Virginia Saying No To Crack

*KROW* · 02-09-2005, 11:21 AM

RICHMOND, Va. - 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.

=================

I'd like to know what they plan to do about the situations at the Virginia beaches. What'll happen if a girl in a two-piece swimsuit puts shorts on and walks over to get a drink, and those shorts happen to slip down slightly to reveal her bikini? Would the same rule apply?

Is it really worth a fine if someone doesn't hike up their Levis?

What of the plumber's union?

*Anarky* · 02-09-2005, 11:46 AM

Oh, man, that is just plain silly... thanks for telling me. I will watch my butt whenever I'm in Virginia.

02-09-2005, 11:53 AM

Yes, I find that silly too...

Everyone has a right to express them selves. It's a free right! No one should take that right away...

However, I'm not saying that I like that style that some guys do... I think they look goofy with their pants so low. I lightly laugh when I see a guy with his pants down like that...

愛 · 02-09-2005, 12:04 PM

Even if you have freedom of expression or whatever, that sh*t is just intolerable. It's downright repulsive. I say good for Virgina. Get these idiots to stop that gay stuff.

*Anarky* · 02-09-2005, 01:23 PM

"That gay stuff"? Ai, come on, Gay people are the same as heterosexuals... and some people not showing off their butts certainly won't keep gay people from being gay. That is a quite silly assumption.

And what do you want? Uniforms for US-citizens? I suggest a blue overall (looks the same on male and female) and a lot of telescreens to watch whether people really wear their overalls.

*DrSpengler* · 02-09-2005, 02:01 PM

I love/hate living in Northern Virginia. It's a strange blend of conservative hillbilly good ole boys from the south and liberal hippy scum from the north. Kind like mixing dogs and cats. A crazy place to live, that's for sure.

*Duke* · 02-09-2005, 02:07 PM

Well, everyone here keeps saying everyone has the right to express themselves but I really don't remember that in the United States Constitution. The closest thing is Freedom of Speech but even the Supreme Court has ruled that it isn't absolute. Americans cannot threaten someone's life and say we have the right to because of Freedom of Speech. So to caim that they have the right, isn't accurate.

*Kid Icarus* · 02-09-2005, 02:13 PM

I'm a big fan of the First Amendment...

There was a ruling in Kansas back durring the vietnam war, by the US supreme court none the less, that proclaimed that people had the right to wear what they want to wear. It was over armbands that allowed a group of students to prostest the war quietly.

Based on that ruling, this is somewhat unconstitutional.

*KROW* · 02-09-2005, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anarky

I suggest a blue overall (looks the same on male and female) and a lot of telescreens to watch whether people really wear their overalls.

Kind of like a creepy version of that "Come On Eileen" video.

The First Amendment:
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 of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, no, expressionism is not in there. But, people can indeed petition this ruling to get rid of it.

Furthermore, I don't understand how having drooping trousers is a way of expressing yourself. What is it expressing exactly? Anybody know?

愛 · 02-09-2005, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anarky

"That gay stuff"? Ai, come on, Gay people are the same as heterosexuals... and some people not showing off their butts certainly won't keep gay people from being gay. That is a quite silly assumption.

You're not from here, so you wouldn't understand. The impression I'm getting from people who do stuff like this is they're, for lack of a better word, idiots. I mean, come on. What the hell is wrong with society these days? I might as well throw my wang around in public and call it the newest fad.

And just because I don't dress myself in a unique way to "validate my existence and make a statement" doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.

*Anarky* · 02-09-2005, 02:40 PM

But if you're generally not happy with society you don't need to go and insult gay people.

There is a lot wrong with society. But homosexuals sure aren't the ones at fault. They are one of the few groups who go "if they want, just leave them alone". And for that, I thank them.

I'm not from the US, yes, that is correct. However I can't stand people calling homosexuality something like a disease. It is not. Why do we like women? Same question.

愛 · 02-09-2005, 02:44 PM

There's a difference between something gay and someone who's gay. Gay people are for the most part pretty cool. And I just call stuff gay to be funny. Guess it's not funny to some people. Oh well. I think it's a New Jersey thing.

*Anarky* · 02-09-2005, 02:47 PM

Oh well, I guess. But isn't there a better word to describe utterly disgusting and plain revolting stuff? I mean, there has to be something that isn't insulting... for some minority at least.

*Kid Icarus* · 02-09-2005, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KROW

Kind of like a creepy version of that "Come On Eileen" video.

The First Amendment:
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 of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, no, expressionism is not in there. But, people can indeed petition this ruling to get rid of it.

Furthermore, I don't understand how having drooping trousers is a way of expressing yourself. What is it expressing exactly? Anybody know?

I dunno... they're expressing their choice of underwear brand? You can BS a lotta stuff in our court system here... lol. But yeah, if they say they're expressing themselves, it falls under freedom of speech, and then this law's prohibiting that.

and about the "that's gay" thing... why not just say "that's stupid"? or "wow, that bad." or "gee, i wish that woulden't be that way".

*DrSpengler* · 02-09-2005, 03:09 PM

IMO calling something "gay" is completely different than calling something "homosexual". The conotation is completely different. "Gay", in this instance, means "stupid".

Like saying "that sucks". Are you saying that whatever it is literally and physically sucks (as in, the verb)? No. Of course not. You're just saying it's stupid.

Gay is a word with multiple definitions.

Now, calling someone, as in a person, "gay" is a completely different thing. You call a guy "gay" and that's an insult to his masculinity and is certainly the same as calling them a "homosexual".

But if you look at a throw rug and say "that's pretty gay" you aren't a homophobe. THe only people getting terribly offended and losing sleep are the sensetive.

**Machias Banshee** · 02-09-2005, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gwgtrunks

I dunno... they're expressing their choice of underwear brand? You can BS a lotta stuff in our court system here... lol. But yeah, if they say they're expressing themselves, it falls under freedom of speech, and then this law's prohibiting that.

and about the "that's gay" thing... why not just say "that's stupid"? or "wow, that bad." or "gee, i wish that woulden't be that way".

It cant really be helped in some places. People just start up stupid phrases.

I had one girl in school, where she'd describbed stupid people as 'Immigrants', stupid stuff as 'jewish'... It wasnt right, but people got into the phrases (kinda).

If Ai wanted, he coulda described it as Queer, but then still people would make a fuss of it. Queer originally means 'strange or unusual'. Look at any old English writing or even Nightmare Before Christmas. Jack uses it in 'What is This?" Gay Used to mean Jolly or happy. It is only in recent times that these words got tied to homosexuals.

Every society has their strange sayings. I remember in England I almost fell over when someone said they had a few ******s to burn. It turned out that they meant cigarettes.

What was my point with this? Oh yeah... dont fall to pieces if you hear something that sounds unusual or offensive. Even PM folks if you want to understand what they meant. Who knows, you might learrn something interesting...

**Jo Dawn** · 02-09-2005, 03:18 PM

*ahem* To stop this argument...

gay
adj. gay·er, gay·est

1. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.

2. Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.

3. Bright or lively, especially in color: a gay, sunny room.

4. Given to social pleasures.

5. Dissolute; licentious.

n.

Nowhere in there does it say that it means 'that sucks'. Read the dictionary. And learn more adjectives.

Quote:

But isn't there a better word to describe utterly disgusting and plain revolting stuff? I mean, there has to be something that isn't insulting... for some minority at least.

Exactly. That's what Thesaurases are for.

愛 · 02-09-2005, 03:20 PM

It's a word used to describe something stupid where we live. It's a form of dialect, get over it.

**Jo Dawn** · 02-09-2005, 03:23 PM

I don't use it, but I didn't say I was agreeing to it, either. I was merely stopping the argument over what it really meant. Slang not included, the ACTUAL meaning.

To stop people from arguing what it meant, it's definition. Can't argue with the true meaning.

**ThirdMarioBro** · 02-09-2005, 03:26 PM

Virginia once again proves this country has gone to hell and become a self absorbed hole of middle aged losers who want to control society.

02-09-2005, 11:21 AM	#1
KROW Meat-n-Potatoes Man Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: State's Anus, NY Posts: 6,472	Virginia Saying No To Crack RICHMOND, Va. - 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. ================= I'd like to know what they plan to do about the situations at the Virginia beaches. What'll happen if a girl in a two-piece swimsuit puts shorts on and walks over to get a drink, and those shorts happen to slip down slightly to reveal her bikini? Would the same rule apply? Is it really worth a fine if someone doesn't hike up their Levis? What of the plumber's union? __________________ - Optimus Acid Trip - Cult of a Half-Shell - Raiden's Bitter Tongue - *I don't try to be funny; I fail at it naturally.*

02-09-2005, 11:46 AM	#2
Anarky Outlaw Hero Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Tannhauser Gate Posts: 4,867	Oh, man, that is just plain silly... thanks for telling me. I will watch my butt whenever I'm in Virginia. __________________ Because it's... I dunno... brutal.

02-09-2005, 01:23 PM	#5
Anarky Outlaw Hero Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Tannhauser Gate Posts: 4,867	"That gay stuff"? Ai, come on, Gay people are the same as heterosexuals... and some people not showing off their butts certainly won't keep gay people from being gay. That is a quite silly assumption. And what do you want? Uniforms for US-citizens? I suggest a blue overall (looks the same on male and female) and a lot of telescreens to watch whether people really wear their overalls. __________________ Because it's... I dunno... brutal.

02-09-2005, 02:40 PM	#11
Anarky Outlaw Hero Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Tannhauser Gate Posts: 4,867	But if you're generally not happy with society you don't need to go and insult gay people. There is a lot wrong with society. But homosexuals sure aren't the ones at fault. They are one of the few groups who go "if they want, just leave them alone". And for that, I thank them. I'm not from the US, yes, that is correct. However I can't stand people calling homosexuality something like a disease. It is not. Why do we like women? Same question. __________________ Because it's... I dunno... brutal.

02-09-2005, 02:47 PM	#13
Anarky Outlaw Hero Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Tannhauser Gate Posts: 4,867	Oh well, I guess. But isn't there a better word to describe utterly disgusting and plain revolting stuff? I mean, there has to be something that isn't insulting... for some minority at least. __________________ Because it's... I dunno... brutal.

02-09-2005, 11:53 AM	#3
Ryona Guest Posts: n/a	Yes, I find that silly too... Everyone has a right to express them selves. It's a free right! No one should take that right away... However, I'm not saying that I like that style that some guys do... I think they look goofy with their pants so low. I lightly laugh when I see a guy with his pants down like that...

02-09-2005, 12:04 PM	#4
愛 Super Moderator Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 7,449	Even if you have freedom of expression or whatever, that sh*t is just intolerable. It's downright repulsive. I say good for Virgina. Get these idiots to stop that gay stuff.

02-09-2005, 02:01 PM	#6
DrSpengler Foot Elite Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 4,842	I love/hate living in Northern Virginia. It's a strange blend of conservative hillbilly good ole boys from the south and liberal hippy scum from the north. Kind like mixing dogs and cats. A crazy place to live, that's for sure.

02-09-2005, 02:07 PM	#7
Duke Mad Scientist Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,913	Well, everyone here keeps saying everyone has the right to express themselves but I really don't remember that in the United States Constitution. The closest thing is Freedom of Speech but even the Supreme Court has ruled that it isn't absolute. Americans cannot threaten someone's life and say we have the right to because of Freedom of Speech. So to caim that they have the right, isn't accurate.

02-09-2005, 02:13 PM	#8
Kid Icarus Foot Elite Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Angel Land Posts: 4,150	I'm a big fan of the First Amendment... There was a ruling in Kansas back durring the vietnam war, by the US supreme court none the less, that proclaimed that people had the right to wear what they want to wear. It was over armbands that allowed a group of students to prostest the war quietly. Based on that ruling, this is somewhat unconstitutional.

02-09-2005, 02:44 PM	#12
愛 Super Moderator Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 7,449	There's a difference between something gay and someone who's gay. Gay people are for the most part pretty cool. And I just call stuff gay to be funny. Guess it's not funny to some people. Oh well. I think it's a New Jersey thing.

02-09-2005, 03:09 PM	#15
DrSpengler Foot Elite Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 4,842	IMO calling something "gay" is completely different than calling something "homosexual". The conotation is completely different. "Gay", in this instance, means "stupid". Like saying "that sucks". Are you saying that whatever it is literally and physically sucks (as in, the verb)? No. Of course not. You're just saying it's stupid. Gay is a word with multiple definitions. Now, calling someone, as in a person, "gay" is a completely different thing. You call a guy "gay" and that's an insult to his masculinity and is certainly the same as calling them a "homosexual". But if you look at a throw rug and say "that's pretty gay" you aren't a homophobe. THe only people getting terribly offended and losing sleep are the sensetive.

02-09-2005, 03:20 PM	#18
愛 Super Moderator Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 7,449	It's a word used to describe something stupid where we live. It's a form of dialect, get over it.

02-09-2005, 03:23 PM	#19
Jo Dawn Inactive Moderator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Authority On All Things Don Posts: 5,190	I don't use it, but I didn't say I was agreeing to it, either. I was merely stopping the argument over what it really meant. Slang not included, the ACTUAL meaning. To stop people from arguing what it meant, it's definition. Can't argue with the true meaning. __________________

02-09-2005, 03:26 PM	#20
ThirdMarioBro Tea Time! Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 8,905	Virginia once again proves this country has gone to hell and become a self absorbed hole of middle aged losers who want to control society. __________________