Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
The third most violent city in American had declared war on . . . saggy pants. Below, a helpful graphic from the Detroit Free Press explains the new law.
I wrote about the new wave of baggy pants laws back in January.
Flint, Michigan Battles Crack Epidemic
Comments to "Flint, Michigan Battles Crack Epidemic":
Elemenope | July 9, 2008, 12:47pm | #
Can some 1st Amendment lawyer please butt-fuck these assholes? Please? It's a little overdue.Elemenope | July 9, 2008, 12:53pm | #
And of course the best part is, if the people who sagged their pants really *were* dangerous, all that harassing them would end up accomplishing is getting police officers shot.Not that they care about the rank-and-file, but still. Stupid.
I love how they skirt the obvious racial issue by making the models BRIGHT BLUE.
Nigel Watt | July 9, 2008, 12:55pm | #
...Jail for looking like a retard?The Wine Commonsewer | July 9, 2008, 12:57pm | #
Dam, six, you beat me to it. Plumbers Union.....thoreau | July 9, 2008, 12:57pm | #
making the models BRIGHT BLUEIs this part of the Secret Plan to start rounding up libertarians?
J | July 9, 2008, 12:58pm | #
Next they'll be arresting the plumbers.(Just kidding, I know most of you probably wear pants that don't show your ass)
SugarFree | July 9, 2008, 12:58pm | #
dagny,You've obviously never been to Detroit. Smurfs took over the local gang scene years ago.
MP | July 9, 2008, 12:58pm | #
From the article:Flint residents now have to watch their butts because Police Chief David Dicks is on the lookout.That opening line could have been so much better...
Watch out, or else Dicks will be up your ass!
The police should be thankful this is the style. Have you ever tried to run with your pants around your ankles?
Invisible Finger | July 9, 2008, 1:01pm | #
How can they tell my boxers from any other shorts? Do shorts have to have pockets in order to not be considered underwear?Look, I'm more libertarian than the next guy. Wearing your pants around your knees is absolutely your Constitutionally guaranteed right. I just wish people would stop exercising it. I can't for the life of me figure out how anything that retarded stayed in fashion for more than one year.
J sub D | July 9, 2008, 1:02pm | #
Balko, I win this round.J sub D | July 9, 2008, 9:57am | #
... For an example we go to Flint, Michigan. The local costabulary is busily engaged in combatting the frightening menace of sagging trousers. When I read about this I thought to myself"Self, it is certainly good news that the local cops have eradicated all of the violent and property crimes in the city so they now have the resources freed up to enforce the city dress code".Oh, wait ...
Underware exposed? My God, I could get arrested most any morning I go down the drive to pick up the paper.
joe | July 9, 2008, 1:05pm | #
Oh, man, you think they'd let me order one those in poster size?I'm a suspenders guy myself, but that is teh awesome.
Naga Sadow | July 9, 2008, 1:05pm | #
What if you don't wear underwear?Malto Dextrin | July 9, 2008, 1:08pm | #
Gives new meaning to the term "fashion police".broken | July 9, 2008, 1:08pm | #
That image seems like it should be page 1 from some NAMBLA instructional handout.Preston | July 9, 2008, 1:08pm | #
Looks like Tobias Funke got some modeling work, however I don't know how they got him to expose himself without the cut-offs.val | July 9, 2008, 1:13pm | #
I was listening to jerkoff Flint police chief this morning on the radio defending this against irrate callers, it was some incoherent bullshit about how 'wait till you turn 40 or 50', and how this law will help people find jobs because they wont be able to wear sagging pants to an interview.If someone want to search maybe there is a link to the audio. It was on 95.5 around 9 am this morning, I would, but work blocks 'enteraintment' web sites.
Episiarch | July 9, 2008, 1:13pm | #
I fully support this legislation*, as it shows clear as day to the public how stupid, wasteful, lazy, and impotent against real crime their local police and politicians are.* not really, but you get my point
PFJ | July 9, 2008, 1:18pm | #
Didn't Tobias conquer his never nude condition at some point? Am I Failing to remember a relapse?Lamar | July 9, 2008, 1:24pm | #
"I love how they skirt the obvious racial issue by making the models BRIGHT BLUE."Don't the haircuts make it quite obvious?
Mr. Nice Guy | July 9, 2008, 1:25pm | #
I'm not in support of this law, because it just strikes me as silly, but I must say I'm having some trouble thinking of the exact reason why. I think public nudity can be prohibited and it can be argued that at some point exposing your ass falls into that area. Granted the underwear showing stuff would not.Mr. Nice Guy | July 9, 2008, 1:28pm | #
And I've seen people where their pants quite low and much underwear showing but I'm not sure I've seen the pants actually "below the buttocks" as the diagram demonstrates. That strikes me as gravity defying...That's levitation, holmes.
reason #135 | July 9, 2008, 1:29pm | #
As a woman, I'm much less likely to be cited for disorderly conduct in Flint, Michigan.Elemenope | July 9, 2008, 1:29pm | #
That's levitation, holmes.And cops having stopped all criminals more serious than these with the power of their minds, that's telekinesis, Kyle!
ClubMedSux | July 9, 2008, 1:31pm | #
I was listening to jerkoff Flint police chief this morning on the radio defending this against irrate callers, it was some incoherent bullshit about how 'wait till you turn 40 or 50...That gives me an idea... In order to avoid discrimination against the young, this law should go both ways. Go ahead and ban sagging pants, but also make it illegal to hike pants up above your belly button. I'm sorry, but if you have to unzip your fly to scratch your chest, something's wrong...
sage | July 9, 2008, 1:31pm | #
They left out one of the pictures:HEALTH CODE VIOLATION
Pants down
Buttocks exposed
"monkey tail" hanging out
Old Bull Lee | July 9, 2008, 1:37pm | #
What racial issue? Wiggers sag their pants too.Mr. Nice Guy | July 9, 2008, 1:39pm | #
LmnopeThe cops use mind bullets, right?
anon | July 9, 2008, 1:46pm | #
As always, those clever Japanese have a solution to the problem (Warning - R-rated):http://www.kornerson.com/comments.aspx?v=v&mv=200807/japanese-high-school.flv&id=7830
Preston | July 9, 2008, 1:46pm | #
Tobias did, briefly, overcome his "nevernudeness," (a little too much in Ron Howard's opinion) but relapsed soon after.Elemenope | July 9, 2008, 1:49pm | #
The cops use mind bullets, right?And, sadly, the power to move you.
Robert | July 9, 2008, 1:51pm | #
What if your underpants are exposed not because your pants are low but your underpants are high? Or just long? I've had my underpants showing simultaneously above and below my shorts.My understanding is that this is another "prison chic" fashion, originating because prisoners weren't allowed to wear belts (so they couldn't hang themselves or others) and encouraged to have pants tripping them if they tried to run.
What if your jean's waistline is below your butt, but you're wearing spandex bicycle shorts underneath?
Other Matt | July 9, 2008, 1:55pm | #
My understanding is that this is another "prison chic" fashion, originating because prisoners weren't allowed to wear belts (so they couldn't hang themselves or others) and encouraged to have pants tripping them if they tried to run.Not buying the "pants tripping" part, but I could believe the belt prohibition. Probably compounded by lack of sizing in the prison system.
Oh, man, you think they'd let me order one those in poster size?
joe's looking for a poster size picture of male figures painted blue with their asses exposed? Somehow, that's rather unsurprising.
jtuf | July 9, 2008, 1:57pm | #
I wish parents would just monitor their children better. Even so, the council should not waste police time by legislating fashion.Reinmoose | July 9, 2008, 1:58pm | #
What if you don't wear underwear?Indeed. This lends itself to so much interpretation it's laughable.
I saw a guy once while standing in line at the grocery store with his whole back pocket of his jeans ripped out and a giant patch of white briefs exposed... would that, too, be disorderly conduct?
Chloe | July 9, 2008, 1:58pm | #
For some reason I just couldn't give to shits about this.J sub D | July 9, 2008, 2:04pm | #
For some reason I just couldn't give to shits about this.Not even enough to spell correctly?
;-)
Metal Messiah | July 9, 2008, 2:04pm | #
They should name this "Jesse's Law" in honor of the late Senator Helms.Because, you know, young Negro males wear their pants low in order to attract white wimmin.
And, by gum, that's against the laws of God, Man, and nature!
Danny | July 9, 2008, 2:05pm | #
So men can't wear clothes that may reveal their crack, but female models can wear pieces of cloth barely covering their nipples, which cause me to dart to either side of the TV, hoping to catch a different angle for a nip shot. Alas, it never works.../and yes, I know the wonders of (free!) internet pr0n.
This law was passed in a direct response to an alleged after-school drive-by half-mooning directed at the Flint police department. Sagging your pants is like brandishing a loaded weapon. It's not a matter of if, but a matter of when more of our city's finest law enforcement officers become tragic victims to another teenage browneye.
Elemenope | July 9, 2008, 2:10pm | #
Sagging your pants isFixed for accuracy.
Art-P.O.G. | July 9, 2008, 2:10pm | #
What if your jean's waistline is below your butt, but you're wearing spandex bicycle shorts underneath?Ah, the "Lance Armstrong".
Russ 2000 | July 9, 2008, 2:18pm | #
Would enjoy seeing a new trend of wearing underwear on the outside of ones pants.I suppose that would make them "overpants", and then we can all laugh at Hitler again.
The first time I saw somebody wearing his pants like that, I thought "Wow, he's got some nice shoes for a homeless guy."
Neu Mejican | July 9, 2008, 2:20pm | #
And I've seen people where their pants quite low and much underwear showing but I'm not sure I've seen the pants actually "below the buttocks" as the diagram demonstrates. That strikes me as gravity defying...That's levitation, holmes.
It is a common enough sight 'round here.
It involves much hand-to-crotch action, tight-belting, an inverted "v" stance... and I have always suspected safety pins.
What if you wear two pairs of underwear, so only one is visible?
Jordan | July 9, 2008, 2:30pm | #
I love how they skirt the obvious racial issue by making the models BRIGHT BLUE.This is not limited to dumbasses of one race. I'm pretty ambivalent about this trend. On the one hand, it's annoying as hell. On the other, you can taunt these morons with impunity because they're too busy holding their pants up to be able to chase or fight you.
while they're at it, can they make it illegal to have women's jeans with elastic in the waist band (notoriously, "mom jeans")? Or even just being ugly in general?
ChicagoTom | July 9, 2008, 2:35pm | #
Based on my reading of the article, it seems that there is no new law, just a new technique for enforcing existing laws. It seems that the police chief basically decided that anyone who is showing a butt-crack will be charged with indecent exposure and anyone with their pants below their ass will get cited for Disorderly Conduct.Since no one has been arrested for it -- and there doesn't seem to be any new laws on the books, how can a legal challenge be mounted? Could you sue for a violation of civil rights if you are stopped, searched and "warned" about your skivvies showing?
I'm not in support of this law, because it just strikes me as silly, but I must say I'm having some trouble thinking of the exact reason why. I think public nudity can be prohibited and it can be argued that at some point exposing your ass falls into that area. Granted the underwear showing stuff would not.
1. Exposing part of your butt crack is hardly the same as public nudity.
2. Also offensive is this (from the article):
Flint's not the first city to take a look at policing the exposure of underwear. Pontiac, Auburn Hills, Atlanta and cities across the nation have debated the issue. But Dicks makes the assertion that wearing pants below the waist can give police probable cause to search saggers for other crimes, such as weapon and drug possession. He said because sagging is a crime, it presents probable cause for police to search saggers.These laws will absolutely be abused to stop and frisk anyone the cops want.
The "disorderly conduct" aspect of this enforcement is so subjective and ripe for abuse. But even worse is the fact that if the pants aren't below your buttocks, then there is no crime -- so how do they justify stopping and frisking people whose clothes aren't violating the law and only merits a warning? Something seems off about that.
From the same article Dicks defines the enfocement approach thusly:
Dicks, 41, broke down his interpretation of the laws as such: Pants pulled completely below the buttocks with underwear showing is disorderly conduct; saggy pants with skin of the buttocks showing is indecent exposure, and saggy pants, not completely below the buttocks, with underwear exposed results in a warning.But then, as he was showing off to the local news this happens:
As he drove through Flint's north and east sides, he flipped on the flashing lights of his departmental-issued Chevy Tahoe as he stopped a shirtless young man walking in the streets with saggy shorts and exposed boxers.So Dicks lies to the victim here and says that it's indecent exposure even though, by Dick's own standards it isn't -- and that happened while cameras where on him. Imagine how he is gonna have his officers enforce this shit when no cameras are around.
"Did you hear about the law?" the chief asked.
"I heard about it the other day," the man responded.
"I'm gonna issue a warning. I need you to get a belt because it's indecent exposure," the chief said to the twentysomething man on Delaware and N. Franklin.
3. To me, the most offensive part is this statement:
On June 27, the chief issued a departmental memorandum telling officers: "This immoral self expression goes beyond freedom of expression."I don't seem to remember a morality cause in the 1st amendment. Is only moral expression protected? And whose moral standards are we using.
Finally, the most disappointing response comes from the ACLU which isn't sure what they should do:
"We will wait and see if this new policy is enforced before we decide to take action.," she said in a statement. "We will be concerned if the policy disproportionately affects African Americans."Really? That's your concern? Not the stupidity or the Constitutionality or the civil rights violations?
thoreau | July 9, 2008, 2:37pm | #
These laws will absolutely be abused to stop and frisk anyFixed that for you.
Does anybody seriously think that middle-aged plumbers will be searched under this law?
I've seen the "waistline below the butt" style pretty often here in Texas. However, the "underwear" looks like it's an integral part of the jeans, not a separate garment.
Regarding the ACLU: While I agree that this policy would be ridiculous and worthy of overturning even if it didn't have a disproportionate impact on minority groups, it may be easier for them to mount a legal challenge if they can show disproportionate impact.
Rhywun | July 9, 2008, 2:41pm | #
It involves much hand-to-crotch actionHuh. I was wondering what that's all about.
Ron Paul Survival Report | July 9, 2008, 2:48pm | #
No comment.Who writes my stuff, anyway? | July 9, 2008, 2:51pm | #
If outerwear is lawfully forced on, only worn-out laws will be fully enforced.Jordan | July 9, 2008, 3:04pm | #
Really? That's your concern? Not the stupidity or the Constitutionality or the civil rights violations?The ACLU became corrupted by leftwingers a long time ago (funny how this happens to so many organizations). They've had a hard-on for affirmative action for ages and never met a gun that they didn't want banned, among other things.
troy | July 9, 2008, 3:06pm | #
So does this mean they can't show that one episode of Saturday Night Live where Dan Akyroyd comes in as a plumber bends over and shows the crack of his big fat ass?While we are at it, can we ban ugly people too?
Your Good Buddy Johnny Clarke | July 9, 2008, 3:07pm | #
One word - Shariah.Now we can all stop pointing and laughing at them weirdo middle eastern folk and their curious ways.
J sub D | July 9, 2008, 3:07pm | #
Let's just admit that this has nothing to do with morality, disorderly conduct or indecent exposure. It's a fucking dress code that will be used to harrass mostly minority youths.Did your parents like the way you dressed in your mid teens to mid twenties?
Mine didn't and I've always been a fairly conservative (in dress and demeanor) guy.
I love how they skirt the obvious racial issue
A boom box held close to the head would have been funny, if not entirely up-to-date.
A boom box held close to the head would have been funny, if not entirely up-to-date.
Untermensch | July 9, 2008, 3:24pm | #
Not buying the "pants tripping" part, but I could believe the belt prohibition. Probably compounded by lack of sizing in the prison system.The Soviets definitely did this in Lubyanka and other prisons. Pants were oversized so that you had to hold them up with one hand to go anywhere. If you dropped them you got beaten, so you tended to be pretty preoccupied with keeping them on rather than doing anything more advanced like trying to escape.
So I buy the "pants tripping part".
Alice Bowie | July 9, 2008, 3:31pm | #
It's just a bunch of white guys jealous that a baggy pant black guy has a big PEE PEEbigbigslacker | July 9, 2008, 4:04pm | #
93 days to one year in jail, or up to $500 fine?"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
I forget, does the 8th apply to local governments, or is that just for the more important amendments?
R C Dean | July 9, 2008, 4:11pm | #
A boom box held close to the head would have been funny, if not entirely up-to-date.Somebody with mad Photoshop skillz, please please please do this.
The New Revolution | July 9, 2008, 4:13pm | #
The Bill of Rights has become . . . The Bill of Frights! wuaaaahahahahah!Male cleavage below the waist in back: bad. Female cleavage above the waist in front: good.
joshua corning | July 9, 2008, 5:14pm | #
If only they would just take all the blue people and put em on an island or something then we would not have this sort of problem.Invisible Finger | July 9, 2008, 5:21pm | #
Somebody with mad Photoshop skillz, please please please do this.Number 05 on the back would be easier
Blue Man Group | July 9, 2008, 6:00pm | #
Laws like these are why we wear those form-fitting outfits all the time.Balloon Maker | July 9, 2008, 6:15pm | #
What if I hang my balls out the front of my pants? Thats still cool, right?I'm sure Joe Arpaio is busy finding something Mexicans wear that he can make illegal
Anyone want to put up some odds that this only gets enforced against males. Those sexist pigs will sit in their patrol cars and jerk off if they happen to catch an (attractive) lady with some thongage (I think that is the right term).
Matt Brown | July 9, 2008, 7:29pm | #
> Anyone want to put up some odds that this only> gets enforced against males.
I'm not so sure the cops would so readily give up the option to stop & search young women, either.
Brandybuck | July 9, 2008, 7:51pm | #
We don't need a law to fight this. We just need to laugh at people with droopy drawers. And not old white men laughing, either. Just hire some hot black chicks to go around and laugh at beltless homeys.TheOtherOne | July 9, 2008, 7:59pm | #
And I've seen people where their pants quite low and much underwear showing but I'm not sure I've seen the pants actually "below the buttocks" as the diagram demonstrates. That strikes me as gravity defying...I've seen it once here in Columbus - last week. The first thought was "dude, your ass isn't THAT great". Second thought was "but I guess some folks would pay for it."
But what I want to know is whether a girl with low-rider jeans low enough to show a bit of ass-crack is going to face the same criminal penalties as a guy showing the same amount of ass . . . .
juris imprudent | July 9, 2008, 9:19pm | #
I'm thinking there's a new Michael Moore documentary in this somewhere.Back to Flint?
J Golden | July 9, 2008, 9:45pm | #
"I'm thinking there's a new Michael Moore documentary in this somewhere."AUUUGH! The thought of the Round Clown in saggies has left a bad taste in my mind!
The real cure is to publicize the fact that saggies are a signal that one is looking for gay sex (not everyone can get to the Minneapolis Airport men's room).
Christoff | July 10, 2008, 1:29am | #
"Another friend Senita Abrams, 18, said: 'I think it's cute when boys sag.'"Heh.
Butt crack crack down. Will camel toes be next? Not too low, not too high... there, just right.
Douglas Fletcher | July 10, 2008, 7:56am | #
I don't mind the saggy pants thing one bit, it's like tattoos on the face, a nice self-identifying tag that tells me a likely knucklehead is approaching.Especially in wigger-land.
How about some decent jobs so that 'Drug Dealer' isn't such an attractive career option?
MichiganGirl | July 10, 2008, 9:35am | #
You're all missing the point of the law. They hide guns and drugs in those baggy pants. Don't you people watch The Wire?!It seems this law is silent on the issue of just wearing underwear with no pants at all....
jc | July 10, 2008, 9:42am | #
Its illegal for a person to walk around in their underwear. It is also a hazard when crossing the street...here in Memphis, these guys let the waist band dangle around their ankles while holding the front of their belt. It is to the point that they are tripping and falling while crossing the street in rush hour traffic. It is very bizarre.mike | July 10, 2008, 10:38am | #
Congratulations, you have succeeded in writing pointless law to regulate fashion, violate the Bill of Rights, and waste my tax dollars enforcing something that does bother anyone but Grammy and she was going to vote for you anyway.And to people who say its about hiding drugs and guns. Your a dumbass! You can hide drugs and guns in a 3-pice suite. Abercrombie cargo pants could hide nuclear warheads but no one is outlawing them. Or purses for that matter, but white college girls never sell drugs, right? The law doesn't say anything about drugs or guns it says "indecency." If they want to make a law about visibility of pockets, be my guest. But last time check the 4th, 9th and 14th amendments as well as the supreme court say it's none of your fucking biz what's in my pocket unless you have a reason to check me. But I digress...
Back to indecency. Are we going to outlaw the t-shirts with dirt jokes like "Dick's foot longs a whole lot o meat"? No. Why, because white collage kids ware them, and because the supreme court ruled that you can say "Fuck the War" (thats Vietnam not Iraq) on a t-shirt and if people don't want to look they don't have to.
Also, indecency is measured by the cultural standards of the area. Now, if I can see full on ass on NYPD Blue in primetime and high school kids getting knocked up on ABC Family, how the hell are they going to argue that seeing the top inch of someones crack is more indecent?
It's not a gang thing or a drug thing ether. Do you know how easy it is to catch someone on foot when their pants fall down!? Drug dealers know this, they have belts or better yet, CARS. In reality it's a young black thing, and because old white people associate young black things with crime and drugs, it had to be stopped. It's OK to be young and black as long as your clean cut and talk like a honky.
Maybe, if Michigan stopped worrying about stupid shit and spent more money on rebuilding their economy, bringing jobs into the cities, and fixing some of the most fucked-up schools in the nation, the crime rate would come down a bit. In any event, this fashion is already in the decline, next they will be passing a law against Laughy-Taffy wardrobes for causing headaches (thats dayglow fashion were nothing you ware matches and it looks like Carebear on LSD just shat a rainbow on your closet)
I'm a collage educate white man from SC and even I get it. Whats wrong with folks in MI, you can't outlaw something just because you don't like it. Trust me SC does it all the time.
Most of the saggy pants models I see walking around San Francisco don't expose their asses anyway, they wear long tailed shirts (usually basketball jerseys) covering themselves down to below the crotch level. You don't even see the beltline of the pants or where it's hanging, just the bagged up pants legs. So if no ass is being shown, but the pants are still baggy, what then?
Fritz | July 10, 2008, 1:36pm | #
Can't you just smell an EU-style 100-page code for proper dress coming?Meaty Ochre | July 10, 2008, 1:46pm | #
funny how the emo kids wear their tight jeans but the black kids wear their super baggy jeans. it's just about style. But honestly , probably pic 2 and definately pic 3 can be constitutionally outlawed under decency laws, i.e. showing your naked butt in public.wu tang: "1,000 white teens in tight jeans."
me: you cannot sneak beer into an event wearing tight emo jeans.
I didn't know Flint had police chief Captain Underpants. Thankfully, he'll save Flint from dispicable people like Batman and Robin who expose their Underoos over their tights.
Just a thought | July 10, 2008, 8:08pm | #
Personally, I couldn't agree with this law more. I think the next step is requiring licenses for spandex and bikinis. Hell, while were at it why not just go all the way, no fat chicks!Beth-Annie | July 10, 2008, 9:13pm | #
You got to pity those Flinties who feel comforted by passing this law.They are up against so much that they can't control. The economy's shot to sh*t nationally let alone locally. What they do have, somebody is trying to take away from them -- through high gas prices, medical costs, and falling value of the dollar -- let alone outright crime. Without ever leaving home, a lot are going through a continual process of culture shock because of immigration. A way of life that seemed secure and reliable, when they were kids, turned out not to be. Emotional discomfort on every side.
So they just want to pass one little law to protect themselves against one little aspect of all this emotional discomfort, one little symbol of everything that ain't the way it is supposed to be -- and the world jumps all over them.
And the world should jump all over this bad law. But you have to feel a little pity, too.
Straighten out the systemic problems, especially the rampant economic insecurity, and I bet the impetus for overcontrol of fashion pretty much dies away on its own.
Laughing on the outside.... | July 10, 2008, 10:13pm | #
Those gosh darn Appalachians are sure a nutty bunch. Next thing you know they'll ban incest!jam | July 13, 2008, 11:50pm | #
you know what, if you can keep your pants from falling off while theyre below your ass, you deserve a medal, not to be arrested. ive known a few stupid cops in my time, but this one takes the cake, he and officer Baker should have a pep rally.Nova | July 15, 2008, 2:36pm | #
Hey dont feel bad for anyone in Flint. They know how messed up it is over there , but they are a bunch of Christian closed minded hicks.If they want to live in Crack town thats their choice. They are the idiots that strive on one of the worst edu. programs anywhereand never want to solve anything about it.
Take their rights make laws that are unconstitunal they wont fight it or know that they are being wronged.
I'm from Ann Arbor , Michigan I have battled this all my life , after you been there and seen the ignorance and crime within the citys top officials themselves , AND having them reelectedby those smart Mich. people!
People in Michigan get what they deserve , you reap what you sow.
I dont feel bad and I often make fun of the dead end situation that is surrounding Mich. Whenever I go back everyone says " it suck I cant find a job , The city is stealing money , my house took a dive in the market , and I hate it here"
But your too damn unskilled and un Edu. to do anything about it.
Just go make some more babies , thats what you Mich. people are good at anyways.
I know I'll have some haters but you lived there ? Then shut it!
Cause you have no idea!
Move if your smart enough.
Kala Andrews | July 16, 2008, 5:13am | #
I THINK THAT LAW IS SUM BULLSHIT.. I KNOW EVERYONE SAYS I DONT WANNA SEE NO ONE BOXERS. WELL I SAY DONT LOOK AND IF THATS HOW SUM ONE WANTS 2 WEAR THERE PANTS WELL LET THEM THEY PAY FOR THERE OWN SHIT AND IT IS WHAT IT IS AND WHEN MEN WELL THE MEN I HAVE SEEN WEAR PANTS SAGGIN THERE SHIRT IS ALSO LONG AS HELL AND YOU DONT EVEN SEE THERE BOXERS. WE HAVE ALL THIS OTHER BULLSHIT IN THE WORLD 2 WORRY ABOUT AND THIS SHOULD BE ONE OF THE LEAST THINGS ON OUR LIST...yea im pissed at this stupid irrelavant law..i think its giving people way to much power over our rights, its not indecent exposure and i dont feel they have to right to tell those young men how to where their pants especially when they make and sell pants that are ment to be baggy. most males dont like tight fitting pants..and if we want to go there we might as well ban short skirts or low cut tops too...oo and please ban tight jeans skater boys wear too because i see there underwhere too..and the shape of a whole lot more..i swear ignorant leaders piss me the fuck off..do they think that passing that law is going to change anything, i think there finding another excuse to put young black me in jail.