ive been laid off twice in the past 15 months. some career. please dude. that doesnt make sense. nobody stays with companies forever anymore. there are no more pensions. you have no choice but to follow money.lowing wrote:
jobs maybe, careers to build a life on not so much.usmarine wrote:
fuck no i wouldnt. but there are plenty of jobs out there where that doesnt matter.lowing wrote:
Let me ask you all something, lets say you owned a business, ( that wasn't a tattoo parlor or a urban clothing store), would you hire someone who dressed like a sagger or someone full of face piercings to represent you and your company? If you say yes it does not matter, you are liar, if you say no, now you know what the problem is and why the taxpayers eventually support this life style.
Homosexuality, the homeless are banned from places of work, it is called "no loitering" and has nothing to do with this so your derail from what I have posted fails.AussieReaper wrote:
Sexual tension? Why not make a post about keeping gay people away from public transport? It might make your life more comfortable. Or ban the homeless from places of work, and away from marketplaces? They might also make you feel uncomfortable as you go about your daily routine.lowing wrote:
Ummmm well, how about, most of us do not feel the need to sit next to men who wear their pants around their ankles? I know crazy huh?
You're not paying taxes as heavily as 50cent is. And he is a serial offender so I don't buy your, "we pay for their lifestyles by taxes" attitude for one minute. And he does contribute to society, as both a role model for kids, and as an American icon of success, and he contributes to the arts through music.
50 cent makes a living promoting a destructive lifestyle. I have no problem with this, he has found a market catering to the self destructive. If people choose it, and him as a role model, so be it. It is their choice, not mine, so I do not feel the need to cover for them.
Wow. Trousers. Wow.
better than those goofy things you leprechauns wear tbh.CameronPoe wrote:
Wow. Trousers. Wow.
I agree, but it goes toward marketablity doesn't it? You are not marketable in anything else if you choose this life style, therefore become a burden on those that choose to be marketable and can help sustain an economy.usmarine wrote:
ive been laid off twice in the past 15 months. some career. please dude. that doesnt make sense. nobody stays with companies forever anymore. there are no more pensions. you have no choice but to follow money.lowing wrote:
jobs maybe, careers to build a life on not so much.usmarine wrote:
fuck no i wouldnt. but there are plenty of jobs out there where that doesnt matter.
Why do you believe these people don't have self respect and normal jobs?lowing wrote:
I agree, but it goes toward marketablity doesn't it? You are not marketable in anything else if you choose this life style, therefore become a burden on those that choose to be marketable and can help sustain an economy.
Saggy pants =/= a burden to the economy. And as stated, 50cent has found a market and is getting rich off it quite nicely. He's a more successful American than you are.
leprechauns aren't actually real marine.usmarine wrote:
better than those goofy things you leprechauns wear tbh.CameronPoe wrote:
Wow. Trousers. Wow.
bollocks. he is on my box of cereal.CameronPoe wrote:
leprechauns aren't actually real marine.usmarine wrote:
better than those goofy things you leprechauns wear tbh.CameronPoe wrote:
Wow. Trousers. Wow.
They do not have respect because they go against the grain of acceptance and force feed this shit on the rest of us that do not want to see it. As far a self respect goes, they might, but their sense of thinking they are cool or accepted in a productive world is delusional.AussieReaper wrote:
Why do you believe these people don't have self respect and normal jobs?lowing wrote:
I agree, but it goes toward marketability doesn't it? You are not marketable in anything else if you choose this life style, therefore become a burden on those that choose to be marketable and can help sustain an economy.
Saggy pants =/= a burden to the economy. And as stated, 50cent has found a market and is getting rich off it quite nicely. He's a more successful American than you are.
As far as the job thing goes, I speak generally and by your OWN ADMITTANCE getting a career is going to be next to impossible if no one will hire them outside a fuckin tattoo parlor. You basically answered your own question
50 cent deos make more than me and is more successful than I am, I do not deny this, however how he is geting rich is not a positive influence on our society, he is exploiting his followers. I do not care about this, he is taken care of and the ones that are taking care of him are in self destruct mode.
Last edited by lowing (2009-06-28 07:34:37)
They go against the grain of acceptance? I don't see how unaccepted rappers are. They seem to be more accepted by kids these days than the values of the founding fathers.lowing wrote:
They do not have respect because they go against the grain of acceptance and force feed this shit on the rest of us that do not want to see it.
You are again making the assumption that these people do not have every day and/or normal jobs. I'm sure they choose to dress differently for work than they do at home/in public in much the same way you do. They wear suits or clean up in just the same way you would when going for an interview.lowing wrote:
As far as the job thing goes, I speak generally and by your OWN ADMITTANCE getting a career is going to be next to impossible if no one will hire them outside a fuckin tattoo parlor. You basically answered your own question
I'm quite surprised a die hard Republican as yourself is asking for personal freedoms as basic as the right to dress be encroached upon.
usmarine wrote:
i get the feeling lowing wanted to use another word that ends with "ggers."
Saggers need to be pushed off a plane.
ATG wrote:
Saggers need to be pushed off a plane.
Ahhhhhhhhh, yet again you answer your own queston as to what the problem is. Good job.AussieReaper wrote:
They go against the grain of acceptance? I don't see how unaccepted rappers are. They seem to be more accepted by kids these days than the values of the founding fathers.lowing wrote:
They do not have respect because they go against the grain of acceptance and force feed this shit on the rest of us that do not want to see it.You are again making the assumption that these people do not have every day and/or normal jobs. I'm sure they choose to dress differently for work than they do at home/in public in much the same way you do. They wear suits or clean up in just the same way you would when going for an interview.lowing wrote:
As far as the job thing goes, I speak generally and by your OWN ADMITTANCE getting a career is going to be next to impossible if no one will hire them outside a fuckin tattoo parlor. You basically answered your own question
I'm quite surprised a die hard Republican as yourself is asking for personal freedoms as basic as the right to dress be encroached upon.
It is an assumption, and like you yourself pointed out when you admitted you would not hire them for any type of real career, I feel it is a safe assumption.
For those that do have careers and I am not helping to support, I still do not feel society should accept idiots walking amoung us in their underwear as a fashion statement. Where would YOU draw the line?
I already addressed the hypocrisy in the OP.
Funny how you admit the problem and argue that there is not one at the same time, that is real talant.
Last edited by lowing (2009-06-28 07:47:18)
Not really since you made no mention of values other than these guys made you uncomfortable at the airport cause you saw some underwear.lowing wrote:
Ahhhhhhhhh, yet again you answer your own queston as to what the problem is. Good job.
It is an assumption, and like you yourself pointed out when you admitted you would not hire them for any type of real career, I feel it is a safe assumption.
For those that do have careers and I am not helping to support, I still do not feel society should accept idiots walking amoung us in their underwear as a fashion statement. Where would YOU draw the line?
I already addressed the hypocrisy in the OP.
I would not hire them for a typical job, unless they dressed appropriately. The same can be said for someone who wears heavy eyeliner and wants to be a Nurse. It isn't going to happen. There is no double standard that you think exists here.
I'd draw the line at offensive clothing such as swastikas on the arms, kkk symbolism, any discriminatory slogans or racist attire tbh should not be acceptable.
These guys aren't harming anyone. They made you feel uncomfortable cause you saw some men's underwear? I dare say if you were comfortable with your own sexuality you wouldn't have a problem with these guys.
Already addressed the liberal brain trust on this forum with your accusations in the OP.ColCarnage wrote:
http://www.kleenkuip.com/images/blog_naggers.jpgusmarine wrote:
i get the feeling lowing wanted to use another word that ends with "ggers."
Your solution? More govt. control over what people can wear in public!lowing wrote:
We have given up control of everything positive and productive, though complacency, to our govt. and the negative influences in our society.
Give it a rest will you, the way people dress is protected by the by the First Amendment. There are some exceptions to the rule such as schools, racist or discriminatory clothing, Defamation, Fighting Words, Incitement of Crime, or my favorite Establishment of Religion.
Actually my OP addressed more than just seeing underwear.AussieReaper wrote:
Not really since you made no mention of values other than these guys made you uncomfortable at the airport cause you saw some underwear.lowing wrote:
Ahhhhhhhhh, yet again you answer your own queston as to what the problem is. Good job.
It is an assumption, and like you yourself pointed out when you admitted you would not hire them for any type of real career, I feel it is a safe assumption.
For those that do have careers and I am not helping to support, I still do not feel society should accept idiots walking amoung us in their underwear as a fashion statement. Where would YOU draw the line?
I already addressed the hypocrisy in the OP.
I would not hire them for a typical job, unless they dressed appropriately. The same can be said for someone who wears heavy eyeliner and wants to be a Nurse. It isn't going to happen. There is no double standard that you think exists here.
I'd draw the line at offensive clothing such as swastikas on the arms, kkk symbolism, any discriminatory slogans or racist attire tbh should not be acceptable.
These guys aren't harming anyone. They made you feel uncomfortable cause you saw some men's underwear? I dare say if you were comfortable with your own sexuality you wouldn't have a problem with these guys.
Nope, no double standard at all, I did not see anyone dressed like a street hooker strung out on crack. If it would make you feel better, I will gladly add them to the list however, I do not feel hooker trash is a nation wide epidemic of a destructive life style.
Why are you allowed to be offended by political symbols, and would have them banned and I am not allowed to be offended by saggers and a gangsta life style without being a racist?
Already said, and addressed, how this is morwe than seeing underwear. I can not help it that you are so good at admitting the problem that arises with this, and denies it at the same time.
These guys are not harming anyone, in this context, neither is a guy with a swasitika on his arm. Yet you would ban it. Go figure.
Another example how liberal ideology is a double standard and fails completely.
Nope, it goes toward the decline of our society and the will of the people. The people have made their choice and it is a destructive choice.AussieReaper wrote:
Your solution? More govt. control over what people can wear in public!lowing wrote:
We have given up control of everything positive and productive, though complacency, to our govt. and the negative influences in our society.
It's quite simple really:lowing wrote:
Why are you allowed to be offended by political symbols, and would have them banned and I am not allowed to be offended by saggers and a gangsta life style without being a racist?
Narupug wrote:
the way people dress is protected by the by the First Amendment. There are some exceptions to the rule such as schools, racist or discriminatory clothing, Defamation, Fighting Words, Incitement of Crime, or my favorite Establishment of Religion.
I guess you cannot understand how race hate is committed and perpetuated by a swastika on someone's arm. There is a reason for the laws banning such clothing. Some double standard...lowing wrote:
These guys are not harming anyone, in this context, neither is a guy with a swasitika on his arm. Yet you would ban it. Go figure.
Another example how liberal ideology is a double standard and fails completely.
I never said it wasn't protected, I said the choices people are making in our society will eventually destroy our society. This fashion does not promote a work ethic, or a responsible life style. It promotes self destruction and eventually the tax payers will take the hit for it.Narupug wrote:
Give it a rest will you, the way people dress is protected by the by the First Amendment. There are some exceptions to the rule such as schools, racist or discriminatory clothing, Defamation, Fighting Words, Incitement of Crime, or my favorite Establishment of Religion.
This choice is the will of the people, however
So what? Since when do you have the right not to be offended? If I have no right not to be offended, niether should you.AussieReaper wrote:
It's quite simple really:lowing wrote:
Why are you allowed to be offended by political symbols, and would have them banned and I am not allowed to be offended by saggers and a gangsta life style without being a racist?Narupug wrote:
the way people dress is protected by the by the First Amendment. There are some exceptions to the rule such as schools, racist or discriminatory clothing, Defamation, Fighting Words, Incitement of Crime, or my favorite Establishment of Religion.I guess you cannot understand how race hate is committed and perpetuated by a swastika on someone's arm. There is a reason for the laws banning such clothing. Some double standard...lowing wrote:
These guys are not harming anyone, in this context, neither is a guy with a swasitika on his arm. Yet you would ban it. Go figure.
Another example how liberal ideology is a double standard and fails completely.
and no, it isn't that simple, really.
Do you want a history lesson on the Bill of Rights or something?lowing wrote:
So what? Since when do you have the right not to be offended? If I have no right not to be offended, niether should you.
Then what do you suggest we do, get a lynch mob together and go out and take care of the Saggers? Run around sneaking up on these people and pulling their pants up? Giving them a slap on the wrist?lowing wrote:
I never said it wasn't protected, I said the choices people are making in our society will eventually destroy our society. This fashion does not promote a work ethic, or a responsible life style. It promotes self destruction and eventually the tax payers will take the hit for it.Narupug wrote:
Give it a rest will you, the way people dress is protected by the by the First Amendment. There are some exceptions to the rule such as schools, racist or discriminatory clothing, Defamation, Fighting Words, Incitement of Crime, or my favorite Establishment of Religion.
This choice is the will of the people, however