AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2007 > September > 08 > Entry
Should cities adopt ordinances
to ban the “saggy pant” look?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Andrea Cornell Sarvady succeeds the late Diane Glass, who died this summer at the age of 42, as the left half of the Woman to Woman column.
“I see London, I see France, I see someone’s underpants!” So went the childhood taunt.
Who could imagine that one day that might be considered, in some circles, a compliment? No wonder city leaders from Dallas to Atlanta are currently looking into banning “sagging”, the trend of wearing trousers so low that boxers are in full reveal.
This isn’t the first time that young men flaunting an edgy style have brought the ire of a community. The Zoot Suit Riots in 1940’s Los Angeles saw young Hispanic men beaten over their baggy apparel. Early punk rockers in New York and London often fought for their Mohawks. Unconventional dress has always aroused curiosity, even suspicion.
But —fines and imprisonment?
Such immodest dress can be upsetting, particularly for our seniors. Yet when we are confronted with semi-attired fashion victims, the salient question is this: are they covering up the parts of their body already covered in our public decency laws?
Face it—we just can’t mandate good taste. (Where were these leaders with their moral indignation when mullets were in style?) There are both African-American and Caucasian advocates for such laws, lessening cries of racial bias; gender bias isn’t an issue when bra straps and thongs are added to the “no fly” zone. Even so, with public decency laws and other dress codes already in place, such proposals have died on the vine in Connecticut , Virginia and Florida— and for good reason.
There is nothing wrong with “quality of life” ordinances, stamping out the little things that can make city life difficult and dangerous. Yet in legislating a fad that will likely go the way of beehive hairdos, we risk looking as foolish as the fashion we’re trying to eradicate. One hates to see well-intentioned leaders become fodder for late-night talk show jokes.
Maybe the way for the older generation to wipe out this unsightly look is not to wage war against it, but to embrace it. Once young men catch a few glimpses of fleshy City Councilmen flashing their Fruit of the Looms, even those voluminous zoot suits won’t seem like enough of a cover-up.
Rebuttal
As amusing as it is to visualize baby boomers striking a blow for equality, this isn’t about bad taste. And it’s not really about the saggy pant “style” per se either: it’s about what sort of partial public nudity we should tolerate. I could care less about the style, as long as the underwear model is covered up - but that’s often not the case. If you want to wear saggy pants or low-riders that practically show your equipment at a private party, that’s your business. Just don’t make it mine - or my kids’ - by wearing it on the street. I’d prefer to not be confronted with the thoroughness of your bikini wax when I stand next to you at the airport or take my pre-schooler grocery shopping. And neither would most people. That’s why most public decency laws prohibit “partial nudity.”
The trend of cities proposing amendments or new laws suggest that either the original laws aren’t specific enough to keep up with the skin-showing trends, or - more likely — the laws are just fine but we need a collective kick in the saggy pants to enforce them.
Calling this trend a ‘fad,’ as if it’ll shift with the next season lineup from Hilfiger, ignores that this trend hasn’t changed for years. And can anyone argue with a straight face that fashion trends are likely to become more modest?
In Atlanta, C.T. Martin is one city councilman who’s had enough. He recently told the Associated Press that flaunting boxers and thongs is an “epidemic that is becoming a major concern around the country.” The amendment he proposes would allow for stiff fines to get the point across.
In an interview, Dr. Janice Crouse, Senior Fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, the think tank arm of Concerned Women for America, said we don’t really need new laws: we need to enforce existing ones. Of the low-slung-underwear-and-thong trend she said, “You can definitely make a case that that is partial nudity. All of us know the example of extreme partial nudity, and these are definitely instances of breaking the law. We could definitely make someone an example and that would help curb the problem.”
Services »
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By NY
September 9, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this
Seriously I believe it is silly to have laws against the sagging pants look. That violates freedom of expression. Calling it “partial nudity” is a lame excuse. No one wants to walk the streets feeling like they have to follow a high school dress code. Fines and imprisonment is ridiculous. I don’t believe an issue should have been made out of this subject in the first place because there are so many more important things to worry about other than how someone is wearing their pants. Here is an idea: if people can’t stand it so much, don’t look.
By Tom Lynch
September 9, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this
I can’t watch 7:00 TV without seeing ads from Victoria’s Secret or look through the Sunday paper without seeing full-page ads of women in nothing but bras, yet I hear nothing about that from the do-good conservatives because that form of showing off partial private parts is capitalism, which can’t be regulated in any way because it is too important for our future to have government interfere. The conservative movement I knew and loved was one in which individual expression was too precious to allow for government meddling. Oh, the greed and hypocrisy!
By Alecia
September 9, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this
We are not talking about taste, and please don’t turn it into an issue about race. Baggy pants & thongs expose underwear and butt cracks, and I am tired of seeing both. It is kind of funny however, when my 4 year old shouts out “That boy does not know how to dress himself.” I wonder what would happen if I decided to go to the mall or to the park just in my bra and panties? Just like most other people exposing their underwear, I am no super model either. I am also tired of people connecting running around showing underwear to black culture. For starters, there are just as many white boys in the burbs wearing their pants around their ankles. Yes, this trend came out of prison. However, I do not agree that prison is a black thing. Also, there are so many good things out of the black culture, this one could be left for debate.
By Anonymous
September 10, 2007 8:45 AM | Link to this
I’m surprised at you people. Of COURSE this is what government should be doing. No duty or function of government is more important than the regulation of private behavior by individuals!
Can’t you see that the conservative spirit of “small government” and “keeping the state out of private lives” is perfectly in line with a national dress code? This is what government is FOR, people; it’s what the Founding Fathers dreamed off.
And, I might add, they all wore knee breeches and wigs. Only a corrupt liberal would deny that we’ve strayed from their noble example, and that governmental resources are needed to keep things orderly and proper. To heck with national defense and a courts system—a DRESS CODE is where we need to focus state attention!
By Anonymous
September 10, 2007 8:45 AM | Link to this
I’m surprised at you people. Of COURSE this is what government should be doing. No duty or function of government is more important than the regulation of private behavior by individuals!
Can’t you see that the conservative spirit of “small government” and “keeping the state out of private lives” is perfectly in line with a national dress code? This is what government is FOR, people; it’s what the Founding Fathers dreamed of.
And, I might add, they all wore knee breeches and wigs. Only a corrupt liberal would deny that we’ve strayed from their noble example, and that governmental resources are needed to keep things orderly and proper. To heck with national defense and a courts system—a DRESS CODE is where we need to focus state attention!
By lovelyliz
September 10, 2007 9:21 AM | Link to this
Ever been to a public beach or seen the cheerleaders at a football game? When is the government going after them?
What about the bra strap showing fad or those who obviously need but don’t wear one in the first place? You’ll see apparel that is every bit as distasteful if not more that the who baggy pant/underwear thing.
Besides, since when doe the government dictate good taste? I don’t like looking at it, but then there are a lot of things I don’t like. I don’t expect the government to enforce my tastes on others.
By lovelyliz
September 10, 2007 9:23 AM | Link to this
What’s next - banning shorts and mini skirts?
By lovelyliz
September 10, 2007 9:31 AM | Link to this
Tube tops. We must get the government to ban tube tops.
By Lyrazel
September 10, 2007 9:31 AM | Link to this
I was standing behind a fine fit young man at the grocery store who was in bike shorts and bike shirt. Very easy on the eyes and very cordial to the cashier as well as some patrons he let through before his small order was rung up. Before he left checkout I realized how much I could see of his body in perfect outline hugged by spandex and mesh. On the train going home I saw many with big pants belted on their knees. Young boys whose style is not for me to understand all being so cool or hip.
I cannot understand how laws can ban the baggy but not the spandex, how metropolitan cities can afford to pay officers to become fashion police or if this breech of fashion can be enforceable given that images of such dress are broadcast and published daily. To ban one fashion faux pax laws must ban the nationwide epidemic of crack exposure and cleavage display to include TV’s female detective show squad officers, athletic competition (especially bass fishing tournament participants) and all MTV wannabes and has beens.
What hardline fashonistas do not understand is how those clinging to the baggy look are hopelessly out of style already. Its been documented the same age woman is not attracted to the look. She is viewing those biker shorts boys, those tight packaged jeans and will select of those for dates and love interest…leaving the saggy pants boys to hang out on MARTA and shock the suburbanites as their date night continues without date.
By Chilao
September 10, 2007 9:45 AM | Link to this
Are we aware that you can actually buy a pair of pants that have the LOOK of the drawers, that is, the plaid drawers look is sown into the top part of the pants. So when we see someone’s drawers hanging out, are we actually seeing their drawers, or the “fashion”(term used loosely here..LOL) part of the pair of pants?
Would an officer have to do a tug up or down before a ticket could be written?
I think the whole thing about ticketing and fines over this issue is ridiculous. As I read in an opinion piece Ain’t they got some murders to be solved in Atlanta(or any of the other cities proposing this regulation?
By GOB
September 10, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this
I say why not. I mean now that we have ended all poverty, crime, hunger, repaired the city’s infrastructure and fixed all of our traffic problems, the government might as well take care of this one too.
By Mara
September 10, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel - I wonder if one of those “baggy pants boyz” were to don a pair of those skin-tight spandex bike shorts, would it be legal for them to wear the sag? After all, bike shorts aren’t “underwear”…
Like our previous discussions about the way people dress, I have to wonder where you would find all these people wearing, as Shaunti says “low-riders that practically show your equipment” or the grocery lines where she may be “confronted with the thoroughness of your bikini wax”. Now…I’ve seen the baggy pants but doesn’t that style require the wearing of (usually) boxer shorts under them? How then is the “mouse” getting out of his house, or the “equipment” out of the shed, to flash the shocked Shaunti? And I dunno how much Shaunti has to wax, but if you are confronted by the view of a bikini wax job…that girl isn’t wearing low-riders, she’s wearing chaps! LOL!
It’s just a stupid, intrusive idea designed by a bunch of old folk who are offended by modern fashion. As Andea pointed out, this is no different than the disgust about long hair on men and women wearing pants! But I guess it is sort of different. Nobody in those days would have dreamed of asking the government to toss me in the pokey because they were offended by my fashion sense…or lack thereof :^)
By SusieHomeMaker
September 10, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this
I’m sorry to say this, but this (ordinance) sounds just like an episode of Mayberry with Barney Fife filling in while Andy is on vacation. Doesn’t the Atlanta Councilman have real problems to think about? Not withstanding the already over crowded jails; the high crime, and cops gone rogue and shooting senior citizens, they want to instigate a “droopy pants” law?
I’ve lived in the South all my life, but this makes me so ashamed that we, of the south, are once again leading the nation in stupidity.
Even dumber than this “droopy pants law” is what one cop did last week over a hamburger!!
This is too much!!
By Mara
September 10, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this
and Shaunti’s quoting of the ultra-conservative “Concerned Women of America” - “…the low-slung-underwear-and-thong trend she said, “You can definitely make a case that that is partial nudity…”
so partial nudity is being able to see the top of my thong? That there is a pretty low hurdle for “nudity”. You can see thong straps even with mid-rise jeans. Have they been to any of the trendy shops in the last few years? All they have is low-rise or, if you’re lucky, mid-rise jeans. Maybe the focus should be on the stores who sell this “risque” clothing to the innocent teenager. After all, they don’t sell burquas at Urban Trendz or even in the Juniors department at Macy’s.
What do these folks expect kids to do, wear those lime green polyester pantsuits so favored by the geezers in Florida, pulled up to the bottom of their bosoms?
By Mara
September 10, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this
But Susie…that burger was really salty! Haven’t you heard that if you eat too much sodium it can kill you? ( http://www.epha.org/a/1912 - salt increases blood pressure, an acknowledged risk factor for ischaemic heart disease, stroke and renal disease which are major causes of morbidity and mortality…although sodium is not carcinogenic in itself, high intake levels may increase suceptibility to carcinogens, leading to e.g. stomach cancer.)
That fast-food girl was obviously trying to kill him…
By NetBanker
September 10, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this
I’d prefer to not be confronted… Awwww…poor Shaunti would prefer not to be confronted by saggy pants and would willingly trample our 1st Amendment right to freedom of expression as well as pass another law regulating personal (albeit distasteful) behavior that doesn’t honestly affect anyone’s quality of life. TDB! (Too Dam n Bad!) If they’re going to pass a law banning saggies, then let’s add a statement to it that anyone with a body mass index under 21 is required to wear spandex.
By NetBanker
September 10, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this
hehehe…we need to update the game Clue…’in the fast food restaurant with a salty burger.’
Well at least +78% of the people taking the online poll think the worker should get her job back. There IS still some level of common sense in the world.
Mara…if women would go commando then no one would see any thong strap. Problem solved!! But for giggles and grins let’s just analyze Shaunti’s photo above….sweater set with the base layer being a mock turtle neck. No wonder she has a low threshhold set for partial nudity.
By lovelyliz
September 10, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this
When are they going to break out the burkhas?
By Scalia
September 10, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this
I disagree. It is sexy for the guy to wear baggy pants IF he is attractive. Especially when he wears sexy boxer briefs or is showing his Calvins.
This law is ridiculous. Why would we want the police to enforce it? They have other things to do. And if they should enforce and trample that first amendment of expression, they should censor Ann Coulter and any of the other people that feel the need to call people the f-word or nappy headed h0es.
By DebbieDoRight
September 10, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this
How to look like a dumb hillbilly cop/prosecutor:
ONE: Complain about a free hamburger you didn’t have to pay for.
TWO: Even though you knew the hamburger is too salty on the first bite, continue to eat it, then throw it up.
THREE: Become so angry that you threw up your free hamburger that you have the cook arrested.
FOUR: (For the prosecutor) Carry out the whole farce by making ridiculous comments to the press; and saying things like “She knew it was not up to their standards and served it anyway.” Something that NO restaraunt has ever been guilty of doing. (sarc)
FIVE: (For the Union City Justice Department) Make sure you tell your tax payers how you’re saving them from the blatant crime of salty hamburgers.
By Mara
September 10, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this
Net - LOL @ going commando! The only problem with that is the issue of the curlies gettin’ caught in the zipper! Ouch!
and the Clue reference? Classic!
isn’t it odd how “fashion” works? I remember the years when the jeans were soooooo tight you had to lay on your back and use pliars to pull the zipper! Now that should have been outlawed, if only because it was so dammed uncomfortable and “camel toe” is really unattractive…
By Chilao
September 10, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this
Shaunti wears those pants so she cannot be boinked from behind in public without having to pull her pants down and make it obvious, showing some flesh.
Now those loose-fitting summer-dress skirts Diane Glass(RIP) wore, well, that is probably why men figured out along time ago that women should wear longer dresses, as it makes them more easily readily available.
just a THEORY I have about why women wear dresses. Now never mind that they are probably much more comfortable than pants, as any Scotsman wearing a kilt would probably tell you.
By Miki
September 10, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this
I think there are a lot more imporatnt things in this world to worry about. You have all kinds of underwear ads all over the place and the police have their hands more then full. Lets not waste time, energy and money for something that’s so silly and is only a passing trend that will change as they all do.
By Chilao
September 10, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this
Anybody see MollyShannon do a guest spot on SNL recently, where she did some camel-toe routine? Much as I adore her, and could not be considered a *prude, I really think that was going a little too far, or crossing the line, for those who like lines-to-not-be-crossed. for network TV at least.
that brings up an interesting thought about these new clothing laws? Would a visible camel-toe be an offense? How about the form of nipples showing through those tube tops? Or would it depend on the exact form, fried-egg or pencil-eraser? Gee, where do you Draw the Line? LOL and best of all, WHO decides?
By Mara
September 10, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this
Chilao - eeeewwwwwwww!!!
By Lily Toad
September 10, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this
I’ve heard that white boys are wearing the droopy drawers but in my neighborhood I only see it on young African Americans, so I’d have to think the proposed ordinance is racially motivated. Yeah, let’s think of another way to criminalize youthful African Americans and get them into the criminal (in)justice system. I see some colorful undershorts, not cracks, so how can it be partial nudity?
Adding bra straps is just an attempt to be more inclusive and address something innocuous.
By Lily Toad
September 10, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this
Chilao, too funny. How about white t-shirts peeking out of men’s shirts? Isn’t that showing underwear?
By chuck
September 10, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this
Susie, talking about going out of the way to make an issue about RACE:
A cook at McDonalds in Union City, Georgia was arrested and charged with reckless conduct after a “salty” hamburger was sold to a white Union City police officer.
The officer came threw the drive thru, placed his order, received his order and left. He came back later and accused the cook, a black female, of over salting his food. He then radioed for backup and arrested the cook.
As for the topic, I don’t think that we need to outlaw the saggy baggy look. I think if people want to look ridiculous and stupid we should let them…regardless of their race and gender.
Anonymous, you had to kind of stretch a bit for that one. To my knowledge there has NEVER been an effort by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to even address this issue (I could be wrong, but I have never heard it addressed in that context). This is a LOCAL issue and SHOULD BE. If a local community wants to get into that kind of nitpicky garbage it is certainly something they could address, but I still think it’s a “waist” of time. The added advantage of this style of dress is that it makes criminals who dress that way much easier to catch when they run from police. A former officer who used to frequent the blog, Scott I think, told about a fellow who got caught because his baggy drawers got caught on a fence as he scaled it trying to run away. They found him hanging upside down by his pants which were at that point UP around his ankles. My brother a former cop also told me about a guy who ran and his pants fell around his ankes and tripped him. He was rathr easy to catch also.
As for the other side of the issue with “lowrider” pants. That is a worse problem in school. We have had way too many show way too much. We have really had to clamp down on that practice. I don’t need to or want to see my student’s butt cracks.
By Chilao
September 10, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this
actually I THINK the people who are proposing the laws in Atlanta and in two cities in Louisiana are black representatives(city council types).
will the law apply to the plumbers who have not purchased the extra-long teeshirts, that stay tucked in regardless?
sounds like a Duluth Trading Company catalog cover. LOL it shows a housewife all aghast as a plumber fixes her sink. Well, inside of course, they sell the extra-long teeshirts, Don’t be embarrassed again
By Chilao
September 10, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this
It appears Louisiana has moved beyond the town/city level and they are attempting a STATE law, sponsored by Derrick Shepherd.
By chuck
September 10, 2007 1:07 PM | Link to this
Yeah Chilao, I saw that after I posted, but I probably should have said State/Local anyway because local governments derive their powers from the states through charters. I think this is clearly NOT a federal issue and never should be. I also think that while a state may have the right to do it, it would still be a mistake.
By chuck
September 10, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this
And then starts the spam
By Mara
September 10, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this
here’s an interesting article - http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,1504273.story?track=mostviewed-storylevel
Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.
In a simple experiment reported today in the journal “Nature Neuroscience”, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.
Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences.
The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.
By NetBanker
September 10, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this
Chilao…did you see this announcement? I’m going to assume you probably read her book back in the day.
Madeleine L’Engle, acclaimed author of ‘A Wrinkle in Time’ died over the weekend.
Mara - LOL @ the caught curlies. It’s also a problem for the guys and they have other external parts to get caught in those zippers. That situation caused my partner quite a problem during a vacation many years ago, but the strange part was that his little head got caught when he was unzipping his jeans. Fortunately, I had a pair of scissors and knew to cut across the bottom of the zipper so that it would just fall apart. So much for that pair of jeans, but it was cheaper than a trip to the emergency room.
ROFLMAO on the camel toe. A neighbor at my annual HOA party yesterday came in with CT and her husband had the male version from too tight shorts.
By Lyrazel
September 10, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this
The best 100% solution to this clothing dilemma is to have the parents AND TEACHERS LIKE CHUCK start participating in the trend. Like bellbottoms and bustiers, red leather Michael Jackson jackets with zippers and gerry curlz once the over 40 set starts wearing low riding pants with their tidy-whities showing—the trend will stop and no one will ever admit to wearing such especially after going out with dad or mom in their ‘hood gear and do’ rags. Happened with disco dudes, happened with Madonna wanna be’s and happened to those bread loaf pan on top of head haircuts. So shake that fleshy booty all you mommies and dads teachers and legislators of decency, let the jiggle hang low, low, low. Join the kids on MARTA (around 2:30-4:00 tryin so hard to be cool because they all got to change when they get home).
By 2D
September 10, 2007 2:11 PM | Link to this
Mara… Interesting article, but I hope you don’t really believe it. You seem far more intelligent than to accept an experiment of “M’s” and “W’s” to see if there is a predictable way to identify liberals and conservatives.
As a trained scientist, I would have never released the results of a study like this, because they are irresponsible. Actually, I would have never conducted a test that in essence proves nothing. The testing sample is so small, and the specific testing so narrow, that it cannot produce any worth while results.
First, according to the article, it was done only on college students. Not exactly a reprensetative sample.
Second, it does not explain anything that remotely covers what I believe to be the biggest influence in conservative versus liberal tendencies… Personal experience.
Third, it does not explain how some people could take a liberal position on social issues, but a conservative position on financial issues. Or vice versa. It provides some “caution” about these types of people, but does nothing to explain it.
Fourth, it does not explain the tendency of people to become more conservative as they get older. Not a hard and fast rule, but definitely a tendency.
By Archie
September 10, 2007 2:14 PM | Link to this
First I can’t bash anyone on either side of this topic because quite frankly it is a stupid fashion statement to me to wear your pants so low that you show the crack of your behind but should we have a law complete with major fines I say no. However, it is understandable that someone would get tired of this fashion crap because it obvious that people just don’t know what’s appropiate to wear in public. The person proposing the ordinance each time I have read about it has been an African-American so I don’t think it’s necessarily racially motivated but these councilman just don’t know of another way to get some young folk to dress appropiately. I have seen whites and blacks wear saggy pants and I just think the younger generation(some of them) are drinking totally different kind of water when you look at the things they do.
By Chilao
September 10, 2007 2:31 PM | Link to this
Net - no, I had never heard of her or her book.
By NetBanker
September 10, 2007 2:44 PM | Link to this
Mara…interesting article.
2D…I’m not a trained scientist, but what the research indicates isn’t all that surprising, is it? After the first 2 paragraphs my reaction was “Oh, Myers-Briggs information processing scale of S vs N as applied to politics.” I wonder if anyone has ever looked at whether conservative vs liberal is predictable based on personality type testing.
it does not explain the tendency of people to become more conservative as they get older Do people tend to become more conservative or is it that they become more cynical and less idealistic? I can’t really say that my fiscal conservative/social liberal views have changed a whole lot in the past 20-25 years, but I’m sooo much more cynical about the effectiveness of government as well as far less idealistic about the world.
By Mara
September 10, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this
2D - You seem far more intelligent than to accept an experiment of “M’s” and “W’s”…
first of all, thanks.
Second, I don’t believe the purpose of the study was to define the “why” of political leanings. From this very short article, all I got from it was that the brain of self-identified liberals processed information in a different fashion than that of a self-identified conservative. I didn’t see anything that would indicate a conclusion of why this would be, or why one can embrace both liberal and conservatives beliefs. But I still think it is interesting that this study did show the differences in thought processing.
Of course, a larger sampling might produce a completely contradictory outcome. But that’s what studies are for, right? Putting forth a theory and letting your peers shoot it down?
By Mara
September 10, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this
Net - I wonder if anyone has ever looked at whether conservative vs liberal is predictable based on personality type testing
whiney, insecure children tend to grow up to be conservatives.
http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20061222-000001.xml
By Chilao
September 10, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this
WOW, a new term: 911 Neocons.
I know this is a week late, security moms being a few week’s ago topic, but does the chance that I might get mugged and killed running down to the corner store for a gallon of milk for the kids deter me from actually making that trip? because a Mugger MIGHT get me?
By Archie
September 10, 2007 3:11 PM | Link to this
Lyrazel,I just read your 9:31 am post in entirety and you know I have been guilty of wearing form-fitting shorts in the gym in the past and I think it’s all about training. Rather than a law with fines, maybe everyone under a certain age should be required to go through etiquette training which would include information on the saggy pants style,biker shorts,bra straps,etc. Of course some people aren’t going to comply but most people would dress better if taught I think. I have to wear a tie at work everyday except Friday so what you wear does matter in the real world and it would be good thing if young folk are taught that. Most men know to wear a pair of shorts over the biker pants when they are not actually biking but if no one tells you, you think you’re okay and many young people mean no harm but no one has told them any better. That was a good example that you used Lyrazel. I just think the older generation needs to find out more about how the younger generation thinks and we really need training in other places other than church and school since so many do go there as much.
By Chilao
September 10, 2007 3:18 PM | Link to this
I rented World Trade Center a few weeks ago, and one portion had reaction from around the world, which, interestingly, this must be an Oliver Stone thing, he missed the cheering Palestinians.
The movie is about Nicholas Cage and another as trapped TAPD.(Port Authority Police). It was worth it for Maggie Gyllenhaal. LOL
By Brenda
September 10, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this
I don’t think that there should be a law against sagging pants, but I sincerely hope that the wearers will realize how very ugly and unbecoming this style of dress is. If you have ever seen the way a baby walks with a dirty diaper on, then you know that these guys in sagging pants look and walk like they have on a fully loaded diaper!!! Let’s all hope that this style will go away soon, like tomorrow!
By 2D
September 11, 2007 8:49 AM | Link to this
NetB… I don’t believe that people become more cynical about the world as they grow older, they become more discerning. Neither do I believe they become less idealistic, rather, I believe they become more realistic. I know one may argue that is the same thing, but I don’t believe so.
Life experience makes changes in a person and provides the prism through which we see the world. Brain patterns only demonstrate how a person processes information.
My daughter has shifted my positions on a variety of issues and my brain hasn’t suddenly started working in a different way. For example:
I am much more conservative with my finances now than before my daughter came along; I am far more concerned with where I live now than before my daughter came along; I am much more in tune with what is going on with our educational system now than before my daughter came along; I am more supportive of narrowing the guidelines for terminating a pregnancy now than before my daughter came along.
These are but a few of the issues where my positions have shifted since my daughter’s birth nearly two years ago. Perhaps that is the difference between you, NetB, and many of the other folks who have gotten older… Children. Perhaps it would be a truer statement to replace the phrase “getting older” with “having children”. Children change everything in one’s life, and if they don’t, I would question the dedication of the parent(s).
By Lyrazel
September 11, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this
I just think the older generation needs to find out more about how the younger generation thinks and we really need training in other places other than church and school since so many do go there as much
Amen Archie. But HOW do generations who are KNOWN for their inability to grow up and take responsibility get off demanding young people dress appropriate? If I could never see the Woodstock Summer of Drugs & Flaunted Sex movie with those middle fingers raised defiance of their elders—I would be happy—but ironically it is that same generation telling youngsters to dress right or ship out. Maybe if Boomers had stopped being eternal children…their children could have learned what parenting is. Fashion is fashion and it seems older generations don’t like the younger’s music or fashion or lifestyle. Same as it ever was.
By Dedicated Parent
September 11, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this
I am dedicated to the principle of CHOICE and maintaining the RIGHT TO CHOOSE for my daughter. My choices are made. Hers are not mine to make, nor yours, nor a bunch of suited men who are owned by those who send them money or appoint them to positions of power. Label it what you will; I’ll fight for her right to live free, make her own decisions, and be safe from those who run the world from a boardroom for fun and profit.
By Chilao
September 11, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this
Same as it ever was
The Tubes. What Do You Want From Life.
although I prefer Remote Control.
By NetBanker
September 11, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this
I don’t believe that people become more cynical about the world as they grow older, they become more discerning. Neither do I believe they become less idealistic, rather, I believe they become more realistic. Very good point, 2D although the line between cynical and discerning can be thin at times. I quite agree that having children does make a major difference in one’s life and it is an experience that I won’t have so I can’t really say how it would affect my views.
