SAY GOODBYE YOU BAGGY PANTSED FAGGOTS...

[BABY J]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070823/ap_on_fe_st/atlanta_sagging_pants

Heh heh.

[§treet_§peed]

LOL

[mocha latte cupcake]

good i agree with it, its truly irritating to see people who have to keep a hand on their pants just to walk around and if they walk or run they trip because their pants have hit their ankles. fines are welcome'd :D

[gtikid]

:lmao:

Can this really be passed though? I mean I wouldn't mind if they do, but isn't that a bit ridiculous?

[Nismo]

OH SHIT, black people(not all), wiggers(disgraces), and asians(no comment) that think they are gangster will have to get clothes that fit. OH NOES

[Bruce Leroy]

I doubt that this will pass, and if it does, how are they gonna enforce it. Walk around underground and give everyone tickets?

Why don't people focus on shit that actually matters. Like getting genarlow wilson out of jail or something important.

[blackshine007]

The proposed ordinance would also bar women from showing the strap of a thong beneath their pants. They would also be prohibited from wearing jogging bras in public or show a bra strap

Meh, I don't like the proposal. Though I hate seeing those lil' retards constantly pulling up their saggin pants, it also violate the constitution as well. Freedom of speech, well freedom of expression, basicly, alot of ethics are involved. I'm against it

[Ruiner]

I do wanna see thongs, though. :(

[©hris]

heard bout that on the radio this morn

[Nismo]

Wiat no more sports bras? Thats goin to be a problem. Shoot down the proposal!

[ATK_Designs]

I say keep it like that. That way, we can tell who the losers really are and laugh at them.

[Jaimecbr900]

I hope it does pass.


Freedom of what??? Are you kidding me? What about our freedom NOT to have to see people's underwear or them walking like they're penguins or wearing burlap sack looking clothes????

I wish it would pass. I'm sure it won't because of all the ACLU and NAACP and "leaders" that are gonna call it something else.

I'm with Ruiner, let the girls show their thongs, but make the guys pull up their pants.....:goodjob:

[Ran]

Meh, I don't like the proposal. Though I hate seeing those lil' retards constantly pulling up their saggin pants, it also violate the constitution as well. Freedom of speech, well freedom of expression, basicly, alot of ethics are involved. I'm against itYes, because we can't express ourselves with our personalities or anything, we have to use our clothes. :rolleyes:

+1 for this bill and I vote for nationwide school uniforms as well.


"This is a racial profiling bill that promotes and establishes a framework for an additional type of racial profiling."Oh gee, who saw this coming. :jerkit:

[©hris]

I hope it does pass.


Freedom of what??? Are you kidding me? What about our freedom NOT to have to see people's underwear or them walking like they're penguins or wearing burlap sack looking clothes????

I wish it would pass. I'm sure it won't because of all the ACLU and NAACP and "leaders" that are gonna call it something else.

I'm with Ruiner, let the girls show their thongs, but make the guys pull up their pants.....:goodjob:


agreed.... only reason people do it is to look cool.

who enjoys having to hold up their pants or pulling them up every few minutes....

i dont think this should apply to the ladies though lol i love those hip huggers

[blackshine007]

I hope it does pass.


Freedom of what??? Are you kidding me? What about our freedom NOT to have to see people's underwear or them walking like they're penguins or wearing burlap sack looking clothes????

I wish it would pass. I'm sure it won't because of all the ACLU and NAACP and "leaders" that are gonna call it something else.

I'm with Ruiner, let the girls show their thongs, but make the guys pull up their pants.....:goodjob:
I hate seeing the little douches and the white tees and dreads with sagging pants too. I think that, and solely the sagging pants thing should be addressed. Not the others. That's what I'm getting at. If you approve anything, approve the sagging pants thing.

[bigdare23]

I dont like it, but I doubt that would be passed thanks to the 1st amendment.

[Nismo]

Its not racial profiling, wiggers do it too, god i hate them. Everytime I see a wigger it makes me sick.

[SLOWLYbtngU]

But the penguin walk is hilarious esp when they are chasing after a girl and then they have to grab the buckle of the belt that is supposed to hold up the pants he is trying to keep on his waist...That is great entertainment!!!

[BABY J]

I was behind a guy at a Shell gas station who had to reach down behind his knee to get to his back pocket to pay for gas. Re-fuckin-"dickless". LOL. Even worse, on COPS when idiots are running from the cops pulling up their pants, I sit and wonder - "did you really think this through kid?"

I hope it gets passed - but in reality, this shit should be handled at home - 1/2 the probs w/ idiots I meet in public stem from the lack of home-training. We have this "well it's not my kid" mentality and that sucks. I am only 28, but growing up in Griffin, if some1 saw me driving my Stang like an idiot (and they did) my mom/dad knew about it before I got home.

It truly does take a community to raise a child... and it takes a community IGNORING a child for them to end up at Shell station looking for their back pocket behind their knees. It's NOT sexy.

[BABY J]

Its not racial profiling, wiggers do it too, god i hate them. Everytime I see a wigger it makes me sick.

not to single you out, but answer me this.

1) what is a wigger

2) what is a n*gger

[tony]

This means women wont be able to go running in sports bra's either..I mean there are women that play in our flag football league with shorts and a sports bra, are cops going to give them tickets too? First time its appealed I'm sure it will be thrown out of court promptly.

[§treet_§peed]

i hope it passes for guys and leaves women free to let us see

[Jaimecbr900]

I dont like it, but I doubt that would be passed thanks to the 1st amendment.

Ok, I'll bite.

The first Amendment of the Constitution is also part of the Bill of Rights. It states that the FEDERAL GOV'T can not make laws which prohibit, limit, hinder, or create RELIGION, SPEECH, PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY, PRESS, and GRIEVANCES.

Exactly what part of that Amendment applies here?

[Jaimecbr900]

This means women wont be able to go running in sports bra's either..I mean there are women that play in our flag football league with shorts and a sports bra, are cops going to give them tickets too? First time its appealed I'm sure it will be thrown out of court promptly.

See, this is the problem with politicians.

They try and shove in all these ridiculous things into an otherwise perfectly good bill. So then, when it goes up for a vote, it gets turned down.....NOT because people don't agree with 99.9% of what it requests, but because that .1% of crap that's thrown in there. They should just make the bill really simple....."NO underwear to be showing in public, period." :rolleyes:

[BABY J]

^^ I'll buy that for a dollar. YUP!

[§treet_§peed]

BUT I LIKE SEEING YOUNG HOT WOMEN WALKING AROUND IN UNDERWEAR!! just no old women.. they should make a rule that all women above 28 cannot walk around in public just underwear on and leave younger ones ok to..:D

[Ran]

not to single you out, but answer me this.

1) what is a wigger

2) what is a n*ggerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N*gger (Replace the star with an "i" to reach the link)

Am I doin' it rite? :D

[RISKYB]

this is onr of the dummest proposals ive heard in a bit, i think all the hot chicks should march the capitol in thongs and sports bras or no bras...... :boobies:

[Bruce Leroy]

I'm tired of seeing guys with hariy toes wearing sandals. Its offensive to me. Ban open toe sandals. :police:

[Ran]

I'm tired of seeing guys with hariy toes wearing sandals. Its offensive to me. Ban open toe sandals. :police:Sandals don't bother me, but flip-flops are one of the worst f*cking inventions ever.

*Pip-Plop* *Pip-Plop* *Pip-Plop* *Pip-Plop*

Geezus, shut the f*ck up with the noisy @ss shoes! :mad:

[BABY J]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N*gger (Replace the star with an "i" to reach the link)

Am I doin' it rite? :D

./thread_jack

Some1 who uses this term, IMO, feels that all n*ggers are black, or of another race OTHER than white. That is my point. If you are a ignorant n*gger, then you are an ignorant n*gger - that does not tie you down to a particular race or "color" in my eyes. A white boy w/ his pants hangin off his ass, should I be inarticulate enough to have to resort to the term, would still be a n*gger to me... not a wigger.

kill -9 thread_jack

carry on

[Whiteboy™]

even though i hate sagger's, it is wrong to pass a law like this.

[Jaimecbr900]

even though i hate sagger's, it is wrong to pass a law like this.

Why?

[Ran]

even though i hate sagger's, it is wrong to pass a law like this.Why? Because it raises a standard of decency? :thinking: Infringement on personal expression is a load of crap. If that were the case, then people could walk around nude claiming that it's their freedom of expression and the government can't constrict that.

[Bruce Leroy]

even though i hate sagger's, it is wrong to pass a law like this.
Why?

Exactly. People are quick to judge someone by what they look like. Its bs.

[Jaimecbr900]

Exactly. People are quick to judge someone by what they look like. Its bs.

Huh?

[BABY J]

Exactly. People are quick to judge someone by what they look like. Its bs.

If you roll around w/ dogs - do not be surprised if you stand up w/ fleas. Why would want to project any image of yourself that is not true to life?

[Shawna]

they are also saying that about bra straps and thongs showing

[Shawna]

the aclu is filing suit against saying it is racial profiling

[BABY J]

the aclu is filing suit against saying it is racial profiling

So... there is only 1 race that busts slack? This suit will get laughed at.

[Jaimecbr900]

If you roll around w/ dogs - do not be surprised if you stand up w/ fleas. Why would want to project any image of yourself that is not true to life?

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!!!!

This is what kills me. You see someone, pants down to their ankles, 2 pair of boxers showing, shoes untied, hat sideways, wife beater on, gold grill......yet they will look you dead in your eye and tell you they're NOT trying to be like anyone else.....they are expressing how "individual" they are......:jerkit: Umm, no, you're actually 1 of a gazillion other wannabe followers that think since it looks cool on your favorite rapper it MUST look cool on you.....:rolleyes:


the aclu is filing suit against saying it is racial profiling
Told you it would happen.....;)

NAACP is next, watch. Same NAACP that yesterday called a damn news conference to announce that they thought Mike Vick was being railroaded and we shouldn't rush to judgement.....eventhough he's about to PLEAD GUILTY.....Hmmm, so someone pleads GUILTY and we shouldn't "rush" to judgement......HELLOOOO, there is not much "judgement" necessary when someone pleads GUILTY.......:screwy:

What valid purpose is there for the NAACP now??? :thinking:

[Crazy Asian]

racial profiling!!! HAHHAHHA That's funny.

[Shawna]

So... there is only 1 race that busts slack? This suit will get laughed at.


I agree to me it makes no sense but whatever they want to waste their money on...I dare a cop to give me a ticket for my bra strap showing. Sometimes that is something that cannot be helped

[Shawna]

ok the whole baggy pants thing ok I can understand but you shouldnt give someone a ticket for it. plain and simple sometimes it cant be helped. they need to go after the manufacturers that make the clothing instead of someing after the people that buy it. as long as it is there to buy people are going to continue to buy it and not care and just feed the hate for the cops giving the tickets out

[v3rd1g0]

So i must ask, did anyone actually read the whole article? It was my understanding at the end they specifically said that they had no intention for the law to pass, but to bring it to everyones attention as a problem that should be discussed. I noticed a lot of people freaking out like "ZOMG THEY CAN'T DO THAT" :blah: :gay: :thinking: :police:

[Shawna]

on the radio this morning they said that they ARE in fact taking it to the state to have it passed as of today

[Jaimecbr900]

ok the whole baggy pants thing ok I can understand but you shouldnt give someone a ticket for it. plain and simple sometimes it cant be helped. they need to go after the manufacturers that make the clothing instead of someing after the people that buy it. as long as it is there to buy people are going to continue to buy it and not care and just feed the hate for the cops giving the tickets out


Ummm, normally I agree with you, but WHAT????? :thinking:

It's called supply and demand. If the DEMAND wasn't there, they damn sure wouldn't make them. It's NOT the manufacturers fault that people wear the pants down to their ankles. It is a trend. They HAVE TO go with it or they will starve themselves out of the market.

There is a big difference between you walking down the street and a little bit of your bra strap showing because you're totting 2 kids, a stroller, and a bag of groceries to the car and some idiot that is walking down the road with pants so big that they have to HOLD on to them to keep them from falling off. There's a big difference.

[Shawna]

hahah sorry doing to many things at once plus being hungry that's what I was trying to say that as long as people are going to buy them they are going to make them so the issue wont go away bc the manufacturers are going to make them. the only way to get the issue to stop is to go to the companies and tell them they cant make certian styles of whatever



as for the bra thing i dont go around parading what I am wearing underneath my clothing but in the case of carrying grocerys out to the car or moving something Im sorry I not concerned about my bra showing

[Jaimecbr900]

hahah sorry doing to many things at once plus being hungry that's what I was trying to say that as long as people are going to buy them they are going to make them so the issue wont go away bc the manufacturers are going to make them. the only way to get the issue to stop is to go to the companies and tell them they cant make certian styles of whatever

You're still saying the same thing.

You can't dictate what a manufacturer makes (as long as it's legal of course). The market (supply and demand) is what drives what that manufacturer makes. If this was a country run by a dictator, sure that would happen in a minute. As it is, what we need to do is quit thinking it's "cool" to walk around like some nimrod with our pants at our ankles and underwear hanging out.



as for the bra thing i dont go around parading what I am wearing underneath my clothing but in the case of carrying grocerys out to the car or moving something Im sorry I not concerned about my bra showing

True, but women are the exception here. If a little thong peeks out or something, that's cool. Guys....not cool. Good looking woman....very cool. Wannabe's with wife beaters.....not cool. Thong showing with some butt dimples....very very cool. :D

[tony]

The libertarian in me wants to say the state or government should not be able to dictate what trends are acceptable but I do understand the perception part of it, especially tourist attractions that the state makes revenue on.

Can't really say where I stand on the baggy pants subject, I hate it just as much as you guys but whats next? You can't drop your car low to the ground? Can't use aftermarket wheels because it gives the perception of being a street racer or a gangsta? People and the local government need to tread lightly when it comes to laws like this one.

[Psycho]

"Little children see it and want to adopt it, thinking it's the in thing," Martin said Wednesday. "I don't want young people thinking that half-dressing is the way to go. I want them to think about their future."

What does wearing big clothes have any thing to do with a person's future?

[tony]

"Little children see it and want to adopt it, thinking it's the in thing," Martin said Wednesday. "I don't want young people thinking that half-dressing is the way to go. I want them to think about their future."

What does wearing big clothes have any thing to do with a person's future?

Moreso why does someone on the street have more of an influence on a child than the damn PARENTS?

[Psycho]

If this bill does go into effect it will bring the judiciary system to a screeching halt in Georgia. As the court systems sit, Georgia only has the man power to bring 20% of the court cases to a trial by judge or jury. The system depends on the other 80% of cases copping a plea after the first hearing. If they start bringing every youth in Atlanta to court, the courts will be overwhelmed. On top of that, I think a better way of helping children think about their future would be to use tax dollars to improve schools instead of using the money to prosecute them for how they dress/look.

[nreggie454]

Why? Because it raises a standard of decency? :thinking: Infringement on personal expression is a load of crap. If that were the case, then people could walk around nude claiming that it's their freedom of expression and the government can't constrict that.

Kinda funny tidbit: the only time a woman can legally show her breasts in public is when she is protesting the fact that it is illegal to show your breasts in public.

Basically, if this law were to get passed, people could still claim it was a infringement on their personal expression and wear saggy pants out of protest. Also, people might argue that the new law could be a segue into questionably legal searches and seizures.

In short, I think that this law won't get passed or work if it actually does. There are too many people that do it, it would waste too much time to enforce it, and a shitload of people would be up in arms about it.

[noridetoolow]

/\ there is a line that needs to be drawn though.....I can go nude and say its my personal way of expression....that will not make it right or legal.


I keep hearing the word "perception" but I dont feel perception has anything to do with it. Yes...based on perception every one of us with a slammed out ride or even just custom rims is a gansta or a punk trash kid in "someones" eyes. This is not about perception but about decency. As it stated:

The proposed ordinance states that "the indecent exposure of his or her undergarments" would be unlawful in a public place. It would go in the same portion of the city code that outlaws sex in public and the exposure or fondling of genitals.
Who cares what the perception is? There will never be a way to impact EVERYONES perception of something we do unless we all wore the same cloths, had the same hair and make up, talked the same, etc.... So what if I "look" like the same punk that drives through your neighborhood doin 60 mph...just because I have rims on my car...I cannot help that someone out there will look at me ( perceive me in that way because of someone elses actions ..... that is unless I drive a stocker....NOOOOOOOO!!!!! ) but either way....that is not the point. The fact is that it is indecent..... having to look as some dudes underwear with his pants hanging BELOW his butt cheeks ( yes, McDonalds about a month ago.....YUCK ) with boxer briefs no less! Its stupid and makes you look ignorant. Yes.....everyones perception or better yet, OPINION of what is indecent will be different...we cannot help that but there has to be a line drawn. Bra straps and a thong here and these.....I kinda like but its not really "indecent" either way....girls are not going out of their way...usually...to show these off. But the saggy pants and underwear? Come on.....thats blatant and ignorant. I hope they make it illegal....IMO....cops should be doing something about it right now....I think it already falls into laws of indecency.

all that said......there are the chicks out there that dont seem to be able to match the bra straps to the dress or top they have on.....this can usually be found in the trailer trash parts of town.....this BTW....is not the hotness. LOL

[OneSlow5pt0]

wiggers = gayness

[Ran]

Basically, if this law were to get passed, people could still claim it was a infringement on their personal expression and wear saggy pants out of protest. Also, people might argue that the new law could be a segue into questionably legal searches and seizures.

In short, I think that this law won't get passed or work if it actually does. There are too many people that do it, it would waste too much time to enforce it, and a shitload of people would be up in arms about it.They should start fining every one of these morons as well. More money for the state and hopefully, if the streetards start getting tired of paying fines, it'll go away fairly quickly.

[Stormhammer]

ehh, I'm for it. If you can't bother buying pants that fit you properly, nor wear a belt tight enough to actually hold up your pants, then no comment. Nobody will be going to court for it, just tickets given out it seems, so I highly doubt the court system will be overwhelmed, and I can only imagine any such ticket would be minor in terms of paying

I actually find this sorta amusing cause last night I was wearing an article on growing up for guys and it came to fashion, and baggy pants was a bereaved symbol of adolescene, where really the only people who wear it are rappers in music videos, 95% of them don't dress like that in public, except maybe Jay Z, but he shows up in a Ferrari, which pretty much then goes to a who cares what you wear, but unless you drive a Ferrari, man up, buy some decent clothes.

