WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

827

Politics is Talmudic theater to divide. Literally the words "Left" and "Right" and "Conservative" and "Liberal" were proposed because they were purposefully vague and would provide the maximum opportunity to divide people without specific discussion. And it works! People divide over vague teams!

People call themselves for a team without any deep discussion and fight like hell without even realizing most people want the same basic things.

Once you realize the terms left and right and conservative and liberal were completely created it opens your eyes to the designed purpose of it all.

Think about it. How ridiculous is it to call yourself by two turning directions and then literally fight about it with others!

Why not green or orange! Think how stupid it would be if you heard common people fiercely divided over whether they considered themselves green or orange. Then even worse of you found they only had vague flexible notions of what they even stood for and adjusted those often on their own minds to put themselves in the most opposition to their common people!

These vague teams are literally passed down generationally to continue fighting! And what was green a decade ago is orange today and the stupid fuckers keep proudly fighting anyway!

Politics is Talmudic theater to divide. Literally the words "Left" and "Right" and "Conservative" and "Liberal" were proposed because they were purposefully vague and would provide the maximum opportunity to divide people without specific discussion. And it works! People divide over vague teams! People call themselves for a team without any deep discussion and fight like hell without even realizing most people want the same basic things. Once you realize the terms left and right and conservative and liberal were completely created it opens your eyes to the designed purpose of it all. Think about it. How ridiculous is it to call yourself by two turning directions and then literally fight about it with others! Why not green or orange! Think how stupid it would be if you heard common people fiercely divided over whether they considered themselves green or orange. Then even worse of you found they only had vague flexible notions of what they even stood for and adjusted those often on their own minds to put themselves in the most opposition to their common people! These vague teams are literally passed down generationally to continue fighting! And what was green a decade ago is orange today and the stupid fuckers keep proudly fighting anyway!

(post is archived)

[–] 0 pt

Support for Zionism or love for the Jews was pretty much nonexistent at the time. Zionist historians have combed through our history to dig up every scant reference to it though and love to make a big deal out of the few instances of it they have found.

[–] 0 pt

LOANS, THE “CRANSTON AMENDMENT,” AND LOAN GUARANTEES Currently, Israel owes the U.S. government almost $3 billion in economic and military loans. Direct government-to-government loans are included in the above numbers for total aid, because repayment of several loans has been “waived” by the U.S. Israeli officials are fond of saying that Israel has never defaulted on a loan from the U.S. Technically, this is true. The CRS report, however, notes that from FY 1994 through FY 1998 $29 billion in U.S. loans have been waived for Israel. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider all loans to Israel the same as grants.

There seems to be much confusion about the so-called “Cranston Amendment,” named after the California senator who sponsored it in 1984. The amendment said, simply, that it is “the policy and intention” of the U.S. to give Israel economic aid “not less than” the amount Israel owes the U.S. in annual debt interest and principal payments.

Since official economic aid to Israel has always been considerably higher than the annual debt repayments, this is something of a non-issue. Furthermore, since the amendment is simply a statement of policy and intent, it may not be legally binding. In any event, although the amendment was included in every aid appropriations bill through FY 1998, it has not been repeated in the FY 1999, 2000, and 2001 appropriations bills.

The amount of U.S. government loan guarantees to Israel was not included in the above numbers, because they have not cost the U.S. any money (yet), although they are listed as “contingent liabilities” (that is, they would become liabilities to the U.S. should Israel default). Nevertheless, they unquestionably have been of tangible financial benefit to Israel. The major loan guarantees issued by Washington have been $600 million for housing between 1972 and 1990; the much publicized $10 billion for Soviet Jewish resettlement between 1992 and 1997; and some $5 billion for refinancing military loans commercially. Currently, the total U.S. contingent liability for Israeli loans is about $10 billion.

THE NEEMAN AGREEMENT After Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told Congress in 1996 that he wanted to reduce the level of U.S. economic aid to Israel, Israeli Finance Minister Yaacov Neeman met with members of Congress in January 1998 to negotiate the details. After much backing and forthing, they reached agreement that Israel’s then-$1.2 billion in economic aid would be decreased annually, beginning FY 1999, by $120 million, and the $1.8 billion in military aid would be increased by half that, or $60 million.

As a little-reported part of the deal, the amount of military aid that Israel was allowed to spend in Israel would be increased by $15 million per year. From FY 1988 through 1990 Israel was allowed to use $400 million of its $1.8 billion U.S. military aid in Israel. Beginning in FY 1991 that was increased to $475 million. As a result of the Neeman agreement, beginning in FY 1999 the aid appropriations bill gave the amount to be spent in Israel as a percentage of the total, rather than a stated amount. This maneuver helped hide from U.S. defense contractors the fact that the U.S. direct subsidy to their Israeli competitors was being increased by $15 million per year. For FY 2001 the stated percentage works out to $520 million. None of this is included in the above figures, because it does not represent a direct cost to the U.S. taxpayers. It is clearly an indirect cost, however, in terms of lost tax revenue and lost business for American companies.