90 replies to this topic

[Mishelle]

Thank you for repeating what Joe and I have been saying?

I also don't remember arguing anything as far as helpfulness/influence compared to Sarah Palin, so I really don't know why that was brought up.

I never said that Oprah was a better philanthropist than anyone. Everyone else keeps trying to compare her to other philantropists. For the amount of money she makes, she gives a significant amount but not only that but she supports causes that help people, but she encourages her large audiences to give money and help also. And that's what I said in the very beginning. I said that Oprah should be higher on the list because she's miles more influential than Sarah Palin, then everyone just started bashing Oprah.

[Bryan]

I never said that Oprah was a better philanthropist than anyone. Everyone else keeps trying to compare her to other philantropists. For the amount of money she makes, she gives a significant amount but not only that but she supports causes that help people, but she encourages her large audiences to give money and help also. And that's what I said in the very beginning. I said that Oprah should be higher on the list because she's miles more influential than Sarah Palin, then everyone just started bashing Oprah.

Nor did I state you said Oprah was a better philanthropist. I'm saying that both Joe and I have been arguing on the varying differences of opinion in regards to the word philanthropist and instead of quoting any of our posts, you choose to respond to somebody that really does nothing but repeat my post directly above. Why shouldn't we compare her to other philanthropists? That's the only way you can discuss her.

You said Oprah should be higher on the list than Sarah Palin. To be honest, the list is shit anyways, and the only thing I had to contribute is how people praise Oprah. I'm saying she shouldn't be praised. She's praised because she lets people know that she contributes. That's the effect of media. If someone wants to be known, they do stuff that gets them known.

To go on responding about how she's a philanthropist and should be higher than Sarah Palin (at least in regards to my or Joe's posts) is asinine and moot. Mainly because the only thing we've talked about is philanthropy. It's called curbing the topic into something I want to discuss. You post a topic about this list, make a comment about Oprah and you get a response to Oprah. Instead of repeating something that has no relevancy to mine or Joe's post (that she should be higher than Sarah Palin) you should either respond to the the statements made or not reply at all.

[Mishelle]

When I quoted her I wasn't responding to either you or Joe. I was saying thank you because they said exactly what I've been saying. You guys have your own definition but at the end of the day she is helping people, they're all helping people, and that's all that should really matter. iArgue was the one who brought up Oprah being a better philanthropist than him, then you guys go comparing her to other philanthropists when it really doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.The topic of this thread are opinions on the list, if you don't want to discuss the list and placement then why not make another thread to discuss philanthropy?

Edited by Mishelle, 29 December 2010 - 09:06 PM.

[Bryan]

When I quoted her I wasn't responding to either you or Joe. I was responding to iArgues post where he went off saying that Oprah was a better philanthropist than him when no one said that, then you guys go comparing her to other philanthropists when it really doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.The topic of this thread are opinions on the list, if you don't want to discuss the list and placement then why not make another thread to discuss philanthropy?

The same reason when you post in a topic saying 'What school do you go to' and ask about why I dislike ASU, I respond to it. It's redundant to make a new topic for every discussion, and it's clearly relevant to the thread if multiple people are bring up the issue.

It's whatever, if you're going to be mulish in regards to this discussion I'll gladly just stop posting. Seems it's useless anyways.

[Mishelle]

I don't understand the point in arguing over one's own definition of philanthropy....

Edited by Mishelle, 29 December 2010 - 09:09 PM.

[Bryan]

I don't understand the point in arguing over one's own definition of philanthropy....

Just because you see no point in it, does not mean that a point does not exist. This is an open forum, and discussions are formed based on differing opinions. When you preach ignorance, that's when the discussion becomes one-sided, and it's no fun to type about anymore. Which is essentially what happened now. Instead of having a discussion and understanding the reasons why we believe 'xyz', you respond with the same comments over and over again and then spout ignorance. Meh, like I said, I'm done with this topic.

[Mishelle]

Just because you see no point in it, does not mean that a point does not exist. This is an open forum, and discussions are formed based on differing opinions. When you preach ignorance, that's when the discussion becomes one-sided, and it's no fun to type about anymore. Which is essentially what happened now. Instead of having a discussion and understanding the reasons why we believe 'xyz', you respond with the same comments over and over again and then spout ignorance. Meh, like I said, I'm done with this topic.

Why would I continue to discuss something I see no point in? Yeah I come here to waste time, but damn.
You don't believe Oprah is a philanthropist, I do. What is the point in either of us trying to convince the other that our opinion is wrong?

