In this situation? I have no idea. I'm not the one that said: <I>I am fairly certain that the majority of people on this BBS have donated more of their net worth than this cow. </I> In general? Type "Oprah" and "donations" into google and you'll find tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars in contributions, not to mention how much she has raised from others by organizing charity projects and fundraisers.
In a 1997 episode of "The Oprah Winfrey Show," Oprah encouraged viewers to use their lives to make a difference in the lives of others, which led to the creation of the public charity Oprah's Angel Network in 1998. To date, Oprah's Angel Network has raised more than $30 million, with 100% of audience donations going to non-profit organizations across the globe. Oprah's Angel Network has helped establish scholarships and schools, support women's shelters and build youth centers and homes—changing the future for people all over the world. http://www.oprah.com/about/press/about_press_bio.jhtml#5
So can I. Reagan should have never chosen Bush as his VP in 1980. If he would have stuck to Nancy's famous media faux pas, this country could have been spared from W leading us today.
Nice try, Moniker. However, if loosely equating "liberal" with "left" and "conservative" with "right", Hitler was an ultra social conservative with very liberal leaning economic policies.
I am sure I don't have to explain the difference in how $100 is more to some people than $10,000,000 is to Oprah....MMMMMMKAAAAYYYY?????
I watched the Oprah show yesterday, and I felt her pain along with every one of those evacuees. It doesn't matter how much Oprah gives to the Katrina fund. For those few hours that she was in the Astrodome, it meant the world to the people who have been through this horrible tragedy. My question is, why hasn't the President made a trip to Houston?
Given that you had no clue how much she had donated, and have no clue how much anyone here is worth or has donated, you're just grasping at straws and making crap up. Oprah's worth approximately $1 billion. She's given away over $30M just from *one* of those links, or 3% of that networth. Giving away $100 is the equivalent of having a NW of about $3,000. I'm guessing the vast majority of people here you're referring to - outside of students - have a NW of over $3,000. Then again, now you'll just pick another number hoping it makes Oprah look bad.
Her Net Worth is not the same as her Earnings over the past 20 years. It is only what is left over and growing. I imagine that she has something of a lavish lifestyle... and let's not forget the taxes she's paid over 20 or so years.
The $30 million was not from Oprah, it was from one of her organizations that was audience funded. I have no idea what she has given personally, but that particular example is not very informative. If you want a fairer comparison of giving, I suggest comparing the amount given to how much disposable net worth a person has. In my case, I figure I have about -2.75 million of disposable net worth. In other words, I need to save at least that much more by the time I retire. I would guess that Oprah could support a nice standard of living for her and her children? with $100 million, so I would set her disposable net worth at a conservative $900 million. Given that the vast majority of our members would have a negative disposable net worth, anyone who gave any amount over $20 probably made a bigger personal sacrifice than Oprah did.
oprah's right. we do owe the an apology. our conduct has been very shameful in many regards. It seems that this may be the most partisan disaster of all time. One side seems to ceaselessly bash the president while condeming those who question the efforts of the state and local officials. Another side seems to chaff at any suggestions that GW may shoulder some blame. As usual, it falls all along the partisan lines. I wonder how many politicos actually care about what happened - or do they care more about how to use this for political benefit. It looks like a certain PAC is using the hurricane to thwart a Supreme Court confirmation. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-09-07-roberts-civil-rights_x.htm
Langal, Not sure an apology is appropriate, but certainly the reaction time of the government on local, state and national levels was woefully slow. My thinking is that many Hurricannes had hit Florida, and the Carolinas, etc..etc... and even though this was a Cat 4 storm, they thought it would be just like the others. When the levees held through the first day, I think their was a bit of thinking the worst was over.......and when they broke the next day........they were not prepared to act quickly. DD
Partisanship has nothing to do with any Oprah apology. She feels that those people were let down and they were... but only in the immediate aftermath of the storm. The people of this country and particularly Texas let down NO ONE. The reponse has been tremendous for what we could do which is help the people once they're out of the affected area ... and also demand an accounting from federal politicians and bureaucrats who failed as first responders. There are certainly people who will claim that the second is task partisan, but that also an overused defense for politicians and bureaucrats who screw up. 'We're not going to play the blame game' is part of a partisan defense mechanism that seeks to stall any and all partisan or real attempts to identify and correct the failures within the system. It endangers victims of future catastrophes and needs to be ended.
On the first point, I wasn't using the point from here. I saw on my google search that she had contributed $30M. Here's a different link: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/09/07/katrina.zoos/index.html From there, she personally contributed $50 million, just in 2004. As for the latter point, that's a load of crap. According to that standard, you donating $1 is better than her donating $999 million, since it would be a higher portion of your negative disposable networth. I'm amazed that you and DD seem to think that donating $50,000,000 in one year is meaningless, simply because she's rich. But hey, whatever you have to do to make Oprah look like a selfish, fat cow.
No, your point "exactly" was to make Oprah look bad by insulting both her weight and charity, without knowing any of the facts.
What does all these has to do with Oprah's worth? It's a fact that she uses her fame to organize and support lots of charities. She donated lots of money by herself, not only this time, numerous times in the past. She also helped or directly caused that others donated to the cause she supported, New Orleans relief at this particular time. Isn't that something very kind and respectable? Yes, she has lots of money, will you be satisfied if she gives 10% of her net worth? Why would she have to satisfy you? I don't watch her shows, neither does my wife. But that doesn't give us rights to dismiss anything good she has done as a person. She's a celebrity, and her show/time ARE MONEY. I don't think anyone on this board can generate 30 million donation, no matter where it's from. Why can't we just judge action based on action itself? She's rich, so her donation is not a big deal? I am telling you this, if someone can't donate 100 bucks when he has 5000, he would NOT give 100K when he has 5 million. Speaking of rich people, how much have those wealthy oil companies executives donated personally? How much donation did those infulence-rich lobbists personally make or organized to generate? It would be really interesting to see how much donation those generous campaign supporters gave for relief efforts, and what those all tough talk, hot shots did to help. I certainly only see them attacking "you people" here and there, but no where near that thread about personal experience in helping.
