Oh, I know she does . . . the only problem I have with Oprah is the way in which she tends to publicize her good works in order to promote her "brand". I much prefer the more reserved charity of a Bill Gates or the late Malcolm Forbes, people who recognized the ability to use their influence for a higher purpose, but did not feel the need to shout, "Look at me !!!", or invite the press along, at every turn.
Oh, I know she does . . . the only problem I have with Oprah is the way in which she tends to publicize her good works in order to promote her "brand". I much prefer the more reserved charity of a Bill Gates or the late Malcolm Forbes, people who recognized the ability to use their influence for a higher purpose, but did not feel the need to shout, "Look at me !!!", or invite the press along, at every turn.
Would she have had as much power to help people had she not made a spectacle of the people and products with which she helped?
Oprah's success came, originally, from the success of her talk show. She has expanded over time to become a media conglomerate, hence the launch of the Oprah network (via Discovery Channel, I think). She would still have the power to influence and assist others regardless of how publicly she did so, simply because of her immense wealth. Bill Gates is not exactly a glitzy guy but, by the time he passes, an overwhelming majority of his wealth will have been dispersed through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to charities all over the world (on the order of 90%+, I believe). But you do not see Microsoft ads shilling for his charity;at least I have not seen them, anyway.
It is merely a choice of approach . . . you will never hear me try to discredit the good things that any person attempts to do, but I find some approaches more palatable than others.
bwahahahah, yeah Microsoft is certainly a great example of selfless charity...:rolleyes:
How bout you look back over their 'donations' and discount any of like ...computer labs for schools, as those are really just front end loaded purchasing agreements where they teach kids to be better and more devoted clients.
bwahahahah, yeah Microsoft is certainly a great example of selfless charity...:rolleyes:
How bout you look back over their 'donations' and discount any of like ...computer labs for schools, as those are really just front end loaded purchasing agreements where they teach kids to be better and more devoted clients.
I did not say Microsoft, I said Gates' Foundation. You know, the one that is building schools in Africa (like Oprah, but with out the press releases), or providing AIDS vaccines and fresh drinking water to millions in sub-Saharan Africa. I merely used the lack of shilling in the Microsoft ads as a comparison to Oprah. As for donating computers to school labs, why would you discount that?!? Would they have gotten them otherwise? Are you sure?
Look, Bill Gates is worth over $50 billion USD. By the time he passes, he will have donated more than that amount to charitable works all over the world. I am more impressed with that kind of charity than Oprah's version. Having said that, I will quote Sir Bob Geldof from around the time of the first Live Aid gigs, "I will take money from the devil on my left, and the devil on my right, as long as it gets to the right people in the end."
As I said, it is simply a preference of one "style" over another.
If those #'s are accurate, I am a little surpised . . . seems somewhat low, for all the notoriety she gets. Less than 1%, eh?
Yeah i remember hearing something along those lines and just googled them quickly. I hate to knock anybody who does charitable work, but if there ever was an overated philantropist ...
Mmmmm . . . how dumb do you have to be to not know about AIDS in Africa, or the need for fresh drinking water?
I'm being dumb? Okay . . .
I knew I should've expanded on my last to avoid having to make this stupid post.
How dumb do you think the four people reading this have to be to believe that your last post credits you a win in this debate- and entirely negates the benefit of star power?
Your contention is that Star Power and Celebrity endorsement doesn't help, both the situation and the charitable organizations addressing the crisis..
You can exit stage left, the debate is over and I've now won.
In b4 Milo tries to make this about his personal preference again..which will still NOT alter the fact that he did in fact imply that S/P and C/E aren't useful.
Star power? That's what gets you the win? I always thought charity was about helping the less fortunate, so lets start there.
Oprah, and her star power will get a lot people up in arms about her given cause at any point in time, I will grant you that. Lots of American celebs will come on board for their photo-ops, and Oprah's Angel network (or whatever it's called now) will raise a fair amount of capital. All well and good.
Bill Gates, on the other hand,will be able to reach those same celebs, and he will also spend time talking with Presidents, Kings, CEO's of Fortune 500 companies, Titans of Industry all over the globe, about the problems affecting the poorest on our planet. He can talk to the guy who runs Brita about the need for pure drinking water. He can talk to the CEO of Scholastic (educational materials) about learning amongst the Maoris. He can talk to the Board of Directors of DOW-Corning about Malaria, or GSK about AIDS.
THAT is how you affect change.
THAT is how you make people's lives better.
THAT is called charity.
It is also, I submit, GAME, SET, and MATCH. "cheers:
Star power? That's what gets you the win? I always thought charity was about helping the less fortunate, so lets start there.
False. Charity is almost always driven from either a sense of personal gratification or a sense of obligation. It is almost never anonymous and sheerly kind.... You'll note that the name of the organization you tout is The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. SO POINT ONE: YOU'RE WRONG
Bill Gates, on the other hand,will be able to reach those same celebs, and he will also spend time talking with Presidents, Kings, CEO's of Fortune 500 companies, Titans of Industry all over the globe, about the problems affecting the poorest on our planet. He can talk to the guy who runs Brita about the need for pure drinking water. He can talk to the CEO of Scholastic (educational materials) about learning amongst the Maoris. He can talk to the Board of Directors of DOW-Corning about Malaria, or GSK about AIDS.
lol, and your proof that BG is more effective than Winfrey at this is where?
I've seen Winfrey do amazing things with massive support from all walks of life -celebrity and otherwise- her word is extremely powerful and she'd be an idiot to not use it as best she can.
Your stated dislike of her for using one of her most powerful tools means you'd have her be a LESS successful philanthropist to appease your illogical lust for a false humility that the Gates' themselves don't even aspire to.
But I would like to point out that there is no such thing as an AIDS vaccine.
Mark
Sorry, Mark, you are correct, of course. I was referring to medicines which treat the disease.
Now, speaking slowly so that Kristy gets it, finally. It is not the use of her star power which I find annoying, but rather the self aggrandizement of said star power through the use of her charitable endeavours. The "see how wonderful I am because I am helping out the little kiddies?" air that she projects.
In the realm of charitable works, I will still take Bill Gates over Oprah every day, twice on Saturdays, and thrice on Sundays and holidays. Why? Because in the end, he will be more effective at actually improving the lot of the peoples his Foundation becomes involved with. The shear inevitability of this is QED. A bankroll as large as the one Gates has funded simply has the ability to "buy" whatever it needs to accomplish it's goals. Bill Gates will do more for "charity" in every healthy crap that he takes, than Oprah could ever dream of. That is not bitterness, or envy, merely rational though on the dollars and cents involved in the equation.
One final thought about star power: Back in '85 there was a small little thing called Live Aid. The goal was to alleviate, and draw attention to the drought in Ethiopia/Sudan. Lots of stars from music, entertainment, and even politics were involved. You might have even watched some of it if you were old enough. Millions raised, everybody said all the right things . . . so . . . how'd that work out? Yeah, that start power worked wonders didn't it? Your argument is weak . . . fortunately it is also over, as I have not seen anything that comes close to making me think you are "right".
Star power? That's what gets you the win? I always thought charity was about helping the less fortunate, so lets start there.
Oprah, and her star power will get a lot people up in arms about her given cause at any point in time, I will grant you that. Lots of American celebs will come on board for their photo-ops, and Oprah's Angel network (or whatever it's called now) will raise a fair amount of capital. All well and good.
Bill Gates, on the other hand,will be able to reach those same celebs, and he will also spend time talking with Presidents, Kings, CEO's of Fortune 500 companies, Titans of Industry all over the globe, about the problems affecting the poorest on our planet. He can talk to the guy who runs Brita about the need for pure drinking water. He can talk to the CEO of Scholastic (educational materials) about learning amongst the Maoris. He can talk to the Board of Directors of DOW-Corning about Malaria, or GSK about AIDS.
THAT is how you affect change.
THAT is how you make people's lives better.
THAT is called charity.
It is also, I submit, GAME, SET, and MATCH. "cheers:
Yep totally with Milo on this one. What Oprah achieves is pathetic in comparison to Gates. The Gates foundation is the largest charitable foundation in the world, with 35 BILLION in assets. It donates over 1.5 BILLION per year. Gates quietly uses his pull. Warren Buffet has committed over 30 billion, nearly 50% of his total wealth to be paid to the Gates foundation over the years, which as a condition of the donation an equal amount must be given away in each year in order to receive the next donation. Essentially this doubles the giving of each Buffet donation. Gates doesn't even really work for Microsoft anymore, he really works full time for his foundation. QED.
I kinda snapped at Kristy the other day:( i have been in a bad mood a day or 2.
Thanks everyone for letting me do my sit n go rambling thread, it helps me to let it out if i am on a losing streak or donktards who call with 45,10 7, 9 6 off and hit EVERY FREAKIN time.
Sorry, Mark, you are correct, of course. I was referring to medicines which treat the disease.
Now, speaking slowly so that Kristy gets it, finally. It is not the use of her star power which I find annoying, but rather the self aggrandizement of said star power through the use of her charitable endeavours. The "see how wonderful I am because I am helping out the little kiddies?" air that she projects.
In the realm of charitable works, I will still take Bill Gates over Oprah every day, twice on Saturdays, and thrice on Sundays and holidays. Why? Because in the end, he will be more effective at actually improving the lot of the peoples his Foundation becomes involved with. The shear inevitability of this is QED. A bankroll as large as the one Gates has funded simply has the ability to "buy" whatever it needs to accomplish it's goals. Bill Gates will do more for "charity" in every healthy crap that he takes, than Oprah could ever dream of. That is not bitterness, or envy, merely rational though on the dollars and cents involved in the equation.
One final thought about star power: Back in '85 there was a small little thing called Live Aid. The goal was to alleviate, and draw attention to the drought in Ethiopia/Sudan. Lots of stars from music, entertainment, and even politics were involved. You might have even watched some of it if you were old enough. Millions raised, everybody said all the right things . . . so . . . how'd that work out? Yeah, that start power worked wonders didn't it? Your argument is weak . . . fortunately it is also over, as I have not seen anything that comes close to making me think you are "right".
WTF, when did you add all this bullshit...
Please stop ninja editing all your posts.
You saying you don't begrudge her the use of her star power is complete nonsense. Ask any crazed Oprah-fan what they like about her and they'll answer something along the lines of "She's an angel" That aura that you're hating IS her celebrity.
And I'm going to slam the rest of your's and Moose's stupid posts down simply by reminding you that I never once said that I liked Oprah, nor did I say that the amount of charity work she does is greater in dollars than the amount Bill Gates does.
I said "I don't fault her for pulling out all the stops."
That is the point on which we've debated, that your base dislike of Oprah is flawed.
Comments
And by 2013 Oprah will enough $$$ to buy him out.
hahahaha there's milo bringing a smile to my face yet again on a bad day.
she has enough now to do that.:)
She does alot for people in need you know.
Would she have had as much power to help people had she not made a spectacle of the people and products with which she helped?
Oprah's success came, originally, from the success of her talk show. She has expanded over time to become a media conglomerate, hence the launch of the Oprah network (via Discovery Channel, I think). She would still have the power to influence and assist others regardless of how publicly she did so, simply because of her immense wealth. Bill Gates is not exactly a glitzy guy but, by the time he passes, an overwhelming majority of his wealth will have been dispersed through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to charities all over the world (on the order of 90%+, I believe). But you do not see Microsoft ads shilling for his charity;at least I have not seen them, anyway.
It is merely a choice of approach . . . you will never hear me try to discredit the good things that any person attempts to do, but I find some approaches more palatable than others.
YMMV . . .
How bout you look back over their 'donations' and discount any of like ...computer labs for schools, as those are really just front end loaded purchasing agreements where they teach kids to be better and more devoted clients.
If those #'s are accurate, I am a little surpised . . . seems somewhat low, for all the notoriety she gets. Less than 1%, eh?
I did not say Microsoft, I said Gates' Foundation. You know, the one that is building schools in Africa (like Oprah, but with out the press releases), or providing AIDS vaccines and fresh drinking water to millions in sub-Saharan Africa. I merely used the lack of shilling in the Microsoft ads as a comparison to Oprah. As for donating computers to school labs, why would you discount that?!? Would they have gotten them otherwise? Are you sure?
Look, Bill Gates is worth over $50 billion USD. By the time he passes, he will have donated more than that amount to charitable works all over the world. I am more impressed with that kind of charity than Oprah's version. Having said that, I will quote Sir Bob Geldof from around the time of the first Live Aid gigs, "I will take money from the devil on my left, and the devil on my right, as long as it gets to the right people in the end."
As I said, it is simply a preference of one "style" over another.
Gates is an idiot for not also using his fame to raise awareness.
I'm being dumb? Okay . . . you win.
Everybody happy, now?
Yeah i remember hearing something along those lines and just googled them quickly. I hate to knock anybody who does charitable work, but if there ever was an overated philantropist ...
I knew I should've expanded on my last to avoid having to make this stupid post.
How dumb do you think the four people reading this have to be to believe that your last post credits you a win in this debate- and entirely negates the benefit of star power?
Your contention is that Star Power and Celebrity endorsement doesn't help, both the situation and the charitable organizations addressing the crisis..
You can exit stage left, the debate is over and I've now won.
Oprah, and her star power will get a lot people up in arms about her given cause at any point in time, I will grant you that. Lots of American celebs will come on board for their photo-ops, and Oprah's Angel network (or whatever it's called now) will raise a fair amount of capital. All well and good.
Bill Gates, on the other hand,will be able to reach those same celebs, and he will also spend time talking with Presidents, Kings, CEO's of Fortune 500 companies, Titans of Industry all over the globe, about the problems affecting the poorest on our planet. He can talk to the guy who runs Brita about the need for pure drinking water. He can talk to the CEO of Scholastic (educational materials) about learning amongst the Maoris. He can talk to the Board of Directors of DOW-Corning about Malaria, or GSK about AIDS.
THAT is how you affect change.
THAT is how you make people's lives better.
THAT is called charity.
It is also, I submit, GAME, SET, and MATCH. "cheers:
False. Charity is almost always driven from either a sense of personal gratification or a sense of obligation. It is almost never anonymous and sheerly kind.... You'll note that the name of the organization you tout is The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. SO POINT ONE: YOU'RE WRONG
lol, and your proof that BG is more effective than Winfrey at this is where?
I've seen Winfrey do amazing things with massive support from all walks of life -celebrity and otherwise- her word is extremely powerful and she'd be an idiot to not use it as best she can.
Your stated dislike of her for using one of her most powerful tools means you'd have her be a LESS successful philanthropist to appease your illogical lust for a false humility that the Gates' themselves don't even aspire to.
But I would like to point out that there is no such thing as an AIDS vaccine.
Mark
Sorry, Mark, you are correct, of course. I was referring to medicines which treat the disease.
Now, speaking slowly so that Kristy gets it, finally. It is not the use of her star power which I find annoying, but rather the self aggrandizement of said star power through the use of her charitable endeavours. The "see how wonderful I am because I am helping out the little kiddies?" air that she projects.
In the realm of charitable works, I will still take Bill Gates over Oprah every day, twice on Saturdays, and thrice on Sundays and holidays. Why? Because in the end, he will be more effective at actually improving the lot of the peoples his Foundation becomes involved with. The shear inevitability of this is QED. A bankroll as large as the one Gates has funded simply has the ability to "buy" whatever it needs to accomplish it's goals. Bill Gates will do more for "charity" in every healthy crap that he takes, than Oprah could ever dream of. That is not bitterness, or envy, merely rational though on the dollars and cents involved in the equation.
One final thought about star power: Back in '85 there was a small little thing called Live Aid. The goal was to alleviate, and draw attention to the drought in Ethiopia/Sudan. Lots of stars from music, entertainment, and even politics were involved. You might have even watched some of it if you were old enough. Millions raised, everybody said all the right things . . . so . . . how'd that work out? Yeah, that start power worked wonders didn't it? Your argument is weak . . . fortunately it is also over, as I have not seen anything that comes close to making me think you are "right".
wat?
Also 'tl;dr'
Lastly, for my birthday this year would you please stop signing your posts?
Best. Present. Ever.
What a shit storm I created!!!
LOL
hi Hobbes how are you?:)
How is the direction of your recent thread going?:)
let's all just go to the pokerforum bar and have a drink, i don't like arguments:(
Done. It's the least we can do . . .
Mark.
Mark.
I love you two, Kristy . . .
Mark
Yep totally with Milo on this one. What Oprah achieves is pathetic in comparison to Gates. The Gates foundation is the largest charitable foundation in the world, with 35 BILLION in assets. It donates over 1.5 BILLION per year. Gates quietly uses his pull. Warren Buffet has committed over 30 billion, nearly 50% of his total wealth to be paid to the Gates foundation over the years, which as a condition of the donation an equal amount must be given away in each year in order to receive the next donation. Essentially this doubles the giving of each Buffet donation. Gates doesn't even really work for Microsoft anymore, he really works full time for his foundation. QED.
i love you Kristy and Milo:)
I kinda snapped at Kristy the other day:( i have been in a bad mood a day or 2.
Thanks everyone for letting me do my sit n go rambling thread, it helps me to let it out if i am on a losing streak or donktards who call with 45,10 7, 9 6 off and hit EVERY FREAKIN time.
WTF, when did you add all this bullshit...
Please stop ninja editing all your posts.
You saying you don't begrudge her the use of her star power is complete nonsense. Ask any crazed Oprah-fan what they like about her and they'll answer something along the lines of "She's an angel" That aura that you're hating IS her celebrity.
And I'm going to slam the rest of your's and Moose's stupid posts down simply by reminding you that I never once said that I liked Oprah, nor did I say that the amount of charity work she does is greater in dollars than the amount Bill Gates does.
I said "I don't fault her for pulling out all the stops."
That is the point on which we've debated, that your base dislike of Oprah is flawed.
And I did win that one. Ez Game.
Either way, here's a little scratch behind your ears.