[Politics_Observer]

Listening to Sharon Osbourne talk about this incident reminds me of what I read about how the rich in Roman times would bring disenfranchised gladiators in to their parties and have them fight to their deaths as the rich looked on and laughed and thought it was all funny as the gladiators died a horrible gruesome bloody death. All for the sick entertainment and sick pleasure of rich people and to the laughter of rich people who all thought it was funny.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Listening to Sharon Osbourne talk, remembering what I read about Roman times, it makes me wonder if many of our wealthy have this sick kind of mentality. Is this what rich people are like? Where is the criminal liability for Sharon Osbourne in this case for sending one of her employees into a fire with an oxygen mask to retrieve one of her paintings? This is criminal negligence on her part. Her husband's assistant is not a trained fireman nor should he risk his life for any of her paintings (and why in God's name would he even agree to go into a burning house/mansion to retrieve one of her damned paintings). But I guess some people like Sharon Osbourne and Trump really are above the law and that it is a myth that "nobody is above the law." Am I wrong here? It doesn't seem like I am. Thoughts anybody?

Sharon Osbourne has a shocking confession.
The co-host of CBS' "The Talk" appeared on the BBC hit show "Would I Lie To You?" Christmas special and made a wicked claim.
The panel show features celebrity guests who tell some true and some not-so-true tales to the fellow guests, who have to decide whether the guest is telling the truth.
In this case, Osbourne claims it's all true.

Osbourne says that during a house fire that started after she and her husband, Ozzy Osbourne, accidentally left a candle burning, she forced a former assistant to go back into the blaze to recover precious artwork.
She also said that once the paramedics arrived, she proceeded to rip the staffer's oxygen mask off his face and give it to her dog instead.

But despite taking on the daring task of entering the burning home, the former assistant was fired, she said on the BBC broadcast.
Why? Because the staffer didn't laugh about the incident.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/27/entertai ... index.html

Here is the video where Sharon says this is all true by her own admission:

Edit:

There is this too-

Sharon Osbourne has revealed she forced a former employee into her burning house to save artwork, before terminating their employment for not laughing about the situation afterwards.

Osbourne made the confession on the Would I Lie To You? Christmas special, admitting she tore an oxygen mask off the assistant’s face and gave it to one of her dogs before sending him back inside the fire.

She woke up his assistant, ordering him to “go in and get the paintings out.”

When he initially refused, Sharon told him: “How very dare you. You work here and you get more paintings out right now.”

Sharon added: “I took the mask and I put it on my dog. After this terrible night he was not talking to me. Ozzy and I were recounting everything and we were laughing and laughing. He goes, ‘I don’t see what is funny about any of this. I think I’m going to have damaged lungs.’

That's an evil heartless woman (Sharon Osbourne) right there without a soul.

https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/cele ... 21906.html

[BigSteve]

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Listening to Sharon Osbourne talk, remembering what I read about Roman times, it makes me wonder if many of our wealthy have this sick kind of mentality. Is this what rich people are like?

Your post fails for two reasons.

First, if you're going to ask that question, it should be concluded that we can we also fairly ask if all blacks are criminals and smoke crack? Certainly many are and do, but I don't believe for a second that they all are. But, if we apply your logic it would be a perfectly fair question, right?

Second, Donald Trump has exactly nothing to do with this, yet you ignorantly invoke his name as though he does. Should we also include people like Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey?

Where is the criminal liability for Sharon Osbourne in this case for sending one of her employees into a fire with an oxygen mask to retrieve one of her paintings?

There is none. Osbourne didn't put a gun to his head...

This is criminal negligence on her part.

It's really not...

Her husband's assistant is not a trained fireman nor should he risk his life for any of her paintings (and why in God's name would he even agreeto go into a burning house/mansion to retrieve one of her damned paintings).

And there it is. He agreed. He chose to do it...

[Politics_Observer]

@BigSteve

Stop trying to defend the indefensible. The correct answer is "there is no excuse in what she did to this guy who desperately needed his job." The guy has to eat to survive and that means he probably needed the job. There was a power imbalance and she ruthlessly took full advantage of that power imbalance and put his life un-necessarily at risk. His job wasn't a fireman. His job was a servant. Firemen at least have proper equipment and training, he did not. But I agree, he should have told her he wasn't going to go into that house despite the power imbalance he was faced with (that's what I would have done but if I knew her personality and what kind of person she was, I wouldn't have taken a job working for her in the first place). He doesn't owe her his life or lungs when working as a servant. I can't work for somebody like that. This is why you need unions: a safe workplace as realistically as possible. Sharon Osbourne didn't provide that to her employees and she certainly wasn't going to go into that house herself and save her own paintings.

[AFAIK]

I don't know what's worse sending your underling into a burning building or posting spoilers without warning.

[MistyTiger]

Sharon Osbourne has a maniacal laugh. I am not surprised that she ordered the assistant to do that.

I think the assistant should have quit on the spot. No job is worth doing anything against OSHA regulations. He can find work elsewhere.

[Politics_Observer]

@MistyTiger

That woman is pure evil. And to be honest with you, I can see Trump ordering his underlings doing something like that too (and worse). A lot of his underlings have gone to jail and taken the fall for his criminal conduct. At least this poor fellow who was fired by Sharon Osbourne didn't go to jail like some who worked for Trump taking the fall for him. That's how it works in the real world.

Managers in the work place and people with power try to pass liability off on their underlings and make their underlings take the liability for the wrong doings of those with power. I have worked in a place where my manager or those with power tried to pull that with me and I wasn't having it.

And there are smart crafty ways to give them some payback too. Sometimes you have to give some payback because that's the only way they are going to learn not to abuse their power quite frankly speaking and not to mess with you or mistreat other people. You want to be smart about it though.

[BigSteve]

@BigSteve

Stop trying to defend the indefensible.

I didn't defend Osbourne an iota...

[Politics_Observer]

@BigSteve

Sharon looked like an ugly oppressor in this situation. The way she acted reminded me of what I read about and what I have saw in the movie "12 Years A Slave" in some ways of the wealthy white southern slave master and his wife and how they treated their slaves in their household as dehumanized property. They were oppressors and in this case so was Sharon. Ugly oppressors. Slaves of course were whipped and treated more harshly in all aspects of their enslavement, but still, her actions reminded me of the wealthy white southern slave master and his wife during ante-bellum times prior to the American Civil War that I read about and watched in the movies. Of course, the English are also known for conquering lands, colonizing them and enslaving the natives and Sharon certainly seems to fit that pattern. And of course a lot of the wealthy white slave owners in the south here in America during ante-bellum times had English ancestry.

[BigSteve]

@BigSteve

Sharon looked like an ugly oppressor in this situation. The way she acted reminded me of what I read about and what I have saw in the movie "12 Years A Slave" in some ways of the wealthy white southern slave master and his wife and how they treated their slaves in their household as dehumanized property. They were oppressors and in this case so was Sharon. Ugly oppressors. Slaves of course were whipped and treated more harshly in all aspects of their enslavement, but still, her actions reminded me of the wealthy white southern slave master and his wife during ante-bellum times prior to the American Civil War that I read about and watched in the movies.

But that's not nearly what you posted.

You were bitching about "our wealthy " (I don't even know what that's supposed to mean), not slave owners...

[Politics_Observer]

@BigSteve

Sharon is not the only wealthy person who acts this way. Look at Trump and some of the others. We have wealthy here in the US who act the same way. My comparison to slave times to today is relevant because as they say, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

[BigSteve]

@BigSteve

Sharon is not the only wealthy person who acts this way. Look at Trump and some of the others. We have wealthy here in the US who act the same way. My comparison to slave times to today is relevant because as they say, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Invoking Trump was stupid. Please provide something to back up your stupid assertion that Trump acts this way...

[skytree]

Invoking Trump was stupid. Please provide something to back up your stupid assertion that Trump acts this way...

Trump personally didn't do that, but his fellow party member Bush Jr. under his president tenacy did by falsely claimly there was WMDs in Iraq, invading a sovereign country, beheading the ruler, killing numerous Iraqi civilians and asking their American soldiers to die in the battlefield.

Both Trump and Bush Jr who stand for the Elephant party. Don't tell me Trump is Trump, and Bush is Bush.

[BigSteve]

Trump personally didn't do that, but his fellow party member Bush Jr. under his president tenacy did by falsely claimly there was WMDs in Iraq, invading a sovereign country, beheading the ruler, killing numerous Iraqi civilians and asking their American soldiers to die in the battlefield.

Both Trump and Bush Jr who stand for the Elephant party. Don't tell me Trump is Trump, and Bush is Bush.

Again, it's stupid and ignorant to start whining about Trump and any other GOP President you don't like.

The story as about Sharon Osbourne and "rich" people, and how the suggestion that she was, somehow representative of "rich people" is fucking stupid.

You libs are really so butthurt over losing the election that you feel the need to bring Trump into a discussion about Sharon Osbourne?

That's fucking pathetic...

[Politics_Observer]

@BigSteve

I didn't agree with the Iraq war. Sure Saddam was a tyrant, but he was no threat to the US. It was a strategic mistake to invade Iraq plus Bush thought playing with the dogs of war wouldn't come with any serious costs or wouldn't be a big deal. But he learned the hard way. Plus, the notion of WMD was a big lie to manufacture a pre-text to invade Iraq and remove Saddam even though Bush and his cabinet knew there were no WMD in Iraq and that though Saddam was an evil tyrant, he had posed no threat to the US. His attention should have remained solely on the war in Afghanistan and killing or capturing Osama Bin Laden.

There was no reason to invade Iraq especially since we were already in Afghanistan dealing with a real threat to our national security. But real heroes like General David Petraeus is what saved Bush's ass from a conflict and a violent insurgency that took him by surprise in Iraq. General David Petraeus's leadership saved Bush's ass and our asses in Iraq from the arrogant decision Bush made to invade Iraq.

Iraq was not fun and games and it spiraled out of control quickly and Bush was not expecting that. That's one of the dangers when you play with fire, you can quickly lose control of it and it can spiral out of everybody's control. Arrogance has always been the downfall of many a man. I think Bush learned his lesson though from the Iraq debacle and he learned to appreciate the patriotism and sacrifices our soldiers made in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[colliric]

It has less to do with her being rich and more to do with drugs and alcohol I suspect.

[Politics_Observer]

@colliric

It has less to do with her being rich and more to do with drugs and alcohol I suspect.

I don't know about that. One of my favorite technology magazines I read called "Wired" calls it the "Rich Asshole Syndrome" or in the case of Sharon, the "Rich Bitch Syndrome." The "Rich Asshole Syndrome" as defined by Wired magazine is "the tendency to distance yourself from people with whom you have a large wealth differential."

Now, you may be thinking, “Fuck those guys and the private jets they rode in on.” Fair enough. But here’s the thing: those guys are already fucked. Really. They worked like hell to get where they are—and they’ve got access to more wealth than 99.999 percent of the human beings who have ever lived—but they’re still not where they think they need to be. Without a fundamental change in the way they approach their lives, they’ll never reach their ever-receding goals. And if the futility of their situation ever dawns on them like a dark sunrise, they’re unlikely to receive a lot of sympathy from their friends and family.

What if most rich assholes are made, not born? What if the cold-heartedness so often associated with the upper crust—let's call it Rich Asshole Syndrome—isn’t the result of having been raised by a parade of resentful nannies, too many sailing lessons, or repeated caviar overdoses, but the compounded disappointment of being lucky but still feeling unfulfilled? We’re told that those with the most toys are winning, that money represents points on the scoreboard of life. But what if that tired story is just another facet of a scam in which we’re all getting ripped off?

The Spanish word aislar means both “to insulate” and “to isolate,” which is what most of us do when we get more money. We buy a car so we can stop taking the bus. We move out of the apartment with all those noisy neighbors into a house behind a wall. We stay in expensive, quiet hotels rather than the funky guest houses we used to frequent. We use money to insulate ourselves from the risk, noise, inconvenience. But the insulation comes at the price of isolation. Our comfort requires that we cut ourselves off from chance encounters, new music, unfamiliar laughter, fresh air, and random interaction with strangers. Researchers have concluded again and again that the single most reliable predictor of happiness is feeling embedded in a community.

https://www.wired.com/story/why-are-ric ... e-so-mean/

Edit:

@colliric

Here is an additional quote from the article above that I found even more interesting.

Research conducted at the University of Toronto by Stéphane Côté and colleagues confirms that the rich are less generous than the poor, but their findings suggest it’s more complicated than simply wealth making people stingy. Rather, it’s the distance created by wealth differentials that seems to break the natural flow of human kindness. Côté found that “higher-income individuals are only less generous if they reside in a highly unequal area or when inequality is experimentally portrayed as relatively high.” Rich people were as generous as anyone else when inequality was low. The rich are less generous when inequality is extreme, a finding that challenges the idea that higher-income individuals are just more selfish. If the person who needs help doesn’t seem that different from us, we’ll probably help them out. But if they seem too far away (culturally, economically) we’re less likely to lend a hand.

[BigSteve]

@BigSteve

I didn't agree with the Iraq war. Sure Saddam was a tyrant, but he was no threat to the US. It was a strategic mistake to invade Iraq plus Bush thought playing with the dogs of war wouldn't come with any serious costs or wouldn't be a big deal. But he learned the hard way. Plus, the notion of WMD was a big lie to manufacture a pre-text to invade Iraq and remove Saddam even though Bush and his cabinet knew there were no WMD in Iraq and that though Saddam was an evil tyrant, he had posed no threat to the US. His attention should have remained solely on the war in Afghanistan and killing or capturing Osama Bin Laden.

There was no reason to invade Iraq especially since we were already in Afghanistan dealing with a real threat to our national security. But real heroes like General David Petraeus is what saved Bush's ass from a conflict and a violent insurgency that took him by surprise in Iraq. General David Petraeus's leadership saved Bush's ass and our asses in Iraq from the arrogant decision Bush made to invade Iraq.

