Saggy-pants ban backers gain allyFord joins the fray to take effort statewide By Yvonne Wenger (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Saturday, August 16, 2008
The Post and Courier Robert Ford Past storyGlance askance at baggy pants, published 08/14/08 COLUMBIA — Drooping drawers are beginning to look like Public Enemy No. 1. State Sen. Robert Ford is the latest to try to bust the sag. And as sure as politicians have opinions, he won't be the last to hitch his star to the issue. Ford said Friday that he wants to take local efforts to ban the clothing style one step further by trying to stop it with a new state law, but a host of critics, including civil liberty groups, have come forward. The Charleston Democrat said he believes that sagging pants worn below the underwear line — a style widely believed to have come from emulating prisoners who are not allowed to wear belts — is a setback. "If these guys want to look like prisoners, what's the next step?" Ford said. "We, those of us who fought civil rights battles in the '60s and early '70s, anticipated wonderful things for African-Americans once we broke down a lot of barriers. "This generation hasn't built upon anything except destructive stuff." Other black leaders think Ford's approach is all wrong, including Rep. David Mack, D-North Charleston, and Lonnie Randolph, president of the South Carolina State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "What we've chosen to do in our organization is try and teach our young people the right way to dress and the right way to present themselves," Randolph said. The better approach is for parents, clergy, school officials and community leaders to intervene, Randolph said. He called Ford's comments on young blacks an "unfair and inaccurate assessment," noting that a majority of young people don't dress like that, and neither is it a style only worn by blacks. What's more, Randolph said he might not agree with the style, but either way people have a right to wear it. "Where do we go next? Is a preacher's robe too long? Is a lady's dress too short? We are standing on thin ice and treading in dangerous waters," he said. Mack said he's discussed the topic during his early morning radio show on WZJY-AM 1480, and the reaction to the idea has been split. His personal take on it is that the state doesn't need a specific law to ban one style of clothing when indecent exposure laws could be altered to deal with all clothing — worn by men and women — that are just too revealing for public. The matter has been controversial everywhere it has been brought up. Earlier this week, three Charleston city councilmen announced that they want to consider a ban. Ford said he wants to help James Lewis, Robert Mitchell and Wendell Gilliard in the fight and plans to offer public comments at Tuesday's council meeting. Similar efforts across the country have faced big challenges with enforceability and constitutionality. Statewide bans proposed in Louisiana and Virginia have failed. An attempt to outlaw the style in Atlanta has been languishing in committee since 2007. An ordinance in Jasper County is pending final approval. Council instructed the administrator and county attorney to research concerns, and it is expected to be discussed again in September. "I've gotten a pretty good response, about 70, 75 percent pro," said Councilman LeRoy Blackshear of Hardeeville, who first raised the idea about nine months ago. Graham Boyd, interim executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union South Carolina Office, said on a cursory review it seems clear the courts would not uphold an effort to impose a dress code on the general public, unlike in schools. "The government can't tell the general public how to dress," Boyd said. He noted that the ACLU here has not taken an official stance on the matter. Still, Ford said he wants to see South Carolina put an end to the style. "If the civil liberty boys don't have enough sense, let them fight it," Ford said. "We won't stand for it anymore." |
Article toolsSponsored Links |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 70 comment(s)
Posted by melvinthebarbarian on August 16, 2008 at 4:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
>"If the civil liberty boys don't have enough sense, let them fight it,"
So Senator Ford is opposed to civil liberties? Well, that's ok. Because his suit offends me. I mean, you don't know what sort of weapons or contraband he could be smuggling underneath that bulky jacket. And that shirt buttoned up to the neck ... is he wearing that to hide some satanic or gang related tatoo?
Seriously, instead of wasting time trying to legislate fashion, maybe we should consider requiring legislators to pass a civics test before holding office.
Posted by UrGatorbait on August 16, 2008 at 4:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow what a waste of time and effort. With all the other "stuff" like education, roads, and what not, this and a few other "well informed" idiots are wasting time on this. There probably are enough concerned citizens that view this as a major issue. Our tax dollars at work for ya!!