Chilao…I find the Palestinians quite confusing as I do most Arab culture. It seems as though they are only ‘happy’ when waring or railing against some other group. One would think that Fatah and Hamas would unite against a common enemy, but the goings on in the Gaza strip seem to show that power is most important thing to Hamas now that Israel basically removed themselves from that area. Hamas is supressing and attacking fellow Palestinians. Similar things are happening in Iraq with the Sunni/Shiite power struggles overriding meeting the basic needs of the people and being contrary to what recent polls show the citizens want (security, electricity, water, a non-segregated country, and a central government.)
By Mara
September 11, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel - it seems older generations don’t like the younger’s music or fashion or lifestyle. Same as it ever was.
Hear, hear!! Be it “bloomers”, flapper girls, short skirts, tie-dye, hippie hair, bell bottoms, goth, punk or what-ever…you will always hear some old fart whining about how todays music, art, fashion, etc is detrimental to society. Or how “in their day” none of this would have been tolerated, because “in their day” kids were respectful, music was lovely, and the worst one might see on the street was the flash of a woman’s ankle as she climbed into her carriage (oops, got just a bit carried away there, but you get my drift) Young folks who rail against the rules of the old folks grow up to gripe about the degeneration of the new crop of young folks (who will grow up to decry the tastes of their own children, and on, and on).
Everybody forgets about how their parents hollered about their fashion choice, or at least believes that for some reason “this is different!”.
as you say, “Same as it ever was.”
By 2D
September 11, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this
Lyrazel… Amen to that! I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the “Boomer” generation will be the demise of this country.
My parents are included in that generation, but considering they had me at the tender ages of 22 and 21, they had to grow up more than most. Still, when I compare them to the parents of my spouse (72 and 70), my parents still act like teenagers.
I would disagree with Archie, however, in that the older generations should not be trying to “understand” the younger generations, they should be setting an example to the younger generations. Unfortunately, as you pointed out earlier, the parents of today have not yet “grown up”.
By chuck
September 11, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this
Good Afternoon.
Hey 2D I was wondering about your take on Mara’s article. I haven’t had time to read it, but do you think this could be a “Chicken/Egg” situation? In other words, do people whose brains process in an orderly way BECOME conservative or do People who ARE conservatives begin to process information in a more orderly fashion?
On a sidenote, Mara, were you implying that tolerating ambiguity is necessarily a good thing?
By 2D
September 11, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this
Chuck… Check my post from yesterday at 2:11 PM and a couple of other subsequent posts. Basically, I think the study is a bunch of hog wash.
Also, while I don’t want to speak for Mara, I don’t believe that she was implying anything. Also…
What do you mean by tolerating ambiguity? If that means accepting and understanding the fact that someone else may see a different POV than your own when dealing with a situation that has many different POVs, then that is a good thing. It’s not until we accept and understand different POV’s that we can come to a resolution. Sometimes that is shifting the other person’s reasoning to your own, sometimes that is shifting our own reasoning to that of another and sometimes that is a meeting in the middle.
By S Parks
September 11, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this
Bagosis!
Baggy pants are a great crime deterrent. The perp can’t run without tripping on their dragging pants. It makes policing easier.
Would the crime rate go down if parolees were required to wear baggy pants?
By Mara
September 11, 2007 2:17 PM | Link to this
chuck - Mara, were you implying that tolerating ambiguity is necessarily a good thing?
I was not implying that, no. If you are asking my opinion about it…yes, I think it is important to tolerate the attempts by my fellow human beings to express themselves, even if I find it difficult sometimes to understand what they are trying to say. I have that difficulty with Archie alot of times, but I do value his attempts because they make me think about things more as I try to puzzle through his, to me, muddled writing.
On the other hand, without patience and a willingness to dig for meaning, ambiguity can lead to misunderstanding, anger, and hard feelings. There is much to be said for clarity of expression, but unfortunately we all aren’t blessed with the ability to express ourselves well.
Also, where would inter-gender communication (not to mention late-night comedians) be without the oh-so-amusing double entendre?
By chuck
September 11, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this
I guess being a conservative, I like for people to say what they mean and mean what they say. I think that one of the problems of ambiguity from the liberal side is that it makes it seem as if they don’t stand for anything. They are always equivocating.
John Kerry is a perfect example. When he makes stupid statements and gets called on them, rather than just apologizing and moving on he has to “explain” what he really meant to say. For instance, I think he REALLY did say what he believed when he made the “joke” about people in the military. Well by golly, if that’s what you think, TELL US WHY. Tell us what it is about the military that you think attracts “that kind of person”. Don’t waffle. This is becoming a trend in BOTH PARTIES.
Wouldn’t it be nice to have politicians who have real standards that can’t be shaken by the thought of losing an election? That’s one reason I admire Rick Santorum so much. It would have been easy for him to follow the lead of Arlen Specter and become more liberal like his constituency, but he chose to stick to his values and lose the election. THAT’S the kind of person who makes a great president.
By Chilao
September 11, 2007 3:08 PM | Link to this
Chuck - I think we have the equivalent of Rick Santorum right now and I SERIOUSLY think America is going to pass on him(or anyone any near like him) in 2008. LOL
But as far as Specter becoming more “liberal like his constituency”, isn’t a representative in government SUPPOSED to reflect his constituency?
By Scalia
September 11, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this
My parents were boomers (27 and 29 when I was born). My generation who born between the years 77 and 81 are completely different than the generation now. I remember when Reagan was president, Nintendo came out, and there was an East and West Germany. Being a teenager in the 90s rocked. Oh how I remember my parents complaining about box haircuts, bright colored jeans (neon green, yellow, purple, and red) and dressing like the people on In Living Color. Now, ten years later, I complain about the fashions the teenagers are wearing. Why wear tee shirts down to your ankles?
By Mara
September 11, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this
Well, chuck, I try not to use words like “always” and “never” because very few things are “always” or “never” anything. To say that liberals are “always equivocating” is, and I’ll be charitable, a mischaracterization.
I’m just guessing here, but perhaps what you see as “equivocating” might really be an awareness that what works in one situation may not be appropriate in another. So our view of any given subject may be more contextual than equivocal. Or perhaps we understand that every situation is different. You know…nuance.
For example, I am staunchly pro-choice. BUT…I can understand that some people consider a fertilized egg to be an actual child. And I can foresee situations where my pro-choice views could be tempered by expedience or practicality. You see?
Anyway, enough for one day. See y’all tomorrow.
By Anonymous
September 11, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this
Side note: The ability to tolerate and work with ambiguity is not just a good thing… it’s a significant sign of intelligence beyond the grade-school level.
By Archie
September 11, 2007 4:51 PM | Link to this
The reason my writing is muddled to Mara, specifically, because she has the history over-complicating, and being obtuse with my posts because she reads something she does not want to hear. She has done this with others and other posters have commented on this fact in stronger terms than I have. Mara is intelligent, plain and simple, so I have a higher expectation of her than I would some of the posters I have read on this blog. There is nothing complicated about forgiveness, either you agree with that concept or you don’t. If you don’t,fine, but let’s not pretend you don’t understand the concept. The same thing with style of dress, I mean if you’re wearing a special bra that squeezes your boobs you know someone will look and you want them to look and when a person wears baggy pants showing the crack of their behinds they know exactly what they’re doing, they want someone to see the crack of their behind. Also, what’s wrong with understanding? I think wearing a tie to work daily and not wearing baggy pants does set an example of how to dress for the situation. Also I agree with Lyrazel that many of the older generation have not grown up but in the real world imperfect people get to tell you what to do. Heck, my supervisors are not perfect people with their divorces,affairs,etc but you know what I still have to follow the dress code.
By Archie
September 11, 2007 5:01 PM | Link to this
Also Chuck says “say what they mean and mean what they say”, this is garbage. Conservatives equivocate all the time. Let’s look at the guy whose phone number was on the call madam’s phone list or this Idaho guy that pleaded guilty but now wants to withdraw his plea. We are supposed to believe that neither of those guys did anything wrong, because they say so. I have a problem with liberals over-intellectualizing but then conservatives just ignore anything that they don’t agree with or lie about it.
By NetBanker
September 11, 2007 5:41 PM | Link to this
Is tolerating ambiguity a bad thing? In my experience everyone experiences some amount of ambiguity in life so it would seem to me that those with little to no tolerance for it won’t fare quite as well in the world. Consider that the pace of change is increasing along with the speed of information flow. This means that the amount and frequency of ambiguity in life will continue to increase.
By pzgk qiur
September 12, 2007 12:52 AM | Link to this
dmbtyxfpq tcjz bmqatfdg evoyzsgnu uatqosv vyxgzn vniekawj
By lozen
September 12, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this
Oh Net,Net, Net. You do it again! “Is tolerating ambiguity a bad thing? In my experience everyone experiences some amount of ambiguity in life so it would seem to me that those with little to no tolerance for it won’t fare quite as well in the world. Consider that the pace of change is increasing along with the speed of information flow. This means that the amount and frequency of ambiguity in life will continue to increase.”
This is exactly why fundamentalist religion/conservative politics are increasingly appealing to so many all over the planet. Because so many ppl can’t handle ambiguity; they want certainty. They want a big daddy in the sky to tell them exactly what they should and should not do. They can’t accept the world or other people the way they are, and they have a blueprint (based on their childhood fantasies usually) of what it SHOULD be like.
By chuck
September 12, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this
Chilao, you asked an interesting question:
…isn’t a representative in government SUPPOSED to reflect his constituency?
