Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire A Florida City Outlaws Sagging Pants

You only speak in shade of grey. Also known as a hypocrite!

You also avoid my examples of unacceptable styles of the era you wrote about. Mainly, I presume, because it adds great validity to what I have said.

Carry on, 1950!

Only a simple mind confuses acceptance of the necessity for shades of gray with hypocrisy.

I would like to see the government stay out of all matters of this such how ever a good old country azzwoopen now and again with the law turning a blind eye might get them pants up .

Keep dodging what I asked...

Grey is acceptable at times, but not the standard. Living your life in grey is hypocrisy. That's precisely how I've defined it for you, 2x now. And who is simple minded?

what he said


shouldn't be a law against dressing like a circus freak

nor a law allowing comment on it

nor the ensuing dust up likely to occur

but I guess you'd be prosecuted under "hate crime" legislation


uh yes your honor, I hated the way he was dressed, told him so and when he took a swing at me I dumped him.

we live in a goofy world

I can't speak to fact of the fiftes, because I wasn't there. However, growing up in a very small, very rural community, i remember when the "saggy britches" fad came into being... The school didn't need a tule against it. The "farm boys" simply whipped azz. I believe that's likely how it would have been handled in the fifties, unless noone really gave two schitts which is just as likely

I don't believe you can legislate Morality at any level, I also have to wonder if the "morality", such as dress fads and what not that we think was so very different from now, was much more of a case people juat worrying about themselves and thereown, and not trying to micro manage everyone elses lives

If the pants are sagging that low it should be a crime.

Punishable by death-----well maybe not that far.

There's a big difference with government over reach at the federal level, something you can rarely do anything about, and government over reach at the local level, something you generally can do a lot about.

I've been thinking about this through the AM, and am feeling a bit munificent and repentent about the Cherry Bomb comment.

THe very best medicine to apply to this particluar situation would be a giant ecomomy sized can of "Great Stuff"

Says right on the can, it's for sealing up cracks,don't it ?

GTC

You're missing the point in this case. The one who is constantky slamming his fists about every little perceived intrusion into on'es personal liberty, is now applauding said intrusion


I can't wait to see a video on here of a cop ticketing some body for "saggy pants".

I do remember farm boys back then. For a while the fad was skin tight pants. Some, including the farm boys, wore their pants so tight that they had their mothers sew zippers in the bottoms so they could get their feet through. Others put on women's nylons to make their feet slick enough to go through the legs. Then they'd pull the nylons off after they got their pants on.

If you've been following me from the beginning here at the Fire, you know I'm an old-school conservative. One of the key points of conservatism is the belief in local standards being reflected in local laws. The more local the law, the more local populations should be empowered to make their laws reflect their values. As you move from local to county, that should be less the case. The state, even less, and the Federal Government should be tightly constrained to a strict construction of the limited powers delegated to it in the Constitution. It's an old Jeffersonian view of good governance.

Yes, and I remember Jefferson and other framers specifically mentioning sagging pants, funny hats and other subversive "acts of clothing" that should be locally regulated.

You're remarkably consistent, since you keep insisting on less regulation, while insisting on more.

I happen to be a fan of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The baggy pants law is at least as abhorrent as the baggy pants.

I take it you're trying to miss the point about such ordinances being only local in nature. This is called decentralization of government.

Conservatives aren't against government. We're only against consolidated government, i.e., the governance of everything coming down to us all from on high in DC. We prefer that most governance of our daily lives be local, or at most state level, since that will ensure the highest possible number of people satisfied with the laws under which they must live. If you cannot change the local ordinances to your liking (or at least make them tolerable to your sensibilities), you always have the option of moving to, for example, a less "prudish" town or a more "prudish" town.

Again, an old Jeffersonian concept of good government that has historically been a hallmark of American conservatism.

You're attempts to wriggle out of this are amusing, you old casuist.

I understand Hawk's point of view and agree with what he is saying.

I personally would not support a baggy pants law at any level as I'm too much a libertarian for that but I would not fight a baggy pants law at the local level nor would I push for such a law at the local level. A baggy pants law at the federal, state, or county level I would fight tooth and nail against.

I deist tattoos and body piercings but would fight tooth and nail against any federal, state, or county law banning tattooing and body piercing but remain neutral at any local attempt to ban such.

+1

"Bullying" has it's good points.
Tends to keep the "special snowflakes" from getting too far out of the norm. Peer pressure, of a sort.
Now we need laws to enforce acceptable behavior?
The libs are winning.

Where do you draw the line? What about wacking off in front of your local school? Freedom of expression? Pursuit of happiness? Twisting the original intent of the Declaration Of Independence could be used to justify just about ANY "abhorrent" behavior...