U.S Could Use More Girly Men (Liberal MEGA-BARF Alert)

St. Petersburg Times ^ | 08/20/06 | Robyn Blumner

[longtermmemmory]

I have not seen deadwood, never was enticed by the promos. However is this feminist thinks it is good then there is a reason it was canceled.

No WONDER TV is loosing the male viewer.

[P-40]

But it is also true that our nation has adopted more of this aspect under Bush than we would like to admit.

I doubt it...but let's hope so. Only a more Savage nation will survive... :)

[goldstategop]

Leaving aside the merits of Deadwood, Rush Limbaugh in his discussion on the air yesterday regarding this article observed the media is being chickified. Feelings are in evidence everywhere.

( No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo!)

[Niteranger68]

Typical lesbian......

[absolootezer0]

we could use more girly men, as long as they understand their place in society.. as bait.
let the islamofascists go after them and the real men can take them out.

[NaughtiusMaximus]

Bet she wouldn't have written this the day after 9/11.

(But this unmitigated booshway thought pattern from the '90's is now coming back.)

[monday]

"Deadwood societies are anti-intellectual havens of selfishness and triumphalism, where warfare and violence are extolled and the feminine ethos of cooperation, understanding and forbearance are disparaged as weak. There is little doubt that many Muslim subgroups fit this mold."

Only good Muslims fit that mold. The rest are not following the Koran. The peaceful Muslims will be brought into line however, even if it kills them, which is a possibility.

Robyn Blumner might as well start wearing a burka now. She is obviously ready to capitulate.

Logically it is odd to realize that feminists prefer Muslims to ordinary men. If you are a logical being you wouldn't expect that, however, that is the lesson Robyn Blummer teaches in her attack on men rather than Muslims.

[cwb]

"The Bush administration has relied on hard power (militarism) rather than diplomacy (soft power) and it has been very costly.

---

And yet, for a almost a decade prior to Bush, we saw a perfect example of how "soft-power" created only more problems. This commentary is absurd when you consider that Bill Clinton's entire term(s) as president was predicated on establishing a diplomatics legacy of Mideast peace. From the moment Clinton stepped foot in office, appeasement and concessions were going to be the policy of the day.

This was a president who wouldn't even acknowledge the first WTC attack as a terrorist event for fear it would alienate the Arab/Muslim support he needed to back his ME peace proposals. So obsessed was Clinton on reaching a "diplomatic" solution to the ME crisis, that his administration became personally involved in Israeli politics in an effort to get Barak elected; a man they knew would offer the concessions that Clinton wanted.

It wasn't enough for Clinton to present himself as an honest-broker; he had to bend-over backwards to appease the Muslim world. He not only ignored islamic terrorism, he often continued support for those nations who were warring with Christians. Besides the Balkan conflicts, Clinton continued both military and financial support to Indonesia...even when he was aware that Christians were being murdered by the thousands in E. Timor.

The simple fact is Clinton refused to be tough on terrorists and terrorism because that would've meant attacking the very nations and people he needed in support of his peace plan. What's so ironic is that even through all the appeasement, concessions, "soft-power" diplomacy...and even support for Muslim governments/conflicts, Muslims continued to not only attack American interests...they were obviously planning their boldest plan ever, 9/11. You couldn't get even softer than Bill Clinton...and look where that's got us.