Rockdoc said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Old May Banker said:

---

They chose to put a target on themselves.

---

And they have that right, free from retaliation.

Y'all are lucky Disney sued, and you better pray they can win and get this undone. Otherwise it's open season on "thought crimes" in blue states, and you can bet the charges will stick.

---

You and Disney leave our kids alone.

---

I want nothing to do with your kids, but you already know that.

Jeeper79 said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

What if militia members were rounded up because they spoke about anarchy? What if KKK were rounded up because they use racial slurs?

---

If you want to compare with Disney, it'd be more like the militia guys (an no one else) were using Army Bases to train, and now they aren't going to be allowed to. Or if the Klanidiots were parading using the local Fire Trucks (and no one else could) and that got taken away

---

But Disney ISN'T the only entity with this sort of arrangement. They're just the only ones being targeted.

---

List the companies that have a setup the same as Reedy Creek. Please be sure to detail how it is EXACTLY like Reedy Creek.

Oh...and I'm just going to have to let you know, if you keep up your current posting habits, people on here will start to think that you're not being truthful when you claim to be a conservative...

Jeeper79 said:

---

Old May Banker said:

---

They chose to put a target on themselves.

---

And they have that right, free from retaliation.

Y'all are lucky Disney sued, and you better pray they can win and get this undone. Otherwise it's open season on "thought crimes" in blue states, and you can bet the charges will stick.

---

Thought crime? Who is taking away their rights to say as they please? Really? Why should the state of Florida be required to subsidize their exclusive right above all others?

JohnLA762 said:

---

Wait, what happened to liberals demanding corporations pay their fair share?!?

---

They are in hiding just like old conservatives who understood and called out Russian leaders for being *******s. Now the faux conservatives root for Russia because they hate Biden so much. Our country is in trouble.

I'm confused Bill. Is mean old Desantis targeting Disney "particularly in regards to Disney's COVID-19 policies", as you stated in a previous post? Or is he targeting Disney "merely...in retaliation....after the company opposed his draconian anti-LGBTQ+ policies last year", as you stated in your most recent post?

Or maybe I'm not the one confused, you are. So what's the next talking point going to be Bill?

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

I'm confused Bill. Is mean old Desantis targeting Disney "particularly in regards to Disney's COVID-19 policies", as you stated in a previous post? Or is he targeting Disney "merely...in retaliation....after the company opposed his draconian anti-LGBTQ+ policies last year", as you stated in your most recent post?

Or maybe I'm not the one confused, you are. So what's the next talking point going to be Bill?

---

Reread my post. No confusion. They exercised their right as private business owners as well as their first amendment rights.

Regardless, DeSantis retaliated and temporal proximity is enough for him to lose decisively even if there were a proximate cloud over the reasoning.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

I'm confused Bill. Is mean old Desantis targeting Disney "particularly in regards to Disney's COVID-19 policies", as you stated in a previous post? Or is he targeting Disney "merely...in retaliation....after the company opposed his draconian anti-LGBTQ+ policies last year", as you stated in your most recent post?

Or maybe I'm not the one confused, you are. So what's the next talking point going to be Bill?

---

Reread my post. No confusion. They exercised their right as private business owners as well as their first amendment rights.

Regardless, DeSantis retaliated and temporal proximity is enough for him to lose decisively even if there were a proximate cloud over the reasoning.

---

Another person that doesn't understand the Citizen's United ruling...

Ag with kids said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

I'm confused Bill. Is mean old Desantis targeting Disney "particularly in regards to Disney's COVID-19 policies", as you stated in a previous post? Or is he targeting Disney "merely...in retaliation....after the company opposed his draconian anti-LGBTQ+ policies last year", as you stated in your most recent post?

Or maybe I'm not the one confused, you are. So what's the next talking point going to be Bill?

---

Reread my post. No confusion. They exercised their right as private business owners as well as their first amendment rights.

Regardless, DeSantis retaliated and temporal proximity is enough for him to lose decisively even if there were a proximate cloud over the reasoning.

---

Another person that doesn't understand the Citizen's United ruling...

---

Citizens United affirmed the constitutional right of corporations to spend money on political campaigns as a form of free speech protected under the First Amendment.

The precedent is First Amendment protection. You may be the one that doesn't understand the issue.

Ag87H2O said:

---

Just caught up on this thread. I just want to say I find it hilarious that every time the new sock Bill Clinternet got quoted yesterday the old username Neehau showed in the quote box.

---

He thinks he fooled us. He does this over and over.

Rockdoc said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

Just caught up on this thread. I just want to say I find it hilarious that every time the new sock Bill Clinternet got quoted yesterday the old username Neehau showed in the quote box.

---

He thinks he fooled us. He does this over and over.

---

Well at least now he gets to pay to be wrong.

Ag87H2O said:

---

Just caught up on this thread. I just want to say I find it hilarious that every time the new sock Bill Clinternet got quoted yesterday the old username Neehau showed in the quote box.

---

Busted.

Outsmarting no one but himself

Bill Clinternet said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

I'm confused Bill. Is mean old Desantis targeting Disney "particularly in regards to Disney's COVID-19 policies", as you stated in a previous post? Or is he targeting Disney "merely...in retaliation....after the company opposed his draconian anti-LGBTQ+ policies last year", as you stated in your most recent post?

Or maybe I'm not the one confused, you are. So what's the next talking point going to be Bill?

---

Reread my post. No confusion. They exercised their right as private business owners as well as their first amendment rights.

Regardless, DeSantis retaliated and temporal proximity is enough for him to lose decisively even if there were a proximate cloud over the reasoning.

---

Another person that doesn't understand the Citizen's United ruling...

---

Citizens United affirmed the constitutional right of corporations to spend money on political campaigns as a form of free speech protected under the First Amendment.

The precedent is First Amendment protection. You may be the one that doesn't understand the issue.

---

Lol, the Florida legislature and Gov DeSantis didn't stop Disney from exercising free speech or spending money on political campaigns. They were free to talk and spend all they wanted.

But don't confuse the right to free speech with freedom from consequences of speech. Those are two very different things, and there are hundreds of example in society to illustrate that point.

The FL ledge and Gov decided that Disney didn't deserve "special" consideration in the state and put them on equal footing with everybody else. That is totally within their authority as state lawmakers.

Neehau said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

Neehau said:

---

geoag58 said:

---

DeSantis is not in the wrong. Society at the state level has the right to set standards of morality. Disney is catering to evil mentally ill deviants and rubbing it in the face of the people of Florida. Short term there may be repercussions, long term the people of Florida will decide if it is worth it to take the correct stand. My money is on the people of Florida telling Disney to keep their deviant leanings to themselves and stick to serving families with moral entertainment.

---

This is a remarkable claim.

How, precisely, is Disney "catering to evil mentally ill deviants and rubbing it in the face of the people of Florida"?

---

DeSantis/Florida GOP pass a bill that prohibits topics of a sexual nature being discussed in Florida public school classroom by teachers or school administration. The law is applicable to kindergarten thru third grade (5 thru 9 year old students in public schools).

DeSantis, the Florida GOP, and apparently an overwhelming majority of Florida voters find this to be very reasonable legislation.

Disney went full tilt on willfully and purposely engaging in state politics by publicly opposing the legislation and spreading lies and deceit about the bill, claiming it was anti-gay and anti-trans, hence the "don't say gay" thing that never existed. The bill simply removes sexuality from curriculum for 5 to 9 year olds.

I'd say that Disney attacked DeSantis, not the other way around. They went on the attack, he has countered.

And yes, sexualizing 5 to 9 year olds is deviant and evil.

---

Teaching boys and girls about anything that naturally occurs in nature is not deviant and evil.

Is it more of your belief that we should relay to them more of a biblical education?

---

"Naturally occurring in nature"?

Do tell, mon frere.

What occurs naturally….homosexuality and transgenderism? I think you have the term natural vs deviation confused.

Neehau said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Neehau said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

Neehau said:

---

geoag58 said:

---

DeSantis is not in the wrong. Society at the state level has the right to set standards of morality. Disney is catering to evil mentally ill deviants and rubbing it in the face of the people of Florida. Short term there may be repercussions, long term the people of Florida will decide if it is worth it to take the correct stand. My money is on the people of Florida telling Disney to keep their deviant leanings to themselves and stick to serving families with moral entertainment.

---

This is a remarkable claim.

How, precisely, is Disney "catering to evil mentally ill deviants and rubbing it in the face of the people of Florida"?

---

DeSantis/Florida GOP pass a bill that prohibits topics of a sexual nature being discussed in Florida public school classroom by teachers or school administration. The law is applicable to kindergarten thru third grade (5 thru 9 year old students in public schools).

DeSantis, the Florida GOP, and apparently an overwhelming majority of Florida voters find this to be very reasonable legislation.

Disney went full tilt on willfully and purposely engaging in state politics by publicly opposing the legislation and spreading lies and deceit about the bill, claiming it was anti-gay and anti-trans, hence the "don't say gay" thing that never existed. The bill simply removes sexuality from curriculum for 5 to 9 year olds.

I'd say that Disney attacked DeSantis, not the other way around. They went on the attack, he has countered.

And yes, sexualizing 5 to 9 year olds is deviant and evil.

---

Teaching boys and girls about anything that naturally occurs in nature is not deviant and evil.

Is it more of your belief that we should relay to them more of a biblical education?

---

Please be very clear: do you believe 5-9 is an appropriate age to be teaching sexuality and gender fluidity to kids?

---

Define what you mean by sexuality and gender fluidity.

If by those terms you mean do I believe it is appropriate to let children know it is ok be a boy, a girl or somewhere in between and they can make the determination about that as they learn more about themselves?

---

I just gagged. I can't believe an "educated" person just made this statement on this board. I hope and pray you don't have an A&M degree.

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

Neehau said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Neehau said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

Neehau said:

---

geoag58 said:

---

DeSantis is not in the wrong. Society at the state level has the right to set standards of morality. Disney is catering to evil mentally ill deviants and rubbing it in the face of the people of Florida. Short term there may be repercussions, long term the people of Florida will decide if it is worth it to take the correct stand. My money is on the people of Florida telling Disney to keep their deviant leanings to themselves and stick to serving families with moral entertainment.

---

This is a remarkable claim.

How, precisely, is Disney "catering to evil mentally ill deviants and rubbing it in the face of the people of Florida"?

---

DeSantis/Florida GOP pass a bill that prohibits topics of a sexual nature being discussed in Florida public school classroom by teachers or school administration. The law is applicable to kindergarten thru third grade (5 thru 9 year old students in public schools).

DeSantis, the Florida GOP, and apparently an overwhelming majority of Florida voters find this to be very reasonable legislation.

Disney went full tilt on willfully and purposely engaging in state politics by publicly opposing the legislation and spreading lies and deceit about the bill, claiming it was anti-gay and anti-trans, hence the "don't say gay" thing that never existed. The bill simply removes sexuality from curriculum for 5 to 9 year olds.

I'd say that Disney attacked DeSantis, not the other way around. They went on the attack, he has countered.

And yes, sexualizing 5 to 9 year olds is deviant and evil.

---

Teaching boys and girls about anything that naturally occurs in nature is not deviant and evil.

Is it more of your belief that we should relay to them more of a biblical education?

---

Please be very clear: do you believe 5-9 is an appropriate age to be teaching sexuality and gender fluidity to kids?

---

Define what you mean by sexuality and gender fluidity.

If by those terms you mean do I believe it is appropriate to let children know it is ok be a boy, a girl or somewhere in between and they can make the determination about that as they learn more about themselves?

---

I just gagged. I can't believe an "educated" person just made this statement on this board. I hope and pray you don't have an A&M degree.

---

You didn't look at his icons I guess

TXAGFAN said:

---

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

Neehau said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Neehau said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

Neehau said:

---

geoag58 said:

---

DeSantis is not in the wrong. Society at the state level has the right to set standards of morality. Disney is catering to evil mentally ill deviants and rubbing it in the face of the people of Florida. Short term there may be repercussions, long term the people of Florida will decide if it is worth it to take the correct stand. My money is on the people of Florida telling Disney to keep their deviant leanings to themselves and stick to serving families with moral entertainment.

---

This is a remarkable claim.

How, precisely, is Disney "catering to evil mentally ill deviants and rubbing it in the face of the people of Florida"?

---

DeSantis/Florida GOP pass a bill that prohibits topics of a sexual nature being discussed in Florida public school classroom by teachers or school administration. The law is applicable to kindergarten thru third grade (5 thru 9 year old students in public schools).

DeSantis, the Florida GOP, and apparently an overwhelming majority of Florida voters find this to be very reasonable legislation.

Disney went full tilt on willfully and purposely engaging in state politics by publicly opposing the legislation and spreading lies and deceit about the bill, claiming it was anti-gay and anti-trans, hence the "don't say gay" thing that never existed. The bill simply removes sexuality from curriculum for 5 to 9 year olds.

I'd say that Disney attacked DeSantis, not the other way around. They went on the attack, he has countered.

And yes, sexualizing 5 to 9 year olds is deviant and evil.

---

Teaching boys and girls about anything that naturally occurs in nature is not deviant and evil.

Is it more of your belief that we should relay to them more of a biblical education?

---

Please be very clear: do you believe 5-9 is an appropriate age to be teaching sexuality and gender fluidity to kids?

---

Define what you mean by sexuality and gender fluidity.

If by those terms you mean do I believe it is appropriate to let children know it is ok be a boy, a girl or somewhere in between and they can make the determination about that as they learn more about themselves?

---

I just gagged. I can't believe an "educated" person just made this statement on this board. I hope and pray you don't have an A&M degree.

---

You didn't look at his icons I guess

---

I did. Hoping someone made a mistake or that he's just a highly effective troll.

It is possible to change your username once every 6 months on this board. It is also possible to review the posting history of any user.

Impossible to "trick" other users.

I really don't understand why this is complicated for our liberal friends... The Florida state government is going about its job to set educational standards. A large multinational company has been given extremely special circumstances through the state for a couple of generations and has expressed the desire to USE THAT ARRANGEMENT to fight the Florida state government in performing its duties. That is just the sanitized version... in reality, it is fighting to ensure kids from pre-k to 3rd grade can be taught by a representative of that government as much sexuality as they see fit without the consent of the parents.

They were given special circumstances because it was assumed that there would be a net benefit to the community for them to have that leg up. The community now has decided it no longer is beneficial to the community to give special allowances to a company who fights to sexualize children.

notex said:

---

Don't we already have enough Disney-DeSantis threads for the board leftists to lament how terrible his judgment is?

---

Just wait if he beats Trump. There will be 30 news articles every day about his "weaponizing government".

On second thought, 30/day may be low.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

It is possible to change your username once every 6 months on this board. It is also possible to review the posting history of any user.

Impossible to "trick" other users.

---

Thus we're not falling for it. Even the chat crap.

The left gets control of a private company, and they use that as a narrative distributor. Because they are a "private company", they hide behind free speech.

See Musk's takeover of Twitter. They had control of that social media giant and then bam. Free speech is allowed and they can't control it. Threatened all sorts of threats. But, in the end, this was a small victory for the right.

Disney same thing. They are a huge audience for kids, so let them do the left's brainwashing. This is a real problem. DeSantis' actions are clear attacking a private entity for political purposes. If DeSantis really wanted to somehow "level the playing field", he would have done this much sooner. But doing it now, is clearly not to "level the playing field". it's a political attack.

But, the left does this regularly, and with MSM owned by Soros and Media Matters, they are not called out on it. But DeSantis will be.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

I'm confused Bill. Is mean old Desantis targeting Disney "particularly in regards to Disney's COVID-19 policies", as you stated in a previous post? Or is he targeting Disney "merely...in retaliation....after the company opposed his draconian anti-LGBTQ+ policies last year", as you stated in your most recent post?

Or maybe I'm not the one confused, you are. So what's the next talking point going to be Bill?

---

Reread my post. No confusion. They exercised their right as private business owners as well as their first amendment rights.

Regardless, DeSantis retaliated and temporal proximity is enough for him to lose decisively even if there were a proximate cloud over the reasoning.

---

Another person that doesn't understand the Citizen's United ruling...

---

Citizens United affirmed the constitutional right of corporations to spend money on political campaigns as a form of free speech protected under the First Amendment.

The precedent is First Amendment protection. You may be the one that doesn't understand the issue.

---

Sort of. At no time did CU state that if a corporation spends money on political campaigns that state legislatures cannot enact legislation that affects them.

The Florida Legislature passed HB9. The Governor of Florida signed HB9. HB9 became law (this is how it works, just in case you don't understand that, either).

Or is your position that if a corporation spends money on any political campaign they are now 100% shielded from any legislation affecting them?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/disney-desantis-reedy-creek-lawsuit-secret-history.html

Neehau said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Neehau said:

---

Relevant Article

It is well known that lawmakers in Florida have proposed legislation that could impact Disney's special tax district status. The proposed legislation would change the requirements for such districts and will make it more difficult for Disney to maintain its current status. The questions lingering would be why is now the time to change anything after the trillions of dollars Disney has brought to the Florida economy over the years?

Governor DeSantis has targetted Disney, particularly in regards to Disney's COVID-19 policies.

---

Why NOT now? I thought liberals liked change?

---

How about breaking a deal with Disney that the state made with Walt Disney to bring them there in the first place.

---

You obviously know nothing about how Disney World came to be. Your concern is noted, your ignorance is confirmed.

Agthatbuilds said:

---

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/disney-desantis-reedy-creek-lawsuit-secret-history.html

---

That's an excellent piece.

Quote:

---

While Foglesong was reporting his 2001 book, which traces Disney's use of its government immunities and relationship with the surrounding area, he dug into Disney's archives, poring over company documents and memos. Instead of evidence of serious plans for the development of an idealized city, he found a warning from a lawyer that such a development could threaten Disney's control of the land. If there were real residents, they would be able to elect a local government and establish the external control that Disney feared.

Looking at that two-page memo about the development plans, Foglesong recalled in an interview, he saw that "someone had written NO in inch-high letters."

"I took that memo to the archivist in the Disney Archives, and I asked whose comments these were," Foglesong said. "The archivist said, 'That's Walt Disney's comment.' Every place in the memo where the attorney referred to the property of real residents, Walt Disney had written, between the lines, 'temporary residents/tourists.' So, in this planning memo, Walt is telling the attorney, 'We're not going to build a place with residents.' "

The story of Walt Disney's dream city, as most people know about it today, comes through a movie the company put out in 1967. The film, which the Disney Company played for the Florida Legislature twice that year and then afterwards on NBC channels throughout the state, shows a delightful vision of a happy, utopian city, narrated by the recently deceased Walt. (As Foglesong noted, Walt's death before the movie's airing also contradicts the company's claim that it was the man's death that scuttled the project.) The film promised a city that would house some 25,000 peoplea town called EPCOT, populated by real residents.

"That was never true," Foglesong said. "The company didn't intend to do that."

So, why say anything about a city at all? Disney, even with its immense power in Florida, still had to abide by certain limits of Florida law, which mandated that in order for a government to exercise its planning and zoning authority and execute building inspections, it had to be something called a general-purpose local government. (The other kind of government, special-purpose government, includes entities like airport authorities.) Disney wanted to run its land like a general-purpose government, in much the way cities like Orlando are run today. So it promised a real city with real residents. Then it simply never followed through.

"It's dishonest, but it's ingenious," Foglesong said.

"There's a long history in Florida of a big developer coming to town, asking for a lot from the county and state government, making promises, and not carrying through on what they said they'd build," he added. "What makes this a little more remarkable is it's the beloved Walt Disney Company telling this untruth. And it's at such a big scale."

---

Quote:

---

"When the governor gives his people the ability to slow down construction on the park and maybe stop construction, he's holding a knife to his own throat," Foglesong said. It could hurt tourism, which "would be bad for Florida."

"Never would I have thought a governor in the state of Florida would threaten the Walt Disney Company, least of all a Republican governor," Foglesong added. "Republicans are supposed to be pro-business, and this is the biggest business in the state of Florida."

But Foglesong is not opposed to what DeSantis is doing, at least in terms of practical outcomes. He pointed to the fees that Disney has wormed its way out of paying for decadesfees that could pay for widened roads and law enforcement needed to handle the traffic and tourism brought to the area because of Disney World. "I believe it's appropriate to take powers away from Disney that were ill-gotten," Foglesong said. But DeSantis is trying "it for the wrong reasons."

---

Presumably Foglesong is a Democrat, as again we realize DeSantis isn't doing it…the legislature passed the law. But anyway, it sounds like Disney has long since been duplicitous in it's dealings/plans/explanations around "Epcot" as a future city.

AnScAggie said:

---

Neehau said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Neehau said:

---

Relevant Article

It is well known that lawmakers in Florida have proposed legislation that could impact Disney's special tax district status. The proposed legislation would change the requirements for such districts and will make it more difficult for Disney to maintain its current status. The questions lingering would be why is now the time to change anything after the trillions of dollars Disney has brought to the Florida economy over the years?

Governor DeSantis has targetted Disney, particularly in regards to Disney's COVID-19 policies.

---

Why NOT now? I thought liberals liked change?

---

How about breaking a deal with Disney that the state made with Walt Disney to bring them there in the first place.

---

You obviously know nothing about how Disney World came to be. Your concern is noted, your ignorance is confirmed.

---

The negotiations for Walt Disney to place Disney World in Central Florida involved several key players and were conducted over a period of several years. In the mid-1960s, Walt Disney Productions began looking for a location to build a second theme park, following the success of Disneyland in California.

Walt Disney and his team initially considered several locations in California, but ultimately decided to look elsewhere due to the high cost of land and limited space. Florida Governor Haydon Burns, who was eager to promote economic development in his state, heard about Disney's search and contacted the company to express his interest. He put together a team of negotiators, which included state officials, business leaders, and lawyers, to work with Disney on the project.

The negotiations were complex and involved a number of issues, including land acquisition, tax incentives, and infrastructure development. The state of Florida agreed to provide Disney with several incentives, including tax breaks and the ability to create its own government district (known as the Reedy Creek Improvement District) to oversee the construction and operation of the park.

One of the biggest challenges was acquiring the necessary land for the park. Disney wanted to keep its plans a secret to avoid driving up the price of land, so it used a series of shell companies to make the purchases.

The company ultimately acquired more than 27,000 acres of land in Central Florida for the development of Disney World.

Overall, the negotiations were lengthy and complicated, but in the end, Walt Disney was able to secure the land and incentives needed to build one of the most iconic theme parks in the world.

Less than 10 minute stream. Legal Mindset now lives in SE Asia but practiced for long time in Florida and dealt with Reedy.

Very short update. Getting into alter ego issues between Disney and Reedy Creek.

OP is another one of these constantly changing username trolls LOL.

Neehau