Agreed. I work at a university; I find myself staring and wondering how the hell they walk w/out their jeans falling down.... I mean, seriously, they're well below their butts!flipflopgirl wrote:VanillaGrl wrote:I, personally, think the look is ridiculous...
but the law against it, I think, is even more ridiculous. ..geeeez...there are bigger issues out there.
YUP and YUP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well said KK!!!!!![]()
Saggy pants law unconstitutional
Moderator: SMLCHNG
-
comemonday
- License to Chill
- Posts: 1142
- Joined: March 26, 2004 2:58 pm
- Number of Concerts: 25
- Location: Pittsburgh-ish
-
HockeyParrotHead
- Behind Door #3
- Posts: 3497
- Joined: January 29, 2002 7:00 pm
- Number of Concerts: 20
-
ph4ever
- Last Man Standing
- Posts: 50507
- Joined: July 31, 2002 1:26 pm
- Favorite Buffett Song: CILCIA or OPH
- Number of Concerts: 299
- Favorite Boat Drink: Rhum with my Chum or beer
- Location: Home in the GREAT state of Texas!
- Contact:
that is what this thread is about I guess I was confused by your interest because of your initial post which read.drunkpirate66 wrote:I obviously have much interest in this thread. What I don't have interest in is the clothes other people choose to wear. My interest lies in the fact that people actually feel the need for Constitutional Intervention over clothes when there are so many other issues that are actually important. They are just clothes. My exact quote above is "clothes are at the bottom of my list of important issues" and that I don't think "clothes define who are what we are" . . . it is amazing to me that people actually find this a "Constitutional" Related issue - that is where my interest lies and I thought that is what this thread is about.ph4ever wrote:I was wondering the same thing. For the life of me I don't understand why people post in threads that are no interest to them. I often wonder if it's just to start trouble.TommyBahama wrote:Then why are you here answering to this thread????drunkpirate66 wrote:for the entire nation I bet my estimate is close . . . this is such a stupid issue that does not matter to over 99% of people - - - IMO. Of all the things to focus on, clothes are at the bottom of my list of important issues. They do not define who we are and what we are.TommyBahama wrote:depends on which end of Boston you're in!!....i'd say the percentages are a lot higher here....sad but true!!drunkpirate66 wrote:
High school/ Junior High kids who do this would equal about 1% of 1% of people in this country if not less (like I said) . . . and I am in Boston right now thank you very much . . .
My apologies for confusion as I thought you originally statement indicated you had no interest to begin withdrunkpirate66 wrote:I can't think of anything more boring then talking about clothes. Like they matter . . . they don't.
Unfortunately there are at least 8 states that have either cities or counties that have enacted such a ban. I don't agree with a city or county telling someone what to wear however I do believe that a school does have the right to impose dress codes in it's classrooms. I also believe that an employer has the right to define what is acceptable to wear while at work.
Well...(said in my best Bubba voice) I've been on sabbatical.
-
drunkpirate66
- Here We Are
- Posts: 9037
- Joined: May 13, 2005 12:25 pm
- Favorite Buffett Song: Take Another Road
- Number of Concerts: 67
- Favorite Boat Drink: Beers.
- Location: Chicken Box, Out On Nantucket Island
that is what this thread is about I guess I was confused by your interest because of your initial post which read.ph4ever wrote:I obviously have much interest in this thread. What I don't have interest in is the clothes other people choose to wear. My interest lies in the fact that people actually feel the need for Constitutional Intervention over clothes when there are so many other issues that are actually important. They are just clothes. My exact quote above is "clothes are at the bottom of my list of important issues" and that I don't think "clothes define who are what we are" . . . it is amazing to me that people actually find this a "Constitutional" Related issue - that is where my interest lies and I thought that is what this thread is about.drunkpirate66 wrote:I was wondering the same thing. For the life of me I don't understand why people post in threads that are no interest to them. I often wonder if it's just to start trouble.ph4ever wrote:Then why are you here answering to this thread????TommyBahama wrote:for the entire nation I bet my estimate is close . . . this is such a stupid issue that does not matter to over 99% of people - - - IMO. Of all the things to focus on, clothes are at the bottom of my list of important issues. They do not define who we are and what we are.drunkpirate66 wrote:depends on which end of Boston you're in!!....i'd say the percentages are a lot higher here....sad but true!!TommyBahama wrote:
High school/ Junior High kids who do this would equal about 1% of 1% of people in this country if not less (like I said) . . . and I am in Boston right now thank you very much . . .
My apologies for confusion as I thought you originally statement indicated you had no interest to begin withdrunkpirate66 wrote:I can't think of anything more boring then talking about clothes. Like they matter . . . they don't.
Unfortunately there are at least 8 states that have either cities or counties that have enacted such a ban. I don't agree with a city or county telling someone what to wear however I do believe that a school does have the right to impose dress codes in it's classrooms. I also believe that an employer has the right to define what is acceptable to wear while at work.[/quote]
Oh yeah . . . all that is fine. But when some one or many someones feel the need to enact constitutional intervention over what people wear I find that a bit much. Cloth and thread to keep us warm and covered should not have such power or influence.
the hit and run is as good as any religion around this time of year . . .
-
alaura1974
- I Love the Now!
- Posts: 1880
- Joined: February 29, 2008 2:04 pm
- Favorite Buffett Song: Depends on the day!
- Number of Concerts: 15
- Favorite Boat Drink: Rum, Pama in diet squirt
- Contact:
-
alaura1974
- I Love the Now!
- Posts: 1880
- Joined: February 29, 2008 2:04 pm
- Favorite Buffett Song: Depends on the day!
- Number of Concerts: 15
- Favorite Boat Drink: Rum, Pama in diet squirt
- Contact:
I think that guy was in my office today.........LIPH wrote:just remember - crack kills
I see that a few times a week.
And you know that they know..... there has to be at least a draft on their a$$.
I dont know if the pants falling off with the sideways hat walking like they have a limp is more obnoxious, or the guy who doesnt realize that crack kills...............
has anyone seen the Onion Movie??

-
alaura1974
- I Love the Now!
- Posts: 1880
- Joined: February 29, 2008 2:04 pm
- Favorite Buffett Song: Depends on the day!
- Number of Concerts: 15
- Favorite Boat Drink: Rum, Pama in diet squirt
- Contact:
ok, I know that it is rediculus to have a law against falling down pants......... but.......... did you know that in Alaska it is illegal to look at a Moose from an airplane??
http://www.strangefacts.com/laws.html
So, if the worst we have is asking someone to pull up their obnoxious pants, then that isnt so bad!!!
shouldnt wearing pants that actually FIT be as obvious as this???
In New York, it is against the law for a blind person to drive an automobile
http://www.strangefacts.com/laws.html
So, if the worst we have is asking someone to pull up their obnoxious pants, then that isnt so bad!!!
shouldnt wearing pants that actually FIT be as obvious as this???
In New York, it is against the law for a blind person to drive an automobile

-
Wino you know
- God's Own Drunk
- Posts: 21467
- Joined: February 5, 2002 7:00 pm
- Favorite Buffett Song: Far Side of the World & Somewhere Over China
- Number of Concerts: 105
- Favorite Boat Drink: Beaujalais Villages French Burgundy
- Location: Plowin' straight ahead, come what may
-
alaura1974
- I Love the Now!
- Posts: 1880
- Joined: February 29, 2008 2:04 pm
- Favorite Buffett Song: Depends on the day!
- Number of Concerts: 15
- Favorite Boat Drink: Rum, Pama in diet squirt
- Contact:
hmmmmm...... lets agree to disagree?? but....... you really do agree.....Wino you know wrote:In Iowa, you cannot dissolve a marriage due to irreconcilable differences unless both parties agree to it.alaura1974 wrote:In New York, it is against the law for a blind person to drive an automobile
lol~~
I remember someone posting something awhile ago about a new state law (cant remember what state it was...) that made it a law that you couldnt have sex with a deceased person........
arent there just some things that there really shouldnt have to be laws against??? where did common sense go??

-
alaura1974
- I Love the Now!
- Posts: 1880
- Joined: February 29, 2008 2:04 pm
- Favorite Buffett Song: Depends on the day!
- Number of Concerts: 15
- Favorite Boat Drink: Rum, Pama in diet squirt
- Contact:




