Gov. Abbot calls San Marcos TX residents antisemitic for not wanting their $4.4 million tax dollars sent to Israel

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can people please use their intellectual powers? Cities in the US are not funding specific conflicts and the website above is so biased it states Israel is Palestinian land. Talk about muddying the waters.

We take the tax money from the people in the cities (and other areas) and we use it to fund conflicts among other uses. Yes we do. And the taxpayers are perfectly entitled to object to or support all of the items in the budget.

Nikki Haley was writing "finish them" on bombs. Kamala Harris said she would do the same as ineffectual Biden.

Trump is a disaster, but after election day I had a tiny shred of hope that an "America First" President would keep our tax dollars at home instead of funding wars all over the globe. Now I am becoming a one issue voter in that I will vote for anyone who runs on stopping our tax dollars from funding Ukraine and Israel. Our weapons spending economy is immoral.

Because an empowered Putin and revived Hamas advance US interests?

Why don’t we give Iran some nuclear ICBMs just to complete your trifecta of stupidity?

Your boogeyman tricks are tiresome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can people please use their intellectual powers? Cities in the US are not funding specific conflicts and the website above is so biased it states Israel is Palestinian land. Talk about muddying the waters.

We take the tax money from the people in the cities (and other areas) and we use it to fund conflicts among other uses. Yes we do. And the taxpayers are perfectly entitled to object to or support all of the items in the budget.

Nikki Haley was writing "finish them" on bombs. Kamala Harris said she would do the same as ineffectual Biden.

Trump is a disaster, but after election day I had a tiny shred of hope that an "America First" President would keep our tax dollars at home instead of funding wars all over the globe. Now I am becoming a one issue voter in that I will vote for anyone who runs on stopping our tax dollars from funding Ukraine and Israel. Our weapons spending economy is immoral.

Because an empowered Putin and revived Hamas advance US interests?

Why don’t we give Iran some nuclear ICBMs just to complete your trifecta of stupidity?

So we’re trapped in a cycle of funding Ukraine and Israel, and to stop would be stupid?

Hmmm … I wonder … I guess I just wonder who stands to gain the most from that (il)logic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we giving a religious nationalist fascist country this insane amount of taxpayer money?

Evangelical Christians believe that Jesus will come again and are laser focused on trying to make it happen as soon as possible. According to them, Jesus will only come if there is an Armageddon in Palestine and that will only happen if the Jews have taken over full control of Palestine and eliminated everyone else there.

I’m not making this up. Evangelicals believe so much in this they are willing to put their money where their mouths are and pay pay pay. And they’re organized and willing to play the long game so they have become insanely influential in politics. Much more than AIPAC. They influence local, state and federal elections, have members in Congress, and want judges on the Supreme Court.

Texas has a significant evangelical population and Abbott knows this. He’s playing to the voter base. Vice did a great, short explanation of the connection between evangelicals, their money and Zionism and seeing where we are today it all starts to make sense. https://youtu.be/Fo77sTGpngQ?si=HbDNSMT_1rG8o3ko

There’s no such thing as Evangelical Christian. It came from the word televangelist. It’s TV /Hollywood Christianity. It started with Pat Robertson. These late night tv preachers Christians were funded by Hwood Zionists and the Republican Party to talk about Israel being the salvation and the mountaintop and whatever and they sell miracle water and air on late night tv . It was a huge thing in the 80s and 90s.
Reagan wasn’t too fond of them and Bush Sr didn’t like them.

They lucked up when Bush 2 won because he was an evangelical born again Christian “saved” from being a drunk

[Anonymous]

Did you know the government started inscribing Bible verses on assault rifles meant for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? It’s not much different than a jihadi screaming Allah Akbar before turning people to Swiss cheese. I I guess God wants people to maim and kill in the name of oil

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we giving a religious nationalist fascist country this insane amount of taxpayer money?

Evangelical Christians believe that Jesus will come again and are laser focused on trying to make it happen as soon as possible. According to them, Jesus will only come if there is an Armageddon in Palestine and that will only happen if the Jews have taken over full control of Palestine and eliminated everyone else there.

I’m not making this up. Evangelicals believe so much in this they are willing to put their money where their mouths are and pay pay pay. And they’re organized and willing to play the long game so they have become insanely influential in politics. Much more than AIPAC. They influence local, state and federal elections, have members in Congress, and want judges on the Supreme Court.

Texas has a significant evangelical population and Abbott knows this. He’s playing to the voter base. Vice did a great, short explanation of the connection between evangelicals, their money and Zionism and seeing where we are today it all starts to make sense. https://youtu.be/Fo77sTGpngQ?si=HbDNSMT_1rG8o3ko

There’s no such thing as Evangelical Christian. It came from the word televangelist. It’s TV /Hollywood Christianity. It started with Pat Robertson. These late night tv preachers Christians were funded by Hwood Zionists and the Republican Party to talk about Israel being the salvation and the mountaintop and whatever and they sell miracle water and air on late night tv . It was a huge thing in the 80s and 90s.
Reagan wasn’t too fond of them and Bush Sr didn’t like them.

