Speakeasy forum

General discussion

rosie gives more to charity than trump

by WOODS-HICK / December 22, 2006 10:02 PM PST

according to fox & friends this AM. $1,000,000 more than trump they reported.

I am not a big fan of either one, but they have both contributed to society.

I lean towards rosie in the rosie/trump media event. she started with nothing, he started with a lot. she seems to be more faithful in relationships and you have to give her credit for adopting 3 of her children, the 4th was born to her partner.

both(rosie/trump) will take advantage of this for self-promotion but it is show business

here's something:

'Rosie For All Kids Foundation'

Since 1997, Rosie's For All Kids Foundation has awarded more than $18 million in Early Childhood Care and Education program grants to over 900 nonprofit organizations that provide important opportunities for thousands of America?s kids in need. Through the Cutie Patootie? Center capital grants program, 27 early education centers in large cities across the United States have received nearly $8 million to expand their services and provide more children with high-quality education and care. Caring for young children means being prepared for anything ? natural disasters included. When Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast in August 2005, the Foundation immediately responded with an initiative called Project Katrina, a $3 million special fund that operates inside a FEMA-managed temporary housing developments in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.


Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: rosie gives more to charity than trump
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: rosie gives more to charity than trump
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Well, I dare say that many more people owe their success,
by dirtyrich / December 22, 2006 11:15 PM PST

whether it be a multi-million dollar contract (a la Apprentice) or 60,000 yearly job to Trump. So, as for benefit to society, Trump greatly outweighs Rosie.
As I see it, Rosie picked the fight as she has a habit of doing, and Trump came back swinging.

Collapse -
I'm not a fan of either.
by Angeline Booher / December 22, 2006 11:47 PM PST

From what I saw on the news, she did start it. I'm not a fan of the NRAm either, but her attack on Tom Selleck on her show was rude, tasteless, and small.

I don't have a high opinion of him, either. But, IMO, a person who once considered himself worthy to be a candidate for President should have more self control than to respond in kind.

Somehow I wonder if this was planned to bolster interest in both of their shows. (I don't and won't watch either. Just not where my interests lie.)

Regardless, they both gave credence to the accusations of each other.

Reminded me of a school yard fight.

Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email

Collapse -
Re: Benefit to society
by C1ay / December 23, 2006 12:11 PM PST

Since Trump provides more than 20,000 jobs I'd say he contributes way more than Rosie ever will...

Collapse -
He'd be nowhere without those 20,000 workers
by Ziks511 / December 25, 2006 7:35 PM PST
In reply to: Re: Benefit to society

but she'd still be Rosie, and an enormously generous person.

Using people to enhance your own personal wealth and status is not charity, it's business. Let's compare apples (charity) with apples, not apples with toy trains (business).

Charity comes from the heart, business comes from somewhere else, wherever acquisitiveness and competitiveness and other less attractive virtues are to be found.

Try and remember why John Forbes Nash got his Nobel Prize. For introducing self-interest into the equations of economics, not allowing it to continue to be seen as a "natural law" like gravity, or of "the invisible hand" as was defined in 1776, which was always beneficial in Adam Smith's essay, and never oppressive. That 230 year old book seems to be the guiding light and sole arbiter for a number here, those able to ignore the ravages on the workforce of the 19th Century, and the Robber Barons about which there is much literature, even in Economics texts. There is much complexity, and much that is less than attractive in the economic system called pure unrestricted capitalism. For one thing, no pure capitalist would agree about limiting immigration of any kind because competition for jobs drives down wages. They would also be quite happy with off-shoring both jobs and profits because they maximize the returns to the few and prevents business from paying their fair share of the costs of their business to the country in general through policing, fire, defence, corporate welfare and the like. Try to bring your economic education into the middle 20th Century at least, America was most dominant when its economic system was fairest, 1950 to 1980.

BTW Toyota is set to overtake GM as the world's largest corporation this year, and they operate under a set of rules they adopted from American industry in the 40's and 50's, and pay substantial business taxes and supply many benefits for their workers, q.e.d.


Perhaps someone like myself should undertake to tot up all the statistics of people dying in slums of malnutrition and disease in excess of the national norms of the time, and ensure they are entered into the ledger of the costs of unrestricted capitalism. I suspect that the glories currently touted by those fortunate enough to have survived this economic culling of the populace would shine less brightly.

On the other hand, only a fool argues with a closed mind.


Collapse -
i don't think so
by Orgrimmar / December 26, 2006 11:15 AM PST
In reply to: Re: Benefit to society

It's not like Trump's employees are the sort of people who'd be out on the street if they weren't working for him.

Collapse -
So, if those 20,000 people didn't work for Trump, and had
by Kiddpeat / December 26, 2006 12:11 PM PST
In reply to: i don't think so

jobs elsewhere, they would push 20,000 other people out on the street. That would be true unless there was a shortage of workers. Believing, or not believing, does not alter economic reality.

Collapse -
Darwinian Capitalism (a term from the indicted Conrad Black,
by Ziks511 / December 26, 2006 6:07 PM PST

Canada's own, but indicted in the US for manipulative trading) is as out of date as is literal interpretation of The Origin of Species. Darwin's views have been extensively revised and new work is done practically every year. The same is true in economics. To adopt Adam Smith and ignore everything that has come since (not even Milton Friedman with all his faults and fallacious arguments does that) is folly of the blindest kind.

Guess this is about it for my arguing Economics with all and sundry, as inseparable as they are from politics. Thanks for the opportunities folks, the last word I leave to you.


Collapse -
I can't resist, W-H. :-)
by Angeline Booher / December 22, 2006 11:50 PM PST
Collapse -
I am sure he considers it charity
by WOODS-HICK / December 23, 2006 10:20 AM PST

I know you have a little devil with a keen eye inside, I would be your straight man any time <g>.

Collapse -
(NT) So
by C1ay / December 23, 2006 2:17 AM PST
Collapse -
(NT) reap?
by WOODS-HICK / December 23, 2006 10:21 AM PST
In reply to: So
Collapse -
by WOODS-HICK / December 23, 2006 1:15 PM PST

" rosie gives more to charity than trump"

trump provides more jobs than rosie

with his winner take all approach I wonder how many have lost their jobs and careers. his outbursts of personal attacks are: entrepreneurial?

with rosie what you see is what you get, with trump what you see is what he wants you to see. mirrors no smoke. I wonder if he treats his mother like that. he is showing that his class is not solid but only plated gold.

Collapse -
Charity is apples, business is toy trains.
by Ziks511 / December 25, 2006 11:23 PM PST
In reply to: ok

They are not comparable. Donald "I've got the biggest over-comb in the world" Trump doesn't employ people out of charity, but to maintain his business. Wages and employment are by definition not charity. Regrettably there are a few who can't see the difference.


Collapse -
and this is bananas?
by WOODS-HICK / December 26, 2006 12:48 AM PST

not sure if you are being informational, satirical or gps is down. anyway I do not think I am promoting trump as an example of what is 'good' in america.

I typed two statements: one mine, the other: others. I know the two are not comparable but I thought the others' were valid opinions unrelated to the OP. I do not mind wandering in my OPs'; some do.

if I misconstrued your post: never-mind and dis-remember this reply. chalk it up to format failure. <g>

Collapse -
now the whipped cream
by WOODS-HICK / December 26, 2006 1:53 AM PST
In reply to: and this is bananas?

looking back to my OP I expressed why I favored rosie in this particular story. I opened the door when I mentioned: "contributed to society" so my saying "unrelated to OP" does not apply. however they are unrelated to charitable contributions.

Collapse -
100% correct IMO too Rob.
by Terry Browne / December 26, 2006 5:14 AM PST

The charities however are needed in order to mantain a system that needs charities... ;-). That's the only thing the bourgeoisie can hide their greed behind. Makes them feel better I believe but it's a very artificial well being IMO.

Collapse -
I disagree.
by Angeline Booher / December 26, 2006 8:01 AM PST

Those with tons of money have many avenues available to "hide" their $$$$ aside from charitable contributions.

Not all of the wealthy are greedy. Some actually worked hard to earn their money. I don't know why they need to "feel better".

I suspect that most taxpayers look for all of the deductions they can find. I also suspect that there could be just as many average income taxpayers who deduct their charitable contributioins with an eye to reducing their tax liability. (An aside: honesty in expense accounts, another deduction, as well.)

" Bourgeoisie" applied to our capitalistic system as exploiting workers is rhetoric used by Maoists and Marxists, , for example. Also in the Communmist Manifesto. Then look at, say, North Korea, where the leaders live well and spend $$$$ on weaponry while they can't provide enough food for their people. Who is exploiting whom?

Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email

Collapse -
You're right...
by Terry Browne / December 26, 2006 8:16 AM PST
In reply to: I disagree.

"Bourgeoisie" was used very much by Marx when describing the capitalist society in the Manifesto and also in Das Capital. A lot of people on the left use that word to describe the upper class and the ruling classes. The origin of the word is well explained here.
Re. N. Korea I agree that it is very much like the old feudal societies and I would never defend a society like that!

No, not all of the wealthy are greedy. Many are though and I am not surprised since our society measures success in financial wealth and material status.

Collapse -
The world according to "the Donald"
by JP Bill / December 25, 2006 11:29 PM PST
Collapse -
the power of the pompadour
by WOODS-HICK / December 26, 2006 2:11 AM PST

trump donated land here 'in my world' that was added to the ny state park system. there are two new exit signs on the taconic parkway, which is a 'passenger car only' road between nyc and albany, that read: donald j trump state park, this exit.

one snag: the park is not ready for visitors. access is unavailable until user friendly facilities are installed. restrooms, parking, etc.

"The road signs serve no purpose - a direction to nowhere" ...thousands of motorists have driven past the signs, which are about the length of a stretch limousine. .....Another question is why the signs for the flamboyant real estate developer with a penchant for publicity have to be so prominent or - as stated by retired IBM engineer Jack Lee, a longtime Yorktown resident - "overbearing."

Collapse -
Rosie has accomplished the impossible.
by Kiddpeat / December 26, 2006 2:40 AM PST

She's actually succeeded in making Trump look good.

When the compared to Rosie, he starts looking a lot better.

Collapse -
When compared
by ice_bear_joe / December 26, 2006 3:54 AM PST

to Rosie anyone would look better

Collapse -
I may be nit-picking...
by Terry Browne / December 26, 2006 3:35 PM PST
In reply to: When compared

but do you really mean that when compared with Rosie"anyone" would look better?

Collapse -
by ice_bear_joe / December 27, 2006 12:50 AM PST

i should have said 99.9%

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?