Buck's Bogart: This is illegal

[racerboy71]

That's exactly what it is, it's a youngster thing, and with no color boundaries.
But it's beginnings started in the hood, hell here in Cali, I've noticed it's starting to phase out.

yes, i've noticed it going away from this look as well... like i said, in the mid 90's it was way more common place then toady ime..

 

[UncleBuck]

i think the law is retarded

agreed.

but to say it's racially motivated is crazy..

disagreed.

i've cited many examples to demonstrate the racial undertones associated with sagging.

but beenthere himself probably demonstrated it clearest of all when he said:

When blacks started wearing their pants low, white people called it "saggin"

Now spell saggin backwards..................fuckin sneaky ass whitey!

he really isn't helping your case

 

[twostrokenut]

by simply bringing up this topic, i have tended to take more notice to sagging in everyday life, references to sagging, and the like over the last few days.

wanna see what topics i caught?

even though you don't, here is what came up:

google "racist ASU party". they decided to drink from watermelons, dress up like basketball players, and sag their hats for an MLK day party.

i also heard this song on the radio while scanning stations:

http://www.cloudlyrics.com/amor-lilman-lyrics-pull-ya-pants-up.html

i have noticed no references towards "sagging" being a white person thing. it can be, but it is clearly viewed societally as a black person thing.

Ya I am pretty sure I am not going to contribute to any hits to the "racist ASU" party.
Your references toward sagging being a white or black thing....are you searching the interwebz for that?
Why?
All I can tell you is some whites AND blacks do it where I am from, I don't need to google it dude.
This is evidence its a CULTURAL phenomenon, not racial.

But hey you already indicated "saggin" was a racially charged term correct? What do you expect will happen when you googles racially charged words?

no, my point in this thread was that the person of this town should stand up against this racist law. i made this thread because another member who i accused of being racist may have lived there at the time this happened.

the federal government has its place though. i certainly hope that we both agree that federal intervention into the practices of racist business owners in certain states was a good idea (i am referring to title II of civil rights for the record).

what say you? do you agree that it was a good idea for the federal government to mandate that private business owners whose businesses were 'open to the public' serve the entire public? i'm talking hotels, gas stations, restaurants, and the like. do you agree that it was a good idea for the federal government to end racist practices that states were refusing to end on their own?

Look dude I don't think its a good idea. Not because I want businesses to be racist but because this stuff imho is better worked out by the individual. Check it:

If I wont let purples in my resturaunt, gubbment shuts me down, makes me comply, whats left residually in me?
Do I now hate purples less or more?
Same?
Nope, I hate em more now.....and money we don't have was spent.
What should happen is the purples make a stink, boycott my eatery, persuade all the oranges and greens to do it too.....they will, cause they all know its wrong....I go out of business cause times have changed for the better.

you just visited bad analogy city.

such heavy handed federal intervention would be colorblind.

if the federal government were to step in on every single little racially targeted law that a backwoods town in the south put into law, they would exhaust their resources fairly quickly. there are many towns who have also enacted this racially targeted law.

i would be all for the force of law to exist anyway, but the point is that the people shouldn't turn a blind eye to this type of thing.

if they were to pull such obvious shit where i live, the backlash would be immense and immediate. this is a public shaming of these backwards southern towns who still try to get away with this obvious shit in this day and age.

Its color blind until someone says it isn't. I support local governments making their own local laws.
Where would we be with mmj if not for this?
Town says pull your pants up....you say its a racial thing, I cant agree just cause you posted some pics of black people doing it.


Watch this carefully, tell me this dude isn't "sagging" a lot of the time...

[youtube]ES8HZDRNNJ8[/youtube]

 

[twostrokenut]

agreed.



disagreed.

i've cited many examples to demonstrate the racial undertones associated with sagging.

but beenthere himself probably demonstrated it clearest of all when he said:

When blacks started wearing their pants low, white people called it "saggin"

Now spell saggin backwards..................fuckin sneaky ass whitey!

he really isn't helping your case

I just googled "saggin"......third hit is https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&ved=0CEcQFjAI&url=https://www.facebook.com/pages/S-A-G-G-I-N-backwards-is-N-I-G-G-A-S/323553762579&ei=gCDjUtSVPITeoASv14DgCw&usg=AFQjCNEbkbOK__j08X-zgP66lT2o3ooQAQ&bvm=bv.59930103,d.cGU

So you think beenthere is the first to notice this and that implies something about him? What up?

 

[NLXSK1]

There is already a law against sagging. It is called indecent exposure.

Otherwise, leave people the hell alone...

 

[UncleBuck]

Look dude I don't think its a good idea. Not because I want businesses to be racist but because this stuff imho is better worked out by the individual. Check it:

If I wont let purples in my resturaunt, gubbment shuts me down, makes me comply, whats left residually in me?
Do I now hate purples less or more?
Same?
Nope, I hate em more now.....and money we don't have was spent.
What should happen is the purples make a stink, boycott my eatery, persuade all the oranges and greens to do it too.....they will, cause they all know its wrong....I go out of business cause times have changed for the better.

yet another conservative who calls the president by racial slurs, likes the idea of "european cultural superiority", is opposed to civil rights, and yet claims he does not have a racist bone in his body.



what if the next place to get a bite to eat is 20 miles over to the next town?

what if the next place to get lumber is 60 miles away?

you honestly think black people should have to drive three towns over to get something because it would make you an even more bitter racist if you got shut down for being racist.

it's ALWAYS about protecting the racist with you sick racists.

ginwilly is opposed to civil rights because racists might spit in people's food. now you come out as opposed to civil rights because it might make the racists bitterer.

this is just grand.

 

[twostrokenut]

Yet another conservative? There goes your cred....vanished.

What if you stop stirring the racial pot then pointing to the fact it is stirred as racist?

Oh you mean like on that movie Life? Tell me about the boom boom room buck.

Only color Iwould give a shit about in my establishment is green.

Town wouldn't need a law at my joint.......my customers complain about your pants, pull em up or gtf out.....customers ain't complaining then neither am I.

 

[UncleBuck]

Yet another conservative? There goes your cred....vanished.

What if you stop stirring the racial pot then pointing to the fact it is stirred as racist?

Oh you mean like on that movie Life? Tell me about the boom boom room buck.

Only color Iwould give a shit about in my establishment is green.

Town wouldn't need a law at my joint.......my customers complain about your pants, pull em up or gtf out.....customers ain't complaining then neither am I.

look at the implications of your opposition to title II of civil rights and your rationale for it.

the implications of your opposition mean that black people might have to drive 20 miles to the next town just to get a hot lunch. they might have to drive 60 miles to the next decent lumber store if the local guy says "no blacks allowed".

and you support all of that because that guy cooking eggs or the guy selling lumber might be made more bitter if they are disallowed from refusing service to black people.

i don't give a shit how you would run a business if you also support such blatant violation of the equal protection clause in the united states constitution.

i also don't care what attire requirements you put on your business if you also support the rights of racist business owners over the rights of americans to expect equal protection of the law.

simply despicable.

 

[twostrokenut]

Don't let the door hit you on your way out....establishment that won't serve blacks in 2014....CITATION NEEDED.

 

[UncleBuck]

Don't let the door hit you on your way out....establishment that won't serve blacks in 2014....CITATION NEEDED.

so you're saying that blacks don't deserve protection of the law?

it's not like anyone was going out of business back then by refusing to serve blacks, otherwise they wouldn't have done it.

what do you suppose a black person does if it does happen but there is no law to protect their rights under the 14th amendment?

you are dodging the important issue here by trying to imply that racism is dead.

even if racism were dead (and it's NOT), i would still want there to be recourse for anyone affected.

 

[twostrokenut]

Oh so now you twist business going out of business BACK THEN...thought your IQ was over 100...my mistake.

CITATION NEEDED......got it yet?

 

[twostrokenut]

Btw idiot boy "if" poses hypothetical....look at a real world example maybe try Maurice's bbq.

Oh wait though even that "racist" did not refuse service....what a failosophy you have bringing up 1950s issues in the new millennia.

 

[UncleBuck]

Oh so now you twist business going out of business BACK THEN...thought your IQ was over 100...my mistake.

CITATION NEEDED......got it yet?

i can not provide you with citation of a business that has thrived, survived, or got by while refusing to serve blacks in 2014 because that practice is rightly illegal, despite your objection to the law that made that practice illegal.

do you cry because it made racists bitterer to have to serve blacks?

 

[UncleBuck]

what a failosophy you have bringing up 1950s issues in the new millennia.

yet you remain silent as the righties relitigate birth control. that one was settled way back then as well.

you act like once rights are won, they are retained forever. when a supreme court justice likened voting rights to a "racial entitlement", that theory should have gone straight out the window.

8 hours later, once states started implementing laws that they were not allowed to because of the "preclearance" clause written into the 50 years old voting rights act, that should have been your second obvious clue to shitpile your fail theory.

civil rights is a continuous and ongoing struggle, and those who try to mock or minimize this fact, like you and ginwilly do, are truly bad individuals.

your protection of racist business owners over the equal protection clause severely impedes my erection potential.

 

[BigNBushy]

look at the implications of your opposition to title II of civil rights and your rationale for it.

the implications of your opposition mean that black people might have to drive 20 miles to the next town just to get a hot lunch. they might have to drive 60 miles to the next decent lumber store if the local guy says "no blacks allowed".

and you support all of that because that guy cooking eggs or the guy selling lumber might be made more bitter if they are disallowed from refusing service to black people.

i don't give a shit how you would run a business if you also support such blatant violation of the equal protection clause in the united states constitution.

i also don't care what attire requirements you put on your business if you also support the rights of racist business owners over the rights of americans to expect equal protection of the law.

simply despicable.

What you're advocating for isn't equal protection under the law, you're demanding equal protection to buy lumber.

I'm opposed to one aspect of it for one very simple reason, the method used to enforce and pass it.

As I recall, it used the interstate commerce clause to be able to regulate a seemingly state issue.

In other words, "congress has the right to regulated commerce between the states" was used to say congress could enact this because the silverware used at the diner in Montgomery Alabama might have came from Texas.

I'm fully supportive of the aims of the law, I hate the abuse of power that was used to pass it.

Theoretically, if you opened a place to eat you could ban blacks from eating there, provided all of your stuff came from within the borders of your state, and all the way down their supply chain. If nothing whatsoever came from out of state (like the seed the local farmer used to grow the corn that was milled to make mill you use for cornbread has to be within your state, i would even hazard to say the millstone had to be made in your state, as well as the tools used to make it.... Ect.)

It is an abuse of the commerce clause.

I think though, unlike most government abuses of power, the ends justify the means, but damn I hate the means.

An amendment would have been a better solution I think, but it probably wasn't possible at the time.

 

[twostrokenut]

i can not provide you with citation of a business that has thrived, survived, or got by while refusing to serve blacks in 2014 because that practice is rightly illegal, despite your objection to the law that made that practice illegal.

do you cry because it made racists bitterer to have to serve blacks?

You can't provide citation because you say the law works.....I say you can't provide citation because we have evolved past this silly issue of race despite the law....yet I'm the racist eh?

The laurels of my opinion are etched above....please print them...post them up all around your house study for a week and try for a better angle of argument cause this one pretty much failed for you.

 

[UncleBuck]

we have evolved past this silly issue of race

this is sigworthy. it really is.

how deluded are you? how many examples do you need before you admit that we haven't "evolved" beyond racism?

by the way, the idea that racism is evolutionary is thoroughly false, and i resent your implication to the contrary.

you leave me more convinced of my suspicions about you with almost every post.

 

[twostrokenut]

Keep you on your toes....zomg is he a racist? Racism is hysteria. I don't like it, despite your opinion either way.

 

[ChesusRice]

Btw idiot boy "if" poses hypothetical....look at a real world example maybe try Maurice's bbq.

Oh wait though even that "racist" did not refuse service....what a failosophy you have bringing up 1950s issues in the new millennia.

Walgreens Thrived with racist policys

Black students sit at a whites-only counter at Walgreens in downtown Nashville in February 1960

 

[UncleBuck]

voting rights is a racial entitlement.