Virginia Saying No To Crack - Page 4

*Kazari* · 02-14-2005, 07:58 AM

*reads topic* LOL Sometimes my state is soo weird.

*kyabetsu* · 02-16-2005, 09:12 AM

... a law. ...about pants. like a state-wide dresscode? what next? Do our shorts all have to be longer than our fingertips when we put our hands to our sides? no open-toed shoes?

i'm RELIEVED to see that the upper state house rejected the bill. Not only do i strongly object to anyone policing my wardrobe, (ha ha fashion police!) but for crying out loud! These people work for the STATE. They make the LAWS.

SURELY there are more important things to worry about than the height of PANTS?

how about corporate regulations? spousal abuse laws? children's rights laws? TEACHERS' rights laws? I KNOW that Virgina's not so perfect in every other aspect that the only thing their legislators have LEFT to work on is the "droopy drawers" bill.

*Voltron* · 02-16-2005, 10:52 AM

Well sh*t. This is damn retarded. Whoever thought up that idea is an ass.

*jeff the cheff* · 02-17-2005, 02:29 PM

There are definatly more important things to be taken care of than showing your underwear in public, but I think its a good idea.

*kyabetsu* · 02-18-2005, 02:37 PM

but jeff... it's BOXER SHORTS. not their bare backsides.

it's no more "obscene" than a guy's swim-trunks and WAY less revealing than any bathing suit designed for women.

the fashion is stupid. but fashion often is. look at the 1960's trend of "Paper dresses" or the whole "POMPADOUR" hair style like the guys have in Grease. ... it makes'em look like they've got a duck's butt on their heads! but being stupid in public isn't a crime. ...and if it IS, i'd rather they found some OTHER way to measure it.

but let's say that you DO find the underwear obscene... does that mean you're okay with outlawing others forms of shorts/swim suits/etc that could be seen in public?

if the fashion were pant-LESS ...or there were actually lewd public indecency... then i'd be more likely to think 'something should be done!'... but no one fines fat, middle-aged, white suburbanites from mowing their lawn without shirts.

All that aged, white, hairy, sweaty man-flesh is WAY more offensive to me than anybody's CLOTHED body.

*jeff the cheff* · 02-18-2005, 11:14 PM

Underwear is totally different from boxer shorts/swim suits, cause they are more thin. If you want to know why I don't like the underwear out so much, just look at the pic I posted.

**ThirdMarioBro** · 02-19-2005, 02:28 PM

I still say nude parks are the answer.

*KROW* · 02-19-2005, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThirdMarioBro

I still say nude parks are the answer.

New pigeon perches and organic sundials ahoy!

~~BartAllen~~ · 03-18-2005, 06:44 AM

Hey thats cool. some people dont need to be wearing those low rise pants.

02-14-2005, 07:58 AM	#61
Kazari Foot Elite Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Nexus: Chasing after the Ultimate Ninja Posts: 2,731	reads topic LOL Sometimes my state is soo weird. __________________ is an official Drako hater

02-16-2005, 10:52 AM	#63
Voltron Handsomest Boy in School Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: The Realm of SJW Posts: 4,642	Well sh*t. This is damn retarded. Whoever thought up that idea is an ass. __________________ I AM FOR ACTUAL! . . . and the White Savior. . . and the Right Hand of God. . .

02-19-2005, 02:28 PM	#67
ThirdMarioBro Tea Time! Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 8,905	I still say nude parks are the answer. __________________

02-16-2005, 09:12 AM	#62
kyabetsu Foot Elite Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: under my hat Posts: 4,393	... a law. ...about pants. like a state-wide dresscode? what next? Do our shorts all have to be longer than our fingertips when we put our hands to our sides? no open-toed shoes? i'm RELIEVED to see that the upper state house rejected the bill. Not only do i strongly object to anyone policing my wardrobe, (ha ha fashion police!) but for crying out loud! These people work for the STATE. They make the LAWS. SURELY there are more important things to worry about than the height of PANTS? how about corporate regulations? spousal abuse laws? children's rights laws? TEACHERS' rights laws? I KNOW that Virgina's not so perfect in every other aspect that the only thing their legislators have LEFT to work on is the "droopy drawers" bill.

02-17-2005, 02:29 PM	#64
jeff the cheff Mad Scientist Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: 122 and an eighth Posts: 2,129	There are definatly more important things to be taken care of than showing your underwear in public, but I think its a good idea.

02-18-2005, 02:37 PM	#65
kyabetsu Foot Elite Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: under my hat Posts: 4,393	but jeff... it's BOXER SHORTS. not their bare backsides. it's no more "obscene" than a guy's swim-trunks and WAY less revealing than any bathing suit designed for women. the fashion is stupid. but fashion often is. look at the 1960's trend of "Paper dresses" or the whole "POMPADOUR" hair style like the guys have in Grease. ... it makes'em look like they've got a duck's butt on their heads! but being stupid in public isn't a crime. ...and if it IS, i'd rather they found some OTHER way to measure it. but let's say that you DO find the underwear obscene... does that mean you're okay with outlawing others forms of shorts/swim suits/etc that could be seen in public? if the fashion were pant-LESS ...or there were actually lewd public indecency... then i'd be more likely to think 'something should be done!'... but no one fines fat, middle-aged, white suburbanites from mowing their lawn without shirts. All that aged, white, hairy, sweaty man-flesh is WAY more offensive to me than anybody's CLOTHED body.

02-18-2005, 11:14 PM	#66
jeff the cheff Mad Scientist Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: 122 and an eighth Posts: 2,129	Underwear is totally different from boxer shorts/swim suits, cause they are more thin. If you want to know why I don't like the underwear out so much, just look at the pic I posted.

03-18-2005, 06:44 AM	#69
~~BartAllen~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 922	Hey thats cool. some people dont need to be wearing those low rise pants.