In both cases, the uproar concerns "those people" consuming goods and services that white people can consume without censure. I doubt that the black hoodie/cat bed that I own would cause me to be stopped and/or shot in an Oklahoma convenience store. I doubt that Mitt Romney would be censured for dining in a fancy restaurant to celebrate the New Year, though he's the sort of barbaric cult member who'd drink Diet Coke with his chateaubriand. At any rate, I fully expect a Fox "pundit" to call for the return of sumptuary laws to prevent "those people", such as the most powerful man in the world, from owning or consuming goods or services that are meant for the heaven-ordained masters of the universe, even those who drink Diet Coke with their chateaubriand.
9 comments:
If Mitt were 'observant' he' d have to forgo the Coke -- no caffeine allowed, you see?
It's weirder than that- it's not a ban on caffeine, it's a ban on warm beverages.
Oklamhoma
I love that. Was that an intentional or unintentional coinage?
Also, how is Oklamahomie going to be able to legally distinguish between a hoodie worn to intimidate white
people, and one with eyeholes, worn to intimidate black people? I mean without giving the whole game away, not to mention without running afoul of like four different constitutional requirements?
GodDAMN, but a lot of these rightwing legislators are dumb as a frozen stump.
Fred and Ginger don't care...they want some meeses!
~
"Bring Back the Sumptuary Laws!"?
You don't really mean that, you Bastard.
btw: HNY!
Shirley what are required in the case of restaurant clientele are consumptuary laws.
I had completely missed the negative reaction to the Obama family actually eating - perhaps they should have chosen the Woolworths lunch counter instead? - but the hoodie thing is a whole bunch of media horseshit. I read the law on the state gov website - it's only two pages - and it just says you can't wear a hoodie in order to conceal your identity while committing a crime.
It's clearly intended as further harassment of the african american community, but it's not like local law enforcement needs laws to encourage or enable that kind of harassment. So it's just clickbait headlines announcing a new law "BANNING HOODIES"...
I love that. Was that an intentional or unintentional coinage?
It was unintentional, but I'll let it stand because you like it.
I mean without giving the whole game away, not to mention without running afoul of like four different constitutional requirements?
They don't care about giving the game away- pissing off liberals is an integral part of what they do.
Fred and Ginger don't care...they want some meeses!
They'd better, it's their job to get meeses! Ratses too!
You don't really mean that, you Bastard.
No, but the real bastards do!
Shirley what are required in the case of restaurant clientele are consumptuary laws.
Presumptuary laws are also needed, for those who break sumptuary laws.
I had completely missed the negative reaction to the Obama family actually eating - perhaps they should have chosen the Woolworths lunch counter instead?
Well played!
It's clearly intended as further harassment of the african american community, but it's not like local law enforcement needs laws to encourage or enable that kind of harassment.
It codifies the harassment, and adds a hefty fine. It's exactly the sort of chickenshit insult righties love to indulge in.
Post a Comment