Ah, this brings back so many great high school memories of when I'd always shag the black people at my bus stop :lmao:

[BABY J]

LMAO!!! I like that - "until u drive a Ferrari, at least try to LOOK like you got some damn sense... since you OBV have no money." LMAO!!! I mean damn, ur already labeled when you pull up in a 17 year old Civic - at least have a pair of pants on that fits. LOL :goodjob:

[Stormhammer]

LMAO!!! I like that - "until u drive a Ferrari, at least try to LOOK like you got some damn sense... since you OBV have no money." LMAO!!! I mean damn, ur already labeled when you pull up in a 17 year old Civic - at least have a pair of pants on that fits. LOL :goodjob:

you're labeled even worse when you're seen driving a hoopty 80s cutlass with 20+" rims that cost more than the car. But imagine you watching it park, and seeing a young african american stepping out, wearing properly fitted jeans and a well fitting tshirt. Surprised?

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e259/BaboTiJa/headbusta.gif

[BABY J]

you're labeled even worse when you're seen driving a hoopty 80s cutlass with 20+" rims that cost more than the car. But imagine you watching it park, and seeing a young african american stepping out, wearing properly fitted jeans and a well fitting tshirt. Surprised?

EXACTLY!!!

PETE: Now THERE goes is a decent young black man huh Earl??

EARL: * moving his KKK hood and shotgun to the side * I'd have to agree Pete. Leave him be.

["B"]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070823/ap_on_fe_st/atlanta_sagging_pants

Heh heh.

Fuck that bullshit. Stop trying to control every little thing we do.

[BABY J]

^^ Shut up. Sit down. Brush ya teeth. Slow down. Pull ya pants up. I'm still the LAW off up in and 'round dis bitch!!!:taun:

[VooDooXII]

Hah, glad I got past that phase...in the eighth grade.

[Jaimecbr900]

What exactly is it that anyone finds attractive about this anyway? Honestly.

[Stormhammer]

What exactly is it that anyone finds attractive about this anyway? Honestly.

go ask some girl who tries to get her crunk on! -snaps mah fingers while 2-steppin-

[BluesClues]

I doubt it will pass because how people wear their clothes is part of the freedom act and the choice to express yourself as pleased. Plus lets all realize that Atlanta is known for their diversity and art culture. You can't be artistic if you can't express yourself and the way you dress would be considered expressing yourself. But hey that's just my opinion

[Stormhammer]

^^ you're just mad that you wont get to be able to show off your thong

[ep9716]

WTF Thats The Gayest Shit EVA! They Can Tell You What To Wear.

[BluesClues]

^^ you're just mad that you wont get to be able to show off your thong

I have more class than that honey

[Stormhammer]

I have more class than that honey

you're mad that your homeboy can't be crunk-like?

[Maniaç]

About fucking time..

[BluesClues]

you're mad that your homeboy can't be crunk-like?

Huh?

[0p7!mu5]

it wont pass because there are too many people it would offend althought I do kinda like the idea to a point. I mean its hard enough gettin mistaken for hangin fiddy cent down the street and I don't let my shit sag. What's the point? If I gotta run i aint tryin to buss my ass off my pants. Most retarder fashion idea since fuckin member's only jackets...

[ahmonrah]

the way i look at it.

if peoples want to fuck up their gait/hips on account of having to walk around fucked up like the "torn boxers thug clan" does, then fuck it. i'm not the one looking at hip displacia(sp?) or snickers 'cause my boxers crept into my crack VISIBLY, nor am i increasing my "criminal capture" rate on account that i "almost got away shawty, but ah gotdammed tripped shawty!!" meanwhile the arresting officer and co-workers crack jokes on their arrests after debriefing on how "that last perp was fast! and almost got away but he tripped when his pants fell off! hell they were already below his ass when i gave chase!!!! so i jogged....."

i've got a cousin now with hip issues cause he didnt listen to me when i told him, "i'm only 7years older than you(he's 21 now), we wore our pants saggy, but the gay shit y'all doin now? rediculous...i mean damn dawg, folks older than me originated the fad, and the makers of pants started this thing called 'LOOSE FIT' and y'all still get jeans 8sizes too big. oh well, mark my words, keep wearing them like that, you and grand dad (83yrs old) will be in adjoining Operating rooms."

[Hektik]

I'm all for it.. saggin jeans is disgustin and well the thong thing at least they would be able to tell the fat nasty bitches who think theyre hot, showing theyre thongs to pay up... i dont see how it could be labeled as a racial thing considering females of all races were pants that show of their underwear.

[d993s]

I hope it does pass.

It's amazing how the lowest levels of "monkey see, monkey do" spread like a virus.

[Stormhammer]

I'm all for it.. saggin jeans is disgustin and well the thong thing at least they would be able to tell the fat nasty bitches who think theyre hot, showing theyre thongs to pay up... i dont see how it could be labeled as a racial thing considering females of all races were pants that show of their underwear.

this should also be applied to the fatties who wear shirts that expose those ginormous belly buttons

[0p7!mu5]

^^ werd.. I dont think it should be a law so much as the fact that people need to get some damn sense. It really makes them look like hobo's. That plus the crappy Dread jobs with 9 sizes too big wife beaters and sweats (in the summer?!) is making my peers lookin like a bunch of homeless Jamacans (no offense to jamacans), or at least what buckwheat would look like in this day and age. And ladies who think the thong showing is cute when theya re ugly ass hell need to be hanged by their thongs or at least put on a street corner on peactree st. At least they would be doing something constructive. THat shit sickens me

[chrisdavis]

Why? Because it raises a standard of decency? :thinking: Infringement on personal expression is a load of crap. If that were the case, then people could walk around nude claiming that it's their freedom of expression and the government can't constrict that.


Who's standard of decency does it raise? What one person deems acceptable, another may deem obscene. What would come next after this gets passed? Since this is about showing boxer shorts and bra straps, do we ban swimtrunks and bikinis because of the similarities between them and underwear?

[Ran]

Who's standard of decency does it raise? What one person deems acceptable, another may deem obscene.So what? You're going to refuse to draw a line because you don't want to hurt someone's feeling? Yeah, everybody has opinions but common sense and decency are pretty easy to recognize. Could you imagine the trash we would see if we refused to set any standards?


What would come next after this gets passed? Since this is about showing boxer shorts and bra straps, do we ban swimtrunks and bikinis because of the similarities between them and underwear?There's a difference between swimwear and underwear. Don't try to justify such an asanine comparison. If you do want to get into it, then yes, I've no quarrels with setting a standard for swimwear as well. I, personally, find string-thong bikini's digusting and tasteless. Like I said, there is a difference.

[noridetoolow]

/\/\/\ But there is a point where its OVERBOARD. There is a difference between someone bending over and showing 2-3" of the top of their boxers and some guy walkin around Wally World with most of his boxers showing. What "is" and "is not" decent will always be a matter of opinion but there has to be...and there is ( to some extent ) a standard, that is why we cannot walk around nude. Where that line should be drawn.....is the tricky part....but ole boy waddling through the store holdin up his jeans cause they are about to hit the ground...showin more boxer than what he is hiding.....that is obvious and should fall under some level of laws covering indecent exposure. But like I already said....this should already be something that an officer should be able to write a citation for....that they feel the need to TRY and push some law??? I feel the law already covers this, they just need to enforce it.

[Jaimecbr900]

Why is it that people think that EVERY law has to satisfy EVERYbody? Derranged psychopathic killers I'm certain don't like Homicide laws, right? Does that mean we should NOT have them? I'm sure Pedophiles think it's unreasonable to have child safety laws. Should we forgo those too? Maybe we should just declare Anarchy and that way only the "strong" or better yet the well armed will survive. Makes sense, huh?

Wussified and Politically correct America is going to hell in a hand basket and this very subject shows exactly why. People feel they are ENTITLED to something just because we live in the "land of the free". What we really should call it is the "land of the squeekiest wheel". It seems that ENTITLEMENT advocates feel there should be no room in America for COMMON SENSE. COMMON SENSE is buried under false threats and political correctness. Personally I think that's a whole load of crap.

If anyone of us walked outside right now, pulled down our pants to our ankles, and suddenly decided because I feel like airing out our privates that we should be allowed to do since it is after all a "free world", would that be cool? If not, why not? I could call it "freedom of speech" or "freedom of expression" or hell, I could even call "freedom of peaceful assembly" since there would certainly soon be a crowd around;) . Could I get away with it? Why not? People are complaining right now to be allowed to walk around with pants down to their ankles, underwear hanging out, shirts off, hat sideways, playing with their peckers......why can't I just let my twins get some fresh air then? Right? Why can't we have sex in the middle of the food court at the mall? The urge has hit me there, why not then? Why can't we just kill people that don't agree with you? They're stupid afterall, right? Why can't we just walk into a bank and demand they give us money when we need it, since afterall they do have plenty of it, right?

Common sense, folks.....common sense. What is ALLOWED and intended to happen behind closed doors in the privacy of your own home SHOULD NOT be allowed out on the PUBLIC streets. It's not a difficult concept, right? Why all the fuzz about it then?

It is one thing to be able to see the elastic band of someone's underwear when their pants aren't skin tight or something or their shirt rides slightly up, and it is entirely something totally different when you see some idiot walking down the street like a penguin with the crotch of their pants dragging the ground and their hand permanently using the buckle of the non-functional belt to keep the pants from hitting the floor even worse all the while their brightly colored boxers that scream "look at me, look at me" are all out so far that we can read what size he wears from half a block away. <----World's longest sentence:D .

All those that are defending people walking around looking like idiots while they are being indecent have yet to answer my question. What exactly is it that yall find ATTRACTIVE about this trend?

[BABY J]

Simple - they're called UNDER wear for a reason. Keep 'em there. You don't look kool. You don't look trendy. You LOOK LIKE A FUCKIN IDIOT - so don't be surpised when police, lawyers, store clerks, and your girlfriends/boyfriends mom/dad treat you as one.

[dnugs03rsx]

im gonna go ahead and say this is fuckin stuuuupid im white and i wear slightly baggy pants but hey its better than wearing TIGHT ASS EMO PANTS id rather see boxers than some guys junk why dont they ban those fags from wearing tight pants.. also this is completely fucked up in the fact that they are just trying to get more ppl to conform to the standards that other ppl live by who cares what the fuck people wear some call it their way of self expression i dunno cause everyone is going to be copying a style in some way or another this guy is only trying to make himself noticed for trying to do something he thinks is self justifying and other people will feel he is creating a better society... what will stop ppl from wearing these clothes in their own home.. furthermore not everyone can afford clothing and have to settle for goodwill shit i shop at goodwill why u ask because they have some cheap ass fuckin polosss.. ive worked at abercrombie and american eagle why would i want to pay $160 for a pair of ripped jeans id rather see someone with baggy pants than someone with a hole in their ass.. this is fucking stupid and if they pass this law i will wear baggy pants just to see if this is in truth a racial profiling.. are they soon going to be banning wife beaters too.. fuckin ppl in power this guy should be focusing on something relevant and problematic that is affecting ATL.. maybe they need to spend more money enforcing all the gang violence as a whole not taking them down for stupid crimes like baggy pants... IMO this is ridiculous

[quickdodge®]

if they pass this law i will wear baggy pants just to see if this is in truth a racial profiling..

That was the most idiotic line I've read in a while. So you'll purposely break the law and if you get caught, it's because you were racially profiled? Wow. I need not go on. Later, QD.

[Jaimecbr900]

im gonna go ahead and say this is fuckin stuuuupid im white and i wear slightly baggy pants but hey its better than wearing TIGHT ASS EMO PANTS id rather see boxers than some guys junk why dont they ban those fags from wearing tight pants..

I think that WANTING to see another man's boxers is :gay: .



also this is completely fucked up in the fact that they are just trying to get more ppl to conform to the standards that other ppl live by who cares what the fuck people wear some call it their way of self expression

If you really believe that crap, then you're an idiot. :rolleyes:

So your logic is that because 99% of the PUBLIC finds it ridiculous to be MADE to look at someone else's underwear because THEY decided that was the "cool" thing to do that 99% of the people should just shut up and take it??? Wow, you are by far the brightest crayon in the box....:rolleyes:



i dunno cause everyone is going to be copying a style in some way or another this guy is only trying to make himself noticed for trying to do something he thinks is self justifying and other people will feel he is creating a better society...

Wait, are you related to Tasuki_civic chick? Your incoherent babble sure does look a lot like hers.....:thinking:



what will stop ppl from wearing these clothes in their own home..

Huh? Again, English please....ENGLISH!!!! :rolleyes:

If you're asking what would stop people from dressing a certain way AT HOME???? Absolutely NOTHING, that's the point. Wear whatever you damn well want INSIDE YOUR OWN HOUSE, THAT is the point. The problem comes in when you SHOVE YOUR droopy drawers into other people's face IN PUBLIC. I don't come up to you and preach the Bible to you in PUBLIC, right? I don't come up and tell you what you should be when you grow up in PUBLIC, right? I don't come over and MAKE you do anything, right? So why should YOU be able to have your pants down to your ankles and MAKE me like that??? I don't.

BTW, if you wear your pants down like that.......News flash......you DON'T look cool....you look like an idiot. :goodjob:



furthermore not everyone can afford clothing and have to settle for goodwill shit i shop at goodwill why u ask because they have some cheap ass fuckin polosss.. ive worked at abercrombie and american eagle why would i want to pay $160 for a pair of ripped jeans id rather see someone with baggy pants than someone with a hole in their ass..

You failed your English classes in school, didn't you? :rolleyes:

Last I checked, most of those stupid looking 10x's too big baggy ass jeans cost MORE than regular fitting jeans. Why? Supply and demand. I'm sure you would've known that, but I'm guessing by your grammatics that you failed Economics too. :rolleyes:


this is fucking stupid and if they pass this law i will wear baggy pants just to see if this is in truth a racial profiling..

Hopefully you will also be the first one to get a ticket for it too. That way they would have atleast one dumbass white boy to defend themselves against being accused of "racial profiling". Stupidity knows no colors....;)


are they soon going to be banning wife beaters too..

If they let your man boobs hang all out, maybe they should.


fuckin ppl in power this guy should be focusing on something relevant and problematic that is affecting ATL..

Maybe you should pull out that thing collecting dust in the corner called a DICTIONARY so you could look up what words mean BEFORE you use them to make yourself look silly.

Relevant to what exactly? Noone is even remotely saying that this is the ONLY thing law enforcement would focus on. So what's your point? That there are other things that are MORE problematic to look at? Absolutely. Why don't you try and name 3? I bet you probably can't do that intelligently.



maybe they need to spend more money enforcing all the gang violence as a whole not taking them down for stupid crimes like baggy pants... IMO this is ridiculous

No, what we really need to spend more money on is EDUCATION. Judging by your sentence structure, grammar, spelling, and general lack of direction it seems our public education system has not taught you much. Then again, there aren't really bad teachers.....just bad students too....:rolleyes:

"Enforcing all the gang violence as a whole..." Umm, WHAT???? :thinking: Seriously, you do know that English is a language spoken right here, right? It's not a myth. Please refrain from jumping into grown folks semi-intelligent conversations if you can't even get your point across. Seriously, it makes you look like you arrived on the short bus.

[1000cckiller]

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:XUkS0Ck0_12Y8M:http://www.love-shop.biz/uimg/anal/butt-plugs/anal-probes-12.jpg This is how you enforce, it if they wear their pants down below their crack, insert this in them

[bigdare23]

Ok, I'll bite.

The first Amendment of the Constitution is also part of the Bill of Rights. It states that the FEDERAL GOV'T can not make laws which prohibit, limit, hinder, or create RELIGION, SPEECH, PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY, PRESS, and GRIEVANCES.

Exactly what part of that Amendment applies here?


What is exactly "freedom of speech" to you?

According to Wikipedia



Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies. The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although implementation remains lacking in many countries. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

So with that, it should be covered by the first amendment.

I disagree with sagging, but I disagree more with the government being able to tell you how you can where your clothes.

[BABY J]

To people that are against it... answer this.


Why are speed limits posted on a stick beside the road, yet you are free to drive like an idiot in your back yard.

Why are "no shoes, no shirt, no service" signs LEGAL, but you can wear (or not wear) what the fuck you want in your living room?

Why are there more and more "no smoking" signs going up in America??

The reason is - you are in a PUBLIC place. I should not have to deal w/ your NASTY ASS cigarette smoke just bc I want some Olive Garden for dinner. I should not have to look at your tits and bunyons when I want to go to Kroger to get cereal and milk. And I shouldn't have to look at the crack of your ass or your dingy ass boxers b/c I want to take my daughter to Toys 'R Us at the mall. And the LAW should assist in those ventures.

GET A CLUE!

[BABY J]

You also have a right to be gay, but do you see gay guys fucking in the toy section at Wal-Mart? No. But they are FREE to assemble peacefully and petition for a gay parade. And when they do, the SAME law enforcement walks beside them to make sure that they are safe.

You wanna show your underwear, assemble - petition the gov, and get your walk of shame down P'tree w/ police protection. Until them - get a fuckin belt that works and use it.

[GIXXERDK]

To people that are against it... answer this.


Why are speed limits posted on a stick beside the road, yet you are free to drive like an idiot in your back yard.

Why are "no shoes, no shirt, no service" signs LEGAL, but you can wear (or not wear) what the fuck you want in your living room?

Why are there more and more "no smoking" signs going up in America??

The reason is - you are in a PUBLIC place. I should not have to deal w/ your NASTY ASS cigarette smoke just bc I want some Olive Garden for dinner. I should not have to look at your tits and bunyons when I want to go to Kroger to get cereal and milk. And I shouldn't have to look at the crack of your ass or your dingy ass boxers b/c I want to take my daughter to Toys 'R Us at the mall. And the LAW should assist in those ventures.

GET A CLUE!

Okay guys lets all wear unimforms and act like robots.

This is a slippery slope to disaster.

[BABY J]

Okay guys lets all wear unimforms and act like robots.

This is a slippery slope to disaster.

Okay guys - let's let 3 year olds at the mall look at the crack of idiots' asses in line waiting for ice cream.

[kfzemx3]

I gotta say this is the dumbest thing I've seen come from the atl officials. Granted i don't want to see some ones ass hanging out of there pants (ok maybe if she has a nice ass lol) but to consider this is retarded. So its ok for guys and girls to go running around atlanta in sports bras and shorts that hug there asses, but imoral for someone to wear baggy pants & sag? Oh the kids are coping it, well then the parents need to do a better job with there kids.

Maybe its just the school i went to but yea if we were sagging we got told to pull our pants up, and if we got caught multiple times you got suspended, and usually got a nice ass chewing from the parents.

I understand that there going after the people that go to the extreme about it but still, they have no right to control how we dress, What soon we're going to all have to wear a uniform outside?

AAAAH this just pisses me off. The entire idea of sagging anyway was invented by the government, its so much cheaper to buy 3xl pants and give them to prisoners with strings to tie them up than it is to buy multiple different size pants.

[1000cckiller]

I gotta say this is the dumbest thing I've seen come from the atl officials. Granted i don't want to see some ones ass hanging out of there pants (ok maybe if she has a nice ass lol) but to consider this is retarded. So its ok for guys and girls to go running around atlanta in sports bras and shorts that hug there asses, but imoral for someone to wear baggy pants & sag? Oh the kids are coping it, well then the parents need to do a better job with there kids.

Maybe its just the school i went to but yea if we were sagging we got told to pull our pants up, and if we got caught multiple times you got suspended, and usually got a nice ass chewing from the parents.

I understand that there going after the people that go to the extreme about it but still, they have no right to control how we dress, What soon we're going to all have to wear a uniform outside?

AAAAH this just pisses me off. The entire idea of sagging anyway was invented by the government, its so much cheaper to buy 3xl pants and give them to prisoners with strings to tie them up than it is to buy multiple different size pants.this law has not anything to do with how women wear their clothes, it has to do with the fad that other people see others doing, so they do it. Its even more noticeable with the dumb ass young kids doing it, because they have taken it even further. I mean they wear their pants around their ankles.

[Jaimecbr900]

What is exactly "freedom of speech" to you?

To ME, freedom of speech is the freedom to say anything you darn well please AS LONG AS you don't complain later about HOW you are treated for saying that. You can't use the shield of "freedom of speech" only to later hide behind it when it bites you in the ass for what YOU said. That's not freedom of speech. That's being a coward.

If you walk around with your ass hanging out and someone takes offense to that, then you should be able to defend your choice as something more than mere gay ass Politically correct "freedom of speech". WHAT exactly ARE you trying to "say"???? WHAT exactly ARE you trying to "express"? The irony is that people use that cliche of "I'm expressing freedom of speech..." yet they can't SAY two words coherently as to WHY they are doing what ever it is they are doing.

This is why I can't stand Political correctness. It is "OK" in the minds of SOME to FORCE the will of MANY. Squeaky wheel syndrome at it's best. So, eventhough we live in a society where we are supposed to have majority rule, what we really have is the loudest cry baby backed up by the most idiotic of theories asking for everyone ELSE to conform to what THEY want to do is the one that wins regardless if 99% of the rest of the country doesn't agree. Gotta love America. :rolleyes:

I tell you what......I'm willing to bet any amount of money that if this was put up to a vote, it wouldn't even be close. Wanna bet?



I disagree with sagging, but I disagree more with the government being able to tell you how you can where your clothes.

Really? They tell you how to drive, when to vote, how to raise your children, who you can marry, force you to pay taxes, send you off to war if necessary.....yet they, in your mind, are not supposed to tell you to pull your pants up??? Why not? What you and others are suggesting is that in order to prove a point we should protest, right? Under the same theory, why don't we all get together one day and drag race down 85 just as fast as we damn well please. If we don't cause an accident, would we.....SHOULD we get away with it??? I damn sure don't agree with the 55, 65, or even 70 MPH speed "limit". My car can and does do twice that fast safely and without impeding anyone else. So why shouldn't I be allowed to do it? Same ideology applies here. I am in the minority when it comes to speeding on PUBLIC roads. So, I have to abide by the LAWS or deal with the consequences. This should be the same. Add the terminology necessary to include gay ass saggy pants to the ankles as part of "indecency laws" and deal with it.

They're not telling you WHAT to wear. They are telling NOT to show your UNDERwear. There is a HUGE difference.

[superboost]

and in other news, police also ban trench coats for concealing weaponry underneath the clothing.

This law is fucking silly

SMH. I hope they ban this crap. Whats next, banning mini skirts because they are indecent? oh wait, they did that 30 FUCKING YEARS AGO.

Old ass fogeys.

And I don't sag either, but I still think this law is silly.

[Jaimecbr900]

Maybe its just the school i went to but yea if we were sagging we got told to pull our pants up, and if we got caught multiple times you got suspended, and usually got a nice ass chewing from the parents.

I understand that there going after the people that go to the extreme about it but still, they have no right to control how we dress, What soon we're going to all have to wear a uniform outside?

Wow, you just contradicted yourself. See, this is what I mean by people not even being able to support their own ideas intelligently.

In one breath you say that in your school it was NOT allowed to wear gay ass baggy pants, right? If you didn't follow the rules, you'd get in trouble....right? Ever thought about how that worked? Why it wasn't so "illegal" and "outrageous" there??? I'll give you a hint.....it is because you were in THEIR sand box, THEIR turf, THEIR school!!! THEY set the rules within the confines of THEIR school. PUBLIC places are governed by whom??? THE STATE, sometimes the FEDERAL Gov't. So if THEY feel compelled to tell YOU NOT to show your ASS in THEIR turf, you have 2 choices; Do it or not. Each has it's own consequences.

My problem is that eventhough 99% of America thinks that baggy pants to the ankles is GAY as a two dollar bill, that 1% that doesn't gets it's way because Gov't is too chicken shit to tell that 1% to go screw themselves.



AAAAH this just pisses me off. The entire idea of sagging anyway was invented by the government, its so much cheaper to buy 3xl pants and give them to prisoners with strings to tie them up than it is to buy multiple different size pants.

You are a fool of gargantuan proportions.

So you think that the Gov't "invented" saggy jeans down to the ankles because they have to figure out a way to not have to hire an army of TAILORS for CRIMINALS when they give them a "one size fits all" blaze orange overall when they check into jail?????? WOW, just WOW!!!!

Please don't procreate. Please. Seriously, one of you is part of the problem today, so MANY of you only makes matters worse. Please, wear condoms if you ever get any. Double wrap it if necessary, but PLEASE don't bring another living creature with your thought process into this already screwed up world. :rolleyes:

[chrisdavis]

So what? You're going to refuse to draw a line because you don't want to hurt someone's feeling? Yeah, everybody has opinions but common sense and decency are pretty easy to recognize. Could you imagine the trash we would see if we refused to set any standards?

There's a difference between swimwear and underwear. Don't try to justify such an asanine comparison. If you do want to get into it, then yes, I've no quarrels with setting a standard for swimwear as well. I, personally, find string-thong bikini's digusting and tasteless. Like I said, there is a difference.

You compared sagging pants as being one step away from being nude, but yet you call me comparison asinine.


Now, let's say they ban bra straps, and saggy pants. Now there is no one stopping anyone from introducing a bill to ban thong bikinis (there currently isnt, but they would have precident). Now this is obviously a bill you would be in favor of (and I am not bashing or flaming you for it). Let's say it passes. Now how much longer will it be before a religious group that believes you should keep yourself covered at all times (such as Pentecostals) attempts to get legislation passed, that forces us to all wear pants and long sleeved shirts year round. These are extremes but the potential would exist.

I personally feel that sagging pants look stupid as hell, but if we start to gradually give away our rights in the name of decency, eventually we will all be subjected to what a select few deem as appropriate.

[Jaimecbr900]

and in other news, police also ban trench coats for concealing weaponry underneath the clothing.

And in even more important news, they have just outlawed the use of your own brain. You should feel right at home....:rolleyes:


This law is fucking silly

Reading and comprehension are your friends. Don't be scared of them.....

It's not a LAW, it's just a proposal by a LOCAL gov't official that is just as tired of seeing this gay trend as the rest of America.

[Slow Motion]

BUT I LIKE SEEING YOUNG HOT WOMEN WALKING AROUND IN UNDERWEAR!! just no old women.. they should make a rule that all women above 28 cannot walk around in public just underwear on and leave younger ones ok to..:D

Aye there are some very good looking women with very good looking bodies over 28 my ex is 38 and still has a body of a godess. And being 24 i like seeing fit bodies from 20-40 i mean damn...work it out ladies.

[Jaimecbr900]

Now, let's say they ban bra straps, and saggy pants. Now there is no one stopping anyone from introducing a bill to ban thong bikinis (there currently isnt, but they would have precident). Now this is obviously a bill you would be in favor of (and I am not bashing or flaming you for it). Let's say it passes. Now how much longer will it be before a religious group that believes you should keep yourself covered at all times (such as Pentecostals) attempts to get legislation passed, that forces us to all wear pants and long sleeved shirts year round. These are extremes but the potential would exist.

Ummmm, don't look now.....but this has ALWAYS been the possibility. So you think that if this were to somehow pass that this would automatically let other things pass carte blanche???? How's that make any sense?

Again, let's go back to the laws that are already there. You can't walk out of your house, where it is perfectly legal, butt naked and get in YOUR car to go to the store because why???? IT IS ILLEGAL, right? Why don't we have people all up in arms about THAT? Nudists say that's the natural way we came into this world and there is nothing wrong with walking around nude, right? So why can't we? Why shouldn't we? Is that the Gov't taking AWAY our rights??? Then why isn't everyone up in arms about that????

There has to be limit to everything. You can't just have anarchy as the high ceiling to society. Otherwise where would we be? We would look like some of those 3rd world countries do today. They have no real laws, they have no real gov't, so they are left to fend for themselves in the wilderness. Freedom??? You betcha. Best way to live??? Sometimes, I'm sure. Is that America??? NOPE.

So again, what would YOU say to a Nudist that gets upset because YOU don't want YOUR child to see THEM parading around the PUBLIC streets naked in the name of "freedom of speech"????? Would you explain that the gov't is being super cool in letting everyone do whatever they damn well please or would you cover their eyes and explain that's not the right thing to do????

Answer that.


I personally feel that sagging pants look stupid as hell, but if we start to gradually give away our rights in the name of decency, eventually we will all be subjected to what a select few deem as appropriate.

You nor anyone else has ANY "right" to indecency in PUBLIC. Find me anywhere in the Bill of Rights where it says otherwise.

[kfzemx3]

this law has not anything to do with how women wear their clothes, it has to do with the fad that other people see others doing, so they do it. Its even more noticeable with the dumb ass young kids doing it, because they have taken it even further. I mean they wear their pants around their ankles.

has nothing to do with how they wear there clothes? Its targeting how people wearing their clothes. Doesn't matter that its a bunch of kids wearing there clothes way to low. I agree i don't want to see any kids asses, but no one has the right to say how you can dress, if your offended DEAL WITH IT stop being such a pansy. i get offended by things but i deal with it and know its there right to say or think its part of freedom of speech which covers the freedom of expression, granted all that there expressing is that they were never taught how to wear there clothing properly, or there stupidity.

I don't think the people are looking at the big picture, i don't care about the actual actions this is being caused from, how you dress is your own business i dont have any say in that. But i do care that they are trying to gain this type of control over us. Yea this might be a small issue right now, but whats next? If you can be told what you can see or read... then it follows that you can be told what to say or think.

[Jaimecbr900]

has nothing to do with how they wear there clothes? Its targeting how people wearing their clothes. Doesn't matter that its a bunch of kids wearing there clothes way to low. I agree i don't want to see any kids asses, but no one has the right to say how you can dress, if your offended DEAL WITH IT stop being such a pansy. i get offended by things but i deal with it and know its there right to say or think its part of freedom of speech which covers the freedom of expression, granted all that there expressing is that they were never taught how to wear there clothing properly, or there stupidity.

I don't think the people are looking at the big picture, i don't care about the actual actions this is being caused from, how you dress is your own business i dont have any say in that. But i do care that they are trying to gain this type of control over us. Yea this might be a small issue right now, but whats next? If you can be told what you can see or read... then it follows that you can be told what to say or think.

The real big picture is the one you obviously can't see.

Nudist feel THEY should be allowed to roam the streets butt naked. Do we let them, in the name of freedom of speech? If not, why not?

If psychopaths feel that KILLING people is an "expression", do we let them do it? If not, why not?

If pedophiles feel that molesting children is also a way for them to "express" themselves, do we allow them to do it? If not, why not?

[BobbyFresco]

has nothing to do with how they wear there clothes? Its targeting how people wearing their clothes. Doesn't matter that its a bunch of kids wearing there clothes way to low. I agree i don't want to see any kids asses, but no one has the right to say how you can dress, if your offended DEAL WITH IT stop being such a pansy. i get offended by things but i deal with it and know its there right to say or think its part of freedom of speech which covers the freedom of expression, granted all that there expressing is that they were never taught how to wear there clothing properly, or there stupidity.

I don't think the people are looking at the big picture, i don't care about the actual actions this is being caused from, how you dress is your own business i dont have any say in that. But i do care that they are trying to gain this type of control over us. Yea this might be a small issue right now, but whats next? If you can be told what you can see or read... then it follows that you can be told what to say or think.


+1....well said.

[Jaimecbr900]

+1....well said.

I guess a "stunna" would agree.....:rolleyes:

[1000cckiller]

has nothing to do with how they wear there clothes? Its targeting how people wearing their clothes. Doesn't matter that its a bunch of kids wearing there clothes way to low. I agree i don't want to see any kids asses, but no one has the right to say how you can dress, if your offended DEAL WITH IT stop being such a pansy. i get offended by things but i deal with it and know its there right to say or think its part of freedom of speech which covers the freedom of expression, granted all that there expressing is that they were never taught how to wear there clothing properly, or there stupidity.

I don't think the people are looking at the big picture, i don't care about the actual actions this is being caused from, how you dress is your own business i dont have any say in that. But i do care that they are trying to gain this type of control over us. Yea this might be a small issue right now, but whats next? If you can be told what you can see or read... then it follows that you can be told what to say or think.One jackass I never said I was offened, I stated why they are trying to make and pass the law. i dont give a fuck, because the ones defending it are normally the one doing it. So all it does it makes it easier for someone committing a crime to get caught, or have the cops look at you that much closer. So look like a idiot I DONT GIVE A FUCK.

[1000cckiller]

I guess a "stunna" would agree.....:rolleyes:or so-called want to be thugs.

[kfzemx3]

You nor anyone else has ANY "right" to indecency in PUBLIC. Find me anywhere in the Bill of Rights where it says otherwise.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The word speech in the First Amendment has been extended to a generous sense of "expression" -- verbal, non-verbal, visual, symbolic.


Who says what is Indecent and what isn't? In NewYork they have the Naked cowboy, who runs around playing his guitar in the street in nothing but his underwear, Hey thats indecent to some but its Perfectly Legal because he's protected by the 1st Amendment.


Unfortunetly for those that commit capital crimes such as murder or molesting children, are protected by the bill of rights:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[JDM onlyy]

Okay, some people don't like wearing fitted clothes...I mean I know I don't but to make it illegal is a bit much don't you think? I mean I can see where it's frowned upon and all that, they shouldn't make a law on baggy clothes but more on saggin, thats where you tend to see shorts at the ankles and people having to hold their pants. I mean yeah my pants slip occasionally and I pull them up and tighten my belt but I don't like wearing them under my ass and all that. That just makes no sense, but I'm against the baggy clothes law, but the sagging thing...I'm all for it. Whats the point of wearing clothes if your ass is going to be showing anyways?

[Ran]

i wear slightly baggy pants but hey its better than wearing TIGHT ASS EMO PANTSWhy does it have to jump from pants that are too big to pants that are too tight? They do make normal fitting clothing. Try it out sometime.


You compared sagging pants as being one step away from being nude, but yet you call me comparison asinine.I never compared sagging pants as a step away from being nude. You don't have to be nude to be indecent.


Now, let's say they ban bra straps, and saggy pants. Now there is no one stopping anyone from introducing a bill to ban thong bikinis (there currently isnt, but they would have precident). Now this is obviously a bill you would be in favor of (and I am not bashing or flaming you for it). Let's say it passes. Now how much longer will it be before a religious group that believes you should keep yourself covered at all times (such as Pentecostals) attempts to get legislation passed, that forces us to all wear pants and long sleeved shirts year round. These are extremes but the potential would exist.

I personally feel that sagging pants look stupid as hell, but if we start to gradually give away our rights in the name of decency, eventually we will all be subjected to what a select few deem as appropriateIf you continually live in fear of "what if" possibilities then you'll never have the means to press any regulations or standards for anything. Based on your post, the speed limit could simply be seen as one step for an environmentalist group to press a bill banning driving all together.

Laws and common sense need to have a medium between them as to not allow one or the other be carried to an extreme. Wearing your pants around your ankles defies all common sense for the sake of looking "crunk" or whatever it is they call it these days.

[noridetoolow]

You compared sagging pants as being one step away from being nude, but yet you call me comparison asinine.


Now how much longer will it be before a religious group that believes you should keep yourself covered at all times (such as Pentecostals) attempts to get legislation passed, that forces us to all wear pants and long sleeved shirts year round. These are extremes but the potential would exist.

.

I am not sure if anyone has noticed...but the "religious groups" that limit what you can wear, that dictate you must "cover" certain areas are by far a MAJOR minority these days. 100 years ago....you may have had a point. I personally am a Christian and am Pentacostle....but I wear shorts\t-shirt and flip flops to church on Sunday nights or Wed nights. Sunday morn....I respect the church enough to wear slacks and a polo...not that I NEED to as I still see people in shorts on Sunday morn...and I go to a medium sized church...400+ on a Sunday morn service. My point is.....churches are not NEAR as constricting and legalistic ( speaking Biblically ) as people think. Either way....churches have been fighting dress standards for MANY YEARS and have lost the battle from day one...if anyone thinks the church has any real impact on how the government regulates dress....your WAYYYYYY OFF and WAYYYY MISTAKEN. If this were the case....mini skirts, bikinis , etc.....would have long since been banned or made illegal. The church is the LEAST of your worries. This could be a LONG discussion in its own respect though...Ill stop here.

Anyway....people keep trying to turn this into the government telling us what we can wear....it is NOT. This is about NOT SHOWING OF UNDERWEAR in public. Its common sense decency...according to some of your remarks...we should be able to just do ANYTHING we want to. Showing most of your underwear on purpose is not decent and should not be allowed.

[chrisdavis]

Ummmm, don't look now.....but this has ALWAYS been the possibility. So you think that if this were to somehow pass that this would automatically let other things pass carte blanche???? How's that make any sense?

I am aware that this has always been a possibility. I do not necessarily believe that this ordinance would lead to an avalanche of legislation further restricting our choices in life. Today its sagging pants, in a few years it would be something else small, and so on.


Again, let's go back to the laws that are already there. You can't walk out of your house, where it is perfectly legal, butt naked and get in YOUR car to go to the store because why???? IT IS ILLEGAL, right?

Because it violates the minimum standard that the law allows. Sagging pants do not violate the current law.


Why don't we have people all up in arms about THAT? Nudists say that's the natural way we came into this world and there is nothing wrong with walking around nude, right? So why can't we? Why shouldn't we? Is that the Gov't taking AWAY our rights??? Then why isn't everyone up in arms about that????

Maybe they are all living it up in Brattleboro Vermont where public nudity is legal




There has to be limit to everything. You can't just have anarchy as the high ceiling to society. Otherwise where would we be? We would look like some of those 3rd world countries do today. They have no real laws, they have no real gov't, so they are left to fend for themselves in the wilderness. Freedom??? You betcha. Best way to live??? Sometimes, I'm sure. Is that America??? NOPE.

We currently have limits, unfortunately there is no way to set a limit that will satisfy everybody.


So again, what would YOU say to a Nudist that gets upset because YOU don't want YOUR child to see THEM parading around the PUBLIC streets naked in the name of "freedom of speech"????? Would you explain that the gov't is being super cool in letting everyone do whatever they damn well please or would you cover their eyes and explain that's not the right thing to do????

Answer that.

I would explain to my child that is it not right because it is a violation of the law. Now if somehow nudists banded together and passed legislation to allow public nudity, I would have to find ways to raise my child in accordance to my beliefs. Fortunately I do not have to face this dilema currently.


You nor anyone else has ANY "right" to indecency in PUBLIC. Find me anywhere in the Bill of Rights where it says otherwise.


You and I both know that it is not in there, but we are not protected from being offended either.

[kfzemx3]

One jackass I never said I was offened, I stated why they are trying to make and pass the law. i dont give a fuck, because the ones defending it are normally the one doing it. So all it does it makes it easier for someone committing a crime to get caught, or have the cops look at you that much closer. So look like a idiot I DONT GIVE A FUCK.


I wasn't point you out saying you were offended, i ment the people that are, sorry i should of worded that better.

[Ran]

^^ Holy crap son, fix your quote tags. lol

[BABY J]

Amendment I

Who says what is Indecent and what isn't? In NewYork they have the Naked cowboy, who runs around playing his guitar in the street in nothing but his underwear, Hey thats indecent to some but its Perfectly Legal because he's protected by the 1st Amendment.

How many times has he been arrested - hint: watch his special on CNN.

[chrisdavis]

I am not sure if anyone has noticed...but the "religious groups" that limit what you can wear, that dictate you must "cover" certain areas are by far a MAJOR minority these days. 100 years ago....you may have had a point. I personally am a Christian and am Pentacostle....but I wear shorts\t-shirt and flip flops to church on Sunday nights or Wed nights. Sunday morn....I respect the church enough to wear slacks and a polo...not that I NEED to as I still see people in shorts on Sunday morn...and I go to a medium sized church...400+ on a Sunday morn service. My point is.....churches are not NEAR as constricting and legalistic ( speaking Biblically ) as people think. Either way....churches have been fighting dress standards for MANY YEARS and have lost the battle from day one...if anyone thinks the church has any real impact on how the government regulates dress....your WAYYYYYY OFF and WAYYYY MISTAKEN. If this were the case....mini skirts, bikinis , etc.....would have long since been banned or made illegal. The church is the LEAST of your worries. This could be a LONG discussion in its own respect though...Ill stop here.

Anyway....people keep trying to turn this into the government telling us what we can wear....it is NOT. This is about NOT SHOWING OF UNDERWEAR in public. Its common sense decency...according to some of your remarks...we should be able to just do ANYTHING we want to. Showing most of your underwear on purpose is not decent and should not be allowed.


My wife' grandparents are pentacostle. I was not singling them out, but I know that their church (the grandparents church not all churches)feels a certain way about clothing, and what is appropriate dress. My example was to merely show the extremes, not to single out a religious group.

I dont condone people being able to do ANYTHING they want to, but at the same time should I condone people just making things illegal just because they dont like it?

[chrisdavis]

^^ Holy crap son, fix your quote tags. lol



Quote tags own me :(

[chrisdavis]

I never compared sagging pants as a step away from being nude. You don't have to be nude to be indecent.

If I misunderstood what you were trying to say then I apologize. Here is where I got that impression.

Why? Because it raises a standard of decency? :thinking: Infringement on personal expression is a load of crap. If that were the case, then people could walk around nude claiming that it's their freedom of expression and the government can't constrict that.




If you continually live in fear of "what if" possibilities then you'll never have the means to press any regulations or standards for anything. Based on your post, the speed limit could simply be seen as one step for an environmentalist group to press a bill banning driving all together.

Laws and common sense need to have a medium between them as to not allow one or the other be carried to an extreme. Wearing your pants around your ankles defies all common sense for the sake of looking "crunk" or whatever it is they call it these days.

Actually that was the point I was trying to convey. If we start giving up things little by little then we will eventually give up everything.

[Ran]

If I misunderstood what you were trying to say then I apologize. Here is where I got that impression.Ah, yeah I guess I could have worded that a little better.


Actually that was the point I was trying to convey. If we start giving up things little by little then we will eventually give up everything.I agree to an extent. That's where that line between authority common sense comes into play. Still, I really don't see anything wrong with this particular bill. It's not keeping people from wearing loose or baggy pants. It's there to keep them from wearing them inappropriately and disturbing the public image.

[1000cckiller]

I wasn't point you out saying you were offended, i ment the people that are, sorry i should of worded that better.It's cool

[1000cckiller]

Ah, yeah I guess I could have worded that a little better.

I agree to an extent. That's where that line between authority common sense comes into play. Still, I really don't see anything wrong with this particular bill. It's not keeping people from wearing loose or baggy pants. It's there to keep them from wearing them inappropriately and disturbing the public image.well put

[tony]

Ah, yeah I guess I could have worded that a little better.

I agree to an extent. That's where that line between authority common sense comes into play. Still, I really don't see anything wrong with this particular bill. It's not keeping people from wearing loose or baggy pants. It's there to keep them from wearing them inappropriately and disturbing the public image.

Right or wrong that is not the government (or local governments) place

[Ran]

Right or wrong that is not the government (or local governments) placeThen who's place is it? Are you going to assemble the GAP Avengers or the American Eagles to dish out some vigilante justice? Like it or not, the governments, both local and federal, have to take action to get anything done. Our people are far too stupid to change themselves for the better.

[joecoolfreak]

Jaime,

For the fact that I am too lazy to go back and quote most of the things you said, I am going to just address most of them in one post without the quotes. Normally, I agree with you completely on your posts, but I am going to have to disagree on this one. Although I personally don't like the trend that people don't wear their clothes properly, I don't think that should be brought into a legal matter. As far as your perspective that this proposed bill wouldn't infringe on 1st amendment rights, I believe that as long as you don't infringe upon someone else's rights and you are expressing yourself, then that is something that is protected by the "freedom of speech". To address your examples as well as Baby J's, public businesses have the right to limit their own establishments any way they choose, and it has nothing to do with the current set of laws. A restaurant can say that all guests must wear suit and tie, but that doesn't mean that the current laws require that in public. There is a definite difference in "decency" between nudity and showing your underwear in public. I don't think showing your underwear is so much of a lack of decency, but rather a lack of common sense or intelligence and unfortunately, we can't make either of those two things illegal. The reason they put bra straps and thongs and whatnot in there is because of the equality requirements for law design. The only way to make sagging pants with showing your boxers illegal is to make showing your underwear in general illegal. Although I have no particular wish to see some kids boxers, I can't say that I am hurt in anyway by doing so. The double standard is seen by your first couple of posts. If we make showing your boxers illegal, then by doing so, we also make seeing a woman's bra strap showing illegal in the same regard and that obviously doesn't offend you. I do give some credence to the slippery slope statements shown previously in the thread. Empirically, we have drawn the definite line of decency at nudity. If we start backing that up, the line becomes much less easy to define. Do I think it will happen immediately? No, but it does set a precedent. The long and short of all of this is that I don't think this is something that a law should should be addressing. Besides, the benefit to allowing these people to dress as they currently are works great as a "stupid filter" I don't have to talk to someone who dresses like that to know that they lack common sense. To have a decency law that prevents it, just protects stupid people from themselves.

[BABY J]

Zoot Suit Riots - it's not just a Brian Seltzer song. They were BANNED altogehter.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/zoot/eng_peopleevents/e_riots.html

discuss

[noridetoolow]

My wife' grandparents are pentacostle. I was not singling them out, but I know that their church (the grandparents church not all churches)feels a certain way about clothing, and what is appropriate dress. My example was to merely show the extremes, not to single out a religious group.

I dont condone people being able to do ANYTHING they want to, but at the same time should I condone people just making things illegal just because they dont like it?

I hear ya...and some churches out there are still very conservative. My dad goes to a small country church in FL where he lives, the dont let the women wear anything by dresses to church..WOW....this is not the 1800s!! LOL

In the long runs its "opionion" I am of the opinion that it is indecent to run around with your underwear less covered than they are covered....some people share this opinion....some poeple do not....that is why this thread could go on and on and on and on and......

:D

[osiriskidd]

what about pants that are TOO tight. seeing a crotch buldge is pretty gross.

[Stormhammer]

I never compared sagging pants as a step away from being nude. You don't have to be nude to be indecent.


I gotta back you up on that, ever see those t-shirt's that are like " FUCK YOU" on the front? I think it's generally accepted that to be considered as indecent ( I mean I encountered a guy wearing that in a freaking Toys'R'Us - wtf )

[Stormhammer]

what about pants that are TOO tight. seeing a crotch buldge is pretty gross.

don't look at their crotch, duh



what a homo

[Jaimecbr900]

This discussion has now officially gotten boring. I'm tired of splitting hairs over something that is so direct and simple.

It's called UNDERwear, NOT OVERwear. Why is there anything to bicker over? It is neither designed nor should it be acceptable to wear OVER or OUT in any shape or manner. People shouldn't have to "deal with it", or "put up with it", or "suck it up". I, nor 99% of the rest of civilized society, make YOU put up with anything, right?? So why should I or anyone else have to put up with non-sense that we don't want to deal with. We shouldn't.

The Bill of Rights wasn't designed to use as a shield to HIDE behind in order for YOU to get away with things. It was designed to keep EVERYONE on an even keel and keep people FROM infringing on YOUR persuit of happiness, not as an excuse to force their will upon you.

It's real simple: If you can not wear an outfit out in public where you are portraying yourself as YOU, then YOU shouldn't wear it. You want to "express" yourself??? No problem, then don't get upset when people treat you like you came from the ghetto then. YOU look like you belong there, so I guess that's the "expression" you want to give off. Don't be a cry baby about it. Be a real "OG" or "thug" about it, after all that's what you WANT to look like, right???

[MaRk2k]

way to much to read. This goes for Showing your underwear. Not only baggy cloths. And that thong things bullshit.

[superboost]

The real big picture is the one you obviously can't see.

Nudist feel THEY should be allowed to roam the streets butt naked. Do we let them, in the name of freedom of speech? If not, why not?

If psychopaths feel that KILLING people is an "expression", do we let them do it? If not, why not?

If pedophiles feel that molesting children is also a way for them to "express" themselves, do we allow them to do it? If not, why not?

We do not, but in some cities it is legal for women to walk around topless. It is also legal for them to walk around in halter tops and bikini tops.

The difference between indecent and obscene and a freedom of speech is that generally we allow someone the freedom of speech until their speech causes an abridgement to someone else's legal rights.

IE: molesting children is not a right because of the child's right to living life.

Same with killing.

However, if someone is wearing pants a few sizes too big, I fail to see what rights of *YOURS* they are infringing. Care to enlighten me on that?

[quickdodge®]

However, if someone is wearing pants a few sizes too big, I fail to see what rights of *YOURS* they are infringing. Care to enlighten me on that?

You've misunderstood the point. I don't care anything about anyone wearing too big of pants. They can wear 10X the size. But who wants to walk around seeing idiots in their underwear all the time? People that display their idiocy this way look ridiculous. Look like penguins with Downs' Syndrome. Waddling all over the mall or wherever with their legs all cocked in different angles like they've just taken one in the ass for the home team constantly having to pull up or hold up their pants. Why in the world would someone want to wear clothes that don't fit and you constantly have to fool with them? I don't think arresting is the answer, but a citation/nice-sized fine would be nice. I think it's great that this problem is being addressed. Later, QD.

[SL65AMG]

not to single you out, but answer me this.

1) what is a wigger

2) what is a n*gger

a white ni**er.... dont try to be ignorant man. and not all blacks are n***ers.... and not all whites are wiggers...obviously. but i think ive tried to express this point before.


this "law" wouldnt apply to all black people.... only the _______rs. and then whoever else wears idiotic looking clothing (whites, asians....blah blah)

but not being able to wear a sports bra in public.... what the hell?

[CSquared]

a white ni**er.... dont try to be ignorant man. and not all blacks are n***ers.... and not all whites are wiggers...obviously. but i think ive tried to express this point before.


this "law" wouldnt apply to all black people.... only the _______rs. and then whoever else wears idiotic looking clothing (whites, asians....blah blah)

but not being able to wear a sports bra in public.... what the hell?

Regardless of whether or not you are white or black... that might have been one of the most ignorant posts to grace the pages of IA... Congratulations.

[JDMjoe]

Yeah I don't really care either way, i woudn't mind NOT seeing dudes asses, but women in sports bra is a different story :D

[SL65AMG]

Regardless of whether or not you are white or black... that might have been one of the most ignorant posts to grace the pages of IA... Congratulations.

im glad you think so... :goodjob:

opinions are like assholes, everyones got one. if you dont like my post, ignore it and move on with life. it doesnt affect you. refusing to believe the truth is ignorance, my friend, and the world is full or ignorant people that will believe anything just so that it makes them happy and doesnt hurt theirs or some one else's feelings. so therefore if the truth hurts your feelings, be a man and ignore it. :2up:

[Jaimecbr900]

We do not, but in some cities it is legal for women to walk around topless. It is also legal for them to walk around in halter tops and bikini tops.

Name the cities. I bet you can't.

Wearing a halter top or bikini top COVER the breasts and therefore wouldn't even apply here. Apples to 747's. BIG difference.


The difference between indecent and obscene and a freedom of speech is that generally we allow someone the freedom of speech until their speech causes an abridgement to someone else's legal rights.

Everyone has the right to PEACE in PUBLIC. Everyone has the right NOT to be exposed to indescency. Everyone has the right to be able to go to the mall without having to shield the eyes of their children from idiots that think it's cool to wear their underwear showing. So, yes it does infringe on my and everyone else's "rights" if you want to split hairs about it.


However, if someone is wearing pants a few sizes too big, I fail to see what rights of *YOURS* they are infringing. Care to enlighten me on that?

I did already.

Now you answer MY questions.

How come it's NOT "OK" for a nudist to walk around butt naked in the name of "freedom of speech"?

How come we are not allowed to drive as fast as we want?

How come you are not allowed to drive down the street with your 20,000 watt stereo wide open?

How come we're not allowed to call a dumbass act a dumbass act without the ACLU, NAACP, CNN, NBC, and Nancy Grace calling it "racist", "racial profiling", or God forbid...."politically incorrect"????

Answer that big man. Again, I bet you can't. ;)

Everyone is so quick to defend their "rights", especially when that is the only thing you can HIDE behind. Can't defend yourself with your intelligence??? Call it "racist". Can't defend yourself with your mouth? Let your clothes do the talking for you. Can't get your point across??? Say that it's because "the man" has kept you down......:jerkit:

That's exactly what's wrong with the youth today. They are too chicken shit to take their licks as they earn them. They have to have 52 ways out of paying for what their little asses probably deserve. It is never, "you're a dumbass for wearing those pants to your ankles SON, take that shit off!!!...." Instead it's, "....the man is trying to keep my son from looking like a dumbass and it's my right to let him keep looking like a dumbass because this is America damn it......where I don't pay taxes, but get to collect money from the Gov't.....where I don't vote, but jump on the bandwagon to bitch about our President's choices.....where I can make a mistake and it WON'T be my fault because there is always someone to blame it on, so it's all good!!"....:rolleyes:

God help us when all of you young bucks start families of your own. This country will be full of wussified people that won't be able to fend themselves out of a wet paper bag. :rolleyes:

[CSquared]

im glad you think so... :goodjob:

opinions are like assholes, everyones got one. if you dont like my post, ignore it and move on with life. it doesnt affect you. refusing to believe the truth is ignorance, my friend, and the world is full or ignorant people that will believe anything just so that it makes them happy and doesnt hurt theirs or some one else's feelings. so therefore if the truth hurts your feelings, be a man and ignore it. :2up:

lol i love these types of responses... The trivial "well I'm entitled to my own opinion... if you don't like it... Blah blah blah".

Well guess what? I'm entitled to my own opinions as well...

I just decided to go a different route and voice mine by saying that you sound like an retarded ignorant racist douche bag.

Oh... and if you don't like MY post... I believe this would apply to YOU as well:


refusing to believe the truth is ignorance, my friend, and the world is full or ignorant people that will believe anything just so that it makes them happy and doesnt hurt theirs or some one else's feelings. so therefore if the truth hurts your feelings, be a man and ignore it. :2up:

That is all.

Love,
Cramer

[GIXXERDK]

Name the cities. I bet you can't.







Texas Vermont

[joecoolfreak]

Wearing a halter top or bikini top COVER the breasts and therefore wouldn't even apply here. Apples to 747's. BIG difference.


No, I think in this case, it does apply, because a bikini top is essentially the same thing as wearing a bra, which you would consider underwear, hence indecent and therefore should be illegal.



Everyone has the right to PEACE in PUBLIC. Everyone has the right NOT to be exposed to indescency. Everyone has the right to be able to go to the mall without having to shield the eyes of their children from idiots that think it's cool to wear their underwear showing. So, yes it does infringe on my and everyone else's "rights" if you want to split hairs about it.

Again, as I said in my previous post, what is considered indecent? Currently, we define that legally as no nudity. If we change the law to fit "your" definition, where does it stop? Why not just outlaw all bare skin as many people do consider that "indecent".




How come it's NOT "OK" for a nudist to walk around butt naked in the name of "freedom of speech"?

Because we currently define decency as nudity.



How come we are not allowed to drive as fast as we want?

We are allowed to drive as fast as we want. We are only speed regulated on public roads for public safety concerns.



How come you are not allowed to drive down the street with your 20,000 watt stereo wide open?

Again, a safety issue exists. With you stereo turned all the way up, you can't properly hear emergency vehicle sirens.



How come we're not allowed to call a dumbass act a dumbass act without the ACLU, NAACP, CNN, NBC, and Nancy Grace calling it "racist", "racial profiling", or God forbid...."politically incorrect"????

You can call a dumbass act a dumbass act anytime you want to. Trying to make that act illegal is a whole other issue. Personally I don't think racism has anything to do with all of this.



Answer that big man. Again, I bet you can't. ;)

I tried



Everyone is so quick to defend their "rights", especially when that is the only thing you can HIDE behind. Can't defend yourself with your intelligence??? Call it "racist". Can't defend yourself with your mouth? Let your clothes do the talking for you. Can't get your point across??? Say that it's because "the man" has kept you down......:jerkit:

That's exactly what's wrong with the youth today. They are too chicken shit to take their licks as they earn them. They have to have 52 ways out of paying for what their little asses probably deserve. It is never, "you're a dumbass for wearing those pants to your ankles SON, take that shit off!!!...." Instead it's, "....the man is trying to keep my son from looking like a dumbass and it's my right to let him keep looking like a dumbass because this is America damn it......where I don't pay taxes, but get to collect money from the Gov't.....where I don't vote, but jump on the bandwagon to bitch about our President's choices.....where I can make a mistake and it WON'T be my fault because there is always someone to blame it on, so it's all good!!"....:rolleyes:

God help us when all of you young bucks start families of your own. This country will be full of wussified people that won't be able to fend themselves out of a wet paper bag. :rolleyes:
Now this I take a bit of personal offence to. I don't ever "hide" behind my rights. That being said, I certainly don't have a problem defending them or myself personally. My 4 years of active military service with two tours in a combat zone can speak to that. I damn sure don't wear my clothes in a way that would violate this bill if enacted. I do pay my taxes. I vote, and I don't ever bandwagon anything. However, I have a real problem with people enforcing their values through laws that I feel infringe on people's rights. You may find seeing someone elses underwear offensive, but somehow I doubt it. You may find the need to cover your children's eyes, but I don't believe you. You certainly don't have a problem taking those same children to the beach and they see quite a few people running around in their "underwear"(In my opionion, you may be able to "split hairs" between the difference between a bathing suit and underwear, but the simple fact is that they cover the same areas and provide the same function.) My entire point here is that although I do loath when these kids wear their clothes improperly, jump on the latest fad, want to be different just like everyone else, etc.., but I do recognize that those are things that still should not be regulated by laws.

[_Christian_]

well done joecoolfreak. +2

[SL65AMG]

lol i love these types of responses... The trivial "well I'm entitled to my own opinion... if you don't like it... Blah blah blah".

Well guess what? I'm entitled to my own opinions as well...

I just decided to go a different route and voice mine by saying that you sound like an retarded ignorant racist douche bag.

Oh... and if you don't like MY post... I believe this would apply to YOU as well:



That is all.

Love,
Cramer

a racist believes that his or her race is SUPERIOR to all others OR that another race is INFERIOR to another. i dont believe that. all people regardless of race have an equal opportunity in this country to do whatever they want. some take advantage of that freedom and some take the time to make themselves look like complete fucking idiots and waste their life away because they think people owe them something. that my friend is not opinion, that is fact.

i am bigoted. i have an intolerance for fucking idiots and people that think life should be made easy for them. I also have an intolerance for people that think that because they are a certain race, that things must be done to accommodate them because they were mistreated in the past or because they believe that they dont have the same opportunities as others.

[ahmonrah]

soon as i seen "J---CBR9--" i was like awww shit! lemme print this and add a spine to this BOOK!!

carry on.....

[Frög]

this is ridiculous.. wow.. im speechless..

[_Christian_]

^i know. pretty soon we'll have these.

[GIXXERDK]

soon as i seen "J---CBR9--" i was like awww shit! lemme print this and add a spine to this BOOK!!

carry on.....

Very annoying with his flawed logic

[Jaimecbr900]

Texas Vermont

Prove it.


Very annoying with his flawed logic

Ouch, that really hurt my feelings.....:rolleyes: Maybe I should have sideways pics on my sig so I too can be as intelligent as you??? :rolleyes:

News flash: If you don't like what I have to say, that is EXACTLY what they make the "ignore" button for. Use it.

[BABY J]

LMAO@SIDEWAYSPICCOMMENT

[Jaimecbr900]

No, I think in this case, it does apply, because a bikini top is essentially the same thing as wearing a bra, which you would consider underwear, hence indecent and therefore should be illegal.

You are stretching something to fit your needs.

Simple, what clothing section are bikini tops found in the store? Intimates or Swim wear? Then it is only YOU that is calling it UNDERwear. :goodjob: So NO, I would NOT consider a bikini top "UNDERwear". Bikini tops nor halter tops are DESIGNED to be worn UNDER anything 99.9% of the time, right? Unlike what???? BOXERS!!!!!! Apples to 747s.



Again, as I said in my previous post, what is considered indecent? Currently, we define that legally as no nudity. If we change the law to fit "your" definition, where does it stop? Why not just outlaw all bare skin as many people do consider that "indecent".

Who is "we"? That's the point. The minority overruling the majority.

The whole point to this legislation IS to make it part of this "law" you keep fictiously quoting and interpreting so discussions like this would be unnecessary in the future.



Because we currently define decency as nudity.

I think you meant indecency. Again, who is "we"?


We are allowed to drive as fast as we want. We are only speed regulated on public roads for public safety concerns.

AHA!!! So, the "public" part is what makes it right or wrong or acceptable or tolerable or no whining about it.....correct???

What is it that everyone has been saying all along about this??? DON'T DO IT IN PUBLIC. THAT is the whole reason for the legislation. They are not proposing people not buy the clothes or even how to wear it. Just what's acceptable IN PUBLIC. Why is that so hard to contend with? If you truly don't like seeing it any more than I do, why would you defend it?




Again, a safety issue exists. With you stereo turned all the way up, you can't properly hear emergency vehicle sirens.

But I can see them. My eyes aren't impaired by loud music. So what now? I've never had an accident because my music distracted me. I've never hurt anyone because my music was too loud. So using yall's logic, therefore, I should be allowed to do what I damn well please because it's MY music equipment, that I bought with MY money, and am doing NOTHING to anyone else in the process of ME using it.

Once again proves that people claim to be seeing the big picture, yet they CHOOSE what part of that picture they want to point out. Why aren't you and every other proponent marching at the capitol about speed limits, noise ordinances, and taxes????



You can call a dumbass act a dumbass act anytime you want to. Trying to make that act illegal is a whole other issue. Personally I don't think racism has anything to do with all of this.

I do, and I am.

You guys need to understand Civics a little better. LOCAL gov't, where BTW is the ONLY place this has been put up to, can and does make laws that pertain only to them. They should. If you don't like it, don't live in that city. Vote for diff officials. Do something. It's a city oridinance they are proposing, not a law. It amounts to little more than spitting on the sidewalk, "disturbing the peace", type ticket. Personally, I'm glad someone's taken the initiative to speak up and say that's stupid. Why are people fighting him on it if they agree it's stupid is beyond me. :rolleyes:




My entire point here is that although I do loath when these kids wear their clothes improperly, jump on the latest fad, want to be different just like everyone else, etc.., but I do recognize that those are things that still should not be regulated by laws.

Please point out the specific "right" under the Bill of Rights that entitles anyone to wear their pants down to their ankles. There isn't. It is total interpretation of the portion which recognizes "freedom of speech", not freedom to wear clothes any way I want regardless if it let's my UNDERwear show. Right? So, this is why I say people hide behind "rights" because they have nothing else to justify their stupid behavior. We can micro dissect laws until they are pretty much not worth the paper they're printed on if we wanted to. Why can't we all simply agree that something is stupid and asenine and call it that? Why can't we all simply use black and white definitions of things, rather than try to muddy up the water with hair splitting and ACLU talk? There are things in life that are really that simple, black and white. This, in my opinion, is one of those things. You are either wearing your clothes so low as to show your UNDERwear in public or you're not. You either need to pull up your pants or you don't. I don't care what logo or patch or condition those pants are in. THAT is irrelevant. The fact that your UNDERwear is hanging out IS the point. So we need to finally define, since this is now a gay ass fad, that is either A: acceptable or B: unacceptable. What's the problem with that?

[BABY J]

* insert theme from jeopardy *

Doo doo doo doo doo doo doooooooo.
Doo doo doo doo DO. Dodo dodo do.
Doo doo doo doo doo doo doooooooo.
DO. Dodo do do... do... do...

BANG BONG

[joecoolfreak]

You are stretching something to fit your needs.

Simple, what clothing section are bikini tops found in the store? Intimates or Swim wear? Then it is only YOU that is calling it UNDERwear. :goodjob: So NO, I would NOT consider a bikini top "UNDERwear". Bikini tops nor halter tops are DESIGNED to be worn UNDER anything 99.9% of the time, right? Unlike what???? BOXERS!!!!!! Apples to 747s.



Thats fine...so what if all the jackasses stop wearing boxers and just start wearing swimming trunks instead. They will effectively avoid being illegal, still wear their pants down around their knees and everything will be all good correct? They will still look the same, act the same, but you will have replaced their underwear for something else. You may say that is apples to 747's but I guess I just disagree.



Who is "we"? That's the point. The minority overruling the majority.

The whole point to this legislation IS to make it part of this "law" you keep fictiously quoting and interpreting so discussions like this would be unnecessary in the future.


We refers to the current status quo as a society. I agree that this "law" would change that, but what you failed to address in any of your response is the fact that we have a very clear line of where the "decency" line exists. If we start changing it, what is to stop the regression to the point that the "law" no longer represents the majority?



I think you meant indecency. Again, who is "we"?


Agreed, I did mistype there. And I just defined "we" for you.



AHA!!! So, the "public" part is what makes it right or wrong or acceptable or tolerable or no whining about it.....correct???

What is it that everyone has been saying all along about this??? DON'T DO IT IN PUBLIC. THAT is the whole reason for the legislation. They are not proposing people not buy the clothes or even how to wear it. Just what's acceptable IN PUBLIC. Why is that so hard to contend with? If you truly don't like seeing it any more than I do, why would you defend it?


The problem I have with the legislation is layered. First of all, I don't think that it does represent the majority of the population. I disagree with the fact that you think it's unacceptable. I think it's fine...stupid, dumb looking, but otherwise harmless. I am not defending it, I am defending the right to do as you choose as long as you aren't infringing upon other's rights. Just because I think something is stupid, doesn't mean I think it's wrong.



But I can see them. My eyes aren't impaired by loud music. So what now? I've never had an accident because my music distracted me. I've never hurt anyone because my music was too loud. So using yall's logic, therefore, I should be allowed to do what I damn well please because it's MY music equipment, that I bought with MY money, and am doing NOTHING to anyone else in the process of ME using it.


You can listen to your music inside of your car as loud as you like, you just can't listen to it loud enough with the window's open so that the person next to you can't hear an emergancy vehicle coming. You basically have the right to do anything you wish until you start violating someone's elses right's or safety.



Once again proves that people claim to be seeing the big picture, yet they CHOOSE what part of that picture they want to point out. Why aren't you and every other proponent marching at the capitol about speed limits, noise ordinances, and taxes????


Very simply, because those things are in place for public safety. I pay my taxes because I feel that we should all be required to do our part to pay for the benifits we recieve. All of these things are irrelavent to the current discussion though...talk about apples to 747's...



I do, and I am.


Good, glad we agree on something. =-)



You guys need to understand Civics a little better. LOCAL gov't, where BTW is the ONLY place this has been put up to, can and does make laws that pertain only to them. They should. If you don't like it, don't live in that city. Vote for diff officials. Do something. It's a city oridinance they are proposing, not a law. It amounts to little more than spitting on the sidewalk, "disturbing the peace", type ticket. Personally, I'm glad someone's taken the initiative to speak up and say that's stupid. Why are people fighting him on it if they agree it's stupid is beyond me. :rolleyes:


Hey now, I am quite sure I understand the civics involved here. First of all, a local government can enact any ordinance it chooses too. However, all law's regardless of jurisdiction are required to follow constitutional requirements. Any law that violates as such, is subject to legal action. Now, they can enact the ordinance, but as any decent lawyer would tell you, it won't hold up to challenge.



Please point out the specific "right" under the Bill of Rights that entitles anyone to wear their pants down to their ankles. There isn't. It is total interpretation of the portion which recognizes "freedom of speech", not freedom to wear clothes any way I want regardless if it let's my UNDERwear show. Right? So, this is why I say people hide behind "rights" because they have nothing else to justify their stupid behavior. We can micro dissect laws until they are pretty much not worth the paper they're printed on if we wanted to.


Plain and simple. The Supreme Court has interpreted the "Freedom of Speech" to mean that any display of personal expression is explicitly protected from laws prohibiting such action whereas it isn't a safety issue, it isn't obscene(I know this shall be the focus or your attention which I will address momentarily), it isn't libel, it isn't "fighting words", or it isn't nudity. They have also ruled that there are semi-protected forms of speech, which can be regulated, but are closely watched and often challenged: such items are hate speech, internet defamation, commercial speech, and campaign finance reform.

Now the two that would seem to apply here or are at least closely related are nudity and obscene. This is obviously not nudity, so I think we can leave that alone. I would guess that you would point to seeing someone's underwear as "obscene" in order to fall under the arguement that this isn't a protected right. Obscenity is judged by the Miller test:



The Miller test - from Miller v. California 413 US 15 (1973) was a landmark ruling which discarded the Roth test and remains the current standard for pornography today. Justice Burger laid out the new, three part test as: "(a) whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes sexual conduct, as outlined in state law, in a patently offensive way; and (c) whether the work as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Burger explicitly rejected the Memoirs requirement that obscene material be found to be "utterly without redeeming social value," replacing it with the less stringent standard of lacking "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Burger also rejected the Jacobellis requirement (from Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 US 184 (1964) which held that national standards ought to be used or at least how something is reviewed in 100 cities nationwide). Instead, the Miller test says to use "contemporary community standards" to evaluate whether something appeals to the "prurient interest" and is "patently offensive." Opening the door to community standards tends to reshape the definition of obscenity to anything morbid, abnormal, disgusting, and perverted and also anything involving hard core acts which demean women, at least according to some interpreters. Leaving it up to state law to describe the kind of sexual conduct to be regulated was intended to provide some kind of fair notice to purveyors of pornography, but had the effect of giving state legislators control over determining what is patently offensive. Miller kept the Roth components of average person, work taken as a whole, and contemporary community standards. An interesting procedure at this time was that police could not seize all copies to halt sale, just enough evidence for trial. Procedure today requires extreme degrees of specificity in search warrants, but otherwise the whole lot of offensive material is confiscated. Miller remains the key test for determining obscenity.


Now as you probably noticed...Obscenity is used when refering to physical objects that are considered to be pornographic in nature. I think we can both agree that seeing some dumb kid wearing his clothes poorly doesn't really scream pornography.



Why can't we all simply agree that something is stupid and asenine and call it that?


We can



Why can't we all simply use black and white definitions of things, rather than try to muddy up the water with hair splitting and ACLU talk?


We can



There are things in life that are really that simple, black and white. This, in my opinion, is one of those things. You are either wearing your clothes so low as to show your UNDERwear in public or you're not. You either need to pull up your pants or you don't. I don't care what logo or patch or condition those pants are in. THAT is irrelevant. The fact that your UNDERwear is hanging out IS the point. So we need to finally define, since this is now a gay ass fad, that is either A: acceptable or B: unacceptable. What's the problem with that?
I agree once again...it is unacceptable, however should still remain legal, because regardless of your own personal interpretation of the constitution, wearing your clothes however you like is a protected right of personal expression and is protected by 1st Ammendment rights. I believe in protecting those rights enough that I would risk my life to protect them.

And just a nice ending note: this is a quote made by the writer of this proposed ordinance: Councilman Martin -
"We know there are First Amendment issues"

[XanRules]

I doubt that this will pass, and if it does, how are they gonna enforce it. Walk around underground and give everyone tickets?

Why don't people focus on shit that actually matters. Like getting genarlow wilson out of jail or something important.

AMEN!!!

[Jaimecbr900]

Thats fine...so what if all the jackasses stop wearing boxers and just start wearing swimming trunks instead.

If they want to wear swim trunks under their pants, it perfectly fine. Underwear is underwear, swimming trunks are swimming trunks. So yes, that would be something different, much like bikini tops and halter tops.


We refers to the current status quo as a society. I agree that this "law" would change that, but what you failed to address in any of your response is the fact that we have a very clear line of where the "decency" line exists. If we start changing it, what is to stop the regression to the point that the "law" no longer represents the majority?

Wrong. If we had a clear line, then this legislature would have gone the way of the DoDo bird about as fast as it came in. Many asenine attempts have. This one got as much play time simply because it is something that A LOT of people have always mumbled under their breaths for a long time. So no there isn't a clear line because as you can see in this very thread that is the exact reason why we're even having a debate. You think something is NOT obscene, while others definetly don't agree. That's not being clear at all.



The problem I have with the legislation is layered.

What? :thinking:


First of all, I don't think that it does represent the majority of the population.

Really? I'm willing to put money on it.


I disagree with the fact that you think it's unacceptable.

And that makes it majority, how exactly?


I think it's fine...stupid, dumb looking, but otherwise harmless.

Just as nudist feel nudity is.....Just as I personally feel that since I have 20+ years of driving experience I should be able to drive as fast as I want....Just as I can't crank my stereo up as loud as I want when out in public, eventhough I don't feel I'm hurting anyone else.



I am not defending it, I am defending the right to do as you choose as long as you aren't infringing upon other's rights.

As Shakespeare said, "Aye, there's the rub...."

Where's the right for people not to have to see someone else's underwear?

Here's an example:

I am legally married. I feel like having sex with my wife right on top of the table at McDonald's. She's wearing a skirt and no undies. I zip my fly down and ease up in there....noone can see the skin on skin contact....all the rest of our clothes remain on. Why is that "indecent"? I showed no skin. She showed no skin. Would that be allowed? Why not? The "law" doesn't define sex on top of the McDonald's table SPECIFICALLY, does it? So is it fair to say that someone then has to use COMMON SENSE to make a decision as to WHAT "indecency" is???? Well, why is it that it would be OK for someone to make that call, yet we can't make the same call for people directly showing their UNDERwear in public?



You can listen to your music inside of your car as loud as you like, you just can't listen to it loud enough with the window's open so that the person next to you can't hear an emergancy vehicle coming. You basically have the right to do anything you wish until you start violating someone's elses right's or safety.

Splitting hairs again.

They loose their eyesight when I pulled up with music blarring? They why would they NOT be able to SEE the Emergency vehicle coming up on them? Maybe they're just shitty drivers anyway and my music had nothing to do with it. Again, someone will then make a judgement call as to call that a "noise ordinance" infraction.

BTW, point out what "right" anyone has to seeing an emergency vehicle. ;)



Very simply, because those things are in place for public safety. I pay my taxes because I feel that we should all be required to do our part to pay for the benifits we recieve. All of these things are irrelavent to the current discussion though...talk about apples to 747's...

You didn't get it obviously.

