Baggy pants ban "unconstitutional"
Is the validity of the message dependent on whether you agree with it, whether you understand it? Better yet, it doesn't even matter. Don't forget John Denver opposing Tipper and her minions. He includes NWA saying "F@ck the Police" on 'Straight Outta Compton' or The Police and "Da doo doo da"... not just CSNY singing 'Ohio' There is a lot of art whose meaning is not obvious. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." And i will add 'even if i have no idea what you ARE saying'. (Thursday Sep 18 | post #33)
Baggy pants ban "unconstitutional"
It's as much of a stretch when underwear vs. flesh being visible is still considered 'exposure'. That is a stronger argument to counter the ordinances. OTOH fashion can be considered art, and art can certainly be considered 'speech' even with no associated 'text'. I have no doubt in my mind that these laws are specifically aimed at what this 'fashion statement' represents. Government making fashion rules while not explicitly unconstitutional hardly seems within the spirit of it. (Thursday Sep 18 | post #28)
Baggy pants ban "unconstitutional"
No one seemed to complain when Nashville hotties started 'exposing' their midriffs. Mutt puppet Shania anyone? For the record both Rose McGowan with the chainmail dress and Lil Kim with the flower pastie went to far ... regardless the approval 'voiced' by certain parts of my anatomy (Thursday Sep 18 | post #26)
Smokers Protest Illinois Smoking Ban
Depends... For a heavy smoker (2+ packs/day), not really. For a light smoker (<10 cigs/day) other factors become as important. For someone exposed to tobacco smoke the other factors become far more important. (Thursday Sep 18 | post #227)
Ever hear of Jury nullification? If you haven't i'm not surprised. BTW this 'standard' is exactly how a vast majority of people justify speeding, talking on a cell while driving or not maintaining the tires/brakes on their car... (Thursday Sep 18 | post #11)
Baggy pants ban "unconstitutional"
If the low pants are uncovering underwear that still covers flesh, where is the 'exposure'? This is clearly aimed at the association with 'urban' culture. However tenuous, it is a form of 'speech'. Now if the underwear happens to have an obscene or seditious logo then there might some argument. (Thursday Sep 18 | post #21)
Baggy pants ban "unconstitutional"
Funny you should bring up statues... http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Spirit_ of_Justice Not that this urban style thing comes even close to being art. Just more social, or better yet 'cultural' engineering. Compare this to the French and Marianne.. http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Mariann e NCF ... public indecency? Puh-lease; i know you tend to lean conservative, but between this and the St. Paul protests that's getting a bit authoritarian. Would you apply this to some of the fashions seen on the 'red carpet'? Or do these attractive white women with a large portion of their (often fake) breasts exposed not bother you as much. (Thursday Sep 18 | post #19)
A closer look at Sarah Palin's record
Good one .. **** (Wednesday Sep 10 | post #839)
A closer look at Sarah Palin's record
While i appreciate Sen. Obama for breaking free of old school Jacksonian (Jesse that is) politics one could hardly call many questioning Palin's record 'groupies'. (note headlineWinning was easy when your opponents are as weak and unpopular as hers were. As for the the approval rating, it was gained by using the oldest of liberal tools ... government hand-outs. (Wednesday Sep 10 | post #786)
A closer look at Sarah Palin's record
Despicable, frightening, incomprehensible ... i could go on. Simply put, unforgivable for anyone in public office. Good grief, from a 'journalist' no less? Is it any surprise that over 20 members of the '4th estate' were arrested during the RNC in St Paul. (Wednesday Sep 10 | post #784)
A closer look at Sarah Palin's record
That may be the case, but the controversy was from when she took office not later... Considering the backlash she probably considered it best to let it go. The facts seem to be that there was no list. Repeating it does not make it true and only diminishes the impact of what she DID actually ask. And make no mistake, simply ASKING the question is enough for me and should be for any other American. This is one person i am very afraid to have next in line to potentially the oldest president in history. (Wednesday Sep 10 | post #768)
A closer look at Sarah Palin's record
Uh, there's a problem with this list... A couple of books weren't even written yet when Palin took office (see Harry Potter). A total smear campaign? Not quite ... she did inquire as to the procedure for removing titles. http://www.adn.com /sarah-palin/story /515512.html That in and of itself is a massive RED FLAG regardless of the fact it was a 'rhetorical' question. Then you have the 'loyalty tests'. I can understand needing to ensure certain staff positions are held by individuals that will work with the mayor not against, but the city librarian?!? (Wednesday Sep 10 | post #748)
Way to paint with a broad brush there NCF. From where i sit there was a serious overreaction on the part of law-enforcement. Not the least of which was 19 journalists arrested!?! The total number of demonstrators was in the thousands of which the truly disruptive was a small minority. Over 800 arrests seems way out of proportion. I make strong distinctions between violent rioting, peaceful civil disobedience and sanctioned protests. And none of it remotely approached terrorism ... please. http://news.yahoo. com/s/ap/20080901/ ap_on_el_pr/cvn_co nvention_protests http://www.salon.c om/opinion/greenwa ld/radio/2008/09/0 8/guntzel/index.ht ml http://wcco.com/lo cal/protests.arres ts.rnc.2.810694.ht ml http://www.minneso taindependent.com/ 7923/crowd-control -at-the-rnc-fifty- million-unanswered -questions ‘Free speech zones’ ... cordoned off areas, out of sight/off site, where dissent is allowed? Not a big fan of those either, makes it sound like a granted privilege, not a FUNDAMENTAL, 1st amendment right. There's also the issue of Ron Paul and the convention. He wasn't barred, but did have to agree to an 'escort'. He obviously declined. (Tuesday Sep 9 | post #73)
Death prevented, interesting... Call me when the ACS pulls that one offDoesn’t stop anti smoking activists from making those connectionsOh they have more much more.... Smoking rates are going down and cancer rates are going up. The ACS, CDC, etc can continue to scapegoat and misdirect but the war on cancer is being lost. Countries like Peru and Japan have smoking rates TRIPLE that of the US and yet have much lower cancer rates. http://www.prevent cancer.com/publica tions/cancer-gate. php “Contrary to NCI and ACS claims, the escalating incidence of cancer cannot be explained away by smoking, but is due to avoidable exposures to a multiplicity of environmental carcinogens. And, while lung cancer rates have declined steadily, rates for a wide range of cancers unrelated to smoking have increased sharply.” (Monday Sep 8 | post #135)
