Nude Protesters

[NoodJuggler]

Hello everyone. I would like some opinions on this question. There are a lot of protests going on in protest of the United States' involvement in Iraq. One example is found in the miscellaneous forum dealing with the protest in Central park. Here is the link Protest (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/07/park.protest.reut/) If you notice, the protesters are all Women, the majority of the ones protesting are usually always women, why would this be? there are some protests going on in Saint Petersburg, Florida also and 90% are women. I am not saying that men do not protest nude. But yet at Clothesfree.com the majority of the members are Men? Why would this be? Why are the Women more willing to take their clothes off and protest? Is it because the Men are more likely to get arrested? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Or is it because society expects that a man would do something like that and not a Woman?
http://www.naturalandNude.com/NaturalandNude.gif

[NoodJuggler]

Hello everyone. I would like some opinions on this question. There are a lot of protests going on in protest of the United States' involvement in Iraq. One example is found in the miscellaneous forum dealing with the protest in Central park. Here is the link Protest (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/07/park.protest.reut/) If you notice, the protesters are all Women, the majority of the ones protesting are usually always women, why would this be? there are some protests going on in Saint Petersburg, Florida also and 90% are women. I am not saying that men do not protest nude. But yet at Clothesfree.com the majority of the members are Men? Why would this be? Why are the Women more willing to take their clothes off and protest? Is it because the Men are more likely to get arrested? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Or is it because society expects that a man would do something like that and not a Woman?
http://www.naturalandNude.com/NaturalandNude.gif

[rainy city mike]

Protest (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/07/park.protest.reut/)
http://www.naturalandNude.com/NaturalandNude.gif [/qb][/QUOTE]Interesting point Keith, on the news this morning
was a story about the Nude Women protest in Australia. Also no men. Something to think about and find an answer /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[wannabenaked2001]

Just a thought, but maybe "men" are more supportive of military action against Iraq.

[wannabenaked2001]

I really have no idea what the answer is to your question, but consider this:

Maybe the groups of women in question are not nudists and do not wish to engage in mixed gender nudity. This is simply their way of getting the most attention for their cause. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[toofeelgood]

I'm a nudist that supports the presidents policy on Iraq. Yes I prefer peace, if Sadamm wishes for peace then he needs to bring forward the the weapons or proof of their distruction. This is what the UN resolution says to do. It is not up to the inspectors to find anything. We need to have a support bush nudist rally!

[Nude in the North]

I like the sound of that.
"Support Bush Nudist Rally"

It could make for some interesting Headlines.

I might even stop shaving for awhile to show my support for "Bush".

/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Steve

[Suntied]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Keithmj:
the majority of the ones protesting are usually always women, why would this be? there are some protests going on in Saint Petersburg, Florida also and 90% are women. I am not saying that men do not protest nude. ] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why protest Keithmj,

Have we all forgotten about the people that now miss there loved ones that are no longer here because of the ignorant acts of ignorant bone-heads like sad-*** Insain (did I spell that wrong)

Suport Rallies!!! great idea... but you won't get any press because the press would veiw that as positive.
People don't want to hear about good things on the news... that would be silly. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

As for Bush... let him work. I remember how he ran this country on 9/11/01 and I will give him the OK to continue his quest to keep us semi-free as we have been since 1776! There... I knew that date by heart SCOTTnc /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif (another joke)

Somebody has to take control of this situation... if the UN wount do it then US should! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Cookie Monster]

I seem to recall, unfortionatly I do not remember where, reading a story about an all female protest. The lady that started it said that they were against the war etc... and they (the women)were using slogans like "Bush against Bush" I belive that I read it either from the INA home page or possibly something that cindianne posted. On the other hand I just found an article on the INA home page titled protesters peel for peace on beach. This article is about men protesting. I just glanced over it so if I am supplying the wrong information I am sorry and as punishment I must wear clothes for a day /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
Have a nice day everyone

[rainy city mike]

I think we got side tracked from the original question. For which I have no answer. But the comment about supporting Bush because the UN would not is very dangerous. I agree Sadam must go but why now? Why should the US do this alone? There was no hurry in the last 12 years there should not be any now. Bush does not rule the world and the US is not the police force of the world

[florida-david]

bush needs to do it now because american fear is high right now, and when that goes, he will no longer have the support for war. also, the republicans like war, it hides the fact that they have spent ALLL the money in reserve and more. our economy better recover after bush's various wars, or we will all be living in the jungle with no homes. at least we will be naked then cause we can't afford the clothes /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[greensunshine]

I have to admit I am not in favor of war, but on the other hand I am less in favor of what could begin to take place in this country and others that are currently (many aren't the prime target /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif )

If means taking some kind of action to protect our nation and other's nearby...let's not forget our neighbors to the north (Canada) and south (Mexico)...then what is our purpose of attempting to prevent another 9-11 (this could have been prevented many years before such as the first time the World Trade Centers were attacked)...least we not forget about all those who have died and lived to serve as heros to all of our nations...9-11 affected everyone then and still does now.

Bush and others (lets give credit to the other nations that too have had enough) are finally calling Iraqs bluff in attempting to hold him accountable for something that is long overdue.

No matter what the outcome, war is something I really feel will not be prevented at some time in my life regarding the terrible wrongs that have occured to both genders (especially women - they have minimal rights if at best in the middle east and other non North American countries) ...I feel very blessed to live in this country and to be able to defend it in some way, whether it on the battle lines or as a parent or a friend or a neighbor or even throught internet with someone.

Freedom is a wonderful blessing/right /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif and yet many in the world have never experienced it in the ways that minority of this world has...and I getting Damn tired of some moron telling me I shouldn't want to share one of the basics rights that few of us are given to begin with, with the rest of the world...

Now explain to me how 1 + 1 can only equal 1 and not 2 as I was taught otherwise in school...the first 1, referring to me and the second 1, referring to you (or the other nations that will never experience freedom without our help)...this total should equal 2, but for many that total remains just 1...just you and no one else in this equation will always refer to either us or them but not a collective 2, referring to everyone that has been impacted since or before 9-11...may we always remember their sacrafice for all of those who are free /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Greensunshine with her flag waving proudly in the background

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by florida-david:
bush needs to do it now because american fear is high right now, and when that goes, he will no longer have the support for war. also, the republicans like war, it hides the fact that they have spent ALLL the money in reserve and more. our economy better recover after bush's various wars, or we will all be living in the jungle with no homes. at least we will be naked then cause we can't afford the clothes /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The fear is high now because Bush made it that way with his speaches, his Alert system and his Attorney General trying his best to take away the freedoms we have. Pay attention folks.... the RRR is using Hussein to undermine the US in any way it can.

[rainy city mike]

Thank you Florida David.

You have answered this question perfectly.

Thanks

[AussieBeachBoy]

I can't speak for all the protests, however:

The female nude protest at Byron Bay in Australia a few weeks ago was part of an annual female nude event. It was the attendees at this event who decided to protest in this manner.

In the weekend just past, a substantial group of men in Byron Bay carried out a similar nude protest, demonstrating that it's not just women who engage in this sort of activity.

[AussieBeachBoy]

For your interest the following article appeared in today's Sydney Morning Herald. It contains some interesting historical comment.

-----------
Angry? Try a quick flash, the whole world's doing it
March 6 2003

Getting naked to get a cause noticed is not new, but its increased popularity could see us all cop a skinful, writes Karen Jackson.

Grace Knight's nude anti-war protests in Byron Bay and Sydney have made headlines around the world, as have the earlier efforts of a small group of Californian women, who started the whole thing.

Now it seems that everyone wants to do it. Just the other day in Chile, 300 people got nude in a city park for the same reason, before getting a little emotional and running naked towards the Parliament with police in hot pursuit. Those South Americans can't help but be exhibitionists, can they?

Taking your clothes off for a cause is not new. It seems that people have been protesting through nudity for quite some time. Of course, nude equals news. Widespread media coverage is the best way to get your point across, even if you have to show the whole world your naughty bits in the process.

Thus, in the past few years, we have seen three women strip and cover themselves with fake blood outside the Sydney meeting of the World Trade Organisation, a group of pagans cavorting topless at a G8 meeting in Calgary, Canada, a couple of anti-fur protesters going nude in Beijing, and animal liberationists marching naked during the running of the bulls in Pamplona.

Interestingly, African women have a tradition of protesting through nudity. In Nigeria last year 600 women invaded the headquarters of oil multinational Texaco to demand jobs for their sons and better facilities in their communities. To get their point across they threatened to strip naked. In Nigeria and other African nations, public female nudity is seen as ill-omened, and a source of shame for the men who see it. After 10 days, the oil company agreed to help out and the women emerged victorious (and clothed).

In Zambia, women paraded topless to protest against the Government's new rules outlawing miniskirts and tight pants. Baring one's breasts has a history in that country, where 40 years earlier it was used as a protest against the British colonists, and became a badge of freedom and independence. Faced with so many bare bosoms in 1964, the straitlaced Brits bailed out.

In Kenya in 2001, a team of scientists were driven away from a nature reserve by a band of 300 naked women who ran into their research camp. The women were using their nudity to invoke a curse on the men, and thus prevent them from extending the nature reserve onto tribal land. The poor blokes were just trying to research colobus monkeys, but they ran for the hills quick smart.

That same year in Johannesburg, eight women squatters stripped in front of police who were preventing them from returning to their shacks and removing their belongings. This sort of nude action also had a history in apartheid South Africa, when government removal of squatters was common. While there were a few red faces among the police officers, a number of them could be seen enjoying the spectacle, a witness commented.

Then there are those who protest naked in public for the right to be naked in public. A group called Freedom to be Human regularly appears nude in London (but only in summer), determined to repeal indecent exposure laws. In 1999 Vincent Bethell, the founder of the group, was arrested for scaling a lamp-post outside the Royal Courts of Justice. That campaign is about being alive, being human, Bethell has said. Why do people have such a strange reaction to the human form? His protests also draw attention to body image issues and what he sees as the sexualisation of the human body. He says people are rarely offended by his actions, more often offering encouragement.

All this leads one to wonder what new forms of nude protest we'll see. Will unions opt for a mass streak rather than a strike? Will pro-censorship campaigners get naked to promote their fight against porn? Will the sporting shooters get out their weapons in order to protect their guns? Next time the neighbour's dog barks all night, will banging on their door naked make any difference?

Can road rage be enhanced by some subtle mooning? If someone cuts into the queue at the bank, will you immediately strip off to make your anger known? And if your child is being treated unfairly at school, will a quick flash in the principal's office help?

It seems the future of protesting could be very interesting.

[Trailscout]

The premise is that the nudity of the protesters is shocking and is intended to gain attention to their cause.

I would like to live in a world where no one is shocked by nudity.

I think nude figure models, same-sex nudity for schoolkids in gym and summer camps, and the like have provided many people a steppingstone to social nudism.

I tend to think that nudity for the purpose of sexual titillation, or nudity when done for shock value in protest rallies does not help someone make the decision to become a nudist.

I would concede that it shocks the textile public into listening to the protesters, but we nudists have little to gain from their publicity stunts.

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
I tend to think that nudity for the purpose of sexual titillation, or nudity when done for shock value in protest rallies does not help someone make the decision to become a nudist.

I would concede that it shocks the textile public into listening to the protesters, but we nudists have little to gain from their publicity stunts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True. The two movements are separate. The nude protestors are betting that, since most of them are not nudists, their movement will gain much more attention than it would have if they were nudists. They may be right. I hope they are. Their voice needs to be heard, especially by those who do not already agree.

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
I would concede that it shocks the textile public into listening to the protesters, but we nudists have little to gain from their publicity stunts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The more people use nudity for shock value the less shocking it becomes. The less shocking it becomes the more normal it becomes. The normalization of nudity, if taken to its logical conclusion, would obviate the need for words such as "nudist" and "nudism" for everyone would accept that nudity is normal and in the shorter term it would make nudists appear less eccentric to the non-nudist public. That can only be a good thing as far as nudists are concerned.

Rik

Good point Rik, as usual!

Any form of positive nudity will cause nudity to become more mainstream and will help us in the long run. We gain ground when people protest nude, when streakers streak, when art shows feature nudity. None of these examples are nudism and they don't have to be. This is why nudists need to support nudity that isn't nudism.

Maybe why more women are protesting nude is that it is their children or future children...that will be going off to war..breaking that special mother child bond..I think the woma n protesting is more shocking whereas the male nude protest may be viewed by the general public as more of an exhibitionist thing.

[Snoboy]

I am an American and very proud of it. I don't want to see our men and women killed but tragically some will to keep us FREE. Live without freedom and see how you feel. As for the women protesting in the nude, that's their choice, but for the most part, I think they are laughed at and their purpose has failed. Expressing our right to nudity is okay, but we need to pick situations that will benefit our cause and to picket naked or to use our naked bodies to form peace signs, etc., is certainly not setting a good example for our movement. I am all for free expression but I think there are more effective ways to promote nudism. DON'T THINK FOR ONE MINUTE FOLKS THAT THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS NOT AT OUR DOORSTEP, BECAUSE IT IS, AND WE HAVE TO STOP IT NOW BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are major threats to our safety and freedom and they must be stopped. Stand up and be counted. Show your pride in America. We may not always agree with our leaders, but this is not the time to whine, it is time to stand up and support our President and our Nation so that we may continue to have the freedoms and choices we so richly have and wish to maintain. MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA AND ALL OUR PEOPLE. I love all of you. I am not fussing. I just want us to stand behind our leaders and support our military. Thanks. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snoboy:
I am all for free expression but I think there are more effective ways to promote nudism. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nude protestors are NOT trying to promote nudism, they're trying to promote peace.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Stand up and be counted. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which is exactly what nude protestors are doing.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> We may not always agree with our leaders, but this is not the time to whine, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you do not agree with your leaders then this is EXACTLY the time to let them know.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA AND ALL OUR PEOPLE. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And spare a thought for all the poor misguided non-Americans who shudder at the prospect of a world dominated by the American dream.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I love all of you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Love you too. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Rik

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snoboy:
I am an American and very proud of it. I don't want to see our men and women killed but tragically some will to keep us FREE. Live without freedom and see how you feel. As for the women protesting in the nude, that's their choice, but for the most part, I think they are laughed at and their purpose has failed. Expressing our right to nudity is okay, but we need to pick situations that will benefit our cause and to picket naked or to use our naked bodies to form peace signs, etc., is certainly not setting a good example for our movement. I am all for free expression but I think there are more effective ways to promote nudism. DON'T THINK FOR ONE MINUTE FOLKS THAT THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS NOT AT OUR DOORSTEP, BECAUSE IT IS, AND WE HAVE TO STOP IT NOW BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are major threats to our safety and freedom and they must be stopped. Stand up and be counted. Show your pride in America. We may not always agree with our leaders, but this is not the time to whine, it is time to stand up and support our President and our Nation so that we may continue to have the freedoms and choices we so richly have and wish to maintain. MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA AND ALL OUR PEOPLE. I love all of you. I am not fussing. I just want us to stand behind our leaders and support our military. Thanks. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Our president is more dangerous that Hussein ever could be. Nobody has been able to show what if any danger Hussein is to us directly. Do you know what him and Ashcroft are cooking up now? Seen what Patriot II will do to us?

Among its most severe problems, the bill

Diminishes personal privacy by removing checks on government power, specifically by

Making it easier for the government to initiate surveillance and wiretapping of U.S. citizens under the authority of the shadowy, top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. (Sections 101, 102 and 107)
Permitting the government, under certain circumstances, to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court altogether and conduct warrantless wiretaps and searches. (Sections 103 and 104)
Sheltering federal agents engaged in illegal surveillance without a court order from criminal prosecution if they are following orders of high Executive Branch officials. (Section 106)
Creating a new category of ?domestic security surveillance? that permits electronic eavesdropping of entirely domestic activity under looser standards than are provided for ordinary criminal surveillance under Title III. (Section 122)
Using an overbroad definition of terrorism that could cover some protest tactics such as those used by Operation Rescue or protesters at Vieques Island, Puerto Rico as a new predicate for criminal wiretapping and other electronic surveillance. (Sections 120 and 121)
Providing for general surveillance orders covering multiple functions of high tech devices, and by further expanding pen register and trap and trace authority for intelligence surveillance of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents. (Sections 107 and 124)
Creating a new, separate crime of using encryption technology that could add five years to any sentence for crimes committed with a computer. (Section 404)
Expanding nationwide search warrants so they do not have to meet even the broad definition of terrorism in the USA PATRIOT Act. (Section 125)
Giving the government secret access to credit reports without consent and without judicial process. (Section 126)
Enhancing the government?s ability to obtain sensitive information without prior judicial approval by creating administrative subpoenas and providing new penalties for failure to comply with written demands for records. (Sections 128 and 129)
Allowing for the sampling and cataloguing of innocent Americans? genetic information without court order and without consent. (Sections 301-306)
Permitting, without any connection to anti-terrorism efforts, sensitive personal information about U.S. citizens to be shared with local and state law enforcement. (Section 311)
Terminating court-approved limits on police spying, which were initially put in place to prevent McCarthy-style law enforcement persecution based on political or religious affiliation. (Section 312)
Permitting searches, wiretaps and surveillance of United States citizens on behalf of foreign governments ? including dictatorships and human rights abusers ? in the absence of Senate-approved treaties. (Sections 321-22)
Diminishes public accountability by increasing government secrecy; specifically, by

Authorizing secret arrests in immigration and other cases, such as material witness warrants, where the detained person is not criminally charged. (Section 201)
Threatening public health by severely restricting access to crucial information about environmental health risks posed by facilities that use dangerous chemicals. (Section 202)
Harming fair trial rights for American citizens and other defendants by limiting defense attorneys from challenging the use of secret evidence in criminal cases. (Section 204)
Gagging grand jury witnesses in terrorism cases to bar them from discussing their testimony with the media or the general public, thus preventing them from defending themselves against rumor-mongering and denying the public information it has a right to receive under the First Amendment. (Section 206)
Diminishes corporate accountability under the pretext of fighting terrorism; specifically, by

Granting immunity to businesses that provide information to the government in terrorism investigations, even if their actions are taken with disregard for their customers? privacy or other rights and show reckless disregard for the truth. Such immunity could provide an incentive for neighbor to spy on neighbor and pose problems similar to those inherent in Attorney General Ashcroft?s ?Operation TIPS.? (Section 313)
Undermines fundamental constitutional rights of Americans under overbroad definitions of ?terrorism? and ?terrorist organization? or under a terrorism pretext; specifically by

Stripping even native-born Americans of all of the rights of United States citizenship if they provide support to unpopular organizations labeled as terrorist by our government, even if they support only the lawful activities of such organizations, allowing them to be indefinitely imprisoned in their own country as undocumented aliens. (Section 501)
Creating 15 new death penalties, including a new death penalty for ?terrorism? under a definition which could cover acts of protest such as those used by Operation Rescue or protesters at Vieques Island, Puerto Rico, if death results. (Section 411)
Further criminalizing association ? without any intent to commit specific terrorism crimes ? by broadening the crime of providing material support to terrorism, even if support is not given to any organization listed as a terrorist organization by the government. (Section 402)
Permitting arrests and extraditions of Americans to any foreign country ? including those whose governments do not respect the rule of law or human rights ? in the absence of a Senate-approved treaty and without allowing an American judge to consider the extraditing country?s legal system or human rights record. (Section 322)
Unfairly targets immigrants under the pretext of fighting terrorism; specifically by

Undercutting trust between police departments and immigrant communities by opening sensitive visa files to local police for the enforcement of complex immigration laws. (Section 311)
Targeting undocumented workers with extended jail terms for common immigration offenses. (Section 502)
Providing for summary deportations without evidence of crime, criminal intent or terrorism, even of lawful permanent residents, whom the Attorney General says are a threat to national security. (Section 503)
Completely abolishing fair hearings for lawful permanent residents convicted of even minor criminal offenses through a retroactive ?expedited removal? procedure, and preventing any court from questioning the government?s unlawful actions by explicitly exempting these cases from habeas corpus review. Congress has not exempted any person from habeas corpus -- a protection guaranteed by the Constitution -- since the Civil War. (Section 504)
Allowing the Attorney General to deport an immigrant to any country in the world, even if there is no effective government in such a country. (Section 506)

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11835&c=206

[Frank R]

[/QUOTE]Our president is more dangerous that Hussein ever could be. Nobody has been able to show what if any danger Hussein is to us directly.

