055)
firefly wrote:
If Sterling really wants UCLA to have his money,
he might consider making future donations anonymously.
In the face of their insolence,
I have a hunch that he might be able to find more preferable
places to put his millions. I remain willing to accept them.

Did u attribute my writing to Firefly ?