Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-08-2013, 06:43 AM
 
Location: USA
6,227 posts, read 6,960,919 times
Reputation: 10789

Advertisements

I thought those saggy baggy pants went out of style long ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-08-2013, 06:43 AM
 
Location: The West
349 posts, read 424,611 times
Reputation: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Roma View Post
Yep. It's a slippery slope. Would a city or town be able to ban burqas?
If that were to happen, they would be called racist and there would be outrage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2013, 06:55 AM
 
215 posts, read 298,812 times
Reputation: 229
It seems to me that the law of "indecent exposure" would include sagging pants and showing underwear, so there should be no need for a separate law or statute or ordinance.

If a 60-year-old white man was walking around with his pants around his knees, exposing his underwear, he would be arrested for indecent exposure or "flashing."

Blacks will sue for discrimination, and they will win. They sue when they can prove that laws target them as a racial or ethnic group.

For example, employers have tried to ban cornrows or that Rastafarian hair style that some blacks like to wear, due to safety or health regulations in the workplace. Dreadlocks are difficult to place in a hat or cap, which may be part of a required uniform. Blacks have sued and won when they are required to meet the same generic standards as others.

Not only that, but blacks will be encouraged by lawyers and The Revs to bait the authorities and businesses by purposely sagging their pants, just so they can turn around and sue and win The Ghetto Lottery.

Last edited by curly_Q; 09-08-2013 at 07:33 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2013, 07:01 AM
 
Location: USA
13,255 posts, read 12,183,473 times
Reputation: 4228
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310 View Post
Then the residents should be able to sue over having to see someones ass peeking out of the their baggy pants. Its called acting in a civilized manner. No one likes to see someone's drawers or ass.
Speak for yourself
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2013, 07:01 AM
 
Location: The West
349 posts, read 424,611 times
Reputation: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by curly_Q View Post
It seems to me that the law of "indecent exposure" would include sagging pants and showing underwear, so there should be need for a separate law or statute or ordinance.

If a 60-year-old white man was walking around with his pants around his knees, exposing his underwear, he would be arrested for indecent exposure or "flashing."

Blacks will sue for discrimination, and they will win. They sue when they can prove that laws target them as a racial or ethnic group.

For example, employers have tried to ban cornrows or that Rastafarian hair style that some blacks like to wear, due to safety or health regulations in the workplace. Dreadlocks are difficult to place in a hat or cap, which may be part of a required uniform. Blacks have sued and won when they are required to meet the same generic standards as others.

Not only that, but blacks will be encouraged by lawyers and The Revs to bait the authorities and businesses by purposely sagging their pants, just so they can turn around and sue and win The Ghetto Lottery.
Your first post ITT is based on race. sigh..

Yea, blacks are the only group of people who sag their pants. I mean no other group of young men walk around like morons imitating black rap stars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2013, 07:03 AM
 
Location: USA
13,255 posts, read 12,183,473 times
Reputation: 4228
Quote:
Originally Posted by curly_Q View Post
It seems to me that the law of "indecent exposure" would include sagging pants and showing underwear, so there should be need for a separate law or statute or ordinance.

If a 60-year-old white man was walking around with his pants around his knees, exposing his underwear, he would be arrested for indecent exposure or "flashing."

Blacks will sue for discrimination, and they will win. They sue when they can prove that laws target them as a racial or ethnic group.

For example, employers have tried to ban cornrows or that Rastafarian hair style that some blacks like to wear, due to safety or health regulations in the workplace. Dreadlocks are difficult to place in a hat or cap, which may be part of a required uniform. Blacks have sued and won when they are required to meet the same generic standards as others.

Not only that, but blacks will be encouraged by lawyers and The Revs to bait the authorities and businesses by purposely sagging their pants, just so they can turn around and sue and win The Ghetto Lottery.

What about cleavage?

What's different between an a*s crack and cleavage?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2013, 07:11 AM
 
Location: The West
349 posts, read 424,611 times
Reputation: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe View Post
What about cleavage?

What's different between an a*s crack and cleavage?
True.

In that respect, I also want cleavage banned. I find it irritating to look at nasty fat women wearing shorts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2013, 07:11 AM
 
Location: texas
9,127 posts, read 7,977,141 times
Reputation: 2385
..."blacks will sue".

Is Justin bieber black? will he sue if he can't show his underwear?

No he's a fine young lad...not like those thugs.


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2013, 07:39 AM
 
215 posts, read 298,812 times
Reputation: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimuelojones View Post
..."blacks will sue".

Is Justin bieber black? will he sue if he can't show his underwear?

No he's a fine young lad...not like those thugs.

Yes. Exactly. Whites sag their pants, too.

However, blacks who sag their pants and are reprimanded for it by the authorities will find a way to sue based on their race. They will say that "sagging" pants is a style of urban hip-hop clothing attire, favored by young black males. They will claim the ordinance is unfairly targeting young black males.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2013, 07:42 AM
 
Location: Minnysoda
10,650 posts, read 10,783,156 times
Reputation: 6745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimuelojones View Post
I hope the residents of Pennis Grove are ready to fund lawsuits defending these crazy laws.
That's right! If some punk wants to wear his pants around his ankles to advertise that he is willing to take it in the kister cheap just let him!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:28 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top