« | »

Michelle’s Bag Cost $900 – Not $6K

The latest fashion trends from our rulers, via the New York Daily News:

White House denies manufacturer’s boast that First Lady carried their $5,950 bag

July 9th 2009

Earlier this week (while strolling the wooded landscape outside of Moscow), she carried a sexy black clutch, which Italian luxury house VBH boasts is their shiny black alligator manila bag – with a retail sticker price of $5,950.

The White House says she was carrying the $875 VBH patent leather clutch…

Told that Obama’s office denied the bag was the high-end VBH clutch, Kelly Vitko, a rep for the company replied, "It’s definitely ours [manila bag]."

The $5,950 shiny black manila alligator clutch, a smaller version is shown above, is part of VBH’s Spring 2009 collection.

We suspect the White House is simply lying.

(Obama lied, alligators died.)

But either way, it’s a shameless display of wretched excess in these recessionary times.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, July 9th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

78 Responses to “Michelle’s Bag Cost $900 – Not $6K”

  1. beautyofreason says:

    Oh well. True or not, we already know that Michelle Obama has a personal entourage and a lifestyle that average Americans can’t afford. $900 or $6,000, what’s the difference to them? I don’t mind if it’s her cash, but I wish that Mr. Obama would have a better understanding of numbers. Assuming he’s not trying to bankrupt the country, he might want to reconsider his administration borrowing .50 cents for every 1.00 dollar spent.

    • jobeth says:

      Don’t zeros mean nothing? So a few zeros shouldn’t mean anything either. Especially sinces it only tax payer money…and we all know its patriotic to pay more taxes.

      Of course they will say its not tax payer money….wanna bet? Since our boy can’t tell us where most of the Billions have gone to…bet…somehow…someway….a quite a few of those Zeros find their way into that sleek black purse of hers along with a few other numbers…like a one..or two or three or……

    • retire05 says:

      Well, it seems RuPaul is trimming down her bag budget with this one that the White House claims only cost $900 (although VBH claims it is the $6,000 one).

      When they had their “date” night in New York last month, she carried another VBH clutch that costs $1,500.00

      Can we now call her the “expensive” bag lady?

  2. Colonel1961 says:

    Thank goodness it was only $900.00! Can you imagine if she bought something expensive? Sacre Bleu!

    Keep on bein’ frugal, MO!

  3. wardmama4 says:

    Obama lied, alligators died

    Great one Steve!

    Either way $900. or $6000 – I think it is excessive and terribly arrogant in this recession with unemployment (that isn’t about not being able to buy new handbags – that is losing homes and food) – and not very uniting of The One’s ™ wife.

    I vote with the company – they should (DUH) know their product – and have a vested interest in being honest about it – more than the ‘official’ statement from the WH.

    • neocon mom says:

      So glad the news media was so quick to point out the dubious “correction” from the White House over such a high-stakes issue. Reminiscent of the laughably unfair way they covered a much more important issue concerning the White House–the firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin. The White House’s statements on such matters are always the last word. Always.

  4. Rusty Shackleford says:

    She would’ve done better to buy a sweater to tie around her waist to hide those thunder thighs.

  5. proreason says:

    “We suspect the White House is simply lying.”

    They always lie, but they never lie simply.

    You can bet there is a back story with at least 10 levels of fallback, that they will use if retreat is necessary. For example:
    – The receipt said $875 but we don’t have it any longer
    – somebody bought it for Michelle. We had no idea the price.
    – The clerk must have misrepresented the price
    – The store must have given us us a discount.
    – We were told it was a knock-off.
    – It was another purse we were thinking about
    – It was a one time thing that Michelle’s mama insisted she get.
    – We have given it to charity as a gift
    – We will pay more attention next time
    – We didn’t do it, but we have put a procedure in place to prevent it from ever happening again

    They probably have 2 staffers dedicated to this lie, and several rooms of people preparing the back story for lies they will tell in the next few days.

    This is what professional liars do, when they are Alinsky trainers.

  6. proreason says:

    Clinton never balanced a budget. He came close once because the government makes up its own accounting rules Ever hear of “off budget”. That’s where they put things to hide the true extent of the deficit.

    But he did come close once…because he slashed military spending and gutted the Intelligence services. (and as the Colonel points out below, he also had a huge windfall of cap gain taxes that year).

