Comments by "Curlyjo Robbie" (@claztube) on "Fox News" channel.

  1. 56
  2. 8
  3. 8
  4. 7
  5. 6
  6. 6
  7. 4
  8. 4
  9. 4
  10. 3
  11. 3
  12. 3
  13. 3
  14. 3
  15. 3
  16. 3
  17. 3
  18. 2
  19. 2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 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. Okay here's how I understand anyone that refers to others as RACIST. The saying goes like this: "It takes one to know one." And if we understand that platitude to be commonly known as a logical theorem; this is why the real RACIST is those whom would believe they are such upstanding decent folk and admittedly they themselves harbor discriminate thoughts about people unlike their goodselves then in their pea brain it must equate to all people like themselves, being RACIST. Do you see the logic in the idea that it takes one to know one? It can't be just that they, the real racist individuals, are uniquely a walking, talking bigot, throwing shade and spewing nonsense, or can it? It must be true, so they believe, that if they can see in themselves racist feelings about others unlike themselves, then natuarlly their perception of others holds true. This is a weak and unfounded belief that some very bad people perpetuate and in doing so they're making the real RACIST feel better about their own sinister thoughts as they scream RACISIM from the rooftops. Scream it loud and be sure a select group of nefarious leaders in our government hear the call of RACISM. Oh yeah, that will solve the problem. NOT! Lame-Stream-Media picks up the baton and amplifies the falsehood until it seems to be an undeniable reality. Of course all this shaming and name calling isn't being done to make people better at being decent, loving denizens of a 'all for one and one for all' Constitutional Republic operating Democratically. Just look at the state of the union today. How does any of this destruction of our harmonious neighborhoods, cities and states through self hatred and bashing of one another make our country a better place to live and foster a be all that you can be along side a sister or brother from another mother? IT DOESN'T!
    1
  57. 1
  58. 1
  59. 1
  60. 1
  61. 1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. 1
  65. 1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72. 1
  73. 1
  74. 1
  75. 1
  76. 1
  77. When Tucker talked about why people voted for Biden over Trump was due to how of the two choices, Biden gave a better option if you had tired of the uneasy feeling people had felt from four plus years of Trump Tweets. The electorate was so exhausted from it, they would vote for the opposite calm appearing safer more tempered candidate. There it is, this is how Biden got elected, in part. It was only part of the equation for why the electorate pretty much voted without concerns of the consequences of voting sans understanding that candidates disaterous ideology... What comes to mind is this may be the time to try a third party run. The Dems dug their own 'two term grave' in the Congress as well in the Oval Office. Ergo, if a third party that came out as being the "Rightside Constitutional Party" and with the majority of voters committed to NOT vote Democrat, no matter whom the DNC put there, we could have a battle souly between the 'Costitutional Right Party' and the "Do Nothing Right (RINO) Party" in 2024. Is it then possible this would jump start a serious three party political arena that could give the electorate more 'meat on the bone' candidates in the game from which to choose or decline? And just to be cheeky, if Sh!!ts and Giggles are out who would take the reins of the GOP and try to battle against, what Americans love, "The New and Improved" Right Side Constitutional Party? And who would be the leader and maybe nominee of that party? Care to give your thoughts on the answer to that then REPLY below, just maybe? Or could this be a Teddy Roosevelt blunder?
    1
  78. 1
  79. 1
  80. 1
  81. 1
  82. 1
  83. 1
  84. In a time long ago, in Oakland or was it Berkeley California one night late I was driving home after having consumed alcohol and then when I was pulled over by the officer I was given a pass. Told by the officer to leave my car parked and that I needed to get home on public transit. I was nervous as hell of course and grateful for the get out of jail free card that was allowed in those times. Today I don't expect I'd be allowed that chance. DUI is too serious of a crime, just ask MADD. Though it would have been a better option for the situation at the Wendy's if the officers had taken more time to consider the action of an arrest that time in that situation. If a subject is feeling penned in and the mind races to consequences of the arrest and who knows what else the subject was concerned about in his mind altered by an intoxicant, fear now enters the subject's mind and what does one do when confronted with fear? I believe this is where reform may be helpful. MADD has much to grieve about, there's no denying it. But public safety at scene in which the suspect is out of the vehicle and where that citizen is obviously intoxicated or under the influence of a drug this is when the subject must not feel a sense of 'Fight or Flight' or both. What has the subject to lose at this point given the subject knows instinctively the brain goes to survival mode, 'I Have to Run'. Fright leads to Fight or Flight. The officer needs to play good cop and cajole the subject with possible favor in the immediacy of the moment. In doing so one may receive favor in return from the subject. In suggesting a solution that doesn't involve arrest and the dire consequences that a DUI arrest encompasses there can be a happier ending. Sadly with so many officers now shot at and maimed and killed in cold blood by criminals not interested in law and order how can we turn back the pages of time to that night so long ago in Oakland or was it Berkeley, where I was given a pass?
    1
  85. 1
  86. 1
  87. 1
  88. 1
  89. 1
  90. 1
  91. 1
  92. 1
  93. A serious issue with the use of any drug is the addictive properties of said drug. I believe it is a known scientific fact that some individuals are born with genetic markers that make them more prone to addiction ergo those individuals may unwittingly try a drug, any drug, only to find themselves addicted to a higher quantity of the drug as tolerance to a drug of choice does occur metabolically. Now the problem is that when a young individual should be considering a better path forward, a path of life's most enriching experiences, these individuals can't set out on that path due to the consequences of drug use that may consume more wakeful hours than those in a stuper induced sleep. This numbing and dumbing down of a person's will to become self sufficient from a young age of say, twentyone, will not be beneficial to themselves in the big picture of what their life could be or may be if drugs were not a socially acceptable manner of being an adult. I can attest to this belief as stated due to my addictive genetic markers that were passed on to me from a line that preceeded me by a generation or two minimally. The loss of financial stability and more importantly of family and friends has been demonstrative to say the least in my 40 years of drug use. Mostly alcohol abuse from addiction caused by quantitive tolerances in those early years of its use and abuse. Could a age stipulation for the appropriation and use of more addictive drugs not be part of the application of any such pathway to legalization? I'd recommend an age more than twentyone for the use of some such addictive hard line opiate type drugs. More like at least twentyfive if not later even, say more like thirty years old. (edit) To be honest here I would also include marijuana recreationally used by a young adult can hamper many opportunities and facilitate a lack of self realization in critical career paths that involve public safety concerns. Only in the field of art as some may hypothesize would marijuana have a positive outcome at an early stage of adulthood. Marijuana and alcohol in my twenties were highly effective in my inability to succeed and to endure the difficulties of my daily strife that I coddled with alcohol abuse.
    1
  94. 1
  95. 1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. Okay I get it; PG&E took the money and went on private jets/yachts to five star resort locations around the globe and lavished themselves (the Board & CEO) with the billions of $'s stolen from their consumers. So why hasn't the State officials seized the power grid away from this for profit failed entity? What has the Governor done to reassure the people that the State will not run low on an essential supply of dependable, safe and reliable power running into every home and business? I love the great green forests of the State and miss them profoundly now living in NW Arizona, but would I not think that any fire that gets started may then flame up like a tinder box on steroids? California is in a place that virtually is a desert. Without a century of infrastructure put in place mostly to benefit farms initially and of course other industries over that century of growth there would be no California as it once was known in the last decades of the twentith century. To support CA's growing needs developers were given a free ticket to ravage the land to create a tax base for a State that is currently holding a quarter of the Nation's welfare recipiants. Building homes in areas of scrub and oak as well into canyons and the such was/is a disaster in waiting. Fortunately there is an exodus from there by those who can get out. This decrease in population may take some of the pressure off the grid, sadly not soon enough for those whom are stuck there in perpetuity due to various factors.
    1
  100. 1
  101. 1
  102. 1
  103. 1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1