Disney caves in high-stakes lawsuit against Ron DeSantis for control of district governing Orlando theme parks

[TangoNoCash]

LMAO. You have failed to refute the article in the OP, and you have repeatedly proven you dont understand basic arithmetic. I really hope no one asks you for financial advice. Somebody call the whambulance.

View attachment 67502567

LOL you lost and all you can do is make childish rants. Keep being you.

What have you provided in this discussion that isn’t a childish rant? This feels like arguing with my disabled child that gets public library access internet once a day. I feel bad and it’s time to cut ties. You have yourself a nice day and I’ll handle blocking things for us.

 

[JasperL]

They aren't speaking out against the government, they are speaking out against one party in politics. But yes, corporate personhood going away LIMITS the amount of influence they have with/over the government.

Speak all you want, but your money won't flow to the party/candidate.

That is a weird distinction without a difference....

The "one party in politics" is who was in control of the 'government' and Disney objected to a law passed by that 'one party in politics.' How can one object to the 'government' in charge without criticizing the 'one party' that leads that government, and specific laws passed by that 'one party in politics?'

 

[Cope]

That is a weird distinction without a difference....

The "one party in politics" is who was in control of the 'government' and Disney objected to a law passed by that 'one party in politics.' How can one object to the 'government' in charge without criticizing the 'one party' that leads that government, and specific laws passed by that 'one party in politics?'

Eh, maybe you see it as without a difference but for some reason I do.

My over-arching point wasn't so much that, it was more than corporations and corporate 'personhood' really needs to be abolished.
Corporations granted special privileges from the government can have those privileges revoked by the very same government they choose to criticize. I think a lot of this goes away if corporations weren't granted special privileges in the first place. They likely wouldn't have the special privileges if the money wasn't flowing into the coffers of the government to begin with though. (imo)

To me Disney isn't really speaking out against the government for wronging them, they are attempting to paint the government in a bad light because they disagree with certain social stances. It is increasingly divisive and corporations 'picking a side' should be seen as a bad thing.

 

[bomberfox]

The whole ordeal has been idiotic

It was dumb for Disney to wade into politics

It was dumb to give them basically lifetime defacto control over a portion of the state.

It was dumb to try to remove that control simply because they got themselves involved in politics

Just stupid from start to finish

Art has always been political. The original star wars was an anti imperialist statement.

 

[bomberfox]

I mean conservatives are the ones who got so bent out of shape over this in their latest effort to re-assert their traditional boundaries. They like to pretend they are transgressive but at the end of the day conservatism doesnt push the envelope.

 

[JasperL]

Eh, maybe you see it as without a difference but for some reason I do.

You didn't address my points....

"The "one party in politics" is who was in control of the 'government' and Disney objected to a law passed by that 'one party in politics.' How can one object to the 'government' in charge without criticizing the 'one party' that leads that government, and specific laws passed by that 'one party in politics?'

My over-arching point wasn't so much that, it was more than corporations and corporate 'personhood' really needs to be abolished.

Corporations will not be abolished, and the problem with corporate 'personhood' is what rights the courts have declared them to have, separate from the shareholders and/or employees/officers. So you have to be specific about what elements of 'corporate personhood' need to be 'abolished.'

Corporations granted special privileges from the government can have those privileges revoked by the very same government they choose to criticize. I think a lot of this goes away if corporations weren't granted special privileges in the first place. They likely wouldn't have the special privileges if the money wasn't flowing into the coffers of the government to begin with though. (imo)

I think the worry is that those "privileges" are dependent on agreeing with the "government" in charge, and if not then that "government" retaliates against the corporation for disagreeing with laws the government passed. As an entity, I despise Disney. If they go to zero, I'll lose NO sleep. I just do not care. What shouldn't be the case, however, is targeting them or anyone else for expressing their opposition to laws that government passes. More locally, the VW plant in Chattanooga is owned by Germans, mostly, and in Germany unions are just part of life. When VW was talking about working with the auto unions, the state threatened their tax benefits, because they don't want unions in this state. Had nothing to do with VW, but with the 'threat' of unions to other corporations. To me that's a step too far - they, the state, are interfering with that company's operation decisions

To me Disney isn't really speaking out against the government for wronging them, they are attempting to paint the government in a bad light because they disagree with certain social stances. It is increasingly divisive and corporations 'picking a side' should be seen as a bad thing.

They disagreed with a LAW passed by that government. It's not a "social stance" - it is/was a law. And if Disney has a bunch of gay employees, and customers, and viewers, and park attendees, and they DO, then what's wrong with Disney standing up for the rights of gay people? Do they need to get on their knees and kiss DeSantis' ass or what? Sit down and shut up when the DeSantis government characterizes gays and trans as groomer pedophiles? Bottom line as well is the 'corporation' doesn't speak at all - the people in that corporation speak, and the state then targeted the corporation for people in that business speaking views the sitting government in power didn't like.

 

[Cope]

You didn't address my points....

"The "one party in politics" is who was in control of the 'government' and Disney objected to a law passed by that 'one party in politics.' How can one object to the 'government' in charge without criticizing the 'one party' that leads that government, and specific laws passed by that 'one party in politics?'

There is no addressing of points, because I simply said you don't see it, and I do. That is pretty much the end of it. I did explain it a bit though, perhaps you can read it.

Corporations will not be abolished, and the problem with corporate 'personhood' is what rights the courts have declared them to have, separate from the shareholders and/or employees/officers. So you have to be specific about what elements of 'corporate personhood' need to be 'abolished.'

I mistyped. It isn't corporations that need abolishing, it is corporate personhood. The collective giving of money as a person.

I think the worry is that those "privileges" are dependent on agreeing with the "government" in charge, and if not then that "government" retaliates against the corporation for disagreeing with laws the government passed. As an entity, I despise Disney. If they go to zero, I'll lose NO sleep. I just do not care. What shouldn't be the case, however, is targeting them or anyone else for expressing their opposition to laws that government passes. More locally, the VW plant in Chattanooga is owned by Germans, mostly, and in Germany unions are just part of life. When VW was talking about working with the auto unions, the state threatened their tax benefits, because they don't want unions in this state. Had nothing to do with VW, but with the 'threat' of unions to other corporations. To me that's a step too far - they, the state, are interfering with that company's operation decisions

Sure, it may depend on who (what party) is in charge at any given time but that fails to address the overall point of government favors, or privileges given to those who agree/donate etc. Those privileges can be revoked when you don't agree/donate.

They disagreed with a LAW passed by that government. It's not a "social stance" - it is/was a law. And if Disney has a bunch of gay employees, and customers, and viewers, and park attendees, and they DO, then what's wrong with Disney standing up for the rights of gay people? Do they need to get on their knees and kiss DeSantis' ass or what? Sit down and shut up when the DeSantis government characterizes gays and trans as groomer pedophiles? Bottom line as well is the 'corporation' doesn't speak at all - the people in that corporation speak, and the state then targeted the corporation for people in that business speaking views the sitting government in power didn't like.

The law was addressing a social stance, as was the disagreement. I don't know all the ins and outs of the deal, but even I can remember the saying of 'don't bite the hand that feeds you'

In this case the corporation didn't speak, a single person (or multiple if you want) spoke FOR the entire corporation. I'm not a fan of the government sanctioning/harming corporations/people without valid reasons but that isn't the world we live in today. The divisive nature of politics and people in general have resulting in the need to pick a side, or be damned. I'm not there ... yet.

 

[PoS]

Except that wasn't what I specifically addressed with you, which was refuting the "go woke, go broke" rubbish you floated. So now you hop on the off ramp because you can't defend the nonsense you post. Keep flailing, it's delicious.

You failed to refute anything I said, and all you can do is keep rambling on because you cant take a loss. All of my points stands, because its backed up by none other than the stock price, before and since. Too bad for you.

What have you provided in this discussion that isn’t a childish rant? This feels like arguing with my disabled child that gets public library access internet once a day. I feel bad and it’s time to cut ties. You have yourself a nice day and I’ll handle blocking things for us.

LOL I accept your surrender.

 

[ElChupacabra]

You failed to refute anything I said, and all you can do is keep rambling on because you cant take a loss. All of my points stands, because its backed up by none other than the stock price, before and since. Too bad for you.

View attachment 67502754

LOL I accept your surrender.

I absolutely did refute what you said, the problem is you either have reading comprehension issues and/or a poor memory, OR you're being intentionally obtuse at responding to the point I first made to you and are now in this sad dance to try and weasel your way out of the point I made and the questions I asked you. You should take the lesson of the former president who keeps claiming he won, but no one buys it and he instead looks like a fool in the eyes of everyone outside of his inner circle. It doesn't seem like you have an inner circle, so you should seriously reconsider this approach.

So to give you a chance to say anything relevant outside of your childishly petulant responses, I'll give you one more chance to address what I pointed about your failed premise.

PoS' premise: Disney stock took a dive because it "went woke, got broke".

ElChupacabra's rebuttal: I pointed out in post #121 how that does not hold water since Disney had been losing value since 2021, as had other media companies. I asked the questions below in post #134 after your failure to defend your failed premise in the hopes you could put together an actual relevant response.

• Chapek expressed his opinion about Florida's Parental Rights in Education bill in March of 2022, so what was causing the decline in Disney's stock value from its peak in March 2021?
• Disney's stock price has trended upwards recently, so are they less woke, or are people/investors not reacting to it in the way you think they are anymore?
• So did Paramount go MEGA WOKE in March of 2021 when their stock plummeted?

So let's see if third time's the charm in you actually addressing my comments, or whether you're going to strike out with another predictably boring "I WIN!" response. If not, then you can take your imaginary victory and be on your way.

 

[PoS]

I absolutely did refute what you said, the problem is you either have reading comprehension issues and/or a poor memory, OR you're being intentionally obtuse at responding to the point I first made to you and are now in this sad dance to try and weasel your way out of the point I made and the questions I asked you. You should take the lesson of the former president who keeps claiming he won, but no one buys it and he instead looks like a fool in the eyes of everyone outside of his inner circle. It doesn't seem like you have an inner circle, so you should seriously reconsider this approach.

So to give you a chance to say anything relevant outside of your childishly petulant responses, I'll give you one more chance to address what I pointed about your failed premise.

PoS' premise: Disney stock took a dive because it "went woke, got broke".

ElChupacabra's rebuttal: I pointed out in post #121 how that does not hold water since Disney had been losing value since 2021, as had other media companies. I asked the questions below in post #134 after your failure to defend your failed premise in the hopes you could put together an actual relevant response.

• Chapek expressed his opinion about Florida's Parental Rights in Education bill in March of 2022, so what was causing the decline in Disney's stock value from its peak in March 2021?
• Disney's stock price has trended upwards recently, so are they less woke, or are people/investors not reacting to it in the way you think they are anymore?
• So did Paramount go MEGA WOKE in March of 2021 when their stock plummeted?

So let's see if third time's the charm in you actually addressing my comments, or whether you're going to strike out with another predictably boring "I WIN!" response. If not, then you can take your imaginary victory and be on your way.

LMAO. Even when Capek was CEO Iger never left, and continued his woke policies behind the curtains, so youre silly opinion is nothing but a lie.

The only reason Disney's stock started inching up lately is because Nelson Peltz tried to get on the board. Notice that the stock price dropped again when he got rejected, which goes to show that the market knows full well Iger is a woke incompetent.

But I get it. Youre woke too, so thats why you try and defend Disney, but still fail at it. Birds of a feather.

 

[VySky]

'Don't say Gay' bill.

Never heard of it.

 

[ElChupacabra]

LMAO. Even when Capek was CEO Iger never left, and continued his woke policies behind the curtains, so youre silly opinion is nothing but a lie.

The only reason Disney's stock started inching up lately is because Nelson Peltz tried to get on the board. Notice that the stock price dropped again when he got rejected, which goes to show that the market knows full well Iger is a woke incompetent.

But I get it. Youre woke too, so thats why you try and defend Disney, but still fail at it. Birds of a feather.


View attachment 67502895

So still no response to anything I said in the posts I cited and more rushing to find ways to defend your silly point. Piss poor as usual, so kudos for consistency.

 

[PoS]

So still no response to anything I said in the posts I cited and more rushing to find ways to defend your silly point. Piss poor as usual, so kudos for consistency.

LOL aww, you just got owned again, and now youre upset.

 

[tosca1]

Yup, make political statements and be punished through force of government. The American Way.

Not when it involves brainwashing children!
ESPECIALLY, when the target is................................................C H I L D R E N!


Lol - if adults need a warning on cigarette packs (which I'm sure woke people are so in favor of).........................all the more we have to protect our youths from getting their minds twisted by Disney!!

 

[roguenuke]

Not when it involves brainwashing children!
ESPECIALLY, when the target is................................................C H I L D R E N!


Lol - if adults need a warning on cigarette packs (which I'm sure woke people are so in favor of).........................all the more we have to protect our youths from getting their minds twisted by Disney!!

Children aren't being brainwashed. These claims are pure ridiculous.

People are born LGBTQ, they aren't born smoking cigarettes. Your comparison here is stupid.

 

[tosca1]

Children aren't being brainwashed. These claims are pure ridiculous.

People are born LGBTQ, they aren't born smoking cigarettes. Your comparison here is stupid.

You find it "stupid," because you don't get it.

 

[roguenuke]

You find it "stupid," because you don't get it.

I "get it" just fine. You are believing lies and propaganda, spreading it.

 

[tosca1]

I "get it" just fine. You are believing lies and propaganda, spreading it.

You think you get it.



Whatever.

 

[ElChupacabra]

LOL aww, you just got owned again, and now youre upset.

Ok, since you seem incapable of defending your post and insist on being petulant, then off you go.

 

[PoS]

Ok, since you seem incapable of defending your post and insist on being petulant, then off you go.

Aww, still in denial over reality? Im not surprised since youre woke lol.

 

[eman623]

Never heard of it.

I was in Florida back in February and said 'gay' on several occasions, even around law enforcement.

Seems like they are not enforcing that law very tightly.