Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "Fox reporter tries to spar with Jen Psaki, INSTANTLY regrets it" video.

  1. 36
  2. 19
  3. 18
  4. 14
  5. 10
  6. 10
  7. 10
  8. 9
  9. 4
  10. 4
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 2
  14. 2
  15. 2
  16. 2
  17. 2
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41.  @joehalliday6081  I was graduated from high school in the 1967. Not everyone was drafted -- including at least some of those who called me "Communist" and "draft-dodger" for speaking out against US involvement in Vietnam. (It is interesting that my grandparent's generation mostly agreed with my generation on that involvement, but my parent's generation mostly did not. My grandparent's generation were veterans of WW I. My parent's generation were young adults during WW II.) The reason I recommend reading Mark Twain's "Following the Equator" is because he was an anti-imperialist (and a vice-president of the "Anti-Imperialist League"). In fact, he was a lifelong Republican -- until 70, when he publicly resigned from the party over the "Spanish-American War" and its conduct of that war. In that he wrote of his world tour, including stops in such as South Africa and Australia (Europe and British Empire). The 1990s Oxford Edition includes photographs of atrocities. Which war, again, was initiated by a REPUBLICAN president, egged on by the Yellow Journalism of William Randolph Hearst. That war included the United States Marines hunting down Aguinaldo, the Philippine hero who lead the fight against Spain, and killed him. Or see if you can find copy of the book of essays "Mark Twain On the Damned Human Race". I read that in September of my Junior year in high school. No, it was not assigned reading. It was from reading Twain that I understood the underlying "purpose" of US involvement in Vietnam: NATURAL RESOURCES. Ho Chih Minh was not a problem; he was a nationalist attempting to unite a country that was divided by civil war -- that being interfered with by US involvement. Sure, a prominent "defense" of that involvement was that a people "Have a right to determine their own future/gov't." In reality that choice had to be approved by the United States, which had no business making such a decision for another sovereign nation.
    1
  42. 1