Changing America by respecting everyone’s humanity, getting real, and by bringing people together. Awesome.
The Anthem
Changing America by respecting everyone’s humanity, getting real, and by bringing people together. Awesome.
might be good…But I still have a Strong Negative reaction to ppl (males) who MUST only be seen shirt/tie/jacket…
Wouldn’t it be Wonderful if ppl didn’t feel they had to meet ‘the image’ all the time?
IMHO/just my .02, ya know…
If the president were strictly a figurehead to rally the citizens and promote optimism and hope, I would feel great about voting for Obama. He could probably do something to heal cynicism.
I like the suit, shirt and tie image. I think it looks a heck of a lot better than that casual “I’m a loser” Friday look people got going on these days. Also known as “I don’t know how to dress myself Friday.”
Props to Obama for wearing a “real man’s” clothes.
I like ties as well, especially, if one selects them carefully.
ProfXM endorses Obama for president! Si se puede!
LFAB endorses him too!!! 😀
SethR:
‘Congratulations’! You hit the ‘Mormon Mentality’ nail ON THE HEAD!
their mantra:
It’s Not what’s on the Inside that COUNTS!
for another update on Christ’s value regarding the Outward Appearances, read Matthew chapter 23 (IF TSCC will let you)
OOPS!
not to be remiss:
1st Peter 3:3, and the ‘modern’ scripture regarding ‘costly appearel’ should be reviewed also…
‘just a thought’
Oh, au contraire Guy. I don’t think that clothing says much about a person’s personal righteousness at all. And the link to her character is pretty sketchy at best.
But it does say “mommy didn’t teach me how to dress myself.” It does say THAT pretty clearly.
Incidentally, there’s a family in my ward right now. One of the young women in the family has come to church dressed rather distinctly. She seems to have a slight touch of the Goth vibe going and has apparently made a few of her own outfits. One involves a denim mini skirt (well above the knee) over black fishnet nylons. And then on her legs, she cut off the legs of a pair of Levis and wears the legs kinda like… well… leggings. So you’ve only got about 5 inches of the fishnet nylons showing.
Now, that’s definitely not kosher Mormon stuff. But it doesn’t really bother me in the least. I personally think the girl has quite a bit of class and flair. She actually looks better than some of the other “kosher” young women I’ve seen at Church. Every time I’ve seen her at church, it’s been “wow! great look!” (if you could pull it off, of course, which not many people can). I’ve wanted to compliment her on it, but I’m not sure how it would be taken coming from a mid-thirty-something in a suit, so I haven’t said anything.
As for “costly apparel,” a tip I heard once. It’s the fit of the suit that matters the most. So what you do, is you frequent thrift stores until you find a suit where you like the fabric color and feel and then you buy it – whether it fits or not. Cheap.
Then you take it to a tailor and have them alter the suit to fit you. Viola! A great-looking, tailored suit for only about $50.
quote: “Oh, au contraire Guy. I don’t think that clothing says much about a person’s personal righteousness at all.”
contraire…to WHAT? certainly NOT to anything I said or suggested?
ya know, your comments are still Telling; bringing up the idea of a link between clothing & ‘righteousness’ (whatever THAT is)… reveals your bias, don’t ya think?
my starting place, now that Im free of (overwhelmingly legalistic) Mormonism (can you guess source?):
“Compassion is the real essence of religion.”
“Love and kindness are the very basis of society.”
“The very purpose of religion is to control yourself, not to criticize others.”
It reveals a bias of having been on the bloggernacle for 5 years now and having heard this issue discussed ad nauseum, usually from an angle of “clothing does not equal moral character.” I assumed you were coming from the standard party-line.
Besides Guy, you’re the one who brought up the Mormonism angle. I was simply saying it’s good to dress well. You are the one who automatically assumed I was adopting the “legalistic” Mormon party line.
Why is thinking that “casual Friday” is a national disgrace automatically brand me as a close-minded Mormon legalist?
Who’s being judgmental here?
Dear, Dear Seth:
read my post again…
I didn’t assume ANYTHING about you personally, did I?
I did make General statements which reflect NOTHING more than MY THOUGHTS….
casual friday a ‘National disgrace’? what about Bushie’s lies that brought the U.S. into a war that cost jillions of $, and about 4,000 lives (so far)?
What about violence, hunger/poverty, and sub-standard housing?
‘National disgrace’? how does ‘casual friday’ compare to say..Substance Abuse?
Dear, Dear Seth:
Get REAL; put things into PERSPECTIVE, even if LDS, Inc. doesn’t encourage it…
OOPS! the 4,000 number is… (OF course)’just’ U.S. lives lost…Apparently no one has an accurate count of foreign nationals (incl men/women/children) who have died since the U.S. invasion/’incursion’ into Iraq/Afganistan/Kuwait… the mid east in general…
Oh; did I forget to mention US torture of captives? Shame on ME.
Quit being melodramatic. It is not decreed that just because there are more important things afoot, we can’t talk about anything else.
For the record, I’m probably just as disgusted with Iraq as you are.
“It is not decreed that just because there are more important things afoot, we can’t talk about anything else.”
this simply demonstrates that either you haven’t read MY Decrees…-or- You’re not in conformance-compliance-agreement with them…
Bill McNeal: “Dave, I stand still; the conclusions jump to me!” – NewsRadio