This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Friday, November 6, 2009

A Salute to Strong Women

Alright, I'm going to go there. I wasn't until I read about the hero that shot the Fort Hood terrorist. Yall'll (is that a word?) probably think I'm nuts, if you don't already. Here goes: figuratively speaking women have cahones, men used to. I don't mean to disparage the brave and manly soldiers at Ft. Hood, they are awesome and the fact that a woman took out the killer is in all likelihood not relevant.

When it comes to politics, Republicans are obviously on the defensive due to their minority status. This fact in a politically correct world coupled with the chickification of men in the pop culture has made the strong, decisive without apology male a rare commodity. Republicans need a little backbone but that's dangerous because we don't want to be labeled as racist, sexist, bigot homophobes. God forbid we offend someone...anyone. Who are the voices on the right that tell it like it is and let the chips fall where they may? Who is driving the debate? Who drives the left whacko? What politicians are saying the things that Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Liz Cheney or even our own firecracker, Virginia Foxx are saying without apology?

Does it mean anything that women seem to be the ones taking the bull by the horns? Probably not but still...

23 comments:

Liberal POV said...

HD

The brave police woman doesn't deserve to be put into the same catagory Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Liz Cheney or Virginia Foxx.

I'm sure when we learn more about her you will see she 's not a Know Nothing.

This police woman prevented lots more deaaths and deserves high praise.

Honest Debate said...

Courage is the common denominator.

Sarkazein said...

POV proves the point that Liberals are only for liberal women's successes. Yet they dishonestly say all women. Same with the NAACP, they are only for liberal colored people and actively work against Conservative colored people. But the liberal DNA doesn't allow them to publish the truth.

Honest Debate said...

Good point Sark but it's worse than that. Liberals hold up women like Hillary as role models. Hillary was Bill's doormat and hurt feminism. She played the helpless victim when she was the enabler. Imagine if she had divorced the serial abuser mid-term. Imagine if she had the courage of Paula Jones or Linda Tripp.

bridle said...

Sark - to be liberal is to support equal opportunity for all. That means if a man can be a jerk in public office, then a woman can be a jerk in public office. But we also can and should call them out on being jerks.
HD - Hillary as doormat, now that is an interesting image. That really doesn't square with what I have observed. I thought the standard neo-con meme was that she is a virago.

guy faulkes said...

The brave police woman doesn't deserve to be put into the same catagory Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Liz Cheney or Virginia Foxx. - - POV

Certainly she does. She showed the courage of her convictions by putting her life on the line. She is a public servant that lives her convictions. She should certainly be included in the group of ladies that you mention. I am glad you put these ladies in such high esteem, but this officer deserves to join them even though she was not famous. She will be now.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

Thanks, I learned another new word, "virago". I will admit that I prefer Hillary as Secretary of State over John Kerry who was also in the running. She is a strong woman despite her recent gaffs. I think Obama keeps her leash short.

My comments were in regards to feminism. I didn't say she was a doormat, I said she was "Bill's doormat". Do you agree?

bridle said...

HD - No, not really. I have personally known men who were loving fathers and kind, supportive husbands in all respects except for being inveterate skirt-chasers. Their wives for some reason (beyond my understanding) did not leave them.
It seems to me that the Clinton's relationship falls into that category.It's really none of my business and I don't much care. I did not support Hillary for president because she ran an undisciplined campaign, and most of all because she bought into the lies about the Iraq war.

Honest Debate said...

"I have personally known men who were loving fathers and kind, supportive husbands in all respects except for being inveterate skirt-chasers." -Bridle

Being unfaithful is not kind. It is not loving and it is not supportive. I do get the point you are attempting to make but go back to my original statement and ask yourself did Hillary's actions (or lack thereof) help the cause of feminism? It surely didn't and yet she is held up as a roll model by feminist. That was my point. BTW mark me down as a feminist that disagrees.

I don't want to rehash Iraq here but I can't let you slide completely. Maybe I'm wrong but I infer that you are implying that Hillary bought into Bush's so called lies. That dog don't hunt as her statements (along with her husbands, Kerry's, Gore's, Albright's, Berger's and the rest of the world's) on WMD came well before Bush as did the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998".

I'll throw this idea out here. I would like to start a blog feature called "rehashing the past" (or something more catchy). We could pick from topics like Iraq, Bush/Gore 2000, the bailout or any number of topics. I plan on taking a poll as soon as I can figure out how. We'd also need a slow news cycle but it could happen. Any ideas?

Liberal POV said...

HD

"Imagine if she had divorced the serial abuser mid-term. "

How long have they been married?
What wonderful role models on the public stage to show marriage is more than sexual fidelity. The Clintons share one of the worlds brightest and promising women in Chelsey Clinton they also share their passion for politic and a progressive agenda. The Bill and Hillary Clinton team is a force for good in world most of the time.
Is it the conservative POV that infidelity should be the end of all marriages?

We see plenty Republican sex scandals and many Republicans who run on family values fail in their own lives.
Hypocrisy seems to be epidemic within the conservative ranks.

Think how much pleasure Sark has recieved over the years with his obsession with the Clinton scandal?

Anonymous said...

HD - Feminism is about choices, allowing women to make choices about whether they wish to stay married or divorce their philandering husbands, for example. Back in the bad old days women had to put up with it because they couldn't survive on their own. Thanks to feminism that allowed Hillary to go to law schooland earn a marketable degree, her choice to stay in that marriage was freely made.
I don't think Hillary advanced or retarded the cause of Feminism. She certainly benefited from it.

bridle said...

That post above is me, by the way. My finger slipped on the button.

Sarkazein said...

Bridle-

Hillary is one of the weakest women on Earth. She road to power on the coat-tails of her husband. She obviously has been in a state of terminal denial, not choice. If it was choice than what was all the public denials, what was the rape cover-up, and the paranoia of the vast right wing conspiracy? If this is what you think choice is, her not wanting to choose the opposite makes her a weird chooser maybe, but weaker than most women I know.

Sarkazein said...

"What wonderful role models on the public stage to show marriage is more than sexual fidelity."-POV!


You are one sick puppy.

Sarkazein said...

POV- Do you know where Mrs POV is tonight?

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

My opinion. I think Hillary made a political calculation to hitch her wagon to Bill. She endured Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Katleen Wiley, Juanita Broderick, Dolly Kyle Browning and Monica Lewinski. There are many more if you believe this very sourced report. I don't know what kind of arrangement they had but Bill was a sleazeball and she put up with it. That much is plain.

Would Hillary be Sec. of State now if she hadn't been married to Bill? Would she have been Senator? Could she have challenged Obama for President if not for being married to Bill? I don't think so.

Patricia Ireland (in)famously said "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle". Well, the NOW legend wasn't talking about Hillary.

Compare Hillary to Condi. Leave politics out. Condi did it on her own merits and yet she is vilified by feminist. Why?

Hillary is a smart, capable and accomplished but she is a horrible role model for women.

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

I love the "hypocrisy" argument. Aren't you really saying that Liberals may be sleazeballs but at least they don't claim they're not.

Sleazeball is a bipartisan term.

Sarkazein said...

H.D.-
There is one more story not mentioned in your link "this", unless I missed it.
He received a Rhodes Scholarship, but did not finish. He was asked to leave because of being accused of rape. Not that that article didn't have enough to make any sane person see him as a depraved criminal.

http://archive.oxfordmail.net/1999/3/1/82776.html

USS Rodger Young said...

Unbridled said:

"Sark - to be liberal is to support equal opportunity for all."


That's about the most malaligned, misinformed, wrong, lying, perturbed, polemic, and downright stupid statement I have ever heard a liberal socialist sheep spew. Equal opportunity for all eh? Do you mean to say something like, " more opportunity for elitests and racists"?

You see, liberals such as yourself hide behind the cloak of free thought and equality for all. What you aren't able to digest in all this is that your perception of equal opportunity for all closely resembles something out of Lenin's infamous book "What Is To Be Done" in which Lenin says the proletariat lacks the cognitive ability to promote revolutionary change, and that instead this change should be promulgated by a narrow crossection of elites.

In today's society, liberal socialist sheep such as yourself are the self-proclaimed elites who somehow think they know better than anyone else what democracy and capitalism (or socialism as is the case) are capable of. You spin this as equality for all, yet you don't live by it yourself, leading us to yet another facet of the self serving bias of liberalism - hypocrisy.

Yes, you and your ilk are pure hypocrites. Take abortion for example. Most of you baby killers belive the right to free choice is protected under the 4th amendment. How do you reconcile the fact that you are deserving of your 4th Amendment protections, yet others in society are not deserving of 2nd Amendment protections? A difficult question isn't it? Liberals such as yourself commonly believe it is acceptable to pick and choose what rules are applicable to others as long as it fits within your personal agenda.

Take the liberal anti-gun Democratic North Carolina Senator who has long voted against any pro-gun legislation her in NC. Just last month this idiot liberal shot someone breaking into his house. Why didn't liberals such as yourself hold this idiot accountable as you do everyone else. That's right, because you are a pure and simple HYPOCRITE!!!

That was easy

Your ole pal

Grady

USS Rodger Young

PS I won

Honest Debate said...

USSRY,

I agree about the elite liberals. You ask a good question about the 2nd and 4th amendments. What do liberals say about pro-lifers? They are labeled as religious nuts. How can anyone be so backward that they don't understand the need for a 15 year old to get a taxpayer funded abortion, without parental consent in the last week of pregnancy? Or stem cell research, we conservative religious nuts just can't grasp the issue so the liberals feel that we must be forced to pay for something we find morally unacceptable. It's for the good of humanity don't you see? Or how can we be opposed to the first 1/2 black President? Well then, we must be racist no need to debate the issues.

And they call us the elitist.

Your fine feathered friend

Jimbob

Eunice

antidisestablishmentarianism

Billy

LOL!!!

Sarkazein said...

USS Rodger Young-

Your last comment was right on. Better than a cup of coffee.
I have got to find the NC Senator/gun story.

Sarkazein said...

I just read the story of long time Anti-Gun Advocate State Senator R.C. Soles of North Carolina.
Now there is a source of Democrat pride.

USS Rodger Young said...

Sark,

Thank you kind sir. The NC State Senator is Democrat R.C. Soles. He shot one of two intruders who broke into his home on August 24, 2009. After the shooting, he would not comment. In fact, since August 24 he has still not commented on the shooting. Can we say HYPOCRITE? This liberal socialist sheep has made a career of voting against legislation that would allow North Carolinians to engage in the same behavior as he did.

What is even more familiar in all this is the conspicuous lack of media coverage. The elitest media hates it when things like this make it into the mainstream.

I wonder how any of the liberals will answer to this. Wait a minute......I had a lapse......sorry about that....we all know they WON'T answer to anything which shows the many flaws of their illogical thinking.

Tricycle Lard or Liberal Socialist Sheep POV or Unbridled Idiot; any of you freaks want to take a stab at it? LOL!! That's what I thought.

I am surprised that I lasted as long as I did on Watauga Watch. Asking these types of questions to liberals sends them into fits!!!!!

Your ole pal

USS Rodger Young

PS I won