Posted on 07/27/2009 2:44:55 PM PDT by Rufus2007
An utterly ridiculous "observation." I am not a Christian but have worked with Christian volunteers who, frankly, were born with very unattractive features who were miles ahead in the "soul" race to the rather good-looking liberal volunteers who brought themselves to my place of business so they'd have something to slap on their resumes.
That's one of a thousand possible examples I could give.
Based on that assertion, we should vote for/listen to only good looking people.
bookmark
She looks like someone in a scifi movie where they have a neutral humanoid before they decide to make it a male or female robot.
Is it because you “am not a Christian” that you don’t get it?
You sure are hung up on outward appearances.
Please, don’t post the other 999 examples.
Sorry your were inundated by ugly Christians.
Woah, woah, woah, Rachel Maddow is a woman?!?
Uh, the thread subject is about outward appearances, so by addressing the thread topic, I'm "hung up"?
Sorry you're so prejudiced that no one can have an opinion if they don't have your religious beliefs.
Please, don’t post the other 999 examples.
Why would I bother? You probably wouldn't understand the point, anyway. (See below.)
Sorry your were inundated by ugly Christians.
So I'm the one with the hang up, when my point was that these Christians I worked with were great people, great examples of their religion, whatever their appearances--contradicting the point I disagreed with--while the "attractive" people were jerks.
So which of us has the hangup about appearances?
Sorry I posted a rumor. ;)
Kirsten Powers
Well ah, this thread is about ‘Sexual Appeal’, not outward appearances.
Sorry you're so prejudiced that no one can have an opinion if they don't have your religious beliefs.
Quite a stretch there, Darkwolf.
Oh and I haven't mentioned my religious beliefs, it was you that did that.
I never said you can't have an opinon, I just countered it.
And quite well I think.
So now “these Christians I worked with were great people, great examples of their religion, whatever their appearances.”
In your original post they were “Christian volunteers who, frankly, were born with very unattractive features...”
Try to look beyond the physical and see people for who they are, instead of your opinion of how they look.
Then people that are beautiful on the inside will not appear to you as “unattractive.”
So which of us has the hangup about appearances?
Uh, that would be you.
Which has nothing to do with appearance?
Strike one for you!
Quite a stretch there, Darkwolf. Oh and I haven't mentioned my religious beliefs, it was you that did that.
Oh, so you bringing up my religious non-belief was, uh, my doing.
Strike two for you.
I never said you can't have an opinon, I just countered it. And quite well I think.
In your mind.
In your original post they were “Christian volunteers who, frankly, were born with very unattractive features...” Try to look beyond the physical and see people for who they are, instead of your opinion of how they look.
Which I did--when I praised them for their inner qualities in, oh, that same paragraph..
You're not very good at this at all, you know.
Then people that are beautiful on the inside will not appear to you as “unattractive.”
How silly. When you first see a person before you know them on any level, you have NO opinion of their outward appearance?
Strike three and you are outta there!
So which of us has the hangup about appearances? Uh, that would be you.
This from the person who can only a comment I made about appearance, and somehow didn't see (or just didn't quote) the POINT of bringing that up--which is that these folks were beautiful where it mattered.
You lose the game!
Base hit for me.
You made a point of not being a Christian, I commented on it.
Rounding second.
Yes to repeat, quite well.
Dodging shortstop on way to third.
Praised them? LOL
Let's see, do I slide into home or just jog?
... these folks were beautiful where it mattered.
Alright, I got my point across!
Jogging to home plate...
: > )
When did I say it isn't? You are replying to my comment: "Which has nothing to do with appearance?" Please explain how that is saying sexual appeal is only about appearance.
You're out at first.
You made a point of not being a Christian, I commented on it. Rounding second.
Uh, when did I say otherwise?
Two out.
Yes to repeat, quite well. Dodging shortstop on way to third. Praised them? LOL
You mean when I said "were miles ahead in the "soul" race to the rather good-looking liberal volunteers who brought themselves to my place of business so they'd have something to slap on their resumes."--that's NOT praising them?
Three up, three down.
Let's see, do I slide into home or just jog?
You should try working on your swings first.
... these folks were beautiful where it mattered. Alright, I got my point across! Jogging to home plate...
Except I was the first one two bring that up--which was my initial point.
Once again, your talent isn't for debate (or baseball)--it's for selective editing when you've been shown to be dishonest.
Hadn’t thought of Kirsten, mea culpa. Ironic she should be on Fox.
That is what YOU said.
And then...
You assumed you cannot comment if you don't have my religious beliefs.
And I guess you “assumed” certain belief on me
Kinda left-handed praise after calling them unattractive.
I guess it counts though.
Good one.
You brought it up?
LOL, I guess you did, kinda. Sorta. A little.
Oh, gosh now I am dishonest?
Good Grief!
I do think you win for the selective editing though.
Nice home run on that!
It's been fun, I have to clean the goldfish bowl now.
Speaking of John Edwards. I remember back in 2002, a then girlfriend showed me a Cosmo magazine puff piece on John Edwards. It described Edwards as the sexiest and smartest man in DC. Come to think of it, the narrative could easily have been about Obama. If you recall, the early of part this decade, the media attempted to pump up Edwards as an American Idol candidate. Edwards was the rough draft version of Obama. What killed the Edwards express was his less stellar performance on Meet the Press with Tim Russert.
I think this will finally be their undoing...they totally don’t get it...and so they can’t defend themselves from what they totally don’t get.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.