It's a symptom of the deeper problems he alluded to. Taking away the baggy pants solves nothing in relation to his concern about this current generation of losers doing nothing but taking from society.
Civics? Common sense? actually doing something important? Nahhhh.
Posted by view_skeptic on August 16, 2008 at 6:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm totally against Ford on this one. Let the punks wear their pants as low as they want so I'll know who to kick out of any job interviews, not that any of them really want to "work" for a living.
Posted by abitskeptical on August 16, 2008 at 7:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Do they propose to also ban the pants that are worn at hip level but are made to look as if they are riding low enough for the plaid boxers to show?
(I saw this for the first time the other day..a pair of jeans that had a seam across the lower buttocks..above the seam was plaid such as is often used for boxers....from a distance it looked like the "real thing"...low riding baggy pants...closer up it was obvious that it was just a pair of regular fitting jeans...)
Posted by jeff61 on August 16, 2008 at 7:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think what this group is to trying to do is instill some pride and self respect to a group within the community. I don't beleive in banning clothing and how it is worn. The people that wear thier pants in such a fashion is only showing what a fool they are.
Posted by Paul on August 16, 2008 at 7:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why does he care, "everybody does it".
Posted by LiveYourBestLife on August 16, 2008 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If all those wearing pants to their knees knew where it started, they may not be as proud.
I suggest the law allow any citizen who sees someone wearing saggy pants be able to use a staple gun to staple the pants to the offenders armpits.
Just a suggestion. If they can wear pants so I can see their crack, I should be able to staple them to their armpits.
Posted by 3olivesmike on August 16, 2008 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm old enough to remember when the intellectual(?) forbears of these pols wanted to ban Elvis. The chuckleheads will be among us always.
Posted by watchdog on August 16, 2008 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You ever see how our state politians dress, they have no fashion sense. They were khakis and bow ties. You can not police this, get to the issues.
Posted by idennis on August 16, 2008 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok Folks, we all know this law will never pass but you gotta give ole Robert credit for coming out as a leader and condeming this kind of dress. Now Mr. NAACP pres. etc that finally came out of hiding to make excuses. You now say its a community, church, school and parental problem. Ok you're the big leaders, NOW LEAD. Teach the youth what respect and character means. Mr. Ford I applaud you even though it will never pass, you at least made a stand and flushed the ones who can do something out in the open. COME ON LEADERS OF THE BLACK COMMUNITY, QUIT MAKING EXCUSES, YOUR BUTTS HAVE BEEN EXPOSED!!! SHOW US YOU DESERVE THE LEADERSHIP ROLE YOU HAVE ASSUMED...
Posted by coolfreaknbeans on August 16, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't for a second believe we should "outlaw" baggy pants.Thats stupid.But don't our current indecent exposure laws protect us from seeing peoples underwear?I know some of you say whats the big deal and who cares?Well,I care.I have two daughters and I don't want men exposing their underwear to them.Ive told the story before and I'll tell it again.I was in a Walmart parking lot when a man got out of his car in front of me.He was directly in front of my car when his pants fully fell to his ankles.Instead of grabbing his pants and pulling them up immediately in embarrassment,he proceeded to stand there,adjust his nearly see through underwear and finally pulled his pants up.I am not kidding he stood in front of my car for at least 1 minute and one half doing this in broad day light!Why should my family and I be subjected to this?Because its the "style"?To those saying we can't police this-yes we can!We have indecent exposure laws already.I could care less what trend people follow or the fit of their pants it's their choice and right.But freedoms and rights stop when they impose on anothers rights.Left wing wackos think having rights means you can do whatever the hell you want at any cost.Not true.
Posted by Brant on August 16, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
my question is what kind of parent would allow this to happen? When I see "dress" like that, my immediate thought is "punk" or something similar. It's too bad that parents don't have a better handle on what their kids are wearing...or wearing badly.
Posted by jeff61 on August 16, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Did you call the police Cool and file a complaint? They may have been able to arrest the guy on a sex crime for exposing himself to your children.
I am not sure if "underwear" is the issue here. I honestly believe the issue is deeper then how these kids wear their pants. I really don't think that is the issue this group is really trying to fight. But if a group is trying to instill a sense of respect to another group that appears to do nothing but sell drugs and kill each other, they have to start somewhere.
Just my thought on the matter
Posted by 512c on August 16, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
let's ban suits and ties!
this black man is selling out!
Posted by sethook on August 16, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lets not forget to start legislation against Granpa, who has his britches hicked up around his chest, with the cuffs at high water level......
Posted by 512c on August 16, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It may have come from prison (we have more citizena (and non) in prison than any country in the world!), or it may have come from gangs and drugs (we have made practically everything that can grow (thus not be packaged in a pill bottle) illegal.
Now, if we make expression illegal, its us or them.
Wait, wait, let's just put up a wall and this whole country will be a prison. oh snap, tha's what is happening!
Posted by JW29410 on August 16, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There have been many times over the years that I wonder when Robert Ford would be voted out or simply slapped out of office. Many Black Folks and White Folks have something in common - a disliking for him. But now and then he will indeed take a positive stand in his community and he has done so now.
When I see some funky dumplin' with baggys, I have visions of a toddler with a fully loaded Pampers just waiting to drop. Nobody wants to see some blingbling boy's Fruit of the Looms.
Posted by armymom on August 16, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
3olivesmike: Good point. Elvis AND Madonna. And look how popular they became. Popular is like an understatement.
idennis: YOUR BUTTS HAVE BEEN EXPOSED
that [butt] cracked me up
I don't think pants with a little sag and bag is the problem, it's how extreme it's becoming. They can't walk without holding up their pants with one hand, and let them try to run! Not to mention that sometimes half their bare behind is OUT. It's not just teens either, I've seen fully grown men dressed like this. One time I saw a man and his "you-know-what" was a micro millimeter from being out in the front. That just ain't right.
Posted by oldglory on August 16, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There are mentions here of pride, self-respect, just plain stupid, etc. All of which may apply. However, we can have all these attributes through achievement. Many times I've seen the opinion that there are no fathers, crack mothers, etc. (All of my thoughts too numerous; hence, the etcs.)
Education, real education recognizes achievement and then the pride, self-respect follow. SC seems bent upon not educating 'certain' people as though education is no big deal. Shame on SC. That's real ignorance.
BTW, I'm sure even SC already has a law against indecent exposure. SC don't waste our time and money re-inventing the wheel, please.
I remember when my father banned me from LISTENING to Elvis Presley on the radio. (Believe me, I didn't listen either.) I was not EVER allowed to wear pants/jeans to school. The guys couldn't wear jeans to school either. Times change.
I don't like the baggy pants, but then I don't look for them nor register the sight when I see it. I certainly don't label the child wearing them. I'm going to point a finger at some of the guys: I'll bet you anti-baggy pants guys don't mind eyeballing a gal in 'em and even better if there is a revealing top involved!
Posted by iceman1978 on August 16, 2008 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Excellent. Way to go Senator Ford.
Posted by ChasCarolinaGirl on August 16, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
WOW, I am amazed that Robert Ford is actually making some sense with something. I have NEVER agreed with his small minded, NAACP type of attitude, but he is actually on to something here.
I agree with the idea about not banning a particular style, but if people to reveal to much by the way they wear their clothes, then there should be indecent exposure laws set against it.
Posted by hightide on August 16, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Typical waste of government time.
Posted by hightide on August 16, 2008 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Um, there ARE indecent exposure laws. Apparently, they just need some enforcement.
Posted by ChasCarolinaGirl on August 16, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree HighTide.
Thomas1776 ~ Walking around w/ pants down low enough to see underwear or the ass cannot compare be compared to tshirts w/ whatever they have on them. There are many races that wear their pants this way so Im not targeting one race in particular ...
Then again, I hate when women wear pants so tight that they look painted on and when they bend down, all you see is crack.
SAY NO TO CRACK!
