To: kristinn
Those are some ugly shoes and look very uncomfortable!
3 posted on
12/28/2009 7:19:48 PM PST by
mystery-ak
(gopbriefingroom.com)
To: mystery-ak
Just goes to show she’s stupid. Nobody with half a brain would pay that kind of money for those shoes.
13 posted on
12/28/2009 7:24:07 PM PST by
McLynnan
To: mystery-ak
Actually, think they look very comfortable. . .but not particularly attractive. Think Michelle cannot always show her shoulders/biceps in winter perhaps; so our gaze is now directed at her exposed feet.
Overall impression with print dress is that only market basket on head is missing, IMHO.
30 posted on
12/28/2009 7:37:19 PM PST by
cricket
('Don't bow for me Obama ' (America's 'sorry' President)http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSW)
To: mystery-ak
My husband can vouch for the fact that “I looove shoes”. I would not put those shoes on my doggie. They are heinous and the designer should be slapped and sterilized.
44 posted on
12/28/2009 7:48:03 PM PST by
brwnsuga
(Not a Slave!)
To: mystery-ak
Very ugly. I wouldn’t pay $6.35 for them.
To: mystery-ak
Ugly shoes, yes.
And those legs could stop a clock also.
123 posted on
12/29/2009 6:55:25 AM PST by
Scanian
To: mystery-ak
Ugly shoes in even uglier feet
Yuck
To: mystery-ak
Those are some ugly shoes and look very uncomfortable! They certainly do not camouflage some very ugly feet -- it seems almost every photo posted zooming in on her feet, terribly unattractive. Does this woman not know the benefits of a bottle of "Pretty Feet and Hands"??
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson