War on Saggy britches

Once again, the establishment has it all wrong.

I agree there ought to be a law.

It should be mandatory that all young urban males are required to wear their pants with no less than five inches of underwear showing. Matter of public safety.

Two weeks tops, no more saggy britches.

Next!
 
There should be zero laws against dressing in any manner. However, any private company should be perfectly free to refuse service to anyone who doesn't meet their standard for dress...
 
Johnny,
I fail to see where Prodigal asked for a government driven solution to the saggy pants phenomena, so how did you reach your conclusion?

I think if every middle aged white male started drooping his pants the idiot inner city thugs would stop pdq.
 
Says the guy that is happy to see how people wear their pants banned.
__________________________________________________

i didn't say i wanted the pratice banned, I said they should wear their pants around their waist on an airline. To me its more of a symptom of our economy. I see the practice and I think...well, here is another unemployed youth I have to take care of. I'll exclude the sport athlete and his entourage.
 
Prod - I explained what I meant. You don't find the juxtaposition of ideals funny or ironic, that's fine. I do, and that's fine too. I think it borders on hypocrisy, although I intentionally didn't use that term because I don't think it is an appropriate description of how I feel about this.

It really wasn't meant to be a sweeping policy argument, it was just a position I found ironic. Are you going to be this touchy about everything after the WWF cheating incident?
 
I'm just trying to figure out why you think it's ironic. What does one have to do with the other? They're completely unrelated, which makes me think that you're not really reading what I said, or you're just assuming something I never said.

My point: baggy pants are rebellion against the cultural norm, and as the cultural norm shifts, the pants will shift with them.

Your point: it's ironic that I can believe this and want smaller government.

I honestly want to know what the connection is - personally I think you just shot off with a comment that seemed "cute" to you but had no actual meaning. Which of course is typical of this board.

Did I claim that the government should get involved? Where did anything I posted involve the government? If anything, my position is perfectly in line and in no way hypocritical, as I believe that a company has the right to set whatever criteria it wants in delivering service, and people can choose to either comply or go find someone else.
 
Johnny, your personal attacks aside, I was asking about this well before that thread. And btw, several other posters asked the same question. And I'm guessing the reason you won't address it is that you don't really have a good answer. Hey, we all post stuff that we look back on and say "well, I probably stretched on that".

You said it's borderline hypocritical and yet you either cannot or will not explain the comment.
 
God the video was meant as a joke. You guys need a beer or a left-handed cigarette.

Prod - The word hypocritical/hypocrisy was brought into this thread by you, not me. I intentionally did not include that because, again, my comment wasn't meant as a broad statement on your policy views and I didn't think this reached that level. It was a small comment meant for small effect. It was not intended to wad your panties to such an extent. Heck, does anyone have the number to Jon Kyl's press secretary?
biggrin.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top