Posted by KnowAllSeeAll on August 16, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Senator Ford, I agree with your sentiments of, "THIS is what we fought for?" However, your measure is a crock. You cannot legislate intelligence and good sense. Intelligence comes naturally (or in some cases, does not come naturally). Good sense is bred by good parents or else is learned through having positive influences outside the home.
Look, if someone wants to look like a fool by sagging their pants, or by wearing Goth, or by covering themselves in visible tattoos, at least we can spot who the idiots are. If I as an employer see someone like that walk through my door, I know what type of quality I'll get from them (poor) and what work ethic they'll have (again, poor) because they obviously have no respect for themselves to dress properly.
If their behavior does not violate anyone's rights to life, liberty, and property, the government has no business intervening. Some will agree, some will disagree. I've said my piece on this and will shut up.
Posted by skeeter on August 16, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How would this "Law" be enforced? What if my belt breaks and my pants sag. Would I be ticketed?
Posted by SCVOTER on August 16, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is a slippery slope. This will not stand up to judicial scrutiny. We had issues in North Charleston with the legality of loitering laws...now we want to try to legislate a dress code?
Why didn't anyone tell tell the last generation they couldn't wear big collars and polyester suits in the 70's?
Next, lets try an ordinance to ban wearing certain things people find offensive: rebel flags, African pendants, rainbows.
What about campaign materials???
It offends me when I see someone wearing a Robert Ford button. Can we pass an ordinance against that?
Posted by ChasCarolinaGirl on August 16, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes Skeeter, you would. lol j/k I think it is more evident than that as to what they would like for people not to do.
I think that some of you are taking this way too far. What is wrong w/ saying that people should care about the way that they look?
What is wrong w/ saying "Keep your underwear and asses in your pants in public?"
What is wrong w/ this? I particularly dont care for my children to see people w/ their underwear and their asses sticking out of their pants. Some of you may not mind it, but I do. Some people just need to learn respect.
Posted by JustJennings on August 16, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This shows the incompetence of South Carolina legislature. We have a high school drop-out rate of over 50%, and they are worried about saggy britches. I agree that they are in poor taste, but I am more worried about kids graduating from high school and holding corrupt cops accountable than about saggy pants.
Posted by hightide on August 16, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You can say keep your asses in your pants, but you can't write a law that says as much. Remember what country we live in... not China!
Posted by ChasCarolinaGirl on August 16, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree w/ you RW, JustJennings and HighTide. Very well put. :-)
Funny how Im a communist b/c I dont like seeing peoples asses and dirty, grungy underwear sticking out of their pants.
Oh well ... Another day in the life. :-)
Posted by Time4action on August 16, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If they can were their baggy pants without exposing their underwear or but crack (wearing a long shirt), then go for it, that's their right. I'll walk on the other side of the street in case something falls out or down. However, we have indecent exposure laws and they should be applied when appropriate. Why is there a need for more laws?
Posted by coolfreaknbeans on August 16, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ChasCarolinaGirl I certainly don't mean to hijack this thread but-yesterday I believe it was you who called and found out what donors could do regarding the Drayton story.When I went back repeatedly to that article,the comments were all gone!Could you fill me in please?
Posted by STREETLAW on August 16, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes woman who fly plane upside down may well have crack up. Go to Folly Beach any day and look at what women get away with. Heck, try the Battery.
What's next. Unisex uniforms for all? Totalitarianism?
I personally think anyone who wears their pants below their underwear is probably a sociopath looking for the affection their momma didn't give them because they were working three jobs to put food on the table and clothes on their backs after the father skipped.
Too bad they don't look for respect. They are going to get attention, no doubt, but not affection.
The sad thing is that with sociopaths they really don't care what kind of attention the get. But it will never be enough.
Perhaps if we could get them to go completely nude it would at least reduce incidents involveing concealed weapons.
No. Wait. Let's don't do that.
Posted by jeff61 on August 16, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by coolfreaknbeans on August 16, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ChasCarolinaGirl I believe it was you who called and found out what donors could do regarding the Drayton story.When I went back repeatedly to that article,the comments were all gone!Could you fill me in please?
Yea ChasGirl,,, Old Dread has me instigating that.. i just agreed..How about setting him straight??
