Council divided on 'sag'
Pants law sidelined, but college loan advances
By David Slade
The Post and Courier
Charleston City Councilman Wendell Gilliard leaves with a mannequin he brought to the council meeting Tuesday night. He used the mannequin to illustrate the sagging pants style that he wants the council to outlaw.
Charleston moved closer to loaning $734,500 to the American College of the Building Arts on Tuesday, while a controversial ordinance that would criminalize wearing pants three inches or more below the hips was sidelined.
The Post and Courier
A teen wears his pants low as he walks down King Street in November 2007.
The loan to the college has been described as crucial, and even necessary for the school's survival, but it was the saggy pants ordinance that kept television crews at a City Council meeting for nearly five hours.
In an often heated debate, council members were divided between those who see low-riding pants as part of a larger criminal problem, and those who see it as a somewhat offensive fashion statement used by young people to shock their elders.
"I'm not laughing because this is a serious issue," said Councilman Wendell Gilliard, who brought a mannequin to council chambers to demonstrate the clothing style he sought to criminalize.
"When the snickering is over, maybe we'll get serious about finding a solution," he said, telling council that wearing pants well below the hips is a gang symbol that contributes to violence in his district.
Along with councilmen James Lewis and Robert Mitchell, Gilliard urged that council give initial approval to the ordinance, but other council members said it went too far, and Mayor Joe Riley said such a measure would surely be unconstitutional.
"I don't think City Council needs to be the fashion police," said Councilwoman Deb Morinelli. "It's absolutely silly."
Previous stories
Glance askance at baggy pants, published 08/14/08
Saggy-pants ban backers gain ally; Ford joins the fray to take effort statewide, published 08/16/08
Several audience members offered comments on the ordinance, both pro and con.
"I wish we could stop them from busting a sag," said Rev. Alma Dungee, president of the North Central Neighborhood Association.
Arthur Lawrence, president of the West Side Neighborhood Association, said the ordinance made no sense.
"We don't want to live in a police state," Lawrence said.
Councilman Aubry Alexander said that, during the 1960s, his father might have liked City Council to make him get a haircut and stop wearing bell-bottoms. He said saggy pants are a similar, generational fashion issue.
Councilman Tim Mallard offered support for the ordinance, saying it might be helpful in neighborhoods like the East Side.
"I don't care if it's unconstitutional," said Mallard. "It sends a message."
Riley said the ordinance could only be constitutional if a court agreed that wearing pants three inches below the waist is obscene.
"We need to take care of the root causes (of crime), and this is not it," said Councilman Gary White.
In the end, council voted 7-4 to defer the matter.
On the question of the whether to loan city funds to the American College of the Building Arts, council members quizzed college officials about their budget and their fundraising plans before giving initial approval. The loan would be used for the college's day-to-day operating costs.
"Has there been any effort, other than coming to the city?" asked Councilman Larry Shirley.
Lt. Gen. Colby Broadwater, the college president since April, said he's cut the institution's budget from $3.5 million to $2.5 million and the college's board of trustees has agreed to privately raise at least $1 million each year.
Broadwater said he expects the college to break even financially two years from now.
The small college is just beginning its fourth academic year and is hoping to win pre-accreditation status this fall, which could open the door to federal student loans.
In the meantime, the city has tentatively agreed to lend the money on better terms than any bank would likely offer. The city would demand no payment until late 2010, and at an interest rate of 5 percent.
The college might also have had difficulty lining up a commercial lender because one of its largest assets, McLeod Plantation on James Island, cannot be mortgaged or sold under the terms of the college's $850,000 purchase from the Historic Charleston Foundation.
Councilman Gary White, a banking executive, said he's seen the college's financial statements and he's confident the city loan is financially responsible. He noted, as did Mayor Joe Riley, that the city has historically supported other educational institutions.
Pierre Manigault, chairman of the college's board of trustees, urged City Council to approve the loan, saying the college is important to the city and the nation as a unique liberal arts institution that trains craftsmen in the building arts.
"It's a very valuable thing for preservation, for which Charleston is known," said Manigault, who is also chairman of the Evening Post Publishing Co., the parent company of Charleston.net and The Post and Courier.
City Council voted 10-2 for the loan, with councilmen Lewis and Mitchell opposed. Councilman Jimmy Gallant was absent.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly versionComments
DoaMM (anonymous) says...
"I don't care if it's unconstitutional," said Mallard. "It sends a message."
This, right here, is the problem with America. Charleston, these are the views of your council members. Wake up and get these people out of their decision making positions! You should never vote for someone who says something like this!!
