BF2S Forums Saggers!!

DBBrinson1 wrote:

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=37249

Senator Siplin came pretty close Lowing..

The Saggy pants came about from prison.  An inmate would wear his pant low (saggy) if he was 'open for business'.  So, it's really got roots in gay prison sex.

actually that is myth and not true at all.

It came about do to not being issued belts and clothes that did not fit in the first place.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

lowing wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=37249

Senator Siplin came pretty close Lowing..

The Saggy pants came about from prison.  An inmate would wear his pant low (saggy) if he was 'open for business'.  So, it's really got roots in gay prison sex.

actually that is myth and not true at all.

It came about do to not being issued belts and clothes that did not fit in the first place.

Guess the Senator was mis informed.

I had heard that as well, so I snoped it, and it is covered there.  http://www.snopes.com/risque/homosex/sagging.asp


If ya can't trust your snopes who can ya trust?

lowing wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

lowing wrote:

actually that is myth and not true at all.

It came about do to not being issued belts and clothes that did not fit in the first place.

Guess the Senator was mis informed.

I had heard that as well, so I snoped it, and it is covered there.  http://www.snopes.com/risque/homosex/sagging.asp


If ya can't trust your snopes who can ya trust?

You can't trust snopes regarding political matters anymore.  Same goes with factcheck.org.  Snopes was sold in 2005.  I have yet to find out how much it was sold for, or to who it was sold, but there's no reason to trust whoever it is who now owns the site.  Factcheck is owned by the Annenberg Foundation, a foundation that has made recent political contributions.

Reciprocity wrote:

next time this comes up, lowing, take a swig of geritol, shake your cane in their direction an tell them to git of yer lawn.

Lol!

Wreckognize wrote:

I love how lowing assumes someone is dependent on social programs by their style of dress.

The odds are in my favor.

A guy that wears a halter top I will assume ( and probably safely) he is gay.

A guy that drives around with confederate flags all over his pick-up I will assume ( and probably safely) that he is a racist.

A guy that dresses and acts like an urban idiot, I will assume ( and probalby safely) that he is.

Wreckognize wrote:

I'm pretty sure that's the definition of prejudice.

Hey, if you see a guy in a cop uniform, will you assume he is a cop?

If you see a man in suit, will you assume he has a home and a job?

If you see a woman on the corner dressed like a prostitute will you assume she is one? Please explain the difference.


and you are correct, it is a prejudice. This does not mean the odds still do not favor the assumptions

Last edited by lowing (2009-07-01 11:42:11)

I'd say assuming someone is on welfare just because they dress "gangsta" is unreasonable prejudice.  But we all know how lowing like to sugarcoat his racism.

After almost 3 years of reading your posts, I'm pretty convinced that you're racist, even if you can't admit it.

Which question are you referring to?

and there ya go......another hit and run

ghettoperson wrote:

lowing wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=37249

Senator Siplin came pretty close Lowing..

The Saggy pants came about from prison.  An inmate would wear his pant low (saggy) if he was 'open for business'.  So, it's really got roots in gay prison sex.

actually that is myth and not true at all.

It came about do to not being issued belts and clothes that did not fit in the first place.

I always heard it was to do with the food being bad and inmates losing weight so their clothes hung off them.

Ohh I am sure it plays a part, at least I hope it does.

I think it's very natural to have a dislike towards people who dress like that. It (rightfully) represents a culture and mentality that for many is distasteful, so of course many people don't agree with wardrobes that advertise this negative image, whether the wearer subscribes to it or not. The same problem exists in almost all manners of expression, and I'm sure every one of you are irritated by at least one of these manners.

Ultimately people can do what they please, but if I owned an establishment with any kind of dress code, dressing like that would definitely be prohibited.