My entire point was summed up in alexuyang2's post that they're all trying to help the world whether or not they fit our personal definitions of philanthropists. At the end of the day, none of us know Oprah. We don't know whether she does it for publicity or not, all we're doing is speculating. You could be right and she's only doing it for ratings, I could be right that she does it because she likes helping people. Or, gasp, we could both be right and she does it for both reasons. But like I already said, I don't feel the point in arguing over a difference of opinion when neither is wrong/harmful/etc.

Edited by Mishelle, 29 December 2010 - 09:23 PM.

[redlion]

You'll never escape it She's your own personal Dubyah. Falkland Islands anyone?

I'm not feeling like reading more than the first few replies... but I'll just say that I think the list is fine. Who better to admire than national leaders? I think W is funny and I kind of like him, personally. Really it's his laugh... once he gets to cackling, I can't help but laugh out loud... That and prior to ~06, I think he did a rather fine job as president.

It's no surprise Obama is #1.. pretty much deserves the spot.

I guess really what I'm getting at... is that regardless of if you supported their policies or the person, there is someone else who does. The fact that these people are wildly popular and/or hold/held great power is enough to warrant them a spot on the list. That's really all there is to it, imo.

I also like that the pope made it on the list... Raised Roman Catholic and all... but imo, this pope sucks. I really dislike him, actually.

I wish I hadn't read more than the first few replies. Everyone got into this Orpah debate (because you know Oprah's mother was too stupid to spell her name correctly, after naming her from the Bible) and lost sight of the popularity polls initially posted.

Personally, I'm not inclined to trust anything in USA Today. It's like a congealed, aggregate net approximation of a real newspaper. RandomRob was right, who sampled for this survey? Because obviously they polled the entirety of Alaska before finding a few Catholics in SoCal, and maybe a few asians to keep it politically correct. God knows, white people in this country have no idea who Suu Kyi is (in General, not as a steadfast rule) and, being ignorant of her existence, would be unlikely to vote for her. Glen Beck, on the other hand, caters pretty heavily to white people. Only he could get away with calling Obama a racist.

Sarah Palin is 2nd and Suu Kyi is so far down :| Wow.. That's just not cool. The people who were polled probably live in Alaska.

Yeah, welcome to the states. Or rather, welcome to biased news media. Take your pick.

[Mishelle]

I'm surprised Rush Limbaugh isn't up there tbh.

Edited by Mishelle, 30 December 2010 - 08:34 PM.

[redlion]

I'm surprised Rush Limbaugh isn't up there tbh.

Rush is everyone's guilty pleasure. But we're not allowed to publicly say we enjoy him, too controversial. Plus that whole binge on Oxy will usually put a serious hole in a reputation

[Waser Lave]

You'll never escape it She's your own personal Dubyah. Falkland Islands anyone?

The Falklands was actually a very popular war here, it basically won her the next election.

[alexuyang2]

The Falklands was actually a very popular war here, it basically won her the next election.

Sure, If you win a war...there's going to be no challenge to your next election...if you lose however...better get ready to move out.

[neobrah]

Sure, If you win a war...there's going to be no challenge to your next election...if you lose however...better get ready to move out.

and now obama has the war of the economy -_-;

[redlion]

and now obama has the war of the economy -_-;

That's about as winnable as the war on drugs. There will never be enough jobs, doubly never enough high paying jobs. Trebly never enough local high paying jobs. It's like telling an alcoholic that the establishment carries between beer, wine and sake. You can't win.

[luvsmyncis]

That's about as winnable as the war on drugs. There will never be enough jobs, doubly never enough high paying jobs. Trebly never enough local high paying jobs. 

Meh. The problem I've seen is people bitching, "I went and applied *insert some place* and everything looked good, but they start at $10 an hour, and I need at least $12." Meaning, the job is out there, but because no one wants to take less than so-and-so amount of money, people remain unemployed.
Can someone explain this bullshit mentality to me? Because in my mind, $10 is sure as shit a whole lot better than not having a fucking job at all. 
Then again, I'm known as 'the little Socialist' at work, so what the fuck do I know? 

[alexuyang2]

Meh. The problem I've seen is people bitching, "I went and applied *insert some place* and everything looked good, but they start at $10 an hour, and I need at least $12." Meaning, the job is out there, but because no one wants to take less than so-and-so amount of money, people remain unemployed.
Can someone explain this bullshit mentality to me? Because in my mind, $10 is sure as shit a whole lot better than not having a fucking job at all.
Then again, I'm known as 'the little Socialist' at work, so what the fuck do I know?

It's because people think that they're worth more than they actually are, and the economic conditions haven't gotten as bad yet..I mean, you can get 99 weeks of Unemployment benefits....where the hell was that during the Great Depression...If the economy was getting worse, you wouldn't see any open job remain open for long