Daring casting by Lin Manuel-Miranda

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Daring casting by Lin Manuel-Miranda

Post  pinhedz on Sat May 14, 2016 8:00 am

In the Hamilton show, King George is played by a white guy. Shocked

Also, he can't rap--his songs sound like Beatles outtakes:


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Daring casting by Lin Manuel-Miranda

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sat May 14, 2016 1:15 pm



Miranda seems to think Alex Hamilton is cool because he was a bastard child from the Caribbean who rose to great power, propelled by cutthroat ambition

but I'm not sure Miranda and the young Hamilfans realize Hamilton was also a dingus and a goofus





Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8321
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Daring casting by Lin Manuel-Miranda

Post  Yakima Canutt on Wed Jun 01, 2016 10:37 am



Disney’s new Mary Poppins picture, starring Emily Blunt and Miranda Lin-Manuel Miranda, and directed by Rob Marshall, is finally official. The sequel will be called Mary Poppins Returns and it’ll be released Christmas Day 2018. So, you’d imagine a third film to be called Mary Poppins Forever followed by Mary and Jack, then Mary Poppins Begins, followed by The Mary Poppins, The Mary Poppins Rises and then rebooted with Mary Poppins v Amelia Bedelia.

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8321
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Daring casting by Lin Manuel-Miranda

Post  pinhedz on Sun Jun 05, 2016 7:23 am

Yakima Canutt wrote: Miranda seems to think Alex Hamilton is cool because he was a bastard child from the Caribbean who rose to great power, propelled by cutthroat ambition
I think it's a little more than that. More like ....

Caribbean bastard hurricane survivor makes good + first ever US political sex scandal + died in a duel = musical


Was the John Adams show really this one-sided, or was there some selectivity in the making of this clip? Suspect  


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Daring casting by Lin Manuel-Miranda

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sun Jun 05, 2016 11:49 am

the show is based on the Pulitzer Prize winning book by David McCullough, recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom ( just FYI, not argumentum ad verecundiam)

but true, dying like an idiot is dramatic

In the early morning hours of July 11, 1804, Burr and Hamilton departed by separate boats from Manhattan and rowed across the Hudson River to a spot known as the Heights of Weehawken in New Jersey, a popular dueling ground below the towering cliffs of the Palisades.[17] Hamilton and Burr agreed to take the duel to Weehawken because, although dueling had been prohibited in both states, New York more aggressively prosecuted the crime (the same site was used for 18 known duels between 1700 and 1845).[18] In an attempt to shield the participants from prosecution, procedures were implemented to give all witnesses plausible deniability. For example, the pistols were transported to the island in a portmanteau, enabling the rowers (who also stood with their backs to the duelists) to say under oath that they had not seen any pistols.[19]

Burr, William P. Van Ness (his second), Matthew L. Davis, and another (often identified as John Swarthout) plus their rowers reached the site first at half past six, whereupon Swarthout and Van Ness started to clear the underbrush from the dueling ground. Hamilton, Judge Nathaniel Pendleton (his second), and Dr. David Hosack arrived a few minutes before seven. Lots were cast for the choice of position and which second should start the duel; both were won by Hamilton's second, who chose the upper edge of the ledge (which faced the city) for Hamilton.[20] However, according to historian and author Joseph Ellis, since Hamilton had been challenged, he had choice of both weapon and position. Under this account, it was Hamilton himself who chose the upstream or north side position.[21]

All first-hand accounts of the duel agree that two shots were fired; however, Hamilton and Burr's seconds disagreed on the intervening time between the shots. It was common for both principals in a duel to fire a shot at the ground to exemplify courage, and then the duel could come to an end. Hamilton apparently fired first, and into the air, though it is not clear whether this was intentional, much less that Burr perceived him to be "throwing away his fire" (as it did not follow the standard protocol). Burr returned fire and hit Hamilton in the lower abdomen above the right hip. The musket ball ricocheted off Hamilton's third or second false rib—fracturing it—and caused considerable damage to his internal organs, particularly his liver and diaphragm before becoming lodged in his first or second lumbar vertebra. According to Pendleton's account, Hamilton collapsed immediately, dropping the pistol involuntarily, and Burr moved toward Hamilton in a speechless manner (which Pendleton deemed to be indicative of regret) before being hustled away behind an umbrella by Van Ness because Hosack and the rowers were already approaching.[22]

