PJ/Bono/etc guilty of hypocricy?

Zod

yield2me wrote:

Zod wrote:

In the previous thread, someone asked why not consider pearl jam hypocritical as they also support various causes.

I think they key difference, is I don't recally Mr. Vedder going to the head of our government and asking for a percentage of domestic revenue. Pearl Jam's supports when/where they can, under the radar, and they don't go telling us to donate, or trying to force us to donate to anyone.

Bono was actually asking for a percentage of countries GDP to cure world hunger. I think the cause is very noble. That money would come from taxes, taxes of which a majority comes from the middle class. So he's asking people who are less off then himself to donate.

It just seems off to me. Some people are supporting their families on 50k a year.. some people are better off with multiple 50k salaries. It depends on the person/family. But to ask a government to do that, without considering the consequences of people less of than yourself... its cocky.

I think it'd be better if he went after people instead of governments.. allow people who can afford it to donate.. I think sucking it through taxes is the wrong way to go.

I'm not sure if I agree with you on this. World hunger is a worldwide problem that anyone who can afford to eat should be able to give something to help. The GDP that Bono was asking for was a small amount and when you divide that amount by the # of people living in the countries and their actual individual contribution, it works out to about $2.00 each. I think the major countries of the world could afford to ask their people to give $2.00. Also, by going about it through governments you ensure that everyone participates, whereas if you just ask people to give, most of the time they won't even though they can afford it.

For example, I see an advertisement on tv that is asking for money for starving kids in Africa. I feel bad for them and I think "I really should give some money to this organization." Then the ad ends and Ghost Hunters comes back on and I instantly forget. Now, if the president came on tv and said that the USA would be donating a certain amount of $ to Bono's cause and that it works out to each of us giving $2.00, I would have no problem with that. It's not egotistical for Bono to do what he is doing, it's admirable in my opinion.

My gripe isn't that its a bad idea. It's that a guy who's f'in rich is telling people who are less off than him to give their money. I'm not arguing the idea of giving food too poor people, I'm arguing a rich guy telling middle class people to pay for it. Sure Bono/U2 donates, and its alot more then any of us could do, as their incomes are higher. But a guy who probably takes home a salary in the millions every year, and has millions in the bank, is asking people who live paycheque to paycheque to pay for his idea.

Am I the only one things Bono's a tool for doing that? I don't think his idea is bad. Feeding the poor is good. I think the fact he goes around asking people who make way less than he does, to pay for his idea, while he lives in luxury is retarded.

The one thing that made me donate in the last few years, was watching a series with Ewam McGregor and Charlie Boorman called Long Way Round (and a sequel called Long Way Down). They kind of went around the world on motorbikes. On the way they stopped at various unicef places and what not.

I had no idea Unicef did all this cool stuff (one example was they still help victims of chernobyl and their offspring). and cool stuff like that. I know Obi-Wan's got more cash in the bank then me. But he didn't have ask my goverment to force me to donate. I donated cause he stuck it on tv, and I thought it was a good cause.

Pearl Jam help's alot of organizations, but they don't go out saying everyone should be forced to donate. It'd be hypocritical as they live better then most people.

If Bono used his fame to promote the causes, run fundraisers, and raise awerness it doesn't bug me. It bugs me when he wants governments to take the cash from its citizens while he lives it up in his big f'in house.

Thats all. If the dude were really serious his own personal wealth could probably whipe out the debt of a few 3rd world countries, and he'd still have more left then I'll ever have.

JD Sal

I have a problem with Bono asking governments for a % of their GDP to help fight world hunger when U2's stage setup for this tour costs $750,000 a day. Yes, that's right. Almost a million dollars a day. I heard that the other day on WMMR in Philly. They were talking about how U2 won't profit at all from the first part of their current tour due to the elaborate costs of their stage set up.

Now, I understand U2 has always been over the top with the stage props and all, but couldn't they go on like a 'hunger relief' tour and hype it as a scaled down version of their normal shows? Say the costs went down from $750,000 to even $250,000 a day - then they could realistically donate $500,000 a day to help fight world hunger.

petrocs

Bono hate is just cause the people who hate him dont want to look themselves in the mirror or face the fact that they dont try and make this world a better place on a day to day basis like he does..FACT

He makes us think about how we are living and how we CAN help those who need our assistance yet we sit in our homes and eat our McDonalds and watch CNN and say "what a shame" Man this guy takes so much backlash for absolutely no reason. Ed does exactly the same thing for the things he stands for..so does Bruce..and Bob Dylan..and Chris Martin..and whomever else has something to speak out about. Anyone who says "Bono sucks" or "shut up Boner" or whatever has exactly ZERO idea of who that man really is or how hard he works to help the worlds poor.

God...it seriously annoys me...its one thing to not be a fan of U2...its a totally and completely different thing to mock him or dispise him for doing good...oh and BTW...to the guy who said "Bono doesnt live like a middle class man" well no..he doesnt nor should he..but what you forget to mention is the tens of MILLIONS him and U2 have donated..lets see how many rock acts can say THAT

OH..JD Sal..U2 donated $30 million dollars to charity this year..it was a figure that leaked out from a reporter who dug deep and the band wasnt too thrilled to have it known cause they wanted it anonymous..now that $750,000 a day isnt to house the show..its what it costs them in trucks and salary...so there are people with jobs making good money because of this tour. Now I ask you...would thousands of people have these jobs IF U2 wasnt touring?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

JD Sal wrote:

I have a problem with Bono asking governments for a % of their GDP to help fight world hunger when U2's stage setup for this tour costs $750,000 a day. Yes, that's right. Almost a million dollars a day. I heard that the other day on WMMR in Philly. They were talking about how U2 won't profit at all from the first part of their current tour due to the elaborate costs of their stage set up.

Now, I understand U2 has always been over the top with the stage props and all, but couldn't they go on like a 'hunger relief' tour and hype it as a scaled down version of their normal shows? Say the costs went down from $750,000 to even $250,000 a day - then they could realistically donate $500,000 a day to help fight world hunger.

Edge himself has admitted the hypocricy of their message vs how much they spend on touring and whatnot. He even said "I don't really have an answer to that". I was impressed that he didn't try to give some half-assed bullshit answer. He just said "you're right, I don't know". I found that quite noble.

I really think that U2 could do a "non-profit tour" or something like that, where they personally make no money. They just pay their crew and whatnot. Maybe do an acoustic tour or something so they don't have to use as much crew for it. But then they might argue that them touring helps hundreds of people to get work. So it's a bit of a rock and a hard place.

I think also, that Bono's message with a percentage of each country's GDP is that we are all one people, so we are all responsible to help out together, not just the super rich. Which I have to agree with. My wife and I make a meager living with two young girls, but I'd be absolutely fine with giving money through taxes. I think it would be a good cause.

We feast on McDick's, throw half our fries away, while people halfway across the world don't have clean water. I think in that respect we are ALL hypocrites.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

yes, and Bono has admitted that he's a bit uncomfortable doing this, because he knows that people think he is egomaniacal, and that it can cause some U2 backlash, but he feels it is necessary to bring these issues up.

Keep in mind, most of the musicians/actors/etc don't LIKE doing this stuff. They do it because they feel they have a responsibility to do so, since they have a voice that millions will hear. Wouldn't you try to promote awareness to something you believe in if you knew that many people would hear you?

decides2dream

Latin Square wrote:

It would only be hypocritical if said individual didn't donate anything after asking others to. Most of the time, people don't ask you to give so much that you can't live comfortably. They're simply asking you to give what you can.

exactly.


and there are no 'rules' for supporting charity or requesting others to help as well. they're rich, really, really rich. so what? even if (some) of them are extravagant in their lifestyles/spending, or simply live well beyond the average person, again...so what? they cannot ask us ALL to pitch in? besides which, a LOT of it is simply sharing information, and being better informed is always a good thing. i am not one for preaching, but for anyone really...to share their beliefs, what they are passionate about, concerned about.....i always appreciate that.

bicyclejoe

This discussion is relentless on this board. It keeps coming up, usually in the form of alarmingly juvenile kicks at Bono and U2. They're a solid rock band who put on an incredible show and have tried to use some of their wealth and celebrity to push a noble cause.

At any rate, Bono feels passionate about these issues and has been effective (remember he's the only rock star who has been named Time's Person of the Year). But he is also tied to a bigger group of Nobel Prize economists and philanthropists, including Jeffrey Sachs and Bill Gates, who realize that poverty, disease and desperation have led to the ride of terrorism, war and events such as 9/11. They set the agenda, Bono is the spokesman and marketer.

Bono has put a great deal of his wealth, time and reputation on the line to work on these issues. He's not a poser. It's the real deal.

Zod, you are horribly misinformed and cynical. Please research the One Campaign, the goals of Jubilee 2000, the international risks of letting Malaria and AIDS spread in Africa, and the rise of al-qaeda before taking a position as an oppressed citizen of the world.

P.S. -- Maybe we should spend some of that international aid on education, namely spelling. It's Hypocrisy, not "Hypocricy."

JD Sal

petrocs wrote:

...OH..JD Sal..U2 donated $30 million dollars to charity this year..it was a figure that leaked out from a reporter who dug deep and the band wasnt too thrilled to have it known cause they wanted it anonymous..now that $750,000 a day isnt to house the show..its what it costs them in trucks and salary...so there are people with jobs making good money because of this tour. Now I ask you...would thousands of people have these jobs IF U2 wasnt touring?

I still have a problem with it Petrocs. It's extremely noble that U2 donates millions to charity, but why do they need to spend almost a million dollars a day for their tour? I understand that is puts some people to work, but does it justify the elaborate set up and unncecessary expenditure? It my mind, the answer is no. For me, it's more of a philosophical difference. Pearl Jam doesn't need a 100 foot high claw, or whatever the ridiculous prop is that U2 uses. Pearl Jam's music speaks for itself live. And I feel that U2 is musically gifted enough to just play their tunes without all of the extras.

Here's a comparison...my wife was watching a show on VH1 and they showed a $400 bottle of skin moisturizer that Beyonce uses every day. Now, even if Beyonce donates a lot to charity, does anyone really need to spend $400 a day on moisturizer? Absolutely not. Does a band really need to spend a million dollars on a day on their tour setup and props? Absolutely not. It's hypocritical.

And to Johnny Sitar, yes we are all hypocrites in some way - "if you hate something, don't you do it too?" But how can you do so much for charity then basically throw money out of the window? Now, I own 2 hybrids, I recycle cans / bottles / plastics / paper every day, I started a green program at work, etc. If I do all that, then leave the lights on in my house all day when I'm not home, isn't that counterproductive to my efforts to reduce carbon emissions and help do my part? It's the same example with Bono and U2. Yes, they help out immensely with charitable work, but they also live a life that is completely hypocritical to their stances, and I have a problem with that. I understand they are millionaires and aren't going to live a middle class lifestyle, but the million dollar a day cost to house their tour is completely unncessary and that money could be put to much better use.

Hammartime33

Zod wrote:

yield2me wrote:

Zod wrote:

In the previous thread, someone asked why not consider pearl jam hypocritical as they also support various causes.

I think they key difference, is I don't recally Mr. Vedder going to the head of our government and asking for a percentage of domestic revenue. Pearl Jam's supports when/where they can, under the radar, and they don't go telling us to donate, or trying to force us to donate to anyone.

Bono was actually asking for a percentage of countries GDP to cure world hunger. I think the cause is very noble. That money would come from taxes, taxes of which a majority comes from the middle class. So he's asking people who are less off then himself to donate.

It just seems off to me. Some people are supporting their families on 50k a year.. some people are better off with multiple 50k salaries. It depends on the person/family. But to ask a government to do that, without considering the consequences of people less of than yourself... its cocky.

I think it'd be better if he went after people instead of governments.. allow people who can afford it to donate.. I think sucking it through taxes is the wrong way to go.

I'm not sure if I agree with you on this. World hunger is a worldwide problem that anyone who can afford to eat should be able to give something to help. The GDP that Bono was asking for was a small amount and when you divide that amount by the # of people living in the countries and their actual individual contribution, it works out to about $2.00 each. I think the major countries of the world could afford to ask their people to give $2.00. Also, by going about it through governments you ensure that everyone participates, whereas if you just ask people to give, most of the time they won't even though they can afford it.

For example, I see an advertisement on tv that is asking for money for starving kids in Africa. I feel bad for them and I think "I really should give some money to this organization." Then the ad ends and Ghost Hunters comes back on and I instantly forget. Now, if the president came on tv and said that the USA would be donating a certain amount of $ to Bono's cause and that it works out to each of us giving $2.00, I would have no problem with that. It's not egotistical for Bono to do what he is doing, it's admirable in my opinion.

My gripe isn't that its a bad idea. It's that a guy who's f'in rich is telling people who are less off than him to give their money. I'm not arguing the idea of giving food too poor people, I'm arguing a rich guy telling middle class people to pay for it. Sure Bono/U2 donates, and its alot more then any of us could do, as their incomes are higher. But a guy who probably takes home a salary in the millions every year, and has millions in the bank, is asking people who live paycheque to paycheque to pay for his idea.

Am I the only one things Bono's a tool for doing that? I don't think his idea is bad. Feeding the poor is good. I think the fact he goes around asking people who make way less than he does, to pay for his idea, while he lives in luxury is retarded.

The one thing that made me donate in the last few years, was watching a series with Ewam McGregor and Charlie Boorman called Long Way Round (and a sequel called Long Way Down). They kind of went around the world on motorbikes. On the way they stopped at various unicef places and what not.

I had no idea Unicef did all this cool stuff (one example was they still help victims of chernobyl and their offspring). and cool stuff like that. I know Obi-Wan's got more cash in the bank then me. But he didn't have ask my goverment to force me to donate. I donated cause he stuck it on tv, and I thought it was a good cause.

Pearl Jam help's alot of organizations, but they don't go out saying everyone should be forced to donate. It'd be hypocritical as they live better then most people.

If Bono used his fame to promote the causes, run fundraisers, and raise awerness it doesn't bug me. It bugs me when he wants governments to take the cash from its citizens while he lives it up in his big f'in house.

Thats all. If the dude were really serious his own personal wealth could probably whipe out the debt of a few 3rd world countries, and he'd still have more left then I'll ever have.

good read as always

EddieLedBetter

Like Tim Tebow?

Zod

Wow some backlash to what I started

I just thought I'd re-iterate my argument. I'm not arguing against musicians support charity causes and I'm not arguing against them promoting them.

I arguing against them lobbying governments for forced donation while they live in luxury themselves. I guess the Bono thing got to me in this stretch where I'd finished university, but couldn't find work. So I was working a crpapy job barely paying the bills, and I saw him on the news, and it upset me, because he didn't seem to realize what kind of people a tax hike might effect.

I'm better off that I was 3 or 4 years ago. I do donate money (usually to Unicef), but I like choosing who I donate too. Bono's cause is noble, but it sits the wrong way with me, when you see how much money he wastes, and how well he lives. Thats all.

Most musicians/famous people don't hit the government up for money, but they do promote causes. I'm all for that, and its a good way to use your fame. I'm just against forced donation, because not everyone in Canada would be able to absorb higher taxes. Usually i'm a little left wing, but I guess I'm a little on the right with this one. People should be able to choose their causes, not be forced into them.

velogator

yield2me wrote:

Zod wrote:

In the previous thread, someone asked why not consider pearl jam hypocritical as they also support various causes.

I think they key difference, is I don't recally Mr. Vedder going to the head of our government and asking for a percentage of domestic revenue. Pearl Jam's supports when/where they can, under the radar, and they don't go telling us to donate, or trying to force us to donate to anyone.

Bono was actually asking for a percentage of countries GDP to cure world hunger. I think the cause is very noble. That money would come from taxes, taxes of which a majority comes from the middle class. So he's asking people who are less off then himself to donate.

It just seems off to me. Some people are supporting their families on 50k a year.. some people are better off with multiple 50k salaries. It depends on the person/family. But to ask a government to do that, without considering the consequences of people less of than yourself... its cocky.

I think it'd be better if he went after people instead of governments.. allow people who can afford it to donate.. I think sucking it through taxes is the wrong way to go.

