Hannity.com/ WNB

[ken0254]

Hey, you should see the comments some are writing about the WNB. No wonder we have problems with some conservatives.

http://www.hannity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=74838

ken

[ken0254]

Hey, you should see the comments some are writing about the WNB. No wonder we have problems with some conservatives.

http://www.hannity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=74838

ken

[NakedTao]

No kidding, ken. Conservatives in general (not attacking anybody on this forum who is a conservative) really seem to be blinded by their ideology and will believe anything a Sean Hannity (or Rush or Falafel Bill or Pirate Annie or the Tag-Team of Falwell and Robertson, among others) would tell them.

My question is, are conservatives REALLY worried about morality and "protecting our children"? Are they more interested in protecting the fashion, textile, and pornography industries? Are they just willing to believe what the aforementioned will tell them? Last of all, have these people actually read the Bible - the very book they profess to know more about than the rest of society?

Again, my intent is not to offend anyone on this forum who holds a conservative point of view. I'm merely stating my opinion.

[NudistGuy47]

After reading the thiughts that those participating in the WNBR should be labled as sex offenders and fined, I was surpirsed by the comments offered by USMC Dad offering the balance.

Those commentors who spoke of self respect got to me a bit. I have tons of self respect and enjoy going nude. I would have to engage the writer in a dialogue to see how being nude equates to a lack of self respect. That is, assuming the writers are capable of dialogue.

Thanks Ken for bringing this to my attention. Again, I am a better person to see how others think. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif

[Lilwilly]

The people who are referred to above as "conservative" could more accurately be termed "closed minded" or "biggoted". The conservative label tends to refer to attitudes that are cautious and resist change, preferring the old ways. Fiscal conservatives prefer saving over spending. Closed minded people may be conservative in outlook, but a conservative is not nessessarily closed minded. If we don't want to be stereotyped, we should also be careful not to stereotype others. It is easy to slip into that habit though isn't it?

[Michjoe]

In our political climate the classic definition of "conservative" has pretty much become meaningless as has the definition of "liberal" thanks to the politicians, commentators and columnists.

[curmudgeon]

I agree with Michjoe. The labels have become meaningless. They probably always were. There are so many dimensions on which one can be conservative or liberal -- fiscal, international, social, etc. etc. I am conservative on many dimensions, but not all. I obviously disagree with the anti-nudism screeds cited in this thread. I am far more appalled at the gratuitous violence in much of entertainment than about nudity or sex. Unfortunately, attitudes toward nudity seem to be going backward rather than forward. I vaguely recall a revelation that Bush Sr, many top executives, etc belonged to some group (I don't recall its name) that would get together and run around naked somewhere in the woods in California. Guess Hannity and others tend to forget that.

[Eric6420]

I think that there is a real difference between liberals and conservatives. The liberals care more about the environment and tend not to like wars nether religious extremism.

I think that Al Gore would have been a far better president than G.W. Bush.

[nudeM]

I listen to Hannity and Limbaugh, and agree with most of the things they say, but on this particular topic, I think they are certainly over-reacting.

The problem I have with them is, when alot of people disagree with them, then, they are labeled as 'liberals'. But to go out and call nudists liberals, then they are way off course. There are nude conservatives as well, which, I noticed, are not classified in the same category, much less mentioned at all.

Just as in the textile world, there are conservatives and libereals alike who enjoy nudism, and as such, makes the nudist movement that more effective. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nudeM:
I listen to Hannity and Limbaugh, and agree with most of the things they say, but on this particular topic, I think they are certainly over-reacting.

The problem I have with them is, when alot of people disagree with them, then, they are labeled as 'liberals'. But to go out and call nudists liberals, then they are way off course. There are nude conservatives as well, which, I noticed, are not classified in the same category, much less mentioned at all.

Just as in the textile world, there are conservatives and libereals alike who enjoy nudism, and as such, makes the nudist movement that more effective. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would seem to me then that conservative nudists should be making their voices loud and clear to people like Limbaugh and Hannity. Why don't they?

[nudeM]

Posted by hm0504: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It would seem to me then that conservative nudists should be making their voices loud and clear to people like Limbaugh and Hannity. Why don't they? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boy, if only I had the answer to that one. I guess the liberals are more 'vocal' than the conservatives, as far as gettng the word out. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif

[curmudgeon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nudeM:
It would seem to me then that conservative nudists should be making their voices loud and clear to people like Limbaugh and Hannity. Why don't they? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They work by ratings, not emails. I sometimes listen when I agree with them and usually turn them off when I don't. I save my emails for politicians. Nudists probably don't form a large enough part of their audience to have much impact anyway.

[Boreas]

It is truly a sad commentary on a society when it can be distilled down to "conservatives" and "liberals".

What ever happened to discourse? Has it all come down to name calling and finger pointing? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif

Let's hope that we can move beyond this phase!

[CHICK]

if you're going to have liberal slogans painted on your body be prepaired for rebuttal. Why do you care what Shawn thinks? He's intitled to his opinion too.

[CHICK]

By the way, bravo Lilwilly.

[sw1sweendog]

sean hannitys head is so far up bush's a$$,the only self thought opinion he could come up with .is what bush had for dinner the night before.he's a mix between a parrot and a skipping record. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/zzz.gif

[Bob S.]

Who said this about nude beaches?

It's definitely cultural. I think we ought to be more like the French in most everything, and the Germans as well. We're way too uptight here. It's a bwautiful thing over there.

Answer below.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Rush Limbaugh (from H&E September 2003 p. 48)

Bob S.

[Ren]

I know conservatives and they are nothing like the yapping heads on TV. This regime is not conservative --- it is a rogue cabal of power merchants who are taking on labels to get votes (when they're not stealing them).

If Rush said that in 2003, he'll probably lay claim to the idea that he was under the influence and didn't mean it at the time.

[P.J.]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CHICK:
if you're going to have liberal slogans painted on your body be prepaired for rebuttal. Why do you care what Shawn thinks? He's intitled to his opinion too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



I agree! Sean Hannity is entitled to his opinions.
The very idea of silencing the Conservative pundits, such as Ann Coulter (who even I will admit, sometimes steps over the line) is a sickening one.
As for some of the shrill voices from the left, they too are entitled to their say.
I like the Conservative Sean Hannity and his Liberal counterpart Alan Colmes. Currently, Hannity & Colmes is one of the most "fair and balanced" programs on TV. Unlike many of those who submit posts on the CFF, Mr.Hannity and Mr.Colmes maintain some civility towards one another.

[jon71]

No one is talking about not letting them speak, just making sure they don't have a monopoly on what is said.

[P.J.]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nudeM:
I listen to Hannity and Limbaugh, and agree with most of the things they say, but on this particular topic, I think they are certainly over-reacting.

The problem I have with them is, when alot of people disagree with them, then, they are labeled as 'liberals'. But to go out and call nudists liberals, then they are way off course. There are nude conservatives as well, which, I noticed, are not classified in the same category, much less mentioned at all.

Just as in the textile world, there are conservatives and libereals alike who enjoy nudism, and as such, makes the nudist movement that more effective. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would seem to me then that conservative nudists should be making their voices loud and clear to people like Limbaugh and Hannity. Why don't they? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You make a painfully strong point there! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/blush.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/worried.gif
If only conservatives (myself included) http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/blush.gif even made a token effort to set the record straight to Limbaugh and Hannity...

[codylechien]

Good points, P.J. I know Muslims who are unhappy that their religion has been hi-jacked by a terrorist fringe. I view the people cited by Sean Hannity the same way. Naturism is not about using your body as a weapon for a non-aligned political statement or agenda.

Because I believe that the naturist lifestyle is healtier - physically, mentally, socially, psychologically and spiritually - than the clothes-minded lifestyle, I'd be interested in studies showing the incidence of problems in the naturist community vs the non-naturist community.

From studies like that, I think WNB day events with an announcement with people painting "ads" on their bodies that say "less clothes - better health" or "Substance abusers: Naturists: 2% Textileists: 48%" might get positive attention from conservative pundits and advance rather than depreciate the naturist community agenda which is naturism, not Bush-bashing.



You make a painfully strong point there! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/blush.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/worried.gif
If only conservatives (myself included) http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/blush.gif even made a token effort to set the record straight to Limbaugh and Hannity...[/QUOTE]

[NudistGuy47]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CHICK:
if you're going to have liberal slogans painted on your body be prepaired for rebuttal. Why do you care what Shawn thinks? He's intitled to his opinion too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From one of the websites promoting the World Naked Bike Ride:

"On March 12th and June 10th, 2006 cities across the world will experience the naked joy of the worlds largest naked protest against oil dependency and car culture in the history of humanity. It is time to stop indecent exposure to automobile emissions and to celebrate the power and individuality of our bodies! Naked Bicycle People Power!"

