Ah, nothing like another expansion of government...

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

...from the GOP.

TN saggy pants law signed by Gov. Haslam | The Tennessean | tennessean.com

There's another one in Mississippi that got passed months ago.

Now they are telling you what you can and cannot wear and fining you if you wear what they tell you not to wear.

When will the insanity end?

 

[SPB1987]

...from the GOP.

TN saggy pants law signed by Gov. Haslam | The Tennessean | tennessean.com

There's another one in Mississippi that got passed months ago.

Now they are telling you what you can and cannot wear and fining you if you wear what they tell you not to wear.

When will the insanity end?

I do not see what is wrong with the Tennessee law. What is wrong with requiring students to wear their clothes in a decent manner? School is for learning and not walking around with your pants sagging so low your butt is showing like you are some thug. It is disgusting seeing how low some of these people allow their pants to sag.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

I do not see what is wrong with the Tennessee law. What is wrong with requiring students to wear their clothes in a decent manner? School is for learning and not walking around with your pants sagging so low your butt is showing like you are some thug. It is disgusting seeing how low some of these people allow their pants to sag.

Forcing kids to pay $250 and have a misdemeanor on their record doesn't strike you as a bit MUCH just for wearing clothes in a style you disagree with?

 

[SPB1987]

Forcing kids to pay $250 and have a misdemeanor on their record doesn't strike you as a bit MUCH just for wearing clothes in a style you disagree with?

Wearing clothes in a manner that shows your butt and under garments is indecent. How is forcing young men to pull their pants up any different that requiring young women to wear clothes that are not revealing or provocative? I did not read the entire article so I missed the bit about misdemeanor being on their records...this is a bit much. I see nothing wrong with punishing kids who refuse to follow a simple rule like dressing decent.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Wearing clothes in a manner that shows your butt and under garments is indecent. How is forcing young men to pull their pants up any different that requiring young women to wear clothes that are not revealing or provocative?

Because nobody sees a guy with saggy pants, licks their lips, and makes awkward and creepy sexy stalker faces?

I did not read the entire article so I missed the bit about misdemeanor being on their records...this is a bit much. I see nothing wrong with punishing kids who refuse to follow a simple rule like dressing decent.

Where do you draw the line, though? What's to stop our Christian majority from deeming anything that isn't Christian, jewelry, clothes, or accessories, a misdemeanor, illegal, and fining anyone $250 for violating it?

 

[Vylo]

I think the line should be you have to actually put your clothes full on .

 

[SPB1987]

Because nobody sees a guy with saggy pants, licks their lips, and makes awkward and creepy sexy stalker faces?



Where do you draw the line, though? What's to stop our Christian majority from deeming anything that isn't Christian, jewelry, clothes, or accessories, a misdemeanor, illegal, and fining anyone $250 for violating it?

You have a point about sagging pants not being a sexual thing. However, is wearing your pants in a manner that your butt is showing really appropriate in a learning environment? Is it to much to ask that kids pull their pants up when in school?

The possibility of Christians dictating what kind of jewelry or clothes we wear is not similar to requiring that our students not allow their butts to be revealed in school.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

I think the line should be you have to actually put your clothes full on .

Meh. I just don't think it's the big huge problem people are making it out to be. Especially not to waste time and money making MORE laws about silly, useless crap.

There's already a societal stigma against baggy pants. Just ignore it and the fad will die. Making laws is only going to make people WANT to keep it alive.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

You have a point about sagging pants not being a sexual thing. However, is wearing your pants in a manner that your butt is showing really appropriate in a learning environment? Is it to much to ask that kids pull their pants up when in school?

Their butts AREN'T showing, though, unless they aren't wearing underwear (in which case you've got a bigger issue than the sag of their pants ). And most of the saggy pants wearers I've come across (and I lived in California in an area where 9 out of 10 guys wore this style, saggy pants and all) wore shirts ten sizes too big so you didn't see their underwear anyway.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Also, disclaimer: I LOATHE saggy pants and shirts that are ten sizes too big, and most of the "hip" styles of the rap/hip hop-hungry generation. I think they are a good sign of idiocy and moron...ism?

 

[Schneiderman]

In a school setting, girls skirts/shorts should cover their legs and guys pants should cover their butt. Luckily we did not have too much of a sagging issue when I went to school but boy oh boy did the girls like to wear short skirts and shorts. While I didn't mind much at the time, it was inappropriate for them to wear that in school and it's inappropriate for any guy to sag his pants so his underwear or butt shows in school. Ban it, enforce it, punish it. This is not an example of government overreach whether it's from the republicans or democrats or whomever.

 

[citizenthom]

...from the GOP.

Both main sponsors were urban Democrats, and the sponsor in the Senate, Ophelia Ford, is part of the most powerful Democratic family in the state. Eight of the nine "nays" in the House were Republicans.

Nice try though.

Also, the final bill didn't include criminal sanctions, but directed LEAs (local education associations) to include a policy punishing any exposure of underwear in their disciplinary codes. I can't imagine there are any LEAs that actually ALLOW students to show their underwear.

In short, not as dumb a law as the one that would have imposed criminal sanctions--but a pretty superfluous one.

 

[John Lee Pettimore III]

It's in Tennessee, so I don't really care.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Both main sponsors were urban Democrats, and the sponsor in the Senate, Ophelia Ford, is part of the most powerful Democratic family in the state. Eight of the nine "nays" in the House were Republicans.

And 53 of the 81 yeas were Republican. That's a majority.

Nice try though.

What do you mean, "try"? The House version was voted for 53/81 Republicans and signed by our Republican governor. Additionally, the Senate version had all 31 yeas and no nays, 20/31 being Republican.

So this law screams "Republican majority" all over the place.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

This is not an example of government overreach whether it's from the republicans or democrats or whomever.

So let me get this straight.

Government tells you what kind of food you can eat in order to stay healthy = bad government overreach.

Government tells you what kind of clothes you can wear = great idea, no government overreach.

 

[Schneiderman]

So let me get this straight.

Government tells you what kind of food you can eat in order to stay healthy = bad government overreach.

Government tells you what kind of clothes you can wear = great idea, no government overreach.

You're obviously not interested in holding a rational and honest discussion so I don't know why I'm going to bother, but here goes:

1. I never said anything about food or government regulation or oversight of food so I don't know why you brought it up.
2. You've stripped the clothing example of context and failed to provide any context for your analogy to regulating healthy food. You're forcing me to assume that you are speaking of government regulation of food in a relevant circumstance to the issue of clothing present at hand. Therefore, if I am to entertain your line of discussion, I have to assume we are talking about the government regulating healthy food in public schools. The government does in fact regulate menu choices in public schools. The government must do so in order to offer menu choices, so if we expect the government to offer food in its schools then we would expect it to regulate what food it serves. This all falls perfectly in line with what I would expect from a public school, just as I would expect a public school to regulate what students (and faculty and guests, for that matter) should wear on school grounds.
3. The government isn't telling you what clothes you can or can't wear. It's telling students what clothes they can not wear while in school. For a wide range of reasons, dictating what students can or can not wear in school is an essential role of government without which the school would cease to function due to the distractions of inappropriate attire. If you don't believe me, visit any public school, study its clothing regulations and take note of the attire of its students. You will find, invariably, that a significant portion of the students wear clothing that tests the boundaries of school policy, whether that policy is strict or relaxed. Without any policy whatsoever, student attire choices would be inappropriate enough to severely disrupt an educational environment. Remember, we are dealing with children here.
4. You are attempting to manufacture outrage on the basis that Republicans have regulated something, asserting that Republicans tout themselves as a party of limited government. This is a false premise. The Republicans are a party of big government exactly as the Democrats are. In this case, however, the issue at hand has nothing to do with partisanship and is actually a rare example of government doing something it is supposed to do.

 

[citizenthom]

So this law screams "Republican majority" all over the place.

It was the Democrats' idea, and the Democrats were more solidly behind it. Are you saying that the Republican majority is beholden to vote down everything the Dems come up with or else be blamed for it?

 

[Rion]

I'm with Schneiderman on this one, especially since the final version is less "fine them" than the one you posted.

I'm also glad you finally decided to drop the pretense of neutrality. I can respect a person a lot more when they're being honest.

 

[dies-l]

The law strikes me as a little vague and/or prone to abusive interpretation. The way the law seems to be written a person who wears pants that, even inadvertently reveal one's underwear (as most pants will do in most people, especially those of us who are overweight) would possibly face prosecution if some school administrator felt that there was something indecent about the way they wore their clothes.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

It was the Democrats' idea, and the Democrats were more solidly behind it. Are you saying that the Republican majority is beholden to vote down everything the Dems come up with or else be blamed for it?

Well, yes, actually. Kinda like how the governor/President has a responsibility to veto any bill that goes against his or her principles, because signing that bill makes them responsible for its existence.