They lucked up when Bush 2 won because he was an evangelical born again Christian “saved” from being a drunk

Some say that these fugazi Christians (evangelicals, including the born again losers trying to peddle salvation) are actually really, really lucky that the actual Christians (the Catholics) aren’t motivated to conduct a 21st century Crusade to purify the brand and relieve the world of these weirdos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can people please use their intellectual powers? Cities in the US are not funding specific conflicts and the website above is so biased it states Israel is Palestinian land. Talk about muddying the waters.

We take the tax money from the people in the cities (and other areas) and we use it to fund conflicts among other uses. Yes we do. And the taxpayers are perfectly entitled to object to or support all of the items in the budget.

Nikki Haley was writing "finish them" on bombs. Kamala Harris said she would do the same as ineffectual Biden.

Trump is a disaster, but after election day I had a tiny shred of hope that an "America First" President would keep our tax dollars at home instead of funding wars all over the globe. Now I am becoming a one issue voter in that I will vote for anyone who runs on stopping our tax dollars from funding Ukraine and Israel. Our weapons spending economy is immoral.

Because an empowered Putin and revived Hamas advance US interests?

Why don’t we give Iran some nuclear ICBMs just to complete your trifecta of stupidity?

So we’re trapped in a cycle of funding Ukraine and Israel, and to stop would be stupid?

Hmmm … I wonder … I guess I just wonder who stands to gain the most from that (il)logic?

Not necessarily. Regime change could occur in either Russia or Palestine (or Iran for that matter).

In addition, we couple aid with diplomacy in both cases. For example, we can, and in my view should, condition aid to Israel on a reasonable 2-state peace proposal and a freeze to West Bank settler activity.

The point remains that an ascendant Putin and/or a resurgent Hamas/Iran surrogate network would be massively destabilizing and very bad for US interests indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can people please use their intellectual powers? Cities in the US are not funding specific conflicts and the website above is so biased it states Israel is Palestinian land. Talk about muddying the waters.

We take the tax money from the people in the cities (and other areas) and we use it to fund conflicts among other uses. Yes we do. And the taxpayers are perfectly entitled to object to or support all of the items in the budget.

Nikki Haley was writing "finish them" on bombs. Kamala Harris said she would do the same as ineffectual Biden.

Trump is a disaster, but after election day I had a tiny shred of hope that an "America First" President would keep our tax dollars at home instead of funding wars all over the globe. Now I am becoming a one issue voter in that I will vote for anyone who runs on stopping our tax dollars from funding Ukraine and Israel. Our weapons spending economy is immoral.

Because an empowered Putin and revived Hamas advance US interests?

Why don’t we give Iran some nuclear ICBMs just to complete your trifecta of stupidity?

So we’re trapped in a cycle of funding Ukraine and Israel, and to stop would be stupid?

Hmmm … I wonder … I guess I just wonder who stands to gain the most from that (il)logic?

Not necessarily. Regime change could occur in either Russia or Palestine (or Iran for that matter).

In addition, we couple aid with diplomacy in both cases. For example, we can, and in my view should, condition aid to Israel on a reasonable 2-state peace proposal and a freeze to West Bank settler activity.

The point remains that an ascendant Putin and/or a resurgent Hamas/Iran surrogate network would be massively destabilizing and very bad for US interests indeed.

I’m not agreeable to walking through life with a gun to my head, held by a war criminal trying to gaslight me about Hamas or Putin or Iran.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can people please use their intellectual powers? Cities in the US are not funding specific conflicts and the website above is so biased it states Israel is Palestinian land. Talk about muddying the waters.

We take the tax money from the people in the cities (and other areas) and we use it to fund conflicts among other uses. Yes we do. And the taxpayers are perfectly entitled to object to or support all of the items in the budget.

Nikki Haley was writing "finish them" on bombs. Kamala Harris said she would do the same as ineffectual Biden.

Trump is a disaster, but after election day I had a tiny shred of hope that an "America First" President would keep our tax dollars at home instead of funding wars all over the globe. Now I am becoming a one issue voter in that I will vote for anyone who runs on stopping our tax dollars from funding Ukraine and Israel. Our weapons spending economy is immoral.

Because an empowered Putin and revived Hamas advance US interests?

Why don’t we give Iran some nuclear ICBMs just to complete your trifecta of stupidity?

So we’re trapped in a cycle of funding Ukraine and Israel, and to stop would be stupid?

Hmmm … I wonder … I guess I just wonder who stands to gain the most from that (il)logic?

Not necessarily. Regime change could occur in either Russia or Palestine (or Iran for that matter).

In addition, we couple aid with diplomacy in both cases. For example, we can, and in my view should, condition aid to Israel on a reasonable 2-state peace proposal and a freeze to West Bank settler activity.

The point remains that an ascendant Putin and/or a resurgent Hamas/Iran surrogate network would be massively destabilizing and very bad for US interests indeed.

I’m not agreeable to walking through life with a gun to my head, held by a war criminal trying to gaslight me about Hamas or Putin or Iran.

The gun is there whether you like it or not.

Question is what we’re going to do about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can people please use their intellectual powers? Cities in the US are not funding specific conflicts and the website above is so biased it states Israel is Palestinian land. Talk about muddying the waters.

We take the tax money from the people in the cities (and other areas) and we use it to fund conflicts among other uses. Yes we do. And the taxpayers are perfectly entitled to object to or support all of the items in the budget.

Nikki Haley was writing "finish them" on bombs. Kamala Harris said she would do the same as ineffectual Biden.

Trump is a disaster, but after election day I had a tiny shred of hope that an "America First" President would keep our tax dollars at home instead of funding wars all over the globe. Now I am becoming a one issue voter in that I will vote for anyone who runs on stopping our tax dollars from funding Ukraine and Israel. Our weapons spending economy is immoral.

Because an empowered Putin and revived Hamas advance US interests?

Why don’t we give Iran some nuclear ICBMs just to complete your trifecta of stupidity?

So we’re trapped in a cycle of funding Ukraine and Israel, and to stop would be stupid?

Hmmm … I wonder … I guess I just wonder who stands to gain the most from that (il)logic?

Not necessarily. Regime change could occur in either Russia or Palestine (or Iran for that matter).

In addition, we couple aid with diplomacy in both cases. For example, we can, and in my view should, condition aid to Israel on a reasonable 2-state peace proposal and a freeze to West Bank settler activity.

The point remains that an ascendant Putin and/or a resurgent Hamas/Iran surrogate network would be massively destabilizing and very bad for US interests indeed.

I’m not agreeable to walking through life with a gun to my head, held by a war criminal trying to gaslight me about Hamas or Putin or Iran.

Well you're going to be gaslight no matter what. It doesn't matter who's in office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can people please use their intellectual powers? Cities in the US are not funding specific conflicts and the website above is so biased it states Israel is Palestinian land. Talk about muddying the waters.

We take the tax money from the people in the cities (and other areas) and we use it to fund conflicts among other uses. Yes we do. And the taxpayers are perfectly entitled to object to or support all of the items in the budget.

Nikki Haley was writing "finish them" on bombs. Kamala Harris said she would do the same as ineffectual Biden.

Trump is a disaster, but after election day I had a tiny shred of hope that an "America First" President would keep our tax dollars at home instead of funding wars all over the globe. Now I am becoming a one issue voter in that I will vote for anyone who runs on stopping our tax dollars from funding Ukraine and Israel. Our weapons spending economy is immoral.

Because an empowered Putin and revived Hamas advance US interests?

Why don’t we give Iran some nuclear ICBMs just to complete your trifecta of stupidity?

So we’re trapped in a cycle of funding Ukraine and Israel, and to stop would be stupid?

Hmmm … I wonder … I guess I just wonder who stands to gain the most from that (il)logic?

Not necessarily. Regime change could occur in either Russia or Palestine (or Iran for that matter).

In addition, we couple aid with diplomacy in both cases. For example, we can, and in my view should, condition aid to Israel on a reasonable 2-state peace proposal and a freeze to West Bank settler activity.

The point remains that an ascendant Putin and/or a resurgent Hamas/Iran surrogate network would be massively destabilizing and very bad for US interests indeed.

I’m not agreeable to walking through life with a gun to my head, held by a war criminal trying to gaslight me about Hamas or Putin or Iran.

The gun is there whether you like it or not.

Question is what we’re going to do about it.

It is a poorly-made toy guy - poorly-made like everything else made in Israel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we giving a religious nationalist fascist country this insane amount of taxpayer money?

Evangelical Christians believe that Jesus will come again and are laser focused on trying to make it happen as soon as possible. According to them, Jesus will only come if there is an Armageddon in Palestine and that will only happen if the Jews have taken over full control of Palestine and eliminated everyone else there.

I’m not making this up. Evangelicals believe so much in this they are willing to put their money where their mouths are and pay pay pay. And they’re organized and willing to play the long game so they have become insanely influential in politics. Much more than AIPAC. They influence local, state and federal elections, have members in Congress, and want judges on the Supreme Court.

Texas has a significant evangelical population and Abbott knows this. He’s playing to the voter base. Vice did a great, short explanation of the connection between evangelicals, their money and Zionism and seeing where we are today it all starts to make sense. https://youtu.be/Fo77sTGpngQ?si=HbDNSMT_1rG8o3ko

This is accurate. However, just a reminder that you don't need to be Jewish or Christian Evangelical to be a Zionist. But you do need to be racist.