Bill sets fine for low-riding pants

a1aara · Post by **a1aara** » February 9, 2005 1:44 pm

Bill sets fine for low-riding pants
Wednesday, February 9, 2005 Posted: 10:04 AM EST (1504 GMT)

Showing undies could cost Virginians $50.
Image:

RICHMOND, Virginia (AP) -- Virginians who wear their pants so low their underwear shows may want to think about investing in a stronger belt.

The state's House of Delegates passed a bill Tuesday authorizing a $50 fine for anyone who displays his or her underpants in a "lewd or indecent manner."

Del. Lionell Spruill Sr., a Democrat who opposed the bill, had pleaded with his colleagues to remember their own youthful fashion follies.

During an extended monologue Monday, he talked about how they dressed or wore their hair in their teens. On Tuesday, he said the measure was an unconstitutional attack on young blacks that would force parents to take off work to accompany their children to court just for making a fashion statement.

"This is a foolish bill, Mr. Speaker, because it will hurt so many," Spruill said before the measure was approved 60-34. It now goes to the state Senate.

The bill's sponsor, Del. Algie T. Howell, has said constituents were offended by the exposed underwear. He did not speak on the floor Tuesday.

Spruill and Howell, also a Democrat, are both black.

rednekkPH · Post by **rednekkPH** » February 9, 2005 1:47 pm

Personally, I think women should be fined $50 for not showing a little thong sticking out from the top of their jeans. As for the guys who let 8" of their boxers hang out...they should just be shot on sight.

ragtopW · Post by **ragtopW** » February 9, 2005 1:48 pm

on one hand

on the other hand maybe we could just make it OK if a
cop just walks up and slaps them on the back of the head.

st.somewhere · Post by **st.somewhere** » February 9, 2005 1:51 pm

This country is f*cked up...

Do we really want to ban this?

land_shark3 · Post by **land_shark3** » February 9, 2005 1:52 pm

ragtopW wrote:on the other hand maybe we could just make it OK if a
cop just walks up and slaps them on the a$$.

I like your thinking. I've been looking to get into law enforecement.

nycparrothead · Post by **nycparrothead** » February 9, 2005 1:53 pm

Fur Play isn't gonna like this one!

ragtopW · Post by **ragtopW** » February 9, 2005 1:57 pm

land_shark3 wrote:
ragtopW wrote:on the other hand maybe we could just make it OK if a
cop just walks up and slaps them on the a$$.
I like your thinking. I've been looking to get into law enforecement.

OH they don't just mean the Guys??????

I'm all for the girls playing hide and seek..
but the lil gang bangers/wannabes Frank is right.

LIPH · Post by **LIPH** » February 9, 2005 2:04 pm

st.somewhere wrote:This country is f*cked up... Do we really want to ban this?

I think what they're looking to ban is the Rosie O'Donnell-size bodies squeezed into Heidi Klum-size clothes. But then those thongs probably started out as grandma panties.

Tiki Bar · Post by **Tiki Bar** » February 9, 2005 2:04 pm

"On Tuesday, he said the measure was an unconstitutional attack on young blacks that would force parents to take off work to accompany their children to court just for making a fashion statement."

This is a strange argument to me, cuz round these parts, it's a fashion statement that crosses all racial boundaries. Maybe it's different in VA.

a1aara · Post by **a1aara** » February 9, 2005 2:10 pm

Remember this is the Bible belt. Right wing religous wackos with too much free time on their hands.

LIPH · Post by **LIPH** » February 9, 2005 2:15 pm

The bill's sponsor, Del. Algie T. Howell, has said constituents were offended by the exposed underwear. He did not speak on the floor Tuesday.

Spruill and Howell, also a Democrat, are both black.

a1aara wrote:Remember this is the Bible belt. Right wing religous wackos with too much free time on their hands.

So old Algie is a right wing religious wacko?

rednekkPH · Post by **rednekkPH** » February 9, 2005 2:17 pm

The bill's sponsor, Del. Algie T. Howell, has said constituents were offended by the exposed underwear.

Damn, and I thought I took some pointless, bullsh*t complaints in here. I pity his staffers if this is the issue du jour down there...

creeky · Post by **creeky** » February 9, 2005 2:19 pm

It should be a law at our football games here ... nothing worst than sitting down and the young girl that sits on the grass in front of you, sits down and "shows all" with the low low cut jeans and g-string - you unfortunately get to see more than just those two things - and I pay money to see men running around playing football - not a females butt

(and that VA story did make the news here last night!)

rednekkPH · Post by **rednekkPH** » February 9, 2005 2:21 pm

creeky wrote:It should be a law at our football games here ... nothing worst than sitting down and the young girl that sits on the grass in front of you, sits down and "shows all" with the low low cut jeans and g-string

Funny, alot of us would say "nothing better".

creeky · Post by **creeky** » February 9, 2005 2:23 pm

rednekkPH wrote:
creeky wrote:It should be a law at our football games here ... nothing worst than sitting down and the young girl that sits on the grass in front of you, sits down and "shows all" with the low low cut jeans and g-string
Funny, alot of us would say "nothing better".

I dont know you would say the same thing if it were a guy

a1aara · Post by **a1aara** » February 9, 2005 2:24 pm

LIPH wrote:
The bill's sponsor, Del. Algie T. Howell, has said constituents were offended by the exposed underwear. He did not speak on the floor Tuesday.

Spruill and Howell, also a Democrat, are both black.

a1aara wrote:Remember this is the Bible belt. Right wing religous wackos with too much free time on their hands.
So old Algie is a right wing religious wacko?

Old Algie may or may not be, but I would guess his constituents are.

rednekkPH · Post by **rednekkPH** » February 9, 2005 2:33 pm

creeky wrote:
rednekkPH wrote:
creeky wrote:It should be a law at our football games here ... nothing worst than sitting down and the young girl that sits on the grass in front of you, sits down and "shows all" with the low low cut jeans and g-string
Funny, alot of us would say "nothing better".
I dont know you would say the same thing if it were a guy

Of course not! Like I said earlier...guys doing such things should be shot on sight.

LIPH · Post by **LIPH** » February 9, 2005 2:34 pm

I'd like to see a black Democrat get elected in a district full of right wing religious wackos. Isn't the stereotype of the religious right "angry white men"?

a1aara · Post by **a1aara** » February 9, 2005 2:38 pm

LIPH wrote:I'd like to see a black Democrat get elected in a district full of right wing religious wackos. Isn't the stereotype of the religious right "angry white men"?

I never associated race with being a right wing religous wacko. Or gender. I didn't know that you had to be white or a man? I

rednekkPH · Post by **rednekkPH** » February 9, 2005 2:39 pm

LIPH wrote:I'd like to see a black Democrat get elected in a district full of right wing religious wackos. Isn't the stereotype of the religious right "angry white men"?

I tend to agree here. However, if the constituents are not religious wackos, then they definitely have WAY too much time on their hands, and/or a complete lack of real problems in their lives.