SAY GOODBYE YOU BAGGY PANTSED FAGGOTS...

[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 .

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 .

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.

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....

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.....

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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....

"Enforcing all the gang violence as a whole..." Umm, WHAT???? 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]

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.

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.

[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....

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..

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.....

[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.....

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 PANTS

Why 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 appropriate

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.

[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? 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.