I see London. I see France.Follow

I second both quotes. The only bar I liked there was Baja's when they had $2 Tecate on Tuesday nights. The biggest problem I had with Richmond was the people. The vast majority of them are either ********, spoiled college kids, and/or junkies.

No, no, no... they roll up their pants legs so it won't get caught in the bicycle chain.

Because they're stolen.

In grade school, friends and I used to encircle the lower end of our pant legs with our socks for this reason.

As to the original thread, I think this kind of law is wonderful on a *very* local level. It is not preventing expression, it is not preventing religous belief. Let city councils do harmless, silly things - if it gets bad enough people can leave and it will be survival of the fittest.

I like local customs - so long as people have a way to escape. Statewide this kind of thing would be rather bad.

The serious problem they are going to run into is actually defining these things - what makes it a bra and not a shirt with a built in bra (hey my wife has them so I know they exist) being worn under another garmet? If any underclothes are verbotton, as a man I cannot show any fraction of my undershirt? Again, I don't have a problem with the law, I think it is funny.