On 10/19/2014 11:55 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> Cheri wrote:
>>
>> "Pico Rico" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Sunday, October 19, 2014 8:24:02 AM UTC-7, Pete C. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just charity leaches much like the united way criminals. It seems it's
>>>>> the trendy liberal thing to do to corruptly leach off of charity while
>>>>> stroking your ego pretending you are somehow helping people with the
>>>>> 10-15% you actually use for charitable work.
>>>>
>>>> Huh? The opposite is true.
>>>>
>>>> United Ways typically deliver over 80% of what they raise to the programs
>>>> you think you're giving to, with 8% of your funds going to fundraising,
>>>> and another 8% or so going to salaries and rent.
>>>
>>> But they, at least in the past, used strong arm techneques at the
>>> workplace to get their donations. And there was scandal in at least one of
>>> their local outfits. And they ban donations to groups based on UW's
>>> political agenda. Best to just give to the specific charity you want,
>>> rather than run it through a clearinghouse.
>>
>> Yes, they used to force you to donate by taking it out of your check, but
>> that was a long time ago, might be different now but that always left a bad
>> taste in my mouth for the organization.
>
> They still do that kind of scam, and they wine and dine company execs to
> meet fundraising goals. To this day they still try to get everyone to
> "acknowledge" the "campaign", something I still refuse to do, so the
> execs at my company never meet their "goals". **** the corrupt UW.
>

I was the administrator of several private foundations. I had (other
people's) money to give away to legitimate charities.

One evening I was invited to a board meeting of a local chapter of
Easter Seals. They had a lovely dinner in an upscale restaurant.
Someone offered to get me a drink and I declined (never drank at
anything work related) and I was told that Easter Seals was picking up
the tab. When I asked what I owed for my dinner, I was told not to
worry as Easter Seals paid the bill.

The people on that board were all in high-paying positions at their
respective firms. There was no need for the charity to pay for their
dinner and drinks.

Needless to say, they did not get a grant from me, but they did get a
letter explaining my disappointment with their charging the charity for
their dinner and drinks.

I have actually made a trip to the local Easter Seals offices and have
seen, first hand, how they manage things. I send checks to the local
office and earmark the checks for a specific local project so that none
of my money goes to their national office.

Other than the Disabled Vets and a couple of animal welfare places that
I've actually visited, most of my charity goes to local organizations.

--
From somewhere very deep in the heart of Texas

On 10/19/2014 12:06 PM, graham wrote:

> If a Vet is disabled or needs help because of service to his country,
> THE GOVERNMENT should look after him!
> Graham

The Government most definitely should, but I am afraid they don't.
--
From somewhere very deep in the heart of Texas

On 10/19/2014 12:16 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2014-10-19 11:29 AM, sf wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 10:03:22 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2014-10-19 9:36 AM, sf wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 08:19:53 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2014-10-19 1:53 AM, sf wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 01:02:59 -0400, Ed Pawlowski >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/18/2014 10:57 PM, James Silverton wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I looked them up in Charity Watch where I see they received an F
>>>>>>>> rating,
>>>>>>>> with 85% of the funds they received being spent on fund raising.
>>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>>> are they trying to do?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a lot of money to be made running a charity fundraiser.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Same deal with church of the Reverend X... another non-profit scam.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I was surprised to learn that a number of the local fundamentalist
>>>>> churches are legal entities in the form of numbered companies.
>>>>
>>>> What's a numbered company?
>>>>
>>> It is an incorporated company. Corporations can have registered names or
>>> can have a number assigned to them by the government. They are
>>> registered as corporations. It might be 1234567 Ontario Inc, or 9876543
>>> Canada Inc for official purposes, but be doing business under another
>>> name. The Doing Business As (DBA) is common in the US and Canada. In
>>> the cases of the churches I dealt with, those that were numbered
>>> companies were legally incorporated companies operating as numbered
>>> companies but dba FITB Church Name.
>>
>> At least they are paying taxes!
>>
> No. They are non profit charitable institutions, so these corporations
> get the same tax breaks that other churches get. They can receive
> charitable donations and issue tax receipts for those donations.

In the US they must apply for non-profit status. That's not an easy
application, either. Further, they file an "information" return with
the IRS every year that details their income sources and their
expenditures on everything from office supplies to projects.

In most states charities also answer to a state agency or official like
the Attorney General.

If they want to apply for any grants, they need an audited financial
statement from an independent auditor which costs $$$



--
From somewhere very deep in the heart of Texas

On 10/19/2014 12:34 PM, Dave Smith wrote:

> Then there is the issue of veterans benefits. There was a call for free
> university or college education for all veterans. While all officers are
> university graduates, the others probably would not have joined the
> military if they had been able to get into university. Moreover, it was
> just a job for many. Less than 10% of troops are involved in combat. The
> rest are support workers. I cannot equate a combat veteran with a pencil
> pushed back at headquarters.


My son was a pencil pusher who badly injured his back while serving his
country in the Personnel Department at Ft. Campbell. He left the Army
with 30% disability and he lives with constant pain from that injury.
He doesn't have PTSD, but his disability is legitimate even though he
never left the United States.

One of his duties was to help new widows/widowers of soldiers who were
killed. Do you think this was just pencil pushing?

--
From somewhere very deep in the heart of Texas

On 10/19/2014 3:05 PM, wrote:
> On Sunday, October 19, 2014 11:55:52 AM UTC-5, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>> Cheri wrote:
>>
>>>>> But they, at least in the past, used strong arm techniques at the
>>>> workplace to get their donations. And there was scandal in at least one of
>>>> their local outfits. And they ban donations to groups based on UW's
>>>> political agenda. Best to just give to the specific charity you want,
>>>> rather than run it through a clearinghouse.
>>
>>
>>> Yes, they used to force you to donate by taking it out of your check, but
>>> that was a long time ago, might be different now but that always left a bad
>>> taste in my mouth for the organization.
>>
>>
>> They still do that kind of scam, and they wine and dine company execs to
>> meet fundraising goals. To this day they still try to get everyone to
>> "acknowledge" the "campaign", something I still refuse to do, so the
>> execs at my company never meet their "goals". **** the corrupt UW.
>>
>>
> The company I work for used to be really active in the UW and do all these campaigns for about a week prior to their big drive to encourage employees to donate. And yes, they did all those dinners and receptions for the executives.
> But another company bought us several years ago and they are not into charity/UW thing so we never heard anything about donating or any campaigns. But we were never strong armed in the past.
>

I was the collector for United Way in our office at the bank. I didn't
force anyone to sign up for payroll deductions, but did ask for a small
check. If I got 100% participation I got two tickets to the corporate
box to watch the Devils (hockey). That box was right on the red line.
Got tickets three years in a row.

Not at all ashamed of it as we in the Charitable Trust Department knew
the local UW well and had even helped them with some of their funding
decisions.

--
From somewhere very deep in the heart of Texas

On 2014-10-19 7:06 PM, Janet Wilder wrote:

>> Then there is the issue of veterans benefits. There was a call for free
>> university or college education for all veterans. While all officers are
>> university graduates, the others probably would not have joined the
>> military if they had been able to get into university. Moreover, it was
>> just a job for many. Less than 10% of troops are involved in combat. The
>> rest are support workers. I cannot equate a combat veteran with a pencil
>> pushed back at headquarters.
>
>
> My son was a pencil pusher who badly injured his back while serving his
> country in the Personnel Department at Ft. Campbell. He left the Army
> with 30% disability and he lives with constant pain from that injury. He
> doesn't have PTSD, but his disability is legitimate even though he never
> left the United States.
>
> One of his duties was to help new widows/widowers of soldiers who were
> killed. Do you think this was just pencil pushing?
>
He injured his back serving in the personnel department. My father's
plane was shot down over occupied territory and he was lucky enough to
survive a plane crash that killed his 7 crew mates. My friend's father
survived 3 1/2 years in a Japanese prison camp. In recent conflicts,
men and women have been shot and blown to pieces. Believe me, I have
sympathies for anyone with a back injury, but it is a far cry from a
serious battle wound.

On 2014-10-19 7:10 PM, Janet Wilder wrote:

> I was the collector for United Way in our office at the bank. I didn't
> force anyone to sign up for payroll deductions, but did ask for a small
> check. If I got 100% participation I got two tickets to the corporate
> box to watch the Devils (hockey). That box was right on the red line.
> Got tickets three years in a row.
>
> Not at all ashamed of it as we in the Charitable Trust Department knew
> the local UW well and had even helped them with some of their funding
> decisions.

One year I was asked to do the United Way thing for our district. I
went to the seminar and then I went around and gave the spiel to
everyone. I pledged a meager $2 per pay... $104 for the year. That
measly amount resulted in doubling the previous year's donations for the
entire district.

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 11:06:24 -0600, graham wrote:

> If a Vet is disabled or needs help because of service to his country,
> THE GOVERNMENT should look after him!

The government *should*, but sometimes they make the paperwork to get
help so daunting the Vet gives up.

I've got an Internet friend who had his Humvee flipped over by an IED
while serving in Iraq. He suffers from PTSD and started the paperwork
to get a VA rating. Eventually he became disgusted at the amount of
paperwork they wanted him to file to prove his claim that he just gave
up. Next thing you know he's threatening suicide and we're sending the
police to his house.

Luckily, once he was in the hospital he hooked up with a Service Rep who
took over the paperwork and the hassle that went with it.

For me it was a 12 year odyssey of going from 0% service connected (yes,
that's possible), to 40%, to 60% to 100%. For many of those years I
just gave up and didn't try to advance my claim.

--

-Jeff B.


"Excuse me.
I don't mean to impose,
but I am the Ocean."

~ The Salton Sea

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 20:07:48 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> Believe me, I have sympathies for anyone with a back injury, but it is
> a far cry from a serious battle wound.

It's called, "Service Connection", not "Battle Connection". See the
difference?

--

-Jeff B.


"Excuse me.
I don't mean to impose,
but I am the Ocean."

~ The Salton Sea

On 2014-10-19 21:17, Yeff wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 20:07:48 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> Believe me, I have sympathies for anyone with a back injury, but it is
>> a far cry from a serious battle wound.
>
> It's called, "Service Connection", not "Battle Connection". See the
> difference?
>
Sure. Sort of like a bad back from working in any other job. It happens
in all sorts of occupations. In battle you get shot and limbs blown off.

Janet Wilder wrote:
>
> On 10/19/2014 11:53 AM, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > Pico Rico wrote:
> >>
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> On Sunday, October 19, 2014 8:24:02 AM UTC-7, Pete C. wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Just charity leaches much like the united way criminals. It seems it's
> >>>> the trendy liberal thing to do to corruptly leach off of charity while
> >>>> stroking your ego pretending you are somehow helping people with the
> >>>> 10-15% you actually use for charitable work.
> >>>
> >>> Huh? The opposite is true.
> >>>
> >>> United Ways typically deliver over 80% of what they raise to the programs
> >>> you think you're giving to, with 8% of your funds going to fundraising,
> >>> and another 8% or so going to salaries and rent.
> >>
> >> But they, at least in the past, used strong arm techniques at the workplace
> >> to get their donations. And there was scandal in at least one of their local
> >> outfits. And they ban donations to groups based on UW's political agenda.
> >> Best to just give to the specific charity you want, rather than run it
> >> through a clearinghouse.
> >
> > Exactly, as corrupt as they get, and the strong arm coercion stuff is
> > not at all in their past.
> >
> > The UN World Food Program has something like 9% overhead, as an example
> > of what a charity's overhead should look like. That 8% the corrupt UW is
> > scraping off funds their execs lavish offices and salaries.
> >
>
> I would not give a plug nickle to anything that had the United Nations
> name attached to it. They just hand over the money to the local
> governments, many of whom are corrupt, and the cash you donated thinking
> it will feed hungry people will go to buying weapons and teaching small
> children how to shoot them.

I'm all for arming and training small children.

"graham" > wrote in message
...
> On 19/10/2014 11:00 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2014-10-19 10:56 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>>> Wow! I never bothered to look them up. I give them a small amount
>>>> every year. My son is a disabled veteran. I suppose that what I give
>>>> covers the cost of the mailing labels. :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are a few organizations using the Veterans name. Some are OK,
>>> others are not so good. Check them out. I'd much rather help the Vets
>>> than the fund raisers.
>>
>>
>> I addressed this sort of issue recently and commented that I have soured
>> on charities in general because they seem to have created a business
>> that is more actively engaged in fund raising than they are in helping
>> their causes. I donated to the Cancer Society and ended up getting beg
>> letters from societies for cancer of just about ever part of the body.
>> Make a donation to a charity in memory of a deceased friend and they
>> don't stop hassling you for more.
>>
>> In this case, the "charity" is blatantly playing on patriotism, loyalty
>> to our vets and to the guilt some feel about the plight of wounded vets.
>> The sad thing is that they are not the only charity for vets that
>> scores badly in this regard. It is also surprising that we have not
>> heard more about it from official veterans groups.
>
> If a Vet is disabled or needs help because of service to his country, THE
> GOVERNMENT should look after him!
> Graham

Oh don't get me started! The government is sooo very backlogged. We have
gone over a year now and the VA still owes us a nice chunk of change.
Thankfully my husband doesn't have to use the VA medical facilities.

"Pico Rico" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sunday, October 19, 2014 8:24:02 AM UTC-7, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Just charity leaches much like the united way criminals. It seems it's
>>> the trendy liberal thing to do to corruptly leach off of charity while
>>> stroking your ego pretending you are somehow helping people with the
>>> 10-15% you actually use for charitable work.
>>
>> Huh? The opposite is true.
>>
>> United Ways typically deliver over 80% of what they raise to the programs
>> you think you're giving to, with 8% of your funds going to fundraising,
>> and another 8% or so going to salaries and rent.
>
> But they, at least in the past, used strong arm techniques at the
> workplace to get their donations. And there was scandal in at least one of
> their local outfits. And they ban donations to groups based on UW's
> political agenda. Best to just give to the specific charity you want,
> rather than run it through a clearinghouse.

They did that where I used to work. And they would not give money to
certain charities such as Planned Parenthood. So they didn't get a dime
from me.

"Yeff" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 11:06:24 -0600, graham wrote:
>
>> If a Vet is disabled or needs help because of service to his country,
>> THE GOVERNMENT should look after him!
>
> The government *should*, but sometimes they make the paperwork to get
> help so daunting the Vet gives up.
>
> I've got an Internet friend who had his Humvee flipped over by an IED
> while serving in Iraq. He suffers from PTSD and started the paperwork
> to get a VA rating. Eventually he became disgusted at the amount of
> paperwork they wanted him to file to prove his claim that he just gave
> up. Next thing you know he's threatening suicide and we're sending the
> police to his house.
>
> Luckily, once he was in the hospital he hooked up with a Service Rep who
> took over the paperwork and the hassle that went with it.
>
> For me it was a 12 year odyssey of going from 0% service connected (yes,
> that's possible), to 40%, to 60% to 100%. For many of those years I
> just gave up and didn't try to advance my claim.

It is terrible and you would not believe the wait times. This map shows
where the wait times are the worst. And it's only getting worse!

http://cironline.org/reports/map-whe...log-worst-3792

At the time that my husband applied for his disability, there were only
three large circles on the map. The largest being in the Bay area of CA
which is where he was living when he applied. Now as you can see, the
Seattle area is worse.

He finally did start getting monthly payments but to do this involved many
trips to many Drs. and filling out tons of paperwork. Also many phone
calls. I got huge amounts of paperwork sent to the house on this about the
various decisions, some of which I couldn't understand. Which meant more
phone calls.

And forget about whatever dates they put on there. I think it was over a
year later before he got his first payment and it even came a month later
than the date he was told that it would.

Now we are waiting for the retroactive. Every time he tries to check, they
just send him a letter stating that they got his message and they are
looking into it. And from what I have read on online forums, that could
come in 6 years to never. He may well die and not have gotten it.

It's just not right. What do they expect people to live on? We are lucky
in that my husband can work. And that he finally did get a good job. Not
everyone can work and even if they can, they might not get a good job. He
could not find one here so had to move to NY for work until he did find one
here.

I also know just how very bad PTSD can be.

When we lived in CA, we had neighbors with a son who was a year younger than
my daughter. The wife worked long hours as a buyer for a department store
and her job often had her going out of town.

Because the weather was always nice where we lived, the kids always played
outside. One day the dad approached me and gave me some story about his
wife leaving a chicken in fridge and that he was roasting it but that their
son didn't really like it and how he didn't know how to cook anything else.
Turns out that it was a bogus story. He asked me if I could feed the child
that day. I did. And then I did for many days after that. In turn, he and
his wife would take my daughter out to eat once in a while. I do remember
asking both parents about cooking because they were Jewish and I know that
the mother kept kosher. Apparently they didn't care so much what the kid
ate in terms of that but they did eat healthy food as we did so they had no
issues about what I fed him. But I digress.

When we were getting ready to move, the dad came to me and confessed that I
had really helped him out by feeding his son. He said he had been suffering
from PTSD and by the time he got home he was such a mess that all he could
do was immerse himself in the bathtub and try to calm himself down until his
wife got home. But he wasn't able to do that when he had to watch his son.
So my watching him and feeding him dinner had really helped.

A lot of people who are suffering from this do not want to admit it to other
people. Particularly males. And even though he was in the Army, he wasn't
in a combat position. He actually did payroll. But when you are in the
military you still see and hear stuff.

When we were living on Ft. Wadsworth on Staten Island in the Coast Guard
housing, we were almost constantly told to be on high alert. Although the
kids did play outside a lot there too, we were always on the lookout for
something bad to happen. They had gotten many bomb threats to the Verrazano
bridge that ran almost right over where we lived. And this was the year
after 9/11. So all of NY was probably really on high alert anyway but
living in military housing only made things worse.

And then there were the times when the spouses would get called in to work
and we wouldn't know why. There were some things they were just not allowed
to speak of. That makes you not feel so well either.

"Yeff" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 20:07:48 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> Believe me, I have sympathies for anyone with a back injury, but it is
>> a far cry from a serious battle wound.
>
> It's called, "Service Connection", not "Battle Connection". See the
> difference?

Yes, there is a difference.

On 10/19/2014 7:07 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2014-10-19 7:06 PM, Janet Wilder wrote:
>
>>> Then there is the issue of veterans benefits. There was a call for free
>>> university or college education for all veterans. While all officers are
>>> university graduates, the others probably would not have joined the
>>> military if they had been able to get into university. Moreover, it was
>>> just a job for many. Less than 10% of troops are involved in combat. The
>>> rest are support workers. I cannot equate a combat veteran with a pencil
>>> pushed back at headquarters.
>>
>>
>> My son was a pencil pusher who badly injured his back while serving his
>> country in the Personnel Department at Ft. Campbell. He left the Army
>> with 30% disability and he lives with constant pain from that injury. He
>> doesn't have PTSD, but his disability is legitimate even though he never
>> left the United States.
>>
>> One of his duties was to help new widows/widowers of soldiers who were
>> killed. Do you think this was just pencil pushing?
>>
> He injured his back serving in the personnel department. My father's
> plane was shot down over occupied territory and he was lucky enough to
> survive a plane crash that killed his 7 crew mates. My friend's father
> survived 3 1/2 years in a Japanese prison camp. In recent conflicts,
> men and women have been shot and blown to pieces. Believe me, I have
> sympathies for anyone with a back injury, but it is a far cry from a
> serious battle wound.

The Government recognizes the severity and pays him for it. I feel for
all the vets who were injured serving in any capacity. That's why I was
giving to the Disabled Vets charity.

He was on maneuvers when he got injured. It didn't happen at a desk.

--
From somewhere very deep in the heart of Texas

"Jeßus" wrote:
>

> >Just charity leaches much like the united way criminals. It seems it's
> >the trendy liberal thing to do to
>
> How is it 'liberal'? I guess you're one of the fools who thinks there
> a real difference between liberals and republicans.

From my view in the center as a fiscally conservative, socially liberal,
pro gun, pro choice atheist, I have a clear picture of the two wings.

The liberal left is by far the most likely to form charities to right
whatever wrongs they perceive (real or imagined), and then enrich
themselves with some of those charitable proceeds which stroking their
egos thinking they are somehow saving the world.

The religious right is far less likely to form a charity or profit from
it, they by and large donate to their churches which have established
charities that are by and large pretty efficiently run and not corrupt.
The only real issue with those charities is the proselytizing, not any
sort of embezzlement or personal enrichment (church charities, not
churches themselves).

As for differences between liberals and conservatives, they are indeed
stark. While both have their false beliefs/feelings, the left seems to
have lost all capacity for rational debate or critical thinking about
their beliefs. When there is a difference of opinion on something
tangible and measurable (not opinion like *** marriage or whatever), the
right will present a very reasoned argument citing sources like bls.gov,
doj.gov, etc. and the left will respond only with personal attacks,
references to "faux news" and other nonsense, completely incapable of a
reasoned and factually supported response.

So yes, there is a very big difference between liberals and
conservatives. There are no "feelings" or "faith" applicable to things
like economics, only hard facts and statistics, and only the
conservatives seem to be capable of evaluating those facts and
statistics.

On Sunday, October 19, 2014 10:06:24 AM UTC-7, graham wrote:
> On 19/10/2014 11:00 AM, Dave Smith wrote:

> > In this case, the "charity" is blatantly playing on patriotism, loyalty
> > to our vets and to the guilt some feel about the plight of wounded vets.
> > The sad thing is that they are not the only charity for vets that
> > scores badly in this regard. It is also surprising that we have not
> > heard more about it from official veterans groups.
>
> If a Vet is disabled or needs help because of service to his country,
> THE GOVERNMENT should look after him!
>

The vets can always use a little extra. My Dad was in the VA hospital for
a bit in the 1970s. If they wanted to make a call they had to use a pay
phone. Visiting him, I asked him how he was fixed for dimes.

Turned out that the American Legion's women's auxiliary gave every vet
a roll of dimes for the phone. And this was much appreciated -- a lot
of the vets were there because they couldn't afford care anywhere else.

On Sunday, October 19, 2014 12:55:52 PM UTC-4, Pete C. wrote:
> Cheri wrote:
>
> >
>
> > "Pico Rico" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> > >
>
> > > > wrote in message
>
> > > ...
>
> > >> On Sunday, October 19, 2014 8:24:02 AM UTC-7, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > >>
>
> > >>>
>
> > >>> Just charity leaches much like the united way criminals. It seems it's
>
> > >>> the trendy liberal thing to do to corruptly leach off of charity while
>
> > >>> stroking your ego pretending you are somehow helping people with the
>
> > >>> 10-15% you actually use for charitable work.
>
> > >>
>
> > >> Huh? The opposite is true.
>
> > >>
>
> > >> United Ways typically deliver over 80% of what they raise to the programs
>
> > >> you think you're giving to, with 8% of your funds going to fundraising,
>
> > >> and another 8% or so going to salaries and rent.
>
> > >
>
> > > But they, at least in the past, used strong arm techniques at the
>
> > > workplace to get their donations. And there was scandal in at least one of
>
> > > their local outfits. And they ban donations to groups based on UW's
>
> > > political agenda. Best to just give to the specific charity you want,
>
> > > rather than run it through a clearinghouse.
>
> >
>
> > Yes, they used to force you to donate by taking it out of your check, but
>
> > that was a long time ago, might be different now but that always left a bad
>
> > taste in my mouth for the organization.
>
>
>
> They still do that kind of scam, and they wine and dine company execs to
>
> meet fundraising goals. To this day they still try to get everyone to
>
> "acknowledge" the "campaign", something I still refuse to do, so the
>
> execs at my company never meet their "goals". **** the corrupt UW.

OH, how well I remember those breakfasts. Off to a nice meal at a fancy hotel, then came the spiel. In so many words, "Your next raise could depend on giving your fair share." Then, the bus ride to some place where totally unemployables were looking busy pushing bins around with who knew what inside. Still didn't wanna give? Then came the private, personal meeting with someone three levels up, and the story about "kids I have to feed."

It was almost this bad when it was US Bonds time, but at least it was SORT of a savings plan.

What frosted me was when a UF exec was fired for malfeasance, but received a fat severance check of about 125 thou, and this was decades ago. Don't ask ME about the UF.

On 2014-10-20 8:31 AM, Janet Wilder wrote:

>>> One of his duties was to help new widows/widowers of soldiers who were
>>> killed. Do you think this was just pencil pushing?
>>>
>> He injured his back serving in the personnel department. My father's
>> plane was shot down over occupied territory and he was lucky enough to
>> survive a plane crash that killed his 7 crew mates. My friend's father
>> survived 3 1/2 years in a Japanese prison camp. In recent conflicts,
>> men and women have been shot and blown to pieces. Believe me, I have
>> sympathies for anyone with a back injury, but it is a far cry from a
>> serious battle wound.
>
> The Government recognizes the severity and pays him for it. I feel for
> all the vets who were injured serving in any capacity. That's why I was
> giving to the Disabled Vets charity.
>
> He was on maneuvers when he got injured. It didn't happen at a desk.
>



Perhaps I should ask of any more details are going to be revealed. In my
mind, "disabled veteran" is someone who is wounded in combat. You only
said that he worked on personnel. I know from my own limited military
experience that everyone goes through training, and that everyone has to
get involved in maneuvers. I hope you can understand that I view
injuries like his to be a workplace injury and that he should be taken
care of similar to any workplace injury. But please do not confuse it
with a combat injury.

On 10/20/2014 4:50 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2014-10-20 8:31 AM, Janet Wilder wrote:
>
>>>> One of his duties was to help new widows/widowers of soldiers who were
>>>> killed. Do you think this was just pencil pushing?
>>>>
>>> He injured his back serving in the personnel department. My father's
>>> plane was shot down over occupied territory and he was lucky enough to
>>> survive a plane crash that killed his 7 crew mates. My friend's father
>>> survived 3 1/2 years in a Japanese prison camp. In recent conflicts,
>>> men and women have been shot and blown to pieces. Believe me, I have
>>> sympathies for anyone with a back injury, but it is a far cry from a
>>> serious battle wound.
>>
>> The Government recognizes the severity and pays him for it. I feel for
>> all the vets who were injured serving in any capacity. That's why I was
>> giving to the Disabled Vets charity.
>>
>> He was on maneuvers when he got injured. It didn't happen at a desk.
>>
>
>
>
> Perhaps I should ask of any more details are going to be revealed. In my
> mind, "disabled veteran" is someone who is wounded in combat. You only
> said that he worked on personnel. I know from my own limited military
> experience that everyone goes through training, and that everyone has to
> get involved in maneuvers. I hope you can understand that I view
> injuries like his to be a workplace injury and that he should be taken
> care of similar to any workplace injury. But please do not confuse it
> with a combat injury.

Sorry. I meant no offense. I see my child suffering from this injury
and it pains me as his mother. To me, it makes little difference where
or how he got permanently disabled, he's my boy and I love him.

--
From somewhere very deep in the heart of Texas

Janet UK, I just got one of those foot and mouth artist packets for the first time this month. I
tossed it without opening it.

That Disabled Vet thing may have been a useless "charity," but I think there is at least one
with a similar but different name that is worthwhile. I contribute to the same half dozen or so
charities every year, and ignore the rest. My charities include Heifer, Nature Conservancy,
The Smile Train, Doctors Without Borders, and Audubon. I support the NWF and UNICEF
by buying my holiday cards from them.

If someone wants to make a difference, try Heifer International, or find a legitimate one that
feeds the hungry in this country.

N.

"Kalmia" > wrote in message
...
On Sunday, October 19, 2014 12:55:52 PM UTC-4, Pete C. wrote:
> Cheri wrote:
>
> >
>
> > "Pico Rico" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> > >
>
> > > > wrote in message
>
> > > ...
>
> > >> On Sunday, October 19, 2014 8:24:02 AM UTC-7, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > >>
>
> > >>>
>
> > >>> Just charity leaches much like the united way criminals. It seems
> > >>> it's
>
> > >>> the trendy liberal thing to do to corruptly leach off of charity
> > >>> while
>
> > >>> stroking your ego pretending you are somehow helping people with the
>
> > >>> 10-15% you actually use for charitable work.
>
> > >>
>
> > >> Huh? The opposite is true.
>
> > >>
>
> > >> United Ways typically deliver over 80% of what they raise to the
> > >> programs
>
> > >> you think you're giving to, with 8% of your funds going to
> > >> fundraising,
>
> > >> and another 8% or so going to salaries and rent.
>
> > >
>
> > > But they, at least in the past, used strong arm techniques at the
>
> > > workplace to get their donations. And there was scandal in at least
> > > one of
>
> > > their local outfits. And they ban donations to groups based on UW's
>
> > > political agenda. Best to just give to the specific charity you want,
>
> > > rather than run it through a clearinghouse.
>
> >
>
> > Yes, they used to force you to donate by taking it out of your check,
> > but
>
> > that was a long time ago, might be different now but that always left a
> > bad
>
> > taste in my mouth for the organization.
>
>
>
> They still do that kind of scam, and they wine and dine company execs to
>
> meet fundraising goals. To this day they still try to get everyone to
>
> "acknowledge" the "campaign", something I still refuse to do, so the
>
> execs at my company never meet their "goals". **** the corrupt UW.

OH, how well I remember those breakfasts. Off to a nice meal at a fancy
hotel, then came the spiel. In so many words, "Your next raise could depend
on giving your fair share." Then, the bus ride to some place where totally
unemployables were looking busy pushing bins around with who knew what
inside. Still didn't wanna give? Then came the private, personal meeting
with someone three levels up, and the story about "kids I have to feed."

It was almost this bad when it was US Bonds time, but at least it was SORT
of a savings plan.

What frosted me was when a UF exec was fired for malfeasance, but received a
fat severance check of about 125 thou, and this was decades ago. Don't
ask ME about the UF.

---

We didn't even have those. There was usually a breakfast with a free coffee
or maybe some juice and a cinnamon roll. And a spiel and a lot of strong
arming to give a set amount each week. I think I did that twice. Then I
wised up.

In article >,
says...
>
> Janet UK, I just got one of those foot and mouth artist packets for the first time this month. I
> tossed it without opening it.

I just looked them up to see if they are still active here and it turns
out they are not a charity at all :-( and have a sickening reputation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associa..._Painting_Arti
sts_of_the_World

quote

"Controversies

The AMFPA has in later years been the subject of several exposés in
German, French, Swiss, Swedish, Norwegian, Polish, British, Canadian and
Danish media, suggesting unethical behaviour within the organization.
The coverage has spurred criticism from charity, consumer and handicap
organizations. The criticism includes:

That AMFPA effectively poses as a charity organization although it
is purely a commercial venture, in effect conning charitable people out
of money.[2][3][4][5]
That only a fraction of the surplus is paid out to the handicapped
artists, since only 94 (2008) of them are fully employed by the company,
which in turn allegedly turns a world wide profit in the hundreds of
millions US$.[5][6][7] The precise world wide profit is confidential.
That high salaries, favourable loans and property lease contracts
are given to AMFPAs long-time legal adviser Herbert Batliner, his
friends and family and other lawyers employed at the AMFPA.[2][4][5][7]
Recently retired Batliner is himself a controversy, being previously
accused of money laundering for Colombian drug barons and for his
alleged involvement in the 1999 German CDU contribution scandal.[8][9]
That funds are being diverted to unknown parties via a network of
"mailbox" companies.[6][7]
The use of high pressure sales tactics by sending its main sales
item, Christmas card packages to consumers via unsolicited direct mail
with an option to pay afterwards.[4]
The secrecy maintained by the company.

No claims have been made suggesting any illegal activity by AMFPA.
Thecriticism has been centered on what is perceived as bad ethics."
<......>
Litigation
In June 2007 the company sued Danish Broadcasting Corporation and Danish
daily Ekstra Bladet for libel after negative coverage during December
2005. On October 10, 2008 the High Court of Eastern Denmark ruled in
favor of the accused journalists, stating that there was sufficient
factual basis for statements like: "Behind the scenes we found a well-
oiled money making machine with economic puppeteers, who are scraping in
money with arms and legs", "People think they are supporting a charity,
but in reality we are looking at a money making machine" and "...only a
measly 3% is going to the mouth and foot painting artists". AMFPA has
not appealed the decision"
end quote

Janet UK

Janet Wilder, I think you are mistaken about UNICEF. My mother was local,chairman for years, and
did her homework before becoming an advocate. If there is contrary information, I would like to see it.

N.

On 10/21/2014 8:29 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
>
> Janet Wilder, I think you are mistaken about UNICEF. My mother was local,chairman for years, and
> did her homework before becoming an advocate. If there is contrary information, I would like to see it.
>
> N.
>
Charity Watch rates the United States Fund for UNICEF at B+, not quite
the highest but not discouraging me from contributing. I buy most of my
Xmas cards from them.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

On 10/21/2014 7:29 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
>
> Janet Wilder, I think you are mistaken about UNICEF. My mother was local,chairman for years, and
> did her homework before becoming an advocate. If there is contrary information, I would like to see it.
>
> N.
>

I don't have any documentation, but it was widely reported that UNICEF
funds were being given to "Palestinians" for education and in those
classes the children were taught to hate Jews.

I have also spoken with people who have been in Africa on missions and
they, too, reported that the funds were not applied where they were
supposed to be.

Again, this is not the kind of thing that would come up in "official"
documentation (we all know that the news we are given is doctored by the
government, anyway) but just looking at what the UN has done in recent
years as far as their attitude towards America and Israel should make
anyone want to shut their checkbook.

I can find many charities here, at home in my own community and
throughout my own country to better spend my charitable donations. We
have hungry children right here in the US.

--
From somewhere very deep in the heart of Texas

"Janet Wilder" > wrote in message
eb.com...
> On 10/21/2014 7:29 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
>>
>> Janet Wilder, I think you are mistaken about UNICEF. My mother was
>> local,chairman for years, and
>> did her homework before becoming an advocate. If there is contrary
>> information, I would like to see it.
>>
>> N.
>>
>
> I don't have any documentation, but it was widely reported that UNICEF
> funds were being given to "Palestinians" for education and in those
> classes the children were taught to hate Jews.
>
> I have also spoken with people who have been in Africa on missions and
> they, too, reported that the funds were not applied where they were
> supposed to be.
>
> Again, this is not the kind of thing that would come up in "official"
> documentation (we all know that the news we are given is doctored by the
> government, anyway) but just looking at what the UN has done in recent
> years as far as their attitude towards America and Israel should make
> anyone want to shut their checkbook.
>
> I can find many charities here, at home in my own community and throughout
> my own country to better spend my charitable donations. We have hungry
> children right here in the US.
>

Even if that is not true (though it likely is), putting a good face on one
UN program may serve to instill positive thoughts about ALL UN programs, and
most of them are corrupt to the nth degree. Sort of like Al Capone handing
out charity, or Hamas doing something (not much) for the good.

On 2014-10-21 2:23 PM, Janet Wilder wrote:

> I don't have any documentation, but it was widely reported that UNICEF
> funds were being given to "Palestinians" for education and in those
> classes the children were taught to hate Jews.

I guess the theory is that if you educate the children they are better
informed and less likely to remain ignorant and bigoted. Perhaps
funding for schools should be contingent upon them not indoctrinating
them with the same old crap. It is especially strange that Hamas uses
schools as arsenals.



> I have also spoken with people who have been in Africa on missions and
> they, too, reported that the funds were not applied where they were
> supposed to be.

It is not just UNICEF. A lot of federal aid money gets diverted to the
politicians, and sometimes it is blatantly obvious. A number of years
ago the US gave Uganda $34 in aid money. The president went out and
bought himself a personal jet worth $34 million.




>
>

The United Nations is not UNICEF, per se. Yes, there are hungry children here, which is why I suggested
making contributions to one of the food charities. You are free to tar UNICEF with a wider UN brush, and
I am free not to do so.

Anyone can find various "witnesses" to bolster one's opinion, whatever it is.

N.

On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:23:36 AM UTC-7, Janet Wilder wrote:
> On 10/21/2014 7:29 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Janet Wilder, I think you are mistaken about UNICEF. My mother was local,chairman for years, and
>
> > did her homework before becoming an advocate. If there is contrary information, I would like to see it.
>
>
> I don't have any documentation, but it was widely reported that UNICEF
> funds were being given to "Palestinians" for education and in those
> classes the children were taught to hate Jews.
>

I think the most effective way to teach Palestinian children to hate
Israelis is for Israel to kill several hundred of them every few years.
Destroying Palestinian schools (73 in Gaza alone from 2000 to 2004)
including kindergartens, is another good way to teach Palestinian
children to hate Israelis.

I find Israel's behavior especially shocking because American Jews
are the greatest humanitarians on earth. Further, the ones that
I know personally are among the nicest and most empathetic folks that
I know. Concern for the less fortunate is their most striking
quality.

Trying to resolve this dichotomy, I can come up with only one answer:
Israel has lost its way. To me it is no longer a Jewish state.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 22:03:28 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:23:36 AM UTC-7, Janet Wilder wrote:
>> On 10/21/2014 7:29 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
>>
>> > Janet Wilder, I think you are mistaken about UNICEF. My mother was local,chairman for years, and
>> > did her homework before becoming an advocate. If there is contrary information, I would like to see it.
>>
>> I don't have any documentation, but it was widely reported that UNICEF
>> funds were being given to "Palestinians" for education and in those
>> classes the children were taught to hate Jews.

ROTFL. Well well well... learned something important about Janet.
WHY on earth would Palestinians need any help hating jews?

>I think the most effective way to teach Palestinian children to hate
>Israelis is for Israel to kill several hundred of them every few years.
>Destroying Palestinian schools (73 in Gaza alone from 2000 to 2004)
>including kindergartens, is another good way to teach Palestinian
>children to hate Israelis.

Agreed.

>I find Israel's behavior especially shocking because American Jews
>are the greatest humanitarians on earth.

That's a ridiculous statement. And I don't give a rats what 'stats'
you come up with either.

>Further, the ones that
>I know personally are among the nicest and most empathetic folks that
>I know. Concern for the less fortunate is their most striking
>quality.
>
>Trying to resolve this dichotomy, I can come up with only one answer:
>Israel has lost its way. To me it is no longer a Jewish state.

It needs to go. Completely. Until then, there never any hope for
peace, anywhere in the world. Israel and Zionism is a cancer on the
planet. There hasn't been anything near as evil since the Nazis, and
at least they weren't masters of deception, manipulation and
subterfuge like the Zionists are.

On 10/22/2014 12:03 AM, wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:23:36 AM UTC-7, Janet Wilder wrote:
>> On 10/21/2014 7:29 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Janet Wilder, I think you are mistaken about UNICEF. My mother was local,chairman for years, and
>>
>>> did her homework before becoming an advocate. If there is contrary information, I would like to see it.
>>
>>
>> I don't have any documentation, but it was widely reported that UNICEF
>> funds were being given to "Palestinians" for education and in those
>> classes the children were taught to hate Jews.
>>
>
> I think the most effective way to teach Palestinian children to hate
> Israelis is for Israel to kill several hundred of them every few years.
> Destroying Palestinian schools (73 in Gaza alone from 2000 to 2004)
> including kindergartens, is another good way to teach Palestinian
> children to hate Israelis.
>
> I find Israel's behavior especially shocking because American Jews
> are the greatest humanitarians on earth. Further, the ones that
> I know personally are among the nicest and most empathetic folks that
> I know. Concern for the less fortunate is their most striking
> quality.
>
> Trying to resolve this dichotomy, I can come up with only one answer:
> Israel has lost its way. To me it is no longer a Jewish state.
>

....and no blame on Hamas for storing weapons in the schools and making
the general population targets?

We all know where you are coming from, and it's not a pretty place.

--
From somewhere very deep in the heart of Texas

On 10/22/2014 1:41 AM, wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 22:03:28 -0700 (PDT),
> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:23:36 AM UTC-7, Janet Wilder wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2014 7:29 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Janet Wilder, I think you are mistaken about UNICEF. My mother was local,chairman for years, and
>>>> did her homework before becoming an advocate. If there is contrary information, I would like to see it.
>>>
>>> I don't have any documentation, but it was widely reported that UNICEF
>>> funds were being given to "Palestinians" for education and in those
>>> classes the children were taught to hate Jews.
>
> ROTFL. Well well well... learned something important about Janet.
> WHY on earth would Palestinians need any help hating jews?
>
>> I think the most effective way to teach Palestinian children to hate
>> Israelis is for Israel to kill several hundred of them every few years.
>> Destroying Palestinian schools (73 in Gaza alone from 2000 to 2004)
>> including kindergartens, is another good way to teach Palestinian
>> children to hate Israelis.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> I find Israel's behavior especially shocking because American Jews
>> are the greatest humanitarians on earth.
>
> That's a ridiculous statement. And I don't give a rats what 'stats'
> you come up with either.
>
>> Further, the ones that
>> I know personally are among the nicest and most empathetic folks that
>> I know. Concern for the less fortunate is their most striking
>> quality.
>>
>> Trying to resolve this dichotomy, I can come up with only one answer:
>> Israel has lost its way. To me it is no longer a Jewish state.
>
> It needs to go. Completely. Until then, there never any hope for
> peace, anywhere in the world. Israel and Zionism is a cancer on the
> planet. There hasn't been anything near as evil since the Nazis, and
> at least they weren't masters of deception, manipulation and
> subterfuge like the Zionists are.
>

So, in your opinion, Israel has no right to exist? Remember it's your
precious United Nations who partitioned the area, giving a portion to
the Arabs (which Jordan stole) and a portion to the Jews which later
became the State of Israel.

I have been to Israel. I have close family there It is most certainly a
Jewish state. If it didn't exist, there would be no where for Jews to
go when people like you try to extinguish them. You are the Nazi here.

--
From somewhere very deep in the heart of Texas

On 2014-10-22 11:17 AM, Janet Wilder wrote:

> So, in your opinion, Israel has no right to exist? Remember it's your
> precious United Nations who partitioned the area, giving a portion to
> the Arabs (which Jordan stole) and a portion to the Jews which later
> became the State of Israel.
>
> I have been to Israel. I have close family there It is most certainly a
> Jewish state. If it didn't exist, there would be no where for Jews to
> go when people like you try to extinguish them. You are the Nazi here.
>


Sorry Janet, but I can't equate a lack of sympathy for Israel or Zionism
to antisemitism. The partitioning started with the British as they
picked up the pieces of the crumbling Ottoman empire. I appreciate the
desire for a Jewish homeland, but that is not where the Jews came from
originally. It where the place where some of them settled with the
blessing of their god who they think promised it to them. There were
other people there. The Jews were expelled from there a long time ago
and then the Zionist movement started lobbying for a return to the area.
Meanwhile, there were other people living there.


Imagine what would happen if the UN or some other body decided that
Texas would be a great place for.... let's say the Tamils They had
been fighting a civil war for years and there is a Tamil diaspora. It
may not be enough for them to have sought refuge in countries around the
world, and they think that God promised them some land in Texas. They
start showing up by the thousands and take over an area... with UN
sanction. You know that the locals are going to be upset.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:17:23 -0500, Janet Wilder >
wrote:

>On 10/22/2014 1:41 AM, wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 22:03:28 -0700 (PDT),
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:23:36 AM UTC-7, Janet Wilder wrote:
>>>> On 10/21/2014 7:29 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Janet Wilder, I think you are mistaken about UNICEF. My mother was local,chairman for years, and
>>>>> did her homework before becoming an advocate. If there is contrary information, I would like to see it.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have any documentation, but it was widely reported that UNICEF
>>>> funds were being given to "Palestinians" for education and in those
>>>> classes the children were taught to hate Jews.
>>
>> ROTFL. Well well well... learned something important about Janet.
>> WHY on earth would Palestinians need any help hating jews?
>>
>>> I think the most effective way to teach Palestinian children to hate
>>> Israelis is for Israel to kill several hundred of them every few years.
>>> Destroying Palestinian schools (73 in Gaza alone from 2000 to 2004)
>>> including kindergartens, is another good way to teach Palestinian
>>> children to hate Israelis.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>> I find Israel's behavior especially shocking because American Jews
>>> are the greatest humanitarians on earth.
>>
>> That's a ridiculous statement. And I don't give a rats what 'stats'
>> you come up with either.
>>
>>> Further, the ones that
>>> I know personally are among the nicest and most empathetic folks that
>>> I know. Concern for the less fortunate is their most striking
>>> quality.
>>>
>>> Trying to resolve this dichotomy, I can come up with only one answer:
>>> Israel has lost its way. To me it is no longer a Jewish state.
>>
>> It needs to go. Completely. Until then, there never any hope for
>> peace, anywhere in the world. Israel and Zionism is a cancer on the
>> planet. There hasn't been anything near as evil since the Nazis, and
>> at least they weren't masters of deception, manipulation and
>> subterfuge like the Zionists are.
>>
>
>So, in your opinion, Israel has no right to exist? Remember it's your
>precious United Nations who partitioned the area, giving a portion to
>the Arabs (which Jordan stole) and a portion to the Jews which later
>became the State of Israel.

Umm, my United Nations? They have nothing to do with me.

>I have been to Israel. I have close family there It is most certainly a
>Jewish state. If it didn't exist, there would be no where for Jews to
>go when people like you try to extinguish them. You are the Nazi here.

Of course I am. I criticised israel.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 12:27:15 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2014-10-22 11:17 AM, Janet Wilder wrote:
>
>> So, in your opinion, Israel has no right to exist? Remember it's your
>> precious United Nations who partitioned the area, giving a portion to
>> the Arabs (which Jordan stole) and a portion to the Jews which later
>> became the State of Israel.
>>
>> I have been to Israel. I have close family there It is most certainly a
>> Jewish state. If it didn't exist, there would be no where for Jews to
>> go when people like you try to extinguish them. You are the Nazi here.
>>
>
>
>Sorry Janet, but I can't equate a lack of sympathy for Israel or Zionism
>to antisemitism.

You'll always get that if you're critical.

>The partitioning started with the British as they
>picked up the pieces of the crumbling Ottoman empire. I appreciate the
>desire for a Jewish homeland, but that is not where the Jews came from
>originally. It where the place where some of them settled with the
>blessing of their god who they think promised it to them. There were
>other people there. The Jews were expelled from there a long time ago
>and then the Zionist movement started lobbying for a return to the area.
> Meanwhile, there were other people living there.
>
>
>Imagine what would happen if the UN or some other body decided that
>Texas would be a great place for.... let's say the Tamils They had
>been fighting a civil war for years and there is a Tamil diaspora. It
>may not be enough for them to have sought refuge in countries around the
>world, and they think that God promised them some land in Texas. They
>start showing up by the thousands and take over an area... with UN
>sanction. You know that the locals are going to be upset.

It's inevitable. And I have no time for a nation based on religion
taken to that level.

On 2014-10-22 4:19 PM, Jeßus wrote:

> It's inevitable. And I have no time for a nation based on religion
> taken to that level.
>

Nor do I. It doesn't matter to me if people find some sort of comfort or
guidance from their religion, but I have people who get carried away
with their beliefs. I find it really offensive when people try to foist
their religion on me, or when they exude that self righteous sense of
moral superiority that they think their religion gives them.

On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 8:13:02 AM UTC-7, Janet Wilder wrote:
> On 10/22/2014 12:03 AM, wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:23:36 AM UTC-7, Janet Wilder wrote:
> >> On 10/21/2014 7:29 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >>> Janet Wilder, I think you are mistaken about UNICEF. My mother was local,chairman for years, and
> >>
> >>> did her homework before becoming an advocate. If there is contrary information, I would like to see it.
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't have any documentation, but it was widely reported that UNICEF
> >> funds were being given to "Palestinians" for education and in those
> >> classes the children were taught to hate Jews.
> >>
> >
> > I think the most effective way to teach Palestinian children to hate
> > Israelis is for Israel to kill several hundred of them every few years.
> > Destroying Palestinian schools (73 in Gaza alone from 2000 to 2004)
> > including kindergartens, is another good way to teach Palestinian
> > children to hate Israelis.
> >
> > I find Israel's behavior especially shocking because American Jews
> > are the greatest humanitarians on earth. Further, the ones that
> > I know personally are among the nicest and most empathetic folks that
> > I know. Concern for the less fortunate is their most striking
> > quality.
> >
> > Trying to resolve this dichotomy, I can come up with only one answer:
> > Israel has lost its way. To me it is no longer a Jewish state.
> >
>
> ...and no blame on Hamas for storing weapons in the schools and making
> the general population targets?

Do you know how many Israelis were killed by Hamas rockets to date, in
all the years since the first ones were launched in 2004?

23

Do you know how many Israelis were killed by Tel Aviv motorists in one
year alone, 2004?

41

Do you know how many Israelis were killed by Hamas rockets before Iron
Dome was first implemented?

17

> We all know where you are coming from, and it's not a pretty place.
>

Fortunately, it's not a place that justifies the mass slaughter of children because one Israeli was killed this year by a rocket.

And do you know why this Israeli died?

He was a Bedouin, and Israel does not consider Bedouin villages worth
protecting with Iron Dome.

There is a point when the knee-jerk defense of a country that commits
the mass slaughter of children is no longer tolerable.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:46:40 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2014-10-22 4:19 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>
>> It's inevitable. And I have no time for a nation based on religion
>> taken to that level.
>>
>
>Nor do I. It doesn't matter to me if people find some sort of comfort or
>guidance from their religion, but I have people who get carried away
>with their beliefs. I find it really offensive when people try to foist
>their religion on me, or when they exude that self righteous sense of
>moral superiority that they think their religion gives them.

Understand. I still get the occasional god-botherers who will ignore
the signs on my gate and try to peddle their crap. It's the arrogance
that offends me the most, I think.

Is the term 'god-botherers ' uniquely Australian, or is it also used
elsewhere?