August 20, 2008 at 4:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kath21445 (anonymous) says...
I think they deter crime- surely they can't out run police with their pants around their knees.
August 20, 2008 at 5:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justmyview (anonymous) says...
I would have been more impressed with the City Council if they had a heated debate as to why should they continue to pour money into the building arts school. The baggy pants fashion is an eyesore, but the real issue should have been the taxpayers' money that the Council and the mayor is wasting.
August 20, 2008 at 6:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
skeeter (anonymous) says...
Doesn't care if it's unconstitutional? Folks it's people like this in a position of power who wouldn't mind living in a police state. Mallard would have fit right in in Nazi Germany. Total lunatic!
August 20, 2008 at 6:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
moonpie (anonymous) says...
"We need to take care of the root causes (of crime), and this is not it," said Councilman Gary White.
I AGREE. AND WEARING BAGGY PANTS IS AN EYESORE BUT ITS NOT THE ROOT CAUSE. BUT YOU HAVE TO BE WILLING TO RUFFLE SOME FEATHERS TO ACTUALLY SAY WHAT THE ROOT CAUSE IS. AND IT'S DIFFERENT IN AREAS OF OUR STATE. BUT DOWNTOWN IT'S VERY SIMPLE. BAGGY PANTS ARE JUST AN EASIER TARGET THAN SAY THE GADSEN GREEN MOMS LIFE STYLES?
Come on Thomas 1776 don't ruin it for the rest of us! Leave the braless joggers out of this... :)
August 20, 2008 at 6:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Neponset (anonymous) says...
Interesting development early this morning. While scanning the stories and comments, I noted some new (to me) user name with basically the same off topic comment on a number of stories (which provided a link to some old eastern medical treatment web sight). Then I started to see the dreaded "comment removed by staff". Later all traces of this user name disappeared. I wonder what is up.
August 20, 2008 at 6:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lou9 (anonymous) says...
Wendell, I thought when you closed up that porno shop in your district that was supposed to reduce crime. Now it's baggy pants? Downtown flooding every time it rains, crumbling sidewalks, etc., and this is what city council spends 5 hours debating? And now this idiot Gilliard is going to Columbia as a state representative. Just like the old saying "you get what you pay for" you also get the government you elect. Let's all stop putting morons like these in office.
August 20, 2008 at 7:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
Maybe unrelated but Arch and all his alais, Dread, Elmer, NotanotherDumb came clean last night. He was a student doing a study for a paper he says. He requested his account to be removed.
August 20, 2008 at 7:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
theronce (anonymous) says...
It's kinda unreal when so many of us come so close to total agreement...but then, some things are just too easy.
August 20, 2008 at 7:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dogwoodroad (anonymous) says...
ugh...this is a terrible news day...guess I'll have to pay attention in class...
on topic though - love that government (at all levels) wastes our time and money coming up with ridiculous laws - baggy pants are unattractive...who cares?
August 20, 2008 at 7:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AFWally (anonymous) says...
Yo yo yo, Iz back at da crib chillin' wit' da homey'z busin' a sag, cold word up B.
August 20, 2008 at 7:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DoaMM (anonymous) says...
Jeff, it was transparent. Whether a student doing a "study" or not, he was terrible at disguises and I think he's got serious issues. But then again, that fiasco is history...
I still say let them wear the baggy pants around their knees. Makes it harder for them to get away and easier to identify thugs and wanna be losers...
August 20, 2008 at 7:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DoaMM (anonymous) says...
...oh, and I think it was the media that kept the baggy pants agenda alive so long last night. Giving a loan to a failing private liberal arts college gives the outward appearance of something good for the community (even though I don't agree with it in this case). That's not what the media wants. The media wants conflict, dastardly deeds, and death...that's what makes the headlines.
Sad...
August 20, 2008 at 7:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
I understand what these Men are trying to do with this cursade but they are doing it in the wrong forum.
"I don't care if it's unconstitutional," said Mallard. "It sends a message."
That is as scary as passing an accident on the highway - I don't WANT to look, but sometimes I look, and then I feel nauseous and hate myself for exposing myself to that.
August 20, 2008 at 7:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DoaMM (anonymous) says...
...and I'm done as well. I'll pick the horse up and bury it, unless tripsa...you want me to deliver it to you so you can whip up some Alpo or Elmer's?
August 20, 2008 at 7:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
COlD,, I just posted what he said,,, Did not say I really fully believed it....but yes your edit was much better.
August 20, 2008 at 7:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Charles_Town (anonymous) says...