The slogans, protests, and other representations I have seen in pictures showed statements along the lines of the stated protest. Being vocal and protesting against oil dependence and pollution is neither liberal nor conservative. Both sides can benefit with less oil consumption and automobile exhaust pollution.

How this thread got highjacked, I have no idea.

[Eric6420]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Being vocal and protesting against oil dependence and pollution is neither liberal nor conservative. Both sides can benefit with less oil consumption and automobile exhaust pollution. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But in order to doing it nude on a bike, you need a liberal city like San Francisco.

[Eric6420]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From studies like that, I think WNB day events with an announcement with people painting "ads" on their bodies that say "less clothes - better health" or "Substance abusers: Naturists: 2% Textileists: 48%" might get positive attention from conservative pundits and advance rather than depreciate the naturist community agenda which is naturism, not Bush-bashing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I think is that the religious right would probably prefer drug users to nudists. Jesus, Peter and Saint Paul may have been nudists, but christianity have a big problem with nakedness since at least a millénium.

The first thing the christians missionaries did when they came to America, Asia and Africa was to tell all the people to get dress because nudity is a sin according to them, probably bigger than drug abuse which was not fight until the 20th century...

[curmudgeon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eric6420:
What I think is that the religious right would probably prefer drug users to nudists. Jesus, Peter and Saint Paul may have been nudists, but christianity have a big problem with nakedness since at least a millénium.

The first thing the christians missionaries did when they came to America, Asia and Africa was to tell all the people to get dress because nudity is a sin according to them, probably bigger than drug abuse which was not fight until the 20th century... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I definitely consider myself a Christian, so this is not just bashing. I have concluded, though, that religion's emphasis on sex is a marketing thing. To attract a large customer base you need something that affects almost everyone. Hard to beat sex for meeting that requirement.

[blackrebel]

You folks just looooooooove to take things completely out of context and blow it up to fit your arguement. You need to stop it. You folks are mis-characterizing conservatives for the sake of making an arguement that you are taking out of context. You need to stop.

The article if pointing out that LIBERALS are getting naked to protest an issue. The fact is extreme LIBERALS like to get naked to protest to bring attention to an issue or to gain attention. Getting naked is not promoting nudism or the live style and are not the same. Getting naked to draw attention cheapens the nudist lifestyle. Nudism is not a form of protest, and makes us look even more like kooks.

LIBERALS need to get comfortable with the fact that poll after poll, you see that a HUGE number of people who are nudists are conservative and religous. But, the liberal wing of nudists get offended or are astonished at this, which shows their BIGOTRY towards those who are conservative. Again and again, I see in here and other nudist board LIBERALS astonishment of INDIVIDUALS don't allow labels to stick or follow the labels that liberals want to place on us.

Liberal bigotry must stop along with equating nudism for protest is good.

[jon71]

Not quite right blackrebel. Poll after poll shows that among naturist liberals and conservatives exist in about even numbers, much like the nation as a whole. Conservatives don't have a majority by any means. I imagine with the wretched state conservatives are in that you (conservatives) have lost ground this year. Hopefully thats a long term thing and not just a routine fluctuation, only time will tell.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by blackrebel:
You folks just looooooooove to take things completely out of context and blow it up to fit your arguement. You need to stop it. You folks are mis-characterizing conservatives for the sake of making an arguement that you are taking out of context. You need to stop.

The article if pointing out that LIBERALS are getting naked to protest an issue. The fact is extreme LIBERALS like to get naked to protest to bring attention to an issue or to gain attention. Getting naked is not promoting nudism or the live style and are not the same. Getting naked to draw attention cheapens the nudist lifestyle. Nudism is not a form of protest, and makes us look even more like kooks.

LIBERALS need to get comfortable with the fact that poll after poll, you see that a HUGE number of people who are nudists are conservative and religous. But, the liberal wing of nudists get offended or are astonished at this, which shows their BIGOTRY towards those who are conservative. Again and again, I see in here and other nudist board LIBERALS astonishment of INDIVIDUALS don't allow labels to stick or follow the labels that liberals want to place on us.