To say that our President is more dangerous than a mass murder is a pretty good stretch, even for a democrat. /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif Hence, it appears you believe that unless someone is dangerous to you directly, you should do nothing. So if I am going to range and see someone shooting school children, I guess you think I should drive on by and do nothing as long as he does not shoot at me directly. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
I could say a lot more but let me repeat something I have said before. This is a nudist web site and I think most of us like nudity and would like to expand nudist horizons. Rather than fighting over other issues, let's keep in mind what we all (or at least the vast majority of people on this site want) want and can agree on. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif To oppose gun control, I am a life member of the National Rifle Association but I don't think that is important enough to argue about on this web site. I expect many fellow nudist would not agree with me so rather than divide our fellowship here, let's just stick to what we can and do agree on team mates. Let's keep our eye on the ball of moving nudity to a more generally acceptable level in this country. Tackling your own team mates is not going to promote nudist thought so let's not do it.

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Frank R:
Let's keep our eye on the ball of moving nudity to a more generally acceptable level in this country. Tackling your own team mates is not going to promote nudist thought so let's not do it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It seems it's ok for you to tackle Cyndiann's views as long as no-one tackles you or anyone else.

/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Rik

[Trailscout]

This discussion has nothing to do with nudism at this point.

I am willing to debate the efficacy of nude protest in softening public attitudes toward nudism, but I resent those who have highjacked this forum and turned it into a debate over the pros and cons of a Gulf war or a critique of the current president or past presidents.

Start your own political forum somewhere else if you must, but keep non-nudist issues off the table here!

[Corky]

I moved this whole topic to Off Topic Misc.
Corky

[Trailscout]

Thanks, Corky!

I haven't spoken out about my political views before. Maybe this would be a good place.

I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. Both parties support causes that I like and dislike. Neither am I a member of the Libertarian Party, but I wonder if nudists would have more freedom to be their natural selves more often if they were the majority party than the other two.

I tend to favor as much local autonomy as possible, but I want to see civil liberties the same nationwide.

Why should it be illegal to advocate nudism in Arkansas, but legal elsewhere? Why can one county in Florida arrest people on the beach for indecent exposure for simple platonic nudity, but a few yards up the beach in another county nudity is not an issue?

The federal government has no laws against nudity. Maybe that isn't good enough. Maybe we need a national law protecting our right to wear as much or as little as we desire.

I am not overjoyed about the prospect of war in the Gulf, but I tend to agree with those who feel that it is necessary to prevent something worse.
If you disagree, I respect your right to lie down nude in the grass and spell any words you want to.

If the Naturist Action Committee can't resolve this in the courts, I would like to see ten thousand nudists march nude to the steps of the state capitol building in Little Rock to protest the Arkansas nudity law. They couldn't put us all in jail!

Would I do it? I hope I would have the courage to if it came down to it.

It would be a pretty scary thing to get arrested, but I would be more scared to continue to live in a country where it is against the law to speak your mind. If we are free to advocate nudism in every state but one, we are not entirely free!

[florida-david]

cyndiann - i agree with you that bush is a dangerous man. why is "W" ignoring korea an making a big deal about iraq?? why has he botched getting the world to agree with him (cowboy politics).

anyhow, to get back to the point of this post, i find it amazing that people worldwide are protesting our moronic president, some doing it in the nude to get their point across. there is a website that has pictures of many of the protests, it is www.baringwitness.org. (http://www.baringwitness.org.) check it out. i think nudity is being used to gain attention to their cause (peace) and i feel it works to the nudists benefit by showing natural nudity (not sexual nudity). so its works for me in two ways - it promotes peace and nudity at the same time. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Frank R:
To say that our President is more dangerous than a mass murder is a pretty good stretch, even for a democrat. /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif Hence, it appears you believe that unless someone is dangerous to you directly, you should do nothing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If I believed that I would not have posted what I did right before your post. Most of those issues don't affect me specifically (so far) but do affect many other US citizens.

I am saying that Bush is more a danger to US citizens than Hussein is and I do believe that.

[Nekkidfireman]

Well, I must say a few things. I guess that there has to be war for people to get emotionally involved with there ideas.
Isn't it great that we can do this... I have been reviewing some of the posts,,, and now it seems to me that one person here is not on my list of people to respect.
First the war,,, I am a firefighter,, I was on duty on 9/11, and my whole shift watched the whole thing happen on TV. And you know what,, before the second plane hit, all I could say was, damn glad I don't work in New York,, that is a lot of stairs to climb. When the second plane hit, it was obvious we were attacked. Our President declared War on terrorism, and there was a fury of patriotism,, of course for while.
I was a member of the Arizona National Guard, when President Bush (senior) sent us to Saudia Arabia/Kuwait. I was there,,,, so I do know what a tryannical government can do.
Now about the other postings,, this is for Cyndiann,,, just who do you think you are.
To refresh your memory you replied to a post asking a guestion about being fat. You stated, 'you are not judged, for your shape, but if you are single' So please explain that to me, and tell me what I am.. I am not married, I have a girlfriend, and we like to be nude, so what does that make me? so who are you to judge?
enough said for now.
I helped this country in need, and now my #2 son is a Marine doing the same, so that you can protest or be a judge.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nekkidfireman:
Isn't it great that we can do this... I have been reviewing some of the posts,,, and now it seems to me that one person here is not on my list of people to respect.
Now about the other postings,, this is for Cyndiann,,, just who do you think you are.
To refresh your memory you replied to a post asking a guestion about being fat. You stated, 'you are not judged, for your shape, but if you are single' So please explain that to me, and tell me what I am.. I am not married, I have a girlfriend, and we like to be nude, so what does that make me? so who are you to judge?
enough said for now.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not sure what you are asking here...could you clarify the question? I wasn't judging anyone, I was talking about how others judge single people at the clubs. Try reading for content. What does that have to do with you and why is it in this thread? We are supposed to be discussing nude protests and the war.

Nothing worse than someone getting all up in my face because they didn't read the post right to begin with. Big duh!

[Naturist Mark]

Thanks Cyndiann for the extensive list of the assaults on the rights of the American people by the administration.

It wasn't long after 9-11 that I was dismayed to see that the War on Terrorism was also going to be a War on American Liberties. John Ashcroft even boasted that Americans were willing to trade some freedom to end terrorism. Doesn't that mean Bin Ladin wins?

The War on Terrorism is like the War on Drugs. There will never be a final victory. If it is a sufficient reason to 'temporarily' curtail liberty, then liberty is lost.

I differ with a lot of my peers in my belief that the war against the Iraqi regime is just. Sadly I can't say I believe it was intended for entirely just reasons. I suspect the biggest reason was 'he tried to kill my daddy'. And it disturbs me that 'reconstruction' contracts have already been awarded on secret non-bid terms to only those firms with disturbingly close ties to the administration. Very unseemly.

And you better not publicly express the wrong opinions, especially if you are an immigrant or a Dixie Chick.

Isn't it astonishing that the same people who approve of the spending of the lives of American soldiers to 'bring democracy' to a foreign land should be so intolerant of it at home.

-Mark

[AussieBeachBoy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It wasn't long after 9-11 that I was dismayed to see that the War on Terrorism was also going to be a War on American Liberties. John Ashcroft even boasted that Americans were willing to trade some freedom to end terrorism. Doesn't that mean Bin Ladin wins? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Indeed. It is a disgrace that US citizens can now be arrested, locked up and interrogated for long periods of time without access to legal representation, and tried and convicted by ad-hoc tribunals, merely because of a suspicion they may have been involved with terrorism. Just look at the dreadful treatment for the poor guy who they tried to pin the anthrax mailings on, only to have to back down much later.

One of my fave cartoons to come out of all this was after the first Superbowl after 9/11, when people had had to wait for up to four hours to clear security. The cartoon was a drawing of a long line of people outside the stadium, being searched extensively by police, and one of them saying "It's a small price to pay to protect our important American freedoms".

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by naturistmark1:
...The War on Terrorism is like the War on Drugs. There will never be a final victory... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly. The objective of these "wars" is to grow the government. Can you say, "Police State?" Then, eventually, "One World Government?"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by naturistmark1:
Thanks Cyndiann for the extensive list of the assaults on the rights of the American people by the administration.

It wasn't long after 9-11 that I was dismayed to see that the War on Terrorism was also going to be a War on American Liberties. John Ashcroft even boasted that Americans were willing to trade some freedom to end terrorism. Doesn't that mean Bin Ladin wins?

The War on Terrorism is like the War on Drugs. There will never be a final victory. If it is a sufficient reason to 'temporarily' curtail liberty, then liberty is lost.

I differ with a lot of my peers in my belief that the war against the Iraqi regime is just. Sadly I can't say I believe it was intended for entirely just reasons. I suspect the biggest reason was 'he tried to kill my daddy'. And it disturbs me that 'reconstruction' contracts have already been awarded on secret non-bid terms to only those firms with disturbingly close ties to the administration. Very unseemly.

And you better not publicly express the wrong opinions, especially if you are an immigrant or a Dixie Chick.

Isn't it astonishing that the same people who approve of the spending of the lives of American soldiers to 'bring democracy' to a foreign land should be so intolerant of it at home.

-Mark <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, it does mean that Ben Ladin wins....

look at our airlines claiming bankruptcy because nobody will fly, and our sales going down because nobody wants to be at a mall because of those color codes that do nothing but scare people.

My opinion on why Bush got us into this war is that he's doing it for religious reasons. Bush is the RRR, the same people that try to outlaw nudity here in the States. He truly believes in his "Axis of Evil" theory and that the US is somehow protected by his christian god above other countries. Personally I think it's almost time for a rubber room and those long sleeved white jackets.

Even his own father has told him to chill out. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-3-605441,00.html)

[EricNY]

Cyndiann: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Bush is the RRR <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have not heard of RRR, what does that mean?

[florida-david]

cyndiann - thanks for fighting for the silent majority. King W. Bush is out of control (i love the link to the artical about bush senior). the bullies are finally running the u.s. and the rest of us are supposed to sit back quietly and let the administration do whatever it wants (while we pay for it $$). i feel like i am in highschool and the bad kids are running the show here in the u.s. i fear he will get re-elected to cause more harm than good. i also don't like W.'s constant pushing of his religious beliefs. next we will be handing out money to only churchs for "societal programs" and none for synagogues and mosques. oh sorry, that is starting to happen already....

but what is the RRR?

RRR stands for rabid religious right. It includes people who really think they are christian (or muslim for that matter) and doing the right thing when what they are really doing is trying to control everyone else. They are also called Fundamentalists. Included in this would be Pat Robertson and most of the other well known right wing "christians" like those with the RV shows.

Every nudist (in the US) needs to know who they are because the RRR are the ones behind the great majority of legislation out there against nudity. It is nothing more than mind control in reality. They want to tell everyone how to live and what they should think. Open thought is discouraged and answers are learned by memory instead of by discovery. They are usually against not only nudity but gays and interracial relationships and abortion as well.

They tend to hide their real goals behind churches and family oriented goals like at www.afa.net (http://www.afa.net/) or www.cc.org (http://www.cc.org/)

Good websites to learn more about them and how to deal with them are at http://www.qrd.org/QRD/www/RRR/rrrpage.html and http://www.elroy.net/ehr/fighttheright.html

What we have here in this war are fundamentalists fighting fundamentalists.... christians against muslims, and both think they are right and the other side is "evil". Neither side is totally right!

[Frank R]

My biggest concern about our latest war is that it is yet another assult on our constitution. Only Congress has the authority to declare war and, unless every media service around has missed it, Congress has not done so. Just because Harry S for nothing Truman started this dangerous trend is no reason for us to allow it to continue. If and when Congress declares war, then and only then should we be fighting anywhere. This is just another dangerous trend away from our republican form to government to the worse of all governments, democracy. The only good thing about a democracy is that it does not last that long.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Only Congress has the authority to declare war and, unless every media service around has missed it, Congress has not done so. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>American has not explicitely declared 'War' since WWII, but congress has repeatedly passed authorization for military activity since then. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was effectively a congressional declaration of war against North Vietnam, and was consistent with Congress' war powers.

Congress just barely passed a war resolution for Bush Sr in Gulf War I back in 1991. "W" Bush did much better on Oct 11, 2002 when Congress gave him authority to "defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Just because we no longer call it a 'declaration of war' doesn't matter. Congress HAS declared war.

Not that it matters so much. Every recent president has claimed he doesn't need congressional approval since he is commander in chief. I don't expect congressional failure to approve war would have had any more effect than UN failure did.