    So he came close to balancing the budget once……we paid the real price on 9/11.

  7. Colonel1961 says:

    Let’s try some eighth grade civics, shall we? Which branch of Government raises and spends money? That’s right – the legislative branch. Controlled by the dems for the last two and a half years. Track that against our GDP and be amazed…

    Clinton: the lucky recipient of dot.com capital gains tax windfalls of which he was in no way responsible. And Clinton expanded the CRA, which is the genesis of our current mess. Left us in a recession.

    BHO: 8.0 Trillion (minimum) – why’d you leave that one out?

    LC, please think through your comments before trying sophomoric rants on S&L.

    p.s. every single President since Roosevelt has increased the National Debt during their term in office. Every single one. Please, buy a clue or go away.

  8. Colonel1961 says:

    Ad hominem, ad hominem – how empty are your arguments?

  9. TNpatriot says:

    Let me give you some numbers from the Treasury Departments website

    09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
    09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
    09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
    09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
    09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
    09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
    09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
    09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
    09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
    09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
    09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03

    Thats the amount of the deficit at the end of each fiscal year during the entire clinton admin. Please show me which year the deficit did not increase under him.

    Balancing a budget and actually sticking to that budget are two entirely different things, but it sure gave you some great talking points huh?

  10. bronzeprofessor says:

    Articles 1 & 2 of the US Constitution make it very clear that Congress is in control of the budget… and declaring war, to be truthful. The Democrats controlled the US Congress for almost the whole period from 1981-1993. The Republicans controlled the US Congress between 1995 and January 2007, save for a brief time when the Democrats held the Senate because of party defections — the period when Clinton’s “surplus” supposedly took hold, and during which GW Bush’s decifits were relatively small. The Democrats have held Congress since Jan 2007, and it is during the last 30 months that the decifit suddenly skyrocketed exponentially.

    Even if you want to blame Bush’s military policy for distorting the budget, remember that the Democrats in Congress voted overwhelmingly in favor of invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

  11. canary says:


    But, the Obama’s played the “we are poor American” act while compaigning. No one spends that kind of money for a 4 year job. The Reagans were extremely rich and took a paycut.

    “Assuming he’s not trying to bankrupt the country…” No. He’s trying bankrupt the country like any good president would. Isn’t this the mess Bush gave us?

    The war is always a hardship on a country. Trying to keep the country safe not bankrupt it. Obama spent more money in his first few monthes than any president in U.S. history, and is incomparable to money spent in 8 years.

    “Obama wants to see us in ruins because that’s what presidents do”
    That’s rediculous. Obama is going full speed ahead and lawless to the max. He is all about himself, because he wants to be rich, and us poor.
    Bush and Reagan were already rich.

    You can’t blame Bush on the housing crisis, that started with Carter, and the democrats demanding it, and people buying above their means.

    And know one would pay even 900 bucks for pantent leather purse. The Obama are oppressing and depressing the U.S. while they prosper and spend money like crazy. Not good for the countries moral, to tell us were poor, and we are to do without warm houses, and drive, while they party up and play disney land, bowing to Kings and Queens.

  12. catie says:

    Really, this is sooo tiresome. I’m sure the Kos Kids are proud of you though!

    • catie says:

      Hmmh, it appears LibCynic is a drive-by. He/She has deleted all their comments in this thread. Very strange.

  13. catie says:

    You know, I am a woman and I’ve never had a $900 handbag. The closest I ever got is a $570 (at that time-Christmas 2005) Louis Vuitton (sp?) small speedy bag I got from my husband before his deployment to Iraq when the special training team he was on had a 40% casualty rate.
    But why don’t we let our new friend “LibCynic” buy her a bag. He/She is obviously well heeled.

    • Celina says:

      I agree. I could feed my whole (large by modern standards) family for a month and then some with $900.

      I wonder if Lib Cynic will be back to answer to his/her refuted claims.

      My prayers are with the families and friends who lost their loved ones.

  14. canary says:

    LibCynic, Get lost. It’s bad enough all the bad news, and then some liberal
    taking up for the worst president in U.S. history. Obama acts and talks like a robot. He can’t even stand on his own two feet. He and Clintons just point their fingers at Americans while the lies poor out of their mouthes.

  15. BannedbytheTaliban says:

    First, I believe the purpose of posting this article, like many articles here, is to expose media bias. Compare and contrast the media’s response to the wardrobes of Mrs. Obama and Mrs. Palin. There is obvious bias in the reporting of the two. And if you can’t admit to that, they you are so indoctrinated that your opinion doesn’t really matter anyway.

    Second, this shows a re-occurring them of the Obama administration. That is the vast difference in what they tell us and reality. Such as, I didn’t know anything about the AF1 fly-over. I fired the IG for incompetence, despite my own law preventing me from doing so. We’ve saved X number of jobs. The purse was a cheap $900 knock-off not a $6000 original. If they lie about the little things, why would you believe them when they talk about the large issues like health care and global warming?

    Third, your numbers are erroneous. Here are the numbers from the CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.shtml ):

    Regan: added roughly $1.2 T to the deficit in 8 years winning the COLD WAR
    Bush 41: added roughly $ 800 B to the deficit in 4 years winning DESERT STORM
    Clinton: added roughly $600 B to the deficit in 8 years
    Bush 43: added roughly $2 T to the deficit in 8 years fighting TWO WARS
    Obama: as added roughly $2 T to the deficit in 6 months fighting the constitution.

    As far as the housing crisis, that is equally attributed to Clinton’s desire to increase minority home ownership as it is Bush’s continuance of a failed policy. Bank and lending crisis is due in part to the housing crisis and the repeal of the Glass-Stegal act by the Clinton administration.

  16. ptat says:

    Really, LC, that’s who comes to mind as “biggest liars”? Please, see how narrow minded you are; ever heard of Bernard Madoff? George Soros? John Edwards? Bill Clinton? Little Caylee’s mom? Joe Wilson? I mean I could go on and on. There is a daily parade of confirmed, indisputable liars, regardless of your, or my, bias.

  17. proreason says:

    Here’s a challenge for you LibCynic.

    Tell us about campaign promises the Obamy didn’t lie about. There must be one, so this should be easy for you.

    But here are the ground rules…..
    1. You can’t cite what you think he meant. You have to cite what he said. And also cite the proof of what he has done.
    2. Citations can’t be from Kos or the numerous lunatic equivalents.
    3. Any topic where The Moron said opposite things (which covers just about everything) doesn’t count.
    4. Any topic where The Moron has blah-blah-ed about what he will do in office but hasn’t really done anything (most of the rest of his actions) doesn’t count either. Gitmo, for example.
    5. The claim has to be from the campaign, not while he is in office.

    Bonus points for anything he has done that is even consistent with his campaign rhetoric.

    Double bonus points if you can find something about his life story that he hasn’t lied about.

    Have fun. Don’t hurt yourself.

    • Petronius says:

      He told Joe the Plumber he would redistribute the wealth. And by George he has. And he’s still at it.

    • katmeredith says:

      Excellent point, Petronius. See, proreason, he didn’t lie about everything.

    • proreason says:

      I hate to nitpick guys (lol), but I don’t think The Moron’s response to Joe the Plumber was a campaign promise.

      It was a slip of the tongue where he let his guard down for a second and actually told a rare truth about his plans. He had a few other when the TOTUS wasn’t around. “Bankrupting the coal industry”, “flawed Constitution”, “capital gains taxes are about fairness”, “bitter clingers”, “honey”, “average white person”, etc.

      Such moments are the verbal equivalents of micro-facial movements which liars make that show their real emotion.

      And those moments plus his long history of radical associations are the only true insights into his diseased mind that we have.

  18. pinandpuller says:

    When I was in High School Queen Elizabeth came to visit Wyoming because she’s related to either former Sen Simson or former Sen Wallop.

    I remember someone saying that she visited a store and it was one of the only times she had ever paid cash when she purchased something.

    So that just begs the question for me as to why any famous or rich person carries a purse (or handbag) in the first place when they have handlers.

    Fashion statement?

    $1,000 tampons?

  19. beautyofreason says:

    Hey–BeautyofReason: The First Lady of the United States of America bought a purse. The “entourage” is for security purposes.

    I do not consider the full-time makeup artist to be useful for “security purposes.”


    From the article:
    “Michelle Obama is the nation’s first first lady to add a full-time makeup artist to her traveling entourage,”

    I do not fault anyone for enjoying capitalism – but I would say that flaunting such an expensive purse in the midst of a recession is in poor taste for the First Lady. I would also add that the article exposes the bias on reports of liberals and conservatives. When Palin was provided expensive clothing by the RNC for the campaign trail (and those clothes were later donated to charity), the media lambasted the down-to-earth mother to no end.

  20. nuthingbettertodo says:

    Who the hell pays $900 for a purse let alone $6000??????

  21. bronzeprofessor says:

    LibCynic, I can simply speak for myself, not for the others on the site. I blame the Democrats generally for out-of-control government spending, but I also acknowledge that Republicans have been bad about it too.

    You ask in all caps WHY DO I BLAME OBAMA? Again speaking only for myself, I do not, partly because I’m in the Army and am facing a high likelihood of being deployed to Afghanistan in a very high-risk branch where I might die. Psychologically, call me weak, but I have to feel some reverence for my Commander in Chief in order to keep my morale up and make peace with the fact that I might die in his name. I look at the policies that are problematic under Obama as an extension of liberal flaws and particularly the partisan flaws of the Democrats. But just for the record, I do not attack Obama on this site; at the same time, I honor the free speech of the people on here who do use strong words in critiquing his presidency. As any Soldier will tell you, we are willing to risk our lives so that they can have the freedom to criticize a President that I cannot criticize — so I am proud that they exercise their right.

    So at least in the post above, it appears you are mixing your argument in response to me with your argument in response to the others. If I am reading you correctly, you seem to agree with me that the Democrats have screwed up a great deal, at least in part. You disagree with me on the issue of the invasion of Iraq, clearly, but you are willing to place a great deal of responsibility on Democrats and you understand that who controls Congress plays a huge role in financial matters, so blaming a President solely is overly simplistic. On the latter points we seem to be in agreement.


  22. proreason says:

    LibCynic: huh? You need to practice stringing some thoughts together that make sense. All your time on Kos hasn’t helped your communication skills.

    It would take all day to respond to all of the inaccuracies but I will draw your attention to TNpatriots post where he pulled the deficits by year from the Treasury website.

    What could possibly be more clear than that? 2000 was the year he came close, as I said in my prior post. And as the Colonel said, the Capital Gains taxes for that year were humongous, due to the Internet bubble, which hadn’t burst yet.

    But I would love to see the “off budget” stuff for that year. Our criminal government (both parties) has a million ways to deceive the people about their spending.

  23. proreason says:

    I’ll take your response on the campaign promises to mean that you can’t come up with any.

    I’m disappointed (but not surprised), because I think even I could come up with at least one thing he has stuck with.

    And of course, since he lied about everything in the campaign, I know you liberals don’t really care, since he is far more radical than you could have imagined, even in your wettest dreams.

  24. bronzeprofessor says:

    Lib, the term “liberal” has evolved a great deal and liberalism in Jefferson’s sense is in no way equivalent to what Democrats do today, or what “liberal” meant to Jefferson’s fierce opponent, Adams (whom I would not label liberal at all; I consider him conservative even in the context of his own era.)

    • beautyofreason says:

      Exactly. Would a liberal like Obama have written this statement?

      “We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds…[we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers… And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for[ another]… till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery… And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.

      – Thomas Jefferson

    • Liberals Demise says:

      Would a Liberal wipe its’ feet on such words of wisdom?
      You bet your hacky sack it would!!

  25. Liberals Demise says:

    No. 371 is the beginning of the Forced re-education and Brown Shirt Obama SS.
    AmeriCorps……..ACORN…………no difference except in name only!

    You do believe in the Tooth Fairy and Willy Wonka. Careful with that .270 Remington ……… you’ll shoot your eye out!! (Liberal with a weapon….go figure)

  26. Trogdor says:

    Did anyone notice there is a surge going on in Afghanistan? But of course, they haven’t been insane for thousands of years…sheesh, what logic. Like why even bother trying to teach your kids right and wrong, they are going to find wrong and do it anyway…

  27. bronzeprofessor says:

    Lib, a democracy has taken hold in Iraq. Don’t say you support the troops in one breath and then say you think they’re risking their lives for no reason in the next breath. That’s cruel and disrespectful. The rationale for invading Iraq is complex and has been elaborate at length by many people; at this stage, there is no benefit to rehashing the old debates of 2002 and 2003. We’re there, we have to win, there are military commanders who have a plan and seem to be meeting many of their own benchmarks for success. That’s all we need to know about Iraq.

