Saggers!!

2009-07-05 06:25:26

#251

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6897|USA

PureFodder wrote:
I'd believe that arguments about sagging are legitimate far more readily if people were even more bothered by things like speedos and lycra shorts which are far more revealing.

To pick out sagging specifically implies an issue more with the people who are sagging than sagging itself.

Speedo people are not walking through the malls and public places,they wear that shit riding bikes or at the beach or pool, not in a restaurant, the mall, SCHOOL, etc....

They also are not trying to imply tough gangsta street cred, rejection of authority, or disrespect.

For the most part, people that wear that shit, implies physical fitness. ( although I have seen examples where this was not the case )

2009-07-05 06:27:21

#252

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6897|USA

usmarine wrote:
hmm.... well today at work i am wearing shitty old cut off cammies and a hockey jersey with flip flops. is that wrong lowing?

also havent shaved in like 5 days.

nope, unless of course your shitty old cammies are 10 sizes too big, around your ass with your underwear pulled up to your neck, whith your hands on your dick to hold your pants up.

2009-07-05 06:30:18

#253

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6398|what

What else other than saggers should the fashion police crack down on?

2009-07-05 06:31:35

#254

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7007

AussieReaper wrote:
What else other than saggers should the fashion police crack down on?

doche nozzles with hollister shirts

2009-07-05 06:34:09

#255

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7007

oh and trucker hats. get a life

2009-07-05 06:40:07

#256

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6897|USA

AussieReaper wrote:
What else other than saggers should the fashion police crack down on?

I didn't say anyone should crack down on anyone. It is an observation going toward the declination of our society. I want people to take responsibility for themselves show some respect, and find someone else to hero worship other thn gang bangers, and ex-cons.

2009-07-05 06:46:22

#257

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6398|what

lowing wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
What else other than saggers should the fashion police crack down on?
I didn't say anyone should crack down on anyone. It is an observation going toward the declination of our society. I want people to take responsibility for themselves show some respect, and find someone else to hero worship other thn gang bangers, and ex-cons.

Weird, in the OP you stated:

lowing wrote:
This sagging bullshit has gotta stop and I can not believe they let these fools on the planes or even in the airport.

So you know, it seemed pretty clear you didn't think these people who sag should be let on planes or in the airport.

2009-07-05 06:56:43

#258

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6897|USA

AussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
What else other than saggers should the fashion police crack down on?
I didn't say anyone should crack down on anyone. It is an observation going toward the declination of our society. I want people to take responsibility for themselves show some respect, and find someone else to hero worship other thn gang bangers, and ex-cons.
Weird, in the OP you stated:

lowing wrote:
This sagging bullshit has gotta stop and I can not believe they let these fools on the planes or even in the airport.
So you know, it seemed pretty clear you didn't think these people who sag should be let on planes or in the airport.

an airline deciding not to provide a service to people is a far cry from govt. regulation and intervention. It goes toward the no shirt no shoes no service policy, not the, dress how I say, or you will be criminalized govt. control legislation

2009-07-05 06:58:14

#259

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6398|what

lowing wrote:
an airline deciding not to provide a service to people is a far cry from govt. regulation and intervention. It goes toward the no shirt no shoes no service policy, not the, dress how I say, or you will be criminalized govt. control legislation

What they dress has no impact whatsoever on the safety of the aircraft or passengers.

You are aware of the reasoning behind the "no shirt no shoes no service" policy, I assume?

2009-07-05 07:06:31

#260

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7007

lowing wrote:
usmarine wrote:
hmm.... well today at work i am wearing shitty old cut off cammies and a hockey jersey with flip flops. is that wrong lowing?

also havent shaved in like 5 days.
nope, unless of course your shitty old cammies are 10 sizes too big, around your ass with your underwear pulled up to your neck, whith your hands on your dick to hold your pants up.

i dont see the difference tbh

2009-07-05 07:11:34

#261

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6897|USA

AussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
an airline deciding not to provide a service to people is a far cry from govt. regulation and intervention. It goes toward the no shirt no shoes no service policy, not the, dress how I say, or you will be criminalized govt. control legislation
What they dress has no impact whatsoever on the safety of the aircraft or passengers.

