Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
80 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: What is this "tone deaf" you speak of? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Not too long ago Anne Romney was verbally attacked and demeaned by some crazed biotch who happened to be an adviser to Mister Barry Obama, the current president of the United States of America. It made all the news everywhere including MSNBC, although they felt the attack was justified because, let's face it, Anne Romney is white, Mormon and has no drug history. Definitely not someone to admire or look up to. Plus, she's valiantly fighting a debilitating disease, and that's just icky.

Then, she decided to defend herself and made the rounds but also made a mistake in her clothing choice. Apparently the shirt she wore cost $900 and was also pretty ugly. Oh man! That was an outrage and the media attacked like a pack of rabid, starving, gluttonous, depraved hyenas... or, to put it in context, they acted like the RSP liberals act when I make a post.

How dare that rich piece of shit Mormon bitch pretend to be normal???!!! Nobody wears a $900 shirt unless they're tone deaf to the plight of Americans in this economy and so detached from reality that their husband clearly could not keep America from careening into the ditch GW Bush eagerly tried to drive us into and which Mister Barry Obama is heroically, like a one-man flatbed tow truck, keeping us from falling into at too fast a pace.

So, "tone deaf" apparently means the modern day equivalent of Marie Antoinette: "Fuck the plebes, I don't really like this place unless my husband is king."

When I found an item this morning depicting Mrs. Barry Obama in London wearing a truly ugly and ungainly "jacket" that costs... ready?... $6800! I expected to see this shocking piece of tone deafness plastered across all the main news sites. After all, if that Mo' bitch is pilloried for an ugly $900 t-shirt then Michelle deserves to be drawn and quartered for an even more unappealing garment that ups the Antoinette Factor by 900%. Right? Right? No way the media, because they are all impartial no matter your politics, are going to let her get away with that.

Imagine my surprise when I checked Google News, Yahoo News, CNN and MSNBC to see if they are at least demanding Michelle Obama buy a few things from Target and have a photo op where she demonstrates how well she understands bar code readers - but it was *crickets*. Not a single mention of the offending piece of ugliness. I even clicked on the "politics" sections and my eyes crossed with a dizzying array of stories about Romney being a fumbling moron and practically pooping in public on his whirlwind tour of three small nations over there somewhere.

All this makes me wonder... and you RSP Libs are my go to guys when I need fast answers for acts of duplicity, bias, slanderous language and snide and demeaning attacks on anyone who ask the questions I ask... Why is Anne "White Bread" Romney a tone deaf pampered woman for wearing a $900 shirt and Michelle "Thunder Thighs" Obama gets nothing but fawning and shoe lickings from the press when she wears a $7000 garment?

Sorry about the tone deafness of my post here, if I ever come across anything even approaching impartiality in the media I promise to not be so full of bile, vomitous acrimony, poisonous sarcasm and unerring clarity.

But I still am curious how you can defend a press that is so obviously supportive of the democrat here.

Ugly, horrid, tone deaf garment


*note - I didn't actually check the Fox News site because I rely on the RSP liberals to keep me up to date on what they are doing.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As a rabid, starving, gluttonous, depraved hyena, I am outraged you have made a post.

As to the substance of the post, a Washington Post writer has made the great point that the whole criticism of the candidates wives is sexist. Nobody criticizes Mitt or Barack for their expensive suits, ties and shoes and the apparent disconnect from the plight of the working man.

In Michelle's defense for this one particular situation, she was going to a function where the Queen of England would be attending. That's not something John Q. Public gets to attend and as a representative of out country she should try to not look like she just came from running errands at Walmart. Now if you want to compare her other expensive clothing/accessories she wears to more mundane events to Anne's t-shirt, than you are on steadier ground. Still, the whole subject, down to "Thunder Thighs" (I mean, you won't ever hear anyone call Mitt "Droopy Man-Boobs") is sexist and the media needs to wake up to their stupidity.
9 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Meh. Didn't care when it was about the Romney's, don't care about it now. If I could explain the different media reactions to you, I would, but frankly I don't think you'd listen even if there was a good reason.

Rich people are rich, I don't know why anyone would think it odd for either Ann Romney or Michelle Obama to wear a $900 t-shirt or $7000 jacket. That's what rich people do. If I made as much money as Romney or Obama I wouldn't be driving a Nissan or wearing polo shirts from Kohl's. Why would you? I don't shop at Wal-Mart because I don't have to. The more money you make, the farther that cutoff moves up the ladder.

7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
who happened to be an adviser to Mister Barry Obama.

False.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Hawaii
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:

In Michelle's defense for this one particular situation, she was going to a function where the Queen of England would be attending.

LOL!

I don't care what either of them are wearing, but it's absurd to propose that because it's a fancy dinner a $7k jacket is justified.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jarredscott78 wrote:
TheChin! wrote:

In Michelle's defense for this one particular situation, she was going to a function where the Queen of England would be attending.

LOL!

I don't care what either of them are wearing, but it's absurd to propose that because it's a fancy dinner a $7k jacket is justified.


Gotta remember, $7k to someone with famous-person money is not the same as $7k to you or me.

Everything is relative. For me, $7k is a nice vacation. To someone out there, $7k is six months living expenses. For someone else, $7k is dinner and a couple bottles of decent wine with their spouse.

Unless you're going to join Victor railing for income equality, you can't really judge what rich people spend their money on. I'll bet TheChin is right, and there were plenty of $7k jackets and $10k suits and $15k handbags at that event with the Queen, because that's just what you do when you have that kind of money.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jarredscott78 wrote:
TheChin! wrote:

In Michelle's defense for this one particular situation, she was going to a function where the Queen of England would be attending.

LOL!

I don't care what either of them are wearing, but it's absurd to propose that because it's a fancy dinner a $7k jacket is justified.


I guess I reserve judgement on that until I hear a list of what other guests wore and their costs. Since this was a pre-release jacket, I'd also be interested to know if it actually was purchased or was it loaned to Michelle as a promo. All for the sake of justifying her decision mind you.

I would like some comparison of Mitt and Brack's clothing costs also, for comparison's sake. I think all four of them should be wearing Sears clothing. Or at least affordable clothing made in the U.S., if that exists anymore.
5 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:

I would like some comparison of Mitt and Brack's clothing costs also, for comparison's sake. I think all four of them should be wearing Sears clothing. Or at least affordable clothing made in the U.S., if that exists anymore.


It doesn't. If it's affordable, it wasn't made in the U.S. Unless you count American Apparel, but I'd really rather not see anyone who could be President wearing that hipster shit.
1 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2180702/Michelle-O... http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2012/07/30/255-Mic... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/so-m... http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/fashion/lady-michelle-...

It certainly seems to have been reported.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Why didn't the media cover the jacket and it's cost? That's the question. I don't need a lesson in economics and lifestyle. Defend the duplicity of the press in this regard.

You'll note, in the article I linked the guy reports that Mrs. Barry Obama happens to own a $1000 handbag by the same designer Mrs. Mitt Romney was criticized for spending Mitt's money on.

Is the only defense gonna be that this was the Queen of England? Really? Does anyone seriously think that justifies the media bias?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
Why didn't the media cover the jacket and it's cost? That's the question. I don't need a lesson in economics and lifestyle. Defend the duplicity of the press in this regard.

You'll note, in the article I linked the guy reports that Mrs. Barry Obama happens to own a $1000 handbag by the same designer Mrs. Mitt Romney was criticized for spending Mitt's money on.

Is the only defense gonna be that this was the Queen of England? Really? Does anyone seriously think that justifies the media bias?


Nope. No one has tried to justify the media bias. As I said, I don't think you'd listen even if I had a justification, and I don't, so what's the point. You win! Extra peaches on your cottage cheese today!
8 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chaendlmaier wrote:

George Washington is rolling in his grave. He would have gone their in an overall and taken a dump on the banquet.


He is? How many saving throws does that guy get?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
CHAPEL
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmb
Did Tripp just use a ShreveportLAGamer thread as a one up against us? Haha. Seriously, ShreveportLAGamer?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Meh. Didn't care when it was about the Romney's, don't care about it now. If I could explain the different media reactions to you, I would, but frankly I don't think you'd listen even if there was a good reason.

Rich people are rich, I don't know why anyone would think it odd for either Ann Romney or Michelle Obama to wear a $900 t-shirt or $7000 jacket. That's what rich people do. If I made as much money as Romney or Obama I wouldn't be driving a Nissan or wearing polo shirts from Kohl's. Why would you? I don't shop at Wal-Mart because I don't have to. The more money you make, the farther that cutoff moves up the ladder.



2 points.

1) As to why would you? Because there are better things to do with the money, including giving it away. For the record I note that Sam Walton (founder of Wal-mart) and the Buffet (as in Warren) didn't/don't waste money on overpriced status symbols. So not all rich people feel the need to do things like that.

2) On this subject Trippy has a point. I remember the horrendous hoopla that was made of Palin's clothes last election cycle, while nobody said anything about Clinton's wardrobe which was just as expensive.

Now it is a free country and everybody has a right to spend their personal money however they want. However, if wearing overpriced designer clothing makes Republicans "out of touch" elitists who don't care about the poor, why do Democrats, who campaign strongly on supposed concern for the poor, get a free pass from criticism on personal wasteful spending? Seems to me they should get a double slam rather than a pass. Since for them there is a strongly implied hypocrisy via lifestyle choice being put on display.

If you only care about the poor enough to spend OTHER PEOPLE'S money on them, as far as I am concerned you don't really care about them. Using the poor as a tool to manipulate public opinion for political gain without any more genuine caring for them than any other rich 1% is extra sleazy in my personal opinion.

FYI IMO Chin has an even better point, the focus on only the women's overpriced wardrobes is horribly sexist.

9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Quote:
FYI IMO Chin has an even better point, the focus on only the women's overpriced wardrobes is horribly sexist.


Huh? To the best of my knowledge the only places that exist where men can buy grown-up clothes are Mens Wearhouse and JC Penneys. Everywhere else sells skinny jeans, shoes without laces and sheer, summer-weight hoodies for that urban metrosexual look. Oh, and hair gel so you can get the top of your hair to look like a fuzzy turd is laying on your head.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Meerkat wrote:
2) On this subject Trippy has a point. I remember the horrendous hoopla that was made of Palin's clothes last election cycle, while nobody said anything about Clinton's wardrobe which was just as expensive.


Campbell Brown (and others) addressed this issue at the time. It wasn't so much about partisan bias as it was about sexism.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Meerkat wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Meh. Didn't care when it was about the Romney's, don't care about it now. If I could explain the different media reactions to you, I would, but frankly I don't think you'd listen even if there was a good reason.

Rich people are rich, I don't know why anyone would think it odd for either Ann Romney or Michelle Obama to wear a $900 t-shirt or $7000 jacket. That's what rich people do. If I made as much money as Romney or Obama I wouldn't be driving a Nissan or wearing polo shirts from Kohl's. Why would you? I don't shop at Wal-Mart because I don't have to. The more money you make, the farther that cutoff moves up the ladder.



2 points.

1) As to why would you? Because there are better things to do with the money, including giving it away. For the record I note that Sam Walton (founder of Wal-mart) and the Buffet (as in Warren) didn't/don't waste money on overpriced status symbols. So not all rich people feel the need to do things like that.

2) On this subject Trippy has a point. I remember the horrendous hoopla that was made of Palin's clothes last election cycle, while nobody said anything about Clinton's wardrobe which was just as expensive.

Now it is a free country and everybody has a right to spend their personal money however they want. However, if wearing overpriced designer clothing makes Republicans "out of touch" elitists who don't care about the poor, why do Democrats, who campaign strongly on supposed concern for the poor, get a free pass from criticism on personal wasteful spending? Seems to me they should get a double slam rather than a pass. Since for them there is a strongly implied hypocrisy via lifestyle choice being put on display.

If you only care about the poor enough to spend OTHER PEOPLE'S money on them, as far as I am concerned you don't really care about them. Using the poor as a tool to manipulate public opinion for political gain without any more genuine caring for them than any other rich 1% is extra sleazy in my personal opinion.

FYI IMO Chin has an even better point, the focus on only the women's overpriced wardrobes is horribly sexist.



Just because Sam Walton posed for some photo ops in his beat up old pickup doesn't mean he didn't--ahem--"waste money" on luxury items. Same for Warren Buffet.

What's with the rant about "spending other people's money" on the poor? This is the endless slippery slope--how much of someone's personal money needs to be given to the poor for that person to justify a commitment to social safety net programs? If Mitt Romney gives $50m a year to charity and still has enough money to buy $900 t-shirts, does that mean he doesn't care about the poor? Come on, Lynette. You're not even making sense with this.

TheChin is right, it's always about the women, but I don't think it's focused on one side or the other. Sure, in this case Tripp is right and no one has run with this $7k jacket story. Then again, a few months ago the big story was Michelle Obama spending several thousand dollars on underwear at some store I can't remember. Moreover, the press hasn't reported every time Ann Romney wears something expensive either. I don't know that it's totally partisan, although I'm sure there's some of that. It's certainly biased against the women, though.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Holt
England
Rayleigh
Essex
flag msg tools
This is not the cat you're looking for - some other cat maybe?
badge
tout passe, tout lasse, tout casse
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Perhaps that there's no plausible reason for spending more than $50 - well perhaps $100 if really special - for a T-shirt whereas for a tailored couture jacket the sky's pretty much the limit.
The important thing about clothes worn by rich people at important events is that, unless they are trying to make a different particular point, it has to be different from that worn by the hoi polloi*. Depending on the person and the situation this might be fairly subtle (like the suits worn by Prince Charles or David Cameron but there's a word of difference between Saville Row and Moss Bros.) or in-your-face unique fashion.

* pedants may point out that I should not have prefixed this with the definite article as such is implicit in the original greek - other pedants disagree.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
Why didn't the media cover the jacket and it's cost? That's the question. I don't need a lesson in economics and lifestyle. Defend the duplicity of the press in this regard.

You'll note, in the article I linked the guy reports that Mrs. Barry Obama happens to own a $1000 handbag by the same designer Mrs. Mitt Romney was criticized for spending Mitt's money on.

Is the only defense gonna be that this was the Queen of England? Really? Does anyone seriously think that justifies the media bias?


YOu have read those links, they all mention the cost of the coat nad the controvesy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chaendlmaier wrote:
TheChin! wrote:
In Michelle's defense for this one particular situation, she was going to a function where the Queen of England would be attending. That's not something John Q. Public gets to attend and as a representative of our country she should try to not look like she just came from running errands at Walmart.

George Washington is rolling in his grave. He would have gone their in an overall and taken a dump on the banquet.


Bollocks, Washingtion was a land owning artisto. He was a rich and toffy nosed as they come.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:


Just because Sam Walton posed for some photo ops in his beat up old pickup doesn't mean he didn't--ahem--"waste money" on luxury items. Same for Warren Buffet.


I think there is a huge difference between a genuine luxury/personal indulgence and a status symbol. Some of which is personal but much of which is often fairly obviously just about displaying wealth for all the reasons people do that.

Some luxuries can make perfect sense. For example a personal jet for a person whose time is worth thousands of $ an hour or who needs so much personal security or travels with such a large staff that on every flight they would be paying for 6-10 tickets in addition to their own makes economic sense.

There is a genuine value argument to be made for the luxury of quality. A $500 suit might really be of enough higher quality which fits better and will last longer so that it really is worth the additional costs over a $150 suit from Sears. However a $5,000 suit is mostly about showing off that you can afford a $5,000 suit.




Quote:


What's with the rant about "spending other people's money" on the poor? This is the endless slippery slope--how much of someone's personal money needs to be given to the poor for that person to justify a commitment to social safety net programs? If Mitt Romney gives $50m a year to charity and still has enough money to buy $900 t-shirts, does that mean he doesn't care about the poor? Come on, Lynette. You're not even making sense with this.


On some level each person has to answer that for themselves, but for the most part yes I would say anybody buying $900 T-shirts (for real, not some charity promo thing) has some perspective problems if they at the same time are asserting they really care about poor and hurting in the world.

This is where that pesky religion of mine gets in the mix again.

Jesus said to the rich young man, sell ALL that you have and give it to the poor then come follow me. When the young man went always sad he said it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

At the point that the trappings of wealth become more important than people those things become literal traps. In addition to being outward signs of genuine personal priorities. Nobody needs $900 T-shirts if they are just clothing (not some new Kevlar or other duel function item). If you are spending $900 on T-shirts and you say you care about the poor, you need a wake up call because your personal priorities are out of skew.

We as a planet have the technology and resource wealth to eliminate genuine subsistence level poverty AND do so in a more environmentally sustainable way than the first world currently lives. What we lack as a culture overall is the will to voluntarily share the wealth.

If Mitt Romney gives $50m a year to charity and still has enough money to buy $900 t-shirts he is still giving only from his great excess of wealth.

Which Jesus addresses when He sees a widow giving her two mites (pennies to us) and points out that her gift is far more meaningful to God than the huge donations given by the rich. Because hers represents a genuine sacrifice. It was likely all the discretionary resources that she had. Not just some of the overflow from the massive excess at her disposal. Her commitment to caring for others was real and wholehearted and her trust in God to meet her minimal needs was absolute. Not just a comfortable and/or showy (status symbol) kind of giving.



Now politically I happen to fully support the idea of well run social safety net programs. Even though I think the government often is a really bad and wasteful way to administer them. And a social safety net is different than blanket goals of wealth redistribution.

Still overall I tend to lean more toward even a badly run safety net is better than no safety net. So I support politically many if not most "welfare" legislation.

However I bristle a lot when people start equating agreement on which political strategies as a nation we should take as synonymous with "Caring" about about the poor and try to paint some super rich people as more caring than other super rich people based on political party affiliations.

The truth is that NONE of these super rich politicians care enough personally about the "poor" to sacrifice until it hurts. Which is evident in dozens of ways even before we start looking at wardrobe budgets.

So what I would like to see is an end to the double standards of the media painting one group of super rich (Democrats and Celebrities) as more caring and charitable than another group of super rich (Republicans and Business people) based on politics rather than how they actually live and contribute to the community and world around them.


It is like considering Barbra Streisand an "environmentalist" because she gives money to Democrats and says things like.. "We must make concrete changes in our lifestyles to help solve this energy crisis and now is the time to do it. ... Turn up your thermostat to 78 degrees when you're home, and 85 degrees when you're out. ... Use warm or cold water to wash clothes and try to line dry as much as possible. ...Only run your dishwasher when it is fully loaded." on her website and to reporters while simultaneously maintaining 3 fully functional homes, but in different styles, ON THE SAME GROUNDS for her personal use which all stay air conditioned to her comfort levels even when not in use. When asked why the suggestions for conservation on Streisand Web site were not being followed by her own life style, her spokesman told a reporter "She never meant that it necessarily applied to her."

As somebody who actually cares deeply about Global Climate Change and who spends precious hours of my every week recycling and trying to do at least some things to minimize my footprint, I would rather deal with an honest climate change denier, as annoying as they are, than deal with a Barbra Streisand "Environmentalist". Her lifestyle screams "convenient" lies. If she really believes Global Warming is happening AND genuinely CARES about it... how can she possibly justify her excessive "footprint". Mouthing out a bunch of rules for others that don't apply to yourself is the height of deceit.

That the press doesn't highlight the asininity of these contradictory spoken verses lived realities while simultaneously creating and helping to feed the propaganda machines of sound bite politics which paint one group as of higher personal quality than the other drives me absolutely nuts.

If personally "caring about the poor" is really an issue that effects how somebody votes than the press should be making clear that there is very little actual evidentiary difference between Romney and Obama.




7 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorge Montero
United States
St Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
I'll take Manhattan in a garbage bag. With Latin written on it that says "It's hard to give a shit these days"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Being married to a wife that has a $990 t-shirt shows that Mitt is ready to head the DoD, not become president.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
Fascinating that this is the type of stuff that people are clinging onto in trying to come up with reasons to vote/not vote for Romney.

Darilian
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Meerkat wrote:
A $500 suit might really be of enough higher quality which fits better and will last longer so that it really is worth the additional costs over a $150 suit from Sears. However a $5,000 suit is mostly about showing off that you can afford a $5,000 suit.

If you are an adult male that requires a suit for work often, i.e. out of college and in the workforce in a professional capacity, $500 is really the bare minimum for a suit. As the price goes up from there, the defects will go down, the tailoring and fit better, etc. The $5k suit is worth $5k because it fits perfectly, will last forever, and looks great. You can probably get those attributes at half the price though.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
Fascinating that this is the type of stuff that people are clinging onto in trying to come up with reasons to vote/not vote for Romney.

Darilian

I thought this was a thread about Michelle Obama, or media bias, or anything but reasons not to vote Romney?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.