Yeah, this is exactly what you would want young children on the streets to see. This world has turned so bad I would not blame God if He would destroy us all like He did Sodom and Gomorrah! But yet He waits with Mercy and Grace for us all if we would yet repent.
quote:[i]Originally posted by MFD50[/i] [br]Yeah, this is exactly what you would want young children on the streets to see. This world has turned so bad I would not blame God if He would destroy us all like He did Sodom and Gomorrah! But yet He waits with Mercy and Grace for us all if we would yet repent.
Personally, I don't want my young children to see those signs at the funerals of soldiers who have been killed. Oh, but those are held by church people. Double standard?
This is but a symptom of the problem of becoming morally bankrupt in every aspect of our society. It goes far beyond the fact that something like this even exists to politics, business, government, family, as well as the way we think, act and perceive life, with no bottoming out in sight, with across the board actions that display a complete disregard for ethical values and principles.
But it is not a new phenomenon, but a repeat of a centuries old pattern, a prelude to empire's rising and falling to a footnote of the power and glory that was their hour in the sun, and then is heard no more.
Let no man pull you low enough to hate him. -- Martin Luther King Jr.
Larry Flynt found a niche and filled it. He is the embodiment of American Business Success to the tenth degree. And he knows the Constitution better than 75% of ALL people ever elected to office. I'm not condoning him in any way, shape or form. Merely stating fact.
With that said, since religion has been brought into it. Mr. Flynt will be sharing office space in Hell with Roberts, Falwell and Robertson. Hahahaaa! The following was not a statement of fact. Just some normal Houndog tounge-in-cheek.
quote:[i]Originally posted by vegasmayor[/i] Personally, I don't want my young children to see those signs at the funerals of soldiers who have been killed. Oh, but those are held by church people. Double standard?
Me neither, but what does Westboro have to do with Larry Flynt? I didn't see anyone defending Westboro Baptist, so why can't we just agree they're both indefensible without looking for double standards?
They're both protected by the First Amendment, that's what. My point is that just because I don't personally like something - it cannot be deemed "wrong" or "immoral." What would make me the judge? Everyone has a different definition of what is morally wrong. The U.S. isn't just for Christians and the Christian bible. So the only basis we can go by is the law of the land. You don't have to like it, but it's still the law. And unless Larry (or Westboro) is breaking a law, they don't NEED to be defended. So, though I don't like the Westboro signs, I fully respect that they are entitled to their public (displays of) opinions just like you, me and Larry Flint.
quote:[i]Originally posted by zapp2525[/i] [br]For standing up for his rights in America ? That's wrong ?
You don't have to agree with what he does for a business, but he has the right for that to be his business.
???
Exactly where did I state that he doesn't have a right to do business? Of course he has a right to run a business however he sees fit as long as it's within the bounds of the law.
quote:[i]Originally posted by vegasmayor[/i] They're both protected by the First Amendment, that's what. My point is that just because I don't personally like something - it cannot be deemed "wrong" or "immoral." What would make me the judge? Everyone has a different definition of what is morally wrong. The U.S. isn't just for Christians and the Christian bible. So the only basis we can go by is the law of the land. You don't have to like it, but it's still the law. And unless Larry (or Westboro) is breaking a law, they don't NEED to be defended. So, though I don't like the Westboro signs, I fully respect that they are entitled to their public (displays of) opinions just like you, me and Larry Flint.
You're arguing points I never made. Never mentioned Jesus, Westboro, First Amendment, Christians, moral, immoral, or even the Bible. Are people not free to hold opinions just because that's the way they feel?
I made known my *OPINION* of Larry Flynt the man. I never once said he doesn't have a right to run the business that he does, regardless of my opinion of the business (which is shockingly the same as my opinion of Larry). You seem to always look for something to object to. I don't get it. Are you offended by my opinion of Larry?
quote:[i]Originally posted by blueblood[/i] [br]Public nudity is against the law in Monroe (I think)
I highly doubt these women dance naked in the truck, blueblood. I would assume they are wearing exactly what the picture on the side of the truck shows. And bikinis are definitely not against the law in Monroe.
quote:[i]Originally posted by zapp2525[/i] [br]I thought one was not to judge someone else ?
Probably the single most abused verse in the entire Bible.
Why reinvent the wheel........
The Scoop on Judging by Greg Koukl If you've been to Starbucks lately, you might have noticed a new campaign to lift the consciousness of caffeinated patrons. Quotes from intellectual and spiritual virtuosi now grace their talls, ventis, and grandes "to get people talking," their web site says.
Starbucks' moments of truth might become one of yours, a pretext for friendly, thoughtful conversation that might turn into a divine appointment of sorts.
Consider this contribution by popular author Deepak Chopra : "Attractive people judge neither themselves nor others." In this Dr. Chopra seems to reflect the sentiments of Jesus (whom he admires) when He warned, "Do not judge, lest you be judged" (Matthew 7:1).
Jesus' comment, though, is almost universally misunderstood because of an inherent conflict in the condemnation of judging that goes unnoticed to almost everyone but Him.
Here's the problem. Judgment always entails assessment. Is Chopra's analysis an assessment? It seems to be. So is Jesus'. This raises a difficulty. Taken without qualification, the statement "You shouldn't judge" is self-refuting, being itself an example of judgment.
Jesus qualified His comment, however, in a way that Chopra did not.
And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?...You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. (Matthew 7:3, 5)
Jesus did not condemn all judgments, only hypocritical ones - arrogant condemnations characterized by disdain and condescension. Not all judgments are of this sort. In fact, even in this passage Jesus actually enjoins a different kind of judgment once the hypocrisy has been dealt with ("first take the log out of your own eye, then").
There are two other kinds of judging in Scripture that are not condemned, but commanded. Some judgments are judicial, proper when done by proper authorities. Judges judge. They pass sentence. That's their job. Church discipline is of this sort (Matthew 18:15-20, 1 Corinthians 5:12-13, Galatians 6:1).
Jesus did not come initially for this kind of judgment - He offered mercy, not sentencing (John 3:17, 12:47) - but He will certainly return with this kind. Appointed by the Father as final judge (John 5:22, 27; Acts 10:42, 17:31), He will spare no one.
Other judgments are assessments - appraisals of right or wrong, wise or foolish, accurate or inaccurate, rational or irrational. This kind of judgment is not forbidden; it is commanded. Jesus' instructions "Do not give what is holy to dogs" (Matthew 7:6) require this kind of judgment (What is "holy" Who are the "dogs"). Peter reminds us to "be of sound judgment" since "the end of all things is at hand," (1 Peter 4:7).
Some assessments are moral. Paul commands this kind of judgment: "Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them" (Ephesians 5:11). This is to be done not "according to appearance," but by "righteous" standards (John 7:24) according to Jesus, who chastised the Jews for their failures here: "And why do you not judge even on your own initiative what is right?" (Luke 12:57)
A judicial action, a factual assessment, a hypocritical arrogance - all are judgments. Only the third is disqualified by Jesus. The first two are actually virtues in their proper settings, and therefore commanded by Scripture.
Let me be clear on why all of this matters. The Christian message at its core entails a message of judgment. The "good news" of the Gospel is only good against the bad news of judgment. As ambassadors for Christ, we cannot avoid this.
Shallow aphorisms like Chopra's "Attractive people judge neither themselves nor others" are wildly popular because they pander to a rebellious heart by promoting an indiscriminate tolerance. But they strike a blow at the very heart of the Gospel.
I have said many times, "The Gospel is offensive enough, don't add any more offense to it; but we dare not remove the offense that is inherent to the Gospel."
The Christian message starts with a judgment and it will end with a judgment for those who do not heed it. Jesus was hated, in part, because he testified of the world's evil deeds (John 7:7). But it is never in bad taste to tell people the truth when the truth really matters. That's what faithful ambassadors do, even over coffee at Starbucks.
quote:[i]Originally posted by vegasmayor[/i] They're both protected by the First Amendment, that's what. My point is that just because I don't personally like something - it cannot be deemed "wrong" or "immoral." What would make me the judge? Everyone has a different definition of what is morally wrong. The U.S. isn't just for Christians and the Christian bible. So the only basis we can go by is the law of the land. You don't have to like it, but it's still the law. And unless Larry (or Westboro) is breaking a law, they don't NEED to be defended. So, though I don't like the Westboro signs, I fully respect that they are entitled to their public (displays of) opinions just like you, me and Larry Flint.
You're arguing points I never made. Never mentioned Jesus, Westboro, First Amendment, Christians, moral, immoral, or even the Bible. Are people not free to hold opinions just because that's the way they feel?
I made known my *OPINION* of Larry Flynt the man. I never once said he doesn't have a right to run the business that he does, regardless of my opinion of the business (which is shockingly the same as my opinion of Larry). You seem to always look for something to object to. I don't get it. Are you offended by my opinion of Larry?
Nope.
I am never offended by opinions. I honestly thought this discussion was based on whether or not this would be legal in Monroe if this truck drove around here.
quote:[i]Originally posted by vegasmayor[/i] Nope.
I am never offended by opinions. I honestly thought this discussion was based on whether or not this would be legal in Monroe if this truck drove around here.
quote:[i]Originally posted by vegasmayor[/i] Nope.
I am never offended by opinions. I honestly thought this discussion was based on whether or not this would be legal in Monroe if this truck drove around here.
That's cool. Cheers.
And thanks for that article about judgment. I had not read that before. Very interesting. It's sounds like quite a few things I've read/listened to by Timothy Keller.
I wondering what the logistics of this particular truck are. I seriously doubt a performer inside would be able to balance herself while this truck was in motion.
It has always amazed me that Monroe has had a Gay/Lesbian bar in DOWNTOWN for about 30 years and guys dress in drag and use women's restrooms and women dress as guys and use men's restrooms or go out in public together and this is acceptable to everyone, but when it comes to women flaunting themselves there is a double standard. I am not supporting this in anyway, but when Bristol's and Hustler came to town eveyone there threw a fit and stated it would bring crime and prostitution, check your Police briefs and I will guarantee that the outlet mall, Solid Rock Church and Kroger's has had more activity and crime than Hustler, former Bristol's, Old Street Saloon and Coyote Ridge/Stonyridge all combined. Just my 1.5 cents.
quote:[i]Originally posted by biglaw[/i] [br]It has always amazed me that Monroe has had a Gay/Lesbian bar in DOWNTOWN for about 30 years and guys dress in drag and use women's restrooms and women dress as guys and use men's restrooms or go out in public together and this is acceptable to everyone, but when it comes to women flaunting themselves there is a double standard. I am not supporting this in anyway, but when Bristol's and Hustler came to town eveyone there threw a fit and stated it would bring crime and prostitution, check your Police briefs and I will guarantee that the outlet mall, Solid Rock Church and Kroger's has had more activity and crime than Hustler, former Bristol's, Old Street Saloon and Coyote Ridge/Stonyridge all combined. Just my 1.5 cents.
Zoned C-2 Commercial District
I heard at one time there was talk about converting the Bristol's property into a Hustler Club. That property sells for over two million dollars and access is terrible. However visiblity from I75 is excellent.
"I don’t know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody" #BillCosby
Hustler’s Mobile Strip Truck
Posted - 04/16/2012 : 4:41:57 PM