The answer is yes and no (see, I can equivocate too). If a candidate changes his core values to get votes, then they really are not core values are they? The way representative democracies are supposed to work is that candidates tell the people what they stand for and the constituents decide whether or not those values match up with what they believe. This happened in Pennsylvania with Santorum. They rejected his core values and they have a Senator who I suppose represents what they believe…at least for this election cycle.
My point was that Specter CHANGED to reflect the change in constituency. I can see making small changes for political reasons, but he changed his entire platform from conservative to liberal. He is one of the most liberal Republicans in office. What that means to me is that you can’t trust what he says because he has no enduring beliefs. In effect, he misrepresented himself to the voters either in his early elections or his more recent ones concerning his core values, just to get elected. The difference between him and Santorum is that Santorum actually has core beliefs. That’s why I admire him. There just aren’t many who will essentially give up power rather than violate their values.
By lozen
September 12, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this
Mara, I agree that Archie’s writing is muddled at times. It’s funny he tries to make it your problem totally and chooses to believe you have a problem simply because you disagree with him! Day-um Mara. You women only hear what you want to hear. You are so emotional! How can anybody be expected to communicate with you? And you’re illogical! Why should anybody waste time listening to you? Typical strategy used by some to justify not listening to others, huh?
By Anonymous
September 12, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this
“Santorum actually has core beliefs. That’s why I admire him. There just aren’t many who will essentially give up power rather than violate their values.”
So did the 9/11 hijackers. Respecting someone for stubbornly sticking to EVIL beliefs makes no sense. Determination is not a virtue when you’re wrong… which is something Bush has never understood.
By GOB
September 12, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this
The reason my writing is muddled to Mara, specifically, because she has the history over-complicating, and being obtuse with my posts because she reads something she does not want to hear.
Archie, I cant speak for Mara, but I dont think that is why she thinks your writing is muddled. I think it has a lot to do with readibility. In your post you had five different concepts (Mara, forgiveness, inappropriate dress, understanding, and older generations) all jammed into one long paragraph. That can be tough to get through.
By Chilao
September 12, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this
Nothing beats a Hard-Right return and a space-line for each train of thought. For readibility.
Chuck - so Specter probably should re-classify as an Independent. Sounds good to me. LOL
By Archie
September 12, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this
GOB, I covered five different concepts because there were 5 different concepts being discussed on the blog. It shouldn’t be that tough to get through and we do have limited space here. The topic is about the saggy pants look but then someone addressed me specifically,twice. Remember Lyrazel responded to one of my posts and 2d said something as well, I simply addressed those people. GOB,you weren’t present 2 weeks ago therefore it’s understandable why you don’t understand my mention of forgiveness but Mara does. I mean no harm but I have to agree with JokesOn that it seems like the cheerleader mentality on this blog. One thing I give Mara credit for is that she disagrees with an idea expressed not a person whereas Lozen brings up some type of male-female battle. She(Lozen) seems stuck in that mode and totally unable to accept any criticism of a woman. This blog is not the only place where I talk to people and I disagree much more harshly with people that I actually see and yet I get along quite well with those people. Also Mara answered a question on infidelity a few months ago boldy,without equivocation, in other words she was a standup person as she was the first female to answer my question on infidelity and guess what, afterwards, here come the “cheerleaders” following behind her. I do believe Mara is deliberately obtuse at times but she stands on her own and doesn’t appear to take things personal.
By chuck
September 12, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this
Archie, not that I want to make this “jump on Archie” day, but I’m starting to wonder about your reading comprehension level. My exact quote was:
I guess being a conservative, I like for people to say what they mean and mean what they say.
I did NOT say that conservatives NEVER equivocate, but let me make it clear: I don’t like it when conservatives equivocate any more than I like it from liberals.
Anonymous, I love it when the whackos like you come out to play. What, are you taking your talking points from Moveon.org now. That is plainly an asinine comparison. That’s why the far-left movement cannot get traction in this country, and we appreciate it. You represent about 1% or less of the population with those views so I hope the democratic candidates keep kowtowing to it. Perfect formula for a Republican victory in ‘08. I know you want to believe it because it makes you feel better about attacking us, but we aren’t evil and our ideas are not evil.
Conservative Christians don’t want to (and in fact know that they CAN’T) force everybody or ANYBODY to be a Christian. It doesn’t work that way.You need to get your head out of your butt and listen to someone other than Al Franken.
On the other hand, there are some BEHAVIORS that we see as sinful, that we ALSO see as being bad for America from a SECULAR point of view as well. We know that we are not going to create a theocracy on earth and we aren’t trying to. Hate to burst your little worldview bubble. On the other hand, as AMERICANS, we have the right to express our views and to work to see those ideas placed into law as we have opportunities. If you oppose them, then you have the right to try to prevent it from happening. You don’t have to sink to the lowest tactics to do so either, but that is usually the tactical choice of the far left.
By Mara
September 12, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this
GOB - In your post you had five different concepts…all jammed into one long paragraph
Chilao - Nothing beats a Hard-Right return and a space-line for each train of thought. For readibility.
Exactly! It’s difficult for me to figure out where he stops with one issue and gets started on another. It has nothing to do with whether I agree with him or not. And sometimes he uses phrases that are unfamiliar to me, like “women getting up on a man”. I’m still not certain I know what that means…
lozen - yeah, I just don’t want to understand him because I don’t agree with his opinion…sigh…
chuck - I don’t know a lot about Specter, but isn’t it possible (unlikely for a Republican, I know) that, like his constituents, he really did rethink his views and become more liberal (in the classic sense, not the “stinking pinko hippie” sense)?
And I gotta say, the idea of someone as convinced of his own rightiousness and moral superiority as Rick Santorum being elected President horrifies me.
By Archie
September 12, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this
I did NOT say that conservatives NEVER equivocate Chuck I did not imply that. You did say liberals are always equivocating and my point was how are they different in that area than conservatives. Chuck most people I know want people to say what they mean and mean what they say whether they are liberal or conservative.
By chuck
September 12, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this
And I gotta say, the idea of someone as convinced of his own rightiousness and moral superiority as Rick Santorum being elected President horrifies me
Are you kidding me? Rick Santorum was one of the most HUMBLE men in Congress. If you want to see someone reeking of his own sense of moral superiority, take a look at Harry Reid and while you are at it, take a look at Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy, too.
As for Specter, his constituents didn’t so much change their views. A more accurate description is that the constituency itself changed. It became more urban for one thing. Large cities are traditionally more liberal than smaller cities and rural areas. Other demographics (such as race and age) in Pennsylvania changed as well. Yes it is possible for him to have sincerely become a liberal. Just as possible as it was for Hilary to become a moderate, but I don’t buy that either.
By Jack
September 12, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this
How bout “jump on Jack” day. Ladies first. :)
By Mara
September 12, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this
on topic - they not only want to ban “saggies”, they also want to ban sports bras and the like. I wonder if they’ve seen this article - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20725154/
Whether women are said to be flat-chested or big-busted, ordinary bras fall short when it comes to supporting bouncing breasts, a new study claims.
And during exercise, women’s breasts bounce more than previously estimated, moving a vertical distance of up to around eight inches…The bouncing, in some cases with breasts weighing 20 pounds or more, can prove painful and damaging to the limited natural support system.
and a big, fat, “you got that right!” from a girl who knows…
By Chilao
September 12, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this
women getting up on a man TRANSLATES to “b!tchin’ at the man’, at least how I read it.
By chuck
September 12, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this
Sorry Jack, It’s going to be LADIES ONLY as far as I’m concerned. SOME people may have other ideas, though.
By Chilao
September 12, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this
No poundage give for A-cups. LOL
By chuck
September 12, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this
Speaking of “saggies”.
By Jesus H ELF!
September 12, 2007 1:03 PM | Link to this
this must have been started by a CHRISTIAN! The Holier than thou’s come in and are “offended” just as easily as the “chip on the shoulder black woman” who HAS to point out that a group of white kids from the burb’s are following the prison ghetto gang in having their drawers show. WE need nudity in the US-jsut like they do in France and Britain. This Puritain BS and PC garbage has to stop people. Unofrtunatley, this is the bible Belt-rread the bible or you get a belt. Shoving Bibles down throats cause one thing-FANATAcism-just look at the Mad Muslims-trying to convert the world or they will kill you. So the black kids wnat to show their underwear. BIG DEAL! so they will only get hired by v103 and the Jesse & AL gang of racist insensitivity. I would prefer to people to be themselves. Rally-the only ones that are offended are these “Church Ladies and religious freaks” that want everyone to be a puritain. And we all know what REALLY goes on in Church. See Bynum and Weeks—hahahahahaa. Remember-save teh world-Bomb a Muslim Terrorist today.
By Jesus H ELF!
September 12, 2007 1:03 PM | Link to this
this must have been started by a CHRISTIAN! The Holier than thou’s come in and are “offended” just as easily as the “chip on the shoulder black woman” who HAS to point out that a group of white kids from the burb’s are following the prison ghetto gang in having their drawers show. WE need nudity in the US-jsut like they do in France and Britain. This Puritain BS and PC garbage has to stop people. Unofrtunatley, this is the bible Belt-rread the bible or you get a belt. Shoving Bibles down throats cause one thing-FANATAcism-just look at the Mad Muslims-trying to convert the world or they will kill you. So the black kids wnat to show their underwear. BIG DEAL! so they will only get hired by v103 and the Jesse & AL gang of racist insensitivity. I would prefer to people to be themselves. Rally-the only ones that are offended are these “Church Ladies and religious freaks” that want everyone to be a puritain. And we all know what REALLY goes on in Church. See Bynum and Weeks—hahahahahaa. Remember-save the world-Bomb a Muslim Terrorist today.
By Anonymous
September 12, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this
Rick Santorum was one of the most HUMBLE men in Congress. If you want to see someone reeking of his own sense of moral superiority, take a look at Harry Reid….
Really?
Rick Santorum, circa 2003: “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”
By JokesOn
September 12, 2007 1:46 PM | Link to this
Archie,
As I posting when it was going on, your post exhibited frustration, yet I understood exactly what you said/meant.
I think it comes down to how much one wants to understand another’s point and if they are going to use the tactic where one uses the poster’s syntax/grammar to argue instead of their talking points.
I had a similar altercation a few ?months? back regarding a post i made about the wrestler’s murder/suicide. Unfortunately that too fell along gender lines, backing some stereotypes; not that I believe they exist totally.
One will not get a fair debate on this board is all.
By Mara
September 12, 2007 1:46 PM | Link to this
chuck - I choked on my soda @ “saggies” LOL!!
Hi ya Jack!
By Archie
September 12, 2007 2:02 PM | Link to this
women getting up on a man TRANSLATES to “b!tchin’ at the man’, at least how I read it.
Chilao, I don’t remember ever writing that phrase. I would need date and time and the actual post to respond to that. Sometimes I do commit typos…that sorta comes with being human.
By Jack
September 12, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this
Hey Mara.:)
Hello Jesus H. :)
By Jack
September 12, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this
Ladies only goes without saying Chuck!
By JokesOn
September 12, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this
posted*
By Chilao
September 12, 2007 2:31 PM | Link to this
Archie - all I remember is reading it, and no certainty about who stated it, that was just how I translated it at the time. Did I get the translation correctly? I didn’t translate it like a cowgirl or anything. LOL
On that thought, you ever stop at that South of the Border place on I-95?
By Jack
September 12, 2007 2:46 PM | Link to this
Hi Chilao. That reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw on a pick up truck driven by a pretty lady. It said,”Save a horse, ride a cowboy”. LOL
By Archie
September 12, 2007 2:48 PM | Link to this
On that thought, you ever stop at that South of the Border place on I-95?
Naw,man I never have and I was just on I-95 last week. Chilao you are cool with me dude.
JokesOn, thanks for helping out man but I do agree with some of these folk(Mara) politically just not on male/female issues. Also the Fox sports commentators took the same position I took on Vick so I didn’t say anything people couldn’t understand but some just disagree and that’s fine,just don’t distort it. Also JokesOn some are carrying a grudge from posts made weeks ago but believe or not Mara is not one of those people, she has posted on the topic at hand. I have used this blog to vent and I have rambled and usually know when I am doing that.
By Chilao
September 12, 2007 3:02 PM | Link to this
LOL @ Jack. Yeah, that was the idea.
By JokesOn
September 12, 2007 3:13 PM | Link to this
Also JokesOn some are carrying a grudge from posts made weeks ago but believe or not Mara is not one of those people, she has posted on the topic at hand. I have used this blog to vent and I have rambled and usually know when I am doing that.
I find it unfortunate that besides a few a$$-kissers and a$$-holes, the disagreements that occur fall along gender lines with the woman talking about the mans syntax/hidden meanings/grammar. 2D and a few others are the exceptions.
I figure that the ones that promote the stereotypes are conflicted and angry because they do not want to and take it out on posters.
By GOB
September 12, 2007 3:58 PM | Link to this
Archie - I think you are missing the point. It isnt about the content of your posts, but the simple fact that they are hard to read. Most of us write in paragraphs, so it is easy to see where one idea ends and a new one begins.
I promise that ajc.com isnt going to run out of server space if you break your posts up into paragraphs.
By JokesOn
September 12, 2007 4:55 PM | Link to this
I think Arhie understands the point your making regarding his blog-writing style:
By Archie
August 29, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this
Hello JokesOn, Man you are right and I am frazzled and I am trying not to insult but I am bothered that guys can be judged so harshly with no forgiveness but yet you can give 12 million dollars to a dog.
His beef is that although a post could be written better, it can be understood with minimal difficulty; and some choose not to put that little bit of effort into it. Some people make the writing style their whole argument.
Being guilty of writing blog-style myself, I know what it is like to deal with people that make that, or one simple error, the focus of debate.
I also know that, without changing style at all, I have had very in depth discussions with NetB/GOB/2D/Archie and with some others; hence, why I think that it reflects more on the one that does not want to understand the posters remarks.
Would changing styles help? Initially it would.
Is it vital? I do not think so and have proof backing it up.
By Archie
September 12, 2007 5:00 PM | Link to this
GOB I get your point and I will take your advice. Please note,however, the meaning of the posts I made 2 weeks ago on Vick were not muddled and these folk know that. JokesOn understood those posts and I am not the first person to say Mara has been “deliberately obtuse”. GOB I think you’re missing that point. Also there are no complaints unless I disagree on some male/female issue,as long as I bash Bush or Chuck,I am cool.
I think Leona Helmsly was kooky leaving 12 million dollars to keep up a dog and nothing to two of her grandchildren. GOB, I hope that idea was expressed plain enough.
I think women or men that know someone is an a-hole upfront is illogical for dating that person. I hope that idea was clear.
GOB I do appreciate your thoughts.
By chuck
September 13, 2007 8:51 AM | Link to this
Good morning!
I thought you’d like that Mara.
Anonymous, I don’t know why I bother. You seem incapable of understanding BASIC vocabulary. There is nothing in your Santorum quote that remotely invalidates my statement about his level of humility. The quote is nothing more than a lawyer explaining, correctly I might add, the possible consequences of a supreme court decision.
How can you deny the veracity of his statement? If one kind of “non-traditional” lifestyle is okay, how can you turn around and deny the same thing for OTHER “non-traditional” lifestyles. The only answer to that is that homosexuals have gained “most favored nation” status when it comes to POLITICAL court decisions.
By Mara
September 13, 2007 8:55 AM | Link to this
so I make a point about the need to tolerate “ambiguity” and suddenly my personal integrity is dismissed and I’m portrayed as someone who only pretends to have difficulty wading through badly written posts. Frankly, I find that insulting and offensive.
It’s kind of funny because I didn’t say that I can never decipher what he’s talking about, only that his posts can be muddled. Which, from the comments, others have noticed too. But I guess that has no bearing on it. According to JokesOn and Archie, I’m a liar when I say sometime his posts confuse me. That I don’t grasp his reasoning (and arguments) because I don’t want to, or I pretend not to because I disagree with him. Jokes always “gets” what he means so it shouldn’t matter how he writes it. Nobody could possibly consider it any other way than how he means it. Evidently, how he phrases his arguments shouldn’t have any bearing on what he means to say (which is always clear and impossible to misinterpret). And responding to what he actually writes instead of what he meant is being “deliberately obtuse”.
Speaking of which…Archie, regarding your statement “I am not the first person to say Mara has been “deliberately obtuse”“…citing “he-who-humps-legs” as proof of my willful blindness isn’t what I’d call persuasive evidence. But then, that’s just me and everyone knows I only understand what I agree with and want to hear.
And thanks to all y’all who saw the merit in my comments and understood that I was not denigrating Archie himself, or his opinions.
By Archie
September 13, 2007 9:05 AM | Link to this
JokesON, I appreciate your 4:55 pm comments yesterday dude I really do and you are right.
By Chilao
September 13, 2007 9:30 AM | Link to this
LOL @ He who humps legs. Must need a Victorian table-cloth to the floor in that household.
Jack - get behind a dually-wheeled pickup last night going a slightly different way home, goose-neck, no trailer, out-of-state another Southern state plates, with a vanity license place of CWBY UP. He took a left towards the place of a guy who breeds for rodeo bulls. May have been NO connection, just trivia.
By JokesOn
September 13, 2007 9:42 AM | Link to this
JokesON, I appreciate your 4:55 pm comments yesterday dude I really do and you are right.
Not a problem. It is not that I necessarily agree with you either;) But I prefer to argue about the topics and not the halo of stuff surrounding the topics.
Mara,
Yes, I have (so far) always “got” what he is saying; as if there is something wrong with that. And if I and some others can understand what he posts, what truths can you pull from that? Some of the truths are what lozen finds so offensive - the fact that you are less apt or willing to read his posts and pull from them his point or ask him to please clarify without the left handers.
The people I respect most in this world are people that can talk to anyone independant of their back-ground/wealth/writing-speaking style/etc. Those people are the ones that want to build bridges and not tear them down because of a few flaws or because someone did not customize their style for them.
By GOB
September 13, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this
Those people are the ones that want to build bridges and not tear them down because of a few flaws or because someone did not customize their style for them.
JokesOn - I dont think anyone is saying that the style must be customized, but when a post looks like a wordsearch it becomes a little more difficult to parse.
I stopped reading most of those types of posts awhile ago because I see enough of that writing style everyday in class. I dont willfully subject myself to it if I can help it.
Anyone can post however they like, but that could result in misunderstandings or simply ignoring a post.
By Archie
September 13, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this
Yes, I have (so far) always “got” what he is saying; as if there is something wrong with that. And if I and some others can understand what he posts, what truths can you pull from that? Some of the truths are what lozen finds so offensive - the fact that you are less apt or willing to read his posts and pull from them his point or ask him to please clarify without the left handers.
Thanks again JokesOn. You are right that we have disagreed in the past but you doing an excellent job of defending me to the point that even I am impressed. I will post more later…
By Mara
September 13, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this
JokesOn - what “truth” do I pull from that? Like art, clarity is in the mind of the beholder.
and here we have what I would consider an ambiguous or “unclear” statement. “…or ask him to please clarify without the left handers”. WTF is a “left-hander”?
Even Dictionary.com, which i consulted on the meaning of “left-hander”, says only that it is someone who is left handed or a slap, punch, or pitch using the left hand. How that pertains to anything is puzzling. I’m sure you’ll say that it’s perfectly clear what you mean…but I beg to differ. I could assume that it means something like “sarcasm” and I might be right…or I might not.
Now…am I being willfully obtuse or is the phrase itself ambiguous? Since you have so little respect for me or for my honesty, I’m pretty sure I know what you’ll say. But that doesn’t make it true.
By Mara
September 13, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this
and Urban Dictionary defines “a left-hander” as a homosexual or a pot-smoker.
By Lily Toad
September 13, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this
So a gay pot-smoker would be double left-handed?
By Archie
September 13, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this
It was 72John who called Mara obtuse because of the way she misread or distorted something he posted so I ask was he a bad writer? The topic was about women’s style of dress and he,Brian Curtis, blasted her at the time for the way she tried to distort their posts. Also I believe Renee made some comments about the way Mara responds to posts by distorting what a person says rather than just debating them as JokesON says. JokesOn speaks the truth and I never read anything negative about writing style until the last two weeks and as JokesOn has posted I admitted to being frazzled at the time but when you can’t just debate you distort or become deliberately obtuse.
Back to the topic and some of you who are teachers can respond, do you require students to dress up in business style at times? I know of at least one school that does require business dress in a keyboarding class here in South Carolina.
By Lily Toad
September 13, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this
What amazes me in some of the comments about boys wearing baggy pants is talking about how the only job they can get is with V103 or how they are not professional looking. Does that mean that executives never wear shorts or jeans or sports bras? Do you really think that kids that dress this way when hanging out with friends don’t know to dress differently when they apply for a job?
By Archie
September 13, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this
My take on JokesON’s comments about left handers is that he is referring to people who are not sincere in their commentary. As he said * also know that, without changing style at all, I have had very in depth discussions with NetB/GOB/2D/Archie and with some others; hence, why I think that it reflects more on the one that does not want to understand the posters remarks.* I do think what JokesON said is very pertinent.
By Archie
September 13, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this
Hello Lily, I read the V103 comments too and I ignored them basically. I mean consider the source. Some kids do show up to a job site with baggy pants but check this Lily I almost did not get a job because I wore a shirt and tie when applying for that job.
By Lily Toad
September 13, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this
Archie, that’s funny. My office has a “business casual” dress code and we have a law student working part time. The lawyer he works for told him to stop wearing a tie. This same lawyer was told the same thing by our General Counsel when he started working here.
By JokesOn
September 13, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this
I could assume that it means something like “sarcasm” and I might be right…or I might not.
You are correct.
See, nearly all confusion could be handled that easily. Just asking, like you do here, without the paragraph that preceeded it. The most probable meaning was obvious to you, yet you still wanted to get muddled in “what-if” scenarios.
By NetBanker
September 13, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this
How can you deny the veracity of his statement? If one kind of “non-traditional” lifestyle is okay, how can you turn around and deny the same thing for OTHER “non-traditional” lifestyles. Why can’t we do just that? Take the sodomy laws that were in place until very recently that regulated private, consensual behaviors. Did repealing those place incest or any other ‘non-traditional’ lifestyle on par with consentual oral or anal sex between adults? No, it didn’t. So why couldn’t the case of homosexual sex be treated the same as the anti-sodomy laws?
One of my issues with the whole ‘traditional lifestyle’ argument is that the idea or ideal of 1 man, 1 woman, and children as a household is predominantly, historically false prior to the 20th Century. Most households in antiquity and up to the mid-20th century were multi-generational. There weren’t retirement or nursing homes for old people so they lived with a son or daughter. In an agrarian society there also existed extended families with siblings and sinlge Aunts/Uncles living together. Additionally, due to short life spans many widows and widowers remarried so blended families of step-children have existed since antiquity also. The tradition of families is just not historically the concept that conservaties hold up as ‘truth.’
By Chilao
September 13, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this
I worked with a super-hot Thai woman who had a sister who committed suicide, driven to the suicide by the jerk/husband of the deceased woman. and it was the cultural OBLIGATION of my coworker to marry the man, since he no longer had a wife. and she did marry him.
On that tie stuff, I have had two interviewers ask me if I would be able to “dress down” if hired since they were a casual place. And I was in a suit for the interviews.
And my current boss told me a year after I started here that he was glad to see me finally getting casual, with a polo shirt. Now never mind that most of my work clothes were dressy until I bought several polo shirts. I told him it was either dress nicely OR dress REAL REAL casual. Too casual for work. LOL
By lozen
September 13, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this
What is it with you men who spend every day on a blog called “Woman to Woman” and over time, put down every woman who questions anything males do or a male viewpoint or the way a male muddles a message? And any woman who posts anything about women’s issues, or anything favorable to women really sets you off.
.. She(Lozen) seems …totally unable to accept any criticism of a woman.” (But it’s so easy for Archie to accept any criticism of a man! Right!)
Archie accuses me of being stuck in a female-male battle mode! I could just as easily say, “He (Archie) seems stuck in that black-white mode (…forgive Vick for his ‘mistake’ of killing dogs and enjoying watching them tear each other apart because, according to the woman who wrote the article Archie referred to to back up his view, “dogfighting is primarily a black thing now”).
By Mara
September 13, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this
The most probable meaning was obvious to you
ahhhh. The most “probable” meaning. So it’s my obligation to infer the meaning of made-up words and phrases, not the posters to be coureous enough to use language that actually appears in reference material?
Does that mean if the inferrance is mistaken and a heated discussion ensues, well, that’s just obstinance and willful blindness? A “distortion” of an argument? Or is it possible that there is an honest misunderstanding?
By Mara
September 13, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this
anybody see the AJC article about the stray dogs being set on fire?
least six dogs with similar burns in the past month
By Archie’s own statements we shouldn’t get all horrified and indignant about this. After all, everybody makes “mistakes” and they’re only dogs.
By NetBanker
September 13, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this
So a gay pot-smoker would be double left-handed? Lily, I had the same thought since I fall into that category. Left-handed for pot smoking does make sense though… ‘pass the dutchie on the left hand side…’
By JokesOn
September 13, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this
So it’s my obligation to infer the meaning of made-up words and phrases, not the posters to be coureous enough to use language that actually appears in reference material?
Yawn. I clearly posted “See, nearly all confusion could be handled that easily. Just asking, like you do here…” as the solution. If there are misunderstandings, and there will be no matter the eloquence of the poster, the easiest route to clarification.
Here is yet another example of a deliberate and sarcastic attempt at muddying a clear post, illustrating my exact issue with you.
blog called “Woman to Woman”
Been over this x times now: this blog is named such because two women are the writers, not that it is an only “woman topic” blog as easily seen by the past topics list.
Once again, turn your logic inside out and see how it would fly: A blog named “Man-to-Man” because there are two male writers. On that blog is a man telling a female she has no business being on it…
More total bs, because I do not remember a pro-women type statement ever being argued against. The posts that set some men off are the all-inclusive “men are this or that” statements and the inability to discern old crony rich white men, and the masses that have little or no control regarding their social rules as a woman. Like your notions that ALL men are responsible for the actions of a minute percentage and that we somehow should be able influence them.
By JokesOn
September 13, 2007 1:33 PM | Link to this
By Archie’s own statements we shouldn’t get all horrified and indignant about this. After all, everybody makes “mistakes” and they’re only dogs.
Speaking of dogs: Meooow!PhhhtPhhhhtt!
Here is another example of: deliberately warping his post, stereo-typically holding a grudge, and ending with an all out lie (they’re only dogs was never in his post regarding animal abuse).
You are a good example of someone who can post clearly, yet is counter-productive, argumentative and potentially destructive. Talking this way in on a blog as well as in a relationship, no matter the sex of the partners/posters, is what gets you dismissed over time and treated like a child.
So a gay pot-smoker would be double left-handed? Thats too funny.
By lozen
September 13, 2007 2:18 PM | Link to this
So Mara I guess that put you in your place! How have you made it in life without Jokeson telling you about your communication mistakes? Now if you just follow his advice maybe you won’t get dismissed all the time! ;-) I didn’t say no male has any business being here. I am very happy Net is here (BrianCurtis, 72John, Jack, Tim, some others who have been here in the past).
By Archie
September 13, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this
Here is another example of: deliberately warping his post, stereo-typically holding a grudge, and ending with an all out lie (they’re only dogs was never in his post regarding animal abuse).
Thank you JokesON. She gave the perfect example of what I had been saying and Lozen did the same.
More total bs, because I do not remember a pro-women type statement ever being argued against. The posts that set some men off are the all-inclusive “men are this or that” statements and the inability to discern old crony rich white men, and the masses that have little or no control regarding their social rules as a woman.
Once again thanks JokesOn and your statements are so true. They can’t beat you in an honest debate so they outright lie and that’s why JBM,Renee, and 72John had major issues with Mara at some point. I thought we had moved on to discussing the topic of this blog. Also I have accepted several criticisms of men on and off this blog but I am not the only person to think that Lozen and that Whiley thing are one in the same person. Lozen has denied this but I remember another poster really getting after her about not being able to accept criticism of a woman. Woman to Woman has an archive system so it’s easy to find that many have called out Mara for her ways time and time again. Good post JokesON.
By Chilao
September 13, 2007 2:32 PM | Link to this
Lozen is not Whiley. Sorry, ain’t buyin’ that one. LOL
By Archie
September 13, 2007 2:46 PM | Link to this
Chilao I know Lozen isn’t Whiley but she was accused of being Whiley by another poster. I said those things in the previous post because of how Lozen reacts whenever there is a criticism of a woman.
By NetBanker
September 13, 2007 3:43 PM | Link to this
This link is a little frightening and kind of pokes a hole in the ‘fight them over there’ line of the administration.
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/printedition/2007/09/13/drehered0913.html
Outside of this story wouldn’t any border protection measures and work done by intelligence agencies technically be fighting terrorists over here?
By NetBanker
September 13, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this
So what’s the deal with bash Mara day?! Are we here to discuss or to pick at each other? Sheesh, people!
Lozen…very good points about people wanting a Big Daddy in the sky to make them feel better. The more things are uncertain the more people turn to religion.
By GOB
September 13, 2007 3:52 PM | Link to this
but I am not the only person to think that Lozen and that Whiley thing are one in the same person.
Chilao I know Lozen isn’t Whiley
Gee, how could anyone claim that your posts are not cyrstal clear? Your first post clearly states that you DO in fact think Lozen and “that Whiley thing” are the same person.
By Archie
September 13, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this
Netbanker So what’s the deal with bash Mara day?! Are we here to discuss or to pick at each other? Sheesh, people! I don’t know but why didn’t you ask that question when those folk started picking on me? I prefer to just post and in the past I would just ignore certain things but I decided not to this time. GOB, c’mon you sat and waited for something like that to post on??? That’s exactly what JokesOn posted about. Lily Toad,Chilao,and I all posted about dress at work and you post about that one thing…
By NetBanker
September 13, 2007 4:14 PM | Link to this
Have a good weekend kids! I’m starting mine tomorrow by hopping on a plane to go celebrate my grandmother’s 90th birthday.
By NetBanker
September 13, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this
Archie…I don’t know, but should have.
Children! Enough bickering and sniping at each other. Play nice!!
By GOB
September 13, 2007 4:25 PM | Link to this
Archie - I have nothing against you at all, and when I do read your posts, I often agree with you. The issue that I see in this instance, however, is the way you are fighting so hard to show that your posts truly are easy to understand, and that if someone doesn’t, they must just be dishonest. After you accused Mara of that, you went on to post two completely contradictory things.
You seem like a good guy, which is why I don’t really understand the stubbornness, which has, in my opinion, turned into something substantially worse with your comments and treatment of Mara.
No one is trying to pick on you, but your stubbornness is…grating.
By Archie
September 13, 2007 4:26 PM | Link to this
Netbanker,have a good weekend man!!! I mean that and I hope that’s crystal clear!!!
By lozen
September 13, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this
Chilao, you are so right! I have agreed with Whiley at times but not always, and I certainly am not Whiley.
“I remember another poster really getting after her about not being able to accept criticism of a woman…” You really don’t see how you react whenever there’s criticism of a man on this blog?
Yes, you’re right. I will readily admit I almost always see the female point of view rather than the male point of view…I am female ya know? And yes, I’m a cheerleader for women!
What Mara did was disagree with you that Vick made “a mistake” and should be given another chance. That’s what started this whole thing. Then you accused her of not listening to what you really meant! She responded you didn’t express what you meant very well. Some of us agreed with her. You referred to some woman’s writing as support for your stance, as if everyone in the world had read her piece and knew what you were talking about. You never really explained what that stance was. I read it; she said it was blown out of proportion because dog fighting is pretty much a black thing now. She said horse racing, dog racing etc. were harmful to animals also. I disagreed. There were many people who disagreed. It didn’t matter to me if Vick was black, white, male or female. Torturing defenseless animals, enjoying watching them torn to pieces in the name of sport, killing them when they’re no longer useful is horrible. It’s not just a little mistake that someone should be forgiven for.
And yes, I will always approach any situation using feminist analysis. It’s been very useful to me.
Jokeson gets that it’s a white, rich, male thing at the base. But it permeates all of society because we’ve all lived their rules, their laws, their morals, their politics, and their religions for thousands of years as if that were the only view of life. It filtered down to all men and all women.
Just as young people learn to hate themselves if they have feelings for someone of the same sex in a heterosexist culture, just as blacks once learned to feel inferior because whites said they were, women learned to hate themselves and feel inferior because they were told they were. That’s why it’s hard for me to hear women criticized because I’ve heard it all my life!
By Archie
September 13, 2007 4:48 PM | Link to this
GOB,The issue that I see in this instance, however, is the way you are fighting so hard to show that your posts truly are easy to understand, and that if someone doesn’t, they must just be dishonest. No the only person dishonest to use your word is Mara. I say again I am not the first person to say something about her behavior. GOB you seem like a good person(I don’t what gender you are) but you have completely ignored the posts of JokesOn and you waited, waited to post on my last post and did not post anything about the subject of business dress. What contradictory things are you talking about? Why are you so concerned about Mara??? Why do you get to call me stubborn, I mean who are you???
By Archie
September 13, 2007 5:19 PM | Link to this
That’s why it’s hard for me to hear women criticized because I’ve heard it all my life! Lozen I got you. At least you have admitted that fault. Lozen I am sorry for calling you Whiley,even briefly. I did not use Kathy Rudy as if everyone had read her column,remember I posted that in response to another post. As a church-going person forgiveness is one of things that we are told to do. Remember I also said that the lady who killed her husband has already been forgiven by his family so that’s what I meant by forgiveness. I am fine that you don’t want to forgive Vick but don’t distort my opinion. Remember I have said over and over again that we men do some dumb stuff so I don’t know how you say I can’t handle criticism of men because we do stuff that deserves a lot of criticism and that’s where I get upset because I post criticism of men and someone comes right behind that and ignores that fact. Remember you can get my vote with a lot of things pertaining to women because I do have women in my life but no one is exempt from criticism not me,you,Mara,Jokeson,GOB, even my favorite poster JBM. Hell, I disagreed with her a few times.
By Chilao
September 14, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this
The sign in the bathroom stated that employees wash your hands before leaving, I waited, and waited on an employee to show up, finally I just washed my own!
By lozen
September 14, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this
Thank you for the joke Chilao!
PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY DESTROYED BY FLOOD — Crawford , Texas
A tragic flood recently destroyed the personal library of President George W. Bush. The flood began in the presidential bathroom where both of the books were kept. Both books have been lost. A presidential spokesman said the president was devastated, as he had almost finished coloring the second one.
The White House tried calling FEMA but there was no answer.
By Gandalf, the Gray
September 14, 2007 1:09 PM | Link to this
sluts have always showed there assests. Andrea are you a thonger?
By chuck
September 14, 2007 1:11 PM | Link to this
A man and his wife were driving their Recreational Vehicle across the country and were nearing a town spelled Kissimee.
They noted the strange spelling and tried to figure how to pronounce it - KISS-a-me; kis-A-me; kis-a-ME. They grew more perplexed as they drove into the town.
Since they were hungry, they pulled into a place to get something to eat. At the counter, the man said to the waitress: “My wife and I can’t seem to be able to figure out how to pronounce this place. Will you tell me where we are and say it very slowly so that I can understand.”
The waitress looked at him and said: “Buuurrrgerrr Kiiiinnnng.”
By WTF?
September 14, 2007 1:14 PM | Link to this
Down, doggie, down.
By chuck
September 14, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this
WOMEN
Women are honest, loyal, and forgiving. They are smart, knowing that knowledge is power. But they still know how to use their softer side to make a point.
Women want to be the best for their family, their friends, and themselves. Their hearts break when a friend dies. They have sorrow at the loss of a family member, yet they are strong when they think there is no strength left.
A woman can make a romantic evening unforgettable.
Women come in all sizes, in all colors and shapes. They live in homes, apartments and cabins. They drive, fly, walk, run or e-mail you to show how much they care about you.
The heart of a woman is what makes the world spin! Women do more than just give birth. They bring joy and hope. They give compassion and ideals.
They give moral support to their family and friends. And all they want back is a hug, a smile and for you to do the same to people you come in contact with.
MEN
Men are good at lifting heavy stuff and killing spiders.
By Maggie
September 14, 2007 3:52 PM | Link to this
I hate the guys with the baggy pants, but since they are wearing at least 2 pair of boxer shorts and usually have their XXL shirts hanging out I cannot fathom why Shaunti calls this “partial” nudity. As for stopping women on the street because their bra straps are visible, that is the most absurd thing I have heard in a long time! At least we are wearing one. I vote to ban the “Muffin Tops” hanging over the jeans with the too short shirts and the “Plumber Pants” that show us more than we ever wanted to see.
By Dusty
September 14, 2007 4:28 PM | Link to this
Hi testing
By wmaragorn
September 14, 2007 9:26 PM | Link to this
http://www.catscorner.ca/images/map.html c ollie puppies for sale [url=http://www.catscorner.ca/images/map.html]spyware adware remover free trial [/url]