> 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.

"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.

Cheri

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.

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.

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 7:10 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 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 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.

"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.

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.

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.

--
From somewhere very deep in the heart of Texas

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.

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 Sunday, October 19, 2014 9:37:40 AM UTC-7, 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.

Any strong-arm techniques come from management, who want the kudos that
come from getting all their workers to contribute. You could contribute
just five bucks if you wanted to. If you work for jerks it's not UW's
fault.

Yes, any time people have control of money there is a chance they will
steal some. Consider Rita Crundwell, who siphoned off $53 million from
the small town of Dixon Illinois, as its comptroller, to support her
horse habit.

We do not condemn all small American towns based on this one incident.

And yes, many UW boards have voted to deny funds to the BSA, because
of its *** exclusion policies. They have taken sides, and the side they
took was to accept gays as full citizens.

"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.