YOU "feel" that showing your UNDERwear out in PUBLIC is "ok" , yet I don't.
I "feel" that although it's against the "law" that I should be able to drive as fast as I want.

As it pertains to this discussion, I am trying to show you how the Gov't ALREADY governs a lot more things in far more restrictive ways than this AND more importantly we could easily apply the same logic you guys are using to justify NOT passing this ordinance to complain about already existing laws that we could argue to death don't always NEED to be dictated upon. So in essence what I was trying to get you to see is that you keep saying "where will it stop?" and I'm saying it NEVER has and NEVER will because people and society EVOLVE. 100 years ago, there were no speed limits WHY???? Because we had no roads like we do now nor cars to drive on it past 10 mph. NOW we do, so there are restrictions.

10 years ago THIS was not a problem because THIS was NOT a gay fad. NOW it is, so therefore it should be addressed before dumbasses start wearing nothing BUT UNDERwear and no pants. What are you gonna say then?






Now as you probably noticed...Obscenity is used when refering to physical objects that are considered to be pornographic in nature. I think we can both agree that seeing some dumb kid wearing his clothes poorly doesn't really scream pornography.

So therefore, the Miller test does not apply here since it only pertains to PORNOGRAPHY.


I agree once again...it is unacceptable, however should still remain legal, because regardless of your own personal interpretation of the constitution, wearing your clothes however you like is a protected right of personal expression and is protected by 1st Ammendment rights. I believe in protecting those rights enough that I would risk my life to protect them.

You have yet to answer the more obvious question, so I'll repeat.

Why if clothing is protected as part of the Bill of Rights is it ILLEGAL to go nude in public? Why can't we just wear BOXERS only to the mall? Why can't I wear a shirt with what SOME people find offensive written all over it to the mall? Why can't I call blarring my radio an "expression" and thereby be allowed to play it as loud as I like?

Again, I'm using simple examples because in all of those examples I would REALLY not be "hurting" or "hindering" anyone else, yet all of those are ILLEGAL now. I'm not keeping anyone from going their own way. I'm not making anyone believe what I do. I'm not hindering anyone from rolling up their windows. Right? So why is that if THOSE could all be debated using the exact same reasoning you give here, they are still illegal?


And just a nice ending note: this is a quote made by the writer of this proposed ordinance: Councilman Martin -
"We know there are First Amendment issues"

Of course there are.....just like there's always "race" issues and "political" issues when anyone brings up anything controversial. Someone somewhere, like the ACLU, will find 4 legs to the chicken. ;)

[NewGen33]

This is how it all starts :ninja:

[joecoolfreak]

If they want to wear swim trunks under their pants, it perfectly fine. Underwear is underwear, swimming trunks are swimming trunks. So yes, that would be something different, much like bikini tops and halter tops.


Ok...we are making progress...now...how is the law to determain whether or not boxers are underwear, or whether swimming trunks are swimming trunks? Are we to use the manufacturer as a designation? Again...where is the finite legal definition? This is part of the problem with the proposition to begin with. In it's current form, it is way too open for interpretation. Are you really ok with your wife being cited and ticketed because her bra strap was showing as she walked down the street?



Wrong. If we had a clear line, then this legislature would have gone the way of the DoDo bird about as fast as it came in. Many asenine attempts have. This one got as much play time simply because it is something that A LOT of people have always mumbled under their breaths for a long time. So no there isn't a clear line because as you can see in this very thread that is the exact reason why we're even having a debate. You think something is NOT obscene, while others definetly don't agree. That's not being clear at all.


Incorrect. We do have a clear line currently. The legal line is whether nudity is involved. If it is, it's illegal. If it isn't it's not. Moving that would blur the line...is a bra strap obscene? Occording to this law, it would be.



What? :thinking:


When I say layered, I simply mean that there are multiple issues here. I have lots of problems with the proposed ordinance.



Really? I'm willing to put money on it.


This still remains to be seen. The long and short is that it doesn't matter. It's still a constitutional right.



Just as nudist feel nudity is.....Just as I personally feel that since I have 20+ years of driving experience I should be able to drive as fast as I want....Just as I can't crank my stereo up as loud as I want when out in public, eventhough I don't feel I'm hurting anyone else.


The difference here, is that the Supreme Court has ruled that nudity isn't protected and anything that isn't nudity is. Driving is still a safety issue...I don't know how many times I can repeat this.





As Shakespeare said, "Aye, there's the rub...."

Where's the right for people not to have to see someone else's underwear?

Here's an example:

I am legally married. I feel like having sex with my wife right on top of the table at McDonald's. She's wearing a skirt and no undies. I zip my fly down and ease up in there....noone can see the skin on skin contact....all the rest of our clothes remain on. Why is that "indecent"? I showed no skin. She showed no skin. Would that be allowed?


No, because that would be legally defined as a sex act, therefore falling under the Miller test, would be pornographic.



Why not? The "law" doesn't define sex on top of the McDonald's table SPECIFICALLY, does it?


Great question. See the Miller test



So is it fair to say that someone then has to use COMMON SENSE to make a decision as to WHAT "indecency" is????


Absolutely, but this isn't what we are discussing at the moment.



Well, why is it that it would be OK for someone to make that call, yet we can't make the same call for people directly showing their UNDERwear in public?


I am very glad you asked the question, as this was the entire point of all my hard work in my last response. The very simple difference between public nudity and sex acts, and seeing someone's underwear is that the first two are explicit exeptions to the 1st Ammendment free speech guidelines given by the Supreme Court, and the last is not, therefor a protected form of free speech.



Splitting hairs again.

They loose their eyesight when I pulled up with music blarring? They why would they NOT be able to SEE the Emergency vehicle coming up on them? Maybe they're just shitty drivers anyway and my music had nothing to do with it. Again, someone will then make a judgement call as to call that a "noise ordinance" infraction.

BTW, point out what "right" anyone has to seeing an emergency vehicle. ;)


You don't have a "right" to see or hear an emergency vehicle, you have a legal responsibility to get the hell out of the way. Some situations would prevent you from either seeing or hearing such a circumstance, which is why emergency vehicles use both lights and sirens to prevent something like that happening.



You didn't get it obviously.

YOU "feel" that showing your UNDERwear out in PUBLIC is "ok" , yet I don't.


It doesn't matter whether or not you think its all right though...its a constitutional right. And until that's ammended...laws like this can be proposed, and enacted. But they will all be struck down until the 1st Ammendment is changed.



I "feel" that although it's against the "law" that I should be able to drive as fast as I want.


And if you feel that the "law" violates the 1st Ammendment, then you can break the law, then challenge it through the appeals process. The safety clauses will prevent you from winning though. There are no safety concerns with the proposed ordinance, so it will not pass the appeal.\



As it pertains to this discussion, I am trying to show you how the Gov't ALREADY governs a lot more things in far more restrictive ways than this AND more importantly we could easily apply the same logic you guys are using to justify NOT passing this ordinance to complain about already existing laws that we could argue to death don't always NEED to be dictated upon. So in essence what I was trying to get you to see is that you keep saying "where will it stop?" and I'm saying it NEVER has and NEVER will because people and society EVOLVE. 100 years ago, there were no speed limits WHY???? Because we had no roads like we do now nor cars to drive on it past 10 mph. NOW we do, so there are restrictions.


I do agree that laws are necessary and change will happen with the process of society evolving. However, there are some things that I think will stay more solid than you do. I don't think the Supreme Court is about to re-evaluate their current interperatation of the constitution.



10 years ago THIS was not a problem because THIS was NOT a gay fad. NOW it is, so therefore it should be addressed before dumbasses start wearing nothing BUT UNDERwear and no pants. What are you gonna say then?


Another simple one, that is already addressed by current laws, so it is a moot point. If someone shows their ass, they are in violation of public nudity.



So therefore, the Miller test does not apply here since it only pertains to PORNOGRAPHY.


That's the main point. If you can't apply the Miller test, then it's a protected right and you can't make a law prohibiting it.



You have yet to answer the more obvious question, so I'll repeat.

Why if clothing is protected as part of the Bill of Rights is it ILLEGAL to go nude in public?


Greaty question, as it blately proves my point: Because the Supreme Court has been very explicit with their interpretation, if it's nudity, it can be prohibited by law, if it isn't nudity, then you can't do anything, because it's a protected right.



Why can't we just wear BOXERS only to the mall?


Now this is where it gets interesting. You can wear just boxers to the mall. You can stand outside on the street and watch the traffic go by. You can't however go into the mall with your boxers on because the mall has the right as private property to enforce a "dress code" that can't be enforced or regulated by law. If you don't leave, they can issue you a citation for trespassing, but not public indecency. This has actually happened several times and that is the exact ruling that the courts came up with. Dress codes can be enforced by private organizations on private property. The goverment cannot enforce dress codes on public property.



Why can't I wear a shirt with what SOME people find offensive written all over it to the mall?


See previous answer. You can stand out in front of the mall with that shirt and there is nothing the law can do about it. The mall however can regulate any dress code them deem acceptable.



Again, I'm using simple examples because in all of those examples I would REALLY not be "hurting" or "hindering" anyone else, yet all of those are ILLEGAL now. I'm not keeping anyone from going their own way. I'm not making anyone believe what I do. I'm not hindering anyone from rolling up their windows. Right? So why is that if THOSE could all be debated using the exact same reasoning you give here, they are still illegal?


Not all of those things are illegal right now...I think I have addressed why and how.



Of course there are.....just like there's always "race" issues and "political" issues when anyone brings up anything controversial. Someone somewhere, like the ACLU, will find 4 legs to the chicken. ;)

I, nor did he say race or political issues...the comment was specifically that there were constitutional issues, specifically with the 1st ammendment.

[StupidBikerBoy]

I hope it does pass.


Freedom of what??? Are you kidding me? What about our freedom NOT to have to see people's underwear or them walking like they're penguins or wearing burlap sack looking clothes????

I wish it would pass. I'm sure it won't because of all the ACLU and NAACP and "leaders" that are gonna call it something else.

I'm with Ruiner, let the girls show their thongs, but make the guys pull up their pants.....:goodjob:

This is a joke. I would have thought you of all on here would realize it. It'll NEVER pass. This is part of our freedom. I dont like it either, but if something like this was to pass it would open the door for a lot more and worse. Whats next? Telling us which shoes we can wear?? If anyone thinks a law like this should be passed then then maybe you should consider what you think freedom is. Put your hate of the subject to the side, because it doesnt matter that they may ban baggy pants that show underwear, what matters is that they will be taking more rights from us. If I wanna walk outside in my boxers ITS MY RIGHT.

And if this passes, then we should ban shorts (very similar to boxers), bathing suits, and anything else that resembles underwear in any way. Don't you see the absurdity in this?? Who cares if you dont like it, its still a freedom of choice.

Thats the problem with this country today. Everbodies so worried about being PC. They dont want to hurt anyones feelings.:rolleyes:

This country will be full of pussies in a few hundred years.

This problem should be address another way, but since they may actually require some thought and action out of our government it'll never happen.

The day this country takes on a dress code, I'll be moving or part of the solution.:goodjob:

[StupidBikerBoy]

Name the cities. I bet you can't.

Wearing a halter top or bikini top COVER the breasts and therefore wouldn't even apply here. Apples to 747's. BIG difference.



Everyone has the right to PEACE in PUBLIC. Everyone has the right NOT to be exposed to indescency. Everyone has the right to be able to go to the mall without having to shield the eyes of their children from idiots that think it's cool to wear their underwear showing. So, yes it does infringe on my and everyone else's "rights" if you want to split hairs about it.



I did already.

Now you answer MY questions.

How come it's NOT "OK" for a nudist to walk around butt naked in the name of "freedom of speech"?

How come we are not allowed to drive as fast as we want?

How come you are not allowed to drive down the street with your 20,000 watt stereo wide open?

How come we're not allowed to call a dumbass act a dumbass act without the ACLU, NAACP, CNN, NBC, and Nancy Grace calling it "racist", "racial profiling", or God forbid...."politically incorrect"????

Answer that big man. Again, I bet you can't. ;)

Everyone is so quick to defend their "rights", especially when that is the only thing you can HIDE behind. Can't defend yourself with your intelligence??? Call it "racist". Can't defend yourself with your mouth? Let your clothes do the talking for you. Can't get your point across??? Say that it's because "the man" has kept you down......:jerkit:

That's exactly what's wrong with the youth today. They are too chicken shit to take their licks as they earn them. They have to have 52 ways out of paying for what their little asses probably deserve. It is never, "you're a dumbass for wearing those pants to your ankles SON, take that shit off!!!...." Instead it's, "....the man is trying to keep my son from looking like a dumbass and it's my right to let him keep looking like a dumbass because this is America damn it......where I don't pay taxes, but get to collect money from the Gov't.....where I don't vote, but jump on the bandwagon to bitch about our President's choices.....where I can make a mistake and it WON'T be my fault because there is always someone to blame it on, so it's all good!!"....:rolleyes:

God help us when all of you young bucks start families of your own. This country will be full of wussified people that won't be able to fend themselves out of a wet paper bag. :rolleyes:

Jaime I normally agree with you but this is rediculous. You are ubviously upset about this but that doesnt matter. In a previous post you stated

I, nor 99% of the rest of civilized society, make YOU put up with anything, right?? So why should I or anyone else have to put up with non-sense that we don't want to deal with. We shouldn't.

You really believe that you have never made anyone put up with something they didnt like? Come on, I know you are smarter than that. People need to realize that it doesnt matter if they dont like it, because if its not hurting you in any way then it is simply thier right and you would be infringing on it if it were to be banned. People are different so there will always be things that upset others, but that is not grounds for a law. Dont you see that? You choose to let it bother you, plain and simple, because there is no way you are forced to look at how another is dressed.

I quoted this one because you attacked this man's intelligence instead of staying on the topic. If you are that upset about this trend, then get off your ass and do something about it besides complaining and trying to help pass a law that obviously infringes on our rights.

Just passing a law and not addressing the problem entirely always causes problems down the road, we should have learned that in the 60's and 70's. The best fix is not always the quickest, cheapest, nor easiest.

Im sure you'll attack me in some way since this obviously upsets you, but since I dont have the time to parley on why a law that obviously infringes on our rights shouldn't get passed even though someone got thier butt hurt about it, just consider all the things that we do that upsets others. Maybe we should pass a law banning all of it, then one day it'll be just like the movie 1980

[StupidBikerBoy]

Prove it.



Ouch, that really hurt my feelings.....:rolleyes: Maybe I should have sideways pics on my sig so I too can be as intelligent as you??? :rolleyes:

News flash: If you don't like what I have to say, that is EXACTLY what they make the "ignore" button for. Use it.

:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:

Maybe you should ignore saggy baggy bottoms. Talk about double standards:rolleyes:

[GIXXERDK]

Prove it.



Ouch, that really hurt my feelings.....:rolleyes: Maybe I should have sideways pics on my sig so I too can be as intelligent as you??? :rolleyes:

News flash: If you don't like what I have to say, that is EXACTLY what they make the "ignore" button for. Use it.

You're the one spending countless hours on the internet, I'm sure you have time to look it up.

Check your sig, your car is slanted like my eyes :lmfao:

[ahmonrah]

which chapter is this ?? lol!

[Jaimecbr900]

You're the one spending countless hours on the internet, I'm sure you have time to look it up.

A simple, "I can't because I spoke out of my ass before...." would suffice. We know you can't, now all it's left is for you to admit you have a problem and then healing can begin....:rolleyes: I'm not doing your homework for you Mr. Look at my JDM tyte yo pic on my bike. If you can't back up your comments, then maybe you should do what I suggested.....hit the ignore button and go back to taking JDM tyte pics of yourself. :goodjob:


Check your sig, your car is slanted like my eyes :lmfao:

One day maybe I'll turn it up vertical like the Space Shuttle and be just as JDM cool as you. Until then.....;)

[Jaimecbr900]

It seems that everyone has decided to pick and choose from the pages and pages of my response to interpret what THEY think I am trying to say. I've never been accused of mincing words nor being clear, so this is a surprise to me.

I'll close with this, since after today at 3 p.m. this is going to be a dead issue anyway:

Sometimes we have to put up with things we don't agree with in the name of protecting our own "rights" in the future. Our founding fathers had no intention on these "rights" to be something that people could use as a loop hole to get around common sense. I'm certain of that. Often times in our haste to protect those "rights" people either forget or purposely don't use common sense in making their decisions which only serves to build that snow ball even bigger for the next snow ball fight. This is seen brightly in our inefficiency and unwillingness to control everything from our borders, to immigration, to foreign policy, to our decaying welfare system, to even our common sense views on simple things like "decency" in public. That snowball is rolling down hill rather fast now. Just a few short years ago we didn't know the phrase "politically correct", which essentially means "I'm too chicken shit to stand up for common sense so I'll cave in to PUBLIC perception instead of what I KNOW is right". Now it is a platform from which people preach things as if suddenly, because John Q. Public is scared to say otherwise, they are gospel. Civil Liberties is part of that now gigantic snowball that common sense will likely never be able to slow down from crashing into everyone very soon. If we keep making common sense a taboo word, the more we will simply trample back and forth across both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because instead of common sense of intelligent people prevailing....the loudest squeakiest wheel will back the majority into a corner rather than the majority telling that squeaky wheel to shut up.



You guys believe what you will. Actually, some of you have made some excellent points here. Some have just injected their own personal BS, but that's to be expected. I feel strongly that this is an issue that although at face value seems benign, it goes to show just how ridiculously scared the American Public is to say "enough is enough, this is where we draw the line". Everyone would love to have all the "rights" in the world, without any of the consequences. Well, it just doesn't work that way.

It takes an entire village to raise a child. That child will someday be running that village as the new generation. If we do a poor job of teaching our children that somethings are right and some things are wrong and that contrary to popular myth and media there are not as many GRAY areas as they would have you believe, when it is their turn to take the wheel.....they'll drive that bus straight into a ditch. ;)

[Ran]

Off Topic

It takes an entire village to raise a child.I keep seeing this pop up and it keeps bothering me.

NO, it does NOT take a village to raise a child. It takes two parents. It's the PARENTS job to teach their children what is right and wrong despite what the trash around them may say or do. This whole "it takes a village" bullsh*t is exactly why parents today can't take disciplinary actions against their own children without going to court for child abuse.

Sorry, I'm done.

/Off Topic

[Jaimecbr900]

Off Topic
I keep seeing this pop up and it keeps bothering me.

NO, it does NOT take a village to raise a child. It takes two parents. It's the PARENTS job to teach their children what is right and wrong despite what the trash around them may say or do. This whole "it takes a village" bullsh*t is exactly why parents today can't take disciplinary actions against their own children without going to court for child abuse.

