Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "Romney: This is who I’d vote for between Trump and Biden" video.

  1. 10
  2. 10
  3. 8
  4. 8
  5. 7
  6. 6
  7. 3
  8. 2
  9. 2
  10. 2
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 2
  14. 2
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28.  @ANGRYBIRD-8  American national security has established security structures that defend the country. You call it "hegemony". So tell us, history-illiterate: what are the three basic purposes of NATO? And don't leave out Russia's hegemony by being expansionist by, as example, invading Ukraine based on the claim that NATO members are on the other side of the Russian border and therefore a "threat" to Russia. THINK IT THOROUGH: Putin is threatening to invade actual NATO members. What would be the result? NATO members would STILL be on the Russian border, and he would characterize THEM as "threats". NATO is a mutual DEFENSE pact against historically-expansionist -- hegemonic -- Russia, not really different than the the mutual defense pact "Confederation of New England Colonies" of the 1600s. The enemy of stability in the world order is Russia, and North Korea, who are hegemonic, not the United States -- except when the Republicans, like Kissinger and Colin Powell are in charge of foreign policy. For them -- for McCain -- it's never talking diplomacy; it's always go immediately to "Bomb, bomb, bomb." LBJ is attacked for escalating the number of troops in Vietnam -- but those same people DON'T attack Nixon for EXPANDING the war beyond Vietnam into neutral Cambodia and Laos. You need to learn HISTORY -- and not only the far-Left criticism of the US doing anything at all in the world, but also those of the adversaries against which US national defense is structured. NATO is the first line of defense of the UNITED STATES against historically-expansionist Russia. Destroy NATO -- as RUSSIA wants -- and it's UNITED STATES boots on the ground in Europe for a THIRD time. And you can be certain that that would result in YOUR ass being DRAFTED.
    1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36.  @mrrey8937  These are what the FOUNDERS thought of your "religious" bullying in effort to assuage your doubts by imposing your "religious" pornography on everyone else -- IN ADDITION to Christ telling you to keep it private and between you and your imagined-up "God": ___ From the North Carolina constitution adopted on December 18, 1776: "XXXI. That no clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the Senate, House of Commons, or Council of State, while he continues in the exercise of the pastoral function. . . . . "XXXIV. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State, in preference to any other; neither shall any person, on any pretence whatsoever, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith or judgment, nor be obliged to pay, for the purchase of any glebe, or the building of any house of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes right, or has voluntarily and personally engaged to perform; but all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship:--_Provided_, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt preachers of treasonous or seditious discourses, from legal trial and punishment." ___ From the constitution of Georgia adopted on February 5, 1777: "Art. LVI. All persons whatever shall have the free exercise of their religion; provided it be not repugnant to the peace and safety of the State; and shall not, unless by consent, support any teacher or teachers except those of their own profession." "Art. LXII. No clergyman of any denomination shall be allowed a seat in the legislature." ___ You either respect and conform your behavior to the Constitutional separation of "religion" and gov't, or you make of yourself a hateful domestic enemy of it.
    1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1
  51. 1
  52. 1
  53. 1
  54. 1
  55. 1
  56. 1
  57. 1
  58. 1
  59. 1
  60. 1
  61. 1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64.  @petitedoll1  The Founders were Liberals -- and it doesn't surprise that you're all about childish name-calling, COMRADE. Hitler also hated Liberals. So does Putin. "Justice and the Rule of Law are to ABOVE politics." -- John Adams. Your political wallowing and political name-calling is refusal to learn how to deal with law and justice. Here is some actual law, from the Founders themselves: ___ From the North Carolina constitution adopted on December 18, 1776: "XXXI. That no clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the Senate, House of Commons, or Council of State, while he continues in the exercise of the pastoral function. . . . . "XXXIV. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State, in preference to any other; neither shall any person, on any pretence whatsoever, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith or judgment, nor be obliged to pay, for the purchase of any glebe, or the building of any house of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes right, or has voluntarily and personally engaged to perform; but all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship:--_Provided_, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt preachers of treasonous or seditious discourses, from legal trial and punishment." ___ From the constitution of Georgia adopted on February 5, 1777: "Art. LVI. All persons whatever shall have the free exercise of their religion; provided it be not repugnant to the peace and safety of the State; and shall not, unless by consent, support any teacher or teachers except those of their own profession." "Art. LXII. No clergyman of any denomination shall be allowed a seat in the legislature." ___ One difference between you and I is that I have an education in law, and you don't begin to know what you're talking about -- you're all name-calling, buzz words and smears -- no law, no facts. I asked you how you are okay with Trump facing 91 FELONIES. You ignore that instead of addressing it because that's what you fruit-fringers do: you ignore facts you don't like. You make allegations without a shred of EVIDENCE to back them up, which doesn't surprise because you reject not only the EVIDENCE on which are based those 91 FELONIES, but also reject the rule of law under which Trump is indicted and being prosecuted. And you're obviously okay with the fact that Trump is a rapist. I hope you don't ever have a problem pregnancy that can only be resolved by the medical procedure called "abortion".
    1
  65.  @petitedoll1  FACTS: Trump has been indicted by grand juries of his peers with 91 FELONIES based on HARD EVIDENCE. FACT: Trump was found by a jury of his peers to have RAPED E. Jean Carroll. And then assessed for more than 5 million dollars for defamation. And when he continued to defame her, and he was sued again, he continued to defame her even while sitting in the court room. And again a jury of his peers found him liable for 83.3 million dollars. Trump has yet to post the required bond in order to appeal that verdict because he doesn't have the money that he has all along been lying he has. He is not a billionaire, and believing his lies that he is won't make YOU a billionaire. And in the New York fraud trial, based on HARD EVIDENCE in he form of DOCUMENTS generated and obtained from Trump's criminal enterprise, he was assed with more than a half-billion dollars as fine. He hasn't posted the required bond in order to appeal in that case either -- because he is NOT the billionaire he has constantly lied that he is. Ignoring the law on the point. he attempted to appeal it anyway; the judge told him he must pay the bond in order to appeal. And then suggested in effect: "Perhaps you should ask the banks you defrauded for a loan." The difference between you and I is that I have a education in law, and adhere strictly to law and facts. But you can't back up any of your assertions, including thee smears against Biden, with EVIDENCE; and you can't because there is no such evidence. It isn't complicated for an adult to understand if they are ethical, moral, and not therefore a liar: an assertion without evidence is not evidence. It is not a fact. And it certainly isn't law. All you are doing is repeating baseless -- totally lacking in evidence -- LIES. That means you have no ethics, no morals, no integrity. You are simply and foolishly drunk on whine.
    1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1