You are aware of the reasoning behind the "no shirt no shoes no service" policy, I assume?

the no shirt no shoes no service is far more outreaching than an airline. It is a policy in effect at convenience stores as well, even if you were just going in to buy a Slim Jim and a Slushy.

However, if you wanna go there I can argue that a person on a airplane with their pants around their ankles could be ( and probably would be ) a hindrance to a necessary rapid evacuation of an airplane.

2009-07-05 07:12:53

#262

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6897|USA

usmarine wrote:
lowing wrote:
usmarine wrote:
hmm.... well today at work i am wearing shitty old cut off cammies and a hockey jersey with flip flops. is that wrong lowing?

also havent shaved in like 5 days.
nope, unless of course your shitty old cammies are 10 sizes too big, around your ass with your underwear pulled up to your neck, whith your hands on your dick to hold your pants up.
i dont see the difference tbh

Well I can see the difference. One big one, is your ass is not hanging out above your pants. and you are not holding them up by grabbing your dick

2009-07-05 07:15:23

#263

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7007

dude...women walk around all summer with half their tits out in the open, not to mention their asses. or the muscle heads walking around with no t-shirts on. please bro.

2009-07-05 07:16:26

#264

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6398|what

lowing wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
an airline deciding not to provide a service to people is a far cry from govt. regulation and intervention. It goes toward the no shirt no shoes no service policy, not the, dress how I say, or you will be criminalized govt. control legislation
What they dress has no impact whatsoever on the safety of the aircraft or passengers.

You are aware of the reasoning behind the "no shirt no shoes no service" policy, I assume?
the no shirt no shoes no service is far more outreaching than an airline. It is a policy in effect at convenience stores as well, even if you were just going in to buy a Slim Jim and a Slushy.

However, if you wanna go there I can argue that a person on a airplane with their pants around their ankles could be ( and probably would be ) a hindrance to a necessary rapid evacuation of an airplane.

By your logic anyone with a walking stick or past the age of 60 shouldn't be on an airplane.

And why should saggers be considered ban-able from an airport...?

And the no shirt no shoes policy is about the protection of staff from liability suites, if someone barefoot steps on glass, has something all on their foot, etc - for hygiene and for the present-ability of an establishment, hence the convenient stores want you to wear a shirt.

Saggers don't present any other problem imaginable, other than the chance they could fall over. The same risk a man on crouches or the elderly present.

2009-07-05 07:20:48

#265

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6897|USA

usmarine wrote:
dude...women walk around all summer with half their tits out in the open, not to mention their asses. or the muscle heads walking around with no t-shirts on. please bro.

The women walking around all summer with cleavage showing is accepted, again it is not an implication of gang banging, or a rejection of authority. it is hot outside and women deserve to dress cool as well, they can not do so without showing some skin, therefore it is accepted. I am also involved with my kids as school. Never not once have a seen a woman in the school walking around scantly dressed. time and place for everything.

and what exactly do you think of muscle heads walking around like that?..................... Yeah me to, so why am I so wrong, or out of line about the saggers?

Last edited by lowing (2009-07-05 07:30:55)

2009-07-05 07:23:29

#266

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6897|USA

AussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:

What they dress has no impact whatsoever on the safety of the aircraft or passengers.

You are aware of the reasoning behind the "no shirt no shoes no service" policy, I assume?
the no shirt no shoes no service is far more outreaching than an airline. It is a policy in effect at convenience stores as well, even if you were just going in to buy a Slim Jim and a Slushy.

However, if you wanna go there I can argue that a person on a airplane with their pants around their ankles could be ( and probably would be ) a hindrance to a necessary rapid evacuation of an airplane.
By your logic anyone with a walking stick or past the age of 60 shouldn't be on an airplane.

And why should saggers be considered ban-able from an airport...?

And the no shirt no shoes policy is about the protection of staff from liability suites, if someone barefoot steps on glass, has something all on their foot, etc - for hygiene and for the present-ability of an establishment, hence the convenient stores want you to wear a shirt.

Saggers don't present any other problem imaginable, other than the chance they could fall over. The same risk a man on crouches or the elderly present.

a handicapped person is a NECCESSARY risk. Sagging does not have to be.

2009-07-05 07:47:25

#267

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6827|SE London

PureFodder wrote:
To pick out sagging specifically implies an issue more with the people who are sagging than sagging itself.

This.

2009-07-05 08:41:18

#268

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6897|USA

lowing wrote:
PureFodder wrote:
I'd believe that arguments about sagging are legitimate far more readily if people were even more bothered by things like speedos and lycra shorts which are far more revealing.

To pick out sagging specifically implies an issue more with the people who are sagging than sagging itself.
Speedo people are not walking through the malls and public places,they wear that shit riding bikes or at the beach or pool, not in a restaurant, the mall, SCHOOL, etc....

They also are not trying to imply tough gangsta street cred, rejection of authority, or disrespect.

For the most part, people that wear that shit, implies physical fitness. ( although I have seen examples where this was not the case )

this

2009-07-05 11:02:43

#269

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6897|USA

I find it ironic that those accusing me of racism, are the ones associating sagging with a specific race, and that I must hate that race, if I hate sagging.

If there are any racists in this forum it wouldbe those of you that insist that sagging is a race issue.

Last edited by lowing (2009-07-05 11:23:49)

2009-07-05 11:25:17

#270

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6746|so randum

so basically lowing doesn't like a dress fashion, hence an 11 page discussion.

Lowing, i pity you if you were around in the 60's.

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-07-05 11:51:06

#271

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6897|USA

FatherTed wrote:
so basically lowing doesn't like a dress fashion, hence an 11 page discussion.

Lowing, i pity you if you were around in the 60's.

11 pages so what? unless you are tasked with hand writting the transcript of this thread you have no reason to bitch.

by the way, if you can be upset because of an 11 page thread, I can hate idiots who wear their pants aorund their ankles.

Last edited by lowing (2009-07-05 11:56:31)

2009-07-05 11:53:43

#272

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6746|so randum

lowing wrote:
FatherTed wrote:
so basically lowing doesn't like a dress fashion, hence an 11 page discussion.

Lowing, i pity you if you were around in the 60's.
11 pages so what? unless you are tasked with hand writting the transcript of this thread you have no reason to bitch.

y the way, if you can be upset because of an 11 page thread, I can hate idiots who where their pants aorund their ankles.

lol, you are laughable sometimes. Most of the time you stand your ground and it's fine, but then you make something like this...

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-07-05 11:57:43

#273

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6897|USA

FatherTed wrote:
lowing wrote:
FatherTed wrote:
so basically lowing doesn't like a dress fashion, hence an 11 page discussion.

Lowing, i pity you if you were around in the 60's.
11 pages so what? unless you are tasked with hand writting the transcript of this thread you have no reason to bitch.

y the way, if you can be upset because of an 11 page thread, I can hate idiots who where their pants aorund their ankles.
lol, you are laughable sometimes. Most of the time you stand your ground and it's fine, but then you make something like this...

Yet again like a true blue liberal, you make no argument, just want to try and get your shots in....Go figure.

2009-07-05 12:03:19

#274

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6746|so randum

like a true blue liberal... lol

shock to your system, i vote conservative.

but if you must fall back on pathetic stereotyping...

being honest this isn't a dst thread, it's an EE thread. this has come around from a personal dislike of a fashion on your part. is usm a bleeding heart liberal? lol, didn't see you calling him out on that.

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-07-05 14:06:13

#275

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7007

FatherTed wrote:
is usm a bleeding heart liberal? lol, didn't see you calling him out on that.

que pasta?

BF2S Forums Saggers!!

PureFodder wrote:

usmarine wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

usmarine wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

usmarine wrote:

lowing wrote:

usmarine wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

usmarine wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

lowing wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Board footer