Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 49 of 49
  1. #41
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,722
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Aussie Willy View Post
    I think the difference is though not many people would have 3 shows solely dedicated to people fawning over them with over the top and vomit inducing platitudes.
    Or a magazine that they appear on the cover of every single month.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Vancouver Canada
    Age
    55
    Posts
    12,526
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    4753
    Quote Originally Posted by Rafter View Post
    Your logic is flawed IMO. It could be worse. These uber rich people could just choose to give NOTHING away to charity and help NO ONE. Some is better than none at all.
    I agree with you and did not state the contrary. In my post I did acknowledge that Oprah's charity was valuable and that the help she extended was "good".

    But the context I was using probably needs to be clarified.

    First, I am referring to the right wing anti-big government notion that charity and aid are best controlled by the private sector. Note that I did acknowledge that the issue of who deserves help also applies to government.

    Second and more importantly, some believe that the charity Oprah (and others like her) extends has the power to change the world in that the empowerment of others (i.e. education of girls in South Africa) will allow them too to become wealthy. From this perspective, Oprah becomes a saviour. Certainly, her help has the power to change the world for x number of children. But she and those like her still get the biggest pieces of the pie and all the wealth and power that goes with it. And the rich have long given charity to the power, there is nothing new in the notion.

    And the hero worship from those who see Oprah as a saviour is troublesome. I don't think she merits hero status and in real terms, does not challenge or change the status quo. The rich remain rich while the poor get poorer while people like Oprah wield far too much power. And given her extreme largesse she's not exactly making a sacrifice in giving away money. While others of equal largesse may not do the same or as much, it is still not hard for her do. And she gets paid many times over in adulation from the masses and affirmations of her power.

  3. #43
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Dashing Between Bennetton and Krispy Kreme
    Posts
    2,424
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    My favourite Oprah tribute

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcI-rHO0yko

    Queen of the O Face!

  4. #44
    Grooving!
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    southern U.S.
    Posts
    2,036
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I'm amused by the posts calling Oprah "self-important." Oprah's impact and importance is no greater than what "the public" has freely given her! Every book she mentions becomes a best seller. Every business she likes becomes swamped. Every face cream she adores becomes a must-have. How can you not be "important" if you have such enormous influence?

    Yeah, she was annoying at times with it, but the collective "we" made her a deity. She didn't do that herself. Is she always right? No, but apparently the public doesn't know any better. Clearly, a lot of people adored her and put stock in what she had to say.

    Criticizing someone for giving away millions is ridiculous. No one has the right to criticize someone else's charitable choices. How many of your belongings have YOU given up to help the poor? Oprah lives in a capitalist society. She made her money because people willingly watched her show and bought her magazine and paid to see her speak. It's not like she hustled or robbed anybody or forced little kids to work in sweat shops. Honestly, why so critical of a woman who has done so much good, where others would not have?

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    NY/NJ
    Posts
    4,920
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    11643
    ^ What skaternum said.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aussie Willy View Post
    I think the difference is though not many people would have 3 shows solely dedicated to people fawning over them with over the top and vomit inducing platitudes.
    I dunno, Donald Trump's TV show has featured an awful lot of fawning and other vomit-inducing moments.
    "Marge, if you're going to get mad at me every time I do something stupid, then I guess I'm just going to have to stop doing stupid things!" - Homer Simpson in the Mr. Plow episode

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Vancouver Canada
    Age
    55
    Posts
    12,526
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    4753
    Quote Originally Posted by skaternum View Post
    I'm amused by the posts calling Oprah "self-important." Oprah's impact and importance is no greater than what "the public" has freely given her! Every book she mentions becomes a best seller. Every business she likes becomes swamped. Every face cream she adores becomes a must-have. How can you not be "important" if you have such enormous influence?

    Yeah, she was annoying at times with it, but the collective "we" made her a deity. She didn't do that herself. Is she always right? No, but apparently the public doesn't know any better. Clearly, a lot of people adored her and put stock in what she had to say.

    Criticizing someone for giving away millions is ridiculous. No one has the right to criticize someone else's charitable choices. How many of your belongings have YOU given up to help the poor? Oprah lives in a capitalist society. She made her money because people willingly watched her show and bought her magazine and paid to see her speak. It's not like she hustled or robbed anybody or forced little kids to work in sweat shops. Honestly, why so critical of a woman who has
    done so much good, where others would not have?
    I agree with most of what you say skatermum. However, I did not criticize Oprah, I questioned how much applause she merited and the hero worship her fawning public give her.

    And you just can't compare how much ordinary or low income people give to the poor to what Oprah gives. She could give away my entire annual income in five minutes and it would hardly make a dent in her bank account.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Celebrating Jeremy Abbott's FS at 2014 Worlds...
    Posts
    21,094
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    12584
    Quote Originally Posted by Japanfan View Post
    First, I am referring to the right wing anti-big government notion that charity and aid are best controlled by the private sector.
    What you're stating is an oxymoron. Charity and aid from the private sector is a matter of choice by the giver. If the government steps in and tries to control or regulate it, it then ceases to be a charitable donation.
    Gun Control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to buy cars.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Vancouver Canada
    Age
    55
    Posts
    12,526
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    4753
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyn View Post
    What you're stating is an oxymoron. Charity and aid from the private sector is a matter of choice by the giver. If the government steps in and tries to control or regulate it, it then ceases to be a charitable donation.
    Governments give aid. Some people believe that they should not have the power and funds to do that because the economy is better controlled by the private sector.

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    8,995
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    15631
    I love Oprah, even though I rarely watch her show. I also think she's an underrated actress.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •