- Joined
- Jan 1, 2020
- Messages
- 16,144
- Reaction score
- 4,784
- Location
- Southern OR
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Conservatives are allowed to fantasize, right?lol, conservative erotica.
Conservatives are allowed to fantasize, right?lol, conservative erotica.
Callen has said she has a residence in FL, so she may be affected.Tell us Canuck,
You got a dog in this fight? Did you grow up watching the "Mickey Mouse Show" and hate to see a strong Conservative U.S. governor have his way with the Magic Kingdom?
DeSantis is a politician with strong ambitions. He is flexing muscles trying to look good to the entire Right side of this country. Along with Independents who are looking for strong presidential leadership.
Why does that offend you? Are you so moralistic you can't appreciate nasty politics - regardless if everything is done legally?
I would be mildly curious to find out if anything DeSantis does to deal with Disney has anything to do with people who own homes in FL.Callen has said she has a residence in FL, so she may be affected.
My opinion, DeSantis is using Disney to fire up the base for his election, and if he is re-elected he will quietly repeal the Reedy Creek legislation and all willI would be mildly curious to find out if anything DeSantis does to deal with Disney has anything to do with people who own homes in FL.
The two scenarios do not seem related to each other at all.
My big interest is watching Florida and Disney kneecap each other.My big interest is in seeing Progressives who want to pull the country further Left get smacked down by politicians like DeSantis who pass laws for the sole purpose of making sure Progressives are restrained from propagating their agenda in any state in the union.
My opinion, DeSantis is using Disney to fire up the base for his election, and if he is re-elected he will quietly repeal the Reedy Creek legislation and all will
go back to normal.
You could be right, but DeSantis doesn't need Disney for a presidential run, the other 49 states don't care about his fight with Disney.I disagree.
DeSantis is using Disney to fire up the base for his election. And if re-elected he will immediately begin his run for President in 2024. He will attempt to keep the base fired up about Disney for at least two years knowing that Disney is going to get an injunction and tie this up in court for years. That way he keeps it as a Presidential Campaign talking point until after the 2024 election and if he wins...
Oh well, he will not be the Governor of Florida anymore and he hands a shit sandwich over to someone else to swallow.
WW
I disagree.My big interest is watching Florida and Disney kneecap each other.
They're both bad for America.
The bonds have to be paid, likely not by Disney, but holy crap you have no idea what socialism is.If DeSantis is successful in forcing Disney to pay those two bonds....
You are saying that DeSantis and the Florida GOP have embraced socialism. True socialism is the economic theory where the government can tell citizens and corporations how to pay out and spend their profits. What DeSantis and the Florida GOP are proposing is literally a socialist program.
By allowing DeSantis and the Florida state government to renege on a debt and cast it back onto the corporation despite a prior public contract, you will see it applied to other businesses in other states. Without meaning to, DeSantis will have pushed actual socialism further along than anyone else has in the history of the US.
Congratulations, you've become socialists!!!!!
But that will be unlikely and stands a very good chance of being slapped down in court as the government is punishing a corporation for using its right to free speech. Which, in the Constitution, is a not a thing.
I think it will all go back normal to regardless , and much sooner , than a primary run for DeSantis.My opinion, DeSantis is using Disney to fire up the base for his election, and if he is re-elected he will quietly repeal the Reedy Creek legislation and all will
go back to normal.
Schumer highlights the well-established case law on this issue, going as far back as a 1866 U.S. Supreme Court case, Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy, which “held that once a local government issues a bond based on an authorized taxing power, the state is contract-bound and cannot eliminate the taxing power supporting the bond.” There is “even greater protection” within the Florida Constitution blocking the state from breaching its contractual obligations to maintain the authorization for RCID’s existence.In authorizing Reedy Creek to issue bonds, the Florida legislature included a remarkable statement—included in Reedy Creek’s bond offerings—regarding its own promise to bondholders: “The State of Florida pledges to the holders of any bonds issued under this Act that it will not limit or alter the rights of the District to own, acquire, construct, reconstruct, improve, maintain, operate or furnish the projects or to levy and collect the taxes, assessments, rentals, rates, fees, tolls, fares and other charges provided for herein … until all such bonds together with interest thereon, and all costs and expenses in connection with any action or proceeding by or on behalf of such holders, are fully met and discharged.”
…In case it was not obvious, dissolving Reedy Creek “limited” and “altered” its ability to improve and maintain its project and collect its various charges and taxes, and thus Florida would be violating its pledge to bondholders by dissolving Reedy Creek. However, even without that explicit language, the bill dissolving Reedy Creek would have problems under contracts clauses of the Florida and U.S. constitutions.
Conservatives are allowed to fantasize, right?
My big interest is watching Florida and Disney kneecap each other.
They're both bad for America.
Yes, this is one of those times where you see a fight and hope everyone involved gets hurt.
So no free speech for Disney.Disneys financial dealings sould not have allowed them to shape social poliicy or to have such control over their fiefdom. All they had to do was stick to their business of entertainment.
Really? When was the last time a corporation was jailed for any type of free speech violation?Corporations enjoy the same first amendment rights as people.
Being jailed isn't a requirement for free speech to have been violated.Really? When was the last time a corporation was jailed for any type of free speech violation?
No, but it is one possible outcome. Any examples of corporations being fined for libel or slander?Being jailed isn't a requirement for free speech to have been violated.
Might say the same about Big Oil along the Gulf Coast. But you won't...Disneys financial dealings sould not have allowed them to shape social poliicy or to have such control over their fiefdom. All they had to do was stick to their business of entertainment.