Liberal bigotry must stop along with equating nudism for protest is good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point being made is that non-nudist CONSERVATIVES are very vocal, and political, in their opposition to nudism and seem to believe all nudists are liberals, (vile,disgusting liberals to be more exact) which as you say is not true. So why do we not see CONSERVATIVE nudists showing up on the airwaves to stand up for their causes.

BTW, the WNBR is very nicely framed as a celebration of bike-riding more than a protest against fossil fuel consumption. At a time when the lives of Americans are threatened both environmentally and politically through terrorism related to the over consumption of oil, surely the WNBR is one of the most pro-American acts one could imagine. CONSERVATIVES should be praising the WNBR and giving it their whole-hearted enthusiasm and support.

[Eric6420]

Not to mention that if it was just for the conservatives, not only we would still have segregation but slavery as well...

The Bible tells you how to beat your slaves. Maybe Black rebel would work as a slave in a cotton field in Mississippi.. if it was just for the conservatives...

[Tampanude]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Maybe Black rebel would work as a slave in a cotton field in Mississippi.. if it was just for the conservatives... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Now that's an insulting comment..regardless of your political or religious view...
Uncalled for, in my opinion

[Tampanude]

I'm a registered independent voter here in the U.S because I am sick of being "labeled" one way or the other. Millions of people, republicans, democrats, or any other of the labeled polical party name throughought the world vote their conscience. NOT blindly following a political platform or one designated buffoon's vision.

Free discussion on legislations impacts on nudists is one thing,, trying to point out anothers failed thinking (in ones own opinion) is just tossing rocks over a high wall

Just a thought

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif

[Eric6420]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tampanude:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Maybe Black rebel would work as a slave in a cotton field in Mississippi.. if it was just for the conservatives... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Now that's an insulting comment..regardless of your political or religious view...

Uncalled for, in my opinion </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some people do not want to know some dark realities. They prefer fairy tales to the reality. It is more comfortable...

[Eric6420]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tampanude:
I'm a registered independent voter here in the U.S because I am sick of being "labeled" one way or the other. Millions of people, republicans, democrats, or any other of the labeled polical party name throughought the world vote their conscience. NOT blindly following a political platform or one designated buffoon's vision.

Free discussion on legislations impacts on nudists is one thing,, trying to point out anothers failed thinking (in ones own opinion) is just tossing rocks over a high wall

Just a thought

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, in nazi Germany, some Jews did vote for the nazis, with their conscience, because they thought they were good patriotic Germans. If more liberal Germans have told Jews that Hitler really hates them, it could had hurt their feelings but it could had saved their lives.

I think that it is a service to give to Black rebel to remember some major points in the history of his country.

[Tampanude]

So you equate all modern republicans in the U.S with nazis?
A fanatic Socialist party?
You can see a genuine correlation there?

Any of us who do not support the current administration are doomed to genocide?

Thanks but no thanks, I'll keep my fiction interests to watching the Simpsons.

You're off the charts, brother.

Next you'll say I'm in denial beacause Cheney's implanted a chip in my head.

How kind of you to decide what "lesson" is best for someone else to learn about their country.

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smash.gif

[Eric6420]

The nazis were very christian and very conservative. Very few people saw who they really were until it was too late.

[jon71]

The nazis used the name Christian but were completely opposite what Christians are supposed to be. JESUS went to minorities (like Samaritans) and the poor and the disenfranchised people that respectable people, including the established clergy, would have nothing to do with. He offered the woman at the well living water. He told Zacheus he was having dinner at his place. These are people the nazis would have at least denigrated and at worst killed for being "inferior". They were not "inferior" to JESUS and are now joint heirs in Heaven. Even the thief on the cross is there now. Don't confuse CHRIST with the people who falsely use HIS name.

[Eric6420]

But the history of christianity is quite dark. The Inquisition, the crusades, the wars, the fate of natives Americans (almost 500 amerindians nations pratically killed in North America).

I think that there are many things that are irrational in the USA because of religion.

You have something like 45% of Americans who believe in the Rapture. But before the Rapture, things are supposed to be very bad, they think that if there is a nuclear war with another country, that Jesus would personally takes care of them. So in a way, for them, the worst the things are, the better, because that means that the return of Jesus is near.

In that perspective, why not to have a war with Irak (the old Babylone) and then with Iran (far more problems), and if Iran attaks Israel, that would mean for thoses christians that the return of Jesus is imminant because we are in the Apocalypse.