I'm not sure if I agree with you on this. World hunger is a worldwide problem that anyone who can afford to eat should be able to give something to help. The GDP that Bono was asking for was a small amount and when you divide that amount by the # of people living in the countries and their actual individual contribution, it works out to about $2.00 each. I think the major countries of the world could afford to ask their people to give $2.00. Also, by going about it through governments you ensure that everyone participates, whereas if you just ask people to give, most of the time they won't even though they can afford it.

For example, I see an advertisement on tv that is asking for money for starving kids in Africa. I feel bad for them and I think "I really should give some money to this organization." Then the ad ends and Ghost Hunters comes back on and I instantly forget. Now, if the president came on tv and said that the USA would be donating a certain amount of $ to Bono's cause and that it works out to each of us giving $2.00, I would have no problem with that. It's not egotistical for Bono to do what he is doing, it's admirable in my opinion.

Spot on, totally agree...either we all donate $2.00 or we (the U.S.) can knock a couple billion dollars off of the $700+ billion defense department budget to kick in to feed the hungary

velogator

Snoopy Died For Our Sins wrote:

p.s.


we are all guilty of hypocricy

This is also spot on, we are ALL guilty of some form of hypocracy...it only varies by degrees. And one question, how does everyone on this board know what Bono, Springsteen, or our PJ guys net worth's are? I have no idea myself...seems like we are ascribing more worth (financially speaking) to them then they themselves have...just a thought.

petrocs

JD Sal wrote:

petrocs wrote:

...OH..JD Sal..U2 donated $30 million dollars to charity this year..it was a figure that leaked out from a reporter who dug deep and the band wasnt too thrilled to have it known cause they wanted it anonymous..now that $750,000 a day isnt to house the show..its what it costs them in trucks and salary...so there are people with jobs making good money because of this tour. Now I ask you...would thousands of people have these jobs IF U2 wasnt touring?

I still have a problem with it Petrocs. It's extremely noble that U2 donates millions to charity, but why do they need to spend almost a million dollars a day for their tour? I understand that is puts some people to work, but does it justify the elaborate set up and unncecessary expenditure? It my mind, the answer is no. For me, it's more of a philosophical difference. Pearl Jam doesn't need a 100 foot high claw, or whatever the ridiculous prop is that U2 uses. Pearl Jam's music speaks for itself live. And I feel that U2 is musically gifted enough to just play their tunes without all of the extras.

Here's a comparison...my wife was watching a show on VH1 and they showed a $400 bottle of skin moisturizer that Beyonce uses every day. Now, even if Beyonce donates a lot to charity, does anyone really need to spend $400 a day on moisturizer? Absolutely not. Does a band really need to spend a million dollars on a day on their tour setup and props? Absolutely not. It's hypocritical.

And to Johnny Sitar, yes we are all hypocrites in some way - "if you hate something, don't you do it too?" But how can you do so much for charity then basically throw money out of the window? Now, I own 2 hybrids, I recycle cans / bottles / plastics / paper every day, I started a green program at work, etc. If I do all that, then leave the lights on in my house all day when I'm not home, isn't that counterproductive to my efforts to reduce carbon emissions and help do my part? It's the same example with Bono and U2. Yes, they help out immensely with charitable work, but they also live a life that is completely hypocritical to their stances, and I have a problem with that. I understand they are millionaires and aren't going to live a middle class lifestyle, but the million dollar a day cost to house their tour is completely unncessary and that money could be put to much better use.

Do some businesses NEED to spend $750,000 a day for employees? I mean seriously come on...its not like someone is saying U2 is making $750,000 a day and they are screwing their workers by paying them minimun wage..we're talking about thousands of people with JOBS during hard times..The band isnt trying to rape anyone for ticket prices..this is a win win for everyone EXCEPT the band. Note they havent turned a profit.

Bono and U2 are trying to bring a spectacle..its the same in movies and theatre as it is in music. Do they need it? nope..have you seen this tour? Its amazing. The stage they built really brings the crowd and the band that much closer and the video screen is absolutely breathtaking. I had NO problem dropping my $55 for a ticket..oh..and btw...most bands like the Who, Genesis, Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney and others charge $100+ for EVERY ticket in the house and they dont offer any sort of stage show and most play for a whole lot less time than U2..the U2 tour is worth every penny. Ticket prices are reasonable ($30, $55, $95, and SOME $250 seats) Now where I am not a big fan of the $250 price tag I understand that sometimes there are certain tickets that might cost a bit more.