Posted by coolfreaknbeans on August 16, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jeff61-Thank God my kids happen to not be with me at the time or I would've surely called and reported it.Hindsight being 20/20,I really wish I would've reported it.I was completely shocked.And for the record the "man" who did this,he was as white trash as they come.
Posted by tmh32 on August 16, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Stupid gov't idiots wasting OUR time. I tell you what, IF by some slim chance they even manage to make such an UNCONSTITUTIONAL ban stick then I'll personaly violate it right in front of the nearest gov't building and DARE some one to even try to fine or arrest me.
It's time for a full revolution and purge of our gov't.
By the People For the People
Posted by ChasCarolinaGirl on August 16, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Coolfreaknbeans and jeff61; I was going to ask you both the same thing. lol I do not know what happened to the thread but I noticed that it was gone. Maybe the citys attorneys office pulled it. ;-) Then again, maybe P & C is going with, I believe it was Jeff61's, idea, of posting the comments in the paper.
I hope that something does come of it. Its an aggravating situation that is a waste of time.
Posted by NativeSon on August 16, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"The better approach is for parents, clergy, school officials and community leaders to intervene", Randolph said.
Well, since this disgusting display of indecency has been going on unabated for several years, it is obvious that Randolphs' approach has not worked.
Dr. M L King, jr said in his "I have a dream" speech that he dreamed of a time when people were not judged for the color of their skin but the content of their character!
Well, that time is now. Most of us no longer look at skin color - we are all colored people. The sad part of this is that the content of character of some black, hispanic, latino and caucasian people demonstrate the sorriest of level of bad character. The behavior of these "low-lifes" is unbecoming of civilized people everywhere.
We have always had a criminal element in the American society because it was brought over here and was in the midst of the founding colonies of the 1500s.
However, the proliferation of those of extremely poor character began in the early 60s with the US Supreme Court falling victim to the mentally ill ramblings of Madelin Murray O'Hare by removing prayer from public schools. This was followed by the drug culture and the subsequent generations which came after them so that now our children are bombarded with trash and character demeaning music, education, drugs and a constant onslaught of sex and debauchery at every point of contact.
This is the agenda of the left wing liberal democrats, the american criminal liberties union, athiests and other psychiatrically challenged base individuals who would destroy America from within.
It is time to stop sending our children down a promiscuous path of character assasination and return America to its once held glory.
Posted by JustJennings on August 16, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The fashion police are the last thing we need. Goverment screws up everything in which it becomes involved, so let's keep it out of fashion and religion. If they decide to go ahead with this insanity, may I suggest forming a special unit called the Fashion Fascists?
Posted by ChasCarolinaGirl on August 16, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Im not sure what happened to the posts but it was public information and I believe that everyone who opposes them getting the money should let their opinion be known. Free speech, right?
I hope that the Drayton atty pulled every post and I hope that the family gets to read every single post!
Posted by ChasCarolinaGirl on August 16, 2008 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I want to apologize for going on w/ the Drayton story in comment section.
Posted by abitskeptical on August 16, 2008 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Comment on suggesting indecent exposure laws could/would apply on this saggy pants issue:
Though I think the saggy pants look is absurd, I've never seen anything more than printed boxers as a result of the low riding pants.
I've seen much more offensive things as a result of other types of attire "train wrecks".
Just the other day at "FACT & FEE" day at a middle school, my eyeballs almost rolled onto the floor when I saw how one mother was dressed.
She had on a very low cut flimsy blouse. This in itself was totally inappropriate. If one of my daughters had worn a shirt like that to school, they would've been sent home (if they had somehow managed to get out of the house w/ it on).
The shirt, however was nothing compared to the "shorts" she wore.
As she walked, the lower part of her "fanny" cheek kept "escaping" past the end of the "shorts". I believe the inseam on those "shorts" was no more than 1 inch...max. They gave new meaning to the term "short shorts".
This was the outfit she wore as she walked around w/ her 8th grade son in his school...unbelievable...& offensive!
IMO she is more "guilty" of indecent exposure(since she was not on the beach in a bathing suit) than the baggy pants people.
Posted by Smart_Enough_2_Know_Better on August 16, 2008 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For the love of god, quit worrying about other people's fashion choices and start worrying about making SC a more competitive state: pro-business environment, better schools, etc. Eliminating baggy pants will serve to get us nowhere in terms of the economics of this state and will, in fact, continue to make us look like the ultra-old fashioned, good ol' boy state that we apparently are.
Address issues that will actually help us advance our prosperity rather than placate a bunch of whiners.
Posted by stephaniem on August 16, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thomas1776
going shirtless should only be a crime if the guy has more than an A cup
as for the rest of yall,
if they pass this law, I am going to request they pass the cover your beer belly law
too many rednecks have shirts on and their midriff shows a sagging belly that looks 9 months pregnant with hair all over it....almost lose my lunch each time I see one
also, men who have armpit hair long enough to braid should be required to clip/shave theirs and everyone needs to exfoliate their feet in the summer.
--------best way to make people dress right is with a dress code as children. All school should have an office dress code of shirts, pants, black/brown shoes for 4 out of the 5 school days and casual friday. Get children used to wearing decent clothes and a professional dress code and they have higher morale and behave better for some odd reason. Ever notice that churches where everyone dresses in sunday best have a larger congregation of regular members vs. churches that allow people in acid washed tattered jeans and flip-flops?
Posted by iceman1978 on August 16, 2008 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What I find the most disturbing about this isn't so much the issue of government control but the fact that there are enough people who feel that something like this has to become a matter for the State to deal with. Surely there are enough constituents out there who have complained about this to their elected officials who now believe that this requires an ordinance. This is something that should be an issue that parents should deal with rather than the government.
I’d like to know whatever happened to the days when people took more pride in their appearance in how they dress. Let’s look at airlines as an example. I’m only thirty years of age but I remember a day when people used to dress either in a suit or business casual when they flew. Today when you get on a plane you might as well be on a trailer park or a ghetto with wings and four engines. Same deal when you go to a shopping mall. Just look at the Northwood’s mall. Northwood’s is one of the oldest malls in South Carolina and used to be a great place to shop. I’m in a jewelry store one day because my watch needs a new battery. I decided on going to the same store where I bought it because I always enjoyed the people who worked there. They knew jewelry and watches and knew how to provide customer service. This particular store is out of business now which should tell us something about the current clientele. Anyway, the lady that I spoke with said that she was now afraid to wear her good watch to work because of the crime problem. This is what happens when you let riff raff take over any place of business. I hope and pray that this never happens to our stores on King Street.
You want to start on the baggy pants ordinance; you can start with our shopping malls. There was a day when security would ask people to leave if they came in with pants so low they were holding their crotch to keep them from falling down altogether. People like that were seen as a shoplifting risk and they drew business away. I can guarantee you that if they started by getting the riff raff out of the malls we would see business start to improve again.
------
Stephaniem, Excellent point. Raise children to dress right and they will stay that way. It worked for me.
Posted by iceman1978 on August 16, 2008 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)
stephaniem, I've noticed that about churches. I find it disgraceful that people would show up for church dressed like they just fell out of bed and put on what ever happened to be in front of them. The Lord only asks for one day of your time to be devoted to Him and some people
Posted by iceman1978 on August 16, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
oops..Some people have such little respect when they're in the house of the Lord that they dress like that.
Posted by NativeSon on August 16, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
On the other hand, why discriminate at all. I suggest that we do away with all this clothed or unclothed nonsense once and for all.
The US Supreme Court has decreed that nudity is of itself not lewd. People should decide for themselves wheather or not they want to wear anything.
The only really indecent acts are public sex and public relieving of oneself.
I therefore suggest a new state law that declares South Carolina a clothing optional state. The crime rate should drop significantly.
Posted by ChasCarolinaGirl on August 16, 2008 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Walk around Citadel mall sometime .. That is for sure where I have seen grungy underwear and dirty hiney's sticking out of saggy pants ... Im sure Citadel Mall isnt the only place in Chas, but that is for hte people who say they never see it.
