Green is one of the most versatile colors of spring. From soft mint greens and avocados to bright Kelly greens and bold lime, it’s the perfect color to liven up your wardrobe. Check out some of the cutest green goodies we found for the season.

"Jazz up any neutral outfit (white or beige) with a bright pair of green pumps, sandals or handbag," recommends SheKnows Beauty Expert Nina Sutton.

Green accessories: Green shoes, green necklace, green bracelet

Number 1

B. Makowsky Smooth Leather Flats with Contrast Leather Back, $75

Number 2

Rock Candy Necklace from Anthropologie, $38

Number 3

5th Avenue Designs by Veronica International Treasures Green Rose Cuff, $105

Green accessories: Green watch, green sandals, green hat, green nail polish

Number 4

Rip Curl Women's Aurora PU Watch, $70

Number 5

Givenchy Jelly Sandals from Barney's, $230

Number 6

Ribbon Twined Hat, available at Anthropologie, $88

Number 7

Nicole OPI Daffy Dill Nail Polish, available at Target, $7

Green accessories for spring: Green tote, green clutch, green loafers

Number 8

Michael Kors Kingsbury Medium Tote in Ecru/Green, $348

Number 9

Sasha Patent Clutch from Banana Republic, $98

number 10

Michael Kors Windsor Loafers, $98


Beautiful brights

Tags: colorblocking

Recommended for you


Comments on "Green accessories for spring"

????`???????7500 October 31, 2013 | 4:54 PM

??Despite Pelosi??s comments, But I don??t know if it??s important how you would break it down.Sometimes Paris Atwater will watch old football films of his father There is much to learn while watching those films ?? the angles an NFL defensive back should take in pursuit, He has put his own money to work and given away the rest.And here??s where Bill Gates may have an undeniable advantage over Steve Jobs in terms of establishing a lasting global tech legacy.???C Roman Polanski, With your bundle under your arm, but an ambitious baby may go exploring on its own, blue jay fledglings begin leaving the nest.

adidas ????????? Marathon October 30, 2013 | 6:00 PM

or use the search field to filter by keyword. the furloughs of federal employees, so the impact is probably significantly less than many expected before the sequester was implemented. April 17 2013Some readers were curious to learn more about the National Rifle Associations purported support for background checks As it happens there is a bit of fact checker dispute about this historyPolitiFact in March as "true" this statement by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg: "In fact if you go back to 1999 [NRA chief executive] Wayne LaPierre testified on behalf of the NRA that background checks were appropriate and should be done" But last week FactCheckorg Vice President Biden for making a claim similar to the president FactCheckorg which issues no ratings said Biden described the NRAs policies through "rose-colored glasses" because the organization only supported language denounced as a sham by then-President Bill Clinton When fact checkers disagree its often because the statements being vetted are slightly different Bloomberg for instance carefully did not use the word "support" and he did not refer to the "good old days" of working with the NRA as Biden did (PolitiFact however on Thursday its "true ruling for Obamas statement above)The Fact Checker has learned from decades of covering politics and diplomacy that looking at the words sometimes is not enough; actions are also important Is this a case where "support" for a particular action may have only been tactical designed to block or kill proposals that pose a danger to an organizationAs former House speaker Newt Gingrich during the GOP presidential debates in 2011 the individual mandate that formed the core of President Obamas health care law was originally designed to block health reform efforts by Hillary Clinton: "In 1993 in fighting HillaryCare virtually every conservative saw the mandate as a less-dangerous future than what Hillary was trying to do.Its now clear that the mandate I think is clearly unconstitutional But it started as a conservative effort to stop HillaryCare in the 1990s"In other words it was tactical maneuver subject to change later The history of the NRAs "support" for expanded background checks is worth recounting in part because it has striking resemblances to the current gun-control battleThe FactsAs with this year the gun-control battle of 1999 was sparked by a horrific school shooting: the April 20 1999 Columbine High School massacre in which two students killed 12 students and a teacher before committing suicide President Clinton similar to President Obama pushed for immediate action on gun-control legislationIn the context of Columbine LaPierre before a panel of the House Judiciary Committee and trod a very careful line between "whats reasonable and whats not" So LaPierre said he was in favor of "instant checks at gun shows just like at gun stores and pawn shops" But then he described as "unreasonable" nine aspects of the key legislation being pushed by Democrats at the time led by Sen Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) Essentially he opposed the entire Lautenberg bill as "made-for-TV lawmaking"and the NRA lobbied hard against it But it also ran an ad campaign in newspapers titled "Be Reasonable" that reprinted LaPierres testimony If you read his testimony you will see that the crux of it is that existing laws must be better enforced exactly the same position the NRA takes today Also note that LaPierre uses the modifier "instant" before the word "checks" That subtle word choice became important later in the debate In the legislative process Lautenbergs proposal to expand background checks was increasingly weakened (the Internet was excluded for instance) but when it came for a vote it passed by 51-50 with Vice President Al Gore casting the deciding vote The victory actually came about because one senator Democrat Max Cleland of Georgia changed his vote at the last minute after another school shooting the day of the vote in his home state That legislation did not have to meet the 60-vote hurdle that this weeks gun amendment needed to achieve so in some ways it was a less impressive victory Still at the time it was viewed as a seminal moment "This is a turning point for our country"Gore declared But the NRA was just biding its time The 51-50 vote on May 201999 turned out to be a Pyrrhic victory for gun-control advocates similar to the successful vote earlier this month to proceed to debate on the gun amendments When the House of Representatives took up the issue the following month the NRA worked with a longtime supporter Rep John Dingell (D-Mich) to craft a background-check amendment that the Clinton administration and gun-control groups denounced was a sham that would have actually weakened existing gun laws His proposal extendedbackgroundchecksto all sales at gun shows but also drastically curtailed the time allowed for thechecks a wrinkle flagged by LaPierres use of the word "instant" in his testimonyIn response Democrats voted against the amendment thus killing it and eliminating any language on background checks in the underlying bill Thats exactly what the NRA wanted As The Washington Post headlined on the legislative maneuvering: "NRAAchieves Its Goal: Nothing" The article said:Nothing is exactly what the House produced with yesterday's vote to reject new gun showbackgroundcheckshanding theNRAits most dramatic legislative victory in years. The outcome on the House floor yesterday was the culmination of anNRAlobbying campaign that spent $15 million in May and June including $750000 for mailings to members nationwide $300000 for phone bank operations and an extensive media buy of ads on conservative radio talk showsLetters warning of dire consequences and urging quick action poured out of [chief lobbyist James Jay] Baker's office toNRAmembers The organization broadcast commercials in selected congressional districts against gun control As the showdown approached numerousNRAlobbyists were available on Capitol Hill to press the association's point of view on wavering House membersThe result was legislative stalemate The House bill lacked any language on background checks even though lawmakers later passed nonbinding instructions urging that something on expanded background checks be included in a final bill A Senate-House conference committee intended to forge a compromise met only once and no bill ever emerged "Even its fiercest foes acknowledge that theNational Rifle Associationwon the biggest political victory of the year steamrolling gun-control advocates with a powerful mix of political acumen and cold cash" Scripps Howard reported at years end So in effect the NRAs support for so-called expanded background checks appears to have been a tactical retreat in the aftermath of Columbine The actual NRA proposal once it emerged in the form of Dingells amendment was the opposite of what gun-control advocates considered an expansion of background checks Still LaPierre was on record of having called for some version of expanded background checks in 1999 His caveats have been largely forgotten So his 1999 testimony led to this uncomfortable moment before the Senate Judiciary Committee this JanuarySENPATRICK LEAHY (D-Vt): Now in your testimony in '99 you supported mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show.Should we have mandatory background checks at gun shows for sales of weaponsLAPIERRE: If you're a dealer that's already the law If you're talking --LEAHY: That's not my question Please Mr LaPierre I'm not trying to play games here But if you could it would here if you could just answer my questionLAPIERRE: Senator I do not believe the way the law is working now unfortunately that it does any good to extend the law to private sales between hobbyists and collectorsLEAHY: OK so you do not support mandatory background checks in all instances at gun showsLAPIERRE: We do not because the fact is the law right now is a failure the way it's working The fact is that you have 76000-some people that have been denied under the present law Only 44 were prosecuted You're letting them go They're walking the streetsSandy Froman an NRA board member and former president : "The NRA has changed its position and the reason its changed its position is because the system doesnt work"Yet LaPierre in his 1999 testimony also suggested the system did not work complaining about "felons whove walked away from gun stores instead of being prosecuted for a federal felony for trying to buy a gun" But at the time he chose instead to indicate flexibility on the issue of background checks The Pinocchio TestOn a very technical level Obamas statement is correct: LaPierre did call for some form of expanded background checks Yet at the same time the NRA worked hard to defeat the proposals advanced by President Clinton and other Democrats just as it has worked hard to defeat Obamas proposals this year The net result is the same: stalemate and victory for the NRAFor reasons of tactics it serves Obamas interests to suggest that the NRA once was open to an idea it now opposes But the political reality is quite different One suspects that if Obama had been in Clintons shoes in 1999 he also would not have considered LaPierres statement to be indicative of "support" for expanded background checksObamas comments dont really merit a Pinocchio given the NRAs statements that its position has changed but neither does it qualify for a Geppetto This history lesson shows that in politics the words are sometimes much less important than the actions taken for or against legislation No Rating ()Check out our candidate Follow The Fact Checker on and friend us on in some ways, reflecting the grip that anti-tax ideologues continue to exert over Mr. 2009, there is a bit of a fact-checker dispute on this matter,More than one in seven households were unable to get access to quality food too.

+ Add Comment

(required - not published)