ELSEWHERE, ON PJTV: TRIFECTA!
T'WAS VERY LITTLE I liked of what came out of her POTUS husband's incredibly long-winded mouth last night. Still, I have to hand it to Mrs. FLOTUS, think she looks nearly plum perfect in this high-waisted Izaac Mizrahi design. Love the stiff, glowing satin/taffeta skirt combined with the matte jersey top, separated by the black (grosgrain? velvet?) waist band. Gotta say I don't know anyone who does high-waisted anymore as it usually looks absurd on women over 14 who aren't in their third trimester of pregnancy. Be that as it may, Michelle carries it all off with pearls, matching pearly nails and now 3/4 sleeves. The dark bipartisan plum look is newer, fresher than black (which would have just been too dressy), works well with her skin tones and is the perfect rich cold weather color...and that's everything nice I have to say about SOTUS, except that our SCOTUS comported themselves in an extremely dignified manner in the face of some cheap foul shots from our rookie basketbally POTUS.
T'WAS VERY LITTLE I liked of what came out of her POTUS husband's incredibly long-winded mouth last night. Still, I have to hand it to Mrs. FLOTUS, think she looks nearly plum perfect in this high-waisted Izaac Mizrahi design. Love the stiff, glowing satin/taffeta skirt combined with the matte jersey top, separated by the black (grosgrain? velvet?) waist band. Gotta say I don't know anyone who does high-waisted anymore as it usually looks absurd on women over 14 who aren't in their third trimester of pregnancy. Be that as it may, Michelle carries it all off with pearls, matching pearly nails and now 3/4 sleeves. The dark bipartisan plum look is newer, fresher than black (which would have just been too dressy), works well with her skin tones and is the perfect rich cold weather color...and that's everything nice I have to say about SOTUS, except that our SCOTUS comported themselves in an extremely dignified manner in the face of some cheap foul shots from our rookie basketbally POTUS.
7 comments:
It was great to see the First Lady looking so sharp, stylish.
It was also sweet to see the Supreme Court justices sitting uncomfortably while all around them, the audience gave the President a standing ovation for criticizing them.
Funny to watch the Republicans ...like naughty children on a time out, they don’t do anything but obstruct and sit, pouting… you call that leadership?
Afraid we're living on two different planets, Ellen. Obstructionist? The recent SC decision asserting corporations and groups their 1st Amendment Rights is anything but obstructionist, in my opinion.
Pout? I saw some dignified SC judges sitting, taking a quiet hit. Most of the Congressional Dems were clapping, agreeing with Obama because they know their biggest donor base are big special-interest, liberal Democratic law firms and they don't like knowing there's going to be competetion.
I wonder what's obstructionist about advocating cutting federal spending so that most Americans can keep more of their hard-earned money rather than be taxes so the federal government can re-distribute it?
About keeping taxes down so the real job creators of small and large businesses can hire more employees getting them off the unemployed roles?
Like I say, we live on different planets with very different worldviews
My dear Ellen, I am happy to publish comments about the principles and policies that you say you believe in yourself. However, when you start doing my part for me, speaking for me, misrepresenting what you think I believe then I simply won't continue this conversation. I won't and don't have time to defend things I don't believe and didn't say. You create straw men.
Stay within your own hoola hoop with "I" and "me" statements.
One last thing, much of the bank TARP monies---which I was never for--have been paid back. Another thing, big corporations that you decry are owned by stockholders and employees like you and me---or at least me. It is only liberal dems who are defining this SC decision as the Big Corp against the little individual. I don't and so I can't argue that with you.
Another thing, big corporations that you decry are owned by stockholders and employees like you and me---or at least me.
Yea, and how much of your conservative base in the red states... in Palin's so-called "Real America" are invested in Wall Street and major corporations? One thing you have going in your favor are that these people are the most easily manipulated and least educated so maybe you can get their vote without them realizing what is being taken from them. Good luck.
OK, since it's snowing outside, I'll indulge this ridiculous conversation: You say you think when I don't publish your comment it's because it's so damming to my position and I'm hiding how right on you are?
Actually, Ellen, it's because I can't figure out what you're position is or what you're trying to say.
Take for instance your statement above--with my thoughts in parentheses:
"Yea, and how much of your conservative base in the red states... in Palin's so-called "Real America" are invested in Wall Street and major corporations?" (actually I am as is most of American and anyone with retirement funds, and the last time I looked it's not against the law or considered a bad thing.) "One thing you have going in your favor are that these people"(Who are these people you're talking about? What people?) are the most easily manipulated (how?) and least educated so maybe you can get their vote (Who's vote is who trying to get?) without them realizing what is being taken from them. (Huh? what's being taken from "them" whoever them are?) Good luck.(Huh?)
OH! Maybe you mean this is what's being taken away from Americans, if so I'm with you....I don't like Congress taking all of my, my children's and grandchildren's money away from us. You make a very good point; thanks for the reminder:
SENATE OKs NEW DEBT LIMIT, RAISED TO $1.9 TRILLION
By Stephen Dinan
Acknowledging that the U.S. must continue to borrow to keep the government open, Senate Democrats on Thursday pushed through a $1.9 trillion increase in the nation's debt limit.
The vote, along partisan lines, will boost the government's total borrowing power to a staggering $14.3 trillion.
Just a day after President Obama called on Congress to freeze much non-defense spending in future years, Senate Democrats turned back a bipartisan amendment to the debt-ceiling bill that would limit all future domestic discretionary spending - in both defense and social programs - to 2 percent annual increases. But they did attach pay-as-you-go or "pay-go" rules they said should help Congress members impose some fiscal discipline on themselves.
The overall debt measure passed 60-39, barely achieving the 60-vote supermajority Democrats and Republicans agreed would be needed to advance the measure. All 60 votes in support came from the Democrats' caucus, and the measure succeeded because Sen.-elect Scott Brown from Massachusetts has not yet been sworn in to give Republicans a 41st vote to sustain a filibuster.
It's the third time since Mr. Obama took office that Democrats have had to raise the debt, and Democrats sought such a large increase so they wouldn't have to have another politically troublesome vote later this year, closer to congressional elections.
By comparison, the country's debt stood at $5.7 trillion when President George W. Bush took office, and reached $10.6 trillion when he left eight years later.
The debt increase will now go back to the House, where its path has been aided by the pay-go rules the Senate approved.
From Big Hollywood contributors Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski:
On January 21, the U.S. Supreme Court empowered ordinary Americans to speak out on an equal footing with millionaires and the media in U.S. elections. Threatened by people being able to freely speak their minds, the president of the United States deceived the American people when discussing this court decision in the State of the Union.
You can read the whole thing at:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7623438328827408121&postID=6302666749664415180&isPopup=true
Post a Comment