Didn't the city council pass an ordinance a few years preventing the Italian ice vendors from wearing bikini tops while operating their stands. If I am correct council has already shown it has the authority to enact and enforce such a ban (Whether they should is another story.). So what would be the difference in them banning the saggin pants. Personally, I do not care to see the color or patterns on someone's underwear, but thank goodness the people who wear briefs are not doing it. Imagine if females started doing this, do you think a ban would be quicker to pass? I guess schools and places of business could have dress codes, but it is not up city council to enforce non-obscene dress codes.
August 20, 2008 at 7:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tammie (anonymous) says...
They gave the college their loan? Wow. How the hell can you regulate how someone dresses? Like I said with the masses, I think it's stupid.
Morning all.
August 20, 2008 at 7:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oldglory (anonymous) says...
Gotta love that thinking: baggy pants are the root of all crime, but just ignore what lack of and unequal education causes.
My father came unglued because I wanted to wear one of his old shirts that hung down to my knees. (All the girls were doing it!)
August 20, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Neponset (anonymous) says...
oldglory
First line, I disagree. I have been married to a local teacher for a long time and know lots of her colleagues and know a little bit about the education of Johnnie. The students in some cases are out of control with their disruptive behavior and make it a living HELL for teachers and when they get a chance they leave. Who fills the vacant positions - folks that need a job and stay only long enough to find something else. The tax payers have paid through the nose for this system that casts pearls to swine. The word is out - teaching sucks - try something else.
August 20, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ysillyme (anonymous) says...
Fellow posters~
Thought for the day. Take the 3/4 million and invest in saggys that play Andy Williams version of "Moon" River when their pants drop to mid-crack level. Knowing street thugs hate mellow music they will do anything to get rid of that music...say like pull their breeches up.
August 20, 2008 at 8:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MsPiggy (anonymous) says...
I have a question in relation to Thomas's 2nd post:
How in the crap can women jog without a bra on??? I mean talk about OUCH.
Seriously. Its like boom... BOOM... boom... BOOM.. haha
I don't even know why they are debating this issue. It isn't about the clothes someone wears. Plus, I'm sure retail stores don't help the situation much when that style is pretty much all they have in the jean section.
August 20, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JDHawg (anonymous) says...
Jasper County drops ordinance against saggy pants
Associated Press
Friday, August 1, 2008
BEAUFORT - Jasper County Council has delayed final action on an ordinance to make sagging pants illegal.
The Beaufort Gazette reported Thursday the delay came after a meeting among mayors, police, Jasper County Sheriff Gregory Jenkins and the council.
Questions were raised about the legality and how it would applied.
Hardeeville Assistant Police Chief Steven Murphy likes the idea but is unsure how it would be enforced. He says police are concerned about what might be concealed beneath baggy clothing.
The ordinance would make it a misdemeanor to appear in public with pants more than three inches below the hips. The maximum penalty would be 30 days in jail or a $500 fine.
The measure had been approved 3-2 on two previous votes. Chairman George Hood asked the county attorney to write a version everyone could support.
August 20, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bnasty82 (anonymous) says...
Wendell Gilliard shows up with a mannequin. How fitting, a dummy with a dummy. The Councilman will do anything to garner media attention. As stated previously, Gilliard lacks substance and should never have been elected to the State House. Oh by the way, Gilliard himself wears baggy clothing-what a hypocrite!
August 20, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
512c (anonymous) says...
"We break the law all the time" said the council member with a cigar in his hand.
"I'll Bet My Life" said Gilliard
"Let them sue the court" said Lewis
"who cares if it is unconstitutional"
Seriously, all of this was said last night.
They felt they live in a world where these kinds of statements can be made.
Is this right?
They should be thrown out on their "Snickeling" heads!
August 20, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
TRich (anonymous) says...
Wendell Gilliard, isn't this the same clown who tried to have coeds banned from laying out in bikinis at Marion Square a couple of years ago? What kind of red blooded american man would even entertain this thought?!
You would think he would have more pressing matters on his plate than sags and bikinis.
I'm tired of all this oppression! I'm seceding from Chas and declaring my own independent state called Sagonya!
August 20, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
So why keep coming in and posting...what is the concern with having the profile deleted? Is there something in those posts that your concerned with that could come back to haunt you? What make you think all those posts will simply disappear once the profile is deleted. Just simply do not use them. Not like someone else can use it. You have the passwords to the profiles. I just don't quit understand where you are coming from with all of this. maybe those Profiles have affected you?
August 20, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
weebo (anonymous) says...