Iraq was not fun and games and it spiraled out of control quickly and Bush was not expecting that. That's one of the dangers when you play with fire, you can quickly lose control of it and it can spiral out of everybody's control. Arrogance has always been the downfall of many a man. I think Bush learned his lesson though from the Iraq debacle and he learned to appreciate the patriotism and sacrifices our soldiers made in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Holy fucking Christ.

Stop talking about the Gulf War. It's making you look stupid because it has exactly NOTHING to do with the original point of the thread...

[BigSteve]

This is me on my way to work in 2010. That's me, laid back on the couch in my company's Hawker 850 XP...





Business jets fuckin' rock...

[Politics_Observer]

@BigSteve

That's funny dude! I am glad you have been very successful. I come from a lower middle class family, so for me, even if I had that kind of wealth, I don't think I personally would spend it on a private plane (of course I say that now, but you never know what people will do it until it happens to them). I would want to give some of my money to my college because they are doing such a wonderful job educating me but I think I would also give some of my money to a decent college that only admits poor students in Kentucky that way the less fortunate have a shot at a college education too.

A lot of rich people say to remain successful, you have to learn to say "No" a lot as well which is understandable. Still, I think it's important to give back on some level (but I also think it's important not to over-do it or feel like you owe anybody anything). If I were to become rich (and I doubt that I will), I hope I don't lose my connection to society and to the people who made me who I am today. I still keep in touch with my fellow veterans I served with in Afghanistan 10 years later. I give some of them rides to the Veterans Administration hospital because they need the ride and are not wealthy themselves or because their disabilities makes it hard for them to drive. A lot of them try to give me money for gas but I refuse to take it because I know these are my brothers and they gave a lot to our country plus they need the money themselves.

Still, because my school has done a wonderful job educating me, I feel obligated to give back to them as well. I am still in school so I am a poor smuck living off veterans benefits for the time being till I complete my education goals. Even if I never get rich, I am OK with that because I value education more than being wealthy. I of course hope to be comfortable in life but I don't have to be rich. I also want to be the best computer professional I can be and to be sought after for my expertise.

One of my friends has a sociology degree and he says it's a myth that we have 3 social classes. Instead, we have 6 social classes. You have the poor, the working poor, the working class, lower middle class, upper middle class and the wealthy elite. Those are the 6 social classes that exist in society. He sent me all kinds of information on it.

As most everybody knows, the wealthy elite hold all the real power in society and that is what my friend tells me as well and he talks about how he studied the various social classes while he was attending university to earn his sociology degree. Your engineers and lawyers and doctors and computer professionals are part of the upper middle class where the wealthy elite is the capitalist class which has a ton of money and capital and they can take their money and put it to work for them to make more money. They are like the titans of industry and such or your old money.

Edit:

@BigSteve

Holy fucking Christ.

Stop talking about the Gulf War. It's making you look stupid because it has exactly NOTHING to do with the original point of the thread...

Dude, you need to calm down and stop being a thread Nazi or just a Nazi in general (after all you are a Trump supporter). You are going to give yourself an aneurysm being all emotional like that. I am not one of your employees that you can order around. If I want to talk about the Gulf War, I'll talk about the Gulf War and there isn't anything YOU can do about it. So calm down and learn you can't control everything and everybody despite you being one of those rich assholes. I didn't see you had double posted. People who get overly emotional seem to double post at times instead of editing their original post when they have something further to say. Double posting is not necessary. Just edit your original post if you have something else to say so that you can communicate more effectively here on the forum with everybody. While you are at it, learn the basics of using a computer and get up with the 21st century. Technology is your friend.

[skytree]

Again, it's stupid and ignorant to start whining about Trump and any other GOP President you don't like.

The story as about Sharon Osbourne and "rich" people, and how the suggestion that she was, somehow representative of "rich people" is fucking stupid.

You libs are really so butthurt over losing the election that you feel the need to bring Trump into a discussion about Sharon Osbourne?

That's fucking pathetic...

First, you are saying " Invoking Trump was stupid. Pleaseprovide something to back up your stupid assertion that Trump acts this way..."
I simply list how GOP presidents do very bad to American people. The Presidents of the USA stands for the government but not themselves.

Trump stands for his party, hist interest party. Do you understand the logic?

Former German Chancellor also knelt down the Jews and apologised. Do you understand why?

Now you are saying people stray away from the topic?

Second, you keep claiming other people's comments are stupid if other people's views cross yours. What's the standard of cleverness? It's all your subjective feeling.

The rhetoric do not show your intelligence at all. Sorry.