I strongly suggest to you watch the dvd "The god who wasn't there" because it is very informative about what is christianity.

[Soleil Nu]

Some people here seem to ignore the fact that it was actually the Republicans who abolished slavery...

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Soleil Nu:
Some people here seem to ignore the fact that it was actually the Republicans who abolished slavery... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hear Hear! It was also the Republicans who abolished child labor, passed the anti-trust acts, created the first national parks and passed the first environmental protection laws.

Too bad today's party has turned it's back on its proud heritage.

-Mark

[NakedTao]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
The nazis used the name Christian but were completely opposite what Christians are supposed to be. JESUS went to minorities (like Samaritans) and the poor and the disenfranchised people that respectable people, including the established clergy, would have nothing to do with. He offered the woman at the well living water. He told Zacheus he was having dinner at his place. These are people the nazis would have at least denigrated and at worst killed for being "inferior". They were not "inferior" to JESUS and are now joint heirs in Heaven. Even the thief on the cross is there now. Don't confuse CHRIST with the people who falsely use HIS name. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, not to insult anyone who holds a conservative opinion, this sounds like a plank in the GOP platform. They claim to be true Christians, yet have no idea of what Christ was really about. Christ would be:

- (a) against irresponsible tax cuts heavily geared toward the wealthy,
- (b) against all war,
- (c) for protecting the environment, and
- (d) accepting of all who may disagree with him.

While I am not claiming that Christ, if he were alive today, would be a Democrat, I'm certain that he would view the Republican Party and its loyal propaganda peddlers (like Sean Hannity and the other names I mentioned earlier) as he did the money-changers in the temple.

[Eric6420]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Soleil Nu:
Some people here seem to ignore the fact that it was actually the Republicans who abolished slavery... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but in that time, I suppose that the republicans were the liberals ones. In France, the republicans in the begining of the 20th century were pratically atheists, opposed to religion and monarchy. The republicans of France were almost communists in their ideology.

We could also talk about the fundings fathers of America, who were more afraid of religion than of God and would be appalled by today's republicans.

[jon71]

Naked Tao made some great points and the only one close to what I was attempting to say. What CHRIST stands for and what people who take his name do are often tragically different. I believe very strongly in JESUS but recognize that organized religion frequently has a negative impact on the nation and the world. There can be some good, for example charity like food drives and providing shelter and medicine to the needy. JESUS told us we will be judged not by how we treat the v.i.p.s of the world but by how we treat the homeless, the sick, children, even people in prison. "What you do unto the least of these you do unto me". What I ask the readers of this thread to do is look past the bad that organized religion has historically caused and sadly continues to cause and to see more. Know that some falsely claim HIS name and even those of us who are for real are still human and fall short of the ideal. Let me put out one example, and that is Habitat for Humanity. It was created by a good Christian man, Jimmy Carter. I know he's not perfect. I'm sure some will feel compelled to point out some of his failures and short comings. Regardless I believe his heart is good and Habitat is the product of his heart yearning to make things better for those people in need. I hope that no group, including Christians, is judged solely by it's worst examples, please look at the good examples as well.

[Conor B]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Soleil Nu:
Some people here seem to ignore the fact that it was actually the Republicans who abolished slavery... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also, to add to N Mark's list of republican Honor, they continued to be the one of the largest forces in congress and Senate for civil rights.

It was the Democratic southern Senators, Led by Richard Russell, who utilized the fillibuster to effectively stop all civil rights legislation.

As LBJ, a Russell 'mentee', observed when He signed the civil Rights Act of 1965, "[the Democrats] have just lost the south for generations".

And so they did. The 'Solid South', an almost exclusively Democratic enclave since Reconstruction, became gradually, an almost exclusively Republican one, again allowing the south to veto any legislation that moves civilization to far toward equality (i.e. toward's reduction of white advantage) or away from fear (all the Gay marriage, abortion stuff).

Not really the party of TR; And thank God, the Dems are no longer the party of Strom Thurmond, Lester Maddox or prime-era George Wallace.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
The nazis used the name Christian but were completely opposite what Christians are supposed to be. JESUS went to minorities (like Samaritans) and the poor and the disenfranchised people that respectable people, including the established clergy, would have nothing to do with. He offered the woman at the well living water. He told Zacheus he was having dinner at his place. These are people the nazis would have at least denigrated and at worst killed for being "inferior". They were not "inferior" to JESUS and are now joint heirs in Heaven. Even the thief on the cross is there now. Don't confuse CHRIST with the people who falsely use HIS name. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But hasn't the large majority of people who self-identify as Christians and who, I think, honestly believe themselves to be true Christians, been complicit in acts that are a disgrace to the name of Christ.

For example, the largest denominations in the U.S. actively oppose women's equal rights. Can one be, for example, a supporter of the Southern Baptist Convention, and still be an authentic Christian. I don't want to imply here that no Southern Baptists is an authentic Christian, there are indeed some, but I do not see how one can strongly support the SBC today given its record on the ERA, racism, and otherwise.

I should point out that my own denomination, Anglican/Episcopalian, is going through some major internal strife as some sections of the church attempt to move forward on human rights.

I guess the question comes down to the question of if the church is at least partially divine, why does it lag so badly, rather than lead, on human rights. If churches are so un-Christlike, then can one blame the individuals who follow the church? Should both the corporate church and individual Christians share the blame?

[jon71]

It's a complicate issue Albinus. I was raised Southern Baptist but prefere more progressive denominations now, in large for the reasons you mentioned. Basically I would hope individual Christians will speak up whenever the church as a whole is wrong. Not always easy I'm sure. In a larger city I would look at United Church of Christ but in a small town in the south I have fewer options.

[Boreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
The nazis used the name Christian but were completely opposite what Christians are supposed to be. JESUS went to minorities (like Samaritans) and the poor and the disenfranchised people that respectable people, including the established clergy, would have nothing to do with. He offered the woman at the well living water. He told Zacheus he was having dinner at his place. These are people the nazis would have at least denigrated and at worst killed for being "inferior". They were not "inferior" to JESUS and are now joint heirs in Heaven. Even the thief on the cross is there now. Don't confuse CHRIST with the people who falsely use HIS name. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But hasn't the large majority of people who self-identify as Christians and who, I think, honestly believe themselves to be true Christians, been complicit in acts that are a disgrace to the name of Christ.

For example, the largest denominations in the U.S. actively oppose women's equal rights. Can one be, for example, a supporter of the Southern Baptist Convention, and still be an authentic Christian. I don't want to imply here that no Southern Baptists is an authentic Christian, there are indeed some, but I do not see how one can strongly support the SBC today given its record on the ERA, racism, and otherwise.

I should point out that my own denomination, Anglican/Episcopalian, is going through some major internal strife as some sections of the church attempt to move forward on human rights.

I guess the question comes down to the question of if the church is at least partially divine, why does it lag so badly, rather than lead, on human rights. If churches are so un-Christlike, then can one blame the individuals who follow the church? Should both the corporate church and individual Christians share the blame? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you haven't already read it, I recommend John Shelby Spong's "Sins of Scripture". He basically says what you just did.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
If you haven't already read it, I recommend John Shelby Spong's "Sins of Scripture". He basically says what you just did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks. The thing is though that I'm not convinced it is ultimately the Bible that is the cause but a toxic religious mindset and the tendency of most religious institutions' blindness to their own fallibility. Religious institutions (with notable exceptions) often simply focus the worst of human behaviour.

Does Spong's book cover that or is more focused on the Bible's influence?

[NakedGary]

This topic/thread has gone on for three pages in the fun of nude recreation category.

It's being moved to "Miscellaneous" category which is more fitting.

[Boreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
If you haven't already read it, I recommend John Shelby Spong's "Sins of Scripture". He basically says what you just did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks. The thing is though that I'm not convinced it is ultimately the Bible that is the cause but a toxic religious mindset and the tendency of most religious institutions' blindness to their own fallibility. Religious institutions (with notable exceptions) often simply focus the worst of human behaviour.

Does Spong's book cover that or is more focused on the Bible's influence? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Albinus, Spong covers how people (The Church) have used the bible to their own ends, and suggests other interpretations of it. He does have a reverence for the bible, and in fact is a biblical scholar.

[nacktman]

Just a minor point of order here, but a post a few posts back and several succeeding ones are in error ... Slavery WAS NOT abolished by the republicans.

The majority of the members of congress of the United States were members of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY at the time of the abolishion of Slavery and a Southern Democract was president

[nacktman]

Mark, I think you'll find that your assertions as to republican achievement to be slightly off the mark.

The first labor laws dealing with child labor were enacted during a Demcratic majority congress as were the first anti-trust acts and the first environmental protection acts and where hard fought by republicans in an effort to defeat them.

The first national park was established by a VERY large majority Democratic congress during the early years of the War between the Confederacy and the federals.

The only republican to ever work for improving any of the above mentioned issues was TR and if you read his quotes he was a Democrat at heart like his cousin FDR.

The gauntlet of challenge issued in another thread to anyone to cite any positive achievement of the conservatives, i.e., the republicans has yet to be answered and likewise here as well.

[OldFrog]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just a minor point of order here, but a post a few posts back and several succeeding ones are in error ... Slavery WAS NOT abolished by the republicans.

The majority of the members of congress of the United States were members of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY at the time of the abolishion of Slavery and a Southern Democract was president </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Let's look at the historical record. In March 1861 during the final days of the Buchanan administration Congress passed Joint Resolution 80 which proposed a constitutional amendment which would have prevented the federal government from enacting legislation to prohibit slavery if it was allowed under state law. This resolution passed both houses and was sent to the states for ratification a scant 2-3 days before Lincoln began his Republican administration. In 1863 Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a Presidential Order under his War Powers. He had no authority to affect slavery in general but the proclamation had the effect of immediately freeing any slaves held in those states in open rebellion as soon as Union forces seized the territiory in which they were held. This is significant from the standpoint that it made those slaves freedmen upon liberation meaning that they could not subsequently be repossessed. That single proclamation guaranteed the future freedom of the vast majority of slaves in this country. The thirteenth amendment to the Constitution which did abolish slavery throughout the United States was passed by the Republican Senate in March of 1864 during Lincoln's first term but was rejected by the House. It was not until Lincoln successfully added it to the Republican platform for the 1864 election that it was finally passed by the House in January 1865. It was sent to the states for ratification the same month. Granted that ratification by the requisite 2/3 was not accomplished until December 1865 after Lincoln's assassination but all the really important federal action had taken place during the Lincoln presidency and at a time when the Republicans held Congress. Note that Andrew Johnson had not yet taken office at that point and the the Vice President/President of the Senate was Hannibal Hamblin (R/Maine). Note too that the Republican congress made ratification of that amendment a requirement for southern states before they could be readmitted to the union with full rights. You are certainly correct that Andrew Johnson was a classic southern Jacksonian Democrat and a staunch advocate of states' rights but he had nothing at all to do with the passage of the thirteenth amendment.

(As a staunch conservative Republican I also feel compelled to state that President Johnson was an honest and honorable man and that this country was very ill-served by the radical Republicans in Congress who derailed his plan for a swift and humane reconstruction. Had they not interfered decades of resentment and hate might have been avoided.)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The first labor laws dealing with child labor were enacted during a Demcratic majority congress </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is true but ignores the fact that a Republican Congress under a Republican President (Coolidge) passed a joint resolution for a constitutional amendment to allow the federal government to regulate/prohibit labor by those under the age of 18. This was passed and sent to the states for ratification in January 1924 by the 68th Congress. The proposed amendment was never ratified by enough states to pass into law but is one of very few drafted without an expiration clause so is technically still sitting there awaiting a sufficient majority. In actual fact, the amendment was proposed because constitutional scholars believed that it would be necessary before legislation could be passed without judicial challenge. Since such laws have since been passed and upheld the need for the amendment at this point seems minimal.

As an interesting aside, JR80, referred to earlier, was also drafted without an expiration clause so technically could still be ratified, become and amendment, and become the law of the land. It is doubtful that that will happen as to the best of my recollection it was only ratified by Ohio and Maryland. Just an interesting historical footnote.

[OldFrog]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think you'll find that your assertions as to republican achievement to be slightly off the mark.

~

The gauntlet of challenge issued in another thread to anyone to cite any positive achievement of the conservatives, i.e., the republicans has yet to be answered and likewise here as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Labels are less than helpful in a historical context. As a present day political/moral conservative I find myself very much in agreement with the Jacksonian Democrats/states' rights advocates of the first half of the nineteenth century. In those days I think that it can fairly be said that the Democrats were the conservatives (trying to hold to the old values) and that the upstart Republican party were the liberals seeking to reinvent the republic. I am sure that you will not agree, but to me it seems that the Democrats of that time were saying "Leave me alone, I can take care of myself" while those of today are saying "You don't have to take care of yourself we will take care of you for you." In simple terms, the Democrats of that time wanted less federalization while those of today want more. The Jacksonian Democrats were independent and proud and were happy to serve their country against foreign foes but didn't want the federal government telling them how to run their lives. That is pretty much how I feel and I don't see anything supportive of that concept in the Democratic party today.

[nacktman]

Frog you may wish to check your history.

The republican party NEVER had a majority contol of congress, neither the senate nor the house of representatives until several years after the war and that their first majority was gerrymandered.

As was the theft of the presidency by the republicans for Rutherford B. Hayes who lost and lost badly in both the popular vote and the electorial vote yet still became president ... sounds like recent history doesn't it ... when they attained their first majority control.

The republican party has NEVER held a majority control of congress through election. All "majorities", they have burdened America with have come from the result of gerrymandering, theft, fraud and otherwise criminal activities.

The republican party has NEVER done or proposed to do anything that has been a positve for this country they have always proven the opposite.

NO republican has ever won any election locally, regionally, or nationally without looking and sounding like a Democrat since 1865 and especially since WWII. That is why they take such pains to blow smoke up the arses of the American people and blind them with mirrors ... so that they can hide their true selves from the public eye ... (Oops, that doesn't work any longer, now does it?).

As to the thread topic: Hannity is a putz to be polite about it and he and his fellow sycophants should all curl up and expire and put us out of our misery.

[nacktman]

Actually I agree with you on the way the Democratic party was in the early 19th century.

They still are, by the way, why else would the republicans try so damned hard to sound like Democrats to win votes.

[OldFrog]

Okay, the 38th Congress:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Party summary
Senate

* Republicans: 33
* Democrats: 10
* Unconditinal Unionists: 5
* Unionists: 4

TOTAL members: 52
House of Representatives

* Republicans: 86
* Democrats: 72
* Unconditional Unionists: 16
* Unionists: 9
* Independent Republicans: 2

TOTAL members: 185 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is certainly no way that this was a Democratic majority.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">All "majorities", they have burdened America with have come from the result of gerrymandering, theft, fraud and otherwise criminal activities. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
To be honest, neither party has a monopoly on that sort of thing. Kennedy was likely elected in 1960 because of graft by the Daly machine in Illinois. LBJ certainly played with the cemetaries in southern Texas down in box 13.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">They still are, by the way, why else would the republicans try so damned hard to sound like Democrats to win votes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry, I don't see that one.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To be honest, neither party has a monopoly on that sort of thing. Kennedy was likely elected in 1960 because of graft by the Daly machine in Illinois. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really true. When the Nixon people tried to contest (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6500016152/m/7160071104/r/7520063104#7520063104) the Illinois results they discovered there was far more graft in favor (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1400016152/m/9310038152/r/4910038152#4910038152) of Nixon in the southern counties.

-Mark

[nacktman]

There you go again, Mark, knocking holes in the conservative's ballon.

And us in a heat wave.

We certainly don't need any more of the neo-con hot air escaping than we already have now do we?

[nacktman]

Sorry, Frog but I think you should have used the phrase ... 'Sorry, I don't want to see that one.' ... when responding to your citation of my post.

The republican party discovered long ago it could never carry an election on its merits and platform so it co-opted the Democratic Party ideas and ideals to win votes.

This never sat well with the right wing fundies and they hjacked the party from within and hid their intentions until now ... and the American people are getting it up the arse without vaseline because of it. What is really distrubing is that 26%, (the mostly brain dead sycophants) are still enjoying the hosing they're getting.

The left wing has never been a part of the Democratic party as have the right wing been firmly entrenched within the republican party ... the Democratic Party has ever been the party of the center ... where the majority of the American people are, why else would 8,000 out of 10,000 voters be registered Democrats with the remaining 2,000 split among the rest of the political parties?

To win votes you need to appeal to those 8,000 ... in other words you need to be seen as a Democrat, regardless of party affiliation

[OldFrog]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We certainly don't need any more of the neo-con hot air escaping than we already have now do we? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry, I didn't realize that this was just a place for liberals to hang out and agree with each other. Since that is the case I will leave you guys in peace.

[nacktman]

Methinks humor doth escape the grasp of some?!!

[OldFrog]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Methinks humor doth escape the grasp of some?!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
My appologies, I should certainly have recognized that you were trying to be humorous. Sorry that I mistook it for rational discussion. 8)