Posted by hightide on August 16, 2008 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think God cares what you wear to church... so long as you go, I'm sure He is happy.
At least, that's why my parents told me when I was growing up.
Posted by coolfreaknbeans on August 16, 2008 at 5:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree hightide.Too many people try to make church pretentious.By doing this it makes people who want to go stay home.As long as your groomed well and dressed in clean and neat clothing(without your keister showing)-you're fine.
Posted by willie08 on August 16, 2008 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Indecent Exposure Laws can kiss my ars.
Underwear isn't indecent.
If we can run around half naked on beaches and pools, why can't we show a little underwear?
Girls show their bras all the time under their shirts.
What are you going to do? Send us to the principals office?
Posted by moonpie on August 16, 2008 at 5:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
He took this stand because he knows it will not stand! Although this should be a parental issue shouldn't it? Assuming there are parents in these little thugs life.
Posted by STREETLAW on August 16, 2008 at 7:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
that should be "too" stupid.
Posted by ChasCarolinaGirl on August 16, 2008 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Arch ~ I understand that part. All that I was saying is that we have a right to express our opinions.
I know that the P & C has a right to do w/ what they want w/ the comments. I wasn't arguing that fact. I was just wondering what happened to all of the comments. Several of us were. :-)
Posted by green123 on August 16, 2008 at 8:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
wow all i have to say is personal choice/freedom. laws/politicians that stand for these bills are leading this country down the road to become the next soviet.
Posted by fergdoug on August 16, 2008 at 8:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The boat on exposing the top of underwear sailed the same day young women started flaunting their brasserie straps. I am much more offended at the slutification of women's fashions.
Posted by SAINTPAPA on August 16, 2008 at 9:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
i been a CO in SCDC for some yrs, and sagging pants was started in prison...by gays....who were sagging their pants as a way of saying...I AM AVAILABLE FOR WHATEVER...if they only knew the real meaning....
Posted by STREETLAW on August 16, 2008 at 10:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Some people say that Obama was born out of wedlock to a non-citizen and is not legally qualified to be president?
In effect, he is not a citizen of the US of A.
What's that all about? Did he get in on a sponsors exemption? If so, who was the sponsor?
Posted by americanheretic on August 17, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Is every body here NUTS?
Posted by jeff61 on August 17, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No just a select few.
Posted by jeff61 on August 17, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Now then, tell me. What did Miggs say to you? Multiple Miggs in the next cell. He hissed at you. What did he say?
Posted by jeff61 on August 17, 2008 at 6:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sofa King, what’s your agenda, you have been on each article with the rhetoric
Posted by jeff61 on August 17, 2008 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by sofa_king_what on August 17, 2008 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with my old neighbor that used to say hard core right wing conservatives are the biggest hypocrite muther-f_ckers (to quote my neighbor!).
And your neighbor seemes like a very honorable guy talking like that. Must have been a pillar of the community. Did he make that comment in between crack sales?
Posted by jeff61 on August 17, 2008 at 7:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The true dangerous one is Obama with his 400 days of experience. Not a big strech fro old J jackson, no real job all his life working at some made up job until he ran against a dead guy and happen to win because of an ingnorant public.
Posted by jeff61 on August 17, 2008 at 8:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You must be from the same neighbour hood then to be living next to him...So any working to defend this country for people like you are typical hypocrite con. There are several of you that should follow guidedbystewie to Canada..
Posted by farfallaspeaks on August 17, 2008 at 9:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RIGHT ON SOFA KING WHAT!
Conservatives are on the other side of evolution, the side that dies off.
Posted by jeff61 on August 17, 2008 at 9:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
and Miracal Herb will cause your side to die off. How is you N Chas cop friend doing,, buying anymore herb from her lately.
Posted by goodkarmasc on August 18, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's ban spandex and belly shirts on any one over 150 pounds too! Eliminate X and Rebel Flag Shirts. Eliminate plaid and stripes, green and purple and certainly eliminate orange (for us Carolina fans).
Comon politicians, GROW UP and concentrate on REAL problems...like EDUCATING these kids. An educated person would not wear that kind of clothing!