JD Sal

petrocs wrote:

Do some businesses NEED to spend $750,000 a day for employees? I mean seriously come on...its not like someone is saying U2 is making $750,000 a day and they are screwing their workers by paying them minimun wage..we're talking about thousands of people with JOBS during hard times..The band isnt trying to rape anyone for ticket prices..this is a win win for everyone EXCEPT the band. Note they havent turned a profit.

Bono and U2 are trying to bring a spectacle..its the same in movies and theatre as it is in music. Do they need it? nope..have you seen this tour? Its amazing. The stage they built really brings the crowd and the band that much closer and the video screen is absolutely breathtaking. I had NO problem dropping my $55 for a ticket..oh..and btw...most bands like the Who, Genesis, Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney and others charge $100+ for EVERY ticket in the house and they dont offer any sort of stage show and most play for a whole lot less time than U2..the U2 tour is worth every penny. Ticket prices are reasonable ($30, $55, $95, and SOME $250 seats) Now where I am not a big fan of the $250 price tag I understand that sometimes there are certain tickets that might cost a bit more.

To clarify, U2 will eventually make a profit off of this tour, they just haven't yet. And that's exactly the point. If they are not worried about breaking even during the first part of this tour, then why spend all of that money for stage set up / props / employees / whatever when it is absolutely unnecessary. The money they are wasting could easily be put toward fighting hunger. Surely you see this as hypocritical? I mean, it's not like they are doing some great humanitarian work here by having the elaborate props and employing a bunch of underprivileged folks to set it up every night.

I look at it this way -- the current U2 tour goes from 6/30 - 10/28, or 120 days. At $750,000 per day, they are spending $90,000,000 dollars in 4 months just to employ people to lug around their 100 foot claw. When Bono is lobbying governments to essentially tax their citizens to cover a percentage of the country's GDP in order to help fight global hunger, how can you look at $90 million in expenses over a 4-month period and say that is justifiable?

petrocs

JD Sal wrote:

petrocs wrote:

Do some businesses NEED to spend $750,000 a day for employees? I mean seriously come on...its not like someone is saying U2 is making $750,000 a day and they are screwing their workers by paying them minimun wage..we're talking about thousands of people with JOBS during hard times..The band isnt trying to rape anyone for ticket prices..this is a win win for everyone EXCEPT the band. Note they havent turned a profit.

Bono and U2 are trying to bring a spectacle..its the same in movies and theatre as it is in music. Do they need it? nope..have you seen this tour? Its amazing. The stage they built really brings the crowd and the band that much closer and the video screen is absolutely breathtaking. I had NO problem dropping my $55 for a ticket..oh..and btw...most bands like the Who, Genesis, Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney and others charge $100+ for EVERY ticket in the house and they dont offer any sort of stage show and most play for a whole lot less time than U2..the U2 tour is worth every penny. Ticket prices are reasonable ($30, $55, $95, and SOME $250 seats) Now where I am not a big fan of the $250 price tag I understand that sometimes there are certain tickets that might cost a bit more.

To clarify, U2 will eventually make a profit off of this tour, they just haven't yet. And that's exactly the point. If they are not worried about breaking even during the first part of this tour, then why spend all of that money for stage set up / props / employees / whatever when it is absolutely unnecessary. The money they are wasting could easily be put toward fighting hunger. Surely you see this as hypocritical? I mean, it's not like they are doing some great humanitarian work here by having the elaborate props and employing a bunch of underprivileged folks to set it up every night.

I look at it this way -- the current U2 tour goes from 6/30 - 10/28, or 120 days. At $750,000 per day, they are spending $90,000,000 dollars in 4 months just to employ people to lug around their 100 foot claw. When Bono is lobbying governments to essentially tax their citizens to cover a percentage of the country's GDP in order to help fight global hunger, how can you look at $90 million in expenses over a 4-month period and say that is justifiable?

It costs over $90 million to make a hollywood blockbuster. Does anyone ask Warner Bro or Fox why spend that kind of money? Do you think they take the hundreds of millions in profit and give it to the poor? U2 gave away 1/3 of the money they will make this year. the rest has gone to the workers...all to put on a show for their fans to remember. I dont find it hypocritical at all. Is it excessive? maybe. But they have earned the right to do what they wish. KISS has always been over the top..Rolling Stones have always been over the top with their setups...why criticize U2. They are at least donating large amounts of money to worthy charities. What worthy charities are the other bands trying to save? WM3? Baby Seals? Nothing? U2 is trying to help save LIVES HUMAN LIVES..any amount of money they donate is honorable. And it IS up to the governments to do something..not just Bono..hes just setting the example

Oh...and for the record...U2 hasnt had a tour like this in over 13 years...they have had a stripped down setup for the last 2 tours. Maybe they just wanted to give back to the fans this time..spend a ton..I highly doubt they are gonna make much from this tour. Live Nation and the workers will benefit more than the band this time.

JD Sal

petrocs wrote:

It costs over $90 million to make a hollywood blockbuster. Does anyone ask Warner Bro or Fox why spend that kind of money?

That is different, although I still find it excessive. Will a studio be able to make a hollywood blockbuster movie with an extremely low budget and still be profitable? Probably not. Can U2 spend considerably less than $90 million dollars on a 4-month tour and still profit substantially? Absolutely.

KISS has always been over the top..Rolling Stones have always been over the top with their setups...why criticize U2.

Because this thread is about U2 and Bono.

They are at least donating large amounts of money to worthy charities. What worthy charities are the other bands trying to save? WM3? Baby Seals? Nothing? U2 is trying to help save LIVES HUMAN LIVES..any amount of money they donate is honorable.

I agree that saving human lives is more important than saving baby seals. But again, how can you lobby governments to tax citizens for money to help fight hunger when you spend $90,000,000 in 4 months on a concert tour? It's ridiculous. Someone in this thread said the Edge had no answer for it. Couldn't explain it or justify it. Seems like you can't either.

Oh...and for the record...U2 hasnt had a tour like this in over 13 years...they have had a stripped down setup for the last 2 tours. Maybe they just wanted to give back to the fans this time..spend a ton..I highly doubt they are gonna make much from this tour. Live Nation and the workers will benefit more than the band this time.

For the record, if Pearl Jam every spends $90,000,000 on a 4-month tour and has a 100 foot claw as part of their stage set up, I will not attend any of those shows.

petrocs

JD Sal wrote:

petrocs wrote:

It costs over $90 million to make a hollywood blockbuster. Does anyone ask Warner Bro or Fox why spend that kind of money?

That is different, although I still find it excessive. Will a studio be able to make a hollywood blockbuster movie with an extremely low budget and still be profitable? Probably not. Can U2 spend considerably less than $90 million dollars on a 4-month tour and still profit substantially? Absolutely.

Plenty of movies have been made for minisule budgets (accoridng to Hollywood) and have turned an excessive profit...look at My Big Fat Greek Wedding, District 9, The Proposal, The Hangover and most Horror movies remakes..why dont THEY donate money to help better the world!

They are at least donating large amounts of money to worthy charities. What worthy charities are the other bands trying to save? WM3? Baby Seals? Nothing? U2 is trying to help save LIVES HUMAN LIVES..any amount of money they donate is honorable.

I agree that saving human lives is more important than saving baby seals. But again, how can you lobby governments to tax citizens for money to help fight hunger when you spend $90,000,000 in 4 months on a concert tour? It's ridiculous. Someone in this thread said the Edge had no answer for it. Couldn't explain it or justify it. Seems like you can't either.

Ugh..why can Bill Gates? why can Steve Jobs? why can any actress or actor? Why can anyone whos rich? cause they are a recognizable figure and thats the only way to get these things across..as sad as that sounds

DB41

I live in Toronto and used Coles Notes in high school.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

bicyclejoe wrote:

P.S. -- Maybe we should spend some of that international aid on education, namely spelling. It's Hypocrisy, not "Hypocricy."

you know, I have no problem with listening to someone's point of view. But tell me, PLEASE, what the HELL is the point of this?? So I used a C instead of an S. Does that make someone's argument less plausible? Get over yourself.