Interestingly, I disagreed with Reagan because his mentality was that if you just let business be business and reduce taxes on top earners and corporations, they will reinvest that money in America, and that turned out not to be the case. George H. Bush made fun of “Reaganomics” during the 1980 primaries bc he knew how it would go. He was right.
Disney
- Thread starter LowerLevelSeatA
- Start date
- Status
What a freak show opinion. Liberal governments attack Chic Fila because of something it’s owner does, but Disney as a corporation sticks its bill into the issue of education in Florida, an issue unrelated to it business interests, and somehow some dick thinks that the GOP wants Disney to discriminate? You have to be starving for bad fiction to believe that crap. Congrats!!
Please illustrate how the law discriminates against gay people.
Just an odd hill for Disney and the left to die on. Unless of course it’s hitting close to home.
It's not unrelated to its business interests. Disney is potentially moving tons of staff from California to Florida. If the staff is uncomfortable with the bill it could result with Disney losing a lot of creative and theme park Imagineering staff.
Funny thing about all of this.
Sensical bill created
Left goes insane, them and media concoct "don't say gay" narrative
Disney is completely silent
Left- bullies Disney into wokeness for support
Right simply reacts after initially saying nothing about Disney.
Left now fully behind power corporations and oligarchy
Sensical bill created
Left goes insane, them and media concoct "don't say gay" narrative
Disney is completely silent
Left- bullies Disney into wokeness for support
Right simply reacts after initially saying nothing about Disney.
Left now fully behind power corporations and oligarchy
What an idiotic explanation. They place the interests of “tons of staff” over the interests of the citizens of Florida and the parents of kids who don’t want Disney to be politically woke with their kids? Who is running that hot mess?
Disney staff wants teachers instructing kids k-4 on sexual orientation? Stay in California.
Bob Chapek, who is proving to be a horrible CEO. If Iger was still running the show Disney would have taken a stance against the bill and Iger would have resolved things with DeSantis quickly behind closed doors. Iger will go down as one of the best CEOs any company has had.
Chapek managed to piss off Disney employees and DeSantis at the same time.
From Canada to Washington to Texas to Florida to Colorado, everyone wants Californians to stay in California.
Texas and Florida have the least state debt in the country. NY, NJ, Illinois, Mass, and Cali have the most state debt.
Texas and Florida have the least state debt in the country. NY, NJ, Illinois, Mass, and Cali have the most state debt.
Jameslee just can't stop defending diddling kids. It's like it hits close to home there as well?
People that have seen some of the **** that kids are being taught in school and aren’t *slightly* uncomfortable with it-what is your bridge too far?
OH MY GAWD!!!! WE MUST PROTECT LEADERS OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AT ALL COSTS!!!!!
Dude, those clowns would support slavery. Anything for a buck. They sold their soul a long time ago.
Why do they deserve special tax statuses?
So FREAKING hilarious that the LEFT WING NUTJOBS are suddenly AGAINST EQUITY and level playing fields .... can't make up their damned minds.
Here are some excerpts from their insanity-
Women's rights!!!
TransAms need to be allowed to compete against women and use their locker rooms regardless of women's rights, right to privacy, the risks to women, or how they feel about it.
Me, too!
Honor killings are ok though, because that's part of the Muslim religious code!
Gay rights!
Except for those in China and the Middle East! Best of luck to y'all...
Private Bakery needs TO BE FORCED to make something for anyone no matter what!
Twitter can censor anyone's opinion because they're a private company!
Tax the churches!
Taking away Disney's special tax status is purely political and shameful!
Shut down all of the farms in Central Cali to "save" a fish! Get rid of coal because of its effects on the environment!
Don't say anything bad about China and their history of pollution, refusal to reduce carbon emissions, and abuse of their citizens, because we need our iPhones and windmills to fight for the environment!
Children need a voice! They have to be able to choose their genderish stuff!
Parents can decide to begin hormonal therapy for their children and without their knowledge or consent...
Misogyny is bad!
Grooming is good!
Abortion for any reason, even after birth, is a woman's right!
Aborting a fetus because it might be gay or TransAm is horrible!
Telling a women she can't have as many children out of wedlock as she wants is bad!
China's 1 child policy is great!
China's 2 child policy is great!
Sexual freedom!
Unless you're a man....
The road goes ever on for the left like a big roundabout with entries but no exit except barefoot and without deodorant
It's not the what, it's the why. This was never an issue for the current Florida legislature or DeSantis until Disney pushed back politically. There are Legislators admitting to that fact that this is retaliatory. If RCID was dissolved during a normal session on a random Tuesday no one would give a crap. It's the fact that this is being done solely because Disney spoke out politically in a way that the Florida GOP did not like. That's the problem.
Hmmm. Don't want to be involved in political battles, maybe you don't want to take political sides.
Why is it always, and exclusively "politically motivated" in a bad way when it's the conservatives, but morally justified when the left tries to bury a company? Isn't that special
You're missing the point. It's not about what one side or another is doing. It's about what the government is doing. The outraged mobs left or the right can "cancel" or "bury" whoever they want as long as it's not the government doing it.
Getting involved in politics, whether it's an individual or a corporation, is protected free speech. Any government body retaliating against that speech is improper. I don't care if it's Florida retaliating against Disney or New York retaliating against Hobby Lobby. If a government body takes action against a private party solely because they speak out politically it's a big problem.
It's surprising to me that conservatives, who always yell about free speech and limited government intervention, is supporting a government going after a corporation because it disagrees with their free speech.
The right has to fight fire with fire before this nonsense gets even further out of hand.
The (decidedly illiberal) left is reaping what they've sown. They're solely responsible for the creation of this stupid and self-destructive cancel culture environment. The distinction between government and corporation is functionally immaterial when it's the (again, decidedly illiberal) corporate left that is in charge of government.
The (decidedly illiberal) left is reaping what they've sown. They're solely responsible for the creation of this stupid and self-destructive cancel culture environment. The distinction between government and corporation is functionally immaterial when it's the (again, decidedly illiberal) corporate left that is in charge of government.
Yes indeed, when a near hegemonic corporation endorses grooming and pedophilia (or “speaking politically”, to quote your euphemism), it is the job of elected officials to reign them in.
If not the elected officials, who?
This is truly the slippery slope. It’s not some distant thing, it’s here. Equating the endorsement of child grooming with political speech is a red line that people won’t accept.
Show me a statement where Disney explicitly endorsed child grooming.
I would love to see someone actually address legitimate concerns about the bill without accusing the concerned party with being a pedophile or endorsing child grooming.
If this bill was so concerned with child grooming it should have specifically mentioned that and taken specific steps to ban it. It did neither. There were amendments put forth, by both Democrats and Republicans, to attempt to clarify what the purpose of this bill was and clarify specific actions it was banning. All amendments were rejected. "Grooming" is nothing more than a scary buzzword people keep using. The bill doesn't actually ban grooming or sexually explicit instruction, it just makes vague statements about gender identity and orientation.
If you think Disney is getting targeted now, wait until the GOP takes the house and senate and revokes Disney's copyright protection (which the US changed the law for several years ago as a gift to Disney). F around and find out, mouse.
It’s truly pathetic how many political losers are picking sides in this battle, and it’s based on nothing but political beliefs. Pathetic. As a government leader, you should create an environment where it’s easy and profitable to do business. And stay tf out of the way.
I said that when AOC was rooting against Amazons HQ2 move, and I’ll say it when Desantis is waging war against Disney.
I said that when AOC was rooting against Amazons HQ2 move, and I’ll say it when Desantis is waging war against Disney.
Do you believe businesses should stay out of non-business related political issues then?
When a teacher intentionally brings up sex outside of a sex specific curriculum; encourages secrecy about it; targets children too young to comprehend; or violates boundaries, does it meet the description of grooming listed below?
We have to name it in the bill to specify that it shouldn’t happen?
Victim selection: Abusers often observe possible victims and select them based on ease of access to them or their perceived vulnerability.
Gaining access and isolating the victim: Abusers will attempt to physically or emotionally separate a victim from those protecting them and often seek out positions in which they have contact with minors.
Trust development and keeping secrets: Abusers attempt to gain trust of a potential victim through gifts, attention, sharing “secrets” and other means to make them feel that they have a caring relationship and to train them to keep the relationship secret.
Desensitization to touch and discussion of sexual topics: Abusers will often start to touch a victim in ways that appear harmless, such as hugging, wrestling and tickling, and later escalate to increasingly more sexual contact, such as massages or showering together. Abusers may also show the victim pornography or discuss sexual topics with them, to introduce the idea of sexual contact.
Attempt by abusers to make their behavior seem natural, to avoid raising suspicions. For teens, who may be closer in age to the abuser, it can be particularly hard to recognize tactics used in grooming. Be alert for signs that your teen has a relationship with an adult that includes secrecy, undue influence or control, or pushes personal boundaries.
It’s up to them. Politicians are elected to serve all the people, even the ones that don’t agree with them. Businesses only have to satisfy their customer.
I prefer businesses to stay neutral, but that’s their decision.
I prefer businesses to stay neutral, but that’s their decision.
Thanks for proving my point. The bill does not say anything about banning discussions on sex. It bans discussion on sexual orientation and gender identity. Which means a teacher could still groom a student and talk about sexually explicit material all day long, they just can't talk to the student about being gay or straight.
The bill is written incredibly poorly.
Businesses should be allowed to make political statements if they want to. Their monetary support should probably be limited, but Citizens United is a discussion for another day.
It might be a stupid business decision to alienate half your customer base, but a business shouldn't have to worry about government retribution for speaking out.
Disney did not only voice an opinion about the bill, it engaged in mischaracterization of the bill and the motives of those who support the bill. Disney permitted itself to be a puppet in a corporate smear campaign. The question that should be asked is should special taxbreak quasi-government privileges be permitted to a corporate citizen who attempts to mislead the public about legislation? If you think the answer is “no,” then the legislature’s move was less revenge than natural consequence.
It really doesn't matter. Even if something is mischaracterized it's free speech that is legally protected from government retribution. The move was revenge. The legislature has admitted it and said they wouldn't have done it if Disney kept quiet.
And for the record, Disney gets zero tax breaks from Reedy Creek. They still pay $300 million in property taxes annually to Orange and Osceola counties, and sales and tourism taxes to the state. Reedy Creek allowed them to collect a small amount of additional tax to fund the infrastructure it controlled. Infrastructure that Reedy Creek operated at a loss.
Dissolving Reedy Creek is actually a financial benefit for Disney. They immediately get $1-2 billion because debts held by Reedy Creek will be transferred to the state or counties and no longer have to pay for the infrastructure. All it does is make it more annoying for them to get building projects approved and over time will lessen the quality of Disney World's infrastructure, all while costing the taxpayers of Florida more money.
Lol… politicians have been in the political retribution business since government was founded.
I understand free speech, but free speech sometimes comes with consequences. For example, you may say just about anything, but some things will get you put in jail, some things will get you rightfully sued, and somethings will have ramifications.
Disney gets tax breaks. The designation exempts Disney from numerous regulations and taxes and fees which reportedly saves the company tens of millions of dollars per year. I understand that Disney is likely remaining silent because it likes the idea of debt transfer.
I don’t live in Florida, so the ramifications of the move make no difference to me. But, the idea that you can actively mislead the public about legislation and retain a quasi-governmental privilege is different than government simply punishing free speech. A federal employee has the right to free speech, but may also be fired by the government for his/her comments.
Lol… just read this again. Are you stupid or something? Do you really think that the 1st amendment prevents the government from changing a tax law because they don’t like the actions of a company?
This has nothing to do with free speech. Don’t even bring that up because it doesn’t apply here.
If free speech comes with consequences from the government, by definition it is not free speech.
- Status