I think it's sad and pathetic that people who wear baggy pants down to their knees.. Obviously their own lives are sad and pathetic, and think that they are exempt because of race or color. Ok, then why has crime been so bad in Charleston and North Charleston???? Law makers in this state are sad, the only reason why they have those positions is because they are only out for one thing, themselves!!!!!
August 20, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KidYendor (anonymous) says...
I think the ordinance would work if they just said people with 4 inches or more of their underwear hanging out will be charged with indecent exposure. I saw a saggy pants black adult outside at a loud outdoor party in my neighborhood and his pants belt came up to the top of his legs with nothing but underwear rounding out his rump up to his waistline. Dreadful! What if marchers demanded action by a reverse protest. Lets bust sags in the style of this man I witnessed, march down the streets to show how distasteful this is, make it uncool, then the ordinance will be approved fast. Showing most of your underwear while walking the street is not constitutional fashion, it is indecent exposure.
August 20, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
halfsheli (anonymous) says...
Have any of you contacted your council representative to express your views? Enough calls from constituents, and maybe, just maybe, this council can get back on track?!?!??!?!?
August 20, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
halfsheli (anonymous) says...
If saggy pants constitute indecent exposure than does the fact that young girls/ladies wlk around with low-cut jeans with their thongs peeking out the top also constitute indecent exposure? What about women who wera no bra and show outlines of nipples? What about flip-flops, don't those unecissarily arouse people with foot fettishes? Low-cut shirts that show cleavage? Plumbers who show too much crack? Short shorts? Where does it end?
August 20, 2008 at 10:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
It is all about ensuring future privacy, Jeff...nothing more.
Again, I am not sure what privacy concerns you have. Again those posts could exsist elsewhere
August 20, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
512c (anonymous) says...
Arch dude, let it go on the record that you are an idiot, and if you suggest the removal of this post, you are going to be proven even further an idiot
good luck with that privacy as you get more and more people to hate you.
August 20, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MissPriss (anonymous) says...
Haven't we beaten this horse to death yet?
If you can see ass because of baggy pants write an indecent exposure ticket and call it done.
The P & C must not have anything better to print these days.
August 20, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Yeah_I_said_it (anonymous) says...
Arch_Dude,
Don't you have a research paper to write? I'm sure it caint write itself.
August 20, 2008 at 10:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Yeah_I_said_it (anonymous) says...
Arch_Dude,
You still gotta do something to get the action moving. So, the paper cannot write itself.
Psychopath, party of one, your jacket is ready!
August 20, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Yeah_I_said_it (anonymous) says...
Ding Dong! The Witch is dead. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch! Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead.
Now back to your regularly scheduled post!
August 20, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MissPriss (anonymous) says...
Yeah- Have you been watching the Wizard of Oz lately? :)
August 20, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oldglory (anonymous) says...
Well at 11:00 AM arch_dude's account could not be accessed. OMG, he must be dead! LOL
August 20, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Yeah_I_said_it (anonymous) says...
MissPriss,
I must say that I have. But I made the reference because last week Lovely referred to him as "the Eminent Oz"! Lol!!!!
Saggign pants are stupid and the ban is stupid. Our elected officials are stupid.
Had to get back on track.
August 20, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
forget (anonymous) says...
well, I can say that this (Arch) is one subject that we all agreed on!
August 20, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
tripsa,
you are CRACKING me Up!
August 20, 2008 at 11:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Neponset (anonymous) says...
Looks like Arch_Dude is gone as he requested - can no longer find any of his posts on this article
August 20, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tammie (anonymous) says...
Tripsa, I am too done with you today. Lol
YISI, you must have watched "The Wizard of Oz" last weekend when it was on AMC...lol
And with all that confusion, how do we really know Arch was even a DUDE??
August 20, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
It could be some posters copied that into a file just in case.....
August 20, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Yeah_I_said_it (anonymous) says...
Tammie, I chure did. That mofo was good as hell too. Arch's anthem was "If I only had a Brain"!
I wonder if sagging is banned in Munchkinland?
August 20, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
coolfreaknbeans (anonymous) says...
KidYendor-I think you and I may be the only people who agree on this.I have seen tons of men showing their briefs,not just boxers.And halfsheli-how can you compare me seeing a mans azz and penis through his see-through drawers to flip flops?And yes any slut purposely showing her azz crack and thong should be tiketed for indecent exposure.I understand some people think this is fashionable.But my family and I shouldnt be forced to see your azz b/c you think you look cool.
August 20, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tammie (anonymous) says...
YISI, Tripsa made some room for you in the corner, k?
August 20, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
coolfreaknbeans (anonymous) says...
Oh btw- I'm gonna miss the hilarious plays on arch dudes name.Two of my personal favs were arch anus and arch twat.LMAO
August 20, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
Yeah_I_said_it
Yes, they were call the LolliPop a cap in your ass Guild!
August 20, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
halfsheli (anonymous) says...
That one was not a serious comparison. I was using SARCASM. SARCASM is often used to show that something is ABSURD! The fact that the council is wasting its time on this is ABSURD! BUT, then again, I'm not completely surprised. It started when they banned Smoking in workplaces. It's clear to me why they think they are able to restrict any right, freedom, moral choice, hairstyle (more SARCASM)...
Where does it end? Where are the boundaries?
August 20, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tammie (anonymous) says...
Lmao @ Beans!!! That damn Gadsden knows how to mess up a name!
And Tripsa, females can have egos that big too. I figured with all that swirliness going on, how do we even know we were communicating with a dude?
August 20, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cpanther515 (anonymous) says...
The sag gives you something to laugh at in the mall!
August 20, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gunlover (anonymous) says...
if their pants sit more than 3 inches below their waist, fine them $1000. per inch, that will make people sit up and pay attention to the way they dress.
August 20, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
Posted by Yeah_I_said_it on August 20, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tammie, I chure did. That mofo was good as hell too. Arch's anthem was "If I only had a Brain"!
I wonder if sagging is banned in Munchkinland?
Hell, the Munkins invented sagging.
Haven't you guys heard of the LolliPop a cap in your ass Guild?
August 20, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Yeah_I_said_it (anonymous) says...
LMAO @ Guided!
Tammie, I will oblige and join tripsa in the corner as long as he doesn't mind me sagging my pants and exposing "Hello Kitty" thongs. Or the midriff Hanna Montana shirt showing off my belly button piercing and "butterfly tramp stamp."
Hmmmm, I wonder if Wendell ever sagged his pants. Use my flippin' tax dollars for worthier causes. This is such a non-issue.
August 20, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Weeeee (anonymous) says...
Agreed, Panther. And to even walk in the mall brings A LOT of humor.
Personally, I detest this "style". I'm not even sure that's what you'd call it.
Being a proponent of citizens' rights though, I have to agree that government involvement in something as petty as clothing styles is a complete waste of time and money.
Good morning everyone. Count the Es.
Top that.
August 20, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MissPriss (anonymous) says...
My favorite name was arch_douche
August 20, 2008 at 11:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
archdouche was my favorite...
Again I agree in princiable with what the guys are trying to do but I do not agree with a ban or making clothing illegal..and whats his name better be careful about not caring if its unconstitutional,, he could possibly be arrested himself for violating someone civil rights????
August 20, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
Ok,, we are still feeding his ego by talking about him...but it is fun....By the way....The guy in the blue striped shirt in the pic,,, Archdude on his way to write his paper
August 20, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MissPriss (anonymous) says...
Jeff you are too funny!
August 20, 2008 at 12:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
coolfreaknbeans (anonymous) says...
Damn MissPriss!I forgot that one.I loved that one too.As far as the saggy pants I need to clarify myself.I do not agree with legislating fashion.I just want current indecent exposure laws enforced.It's not my business what people wear if they are not indecent.Saggy pants are tacky and sloppy but they don't bother me.Seeing dirty drawers does.
August 20, 2008 at 12:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tammie (anonymous) says...
Jeff is wild. Lol
August 20, 2008 at 12:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Yeah_I_said_it (anonymous) says...
jeff, his paper is writing itself. You didn't see that?
August 20, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DoaMM (anonymous) says...
Jeff, judging from that photo, the council member only worries about amputees that have saggy baggies...
Archdud's paper: How to Manipulate my Mind into my Other Personalities - A Paper Written by Him...I Mean, Me, or That Other Guy Whispering in my Ear...(I will not say that! And You! Hush!!)
I thought we killed this horse earlier? If a horse wore clothes, would he like them baggy?
August 20, 2008 at 12:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tammie (anonymous) says...
DoaMM sez: "Archdud's paper: How to Manipulate my Mind into my Other Personalities - A Paper Written by Him...I Mean, Me, or That Other Guy Whispering in my Ear...(I will not say that! And You! Hush!!)"
I'm done.
August 20, 2008 at 12:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
Hey now,, watch what you about that council member's mannequin. I am sure the two are close..I mean come on they left the meeting "together"
August 20, 2008 at 12:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BerkeleyCo_Mom_of_3 (anonymous) says...
Good Lord, this article wasn't even newsworthy.
August 20, 2008 at 12:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
STREETLAW (anonymous) says...
I personally think there is something almost musical about women jogging without bras. It may even help prevent breast cancer, and it is of course their constitutional right.
Whose idea was it that women should wear bras in the first place? I mean is there any medical necessity involved? All goes back to vanity and marketing.
Restraining women's mulibrity and covering their natural selection scents with arificial perfumes and deorderants is sure behind the high divorce rate in this country.
August 20, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
iceman1978 (anonymous) says...
The remarks of Timothy Mallard come as a disappointment to me and I also find them disturbing. However, where in the Constitution are we guaranteed the right to have our pants so low that our underwear is showing?
Baggy pants? Fine, so long as they come to your waist. If you have your underwear visible? Sorry. That's indecent exposure.
August 20, 2008 at 1 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
Charleston City Councilman Wendell Gilliard leaves with a mannequin he brought to the council meeting Tuesday night. His former "interest" Arch,, leaves in the other direction,,, apparently quite jolted
August 20, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Yeah_I_said_it (anonymous) says...
Iceman, I don't think it is a constitutional right for us to not have to look at others' undies. Correct me if I am wrong as I don't have my home copy of the Constitution in front of me at the moment.
August 20, 2008 at 1:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
willie08 (anonymous) says...
Posted by 512c on August 20, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"We break the law all the time" said the council member with a cigar in his hand.
"I'll Bet My Life" said Gilliard
"Let them sue the court" said Lewis
"who cares if it is unconstitutional"
Seriously, all of this was said last night.
Thank you 512 C
The people making propositions on denying us of our civil liberties have absolutely NO a respect for justice, law or our constitution.
Such statements are worthy of removal from the council.
August 20, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Girleygirl (anonymous) says...
No-what is discussing about bras if they are too little and you are looking at a chick that could have pass as the 3 nitty lady on "total recall" due to all of her extra meat falling out of her shirt.
Wendall, Wendall, Wendall, I know you were told not to say things that will bite you in the butt. But saying you don't care if its illegal....shame on you!
August 20, 2008 at 1:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
now_here_this (anonymous) says...
Archdude did the same thing as PalmettoMan a while back. Went off the deep end threatening everyone, then POOF he was gone along with all traces of his existance.
August 20, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Girleygirl (anonymous) says...
I said discussing I meant disgusting
August 20, 2008 at 2:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DoniaDutchess (anonymous) says...
I don't like looking at other people's undies, either, but city council has no right telling people how to dress. If you want the fashion to fade away don't make it taboo. Doing so will only increase its staying power.
August 20, 2008 at 2:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ln1959 (anonymous) says...
Okay, who hips are there going to measure those 3 inches by. You know those old man where there pants under there chin.
August 20, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DoniaDutchess (anonymous) says...
To comment off topic, arch_dude has certainly left his mark here, but the thing about marks is they can be erased. If we stop talking about him, his mark will eventually be erased. If he logs in as someone else, just ignore him and he will eventually get bored and move on. Having said that, I won't mention anything else about him-it's what he wants us to do.
August 20, 2008 at 2:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChasCarolinaGirl (anonymous) says...
I was just about to ask where Arch was and to see if he was still in a good mood.
So is this the big topic of discussion today? I didnt even feel like reading it ... sometimes the newspaper becomes a little redundant and I was feeling it w/ this article.
August 20, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChasCarolinaGirl (anonymous) says...
For those complaining about things ... if you want them to know how you feel, do it the right way along with voicing your opinions here.
If you only voice your opinions here, it does absolutely nothing.
They even have email addresses so you don't even have to call them.
http://www.charlestoncounty.org/depar...
August 20, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
iceman1978 (anonymous) says...
Posted by Yeah_I_said_it on August 20, 2008 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Iceman, I don't think it is a constitutional right for us to not have to look at others' undies. Correct me if I am wrong as I don't have my home copy of the Constitution in front of me at the moment.
----
Nowhere in the Bill of Rights are we given the right to have our underwear visible in public. Since the issue of what people wear is not in the Bill of Rights it then becomes a tenth amendment issue, which means that individual States and local governments are perfectly within their authority to pass such laws. It is also not stated anywhere in the Constitution the laws on indecent exposure, but we still have those.
In principle I would agree that this is an overstepping of the govt authority in that it isn't their place to dictate what people wear. In a proper society this would not have come to a debate in the city council because it wouldn't be an issue to begin with. In a proper society the parents would take it upon themselves to become more involved in their childs life and not allow their children to emulate ghetto garbage. Parents would put a stop to this kind of behavior just as they have always done in the past. However, I think the fact that it's come to this here in Charleston, and in many other cities, is a testament to the irresponsibility on the part of the parents of kids who dress like this.
August 20, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChasCarolinaGirl (anonymous) says...
Here Here Iceman!!! Very well said!
August 20, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
iceman1978 (anonymous) says...
Thanks ChasCarolinaGirl.
August 20, 2008 at 3:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wtpd4444 (anonymous) says...
Give away our tax money away.
You notice that giving our money away is not a big deal. It did not rate a headline of its own. Council gives tax money away to floundering college. By hiding it this way people will not read the story and know about the give away until it has been finally approved.
Oh! You say the newspaper decides what it reports. Read the story the person who owns the newspaper is chairman of the board of the college.
They say they have a budget of 2.5 million and they are going to raise 1 million each year that make a loss of 1.5 million. That will be 3 million by the time they are suppose to pay back the loan???
The board says they are going to raise a million each year.
Who on the board has fund raising experience.How much have they raised for the college since they have been on the board.
If this is such a solid investment, why does not Riley and Manigault put up the money or sign a note with a bank. The college has done that in the past.
Look at the colleges past. They had a grant from Depart of Labor which could have been renewed but they mismanaged the grant and DOL stopped the program. Review the audit report.
The board is made up of a group of friends and good old boys.
We need trained firefighters and equipment.
August 20, 2008 at 3:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
Style is subjective::.
I personally don't like the "preppy" style, looking like a frat boy or a golfer (what most people where in Charleston), but this is my opinion. It is not my right or the government's right to tell people what they should wear, as long as what they are wearing is not indecent. All of this will lead to a slippery slope.
August 20, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
what most people wear, not where (proofreading error)
August 20, 2008 at 3:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
Personally I would rather have my kid dressed like a goth than a preppy republican......
August 20, 2008 at 3:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
iceman1978 (anonymous) says...
cypress_jones, While first impressions aren't always accurate, I would say that most of the time they are and that you can tell a great deal about someone by the way they present themselves to the world. Even if they are only aware of it subconsciously, anyone who works in human resources or business management will agree with this. Someone might say that they don't formulate opinions based on first appearances, but the fact of the matter is that when you go in for a job interview the interviewer has likely made their decision within the first thirty seconds of the introduction.
When I see young people dressing like they come from a gang, dressing in all black clothing and black makeup or dressing like they need to be walking the streets; I feel sorry for them. I'm only thirty so I'm far from being ready to be put out to pasture, but when I was growing up my parents never would have allowed that. They knew who I hung around with, what I watched on television, what kind of music I was listening to, and decided what kind of clothes I could wear. They did this not to be harsh or authoritarian, but because they knew as parents that they had a responsibility to prepare me to handle the world and be able to make something of myself. At times I didn't understand some of what they did, but I do today. They didn't want me to dress like a gang-banger, a freak or a loser because they knew it would only hurt me in life. My father once told me that parents today who allow that kind of behavior are, in a way, abusing their children.
Although the relationship between a parent and child will change over the course of time, mom is always mom, and dad is always dad, and their first responsibility to the child is to equip and prepare them to be able to care for themselves; even when it means making difficult choices.
August 20, 2008 at 3:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
iceman1978 (anonymous) says...
Stewart, Why?
August 20, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChasCarolinaGirl (anonymous) says...
Stewart, that is just idiotic. Just b/c you clearly do not like preppy "republicans"? How about if they want to dress nice b/c they just want to .. would you be upset if they did?
That was a moronic statement. Plain and simple.
August 20, 2008 at 3:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
iceman
It is an association thing and something that can not be explained in the limited confines of this post, Let say that I have sympathy for the alienated. Growing up in small town South and the very heterogeneous style has always left a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe it comes from my rebel side. While I am too old to be trendy, but I still avoid certain brands, hate khakis and so on. Just take it as my preference. It is not idiotic or moronic, and you can dress nice with being preppy. My opinion, but it does not warrant insults....
August 20, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
without being preppy....
August 20, 2008 at 3:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChasCarolinaGirl (anonymous) says...
I see where you are coming from but I would hate to be that shallow. I hate khakis b/c they do not seem comfortable, not b/c someone else wears them that I do not care for.
I wear what is comfy to me, but I have respect for others in what I do wear .. you do not see my underwear sticking out or my skin in places that shouldn't be seen. Its called having respect for yourself and others in how your dress.
I would hate to live that way .. too much hate/judging/rebellion in this world.
Life is too short!
August 20, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
ChasCarolinaGirl
I don't like preppy, whether it preppy democrats or preppy republicans. You can also dress nice with being preppy, they do it all of the time in Europe. It is my preference style wise.
August 20, 2008 at 4 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
ChasCarolinaGirl
I don't try to judge people by the way they dress, it more a personal preference choice, I again emphasize personal choice.
August 20, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChasCarolinaGirl (anonymous) says...
Stewart, I understand. The way you came across at first sounded like you were judging. My bad. Thank you for clarifying.
August 20, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
iceman1978 (anonymous) says...
Posted by guidedbystewart on August 20, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ChasCarolinaGirl
I don't like preppy, whether it preppy democrats or preppy republicans. You can also dress nice with being preppy, they do it all of the time in Europe. It is my preference style wise.
----------
Probably the reason that I dress preppy was from growing up in Europe.
August 20, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
OK, Thomas you may have missed it but Arch and Elmer was the same person. I can repost that admission if needed.
As far as directly bully and insulting other posters, I actually don't see where I get into all that many direct on going debates with anyone on a subject. I mostly just post an opinion and leave it at that. I will attempt to make what I feel are attempts a humorous posts at times. Now if I am attacked I will respond in kind. When I see someone like Arch Multiple Miggs attack others I will call them out. I am sure you can pull up some posts which you feel will make your argument. I think I proved when I created my account. Which was 14 DEC 07. I can repost that P&C e-mail also. Lets give it a break.You do at times post very informative posts and then turn around with something from left field.
August 20, 2008 at 4:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
Thanks Jones,,, tear in eye
August 20, 2008 at 5:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Jim_Isle (anonymous) says...
Well, bless my soul! The point of the article was to get you'all going about the baggy pants so you forget the main topic - spending your money on a school about to default. They actually did say they hope to be accredited by the American Association of Liberal Education! Look it up. They'll be in fine company with any body who can pay for accreditation. $734,500 with the mortgage on the Old City Jail (they bought it for 3 bucks and it already has other liens) AND Historic Charleston Foundation who didn't want McLeod to begin with. Go figure! Something council didn't do last night.
August 20, 2008 at 5:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DoaMM (anonymous) says...
Cypress_Jones is the former Gadsden?! Eeeeekkkk! I'm shocked and mortified!!!
August 20, 2008 at 6:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oldglory (anonymous) says...
LMAO@doaMM
August 20, 2008 at 7:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
Sofa is signing off because is "parents" told him it was bed time. Tell your sister Stephie we said good night
August 20, 2008 at 8:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
Damm I was left off the watch list this time.
August 20, 2008 at 8:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
OH,, I think I know why, I bumped his sisters pay to $7 instead of her standard $5....
August 20, 2008 at 8:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tammie (anonymous) says...
Yet again, I'm accused of being a dude!! Sofa_king, sorry to bust up your conspiracy theory but this is the only identity that I've ever had on here. Now if Tripsa, CJ, or any other male can miraculously turn into a pregnant black woman, I'd pay money to see it. Otherwise, quit harrassing me.
August 21, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rocks66 (anonymous) says...
These are the same folks who are debating whether or not to donate $700,000 to the School for Building
Arts, another City of Charleston "pet project" that, like the Aquarium, has become a money pit of the first magnitude. (The Aquarium has had to be rescued by private donations for the last six years, and will likely require similar private infusions for the rest of its life. Atlanta's new facility is three times bigger and charges HALF as much to get in. Ditto the proposed African-American Museum, which, by its own admission, will be a quarter million dollars in the red on the day it opens.)
Similarly, the School for the Building Arts continues to require "shoring up" year after year. Had the McLeod Plantation been preserved and utilized as a tourist attraction, it would have been making money from opening day. As to this year's School of the Building Arts graduating class? ONE graduate.
When is this city going to get its priorities straight and demonstrate some responsible (and creative) thinking?
August 21, 2008 at 2:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tmallard (anonymous) says...
Thanks for all the comments.
I was taken out of context. I believe in the Constitution.
What I said was, "Our council and this city does things that are illegal all the time, maybe not intentionally. But, that's why the legal budget is over $1 million a year."
Tim Mallard
August 21, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Thank you for your interest in this story. The comment thread for this article has been closed.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- Image questions for The Citadel
- Man killed, two others injured in Mt. Pleasant
- New place to play planned for Folly
- German firm to open area factory
- Logistics company to add 500 jobs in Berkeley County in next five years
- New Church Spire
- Defying expectations
- Sunning alligator nips trail walker
- Protesters coming here
- Energy initiative to expand
