HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » So the Rockettes should "...

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 12:00 AM

So the Rockettes should "do their job"...

Mara Wilson
Mara Wilson – Verified account ‏@MaraWilson

So the Rockettes should "do their job" but pharmacists who don't want to give birth control or bakers that won't serve gay people shouldn't?

9:34 AM - 23 Dec 2016

23.5K RETWEETS 42.1K LIKES


https://twitter.com/MaraWilson/status/812350605851234304

65 replies, 8398 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 65 replies Author Time Post
Reply So the Rockettes should "do their job"... (Original post)
NYC Liberal Dec 2016 OP
raging moderate Dec 2016 #1
SickOfTheOnePct Dec 2016 #11
csziggy Dec 2016 #17
SickOfTheOnePct Dec 2016 #27
csziggy Dec 2016 #32
SickOfTheOnePct Dec 2016 #51
Thor_MN Dec 2016 #34
SickOfTheOnePct Dec 2016 #52
Thor_MN Dec 2016 #55
WillowTree Dec 2016 #16
Thor_MN Dec 2016 #33
WillowTree Dec 2016 #36
Thor_MN Dec 2016 #38
WillowTree Dec 2016 #39
Thor_MN Dec 2016 #40
WillowTree Dec 2016 #41
Thor_MN Dec 2016 #43
WillowTree Dec 2016 #44
Thor_MN Dec 2016 #45
WillowTree Dec 2016 #46
Thor_MN Dec 2016 #47
WillowTree Dec 2016 #48
Thor_MN Dec 2016 #49
bora13 Dec 2016 #57
Thor_MN Dec 2016 #61
bora13 Dec 2016 #64
Thor_MN Dec 2016 #65
Tanuki Dec 2016 #35
Takket Dec 2016 #2
HassleCat Dec 2016 #3
spanone Dec 2016 #4
Johnathan146 Dec 2016 #5
fleabiscuit Dec 2016 #7
True_Blue Dec 2016 #9
hatrack Dec 2016 #30
HoneyBadger Dec 2016 #6
maddiemom Dec 2016 #12
Kittycow Dec 2016 #18
maddiemom Dec 2016 #23
Kittycow Dec 2016 #28
BlancheSplanchnik Dec 2016 #60
Merlot Dec 2016 #20
treestar Dec 2016 #63
Cha Dec 2016 #8
SickOfTheOnePct Dec 2016 #10
Merlot Dec 2016 #21
maddiemom Dec 2016 #24
Chicago1980 Dec 2016 #13
Kittycow Dec 2016 #15
turbinetree Dec 2016 #14
lillypaddle Dec 2016 #19
WillowTree Dec 2016 #22
maddiemom Dec 2016 #25
Liberty Belle Dec 2016 #26
progressoid Dec 2016 #42
Vinca Dec 2016 #29
Tanuki Dec 2016 #37
oberliner Dec 2016 #31
awoke_in_2003 Dec 2016 #50
Buckeye_Democrat Dec 2016 #53
sarcasmo Dec 2016 #54
forgotmylogin Dec 2016 #56
TNNurse Dec 2016 #58
randr Dec 2016 #59
treestar Dec 2016 #62

Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 12:03 AM

1. And senators who don't want to obey the Constitution!

"The President SHALL appoint...justices of the Supreme Court..." In this context, SHALL has an imperative nature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to raging moderate (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 12:48 AM

11. Where does it say

"The President SHALL appoint...justices of the Supreme Court..." ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 01:29 AM

17. Article II Section 2

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Article_II

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #17)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 07:20 AM

27. It says

"...he shall nominate...", not "he shall appoint".

He can nominate all he wants, he can't appoint without advice and consent of the Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 11:22 AM

32. Actually I highlighted the wrong phrase.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Article_II

So it DOES say that "he shall appoint...Judges of the supreme Court."

Yes, it also says with the "Advice and Consent of the Senate" but the Senate has refused to participate in the process at all. I wish President Obama had pushed this - to have an appointment stalled like this is unprecedented.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #32)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 04:20 PM

51. Leaving out

the part that says he must have advice and consent of the Senate totally changes the meaning, which of course, you already knew.

By refusing to participate, the Senate has refused to advise and consent, therefore, no appointment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 11:33 AM

34. He must nominate solely, but appoints with the Senate

 

Yes, it actually says that the President shall appoint. The fact that the President does this with the Senate does not change the fact that the President shall appoint.

Maybe some coffee is in order.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #34)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 04:22 PM

52. No amount of coffee

will make a false argument true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #52)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 05:30 PM

55. Yes, that is true. The president shall nominate, and ... shall appoint

 

the ... is filled with a clause that says that the Senate is required with the appointing part, but not the nominating part.

No amount of caffeine will make your blunder of questioning where it says shall appoint correct. But it might make it a little bit more obvious that it says it right there, in the constitution.

Have a nice night, enjoy your family, and maybe Santa will let you forget tomorrow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to raging moderate (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 01:28 AM

16. Ah! Conveniently skipping the relevant verbiage.

".......and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court......."

Interesting how easily that gets left out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 11:29 AM

33. And convieniently ignoring that it actually says shall nominate and shall appoint...

 

the clause "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" includes the Senate in on appointing, but not nominating.

It very clearly states the President shall nominate and appoint.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #33)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 11:53 AM

36. The President SHALL nominate, and he DID.

But a nomination requires approval and you can't just wish the part of securing advice and consent out of the Senate away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #36)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 12:12 PM

38. Did you even read the post that started this?

 

RagingModerate was taking the Senate to task for not doing their job. You are actually making RM's point, by trying to argue against RM.

Someone foolishly asked where it says "shall appoint".

One can not take snippets of the Constitution out of context and be correct. That's where the abbreviated 2nd amendment problems arise with people ignoring a well regulated militia.

No one is wishing "the part of securing advice and consent out of the Senate away."

The constitution clearly says the President shall nominate and shall appoint. Wishing away the part of "shall appoint" doesn't make it so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #38)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 12:19 PM

39. I have already agreed that he SHALL and pointed out that he DID.

I went on to point out that the appointment clearly does require the advice and consent of the Senate. And I have yet to find anything in the Constitution that stipulates that the Senate SHALL give their advice and consent and no one has so far directed me to such a passage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #39)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 12:33 PM

40. Um, you said "The President SHALL nominate"

 

Though I may have misinterpreted your intent as lending support to SOTOP's venture to ask where it says shall appoint.

I do think you are missing what is in plain sight...

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Article_II

The Senate is bound by the same passage that gives them access to the appointment - the Senate shall appoint. The Senate is required to appoint Judges of the supreme Court, with the President, but they are not allowed to nominate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #40)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 12:40 PM

41. No, the President's nomination/appointment requires consent of the Sentate to be seated.

It does not say that the Senate SHALL give advice and consent, no matter how much you want it to.

Do have a Merry Christmas, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #41)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 12:56 PM

43. It says the President shall nominate and shall appoint.

 

The advice and consent of the Senate is required to do so, so the Senate is required to give advice and consent.

If they do not want to confirm the nominee, their course of action is to reject the nominee, not sit on the thumbs and do nothing.

If any of us so blatantly ignored the requirements of our jobs, we would be fired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #43)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 01:13 PM

44. But there's no recourse outlined in the Constitution......

.......for the eventuality that the Senate refuses to give advice and/or consent. It doesn't say that if the Senate chooses to ignore the nomination, it is automatically assumed that they consented. It doesn't say that if they ignore the nomination, they have to sit in the corner. So they aren't really required to give it, it is, once again, it is just required for the nominee/appointee to take office.

Sitting Senates have been ignoring judicial nominations for some time. Democrats did it to GWB nominees and Republicans did it to Clinton and Obama nominees........and it probably goes back farther than that. The Democrats pulled the nuclear lever to stop the filibuster of lower court nominations, but not those for the Supreme Court. So, while unprecedented for a Supreme Court nomination, this action by the Republican Senate toward the Garland nomination shouldn't be such a big surprise all things considered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #44)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 01:25 PM

45. Wow, rarely have I seen such a backslide in position...

 

You are, however, correct in that there is no recourse stated. The authors must have assumed that the Senate would actually do their jobs, as stated, to be part of the appointment. They did not foresee the asshat McConell.

The fact that constitution does not outline a punishment for the failure of the Senate to do its duty does not change the fact that the Senate has failed to do its duty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #45)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 01:31 PM

46. And there's nothing to do about it constitutionally. So there it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #46)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 01:39 PM

47. Consitutionally, no. That's why we are discussing it in social media.

 

If there were a constitutional remedy, it would have already been taken and this conversation would have never taken place.

The McConell led Senate has failed to do their job and should be publicly shamed for it.

BTW, your argument on other federal judicial appointments was irrelevant as they are specifically cover in Article III, not Article II.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #47)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 01:44 PM

48. The horse is dead. Quit beating it and have a Merry Christmas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #48)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 01:56 PM

49. The Consitution is not dead, your arguments are. Merry Christmas.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #40)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 07:07 PM

57. all over a rattle

‘Let’s fight till six, and then have dinner,’ said Tweedledum.
‘Very well,’ the other said, rather sadly: ‘and she can watch us—only you’d better not come very close,’ he added: ‘I generally hit everything I can see—when I get really excited.’
‘And I hit everything within reach,’ cried Tweedledum, ‘whether I can see it or not!’

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bora13 (Reply #57)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 10:59 AM

61. And Merry Ferirama to you

 

I hope your Jobox and Creabird were astauand. Mizuxe slabdrill Zestybus!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #61)

Fri Dec 30, 2016, 07:31 PM

64. re: I hope your Jobox and Creabird were astauand. Mizuxe slabdrill Zestybus!!!

Contrariwise!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bora13 (Reply #64)

Fri Dec 30, 2016, 07:35 PM

65. Took you long enough.

 

Do you have anything relevant to say? Or is this a conversation based purely on nonsense?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 11:36 AM

35. How could they advise and consent if they refuse to even hold a hearing?

They are not meeting their Constitutional obligation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 12:04 AM

2. nor should clerk's hand out legal marriage licences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 12:07 AM

3. Or a Congress that will not confirm appointees.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 12:16 AM

4. K&R...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 12:17 AM

5. Its a bit different when you own the business

 

If you dont want to make a cake for a gay couple and Im the owner you are fired.

If you own the bakery then you are free to set your policy, although you are at risk of getting sued.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnathan146 (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 12:40 AM

7. You do not have a right to make your own laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnathan146 (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 12:46 AM

9. It's illegal for businesses to discriminate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnathan146 (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 09:52 AM

30. "public accomodation" - look it up sometime . . .

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 12:20 AM

6. Rockettes dance in front of some Trump supporters in their audience every day

 

What they have to decide is if they want to make a political statement. Depending on their individual employment contracts, that may be allowed, or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HoneyBadger (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 12:57 AM

12. Not at ALL the same thing!

THIS time , making political statements is all we have. This needs to become a major movement, supported by all of us who didn't vote for Trump. In 2000 it was Bush (the plaintiff) Vs Gore--but many seem to remember Gore as the "sore loserman," It was Bush suing to stop the Florida recount. Democrats folded then, with a "mere" half million more popular votes. I don't feel that ANYBODY believes that the Republicans wouldn't have caused a veritable revolution (by many accounts they'd planned for it) had the the Electoral College and popular votes been reversed. They'd certainly have prevented the situation in 2016, when, for the SECOND time in sixteen years the Democrats lost the White House, this time with a near three million more votes. You'd better believe that the Republicans would never have tolerated that situation in reverse. It even seemed Drumph was anticipating that with his constant claims of a "rigged" election. What is WRONG with the Democratic party? Why do individuals and non-political groups have to fight this fight with no official backing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddiemom (Reply #12)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 01:29 AM

18. It's maddening; sometimes Dem bigwigs squawk a bit and

I get my hopes up but they always cave, it seems like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kittycow (Reply #18)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 01:33 AM

23. Welcome, Kittycow!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddiemom (Reply #23)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 08:38 AM

28. Thanks! :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddiemom (Reply #12)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 11:11 PM

60. Why do individuals and non-political groups have to fight this fight with no official backing?

That is the question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HoneyBadger (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 01:30 AM

20. Rocketts dance in front of an audience at Radio City Music Hall

Anyone with the money can buy a ticket.

Not the same thing as a presidential inauguration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HoneyBadger (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 01:54 PM

63. And deplorables liking have

gay people, atheists, etc. as customers every day and don't know it.

That's not the point - the point is the idiocy of the Trumpeters. They are never consistent. Their arguments can be seen through as hypocritical because you can always find a sample of where they did the opposite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 12:45 AM

8. Dead on. Thank you, NYC Liberal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 12:46 AM

10. I think

the pharmacists and the Rockettes should do their job. I was surprised today to see so many people here on DU complaining about the Rockettes having to perform at the inauguration, even if they didn't want to. I don't see why they shouldn't have to do their job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 01:31 AM

21. You can't compair Rocketts and pharmacists.

One offers what can be life saving services and should not be able to apply their moral standards to a doctors prescription.

The other is optional entertainment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merlot (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 01:39 AM

24. Exactly!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 12:59 AM

13. The same Mara Wilson from 'Matilda' and

Mrs. Doubtfire?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chicago1980 (Reply #13)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 01:25 AM

15. Yes; her Twitter avatar shows she's still adorable to this granny!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 01:11 AM

14. You know what this is about Principles this serial predator has harassed

woman 17 of them and he has no empathy towards woman

And if I was with the "Rockettes" I would not dance, because this serial predator did this:


And this serial predator is going to be the president of this country

He is not my president










Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 01:29 AM

19. Preach!

Perfectly said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 01:33 AM

22. I've always kept my politics out of the workplace.

A decision that's served me well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #22)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 01:48 AM

25. Depends on your occupation.

In many situations it's only judicious to keep your mouth shut and mind your own business at work (although in many situations, such as teachers in the faculty room, political discussions are bound to occur---while you wouldn't bring it into the classroom}.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 04:36 AM

26. They could dance in pantsuits....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberty Belle (Reply #26)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 12:49 PM

42. +10000000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 09:25 AM

29. You can't blame a woman who performs in a skimpy outfit for not wanting to do this.

What woman would want to be ogled by an old lecher like Trump?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #29)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 11:54 AM

37. They also know his peeping Tom history of bursting into the dressing rooms

backstage at his beauty pageants so he can violate the privacy of the contestants and see them naked, without consent. Their union is disgraceful in their lack of support for these skilled workers; maybe they will at least have the decency to negotiate locks for the dressing room door so the lecher in chief won't come in to sneak a peek and grab some pussy. I can only imagine how degrading it must feel for the Rockettes to be coerced into doing this. It's not just a matter of "doing their job", as the outright refusal of most of the elite entertainment community to play the Inauguration has made crystal clear. The Rockettes' "job", as far as I know, has never entailed command performances for fascists and serial sexual predators.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 09:56 AM

31. Is that Matilda?

 

Mrs. Doubtfire also?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #31)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 03:37 PM

50. Yep. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 04:28 PM

53. If they do it (hope not), they should be covered up. No panty peeping for Trump!

It's likely going to be cold, so they should be like cheerleaders in Winter full-body covering!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 05:23 PM

54. Kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 06:55 PM

56. My idea is they should secretly rechoreograph their routine...

No kicks. 2-3 minutes of interpretive dance and minimalist random movement. Long pants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 07:08 PM

58. Will someone please tell me?

The inauguration is a ceremony in front of the Capitol building? Have there ever been dancers before? Will they dance before, after or during the prayer? I am not trying to be a smart ass (which I often am) but if they are to be part of some celebration event, that is one thing? But the inauguration is a big damn deal and should have dignity and some joy....but the Rockettes? Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 07:36 PM

59. Rockets are an archaic example of male debauchery

Girls without enough talent for Broadway flashing legs for octogenarians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 01:53 PM

62. exactly I thought of that

as soon as I came across a deplorable saying that about the Rockettes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread