Robin08's Comments (334)

“This stuff about the president calling in the bankers to talk with them is so ridiculous to me.

Every time this comes up I'm just waiting for some reporter to make the point/ask the question (albeit rhetorical at this point) why were they given truck loads of taxpayer money with no conditions placed on how they used it? Now, like fools, we've got to beg and plead with them to loosen credit and lend out the money we just gave them.

Obama can use the force of law/the threat of major regulation to get some action from the bankers. His little talks are ridiculous as far as I can see. PR stunts/inept leadership on the economic issues.”

“Thank you. I hope the floodgates burst with similar critiques of Obama's "just war."

I'm concerned we were sold a bill of goods. Obama has taken us from yes we can to no we can't "... eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes."

He says now that he’s head of state he "... cannot be guided by their [Ghandi and King] examples alone." It appears he is not guided by their examples at all let alone. I am sure the non-violent philosophy does not have a seat at the table in Obama's strategy sessions. He's only fooling himself and attempting to fool us with the notion they play any role beyond rhetoric.

We thought we were getting a, "Some men see things as they are and say, 'Why'? I dream of things that never were [e.g., eradication of violent conflict] and say, 'Why not'?" type of leader. Instead we got, "I face the world as it is, and cannot … threats to the American people." Yeah right -- like the threat we face from the broke down, ain't got a pot to piss in Afghanistan.

Comparing Hitler to "evil" we face today insofar as non-violence as a weapon was not apropos. Al Qaeda does not lead a nation state nor possess a conventional army or weaponry to pose a threat anywhere equivalent to Hitler.

My only hope now is pressure from progressives can force him out of the darkness and into the light.”

“I don't think so. I'm betting it's gonna be quite a while before Woods even shows his face in public. If this thing stays in the media and his wife files for divorce I think he's going to be out of public circulation for a while. I doubt if his golf game will ever be the same unless he deals with his emotional issues. He tried to keep so much under wraps and now he's fully exposed. Everyone can see the emperor has no clothes (literally and figuratively speaking for this scandal).

I think things like this ultimately test your character. IMO unless Woods reaches out for help (and I don't mean the kind you get from your publicist) I supspect he's likely to fail the character test. Thus far in terms of his public handling of this matter he seems short on character. He needs help of the Dr. Phil variety IMO but I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't see it that way.”

“Apparently that's the type Woods' goes for.”

“Sagondo,

Just what was Tavis' warning? I remember Tavis being generally critical of Obama, but specifically what was his warning?

I'm beginning to worry that maybe we were sold a bill of goods. Did Tavis say Obama wasn't a true progressive?”

“Walcraeb,

You sound mighty big and bad when you say, "We have to build an economy without them [Wall Street] before we can dismantle the one that depends upon them. It's as simple as that."

The one thing your post is missing is any inkling whatsoever of how we do that?”

“Please. The tea party movement is an astroturf joke. The tea baggers will garner media attention because the media loves a spectacle. In terms of affecting public policy or the electoral process the tea baggers are a media side show. The tea bags candidate was roundly defeated in a district that's been Republican since the Civil War.

You're seem to be into a simpleminded numbers game of how many people you can get in front of the TV cameras. I'm talking about a movement that actually has an impact. Like the movement that elected Barack Obama.”

“Let's do it!

There are people ready to take the streets, ready to fight for a bold agenda. We need a mechancism to corral all these voices to CONTINUOUSLY make ONE massive and CONSISTENT statement to the powers that be. I thought OFA was going to be that mechanism, but that's apparently not the case, it's essentially just an arm of the DNC. People need a structure to plug into. A handful of people on the street corner here and there won't get it and won't inspire others to join in IMO. People will get on the bandwagon if they see at least a few hundred people are out there and you need a structure IMO to get that moving.

Though as usual the Republicans are on the wrong side of history. But once again they are one-upping the democrats in using this FreedomWorks organization or Glen Beck or whomever as the structure around which to corral their people to make their statement.

We have more people on our side, a message that the majority of Americans favor but no mechanism or structure to bring the masses together to speak with one voice to our government. When Obama was running his campaign provided that mechanism, that structure, that leadership, now we got nothing. We've got Obama as president, but he's the president of all the people (teabaggers included whether they accept it or not). He can't be running a grassroots movement to keep pressure on the government.”

“How about the guy who would like to get yearly medical exam, in-fact has a heart condition but doesn't know it because he doesn't have health insurance, can't afford to purchase health insurance but would certainly go to the doctor for regular check-ups if he had a insurance plan? What about that guy?

Your argument is so ridiculous in the context of a healthcare reform debate. No matter what kind of program is set-up, there will always be a small subset of people who don't participate. There are people who qualify for food stamps but for whatever reason (too proud or whatever the case may be) they don't apply. That's no justification for dismantling the food stamp program -- because everyone who qualifies doesn't apply and instead allow their children and families to go wanting rather than accept charity.

You set public policy based on what will do the greatest good all the while recognizing that they're will always be a small fraction of the population who you just can't help.”

“Rihanna just turned 21 this year. I believe she and Brown had been dating since either '06 or '07 so she too was a teenager when their relationship began.”

“I'm not too sure you know what you're talking about in proclaiming that Rihanna went back to Brown out of fear rather than love.

I'm inclined to think love was her motivation.

Rihanna herself grew-up in a household with a crack addict dad. When kids grow-up with a parent who's behavior is destructive to the family unit, it's not uncommone for that child to be willing to tolerate a lot in their own adult romantic relationships because of the modeling internalized through their upbringing. Though Rihanna's dad's drug addiction was destructive to their family, she didn't stop loving her dad, she didn't stop wanting her dad to change, she forget about the good times with her dad and she didn't stop believing her dad could change. When you grow-up with a "profoundly" flawed parent I think you often have a "tendency" to bend over backwards to give your own mate a lot of second chances in your own adult relationships, because that's how you learned to love.”

“Yes I do think Rihanna gives a rats ass about the young girls who idolize her.

I guess you've never made a bad decision and later realized it was a bad decision and sought to change course.

The girl is only 21 years old and younger than that during the course of her relationship with Chris Brown. I'm willing to cut a very young woman some slack in thinking this cute, talented and equally famous young guy was the love of her life, wanting the relationship to work, but finally coming to grips with the fact that she'd been rationalizing something that was very wrong.

I'm very proud of Rihanna right now.”

“Home and auto insurance analogies don't work because the "primary" purpose of that type of insurance is protection against property loss and any related personal injury in some instances. That form of insurance is designed to kick-in only after a loss or injury has already occurred. To the contrary, health insurance is intended to help prevent injury/illness from ever happening. It's designed to help protect against illness and achieve wellness when possible in the event illness does occur. Consequently, if you don't have these protections it could help precipitate your death.

I recently heard about a 40 something black man who suddenly dropped dead from a heart attack. He hadn't been ill (as far as anyone knew) and seemed to be in good health according to his friends and family. The only health issue he had was he NEVER had health insurance and had NEVER seen a doctor as a result. Had he had regular medical care he might have learned that he had a heart condition and been able to prevent the heart attack rather than dying in his 40's.

When you don't have health insurance or the resources to pay out of pocket for medical care, that pain in your side, that twinge in your back or that blood in your stool goes undiagnosed and uncared for and may very well kill you because you didn't have the health insurance to get it taken care of. That's how lack of health insurance can kill you.”

“I was also troubled by Summers and Geithner overseeing this financial crisis. But something in this piece made me think again about Obama's strategy here.

Johnson writes, "Stories of Treasury Secretary Geithner dining with Pete Peterson in New York, or consulting with Robert Rubin in the halls of the Treasury were REASSURING signals to the inside players of too big to fail finance."

I think that may be precisely what Obama INTENDED to do in the INITIAL phase of this crisis. Understanding the "emotional" volatility of the markets he probably felt too great a jolt at the outset -- in the midst of the crisis was too risky. I doubt the market could have handled such a jolt at that time and likely would have continued to plummet. To keep the nervous Nelly’s at bay he had to reassure them in order to stablelize the market. It’s like the roof just got blown-off your house by a hurricane because you did a slipshod job installing it. Your only concern now is quickly covering the hole so everything in your house isn’t ruined. Once you get the quick fix in place, then you can step back to sort out the details for a proper replacement job.

I think that may be what Obama is doing – calm Wall Street, stop the market plunge, get them feeling comfortable about the Obama administration and gradually lower the boom (in terms of philosophical/policy changes to prevent reoccurrence of such a crisis).”

“How the hell would she know what he watched? It just kills me the way TV reporters (Fox and otherwise) get on television and report anything (rumor, gossip, unsubstantiated claims) as if it's fact. Sad state of news reporting in America.”

“IBWatching -- I was about to include a comment, but you just summed it up better than I was about to. Well said.”

“The racist message here escapes me.”

“Lvm,

Giving him time is not the issue.

I and I think the majority of progressives are perfectly willing to give President Obama all the time he needs and then some. What concerns me is some of the key people around him, advising him, advising him on critical issues for the country and for the success of his presidency, do not share the vision he represented during the campaign. I fear that President Obama is all too willing to give Rahm Emanuel, Larry Summers and Tim Geithner too much time to prove themselves when what we did do is get them out of the inner circle before irreparable damage is done. That's only time issue I see. How much more time is he going to give Summers, Geithner and Emanuel before he sees the light.”

“I totally agree that President Obama needs to get the military officials in line. If they cannot accept his authority and abide by his policies as commander-in-chief they need to get the boot, precisely because we are in the midst of two wars and ain't got time for no bullshi*&. Both this guy and McCrystal are rubbing me the wrong way.”

“In the imortal words of Joe Wilson, dare I say it, but I think, you lie.

"A lot" of black serial killers? I don't think so. A few maybe. I dare you to name the 70 you claim to know.

If I get historical on your ass, the cruelty and barbarism of whites against blacks during slavery and then Jim Crow makes white males appear downright pathological. During that time it was a civic event to attend a lynching where some poor black man was heinously tortured before being lynched. It was customary for onlookers to cut off an ear, a finger, a piece of skin, the mans genitals to take as a souvenir. Not to mention the practice of burning black people alive.

The rash of school massacres we've seen in recent times where some kid or group of kids come to school with guns and randomly mow down classmates and teachers has also been all white males.

It's just a fact -- these kinds of crimes are committed primarily by white men.”

“want2run527 -- Your theory sounds rather ridiculous to me.

If someone is inclined to be a serial killer (as with most psycho criminals) I'm inclined to think they're going to be a serial killer. If you're inclined to commit serial murders you'll be looking to create the opportunity to kill. I think it's safe to say most criminals think they're going to out-smart the authorities and avoid getting caught. I suspect it's the rare psycho criminal who says, hmmm I better not do this because being black I'm more likely to get stopped.

On the one hand American society tends to generalize and stereotype young black men as gang banging criminals. Now here you come with the theory that blacks aren't serial killers because they know they're more likely to get caught. By that logic blacks in particular and I would say Latinos too would be highly motivated not to commit any crime because they know they're the usual suspects. Again, IMO anyone willing to risk their freedom to commit a crime is not likely to be thinking they are going to get caught.

Just face it -- most serial killers have been white men. Instead of trying to explain why there aren't more black serial killers we'd be better off trying to figure out what's up with this subset of white men.”

“1. death panels
2. gov't takeover of healthcare
3. Obama is a socialist
4. Obama not a citizen
5. FEMA trailers to converted to concentration camps
6. Americore is secret army of drones loyal only to Obama
7. Obama attempting to indoctrinate our kids into socialist ideology

I gather you hear what you want to hear and see what you want to see.

I'm still waiting for list of lies and distortion concerning administration policy that is being spread on msnbc.”

“CNN is such a waste of resources it's a crying shame.

They think they are doing ground-breaking work with those stale, bland, totally predictable series on race -- blacks in America, Latinos in America, I guess Asians in America is next. Now they might really break sound ground if they did a series on whites in America. IMO CNN could distinguish itself as a premier news organization if it started thinking outside the box and stopped pandering to the status quo. If they brought on the left, right, progressive, and conservative voices that are typically shut-out of MSM, did some real investigative journalism, actually broke down the key elements of the issues of the day, they could give Fox and MSNBC a run for their money. As it is they don't stand apart. They aren't telling us anything that we don't already know. They aren't bringing us a perspective that isn't already out there. They recycle the same people you see on every other show and you pretty much already know what they're going to say. With the resources at their command CNN could be the caliber of a Bill Moyers Journal, Amy Goodman's Democracy Now and 60 Minutes combined.

I think the field is wide open for a real news organization to step-in and fill the gap.”

“What a crock. I've really had it with so-called "journalists" defending Faux News.

Nonetheless the Obama administration needs to fine tune it's talking points on this issue. When people like Brown attempt to pin them to the wall with comparisons of Fox and MSNBC the administration needs to stick to its guns.

Jarrett should have told Brown that while shows on MSNBC certainly have a point of view MSNBC doesn't make a practice of spreading lies and distortions as does Fox. On healthcare reform their was a consistent pattern of lies and distortions coming out of Fox -- death panels, government taking over healthcare, seniors will lose their healthcare, socialism is the ultimate goal. Beyond healthcare reform there's a whole host of lies and distortions jinned up by Glen Beck alone. When MSNBC starts spreading lies and distortions about administration policies we'll call them out too. That's what Jarrett should have said.

Campbell is feeling her Cherrios because she thinks she cornered Jarrett with the MSNBC question. So many of these media people are just useless when it comes to fulfilling the true mission of the press in a democracy. I count Campbell among those who does not seem to be up to the challenge.”

“test”