    And I hate to be presumptuous, but I do not believe you when you say you would have voted for Afghanistan but not Iraq. Many liberals keep saying this now, but I remember the Left’s arguments in 2001-2003, and back then they were not approaching Bush’s policies in this split fashion. You may be fantasizing about what your ideal position would have been going back to 2001. Either way, I don’t believe any leftist who claims to support Afghanistan but not Iraq; it’s a bogus distinction because the terrorists who attacked us were neither Afghan nor Iraqi, they were transnational extremists who used failed states like Afghanistan and Iraq as their base of operations. Both territories had to be dealt with; to deal with one and not the other would have been flawed and inconsistent.

  28. Colonel1961 says:

    ‘Windfalls: Like Haliburton for the search for weapons of mass distruction? Dick Cheney’s Haliburton? Like oil for the Texas oil man? Highest gas prices on record?’

    How can you compare windfall profit revenues with war spending? Take the total contracts awarded to Haliburton (oooohhhh) and you’ll find a tempest in a teapot. Oh, and who would you have rather had do the work – Schlumberger? Hah!

    Highest gas prices on record: George Bush was complicit in this? Where’s your proof? Or do you ‘just know’?

    Again, you’re ‘facts’ are wrong and your opinions are worse – please leave. And get an education…

    • Petronius says:

      “Oh, and who would you have rather had do the work – Schlumberger? Hah!”

      Colonel, what’s wrong with Schlumberger? I know they compete with Haliburton in the oilfield services business, but they don’t do military engineering and construction like KBR. However, you seem to be implying that there is something else wrong with Schlumberger? Or am I misreading you? Got a personal reason for asking. Thanks.

    • Colonel1961 says:

      Haliburton is more of an American company than Schlumberger – yes, there both headquartered in Houston, but Schlumberger runs most of its business offshore (taxes, I assume). May have been a bit overzealous in my comment…

  29. jobeth says:

    Oh how I love it when an unsuspecting starry eyed lib walks through the door spouting off! LOL

    Think they will ever learn that they will be hit over the head with actual facts? Oh yeah….they are libs aren’t they?

    JUST LOVE THIS STUFF! Proud of you S & L ers!!

    Do just so I have it straight…You say Bush over spent? Ok…so, your boy’s fix is to quadruple it? Yep…now its fixed….for generations!

    And I can’t wait to hear from you once your rights are taken away so much even YOU can see they are gone. See you then!

  30. Colonel1961 says:

    Hey Lib: While reticent to share this – but as we are somewhat anonymous – I make more than the president and have assets that exceed the Obama’s, yet my wife wouldn’t dream of spending $900 or $6,000 on a purse – even though there would be no issue financially. Of course, my wife is an old-school, elegant debutante – not some nouveau middle-class ‘wannabe’. Michelle has no class and she has little taste nor sense of propriety. What a déclassé example to set for the world…

  31. proreason says:

    No 15. Mortgage relief. Why don’t we hear anything about that. It’s fallen off the radar because NOBODY QUALIFIES. Maybe I should have added that the promise has to work, not just be the motions.

    No 33. “apply interest rate increases only to future debt ” sorry. A lie. The wife’s credit card intersest is going up for current as well as future debt.

    No. 36: “Expand loan programs for small businesses” you’re kidding, aren’t you? Small businesses are failing left and right. It’s the biggest disaster in the country right now.

    No. 40: Extend and index the 2007 Alternative Minimum Tax patch. Maybe this one counts. I’d have to check. But really, Lib, do you want to cite this as one of the Moron’s accomplishments. You aren’t that petty, are you?

    No. 58: Expand eligibility for State Children’s Health Insurance Fund (SCHIP) This one might count. Of course, it’s also trivial. You could cite not smoking in the WH as one along the same lines (even though he has lied about that as well).

    But really, Lib, where is the evidence for any of these? You just grabbed a list and pasted it in.

    Can’t give you credit for meeting the challenge.

    But I will give you “liberal” credit for pretending you answered the challenge. You had “good intentions”. You “felt good” about your response. Some of it “might be correct”. And the parts that aren’t are “honest mistakes”, where you “misjudged the depth of the problem”. You can correct the problems if you “spend more time”.

    • Colonel1961 says:

      A ‘proreason’ Instant Classic!

    • proreason says:

      Thanks colonel.

      For a libwit, I kinda liked LibCynic. He was relatively polite, and hung on longer than the usual messy pants troll.

      I would let him by me lunch with my money if he wanted to.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      Now that’s “CLASSIC!!!!”

    • Colonel1961 says:

      And he’d leave a generous tip. ;-)

      Kinda like in ‘Christmas Vacation’ where cousin Earl asks Clark to buy presents for his family because he’s broke and then says ‘…and get somethin’ nice for you and Ellen, too.’

  32. Gladius et Scutum says:

    Can we get the marketing people from VBH fashions over to CIA? Do I recall that designers pay big time to get their stuff noticed? That “product placement” is big biz? Coup de etat!

    VBH certainly knows the bag, they not only got it into Ms. Obama’s hands, they called the MSM to raise the issue.

  33. bronzeprofessor says:

    Thank you for your poetic encomium, but I think you’re still in the process of deciding what you believe. You are more a cynic than a liberal. I wish you the best as you try to figure out where you stand.


  34. proreason says:

    “This after Bush tried to gut the constitution and bill of rights”

    Let’s see, separation of powers, exec branch in charge of the military, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, free press.

    Just can’t see where Bush gutted the constitution and bill of rights. Declaring it to be so doesn’t make it so.

    Now let’s think about the boy king. Trying to modify treaties on his own, overruled contract law for the Chrysler and GM deals, working to shut down talk radio, staging press conferences.

    The little man is making great progress on his quest to becoming a banana republic dictator.

    But of course, as he has said, the Constitution is flawed anyway. It’s an “impediment” to his arbitrary rule.

  35. neocon mom says:

    The hunger and thirst for Democracy in Iran is from the “saltiness” (if you will) from the budding democracies next door, Iraq and Afghanistan, which was part of the much maligned “neocon agenda”.

    It seems odd to me that the party and movement that is supposedly the champion of equality, that pushes for multicultural education in schools, opposes our actions in Iraq based on the notion that middle eastern individuals don’t deserve autonomy because they are somehow incapable of handling themselves. It’s the same argument that statists make so much of the time, they make freedom sound like an intolerable and dangerous burden. Therefore we are wasting our resources and troops’ lives on people who are not worth the trouble?

    So we didn’t choose to try to topple any number of rogue despots in the world, we only chose one where vital interests were at stake. How else should one choose?

    And do you echo the “great” Sean Penn when he declared on some awards show “we knew there weren’t any weapons!” Really? Even Hans Blix thought he would find weapons.

  36. bronzeprofessor says:

    haha — you’re just a provocateur! And to think you got a rise out of us by saying you were liberal! You get a gold star for pulling a fast one on us and shaking the cage.

    Everything you wrote above sounds “moderate” and “independent,” not liberal or Democrat. Just so you know, lots of conservatives on this site are not wild about Republican Party policies or history. So in some ways, you are one of us. Welcome.

  37. bronzeprofessor says:

    Neocon-Mama, Amen! I posted a similar comment in response to LibCynic’s statements on Iran. But you said it better here. Power to you.

  38. neocon mom says:

    If right and wrong are all just relative to you then why do you argue?
    No one can talk you out of your beliefs, unless you gained your beliefs by someone talking you into having them. Try learning from other things, like personal experience, and especially success and failure. Life is a great test of truth, and opinions, well, everyone has them.

  39. jobeth says:

    “The masses are asses.”

    Speak for yourself sir. You know yourself better than anyone so you should be able to reconize yourself in the mirror.

  40. neocon mom says:

    Thank you BP. To be honest, I hadn’t read everything through, but LibCynic’s comments caught my eye. Sorry for the unintentional plagarism.

  41. Liberals Demise says:

    I suppose those MIG 29’s buried in the desert were for “Show” only?
    Hows about the mini mobile trailers that could produce anthrax and other germs on the run………you think they are “Ice Cream” mobiles?
    Just because the MSM didn’t report the WHOLE story does not mean that things were not found and still are buried in the worlds biggest litterbox.
    How would “I” know this, you may ask? I am a Marine that was in the “KNOW” area of business and our business struck “GOLD!” The Army found their fair share of goodies in the sand, too! As for Hans Blix …..He was a UN tool easily duped at the shell game and the UN played footsie with Saddam.

  42. DGA says:

    Libcync, I’m not going to go into the details of your misguided theories about how obama will save your world, at least the world that libs like yourself make up so they can justify their treasonous activities. Know this: obama and the pelosi led congress are setting policies that will send this country into a economic downward death spiral. You try to attribute the reasons for the economic mess we are in to President Bush, but without doubt it was set up much longer ago than 8 years, and helped along by your buddies in acorn in pushing banks and lending institutions to breaking point. Bush tried a couple of times to stop the runaway mortgage crisis, as did McCain, but couldn’t get it done. Always remember this: you can’t spend your way out of a recession by pretending that the government will give good value to the taxpayer by hiring millions of people. It will give good value to those hired for a while but all govt. workers end up being tax revenue sucking leeches on the system, unable to be fired ever, and we the taxpayer will have to view them as simply welfare parasites.

    If you are in total agreement with obama and pelosi about their economic policies, then side with them and start paying off your credit cards with cash advances from your other recently obtained credit cards. No sane person (libs excluded) actually considers doing this, so why would it be a sound economic policy for the strongest country in the world to try it??

  43. canary says:

    On the Obama plantation, Michelle has little children slaving in her garden, and both masters give speeches about community work.

    So, why didn’t she take the 9000 dollars and pay her slaves. After all, they don’t get food, or room and board, even.

    Oh. That’s right. The sweat house slaves are to go home and teach their families how to garden

    because Obama is trying to pass a bill that will put rural farming out of business.

    Socialist Obama is upset of the broad range between low income and the rich in his homeland Indonesia.

    He’s mad because his mom had to quit selling cheap handmade basket purses, and go to work for the embassy. And her HMO insurance she had while in Indonesia compliments from the America she hated, wasn’t good enough quality
    and the Obombies didn’t want to help, or help out his brother dying of AIDS in
    Africa either. And there’s the brother in the shack, after jailed wearing the same black and white hand me down sweater, he wore at king obombies inaugeration.

    Michelle makes a poor role model because many blacks believe they should continue in drug dealing and gangbanging to buy their gold.

    On the other hand Nancy Reagan’s service as first Lady was focused on keeping children off of drugs.

    Prehaps Michelle got a discount for advertising.
    I’m sure it could provide clean water and food for those poor people dying in Africa.
    Ya know, the place the Obambies will not let America forget Michello’s family roots of slavery. Now they have their own slaves. The put a nice ring to it
    volunteer, community service, and grow the most pure organic garden for the masters.

  44. I hate when I miss a lib ranting endlessly and not making any sense. Any way we could start getting an instant notification for these? It would really make my day :-D

  45. GL0120 says:

    As Michele was heard to say when the story broke – Let ’em carry Coach!

  46. Rusty Shackleford says:

    And all of LibCynics posts are gone. Why is that?

    SG, did you do that?

    • TNpatriot says:

      I have to add my two cents here. I am not a frequent poster, but am a frequent reader and find this site very informative.
      I do have to say though, it could use a little more of the other sides viewpoints. I find the mostly polite discourse here a welcome alternative to the hatred spewed on every liberal blog I have ever visited. I do agree there is no need for any petty name calling but let the libs post their views. I do visit the huffpost quite often because I like to see how they other side thinks, and to be honest I truely enjoy pointing out their hypocrisy. I do not engage in debate there however because only about 10% of my posts make it through their liberal filter.

      Just my humble opinion, but let them have their voice here, I think it would improve the site.

    • DW says:

      TNpatriot, you make an excellent point, but it might pay to bear in mind that this site is five weeks shy of its fourth year of operation.
      You can just imagine the amount of crap and vitriol that comes in here on a daily basis, and over the years it has all been dealt with by one guy -Steve Gilbert.

      I missed seeing LibCynic’s posts so I can’t comment on them, but given the above-mentioned stats, I’m inclined to give Steve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to maintaining his site.
      (as long as he doesn’t do something that I disagree with :-)

      Just my .02 (your mileage may vary)

    • TNpatriot says:

      I did not mean any disrespect to Steve. In my post I admitted that I am a frequent visitor to huffpo and I must admit when I first found this site and compared just the number of comments to made on the huffpo I was disconcerted. My first reaction was that conservatives are just way behind in the blogging world. However, after some deeper comparison I find you can’t really even compare the two sites. Being nice to huffpo I would have to say 99.9% of the post there are either mere incoherent babble or one liners demanding all “rebups” are evil. They simply don’t allow facts and coherent arguments that don’t fit their agenda.

      My only point was that I truely believe we are better than that. I enjoy a robust debate, and would like to hear some. Obviously huffpo is not the place for them.

      That being said I did not mean to imply that we need the comments here filled up with the kind of hate spewed on liberal blogs. If I wanted to hear what a ignorant white southerner I am I wouldn’t come here at all.

    • DW says:

      Sorry, I never meant to imply that you were being disrespectful. I know you weren’t.
      I guess the trick is finding a lib that can participate in an adult discussion for any length of time. Granted, the members here (including me) can be a bit too robust in their arguments when dealing with libs.
      Hopefully, eventually, we’ll all be able to discuss things on a rational plane.

      P.S. :
      I am not a frequent poster, but am a frequent reader…
      Post more. The more thoughtful people who post – the more likely we are to achieve those rational discussions.
      (my .03 – this is starting to cost me!)

  47. CIV says:

    Excuse me folks, but we’ve gotten off topic. Now, back to Michelle’s bag. Alligator?! Has anyone contacted PETA yet?

    • katmeredith says:

      Excellent point that I hadn’t seen touched upon as yet. PETA should be very interested in this. But where are they? Perhaps they too are overwhelmed by the Obamas.

  48. canary says:

    The Honorable James David Manning Ph.d Atlah World Wide ministries speaks
    of Obama like no other has had the courage to. Excerpt from his Oblation Hour speech. My prayers are with him, as his are with the USA. God Bless the USA


    And this speech is GP rated compared Obama’s vulgar obscenities, racist mockery, and condescending remarks towards both the blacks and whites in his Abomination of Hope. Obama can’t complain with worse vulgar discriptions and stereo-typing of every race, and decent Americans that felt above.

  49. untrainable says:

    What’s all this talk about a $5,950 bag… and her purse?
    Oh, it’s only a $900 patent leather purse. That’s supposed to make me feel better?
    I thought a clutch was that pedal in the car that isn’t the gas or the brake. You know , the one you step on to change gears… Now if it was a clutch for a car, $900 would be about right. But for a chunk of patent leather with a snap to keep your snot rags, sunglasses, and lipstick… COME ON? Someone get Mrs. O a $5 fanny pack. She’s blessed with the necessary “back” for it, and it would free up her hands to spend some REAL cash.

  50. untrainable says:

    Don’t be sorry. If you can laugh, maybe you won’t cry. I spend a lot of time crying these days.

  51. wardmama4 says:

    Darn it – I missed all of LCs comments – always, always about evil bushitlerburtonco and the gazzilions wasted on war. . .It’s getting old.

    But first LC (in case you are checking up on the responses to you) : Read the Constitution (you can get a free pocket copy at Heritage.org) : Defense of the Nation is the only Constitutionally mandated expense!! Woohoo – Big Surprise. Cry all you want about Education, food, shelter and whatever for whomever – those are not mandated by the Constitution.

    And it is not all Boooshes fault – as any military action and the funding to do it – is voted on and approved in Congress!

    Lastly – I’ve always thought that the two prong war (Iraq & Afghanistan) had only a little to do with Iraq & Afghanistan but more to contain the financial and ideological backer of the GWOT – Iran – imagine how incensed they became when they realized in March of 2003 – they had the best damn fighting force in the World to the West and to the East of them. . .

    However in American Thinker (Why I’m Thankful for George W. Bush) is this telling line from General Tommy Franks –
    “We will close with and engage the enemy at a time and place of our choosing.”

    Do you get it? Instead of invading 15 countries of the World and ferreting out al-Qaeda operatives – and wasting hundreds of thousands of American and innocent foreign lives – crafty ole’ bumblin’ stumblin’ boooshe and his military bots – brought the fight to them on their terms

    Either way – to contain Iran or to bring the jihadists to Iraq – we freed millions from Saddam’s dictatorship, took out Saddam, his sons and most of the regime leadership – captured (again) the Leader of the Achille Lauro hijacking (which killed one American – Leon Klinghoffer ) – Abu Abbas – not to mention all the other assorted terrorists, insurgents and foreign political operatives. Which for me is well worth the ‘expense’ – so much more so than – ACORN or Fannie & Freddie – which have destroyed the American political/election process and the American economy.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »