It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Liberal Media Reaches New Low -- Attacks Roberts Childrens' Clothing

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 07:47 AM
link   
As Bout Time so astutely pointed out:



This was penned by the paper's fashion reporter....duh! This is what people in her line of work do - talk about cloths & the message they send!!


This isn't even an issue. It's a good attempt at making it one, though.




posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Actually, Marg, it looks to me like the poor woman has a migraine. I know that's how I feel like I look when I have one.
Pink is NOT her color.

But, is it a crime to dress conservatively when your husband is nominated for the Supremes?


I remember a few times in which I attended ceremonies link to my husband been in the military, but the first few times after been in situations like that, I would not bring my children with me.

Now as for the outfit I realy think is was over done. Plus she looks hot and her hair is so stuck in her head I can imaging how uncomfortable she was.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   
That Shows ya....
Thats stupid that liberals would attack the way the kids are dressed my god...



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Proud

It wasn't an "attack", unless English isn't your strong suit.

All

Hell, I think the kids look cute. I could do without the boy's suit shorts (as in put him in pants), but I would dress my daughter in that dress.

It's beautiful really.

When push comes to shove, perhaps they are simply dressed that way because the parents like it. It's not so odd.

My wife and I feel like we are born in the wrong generation too. Perhaps they like it.

It really isn't a proven fact that they were used as marketing, but it's the price of politics if they were.

They all do it, which really makes it worse, but no one cares enough to do anything about anything, so this is the least of our problems really.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Aaactually, guys, the reporter's accusation that the image is being crafted is pretty much on the mark. Most of you won't remember it (but I do, vividly) -- they're doing a take on the Kennedy family.

Little John Kennedy (John-John) wore exactly that kind of suit for public photos. His sister was dressed similarly.

And that shade of pinkwas one of Jacqueline Kennedy's favorite shades (I believe; she had several outfits in that color). That was the color she was wearing the day her husband was killed. Her hairstyle is somewhat similar to Jacqueline's as well.

So, yes, I think they had an image consultant or someone versed in crafting images talking to them (the Republicans have a number of people like this on their team.)

All that the photo needed was white gloves for the wife and a pillbox hat.

As Marg points out, in the effort (if there is one, rather than simply bad taste going on here) to look like the Kennedy family, the kids and wife are dressed rather inappropriately.

So my call is that someone advised a subtle reference-makeover to a Kennedy Family dynasty. And it doesn't work. The Kennedys were natural and dressed the style of the day -- this looks like a bad docudrama.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
So my call is that someone advised a subtle reference-makeover to a Kennedy Family dynasty. And it doesn't work. The Kennedys were natural and dressed the style of the day -- this looks like a bad docudrama.


On point insight.
It certainly shows poor judgement on his part to decide to dress his family so repressively as an allusion to a more simple time. But let's not be so hard on him. It's not like it's his job to rule what people can and can't put on their body. He's merely up for Chief Justice of the Untied States of America. And I like him because he's dumb like me. That's what matters. I fear savvy intellect.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   
What HIS wife puts on her body is NONE of our business. That's a private matter and strictly her choice. I certainly hope to God that those nasty Senators leave this man alone in confirmation hearings on his private views on the "so called right to privacy" as well. After all, it's none of OUR business what he thinks on that matter either. Those are his private reflections on whether or not MY wife should have more children. How inappropriate would that be to demand to know?



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   
I have to agree with BoutTime. This is another sensationalistic liberal-slam title without the story to back it up.

The story is about the deliberate crafting of the image of the family to resemble a more innocent, carefree time of the past that many perhaps long for, not an attack on the pooa widdle childwen.



Originally posted by Herman
Hm, perhaps I'm being dim, but I didn't really see anything unpleasant in what the writer was saying about them. It seemed to me that he was pretty much just describing how they were dressed!


You're not dim, Herman. Just open-minded and perceptive as usual...



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You're not dim, Herman. Just open-minded and perceptive as usual...


Thanks man, I try
. Yeah I usually agree with Djohnsto on stuff, but I just don't really see anything wrong here.

Not to put anything against you or anything dj. You're still number 1 haha.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Those clothes cost more than my pickup. I wish I could afford to dress my kids and wife like that but since my job was sent to Sri Lanka they will just have to settle for Tshirts and jeans.

Why the whitehouse tries to even pull off this contrived BS is beyond me.

Hey toto, were not in Kansas anymore. Schools OUT!!



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 03:56 AM
link   
Queer Eye for the Conservative Guy


washingtonpost.com > Print Edition > Style




So let me get this straight, djohnsto77. You are attacking liberal media's "Style" section?

If they made fun of Bush not matching his belt and shoes, would you still be so worked up?


Gwyneth Paltrow was distraught yesterday at being unable to attend the Venice Film Festival when "technical problems" forced her flight from New York to turn back. The 32-year-old actress hoped to promote her latest film, "Proof," which is one of 19 entries vying for the event's Golden Lion award.


From the same section of the Post. Now there's something to get worked up about! Damn you liberal media style section!

EDIT:

By the way djohnsto77, I agree with you. I think that retro look is



Vey Jackie-O!

Earth tones are definitely going out, and I think pastels are going to be really big this winter.


[edit on 6-9-2005 by curme]



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   
And in 10 years time, the kid will look like this:




new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join