The DeSantis gambit

[wareyin]

I don't give a **** about his motives. I care about whether it IS fair. I think it is.

Of course you think DeSantis' antibusiness actions were fair...just as you would be 100% opposed to them had a Democratic Governor tried such an end around of the law.

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course you think DeSantis' antibusiness actions were fair...

"anti-business"? How is it anti-business? Businesses aren't entitled to special districts. And Disney isn't entitled to more special district independence than every other business in Florida.

just as you would be 100% opposed to them had a Democratic Governor tried such an end around of the law.

End run around the law? You are deeply confused. If anything, the RCID itself was an end run around the law, a special exception to the law that no other business got. Making Disney subject to the same laws as everyone else isn't an end run around the law.

Seeing the libs simp for big corporations to try to own DeSantis is hilarious. Stop trying to cosplay Ayn Rand, it's just embarrassing.

 

[wareyin]

"anti-business"? How is it anti-business? Businesses aren't entitled to special districts. And Disney isn't entitled to more special district independence than every other business in Florida.

Your feigned ignorance that this is a specific reaction to a public stance taken by Disney is cute, but not a good argument.

End run around the law? You are deeply confused. If anything, the RCID itself was an end run around the law, a special exception to the law that no other business got. Making Disney subject to the same laws as everyone else isn't an end run around the law.

Seeing the libs simp for big corporations to try to own DeSantis is hilarious. Stop trying to cosplay Ayn Rand, it's just embarrassing.

Your pretense that you know the law better than the high powered Disney lawyers is also cute, but is still not a good argument.

We all know that if DeSantis had a D next to his name you would suddenly understand that a Governor trying to punish a business for publicly disagreeing with him wasn't a good thing.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your feigned ignorance that this is a specific reaction to a public stance taken by Disney is cute, but not a good argument.

Oh, I never said it wasn't anti-Disney. But that wasn't your claim. You claimed it was anti-business. That's a conflation I don't accept.

Your pretense that you know the law better than the high powered Disney lawyers is also cute, but is still not a good argument.

Straw man. I never claimed to know the law better than Disney's lawyers. But again, since you obviously missed it the first time and were too clueless to realize this on your own, Iger's spontaneous response to a shareholder question wasn't written by lawyers. It wasn't approved by lawyers. It wasn't screened by lawyers. What he said doesn't reflect what they know. If I'm right that he ****** up, that has nothing to do with Disney's lawyers not being good at their job. So your own claim that my claim depends on Disney's lawyers being bad is patently nonsense, and you should be embarrassed for trying to make it.

We all know that if DeSantis had a D next to his name you would suddenly understand that a Governor trying to punish a business for publicly disagreeing with him wasn't a good thing.

When all you have is a complaint about my alleged motives, you don't have anything.

 

[wareyin]

Oh, I never said it wasn't anti-Disney. But that wasn't your claim. You claimed it was anti-business. That's a conflation I don't accept.

A state governor trying to get revenge on a business for using their freedom of speech is anti-business. That you pretend it's ok because it's Disney says more about your partisan motives than anything else.

Straw man. I never claimed to know the law better than Disney's lawyers. But again, since you obviously missed it the first time and were too clueless to realize this on your own, Iger's spontaneous response to a shareholder question wasn't written by lawyers. It wasn't approved by lawyers. It wasn't screened by lawyers. What he said doesn't reflect what they know. If I'm right that he ****** up, that has nothing to do with Disney's lawyers not being good at their job. So your own claim that my claim depends on Disney's lawyers being bad is patently nonsense, and you should be embarrassed for trying to make it.

You keep switching the goalposts between RCID and Iger's comments. Perhaps you're confusing yourself here, but not anyone else.

When all you have is a complaint about my alleged motives, you don't have anything.

I wasn't complaining about your motives, I was laughing about how transparently partisan they were. I thought that should have been clear enough even to you, what with the "if he had a D next to his name" and the laughing emoji, but yet again I have overestimated your reading comprehension level.

 

[Ziggurat]

A state governor trying to get revenge on a business for using their freedom of speech is anti-business.

And what does that "revenge" consist of?

Depriving Disney of special privileges it shouldn't have had in the first place.

Yeah, I'm OK with that.

You keep switching the goalposts between RCID and Iger's comments. Perhaps you're confusing yourself here, but not anyone else.

Iger's comments were an admission that Disney controls the RCID. These aren't separate issues. Duh.

I wasn't complaining about your motives, I was laughing about how transparently partisan they were.

Still just an attack on motives, nothing of substance.

 

[wareyin]

And what does that "revenge" consist of?

Depriving Disney of special privileges it shouldn't have had in the first place.

Yeah, I'm OK with that.

I know you're ok with authoritarian, anti-business, petty revenge actions taken by a government official, so long as that official is a Republican. That's not in question.

Iger's comments were an admission that Disney controls the RCID. These aren't separate issues. Duh.

Dude, just go back and reread your blather that the RCID was an endrun around the law, and figure out if that was what you wanted to say, or not. Your constant attempts to change the topic aren't doing you any favors.

Still just an attack on motives, nothing of substance.

It's not an attack. We all knew that if bobthecoward chimed in, it was going to be semantic drivel designed to kill the conversation. If you chime in, it's to say every action taken ever by a Republican was good, legal, and just, even if you'd previously condemned that exact action taken by anyone else. It's a 'water is wet' statement.

 

[Ziggurat]

I know you're ok with authoritarian, anti-business, petty revenge actions taken by a government official, so long as that official is a Republican. That's not in question.

"Authoritarian"? Because Disney must now obey all the same laws and regulations that everyone else has to obey?

Way to lower the bar there.

 

[wareyin]

"Authoritarian"? Because Disney must now obey all the same laws and regulations that everyone else has to obey?

Way to lower the bar there.

You still haven't caught on that this is a government official changing the laws in retribution for criticism of him?

 

[quadraginta]

"Authoritarian"? Because Disney must now obey all the same laws and regulations that everyone else has to obey?

Way to lower the bar there.

What legal barriers prevented other businesses from engaging in similar arrangements if they had something of sufficient value to offer?

 

[Ziggurat]

What legal barriers prevented other businesses from engaging in similar arrangements if they had something of sufficient value to offer?

The RCID was created specifically by an act of the Florida legislature. Only a legislative act could create another such entity. The legislature has never granted any other company the same benefits, and is unlikely to ever do so again.

 

[jadebox]

What legal barriers prevented other businesses from engaging in similar arrangements if they had something of sufficient value to offer?

None. There are over 1000 special tax districts in Florida.

Edit: Almost 2000.

 

[wareyin]

None. There are over 1000 special tax districts in Florida.

Edit: Almost 2000.

Reports seem to vary between 1844 and "over 1900".

The new law affects 5 of the special tax districts.

Thus ends Zig's claim that attacking Disney by changing the law to only affect them and a few others out of 1900 special districts is only fair and puts Disney on par with every other business.

 

[Ziggurat]

None. There are over 1000 special tax districts in Florida.

Edit: Almost 2000.

Depends what you mean by "similar". RCID was not the only special district, but it was unique among special districts.

 

[bruto]

Unlike Ziggurat, I'm not really all that interested in whether or not it's fair. My guess is that the whole thing was unfair from the start, at least to someone, and whatever else is done, it will likely be unfair to someone else. But we're talking about Disney here, and I suspect the real issue will come down to what is legal. And I'm tentatively betting (no money, no loss if wrong) that the Mouse knows what's in the fine print, having written it.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Worth pointing out that the RCID, as well as having some say over benefits in its area of jurisdiction, still has to obey all state and local laws as well. It doesn't get a free pass to do scamming, criming, hooliganism and pollution just because it is RCID. It is not a state unto itself.

Sure, RCID is a business opportunity and a money-spinner. Disneyworld has been there for decades, and plenty of local people have benefited from it. If it was a business failure or a burden on the local populace then it would not have lasted so long. DeSantis hates it solely because Disney stood up to his fascist anti-LGBTI laws. But he also wants to get in on that sweet, sweet income stream. Now just put those two points together and you can see why DeSantis is being so dickish, and why the Mouse will win.

 

[acbytesla]

"Authoritarian"? Because Disney must now obey all the same laws and regulations that everyone else has to obey?

Way to lower the bar there.

Yes. It's wrong for Disney to utter the word gay. They must be as bigoted and hateful as all Florida citizens.

 

[Stacyhs]

Unlike Ziggurat, I'm not really all that interested in whether or not it's fair. My guess is that the whole thing was unfair from the start, at least to someone, and whatever else is done, it will likely be unfair to someone else. But we're talking about Disney here, and I suspect the real issue will come down to what is legal. And I'm tentatively betting (no money, no loss if wrong) that the Mouse knows what's in the fine print, having written it.

I'll bet on that, too.

 

[Stacyhs]

Have you seen the MAGA anti-DeSantis commercial?

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-pr...-launches-ad-attacking-ron-desantis-rcna77483

 

[catsmate]

The list of removed books in that article makes a very convenient list of suggested reading for parents whose minds are not filled with conservative wing-nut feces.

It may even be working toward that end. I looked up Sarah J. Maas, A Court of Thorns and Roses (the first book in a six book series which received the condemnation of the Martin County censors) in both of the libraries I subscribed to. One had twenty four copies of the ebook, all of which were being used. The other, something of a consortium of NC libraries pooling their ebooks, had twenty eight copies. All of which were also currently being used.

One thing I have found to be true to a great extent is that kids who are too young to read a particular book are also generally too young to be interested in reading it. I see no good reason to penalize those students who are progressing in maturity beyond their classmates, and every reason to encourage them.

And there is very little if anything which is going to lead them astray in any of those books. Most of them do the opposite, and tend to be morality tales of a sort. Especially the works of fiction.

OT: One Xmas I based my book acquisitions for my eldest (teenage) niece on the ALA's Most Banned Books list, minus those she had and The New Joy of Gay Sex which didn't interest her.