Sorry, I'm done.

/Off Topic

You're absolutely correct, but my point was to show that normal joe's also should step up and show children that IF their parents aren't responsible enough to point out what's right and wrong maybe they should.

But you're right, maybe I should've used a different example.....:thinking: :doh:

[Ran]

You're absolutely correct, but my point was to show that normal joe's also should step up and show children that IF their parents aren't responsible enough to point out what's right and wrong maybe they should.I agree but, in the end, you really can't depend on the average joe. It would be nice though.


But you're right, maybe I should've used a different example.....:thinking: :doh:S'all good. :cheers:

[joecoolfreak]

Ok, since Jaime has said his last word, I shall say mine as well. I understand entirely where you come from Jaime. I think the fundamental difference between our perspectives, is although I think that 90% of what you say is correct, I worry about the snowball effect from the other side of the coin. I feel that on a daily basis sometimes, that rights are being taken away for the "common good" and that one day we are going to turn around and before anyone realize's it, our freedoms are all going to be gone. The "Patriot Act" is just one small example of how many things can be taken away by a seemingly good law, that are just a small step towards a police state. I do think that there is a great lesson in what you have said though: Parents need to be responsible for teaching their kids to grow up with common sence, decency, and intellegence so that we don't even have to risk having to have legislation for dummies.

[Fast Shadow]

Face it: Naked (hot) women = good. Hairy man ass of any kind = bad.

[BABY J]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070916/ap_on_fe_st/saggy_britches

[VooDooXII]

Don't some companies just make jeans with a LOW inseam to make it look like their sagging?

[99WS6]

If you have to hold your dick to walk or run to keep your pants from falling down or walk like a duck to keep them up you are a fucking dumb ass! Common sense people, common fucking sense. Most of these fucking idiots don't even realize that this whole fashion statement comes from people being in jail and not being allowed to have a belt to keep their pants up. Yeah that's who I want to be like when I grow up a fucking inmate. To the people that do this.....NEWS FLASH most the people around you don't think that you are cool; we're laughing at you!

Jamiecbr900 - I totaly agree with everything you said.

[BABY J]

lol

[BABY J]

Hmmm...

[.blank cd]

There already was laws against this. I was with a cop friend of mine. He was with his family (wife and 4yr old girl) walking into a gas station. A guy with his pants-waist around his knees was in front of him in line. He told the man if he didnt step outside and pull up his pants he would have him arrested for child abuse or somethin like that. Showing your underwear to 4yr old children falls within the lines of the law already :goodjob:

[AB3dj]

I don't think very many people posting in this thread are qualified to say what is and isn't fashionable. Granted, I wouldn't (and don't) wear my jeans sagging, I still don't think this is something that should be policed. If wearing tacky clothes and fits were illegal then I think a large portion of this forum would need to be ticketed. :police:

[AB3dj]

There already was laws against this. I was with a cop friend of mine. He was with his family (wife and 4yr old girl) walking into a gas station. A guy with his pants-waist around his knees was in front of him in line. He told the man if he didnt step outside and pull up his pants he would have him arrested for child abuse or somethin like that. Showing your underwear to 4yr old children falls within the lines of the law already :goodjob:

What happens if you wear gym shorts over your underwear so it's not actually showing? What defines underwear? This is just more right-wing, bible-thumping, waste of energy and resources bs that this state definitely doesn't need. The southeast FTL.

One of my favorite quotes from Family Guy.

"The south.... Isn't that the place where all the black people are lazy and the white people hate the black people for being lazy but they're just as lazy?"

[OneSlow5pt0]

thiers a difference between wearing tacky clothes and showing r underwar

[Jaimecbr900]

I don't think very many people posting in this thread are qualified to say what is and isn't fashionable.

Why not?

BTW, this is not about any fashion. It's about not showing your damn underwear out in public like some thug wannabe. There's a difference. Anyone with an IQ higher than spit knows that.



If wearing tacky clothes and fits were illegal then I think a large portion of this forum would need to be ticketed. :police:

Name just WHO YOU know first hand from IA to make your statement true.

If you admit that YOU don't wear pants like this and according to your logic "fashion" is what this is about, what makes YOU qualified to have an opinion on this at all? Again, your logic makes no sense at all.

[man]

What happens if you wear gym shorts over your underwear so it's not actually showing?

You should be arrested for illegally impersonating a clown.


What defines underwear?

Something worn UNDER your outerwear...


This is just more right-wing, bible-thumping, waste of energy and resources bs that this state definitely doesn't need. The southeast FTL.

Yup, it's just another conspiracy of the white man... :rolleyes:

[Jaimecbr900]

What happens if you wear gym shorts over your underwear so it's not actually showing?

Then you're still gay. :rolleyes:


What defines underwear?

The label, the part of the department store you bought it in, and maybe....just maybe.....COMMON SENSE. Ever heard of that? Probably not. :rolleyes:


This is just more right-wing, bible-thumping, waste of energy and resources bs that this state definitely doesn't need. The southeast FTL.

Says the left wing tree hugging liberal who obviously doesn't read since this wasn't proposed JUST IN the "south".....:rolleyes:



"The south.... Isn't that the place where all the black people are lazy and the white people hate the black people for being lazy but they're just as lazy?"

Greyhound buses run all day and most of the night. Tickets up to some other part of the country you think is soooo uber better are probably pretty cheap. What's your excuse? You chained to a radiator somewhere? :rolleyes:

[BABY J]

LMA-the-f.uck-O

[MistaCee]

Im good I wear fitted jeans anyways

[AB3dj]

Then you're still gay. :rolleyes:


Great comeback!




The label, the part of the department store you bought it in, and maybe....just maybe.....COMMON SENSE. Ever heard of that? Probably not. :rolleyes:


Unfortunately the law isn't enforced with "common sense". It's executed with hard facts that this law doesn't define.




Says the left wing tree hugging liberal who obviously doesn't read since this wasn't proposed JUST IN the "south".....:rolleyes:


Coming from the person who hasn't noticed that the link isn't down? :lmfao:




Greyhound buses run all day and most of the night. Tickets up to some other part of the country you think is soooo uber better are probably pretty cheap. What's your excuse? You chained to a radiator somewhere? :rolleyes:

Define cheap?

Better? Boston, New York, Washington DC are all great for many reasons. Denver, San-Fran, Seattle.

My excuse for being here? Well, I have a pretty cozy 8-5er that allows me to study or debate fashion/politics on IA during my downtime. I'd imagine that after I finish my associates degree then I'll probably be off to another state. New Jersey, New York, or Mass are all looking pretty promising. Atlanta's a great city don't get me wrong but it's still very young and also very influenced by religion.

As far as this being a regional thing, the places I've heard the most about it were in TX, LA, and GA. There was a mention to a small town in CT in the NY Times but it was a quick mention.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/fashion/30baggy.html


A dress code ordinance proposed in Stratford, Conn., by Councilman Alvin O’Neal was rejected at a Town Council meeting last Monday, drawing criticism that the law was unconstitutional and unjustly encouraged racial profiling. Many residents agreed that the town had more pressing issues."

[AB3dj]

You should be arrested for illegally impersonating a clown.



Okay.

[QUOTE]
Something worn UNDER your outerwear...


What about women layering shirts or this specifically targeting below the belt?



Yup, it's just another conspiracy of the white man... :rolleyes:


I think it's funny that when the article first broke out then I found one picture of someone white... Oh well, I don't care for my 4th amendment rights anyhow.

[AB3dj]

Why not?

BTW, this is not about any fashion. It's about not showing your damn underwear out in public like some thug wannabe. There's a difference. Anyone with an IQ higher than spit knows that.


Most of the statements in this thread have been fashion related.



Name just WHO YOU know first hand from IA to make your statement true.


Are you asking who I know from IA personally or who I know personally that can't dress?



If you admit that YOU don't wear pants like this and according to your logic "fashion" is what this is about, what makes YOU qualified to have an opinion on this at all? Again, your logic makes no sense at all.

Because I know how to dress.... :D

[Slow Motion]

Why are ppl so worried about what other ppl do...So what it irritates you to see them hold their pants up or any other complaints you have. Its not you...you wear your pants with them on your waist and with a belt so do you. Why worry about someone you don't associate with?

[Jaimecbr900]

Great comeback!

I'm glad you liked it. :goodjob:




Unfortunately the law isn't enforced with "common sense". It's executed with hard facts that this law doesn't define.

How much harder is the FACT that underwear is not only clearly labeled as such when it's bought at any dept. store, but it also shows it's purpose in it's own name.....:rolleyes: Again, I guess it's too much to ask people like yourself to use that gray matter taking up space inside your head to see the obvious. Oh well.



Coming from the person who hasn't noticed that the link isn't down? :lmfao:

Coming from the person that still doesn't get the fact that this wasn't only proposed in the south. :rolleyes: How does the link help you now? :rolleyes:





Better? Boston, New York, Washington DC are all great for many reasons. Denver, San-Fran, Seattle.



Wow, I could've bet someone with your obvious Liberal point of view would love all those places. Again, Greyhound goes there everyday. If they are so much better, why aren't you there?

This is a "fashion" issue, just like pornography is literary issue. It's not. Some idiot walking down the street holding up their pants is nothing about "fashion" and everything about idiocy.

[Jaimecbr900]

Most of the statements in this thread have been fashion related.

Only from those that have no other way to defend this assenine trend.



Are you asking who I know from IA personally or who I know personally that can't dress?

You said that people here needed to be "ticketed" for wearing "tacky" clothes. So I was wondering just how many people you know first hand to make that statement true.



Because I know how to dress.... :D

Good for you.

[Jaimecbr900]

Why are ppl so worried about what other ppl do...So what it irritates you to see them hold their pants up or any other complaints you have. Its not you...you wear your pants with them on your waist and with a belt so do you. Why worry about someone you don't associate with?

Keep it out of the public and THEN the public has no business opinionating and passing down judgement. If you put your business out on the front page, don't be upset when someone uses it against you.

[JITB]

i am amazed how baggy pants can bother anyone..

[Psycho]

I'm amazed that this thread is still alive.

[AB3dj]

How much harder is the FACT that underwear is not only clearly labeled as such when it's bought at any dept. store, but it also shows it's purpose in it's own name.....:rolleyes: Again, I guess it's too much to ask people like yourself to use that gray matter taking up space inside your head to see the obvious. Oh well.

See my previous comment (if you aren't too lazy to read) about defining 'underwear'. Are gym shorts over boxers considered underwear? You don't buy it in the same area of the store after-all but you are wearing it as an undergarment... Also, it's "GREY matter". Please take a note of it so you don't make yourself look like a complete DB in your future e-battles. I'm typically not a grammar nazi but it's hard not to point out the irony of that one.



Coming from the person that still doesn't get the fact that this wasn't only proposed in the south. :rolleyes: How does the link help you now? :rolleyes:


Where else was this proposed?



Wow, I could've bet someone with your obvious Liberal point of view would love all those places. Again, Greyhound goes there everyday. If they are so much better, why aren't you there?


Ummm yeah..... Considering NY and Washington DC are such liberal areas of the USA. :???:

As for why I'm still here?

See my previous comment.

"My excuse for being here? Well, I have a pretty cozy 8-5er that allows me to study or debate fashion/politics on IA during my downtime. I'd imagine that after I finish my associates degree then I'll probably be off to another state. New Jersey, New York, or Mass are all looking pretty promising."

[AB3dj]

Also, the "if you don't like it then leave" argument is tired. That's a really bad solution because not having people that care enough to stay and make changes is inversely related with progression. Lack of progression harvests stagnation and blah blah blah....

[Psycho]

I'm going to have to side with Jaime, just because his posts are short enough for my lazy ass to read.

[Psycho]

Well, actually, I didn't even read his posts. I just stared at the shiny car in his sig., so what ever.

[Jaimecbr900]

See my previous comment (if you aren't too lazy to read) about defining 'underwear'.

Too lazy to read? I'll let that slide since you're a dumb noob, but next time you may want to ask around about someone before you pop off your smart mouth. I can run circles around you in both reading and writing. Try me.

As for your "definition" of underwear? My 8 yr old son KNOWS what "underwear" is. Why would any prudent person need the help of either a dictionary or the Gov't to define it for them can only be because they have the IQ of spit. Is that your problem, having the IQ of spit? Ok, then.....I'll give you a simple definition if that's what you want to somehow support your idiotic stance. Here you go, according to dictionary.com:

un·der·wear http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Funderwear)/ˈʌnhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngdərˌwɛər/Show Spelled Pronunciation (http://%3cu%3e%3cfont%20color=%22/#116699)[uhn-der-wair]Show IPA Pronunciation (http://%3cu%3e%3cfont%20color=%22/#116699)
–noun clothing worn next to the skin under outer clothes.


Any more questions? Since the 1870's people have known the "definition" of what it is, why is it that over 100 yrs later idiots like yourself are questioning what it is. :rolleyes:


Are gym shorts over boxers considered underwear? You don't buy it in the same area of the store after-all but you are wearing it as an undergarment...

See definition above. If you still don't know what "underwear" is, I'll have my 8 yr old son type up something you can understand easier.


Also, it's "GREY matter". Please take a note of it so you don't make yourself look like a complete DB in your future e-battles. I'm typically not a grammar nazi but it's hard not to point out the irony of that one.

No, the actual irony is that YOU are the dumbass for trying to correct something that was correct when I typed it.

Once again, don't believe me? Here you go, Mr. Dictionary and I own you yet again:

gray1 http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Fgray)/greɪ/Show Spelled Pronunciation (http://%3cu%3e%3cfont%20color=%22/#116699)[grey]Show IPA Pronunciation (http://%3cu%3e%3cfont%20color=%22/#116699)adjective, -er, -est, noun, verb
–adjective 1.of a color between white and black; having a neutral hue. 2.dark, dismal, or gloomy: gray skies. 3.dull, dreary, or monotonous. 4.having gray hair; gray-headed. 5.pertaining to old age; mature. 6.Informal. pertaining to, involving, or composed of older persons: gray households. 7.old or ancient. 8.indeterminate and intermediate in character: The tax audit concentrated on deductions in the gray area between purely personal and purely business expenses. –noun 9.any achromatic color; any color with zero chroma, intermediate between white and black. 10.something of this color. 11.gray material or clothing: to dress in gray. 12.an unbleached and undyed condition. 13.(often initial capital letterhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) a member of the Confederate army in the American Civil War or the army itself. Compare blue (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=blue) (def. 5). 14.a horse of a gray color. 15.a horse that appears white but is not an albino. –verb (used with object), verb (used without object) 16.to make or become gray.

I even highlighted for you so you can follow along. How's that for irony for you? :rolleyes: Don't try to correct someone when they're right to begin with. Who's the dumbass now? :rolleyes:



Where else was this proposed?

Well, Atlanta may have been one of the bigger cities to propose this, but what YOU and the rest of the supporters of this gay ass movement fail to realize is that MANY areas around the country either HAVE or are about to HAVE dress codes prohibiting this. We just happen to have grabbed the limelight because Atlanta is the new Hip Hop Capital.

In Trenton, NJ, they also proposed this.
In Chicago, it's already in place in many many schools.
In Indianapolis, also in place already in schools.
In Virginia, it was proposed but failed.
In Colorado, it was proposed but failed.
In over 200 Illinois schools, there is a specific list of 120 items INCLUDING BAGGY JEANS that are prohibited.

So why is it that only Georgia gets the distinction for this? Because it sells more newspapers to blame the "Good ole boys" down south than it is to point out that WAY NORTH and WEST of the Mason Dixie line it's been going on for a long time. :rolleyes:

Any more questions, smartass?




Ummm yeah..... Considering NY and Washington DC are such liberal areas of the USA. :???:

No, you're absolutely right. NY and DC are bastions of conservatism. They created such great conservatives like Hillary Clinton and Chuck Shumer.....:rolleyes:


As for why I'm still here?

I really don't care. It's just funny that you are here, which obviously means there is something worth while here for you to be here to begin with, yet you bad mouth the place in the very next breath. That's :gay: .

[AB3dj]

Too lazy to read? I'll let that slide since you're a dumb noob, but next time you may want to ask around about someone before you pop off your smart mouth. I can run circles around you in both reading and writting. Try me.

LOL.... You have to admit that this is pretty funny.... :lmfao:



As for your "definition" of underwear? My 8 yr old son KNOWS what "underwear" is. Why would any prudent person need the help of either a dictionary or the Gov't to define it for them can only be because they have the IQ of spit. Is that your problem, having the IQ of spit? Ok, then.....I'll give you a simple definition if that's what you want to somehow support your idiotic stance. Here you go, according to dictionary.com:

un·der·wear http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Funderwear)/ˈʌnhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngdərˌwɛər/Show Spelled Pronunciation (http://%3cu%3e%3cfont%20color=%22/#116699)[uhn-der-wair]Show IPA Pronunciation (http://%3cu%3e%3cfont%20color=%22/#116699)
–noun clothing worn next to the skin under outer clothes.


Okay, so by definition then I would be able to wear gym shorts over my boxers and still sag my pants because the layer of clothing that is touching my skin is unexposed. Perfect! ;)



Any more questions? Since the 1870's people have known the "definition" of what it is, why is it that over 100 yrs later idiots like yourself are questioning what it is. :rolleyes:


I understand what most people understand as underwear. I'm looking at it from a legal standpoint. OJ got out of murder charges because a glove didn't fit. I'm pretty sure these types of issues would be brought up in court.



No, the actual irony is that YOU are the dumbass for trying to correct something that was correct when I typed it.

Once again, don't believe me? Here you go, Mr. Dictionary and I own you yet again:




Well, Atlanta may have been one of the bigger cities to propose this, but what YOU and the rest of the supporters of this gay ass movement fail to realize is that MANY areas around the country either HAVE or are about to HAVE dress codes prohibiting this. We just happen to have grabbed the limelight because Atlanta is the new Hip Hop Capital.


How am I supporter of "this movement" because I consider it a waste of time to waste tax dollars and resources towards enforcing something so petty?



In Trenton, NJ, they also proposed this.
In Chicago, it's already in place in many many schools.
In Indianapolis, also in place already in schools.
In Virginia, it was proposed but failed.
In Colorado, it was proposed but failed.
In over 200 Illinois schools, there is a specific list of 120 items INCLUDING BAGGY JEANS that are prohibited.


With the exception of Trenton, NJ the rest of the places you have mentioned are either Southern or Midwestern. A school has a right to decide whatever they want just as a courthouse or any other government establishment. A city street is different in my eyes.



So why is it that only Georgia gets the distinction for this? Because it sells more newspapers to blame the "Good ole boys" down south than it is to point out that WAY NORTH and WEST of the Mason Dixie line it's been going on for a long time. :rolleyes:


I think Atlanta gets the highlight because it started down here. It started in LA and has now moved over to GA. These laws of been proposed in CT and NJ but nothing has been done because they consider it unconstitutional and a waste of resources. I really don't think baggy pants in Atlanta is our main concern. Others may feel differently but reading through arrest reports and watching the news at 6 gives me a pretty clear idea of what is really happening.



No, you're absolutely right. NY and DC are bastions of conservatism. They created such great conservatives like Hillary Clinton and Chuck Shumer.....:rolleyes:


I'm not speaking in the traditional sense. I'm aware of the voting habits but I'm just speaking of the mindset in general. In the 80s, Manhattan was a different place. Now it's a rich man's playground. I don't pay enough attention to politics as I should but from the few articles I've read about the 2008 election then it seems that it's going to be a close race. Giuliani has something like 49% of NY's votes in the polls. I was comparing it more along the lines of New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington, etc.



I really don't care. It's just funny that you are here, which obviously means there is something worth while here for you to be here to begin with, yet you bad mouth the place in the very next breath. That's :gay: .

So because I live in GA then I'm supposed to get on my knees and blow Sonny Perdue or C.T. Martin? There are things here for me. Like I said in the last essay, Atlanta is a great city but there are some things that I don't agree with. I live in within the city-limits of Atlanta and get really annoyed with Shirley Franklin. For instance, I find it really annoying that her solution for too much crime in Buckhead is to close everything down earlier like crime doesn't happen at 9pm or 8:30am. I'm scared ****less to drink the water here because it's so contaminated. The cops.... well that's a whole new rant. At the end of the day, these things aren't going to make me move to Woodstock or Canton. I'll deal with it, vote, and voice my opinion when the time comes.

[R3RUN]

To be quite honest, if the way people wear their clothes bothers you this much I think you have other issues to work out. Get over it, really its not that big of a deal. Would you support a law saying that you can't go out in public unless you are wearing a polo? Who gives a **** if somebody wants to wear their pants low, as long as they aren't flailing their genitalia around in public I don't see a problem with it. Sure its not the way I choose to wear my clothes, but that gives me no right whatsoever to pass a law saying its wrong. This kind of legislation is a waste of time and money, time and money that could go towards something useful like fixing our terrible education system or hiring more police officers.

[blacknightteg]

AMERICA = ****ED UP and DOWN THE DRAIN

[thinkfast®]

mexicans been wearing D.ickies for years, not because it was cool to wear, but because they was cheap and lasted a loooong time. over the past few years now you see rappers all in the videos and all these other wannabes wearin em like its the new fashion statement.. lol @ these posers

847s for life!

[DrivenMind]

Everytime I see a wigger it makes me sick.

No ****, I just pull out my 92FS and put it to my temple until the Wigerstorm passes.

My favorite ones are the ones that come from a $200,000 home, and want to tell you about how ghetto their life is in East Cobb, or Ackworth. Are YOU ****ING KIDDING ME?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Just because you smoke weed, and drink beer doesn't mean your a ****ing gangster ***** boy.

akndsfgkanfdsgkasfngasgogjinepifg

[pontiacsftw]

i lke metal and i sag my pants but only like 2 inches or so...

[thinkfast®]

cmon man everybody knows if you wanna be a real gangster its 4"+

[man]

With the exception of Trenton, NJ the rest of the places you have mentioned are either Southern or Midwestern. A school has a right to decide whatever they want just as a courthouse or any other government establishment. A city street is different in my eyes.

A city is a government establishment, as is a city street.

[Jaimecbr900]

Okay, so by definition then I would be able to wear gym shorts over my boxers and still sag my pants because the layer of clothing that is touching my skin is unexposed. Perfect! ;)

If you want to split hairs, then yes. But this is not about splitting hairs, in my view. It is about guys that wear pants that are 10 sizes too big, and the belt line of the pants is worn BELOW their butt cheeks walking down the street. At a club or party, go for it. But when you have to HOLD up your pants with one hand or they'll fall to the ground, it stops being a "fashion" statement and starts being a nuisance.

I like listening to music really loud. My neighbor doesn't. Who has more right to their opinion than the other? That's why there are noise ordinance laws. Same issue here. Noone is suggesting the banning of pants all together. Noone is suggesting the banning of sizes of pants. The suggestion is that if you can see someone's UNDERwear out in public, that should be the line where "fashion" ends and indecency begins. Why is that so hard to comprehend? It's a compromise, not a command. You can wear all the clothes you want, the size you want, the way you want.....just don't show your UNDERwear out in PUBLIC. Why is that so hard to do? 99.999% of the people do it every single day without a problem, right? So why is it that .00001% of the population gets to impose their way onto 99.999% of everyone else?


I understand what most people understand as underwear. I'm looking at it from a legal standpoint. OJ got out of murder charges because a glove didn't fit. I'm pretty sure these types of issues would be brought up in court.

OJ got off, not because he didn't do it, but because his money bought him a much better defense team than there was a prosecution team. Doesn't make him any less a murderer, does it? In the "eyes of the law" maybe, but not in reality. The only reason this proposal has not taken off is because there were too many unnecessary variables, like bras, that muddied the waters.


How am I supporter of "this movement" because I consider it a waste of time to waste tax dollars and resources towards enforcing something so petty?

I'll bite. Exactly what "tax dollars" and "resources" would the implementation of this proposal waste?



With the exception of Trenton, NJ the rest of the places you have mentioned are either Southern or Midwestern. A school has a right to decide whatever they want just as a courthouse or any other government establishment. A city street is different in my eyes.

You're not serious, are you? Gee, I wonder just WHO it is that runs our public schools systems? The Gov't perhaps? :rolleyes:




I think Atlanta gets the highlight because it started down here. It started in LA and has now moved over to GA.

Huh? You were correcting my English and Grammar? Ok. :goodjob: :rolleyes:




I'm not speaking in the traditional sense. I'm aware of the voting habits but I'm just speaking of the mindset in general. In the 80s, Manhattan was a different place. Now it's a rich man's playground. I don't pay enough attention to politics

Umm, again......Okie dokie :goodjob:

[Jaimecbr900]

To be quite honest, if the way people wear their clothes bothers you this much I think you have other issues to work out.

Like what, Mr. Psychologist? :rolleyes:

I have no issues with how or why or what or where you wear your clothes. I could seriously care less. You can wear a pair of pants on your head and walk down the street yelling Bible verses and singing "cumba ya". I really honestly don't care about that. What I do mind and think is ridiculous is a guy walking down the same street with his pants down below his butt showing everybody, including children present, their UNDERwear. I don't care what you wear in your house, your yard, your party, your club, whatever. Your business, your style. But out in public, especially when children are present, it is unnecessary to be indecent.

Listen, I love looking a beautiful woman naked. I'm a man, right? Does that mean that since that's what I like that I can suddenly move that from my bedroom to middle of anystreet U.S.A.? I see nothing wrong with it. It's just a beautiful woman. 99.9% of men standing around would agree there's nothing really wrong with it. So what would be the big deal about that? The Constitution protects nudist, right? So why can't I just endulge myself anytime and more importantly anyWHERE I feel like? I wouldn't be "hurting" anybody? It's just my way of "expressing" my inner wants and desires. It's my style. What's the difference between that and showing your UNDERwear in public? If YOU had children, would YOU want them to be walking down the street minding their own business and suddenly cut the corner to find two people screwing on the sidewalk? Why not? It is perfectly "legal" to have sex, right? It is perfectly "legal" to say you're doing that as a form of protest or because it's your "style". Why not?


Get over it, really its not that big of a deal.

That's always the answer when you can't support your stance...."get over it". :rolleyes:



Would you support a law saying that you can't go out in public unless you are wearing a polo?

Point out exactly where in the proposal it dictates a brand of clothing. It actually has nothing to do with the pants themselves and everything to do with UNDERwear.

[AB3dj]

If you want to split hairs, then yes. But this is not about splitting hairs, in my view. It is about guys that wear pants that are 10 sizes too big, and the belt line of the pants is worn BELOW their butt cheeks walking down the street. At a club or party, go for it. But when you have to HOLD up your pants with one hand or they'll fall to the ground, it stops being a "fashion" statement and starts being a nuisance.

I like listening to music really loud. My neighbor doesn't. Who has more right to their opinion than the other? That's why there are noise ordinance laws. Same issue here. Noone is suggesting the banning of pants all together. Noone is suggesting the banning of sizes of pants. The suggestion is that if you can see someone's UNDERwear out in public, that should be the line where "fashion" ends and indecency begins. Why is that so hard to comprehend? It's a compromise, not a command. You can wear all the clothes you want, the size you want, the way you want.....just don't show your UNDERwear out in PUBLIC. Why is that so hard to do? 99.999% of the people do it every single day without a problem, right? So why is it that .00001% of the population gets to impose their way onto 99.999% of everyone else?



OJ got off, not because he didn't do it, but because his money bought him a much better defense team than there was a prosecution team. Doesn't make him any less a murderer, does it? In the "eyes of the law" maybe, but not in reality. The only reason this proposal has not taken off is because there were too many unnecessary variables, like bras, that muddied the waters.

Splitting hairs is what lawyers do. If a government wants to initiate a law then they might want to consider specifying what exactly they're trying to outlaw.



I'll bite. Exactly what "tax dollars" and "resources" would the implementation of this proposal waste?

A law doesn't become a law in a day. How many days do you think this has been debated? Since we're the ones paying the government officials' paychecks then I would assume it's safe to say that we are paying for every discussion they have about every initiative. On top of that you have the actual police officers that are out enforcing it. All of that combined is time and resources. I'd much rather our congressmen debate more serious topics than a dress-code.



You're not serious, are you? Gee, I wonder just WHO it is that runs our public schools systems? The Gov't perhaps? :rolleyes:


Of course but there also certain rules in schools such as "no chewing gum, no cell-phones, and no tardiness". A school is a system that is filled with minors therefore it's a whole different ballgame. A city street is public for anyone therefore it would be unconstitutional to implement a dress-code. As long as you're not showing your bare ass or crotch then it's fair game.




Huh? You were correcting my English and Grammar? Ok. :goodjob: :rolleyes:


Oh I'm sorry. I forgot your ability to run circles around me in both reading and writting.



Umm, again......Okie dokie :goodjob:

And? You don't have to watch MSNBC daily to know that NY typically votes democratic. ??? Weak.

[AB3dj]

Point out exactly where in the proposal it dictates a brand of clothing. It actually has nothing to do with the pants themselves and everything to do with UNDERwear.

Do you get offended when women wear bikinis on the beach? :???:

[Jaimecbr900]

Splitting hairs is what lawyers do. If a government wants to initiate a law then they might want to consider specifying what exactly they're trying to outlaw.

And you got your law degree from where exactly? :thinking:

They were trying to do that exact thing until all the liberal cry babies jumped on the "it's unconstitutional" bandwagon. Their definition was going to be pretty clear and defined. It never got to go that far.



A law doesn't become a law in a day. How many days do you think this has been debated? Since we're the ones paying the government officials' paychecks then I would assume it's safe to say that we are paying for every discussion they have about every initiative. On top of that you have the actual police officers that are out enforcing it. All of that combined is time and resources. I'd much rather our congressmen debate more serious topics than a dress-code.

Since when do we always agree that our representatives are being efficient in either looking out for OUR best interest or being frugal with their time? I don't, do you? You do know there are filibusters in Washington every day that range from cow farts to continuing to give away millions of dollars every day to undeserving people? How's this any different? We could always find something better to argue about. Same stuff, different channel.



A city street is public for anyone therefore it would be unconstitutional to implement a dress-code. As long as you're not showing your bare ass or crotch then it's fair game.


So if the nudists suddenly rose up and demanded, based on the Constitutional right to free speech, that they be allowed to run around in public nude it would be OK with you? After all, they have the same rights everyone else do. Why wouldn't that be OK?



And? You don't have to watch MSNBC daily to know that NY typically votes democratic. ??? Weak.

Again, digging the hole deeper for yourself. So in your point of view "Democratic" equals conservatism? In what PLANET? :rolleyes:

[Jaimecbr900]

Do you get offended when women wear bikinis on the beach? :???:

Find where "bikinis" are considered as UNDERwear for me. :goodjob:

[R3RUN]

I'm no psychologist but I would call it, being oversensitive about something that is not a big deal. I understand that you don't want your kids seeing it but theres alot of things in this world you don't want them to see that they are going to see. This is hardly one of them that deserves a law to be passed.


let the girls show their thongs, but make the guys pull up their pants.....:goodjob:
So this is okay for young kids to see but not some guys boxers. That seems right :no: You killed your entire argument as soon as you said that. Sarcastic or not.



Listen, I love looking a beautiful woman naked. I'm a man, right? Does that mean that since that's what I like that I can suddenly move that from my bedroom to middle of anystreet U.S.A.? I see nothing wrong with it. It's just a beautiful woman. 99.9% of men standing around would agree there's nothing really wrong with it. So what would be the big deal about that? The Constitution protects nudist, right? So why can't I just endulge myself anytime and more importantly anyWHERE I feel like? I wouldn't be "hurting" anybody? It's just my way of "expressing" my inner wants and desires. It's my style. What's the difference between that and showing your UNDERwear in public? If YOU had children, would YOU want them to be walking down the street minding their own business and suddenly cut the corner to find two people screwing on the sidewalk? Why not? It is perfectly "legal" to have sex, right? It is perfectly "legal" to say you're doing that as a form of protest or because it's your "style". Why not?


Thats a completely different situation. Some guy showing his boxers is not even in the same realm of two people having sex on a sidewalk. If you think it is the same then you have some seriously strange values. Going by what your saying, perhaps we should outlaw short skirts, tube tops, and shorts. God forbid kids have to learn about human physiology.

[R3RUN]

I'll bite. Exactly what "tax dollars" and "resources" would the implementation of this proposal waste?
How about precious court time and money. Judges, DAs, Guards, and all of the other employees of the court aren't free. And in current times with all of the frivolous lawsuits that are brought in court we really don't need any petty dress codes taking up court time.

[Jaimecbr900]

I'm no psychologist but I would call it, being oversensitive about something that is not a big deal. I understand that you don't want your kids seeing it but theres alot of things in this world you don't want them to see that they are going to see. This is hardly one of them that deserves a law to be passed.


So this is okay for young kids to see but not some guys boxers. That seems right :no: You killed your entire argument as soon as you said that. Sarcastic or not.



Thats a completely different situation. Some guy showing his boxers is not even in the same realm of two people having sex on a sidewalk. If you think it is the same then you have some seriously strange values. Going by what your saying, perhaps we should outlaw short skirts, tube tops, and shorts. God forbid kids have to learn about human physiology.

Judging by your comments, you totally missed my points.

If it's so much an issue to "defend", why not "defend" the right to be nude in public IF this is truly a "constitutional" thing? I used the example of nudity to prove a point, not a factual representation of what I want. My point is WHERE does it end? It starts with something that seems benign, yet leads to something much more difficult to control. You either want to defend the constitution against SOME things or do you defend it against ALL things? Seems like all of you are saying that it's no big deal to wear your pants where your UNDERwear hangs out, yet it's not permissable to be naked. Why is that?

[Jaimecbr900]

How about precious court time and money. Judges, DAs, Guards, and all of the other employees of the court aren't free. And in current times with all of the frivolous lawsuits that are brought in court we really don't need any petty dress codes taking up court time.

While I agree with you about frivolous lawsuits, it is the same thing someone could say about any small charge like disturbing the peace. Sometimes people get charged that for doing miniscule things. Right?

[R3RUN]

Seems like all of you are saying that it's no big deal to wear your pants where your UNDERwear hangs out, yet it's not permissable to be naked. Why is that?
There is a big difference between not being covered at all and having just one layer of clothing on. Going by your logic should we not also require people to wear more than one shirt.

[AB3dj]

And you got your law degree from where exactly? :thinking:

Ah, so one has to go through law school to understand these concepts... I get it... :-/



Since when do we always agree that our representatives are being efficient in either looking out for OUR best interest or being frugal with their time? I don't, do you?

Not at all but that doesn't mean I'm going to just throw in the towel and accept it.



So if the nudists suddenly rose up and demanded, based on the Constitutional right to free speech, that they be allowed to run around in public nude it would be OK with you? After all, they have the same rights everyone else do. Why wouldn't that be OK?

How is that the same? Does underwear = genitalia? This isn't censored from any local or network tv station so what is the big deal?



Again, digging the hole deeper for yourself. So in your point of view "Democratic" equals conservatism? In what PLANET? :rolleyes:

A republican has 49% of the votes in the polls so far. California is considered very liberal yet they have a republican governing it.

[Jaimecbr900]

Ah, so one has to go through law school to understand these concepts... I get it... :-/

You're the one that mentioned what "lawyers" do. Don't complain now.



How is that the same? Does underwear = genitalia? This isn't censored from any local or network tv station so what is the big deal?

What's not censored? :thinking:



A republican has 49% of the votes in the polls so far. California is considered very liberal yet they have a republican governing it.

Yep, and POLLS are always 100% accurate and are used to elect politicians. :goodjob: Who cares? There are 50 million "polls" that also show NY AND California as being ultra liberal too. Are you going to take those into consideration too since "polls" are sooooo important? :rolleyes:

[AB3dj]

What's not censored? :thinking:

Exposed underwear is not censored. Have you ever taken a look through a Macy's or VS catalog? It's an outrage! :gay:

[Tracy]

bump for on Dr. Phil today.

[TheGodfather]

bump for on Dr. Phil today.

Yeah my mom is watching that right now.

WTF is what I say. That's communist.

This is America, people can wear whatever the **** they want.

I say ban fat chicks from wearing tight clothes too then.

[Tracy]

Yeah my mom is watching that right now.

WTF is what I say. That's communist.

This is America, people can wear whatever the **** they want.

I say ban fat chicks from wearing tight clothes too then.tr00. do we agree??? this can't be :???:

[JustinSane110™]

bump for on Dr. Phil today.
Dammit, got me sittin here clickin the link on the first page wondering why the page won't come up... All cuz Tracy busted out the shovel and is digging up old ass threads. :lmfao:

[Bruce Leroy]

Its on DR. Phill right now... I can't believe they have one of the Ying Yang Twins on there.. lol!!!

[GaGen2Teg]

both of them were on it

[TheGodfather]

tr00. do we agree??? this can't be :???:

Hahah. This is amazing.

[BABY J]

Hmmmm....

You tell me how you vote on this one...

http://newsone.blackplanet.com/nation/video-cop-arrests-teen-for-sagging-pants-then-assaults-him/

[BABY J]

Slick slope for sure...