DeSantis and FL moving to hammer Disney

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who here thinks the odds are greater that it gets reinstated quietly after the election, or if there will be a 1A infringement case needed to sort it out?

Unless the polling strongly favors the Democratic nominee, I think Disney will file suit before the election.

Disney will be filing a lawsuit against this whatever the polling says.

There is no need for a lawsuit. This is a nothing burger for Disney. There will be a new district and all will be fine. Because of the debt it can't be anything else.

Actually Disney would have to agree to it. Who says they will?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who here thinks the odds are greater that it gets reinstated quietly after the election, or if there will be a 1A infringement case needed to sort it out?

Unless the polling strongly favors the Democratic nominee, I think Disney will file suit before the election.

Disney will be filing a lawsuit against this whatever the polling says.

There is no need for a lawsuit. This is a nothing burger for Disney. There will be a new district and all will be fine. Because of the debt it can't be anything else.

Actually Disney would have to agree to it. Who says they will?

+1. Disney might be able to negotiate an even better deal than Reedy Creek because the counties will be so desperate to avoid the debt burden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I put my money on Disney.

Wanna bet??

NP, I put my money on Disney and bought more DIS when the market dropped Friday

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I put my money on Disney.

Wanna bet??

Stock down 30%. Corporations that rely on broad consumer appeal shouldn’t pander to some ridiculous vocal minority. Their fiduciary duty is to shareholders and Disney has betrayed that fundamental mission. The CEO should be fired immediately.

MSFT, AMZN, FB,TWTR, CMCSA, NFLX, FOX, and DWAC are all down from the 52-week high. I am sure you are aware that DWAC is heavily backed by DeSantis and Trump supporters to be the answer to TWTR and FB, but it is down from $175 to $41. The market was in freefall and all consumer discretionary and tech stocks were hit HARD, some more than others. Why would DIS be any different? It wouldn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stock down 30%. Corporations that rely on broad consumer appeal shouldn’t pander to some ridiculous vocal minority. Their fiduciary duty is to shareholders and Disney has betrayed that fundamental mission. The CEO should be fired immediately.

I hope all would be Republican voters hear your truth. The GOP is opposed to human rights. You said it right here, that people who want human rights for all are, in your fundie way of thinking, “some ridiculous vocal minority.” You really believe that everyone should be discriminating against LGBTQ+ people and they should be running back into the closet. Just make sure you keep saying it with your whole chest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many Florida tax experts on this board. Who knew?

It’s not hard to read commentary from actual tax experts and local government officials.

Apparently it was for the guys who wrote this bill.

[Anonymous]

Letter to the editor in today's Tampa Bay Times:

https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2022/04/23/to-be-fair-shouldnt-the-villages-also-lose-its-special-district-status-letters/?itm_source=parsely-api

Please help me understand why our governor and Republican state legislators cannot find the time to address the needs of everyday taxpayers in this state. Instead of seeking ways to increase health care for the uninsured, reduce skyrocketing rents for soon-to-be homeless Floridians and address property insurance costs, they are busy attacking Disney and creating voting districts that favor their base. Yes, they are holding yet another special session in May (at taxpayers’ expense) to talk about property insurance, but where were these concerns in the regular legislative session. I suspect they were buried under the scripts of political theater designed to feature the governor. I guess I should be thankful that when I am homeless and uninsured at least I do not have to worry about textbooks in schools that might talk about the economic and racial divide in Florida or that teachers might accidentally launch into a sex education class in kindergarten. That is a solution looking for a problem.

Robin Frank, Tampa

I live in Florida and I am telling you, this is playing poorly here. We have actual needs that the legislature is just flat out ignoring in order to pursue these idiotic, harmful culture war bs battles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many Florida tax experts on this board. Who knew?

It’s not hard to read commentary from actual tax experts and local government officials.

Apparently it was for the guys who wrote this bill.

Best self-own in politics this year.

[Anonymous]

Why do kids from heterosexual families get to see their situation reflected in books in school and read about families like their own in books in school but kids with same sex parents are not allowed to do this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do kids from heterosexual families get to see their situation reflected in books in school and read about families like their own in books in school but kids with same sex parents are not allowed to do this?

Because the former is normal and the latter is not. And, look, I support gay marriage, detest the hateful discrimination to which gay people are subjected, and think we have a lot of work to do overcoming our historical prejudices. But that's the reason. And I think you know that.

I think your real question is why should we give heterosexual relationships preferential treatment. I think people advocating for that kind of preferential treatment would be able to advance some non-crazy arguments having to do with the value of heterosexual relationships in both producing children and giving them a stable environment to grow up. Maybe couple that with the idea that you teach the kids about the rules before you teach them about the exception to the rules. E.g. you give them a grasp of Newtonian physics before bending their minds with Einstein's stuff. But, of course, the non-crazy arguments are hopelessly tied up with a bunch of homophobic cultural baggage. So, the argument would probably devolve into name calling and finger pointing pretty quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do kids from heterosexual families get to see their situation reflected in books in school and read about families like their own in books in school but kids with same sex parents are not allowed to do this?

Because the former is normal and the latter is not. And, look, I support gay marriage, detest the hateful discrimination to which gay people are subjected, and think we have a lot of work to do overcoming our historical prejudices. But that's the reason. And I think you know that.

I think your real question is why should we give heterosexual relationships preferential treatment. I think people advocating for that kind of preferential treatment would be able to advance some non-crazy arguments having to do with the value of heterosexual relationships in both producing children and giving them a stable environment to grow up. Maybe couple that with the idea that you teach the kids about the rules before you teach them about the exception to the rules. E.g. you give them a grasp of Newtonian physics before bending their minds with Einstein's stuff. But, of course, the non-crazy arguments are hopelessly tied up with a bunch of homophobic cultural baggage. So, the argument would probably devolve into name calling and finger pointing pretty quickly.

But that is the who mfin issue. Gay families are normal. Being gay is normal. It's these horrifying bigots who are trying to push normal people living normal lives back into the closet.

Can a gay teacher even wear a wedding ring without risking their job - or a lawsuit - now?

[Anonymous]

Just stop Read the fine print cognitively I know that’s hard for maga Republican idiots

1. None of this goes into affect til Jan 2023 so if this is a thing for maga morons go ahead and worry til then.
2. Taxes now Disney has no debt woo hoo for them middle class tax payers in Fla screwed.
4. This is a gas light so DeStantis can curb voting rights if you don’t see this you are a complete and utter idiot,
5. If you still stand with Republicans good for you because after 2024 your life will suck mine won’t because family is prepared you morons will be beyond screwed with no health care no Medicare increases taxes women will no longer own things dummies all of you . Again not my problem I will be laughing all the way to the bank. You all won’t have bank accounts.

Don’t believe me Hahaha good luck with that , my post is factual if you read anything at all maga idiots you can go on Tom Cotton website and read the Republican plan. This is not hard people 2nd graders can find all of this easily

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do kids from heterosexual families get to see their situation reflected in books in school and read about families like their own in books in school but kids with same sex parents are not allowed to do this?

Because the former is normal and the latter is not. And, look, I support gay marriage, detest the hateful discrimination to which gay people are subjected, and think we have a lot of work to do overcoming our historical prejudices. But that's the reason. And I think you know that.

I think your real question is why should we give heterosexual relationships preferential treatment. I think people advocating for that kind of preferential treatment would be able to advance some non-crazy arguments having to do with the value of heterosexual relationships in both producing children and giving them a stable environment to grow up. Maybe couple that with the idea that you teach the kids about the rules before you teach them about the exception to the rules. E.g. you give them a grasp of Newtonian physics before bending their minds with Einstein's stuff. But, of course, the non-crazy arguments are hopelessly tied up with a bunch of homophobic cultural baggage. So, the argument would probably devolve into name calling and finger pointing pretty quickly.

I think you need to get out more. A certain percentage of the human population is gay and always has been and always will be. Not abnormal at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do kids from heterosexual families get to see their situation reflected in books in school and read about families like their own in books in school but kids with same sex parents are not allowed to do this?

Because the former is normal and the latter is not. And, look, I support gay marriage, detest the hateful discrimination to which gay people are subjected, and think we have a lot of work to do overcoming our historical prejudices. But that's the reason. And I think you know that.

I think your real question is why should we give heterosexual relationships preferential treatment. I think people advocating for that kind of preferential treatment would be able to advance some non-crazy arguments having to do with the value of heterosexual relationships in both producing children and giving them a stable environment to grow up. Maybe couple that with the idea that you teach the kids about the rules before you teach them about the exception to the rules. E.g. you give them a grasp of Newtonian physics before bending their minds with Einstein's stuff. But, of course, the non-crazy arguments are hopelessly tied up with a bunch of homophobic cultural baggage. So, the argument would probably devolve into name calling and finger pointing pretty quickly.

I think you need to get out more. A certain percentage of the human population is gay and always has been and always will be. Not abnormal at all.

Depends what you mean by "normal." If you mean good, non-scary people that we should treat with dignity, love, and respect, then I totally agree. But if we're talking more in the sense of "statistically mainstream," then no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do kids from heterosexual families get to see their situation reflected in books in school and read about families like their own in books in school but kids with same sex parents are not allowed to do this?

Because the former is normal and the latter is not. And, look, I support gay marriage, detest the hateful discrimination to which gay people are subjected, and think we have a lot of work to do overcoming our historical prejudices. But that's the reason. And I think you know that.

I think your real question is why should we give heterosexual relationships preferential treatment. I think people advocating for that kind of preferential treatment would be able to advance some non-crazy arguments having to do with the value of heterosexual relationships in both producing children and giving them a stable environment to grow up. Maybe couple that with the idea that you teach the kids about the rules before you teach them about the exception to the rules. E.g. you give them a grasp of Newtonian physics before bending their minds with Einstein's stuff. But, of course, the non-crazy arguments are hopelessly tied up with a bunch of homophobic cultural baggage. So, the argument would probably devolve into name calling and finger pointing pretty quickly.

I think you need to get out more. A certain percentage of the human population is gay and always has been and always will be. Not abnormal at all.

Depends what you mean by "normal." If you mean good, non-scary people that we should treat with dignity, love, and respect, then I totally agree. But if we're talking more in the sense of "statistically mainstream," then no.

Statistically mainstream? What are you talking about? Rights are not given to statistically mainstream people whatever that is supposed to mean. My kid is unusually tall...outside of statistically main stream....and if you think you are denying any rights to him because of that, think again.