It is entirely uncertain which principal fired first, as both seconds' backs were to the duel in accordance with the pre-arranged regulations of the duel (and also so the men could later testify that they "saw no fire"). After much research to determine the actual events of the duel, historian Joseph Ellis gives his best wrong guess:

Hamilton did fire his weapon intentionally, and he fired first. But he aimed to miss Burr, sending his ball into the tree above and behind Burr's location. In so doing, he did not withhold his shot, but he did waste it, thereby honoring his pre-duel pledge. Meanwhile, Burr, who did not know about the pledge, did know that a projectile from Hamilton's gun had whizzed past him and crashed into the tree to his rear. According to the principles of the code duello, Burr was perfectly justified in taking deadly aim at Hamilton and firing to kill.

But did he? What is possible, but beyond the reach of the available evidence, is that Burr really missed his target, too, that his own fatal shot, in fact, was accidental.[23]

Dr. David Hosack's account
Dr. Hosack, the physician, wrote his account on August 17, about one month after the duel had taken place. Hosack testified that he had only seen Hamilton and the two seconds disappear "into the wood", heard two shots, and rushed to find a wounded Hamilton when his name was called. Hosack also testified that he had not seen Burr, who had been hidden behind an umbrella by Van Ness, his second.[24] In a letter to William Coleman, Dr. Hosack gives a very clear picture of the events:

When called to him upon his receiving the fatal wound, I found him half sitting on the ground, supported in the arms of Mr. Pendleton. His countenance of death I shall never forget. He had at that instant just strength to say, 'This is a mortal wound, doctor;' when he sunk away, and became to all appearance lifeless. I immediately stripped up his clothes, and soon, alas I ascertained that the direction of the ball must have been through some vital part. His pulses were not to be felt, his respiration was entirely suspended, and, upon laying my hand on his heart and perceiving no motion there, I considered him as irrecoverably gone. I, however, observed to Mr. Pendleton, that the only chance for his reviving was immediately to get him upon the water. We therefore lifted him up, and carried him out of the wood to the margin of the bank, where the bargemen aided us in conveying him into the boat, which immediately put off. During all this time I could not discover the least symptom of returning life. I now rubbed his face, lips, and temples with spirits of hartshorn, applied it to his neck and breast, and to the wrists and palms of his hands, and endeavoured to pour some into his mouth.[25]

Dr. Hosack goes on to say that in a few minutes Hamilton had revived, either from the hartshorn or fresh air. Hosack finishes his letter:

Soon after recovering his sight, he happened to cast his eye upon the case of pistols, and observing the one that he had had in his hand lying on the outside, he said, "Take care of that pistol; it is undischarged, and still cocked; it may go off and do harm. Pendleton knows" (attempting to turn his head towards him) 'that I did not intend to fire at him.' 'Yes,' said Mr. Pendleton, understanding his wish, 'I have already made Dr. Hosack acquainted with your determination as to that' He then closed his eyes and remained calm, without any disposition to speak; nor did he say much afterward, except in reply to my questions. He asked me once or twice how I found his pulse; and he informed me that his lower extremities had lost all feeling, manifesting to me that he entertained no hopes that he should long survive.[25]

Statement to the press
Pendleton and Van Ness issued a press statement about the events of the duel. The statement printed out the agreed upon dueling rules and events that transpired, that being given the order to present, both participants were free to open fire. After first fire had been given, the opposite's second would count to three and the opponent would fire, or sacrifice his shot.[26] Pendleton and Van Ness disagree as to who fired the first shot, but concur that both men had fired "within a few seconds of each other" (as they must have: neither Pendleton nor Van Ness mention counting down).[26]

In Pendleton's amended version of the statement, he and a friend went to the site of the duel the day after Hamilton's death to discover where Hamilton's shot went. The statement reads:

"They [Mr. Pendleton and an accomplice] ascertained that the ball passed through the limb of a cedar tree, at an elevation of about twelve feet and a half, perpendicularly from the ground, between thirteen and fourteen feet from the mark on which General Hamilton stood, and about four feet wide of the direct line between him and Col. Burr, on the right side; he having fallen on the left."[27]

Lying Hamilton's Phony intentions
In Statement on Impending Duel with Aaron Burr, a letter that Hamilton wrote the night before the duel,[28] Hamilton stated that he was "strongly opposed to the practice of dueling" for both religious and practical reasons and continued, "I have resolved, if our interview is conducted in the usual manner, and it pleases God to give me the opportunity, to reserve and throw away my first fire, and I have thoughts even of reserving my second fire."[29] In addition, after being mortally wounded, Hamilton, upon regaining consciousness, told Dr. Hosack that his gun was still loaded and that "Pendleton knows I did not mean to fire at him." This is evidence for the theory that Hamilton intended not to fire, honoring his pre-duel pledge, and only fired accidentally upon being hit.[27] This intention violated the protocol of the code duello. When Burr later learned of this, he responded: "Contemptible, if true."[30] Hamilton could have thrown his shot away by firing into the ground, thus possibly signaling Burr of his purpose.

Modern historians have debated to what extent Hamilton's statements and letter represent his true beliefs, and how much of this was a deliberate attempt to permanently ruin Burr if Hamilton were to be killed. An example of this may be seen in what a historian has considered to be deliberate attempts to provoke Burr on the dueling ground, specifically Ogden's perspective that

Hamilton performed a series of deliberately provocative actions to ensure a lethal outcome. As they were taking their places, he asked that the proceedings stop, adjusted his spectacles, and slowly, repeatedly, sighted along his pistol to test his aim.[31]

This, along with Hamilton's conspicuous choice of dueling pistols (the same pair which had once shot a button off Aaron Burr's coat some five years earlier during a duel with Hamilton's brother-in-law), has caused many historians in recent years to re-examine the circumstances of the engagement and Hamilton's true intentions on the morning of July 11. Subsequent examination of the pistols used by Hamilton has revealed that they were fitted with a "hair trigger." This would have brought considerable advantage in aiming accurately. Hamilton may have been unfamiliar with their use, and a mistake in arming them may have caused the gun to fire prematurely. This may have been the cause of Hamilton's errant first shot. If so, such a scenario would belie the account that Hamilton fired into the air intentionally.

Burr's intentions
There is little doubt that Burr had every intention of seeking full satisfaction from Hamilton by blood.[33] The afternoon after the duel, Burr was quoted as saying that had his vision not been impaired by the morning mist, he would have shot Hamilton in the heart.[34] According to the account of noted English philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who met with Burr in England in 1808 (four years after the fact), Burr claimed to have been certain of his ability to kill Hamilton, and Bentham concluded that Burr was "little better than a murderer."[35]

Towards the end of his life, Burr remarked: "Had I read Sterne more and Voltaire less, I should have known the world was wide enough for Hamilton and me."[36]

There is, however, much evidence in Burr's defense. Had Hamilton apologized for his "more despicable opinion of Mr. Burr",[37] all would have been forgotten. However neither principal could avoid the confrontation honorably, and thus each was forced into the duel: Burr to regain his honor and Hamilton to sustain his.[38]

Furthermore, Burr was unsure of Hamilton's intentions (as historians still are today). Seeing Hamilton fire into the brush above his head, Burr could not be sure if Hamilton had thrown away his shot or simply missed his target. According to the principles of the code duello, Burr was entirely justified in taking aim at Hamilton, under the hypothesis that Hamilton had shot first. Continuing this line of reasoning, it is not clear that Burr did more than react to hearing Hamilton fire before he had any time to realize where the shot had gone.

Burr certainly knew of Hamilton's publicly opposing his ascension to the presidency in 1800. Hamilton made confidential statements against him, such as those enumerated in Hamilton's private letter to Supreme Court Justice Rutledge. In the attachment to that letter, Hamilton had argued against Burr's character on repetitive scores, for example "suspected on strong grounds of having corruptly served the views of the Holland Company ... his very friends do not insist on his integrity ... he will court and employ able and daring scoundrels ... his conduct indicates [he seeks] Supreme power in his own person ... will in all likelihood attempt a usurpation."[39]



Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8321
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Daring casting by Lin Manuel-Miranda

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sun Jun 05, 2016 5:34 pm


Seth Myers asked Paul Giamatti why Alexander Hamiltonian was such a dickface in the HBO show, and Giamatti said that the show was from the perspective of Adams.


Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8321
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Daring casting by Lin Manuel-Miranda

Post  pinhedz on Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:26 am

The Hamilton vs. Jefferson squabbles often segue into Brit vs. Frenchie squabbles, and the claim that the Brits are stuffy, snotty elitists while the French love leebertay, eaglets [blame autocorrect ] and fraternities.

In this context, historians sometimes bring up the Jay Treaty, which was Hamilton's way of making lasting peace with England and making them friends and trading partners.

Some historians (those with extremely small crania) indignantly declare that the Jay Treaty threw our former French allies under the bus and gave preferential treatment to France's bitter enemies--the Brits--after France had done so much for us during the Revolution. bounce

Are those historians even aware that as a result of the French revolution all of our wartime allies in France had been executed so there were none left to betray? Shocked The only reason Lafayette survived the 1790s was because he was in prison in Austria--otherwise he would certainly have been guillotined.

If we "betrayed" anybody, it was the ruthless cutthroats that murdered all our friends.

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Daring casting by Lin Manuel-Miranda

Post  Yakima Canutt on Fri Sep 09, 2016 5:14 am


The historians Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick note that in conventional diplomatic terms, as a "piece of adversary bargaining", Jay "got much the worst of the 'bargain'. Such a view has to a great degree persisted ever since." They conclude that although Jay did not succeed in asserting neutral rights, he did obtain "his other sine qua nons"; he got none of things that were "desirable, but not indispensable." They add Jay's record on the symbolic side was open to many objections. However, on the 'hard' (or realistic) side, "it was a substantial success, which included the prevention of war with Great Britain."

The historian Marshall Smelser argues that the treaty effectively postponed war with Britain, or at least postponed it until the United States was strong enough to handle it.

Bradford Perkins argued in 1955 that the treaty was the first to establish a special relationship between Britain and the United States, with a second installment under Lord Salisbury. In his view, the treaty worked for ten years to secure peace between Britain and America: "The decade may be characterized as the period of "The First Rapprochement." As Perkins concludes,

   "For about ten years there was peace on the frontier, joint recognition of the value of commercial intercourse, and even, by comparison with both preceding and succeeding epochs, a muting of strife over ship seizures and impressment. Two controversies with France… pushed the English-speaking powers even more closely together."

Starting at swords' point in 1794, the Jay treaty reversed the tensions, Perkins concludes: "Through a decade of world war and peace, successive governments on both sides of the Atlantic were able to bring about and preserve a cordiality which often approached genuine friendship."

Perkins suggests that (saving perhaps the opening of trade with British India), "Jay did fail to win anything the Americans were not obviously entitled to, liberation of territory recognized as theirs since 1782, and compensation for seizures that even Britain admitted were illegal." He also speculates that a "more astute negotiator than the Chief Justice" would have gotten better terms than he did. He quoted the opinion of the "great historian" Henry Adams that the treaty was a "bad one":

   "No one would venture on its merits to defend it now. There has been no time since 1810 when the United States would not prefer war to peace on such terms."

Perkins gave more weight than other historians to valuable concessions regarding trade in India and the concession on the West Indies trade. In addition, Perkins noted that the Royal Navy treated American commerce with "relative leniency" during the wars, and many impressed seamen were returned to America. As Spain assessed the informal British-American alliance, it softened its previous opposition to the United States' use of the Mississippi River and signed Pinckney's Treaty, which the Americans wanted. When Jefferson took office, he gained renewal of the commercial articles that had greatly benefited American shipping.

Elkins and McKitrick find this more positive view open to "one big difficulty": it requires that the British negotiated in the same spirit. Unlike Perkins, they find "little indication of this"; preferring to view the British not as future-oriented, but, having had no indication that the United States required attention, wishing to take it off the long list of issues that did.

George Herring's 2008 history of US foreign policy says that in 1794 "the United States and Britain edged toward war" and concludes, "The Jay Treaty brought the United States important concessions and served its interests well." Joseph Ellis finds the terms of the treaty "one-sided in Britain's favor," but asserts with a consensus of historians that it was

   "a shrewd bargain for the United States. It bet, in effect, on England rather than France as the hegemonic European power of the future, which proved prophetic. It recognized the massive dependence of the American economy on trade with England. In a sense it was a precocious preview of the Monroe Doctrine (1823), for it linked American security and economic development to the British fleet, which provided a protective shield of incalculable value throughout the nineteenth century. Mostly, it postponed war with England until America was economically and politically more capable of fighting one."

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8321
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Daring casting by Lin Manuel-Miranda

Post  Yakima Canutt on Fri Sep 09, 2016 9:15 am




Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8321
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Daring casting by Lin Manuel-Miranda

Post  pinhedz on Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:20 am

So--if this is "unscripted,"--why is the clown reading from a piece of paper? Suspect

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/us/mike-pence-hamilton.html

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Daring casting by Lin Manuel-Miranda

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sun Nov 20, 2016 2:01 pm


they must mean it was a hastily prepared script instead of "unscripted".

some ethnic minorities might have cause for concern - the Dump-Punce Admin has appointed a White House chief strategist, Steve Bannon, who has embraced "white nationalist" groups. (not a conspiracy, pretty out in the open)

The proposed Attorney General, Alabama's Jefferson Sessions, has a history of "black voter suppression". He also faced allegations of referring to blacks as "boy" and "nigger". (Jefferson was turned down to be a Federal judge by a Republican congress in 1986, because of such.)

So to me, the bigger clowns are Dump and Punce. But thanks for sharing your point of view.


Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8321
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Daring casting by Lin Manuel-Miranda

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sun Nov 20, 2016 2:26 pm



just heard from Republican relatives in Pinellas County, Florida who have noticed swastika graffiti pop around town in the last week, corroborating statements by police departments around the country about similar. tho granted, some of it could be sneeky sneeky liberal counter-ops, or what do they call that

still, Sangeet says the DC Washingtonian will normalize just about any depravity that comes to town, cuz that's what's for din-din!


Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8321
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Daring casting by Lin Manuel-Miranda

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sun Nov 20, 2016 2:37 pm


unfortunately, the liberals and commies are guilty of "crying wolf" ... by calling Dubya Bush a "Nazi" and the likes of poor Mittens Romney a "racist" - they had not the proper words remaining when something much closer to the real deal came to town.  Shocked bounce

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8321
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Daring casting by Lin Manuel-Miranda

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sun Nov 20, 2016 2:42 pm


But Donald Dump is just rewarding loyalty in his Putinesqua crony style: righteous cracker Jefferson Sessions was the first Senator to endorse Dump, after Sessions noticed the popularity of Dump's race-baiting demagoguery down in Alabam

#WhoAreTheClowns


Last edited by Yakima Canutt on Sun Nov 20, 2016 3:25 pm; edited 1 time in total

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8321
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Daring casting by Lin Manuel-Miranda

Post  pinhedz on Sun Nov 20, 2016 3:06 pm

Yakima Canutt wrote:#WhoAreTheClowns
I meant to say "Why is that dude reading a piece of paper."

I also meant to say "That's not just beyond inappropriate, it's also counterproductive, and that clown should know that."

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Daring casting by Lin Manuel-Miranda

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sun Nov 20, 2016 3:24 pm

I also meant to say "That's not just beyond inappropriate, it's also counterproductive, and that clown should know that."


Yeah, I guess people have different points of view. To the Broadway actors, Punce's support of gay-conversion therapy was probably inappropriate.

counter-productive ... hmm ... for those who don't support a Dump-Punce Admin, questioning their legitimacy is, perhaps, a good way to question their legitimacy.

I can see the argument that such behavior would put off centrists and potentially provide succor to the Dump-Puncian. We shall see. But the decorum and precedent-breaking disruptive rudeness should continue for at least another year (tho to be effective, middle-aged white people should do it too). Then we can see where we're at. Cool




Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8321
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Daring casting by Lin Manuel-Miranda

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sun Nov 20, 2016 3:33 pm


see what Dump has done to us already? I'm defending the cast of a musical I can't stand!


Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8321
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Daring casting by Lin Manuel-Miranda

Post  pinhedz on Sun Nov 20, 2016 3:54 pm

Yakima Canutt wrote:counter-productive ... hmm ...  for those who don't support a Dump-Punce Admin, questioning their legitimacy is, perhaps, a good way to question their legitimacy.
So the objective was to question their legitimacy? I thought the objective was to win over the decision-makers to the cause of diversity and inclusiveness.

My mistake--consider the Trump administration's legitimacy questioned (as George III says in the musical: "awesome. wow").

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Daring casting by Lin Manuel-Miranda

Post  pinhedz on Sun Nov 20, 2016 3:58 pm

I've been seeing a lot of the yeabuttal that "Yeahbut, Trump is way worse than us."

OK, if that works for you. Rolling Eyes

[btw--if you think the pinhed is just on about who's clownier, that's actually not it. The message is the same if you globally replace the word "clown" with whatever (mummer? song and dance man? artiste? super-talented Broadway-musical performer? Burr-impersonator?)]

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Daring casting by Lin Manuel-Miranda

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sun Nov 20, 2016 4:54 pm

pinhedz wrote:consider the Trump administration's legitimacy questioned (as George III says in the musical: "awesome. wow").

yeah, to be effective in questioning legitimacy and disrupting a regime, you have to do it every day for a long time. And granted, a lot of time it doesn't do much, though sometimes it can make the more apathetically-inclined question the status quo, which in this case, would be a Walking Bag of Shit, who became the president, with a minority of votes (yeah, yeah I know, Electoral College is awesome). And it'll turn some other people off, too - hard to quantify such things, people's opinions on such methodologies might be resting more on personal biases and allegiances than hard-ass data. unless, of course, you're advising to skip all the showy stuff and just move on to the Ethan Allen stuff? In that case, you are an extremist, sir.

If not. Well, hmm. Did all those greasy kids hurry up Nixon in pulling out of Nam? As I recall, not really, I think Nixon and Kissinger did it on their own timetable, but I will doublecheck that.

But, basically, anything that annoys Donald Trump, I am in favor of. Cool

Christ, I really don't want to be discussing Social Protest Theory with an Aged DC Republican, do I. You win - the bratty browns are bad.

Mike Pence deserves your respect. Mike Pence deserves the respect of all Americans because he is the Vice President. Is that one of those circular logic deals? I will check on that.

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8321
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Daring casting by Lin Manuel-Miranda

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:03 pm

pinhedz wrote:I've been seeing a lot of the yeabuttal that "Yeahbut, Trump is way worse than us."


yehyeh, i already got it - "the Tolerance Brigade is not being tolerant, by being intolerant of intolerance."




Something tells me this asshole isn't too bothered about being booed out of a hip-hop musical.  Something tells me Donald is making such a fuss over it to distract from his recent $25 million settlement over his scam college that swiped the savings from poor suckers. But zinhedz is more upset over the rude cast members of a fuckin Broadway rap x-travaganza.  Wonder what tells ya about tha zin?   #PinzyPawnzOfThaDonaldKeepinItReal Basketball

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8321
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Daring casting by Lin Manuel-Miranda

Post  pinhedz on Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:15 pm

Yakima Canutt wrote:Something tells me this asshole isn't too bothered about being booed out of a hip-hop musical.  Something tells me Donald is making such a fuss over it to distract from his recent $25 million settlement over his scam college that swiped the savings from poor suckers.
In other words, the cast of Ham has played right into Trump's hands, and have damaged their own cause. Have they been played? No, they did it to themselves on their own--shot themselves in the foot with their own pompous righteousness.

[Does Yakima not even realize he's making pinhedz point? scratch ]

So, you want to disrupt the regime? It might work better after Trump actually does something. Burr on stage expressing his concern that the next administration might not address the issues of ALL Americans is hardly disruptive--it's just annoying.

Clearly they aren't at the disruption stage yet--they're still trying to get Trump to do the right thing--and they're doing it all wrong. bounce

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Daring casting by Lin Manuel-Miranda

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:33 pm

you're ignoring points I made several times.

Trump already has done things to suggest he's being more of a Divider than a Uniter:

by offering positions to:

Flynn: who says Islam isn't a religion (bad strategy, and insulting to 3 million Muslim-Americans and their beer buddies), and who goes to Putin parties, which is insulting to Ukrainian-Americans.

Sessions: deemed to be too racist to be a judge by Republicans in 1986

Bannon: friend of white nationalists

Pompeo: Hillary's chief Congressional enemy over whatever she did in Benghazi

Pence: an anti-abortion, anti-gay fundamentalist, when Trump already had the evangelical vote wrapped up


So those are some of the reasons the Rainbow Coalition is already up in arms. George W. Bush says it's better to be more of a Uniter.  But Hopefully Dump will do some groovy stuff soon.  Would be groovy.

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8321
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Daring casting by Lin Manuel-Miranda

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:48 pm

Yakima Canutt wrote:disrupting a regime ... sometimes it can make the more apathetically-inclined question the status quo

Mrs. Pinz wrote:and then what?  Rolling Eyes

well, maybe all those millions who didn't like Dump, but who didn't bother to vote ... perhaps seeing Dump and his friends booed everywhere they go will make them look into exactly why Donald J. Trump is a Walking Bag of Shit, they could use Google.  Then, maybe they'll vote next time, so he can be a one-termer like that goober goofus, Jimmy Carter.  Or maybe DJT will reverse course and become like noble H.W. Bush x Abe Lincoln x Professor X x 1000.  In that case, the protesting will be have been fruitless, except for the exercise and team-building ... unless that protesting was what spurred DJT to become H.W. Bush x Abe Lincoln x Professor X x 1000, owing to the quirks of his personality.

But a lot of what we're doing is trading hypotheticals.  Which isn't very Vulcanian.

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8321
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Daring casting by Lin Manuel-Miranda

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sun Nov 20, 2016 7:22 pm


oo look, it's like a science! will have to look into this. study


i just took a gander at the trans-partisan / trans-American social media, it looks like Turmp Voters, Turmp itself, and some Establishmentarians are upset that some actors and audience were rude to Mike Punce at an ahistorical rap musical ... taking a gander ... taking a gander ... and wha - no! it looks like no one else gives a crap, except for some bouts of mild amusement.

But President Barry said we should always endeavour to embiggen our moral imaginations ... so I am trying to feel bad for Mike Punce ... trying ... trying ...



nope, just can't get there.   Neutral  But if I know Mike, he has the tuffness to survive in the public sphere.  As Don Rumsfeld said, if no one is yelling at you, then you probably aren't doing much with your life.  This will only make Mike stronger.  


Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing

Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8321
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Daring casting by Lin Manuel-Miranda

Post  Sponsored content Today at 7:13 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum