• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Callen said:
Are the tax payers of Orange county ultra rich? Under the current agreement Disney pays for all the services , roads, fire, police, etc, within the property themselves. If the deal is dissolved all those costs transfer to the taxpayers.
Click to expand...
Yes or No?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
Ikari said:
They weren't getting away with something they shouldn't, that had been the agreement for decades. DeSantis decided to weaponize that and use it as punishment for the political comments of a CEO. That's the entire thing.
Click to expand...
Yes, they were. They had a special exemption that had the effect of almost making themselves their own territory. That's not up for discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
Ikari said:
The people in charge is the government, the government is not to infringe upon political speech. Removing contracted agreements in retribution for the political statements of a CEO is just that.
Click to expand...
Personally, I don't believe that companies have a right to political speech as I also don't believe in corporate personhood.

That should be reserved for citizens.

Also, I've seen political backstabbing at the local level like this all the time. Local politics is very petty.
 
Cope said:
That is what I said ...

The difference here is that this corporation was granted a privilege from the government that they took to dissing.

Don't piss in the wind, it'll blow back on you?
Click to expand...
That doesn't work. The government has no right, place in taking any action against any person or corporation based on "dissing" them. That is against our Constitution.
 
Opossum said:
Yes, they were. They had a special exemption that had the effect of almost making themselves their own territory. That's not up for discussion.
Click to expand...
That was a contractual agreement between the government of Florida and Disney, it was not "getting away with something they shouldn't have".

You need to stop with these dumb deflections. Florida engaged in that contract with Disney, it was never hidden, it wasn't illegal, or any of that. The only thing that happened in this case was that DeSantis got mad that the former CEO of Disney made political comments critical of his bill and his authority, and in response DeSantis used the force of government to cancel that contract. That's the end all of this situation.
 
highroller said:
Personally, I don't believe that companies have a right to political speech as I also don't believe in corporate personhood.

That should be reserved for citizens.

Also, I've seen political backstabbing at the local level like this all the time. Local politics is very petty.
Click to expand...
Companies and the people within them do have a right to freedom of speech, without personhood. That is not reserved for citizens.

You seem to be suggesting in fact that our government, including state or local governments, could charge companies more in taxes for merely saying they support gun rights or same sex marriage, woke policy or a "Christian agenda". Do you really believe that should be okay?
 
highroller said:
Personally, I don't believe that companies have a right to political speech as I also don't believe in corporate personhood.

That should be reserved for citizens.

Also, I've seen political backstabbing at the local level like this all the time. Local politics is very petty.
Click to expand...
The CEO who made the comments is an individual and "citizen".
 
Ikari said:
That was a contractual agreement between the government of Florida and Disney, it was not "getting away with something they shouldn't have".
Click to expand...
You're stuck on repeat, making no point. The mere fact that it was a contract decades old doesn't mean it wasn't way out of the norm and an exemption that shouldn't exist.
Ikari said:
You need to stop with these dumb deflections. Florida engaged in that contract with Disney, it was never hidden, it wasn't illegal, or any of that. The only thing that happened in this case was that DeSantis got mad that the former CEO of Disney made political comments critical of his bill and his authority, and in response DeSantis used the force of government to cancel that contract. That's the end all of this situation.
Click to expand...
I don't think you know what the definition of "deflection" is. I'm literally talking about the topic of the thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
Opossum said:
You're stuck on repeat, making no point. The mere fact that it was a contract decades old doesn't mean it wasn't way out of the norm and an exemption that shouldn't exist.

I don't think you know what the definition of "deflection" is. I'm literally talking about the topic of the thread.
Click to expand...
No, you keep trying to make it seem like Disney was pulling something shady and the only reason they lost the contract was because of that.

The CEO made a political comment that DeSantis didn't like, as a result DeSantis used the force of government to cancel that contract. That's it, that's the end. It was government retribution against free speech. Not squashing some illegal activity, not rectifying some decades old wrong, none of it. It was a direct response to the comments made by the former CEO which criticized DeSantis in his role as Governor.
 
Ikari said:
No, you keep trying to make it seem like Disney was pulling something shady and the only reason they lost the contract was because of that.
Click to expand...
They are pulling something shady. You think that there aren't ever legal dynamics at play that aren't shady? I'm not sure if I'd wish to have that level of innocence or not.
Ikari said:
The CEO made a political comment that DeSantis didn't like, as a result DeSantis used the force of government to cancel that contract. That's it, that's the end. It was government retribution against free speech. Not squashing some illegal activity, not rectifying some decades old wrong, none of it. It was a direct response to the comments made by the former CEO which criticized DeSantis in his role as Governor.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Disney corporation as a whole drew attention to themselves, and that resulted in a special privilege, that should never have existed, to be removed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
Opossum said:
Cap
Click to expand...
Not my fault you don't understand the situation. .....and the use of "cap" instead of liar doesn't mean you aren't levying a personal insult.
 
PoS said:
apnews.com

Settlement reached in lawsuit between Disney and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' allies

Allies of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Disney have reached a settlement agreement in a state court fight over how Walt Disney World is developed in the future.
apnews.com apnews.com




Boom! Just as I predicted, Disney loses! Get woke go broke! This is a win for democracy, justice and the American way. :love:
Click to expand...
I think you grossly mischaracterized what happened here. Let's start with the title of the article which includes "Settlement", not "Disney caves"

This appears far more a settlement of differences, than anyone caving to the others. It actually looks like both sides won and both sides lost --- they settled. Business deals and court cases should not be win vs loss, but reach agreements which involve compromise so that the parties can move beyond the differences and forward together. I don't see how this is a win for Florida and loss of Disney. Its not!
 
Opossum said:
They are pulling something shady. You think that there aren't ever legal dynamics at play that aren't shady? I'm not sure if I'd wish to have that level of innocence or not.

Yes, the Disney corporation as a whole drew attention to themselves, and that resulted in a special privilege, that should never have existed, to be removed.
Click to expand...
As an act of government revenge for political speech.
 
Callen said:
Not my fault you don't understand the situation. .....and the use of "cap" instead of liar doesn't mean you aren't levying a personal insult.
Click to expand...
*lying, which is what you were doing with your post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
highroller said:
Companies do not have a right to self governance. They had a privilege and they pissed off the people in charge.
Click to expand...
You’re saying the same thing.
 
highroller said:
Was he speaking for himself or his company?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter. It is not the government's place to punish anyone for free speech, any company for taking a position on something, even if political. That violates the very foundation of our society, the written guarantees of freedom in our Constitution.
 
Ikari said:
As an act of government revenge for political speech.
Click to expand...
It's not an act of revenge if you get noticed. Like...if a bike sitting at a red light and they are obnoxiously reving their engine, and that causes a police officer to look over an notice their tags are expired, that's not revenge. That's just drawing attention to yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
roguenuke said:
No, they weren't. You were wrong. Accept it.
Click to expand...
Really? So then it is your assertion that the special dynamic that Disney had was not unique, and that it's prolific all over the place, even for poor people?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
Opossum said:
It's not an act of revenge if you get noticed. Like...if a bike sitting at a red light and they are obnoxiously reving their engine, and that causes a police officer to look over an notice their tags are expired, that's not revenge. That's just drawing attention to yourself.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Expired tags are illegal, Disney wasn't doing anything illegal. They had a legal contract. So it is revenge if you revved your engine, and a police officer gets mad at it, runs your plates and you've done nothing wrong, but issues a ticket for something they made up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom