dagblog - Comments for "26 Billion Bucks: The Jewish Charity Industry Uncovered "

Yep, the umps are biased

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:09:46 +0000

In reply to I've made one charge, i.e.

Yep, the umps are biased towards Lulu - giving him those line faults, bringing him sandwiches between sets... it's like a reality show with Paris Hilton.

I've made one charge, i.e.

Bruce Levine — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 13:48:30 +0000

In reply to bslev, you are as full of

I've made one charge, i.e. that you're obsessed with Jew stuff. I stand by it, decline your invitation to back up my charges, and note that if I had called you full of shit I might be charged with having violated the terms of service. But I think you get kind of like mascot treatment around here; kind of like TOS affirmative action for Lulu. Which is fine; I'm not offended and you can post what you'd like, and I will presume that you are more intelligent than a newt and respond accordingly -- but only when I want to.

But that's just me. Obviously some people seem to think your stuff is worthwhile even when you're too timid to explain the significance of the Jew stuff you post. But I'm not throwing a hissy fit at your request; sorry, I also have a hunch that you get off on that. Whatever rocks your boat dude.

bslev, you are as full of

A Guy Called LULU — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 04:34:16 +0000

In reply to You can claim I'm

bslev, you are as full of shit as a Christmas turkey. Talk about someone having a pattern. I believe, for instance, that your excuse that your dog-whistle statement ["Peter, the reason this was posted is obvious -- you know it, I know it, and we all know it."] was just intended to say that I am "obsessed" and that nothing more scurrilous was being charged is nothing less is an outright lie. But that's why slanderers use the dog-whistle isn't it? So they can deny what they were putting out if called on it.

The rest of your comment here is either grossly distorted claims or just plain wrong. If you do decide to return to this after one more tiresome time of saying you are out of here and ending in a puffed up self-righteous huff, how about posting some links that support your charges.

You lost me Peracles, sorry,

Bruce Levine — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 19:10:01 +0000

In reply to "from his record of posting

You lost me Peracles, sorry, but I'm spent on this one.

"from his record of posting

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 19:02:17 +0000

In reply to You can claim I'm

"from his record of posting articles about the zionists being behind Benghazi" - sorry, no idea about this one, didn't read it AFAIK

" you too apparently see a pattern, a non-sequitur to this article, but a pattern " - uh Bruce, I'd imagine 1/2 of your comments are related to Israel or Jewish issues. Sorry for noticing the sun is shining.

"if one is to question American tax policy, it might be better to not make it a Jew thing" - uh, well, I think there have been a million non-Jewish discussions about tax cuts we can't afford and Republicans getting tax breaks for voucher schools and laundering money through non-profits for various campaign activity, and Obama caving to GOP on taxcuts/social cuts, etc. But I guess pull an article out that's about Jewish contributions, there must be something severe & sinister.

Hey, that reminds me of the Jewish mother-in-law who gives her son-in-law 2 sweaters, so when he wears one, she can say, "so what, you don't like the other one?" There must be some other article he could have talked about - the 98% that Peter went on and on about -so the fact that he pulled out *this one* by God is suspicious - the $7 billion drop in the bucket.

You can claim I'm

Bruce Levine — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 18:18:02 +0000

In reply to "deliberately argumentative"

You can claim I'm insinuative, but I disagree. I've been clear about what I think about Lulu and what I see as an obsession. I get that from his decision to post this article without having anything to say about it, and from his record of posting articles about the zionists being behind Benghazi and the Syrian civil war. It's what we call a pattern.

Now, you too apparently see a pattern, a non-sequitur to this article, but a pattern nonetheless. Something about talking about one's heritage. It has nothing to do with this thread, and so again I believe you're being argumentative. If it really does bother you, perhaps we can discuss that in a place where it's relevant.

And I'm done, having never questioned Lulu's right to post something, having chimed in a bit, just a wee bit, because I think the whole thing is cheesy -- like just not the way I've been raised to play baseball with kids of different colors.

Even VA, who tells us he knows nothing at all about the historical tropes I have harped on -- I know it irritates you too -- understands that if one is to question American tax policy, it might be better to not make it a Jew thing. But let's play our game. Lulu's happy now, you've gotten to defend him with a little jibing offense, and I'm done, completely indifferent to getting my hands a little dirty where most groovy progressive Jews have no interest in getting involved--my special place as the masthead might say. As you said, to each his or her own.

"deliberately argumentative"

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 16:09:11 +0000

In reply to I think you are being

"deliberately argumentative" - well duh, just like you're being "deliberately insinuative". Lulu said why he found it interesting, why he posted. If that's not enough for you, c'est la vie, but don't keep pretending he didn't answer.

And mine wasn't an "attack" on folks who focus on their identity - it was trying to communicate with you how it's a bit of a disconnect to those of us who don't give a shit about what our great-great-grandparents or ethnic or religious kinfolk thought or did. I'd rather read about Mongol Hordes and the Reformation than Oliver Cromwell or Robert the Bruce. You're free to do and enjoy whatever it is you do. Different strokes, different folks.

I think you are being

Bruce Levine — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 13:18:23 +0000

In reply to That if they post what they'd

I think you are being deliberately argumentative because you feel that lulu is being picked on. I say grown ups have to expect that they might be criticized for what they post,particularly when they are unable to articulate the point of the post, and edited to add when it is being presented in the form it was presented, with references to Jew money and all (by a Hebe principally for his Hebe readership but whatever) -- prompting you, and almost at the threshold, to question the value of what had been posted by lulu -- kinda not much there there for us folk outside the Jewish American ghetto is what I thought you had written.

Not everyone can be as careful as Peraclese Please about not "attacking" people for what they write.

By the way I did not attack anyone. Lulu felt I wasn't being forthcoming so I told him what I thought. And what I think. And I think that's kosher. I wish lulu could tell us why he posted this. Still waiting, but whatever.

And in response you decide to turn the issue into an attack on folks who focus on their identity too much. Ouch says the indifferent poster with a life combined with a focus on his identity. But argumentative and off topic nonetheless.

This "caught my eye" idea

Peter Schwartz — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 22:26:32 +0000

In reply to Whip-lash time. This

This "caught my eye" idea MIGHT be a good theory IF he hadn't already explained his interest and didn't provide lots of examples of the same, ...

I'm not talking about your original non-explanations explanations. I'm talking about the answers you started to give above.

The Forward article that I

Peter Schwartz — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 22:22:29 +0000

In reply to Whip-lash time. This

The Forward article that I linked to brought forth some good analysis of, and some reasonable discussion about, its topic. The only thing that started out contentious and remained that way is; WHY did LULU post it?

PS: The only reason it remained contentious is that you refused to answer it.

You push that over and over even after I made several responses which, whether satisfying to you or not, did address the point.

PS: It did NOT address the point. What you said was that some other people decided to post it, so you posted it. My question went to...what about the content of the article interests you and why.

Above I asked you to explain why YOU are so dedicated to making making MY interest an issue.

PS: I spoke to that at the top. I seemed to me, as it has of late, that you do a lot of dancing around your point. So I asked you what your point was. You decided to not answer.

[ignoring, or wanting to, that there is a lot of interest in a lot of places about the article as well as another investigation about the same subject but investigated it as it relates to a different group]

PS: I didn't ignore it. I went looking for it. When I Googled it, I found a lot of Forward links, one Haaretz link, and two links by anti-Semitic sites.

I said what I was thinking about that question. I also suggested that bslev's dog-whistle is one that he obviously expected you to hear.

PS: I piped up before Bruce, I believe.

Is he right to think you are one to jump through that hoop on signal. Am I right to think you have been dancing all around it.

PS: Again, I asked my questions before Bruce did. What hoop is that, btw?

You did not even pretend to answer any of my questions about why. Why not, PETER.

PS: Because I wasn't responding based on what Bruce said. I was responding based on what you said.

Whether you accept my answers as sufficient or not, do you allow the possibility that my interest in things involving American Jews and/or Israel could be part of a greater, more expansive but connected, interest which is legitimately connected to important things going on in the world?

PS: I totally accept that possibility. I'm happy to read any answer. Above, you finally decided to answer the "why" and I responded to it and built on it. Take a look. And if the "why" is part of a "greater, more expansive, but connected interest..." then I don't know why you couldn't have said that when I asked you, at first, why you found this article interesting. Inside dancing all around it.