It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Republican Montana lawmaker seeks to outlaw provocative clothing

page: 6
15
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
You guys should see all the hotties walking around the mall of America in yoga pants. schwing!! 😏

Fair is fair. If all the hotties get to dress like that, then I get to walk around with a boner. Correction: strut around.

👣


edit on 754ThursdayuAmerica/ChicagoFebuThursdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: greencmp
Oh dear, I think you have entirely misunderstood the purpose of the federal government. It does not rule us, it serves us.


I think you have misunderstood what I've said. I didn't say it "rules" us. Where do you get this? It regulates the state government in some areas to protect the PEOPLE from state government. If that's not clear, I can draw pictures.


Seriously, you should take a constitution 101 class.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Instead of unsuccessfully trying to insult me, perhaps you could tell me precisely where I'm wrong and why.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

You think we should have a revolution if our town has too high of a property tax instead of moving to another town for one.

You think that the purpose of the federal government is to 'protect' us from state government for another.
edit on 12-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Yoga pants are not provocative. They cover up everything and they are very comfortable. The college kids live in them. There would be riots if people here tried to take yoga pants away. bah! They are fine.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

Plus I wouldn't be able to wear any costumes in montana....



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
You think we should have a revolution if our town has too high of a property tax instead of moving to another town for one.


I didn't say any such thing. I said if ANY government becomes oppressive, we have a right and duty to alter it, not run from it, as you have suggested.



You think that the purpose of the federal government is to 'protect' us from state government for another.


One purpose of the Constitution IS to protect us from state government. See the 14th amendment, as I have already said:


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: olaru12

Why do humans hate their body parts?


Because most of my aging body parts are hateful, ILG.
And even clothed for colder than freezing I can elicit
moans from females half my age. The BELLS, the BELLS.
Tint the windows on the school buses or the kids will
have nightmares for a month. Well six tops.
Hyperbole aside, you can't legislate prudery... unless
you wish to prove beyond a nanoparticulate you ARE one.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Which do you think came first, the federal government or the states?

You make it sound like all power is delegated by the federal government to the states. This is not so.
edit on 12-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
You make it sound like all power is delegated by the federal government to the states.


I did no such thing. You're dreaming things up. I'm finished with this unproductive and somewhat juvenile discussion...



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: jude11
a reply to: olaru12

"he'd trust law enforcement officials to use their discretion. "

And there it is.

Using their own discretion leads to bodies in the streets and in private homes.

Nipple slips will be cause for a beating.

Peace


And with that last statement, Jude, you have become the Winner of
the Faily Double Entendre Dip ! You want butterscotch or fudge on that?
(I KNEW there was a reason i loved that wolf... platonically of course.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Thanks for playing.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: derfreebie

originally posted by: jude11
a reply to: olaru12

"he'd trust law enforcement officials to use their discretion. "

And there it is.

Using their own discretion leads to bodies in the streets and in private homes.

Nipple slips will be cause for a beating.

Peace


And with that last statement, Jude, you have become the Winner of
the Faily Double Entendre Dip ! You want butterscotch or fudge on that?
(I KNEW there was a reason i loved that wolf... platonically of course.


EDIT:: Since I can't for some reason upload the mock-Brigadeer Graham
Chapman RIP today,
I'll have to paraphrase that in the lack of a State's Rights issue taken
appropriately into our midst:

"This thread is descending into the extremely silly. I am NOT a mod."



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Naked Bill on the Table

This bill didn't seek to ban yoga pants, anyway.



Following a hearing Tuesday morning, members of the committee decided to table the bill, raising questions about whether the idea has enough support to actually make it to the floor of the House.


HB365

The bill isn't actually unreasonable, IMO. The only changes are that it doesn't matter if people would be offended or not by the indecent exposure, and they go into a lot more detail about specific body parts that have to be covered.

It's a very short bill.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
If these conservatives had their way, pretty soon we'll have women wearing clothing from head to toe, only being able to see their eyes...

What? Wait a minute...


Here comes the burka.

Peace



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   
I don't know, you guys...

Banning Speedos sounds like the right thing to do really...

Even in a Swimming Pool or at the Beach.
edit on 12-2-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
I don't know you guys...

Banning Speedos sounds like the right thing to do really...

Even in a Swimming Pool or at the Beach.


Or even in the privacy of one's bedroom. : )



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
I don't know you guys...

Banning Speedos sounds like the right thing to do really...

Even in a Swimming Pool or at the Beach.


Or even in the privacy of one's bedroom. : )


No doubt


They should be relegated to the lowest levels of Hell & never above.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Looks like rep Dave Moore has withdrawn the bill. Still his reputation is tarnished and he looks like a geek for even trying.

www.rawstory.com...



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join