Author Topic: Would you pay $7,000 for this jacket?? Michele did, or somebody did. (Read 1974 times)

powderman · « **on:** July 30, 2012, 11:16:43 AM »

http://www.yahoo.com/_ylt=AuxZd9wghCZQfMv0f2IUwqqbvZx4;_ylc=X3oDMWE2MmVzaTMyBF9TAzIwMjM1MzgwNzUEYQMxMjA3MzAgc2hpbmUgT0xZIHRtIG1pY2hlbGxlIG9iYW1hIGphY2tldCB0BGNjb2RlA3B6YnVmY2FoNQRjcG9zAzEEZWQDMQRnA2lkLTI0NTI5NzUEaW50bAN1cwRpdGMDMARsdHh0A09iYW1hJiMzOTtzJDdLY29hdGRyYXdzaXJlBG1jb2RlA3B6YnVhbGxjYWg1BG1wb3MDMQRwa2d0AzEEcGtndgM0BHBvcwMwBHNlYwN0ZC1mZWEEc2xrA3RodW1ibGluawR0YXIDaHR0cDovL3NoaW5lLnlhaG9vLmNvbS9mYXNoaW9uL21pY2hlbGxlLW9iYW1hLTgyMTctNy0wMDAtamFja2V0LWNyaXRpY3MtZ3J1bWJsaW5nLTE2MDgwMDI5NC5odG1sBHRlc3QDNzAx/SIG=13ket643o/EXP=1343773645/**http%3A//shine.yahoo.com/fashion/michelle-obama-8217-7-000-jacket-critics-grumbling-160800294.html

Michelle Obama’s $7,000 Jacket Has Critics Grumbling By Sarah B. Weir, Yahoo! bloggerBy Sarah B. W

The First Lady in J. MendelFirst lady Michelle Obama looked fit for a queen when she attended an Olympics reception at Buckingham Palace on July 27, and some critics are complaining that her silver embroidered jacket cost a king's ransom. Although not yet in stores, the white, capped sleeved number by J. Mendel lists for $6,800. "The jacket cost more than the average American family makes in a month ($4,284)," kvetched the conservative blog thegatewaypundit.com. "And, she does this as Americans continue to suffer through a deep recession and record unemployment." A commenter called Granny points out, "I had better not EVER hear another word about a mere $900 blouse on Mrs. Romney's back or Sarah Palin's $300 shoes. EVER."
Sports: First Lady Michelle Obama Hugs Entire Basketball Team after Olypic Win
Since she first hit the campaign trail with her husband, Obama has been an international style icon and has appeared on numerous "best dressed lists." Defender Robert Verdi, a celebrity stylist, shot back to the NY Daily News, "She isn't just wearing a $6,800 jacket--she's supporting the commerce of the nation." He added that "It's not wasteful, it's inspiring: it's a New York company-selling a product made in the US…and it helps the tailor and the little dry cleaner on the corner stay in business."
Watch: Michelle Obama Meets with Team USA
Like Kate Middleton, who also attended the reception, Obama is known for mixing both "high" and "low" fashion. Last winter, the First Lady was spotted wearing a $39.99 Jason Wu for Target dress. Previously, she had tapped the designer, who was then unknown, to create her couture one-shoulder gown for the inauguration ball. Wu, who studied at Parsons in New York City, credits her for launching his career. Love it or loathe it, when Michelle Obama wears something, people look--whether it's the mid-priced J. Crew separates she often dons on the road or when promoting her Let's Move campaign or a $2000 cardigan by swank designer L'Wrenn Scott. One result of her visibility is sales. It's estimated that the "Obama effect" has generated over $2.7 billion for the fashion industry since her husband took office, despite the shaky economy.
Is First Lady Michelle Obama's fashion an inspiration or insensitive? Please let us know what you think in the comments below.

Oughta look good with her $3-4 thousand blouses. Let em eat cake. POWDERMAN.

briarpatch · « **Reply #1 on:** July 30, 2012, 03:07:59 PM »

I like it. It could have been 200,000 just as easy, somehow they slipped or lied.

garbhead · « **Reply #2 on:** July 31, 2012, 12:20:14 AM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24999-2005Jan20.html

http://storiesinamerica.blogspot.com/2006/12/cost-of-laura-bushs-holiday-dress-8500.html

and your point is...?

m-g Willy · « **Reply #3 on:** July 31, 2012, 12:46:55 AM »

I don't care how much anyone spends on their cloths,,
It's a waste to put nice cloths on Michelle no matter what the cost.
Because no matter how many coats of paint you put on a turd ,,,it's still a piece of s#%t !

Needles · « **Reply #4 on:** July 31, 2012, 01:10:04 AM »

So now conservatives are COMPLAINING about capitalism?

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #5 on:** July 31, 2012, 01:27:53 AM »

No, conservatives are complaining about the HYPOCRACY of liberals. They complained loud about Romney's wife having a $1,000 blouse. Complained about them being rich. Liberals are elitists. They think they know everything, and think they are privilaged because they are phd's or college professors and such. Yet they haven't worked in the real world and have had to earn what they have. They are jealous of someone with just a high school or bs degree who makes more than them with their phds. Believe me, I know, I have liberal phd professor inlaws. My wife and I without college degrees can make more than them. They have never worked except as professors. They were A students in high school, got scholorships, grants, and student loans and went to Brown University for their phd's. Vote democrat because they believe in "social justice". They will not even let their kids work at McDonalds or somewhere to see what the real world is like. They think education is all the poor need to succeed in life. Grade school is free, can't help it if 25% of the poor drop out. College is free for them with "Pell Grants" yet very few go. Student loans are only about 2% interest and they don't have to pay it back until they graduate and they have 10 years. Can't help it is most of the poor are too lazy to push themselves, and dicipline themselves to study and work hard to make it. It is not my fault and I don't owe them anything. The only people needing assistance are those who are disabled, elderly, mentally incompetent, or have had some bad luck, accidents, or acts of nature damage. Anyone else should suffer the consequences of their lazyness. My brother was laid off from a good factory job that was shut down. He made good money. He got his unemployment but went to school and took heating and air conditioning and now he is a maintenance forman for a real estate company, back to making money. He is 51. It can be done no matter what age. He already had a machine tool and die training with his factory job as well as welding right out of high school. Used his skills well until the factory closed. I'm just tired of liberals wanting to just throw money at the problem without making them have responsibility. FDR would not give welfare money to people even though the far left wanted to. He said to give them jobs, so they would not loose the work ethic and have pride in hard work and take care of their things. At least he knew this. Throwing $4 trillion into welfare the last 40 years has accomplished nothing.

Needles · « **Reply #6 on:** July 31, 2012, 01:37:15 AM »

Liberals do NOT complain about people being rich. They complain about the underhanded ways some of them employ to get rich.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #7 on:** July 31, 2012, 02:01:17 AM »

Quote from: Needles on July 31, 2012, 01:37:15 AM

Liberals do NOT complain about people being rich. They complain about the underhanded ways some of them employ to get rich.

what ways ? legal ones ? hard work ? risk ? If they use illegal ways they lose . Why don't liberals expose the illegal acts and not paint all rich people as underhanded ? Just because liberals are to lazy or to uneducated to excell in life why must they make false statements about those who do get ahead ? At one time that was the american dream . Seems libe dream is to get what they can for free by any means aval. legal or not.

garbhead · « **Reply #8 on:** July 31, 2012, 02:08:33 AM »

Quote from: m-g Willy on July 31, 2012, 12:46:55 AM

I don't care how much anyone spends on their cloths,,
It's a waste to put nice cloths on Michelle no matter what the cost.
Because no matter how many coats of paint you put on a turd ,,,it's still a piece of s#%t !

Finally true reasons are revealed

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #9 on:** July 31, 2012, 02:24:51 AM »

I agree Shootall. Envy or Coveting is a big sin of liberals. It used to be, if you wanted something, you went out worked hard, and got it. Now we have created a welfare monster, that all people want is freebies. The reason the poor don't take care of their neighborhoods is if something is free, it isn't worth much, so they don't take care of it. If they had to work and pay for their homes, clothes, things in the homes, cars, etc, they would take care of them and they wouldn't be poor, they would learn to accumulate wealth. Tools, cookware, and things like that can last forever, but you work and buy them one at a time. But if they are given to you free, then you don't put them away, clean them, leave tools out in the rain, etc, you loose them. Given the poor money is like a money pit, just keeps taking and never saving. Teach them how to work, and make them work for it, they will appreciate it more.

Seems like Bill Gates, and the guy who started Apple worked for what they got. Doctors go to school 10-12 years and work many hard hours to earn what they have. Jealous of them, they deserve it. There are thousands of millionares in America, most earned it from their businesses. With 401-k's and home equities, there are about 25 million millionares about ready to retire. However $1 million for a retiree will only last a few years. These people earned it by working and saving.

America is going to come crashing down one day because of too many dependent people in America leaching the others. There might be riots, and civil war if this class warfare talk doesn't stop from our leaders. Rich and middle class against poor.

lgm270 · « **Reply #10 on:** July 31, 2012, 02:46:17 AM »

So much like the old Soviet Union....where Communist Party officials lived like Maharajas while the common people stood in lines in the snow with their ration tickets for bread and potatoes.

Surprisingly, there is little outcry over this.

m-g Willy · « **Reply #11 on:** July 31, 2012, 03:09:43 AM »

Quote from: TM7 on July 31, 2012, 02:43:37 AM

.
.
.
Speaking of hypocrisy and contrasted to one of the so-called conservatives most hated personalities it does seem stark....that would be Ahmanedijad who makes $250/mo, lives in a walk up apartment, has a 20 year old auto, and sleeps on the floor...and has essentially no net worth....good conservative values yet hated by the West.
.
.
..TM7

Conservatives don't base their opinions on someone by how much they make or have,,,but by what they do.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #12 on:** July 31, 2012, 04:59:35 AM »

i consider myself very conserative and to be quite honest would rather see the first lady well dressed . We are a super power and should act like it . We are not some third world ---- hole with leaders sleeping on the floor . To be honest the picture is one of the better ones of her. We should keep our opinions on her politics instead of her dress habits unless they become unfitting for a first lady IMHO !

Needles · « **Reply #13 on:** July 31, 2012, 07:00:59 AM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on July 31, 2012, 02:01:17 AM

Quote from: Needles on July 31, 2012, 01:37:15 AM
Liberals do NOT complain about people being rich. They complain about the underhanded ways some of them employ to get rich.

what ways ? legal ones ? hard work ? risk ? If they use illegal ways they lose . Why don't liberals expose the illegal acts and not paint all rich people as underhanded ? Just because liberals are to lazy or to uneducated to excell in life why must they make false statements about those who do get ahead ? At one time that was the american dream . Seems libe dream is to get what they can for free by any means aval. legal or not.

"Legal" is not the same as "not crooked." There are as many hard working liberals as there are conservatives. Conservatives look at the homeless and at drug addicts and other fringe groups and label them as liberals. In actuality, those people don't vote at all, and could not tell you the difference between a liberal and a conservative. And all rich people are not underhanded, but many of them are. Why else are there contracts? Capitalists have no morals at all, where money is concerned. They will do whatever the law lets them get away with in the name of money, and in their minds it's the same as being moral.

Look at the Homeland Security Act. GW and the conservatives pushed it through, using 9/11 as an excuse. Look at the powers that law gives the President. Now look at the list of charges that got Richard Nixon impeached. The lists are pretty well the same. And all the things the conservatives complain about as far as using his powers? That law GAVE him those powers. Hey, it's legal! It say it in the law! What atre y'all complaining about? Did you think that law meant only Republican presidents got to use that?

I believe Romney is a very religious man. He's no more Christian than if he were Mohammedan. I'll warn you about your own guy. To paraphrase William S. Burroughs: If you HAVE to do business with a religious SOB, GET IT IN WRITING--- he's got Jesus, God, and all the saints and angels backing him up to ____ you on the deal!

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #14 on:** July 31, 2012, 08:45:08 AM »

Capitalists do have morals. Henry Ford had problems with guys fighting on the assembly line. He didn't understand so he went to his pastor. His pastor said if you pay them a decent wage to support a family you would have less trouble. He did and his productivity increased tremendously. The old man Rockafella back in the depression REQUIRED his children to donate money to charity to help the poor. One didn't and he said he would cut him out of his will if he didn't find a charity to give to. He said they had too much money not to give back to those in need.

These old guys sounded like they had morals. Today I'm not sure. Chruches once took care of the needy and we didn't need big government, by not only giving them handouts but counseling them also. The big government only gives handouts. They do not counsel on how to improved their lives. That is why churches had tax write offs in the first place, they helped people and made for a stronger America by reinforcing the family and family values thus taking a burden away from big government.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #15 on:** July 31, 2012, 09:02:00 AM »

Needles it would seem liberals were the ones who passed all the wealfare bills

it seems they were the ones who ruled the banking rules that caused this depression

you can say what you wish be it BS or not but the fact is a capilist wants to make money and to do so he needs happy employees and customers . He teaches how to fish . Liberals take that fish and buy votes .

billy_56081 · « **Reply #16 on:** July 31, 2012, 09:07:25 AM »

Shootall you are correct. But if as one poster said here she received this or other pricey gifts. I think there should be investigation into these "gifts".

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #17 on:** July 31, 2012, 09:22:06 AM »

Quote from: billy_56081 on July 31, 2012, 09:07:25 AM

Shootall you are correct. But if as one poster said here she received this or other pricey gifts. I think there should be investigation into these "gifts".

I agree 100% if something is illegal or not right it should be investigated no matter the party !

gypsyman · « **Reply #18 on:** July 31, 2012, 09:33:05 AM »

Most on this board shouldn't really get to upset over this. The ones that really need to raise hell over this, is the brothers and sisters inda hood, that aren't getting flat screen TV's and extra food stamps because of this.

gypsyman

DDZ · « **Reply #19 on:** July 31, 2012, 11:02:44 AM »

Seriously, I think she could have found something that looked better for $50. I don't care what she wears, but I've never seen a women of her stature with such poor taste in clothes. I mean look at that thing, and to think it cost 7 grand. What was she thinking? I paid around 7K for my first 4WD pickup.

LONGTOM · « **Reply #20 on:** July 31, 2012, 11:18:59 AM »

I will agree that the first lady of the United States needs to look like a fairly well dressed person.
After all, she is representing the US but does it have to cost so much to do so.
I know people who look just as good or better that shop at the cheap chain stores.
What a waste of money if she did indeed buy it.
Of course, that is the way of our government, waste as much money as they can.
I bet if it was her/their money they were spending they would be a little more frugal !!!

I am restoring an antique car and am having trouble spending $5000.00 on a complete new turn key motor for it.
Now if it wasn't my money I was spending then I am sure it would have that 572ci big block with a super charger on it for $14,000.00 sitting under the hood.

LONGTOM

Needles · « **Reply #21 on:** July 31, 2012, 11:19:40 AM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on July 31, 2012, 09:02:00 AM

Needles it would seem liberals were the ones who passed all the wealfare bills it seems they were the ones who ruled the banking rules that caused this depression you can say what you wish be it BS or not but the fact is a capilist wants to make money and to do so he needs happy employees and customers . He teaches how to fish . Liberals take that fish and buy votes .

Funny you mention that banking thing. NO bank has ever been forced to make loans to anyone. Republican DEREGULATION ALLOWED them to make loans to people who were not qualified to buy houses, and allowed the banks to get insurance on those loans. Cashing in those insurance policies (most commonly called "derivatives") is part of what crashed the economy. Y'all keep saying the liberals caused it--- the capitalists caused it and the conservatives set things up so it was allowed. Ford, et al, still thought of their employees as people. Oh, and it was primarily the Republicans who kept raising the recognized poverty levels. So they also caused the welfare state based on amount of children.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #22 on:** July 31, 2012, 02:05:59 PM »

So TM are you for or against Government regulation?

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #23 on:** July 31, 2012, 02:10:42 PM »

Clinton signed the law and it was voted on by members of BOTH parties. Yes, there were threats of discrimination lawsuits if the banks didn't loan the money. Go back and check.

Back to the jacket. I don't care what they wear, it was just a double standard for the liberal news to accuse Mrs Romney of wearing a $1,000 blouse and being out of touch with the poor and middle class. Now she wears something more expensive and nothing negative is said about it, except with talk radio pointing out the double standard.

Capitalism in the last 200-250 years brought more wealth to mankind than any other system in history. Private ownership of property and means of production increased efficiency and productivity. Slavery didn't, in ancient times nor in modern, only for a few. Socialism stagnates or leads to a dictator like Hitler or Stalin. Communism failed. Capitalism works. The government in the 1990's changed the rules and we lost our manufacturing base. In the late 90's they changed the rules for banking, and it lead to this "Great Recession". Warning signs were noted, but no one listened.

All republicans are not conservative. Most democrats are liberal socialists. Very few moderate democrats, lots of moderate republicans. All are being swayed by the wolf crying banks and bankers through the Federal Reserve. Ron Paul is right, it does need to be audited, and get back to our constitution roots and away from big government.

LONGTOM · « **Reply #24 on:** July 31, 2012, 03:58:50 PM »

Quote

Ford, et al, still thought of their employees as people

BS!
The only way Ford stayed alive with out taking a hand out was by selling off lots of their product lines.
Along with those sell offs went a lot of jobs when the ones that bought them trimed the line or in some cases closed it down completely.
I would really love to work for someone who thinks that much of me.

LONGTOM

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #25 on:** August 01, 2012, 12:36:06 AM »

Quote from: Needles on July 31, 2012, 11:19:40 AM

Quote from: SHOOTALL on July 31, 2012, 09:02:00 AM
Needles it would seem liberals were the ones who passed all the wealfare bills it seems they were the ones who ruled the banking rules that caused this depression you can say what you wish be it BS or not but the fact is a capilist wants to make money and to do so he needs happy employees and customers . He teaches how to fish . Liberals take that fish and buy votes .

Funny you mention that banking thing. NO bank has ever been forced to make loans to anyone check deeper you will find it THINK BARNY FRANK . Republican DEREGULATION ALLOWED them to make loans to people who were not qualified to buy houses, and allowed the banks to get insurance on those loans NO I was building homes for a nation wide home builder at the time and saw people getting homes they could not pay for. The loan officers were afraid of audit of the bank if the loans were not given. . Cashing in those insurance policies (most commonly called "derivatives") is part of what crashed the economyor the fact that when a bank deposits money in the fed it can borrow 10 times the amount which is just printed and has no value in bricks and mortar. Y'all keep saying the liberals caused it--of course we do its true - the capitalists caused it and the conservatives set things up so it was allowed. Ford, et al, still thought of their employees as people Yes and knowing the problems with union labor ,taxes and govt. regulation has moved to Barzil and set computer controlled robots to build cars . Oh, and it was primarily the Republicans who kept raising the recognized poverty levels NO . So they also caused the welfare state based on amount of children.No .

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #26 on:** August 01, 2012, 03:03:24 AM »

Needles sounds like a communist or socialist to me. He needs to go to a community college and take a couple of economics courses, and some history courses. Unfettered common sense capitalism is and was historically the most productive means of economics the world has ever seen. America had it for 150 years. It lead to great advancements. Railroads, steamships, mass production, the telegraph, the telephone, the airplane, ac power, the phonograph, the moving picture cameras, television, medical advances, automobiles, personal computers, cell phones, all were done by capitalism. What inovations and improvements were done by Soviet Russia? or Communist China?

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #27 on:** August 01, 2012, 03:15:20 AM »

vodka and rice wine , liberal fuel .............

powderman · « **Reply #28 on:** August 01, 2012, 03:37:21 AM »

Ann Romney slammed for $990 Shirt, Michelle Obama praised for $6,800 jacket By Hollie McKay
Pop Tarts
Published August 01, 2012
FoxNews.com Back in May, Ann Romney, wife of Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, wore a $990 Reed Krakoff silk shirt for a media appearance. The item of clothing set off a media firestorm, with the Romneys widely accused of being “out of touch” with average Americans.
In particular, the Washington Post wrote that the $990 blouse “will not help her husband change those perceptions, no matter how many Laundromat photo ops are on the campaign’s itinerary.”
Fast forward to last Friday, when First Lady Michelle Obama attended an Olympics reception for heads of state at Buckingham Palace, donning a J. Mendel cap sleeve jacket from the 2013 Resort collection.
The price-tag? $6,800.
This time, the Washington Post simply described the intricacies of the jacket and noted that Mrs. Obama has previously been criticized for “not dressing up enough for Queen Elizabeth II, so she stepped up her game.” No snide remarks, no outrage over the cost, no suggestion she was “out of touch.”
“The media’s overabundant love affair with the Obamas has become increasingly blatant as this election draws nearer. Scrutinizing Mrs. Romney for a fashion choice that cost considerably less than that of the First Lady is yet another example of the media being purely sanctimonious,” former political publicist Angie Meyer told FoxNews.com. “The media continues to relish their roles as liberal bullies, and have relentlessly bullied the Romneys from the beginning. It is pure hypocrisy at its finest.”
Glenn Selig of The Publicity Agency concurred.
“The media will not stay quiet on the issue because wealth remains a big issue with the Romneys. It is not his fault that he's wealthy, but the media is portraying it as a liability,” Selig said.
Dan Gainor, VP of Business and Culture for Media Research Center in Washington DC, said it’s “just the latest example of a consistent media theme that somehow Romney is too wealthy and out of touch because he's a millionaire. Except of course that Obama is also a millionaire. “
Some also highlighted the apparent hypocrisy on Twitter. “And you thought the Romneys were out of touch?” tweeted one, while another wondered who had to pay for the almost $7,000 dress, and another balked that the “jacket would put a lot of food on the table of one of the 25M unemployed people in USA.”
Not everyone’s nose was out of joint, however. Media commentator Jenn Hoffman told FoxNews.com that “Americans need to face the fact that with our current system, politicians need to have money. That is how they get into the office in the first place. If you are near the White House, you have access to serious cash and much of that cash is spent on honing your image.”
Mark Joseph, producer of “Wild Card: The Promise & Peril of Sarah Palin,” added that “Mrs. Romney's wardrobe expenses are certainly fair game, but so are Mrs. Obama's, and political reporters have got to do a better job of being even-handed."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/08/01/ann-romney-slammed-for-0-shirt-michelle-obama-praised-for-6800-jacket/#ixzz22J2pY73p

mcbammer · « **Reply #29 on:** August 01, 2012, 03:40:37 AM »

Their women .... money grows on trees , didnt you know!