News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

peter11435

Well-Known Member
Here’s the main problem…
The far left-wing agenda teachers are gonna’ teach/tell your little children whatever they want, whenever they want, inappropriate to you or not. Their are no cameras, and while your off at your jobs earning a living, they have them captive. No legislation is gonna’ stop that. And, that’s the REALLY scary part.
Now do the other side
 

Brian

Well-Known Member
When did I say there was no right to respond? Of course there is. But so far, nobody has actually debunked his claims and statistics. The other side has certainly been given ample opportunity to do so. But, all they’ve given us so far is vague assurances that it’ll all work out somehow by a person who has repeatedly lied to advance his position. The statements can’t be treated equally becsuse the substance isn’t equal.
My point is that it is for the consumer to decide that the statements aren't equal, not the reporters.

Nobody is claiming that he is incapable of stating untrue or misleading information. But unless you can dispute his statements then his affiliation is irrelevant.

You’re basically saying “everything he said was factual and supported with evidence but I don’t believe it because he’s a democrat”
His affiliation is relevant in the sense that, when it comes to journalism, it is tradition to allow the "other side" the chance to respond, and give voice to their response. Again, that's why Fox News has liberals like Juan Williams and Jessica Tarlov on staff; they are routinely on panel discussions during "straight news" and even opinion shows to ensure that the "other side" can still have their say. The same is true, I'm told, of CNN.

If you're quoting a partisan tax collector, I would say that there is an obligation to ensure that somewhere in your article, a statement from the other side of the argument is quoted, or at least that a good faith attempt was made to secure one. If Randolph were both non-partisan and had no history of serving in or running for the legislature as a partisan, I would argue that this obligation is not as pressing.

Obviously Democrats can say true things and Republicans can say false things. The same applies in reverse. It's important, however, when presenting one of them that you at least allow the other side the chance to respond. Then the consumer can make their own informed decision as to how to view the matter.
 
Last edited:

DisneyDebRob

Well-Known Member
Here’s the main problem…
The far left-wing agenda teachers are gonna’ teach/tell your little children whatever they want, whenever they want, inappropriate to you or not. Their are no cameras, and while your off at your jobs earning a living, they have them captive. No legislation is gonna’ stop that. And, that’s the REALLY scary part.
Oh boy. 🤦
 

Figment1984

Active Member
Here’s the main problem…
The far left-wing agenda teachers are gonna’ teach/tell your little children whatever they want, whenever they want, inappropriate to you or not. Their are no cameras, and while your off at your jobs earning a living, they have them captive. No legislation is gonna’ stop that. And, that’s the REALLY scary part.
If you’re that paranoid, homeschool is an option. Might as well go one step further and lock them in a tower like Rapunzel until they turn 18 years old since any adult (and other children) are capable of expressing ideas you may disagree with. All the best with that.
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
My point is that it is for the consumer to decide that the statements aren't equal, not the reporters.


His affiliation is relevant in the sense that, when it comes to journalism, it is tradition to allow the "other side" the chance to respond, and give voice to their response. Again, that's why Fox News has liberals like Juan Williams and Jessica Tarlov on staff; they are routinely on panel discussions during "straight news" and even opinion shows to ensure that the "other side" can still have their say. The same is true, I'm told, of CNN.

If you're quoting a partisan tax collector, I would say that there is an obligation to ensure that somewhere in your article, a statement from the other side of the argument is quoted, or at least that a good faith attempt was made to secure one. If Randolph were both non-partisan and had no history of serving in or running for the legislature as a partisan, I would argue that this obligation is not as pressing.

Obviously Democrats can say true things and Republicans can say false things. The same applies in reverse. It's important, however, when presenting one of them that you at least allow the other side the chance to respond. Then the consumer can make their own informed decision as to how to view the matter.
People have asked for DeSantis to respond. People want to hear the plan. Saying you have a plan is neither a plan nor a response.

Especially when he doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally enact a plan and the legislature doesn’t meet again for nearly a year. And even when they do they are bound by the state constitution and the willingness of effected parties to participate. The problem the governor and legislature has created here is harder to fix than they are leading you to believe.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Here’s the main problem…
The far left-wing agenda teachers are gonna’ teach/tell your little children whatever they want, whenever they want, inappropriate to you or not. Their are no cameras, and while your off at your jobs earning a living, they have them captive. No legislation is gonna’ stop that. And, that’s the REALLY scary part.
Is this serious or a parody? Because I genuinely can’t tell (which in itself is revealing of how absurd the paranoia about what goes on in classrooms has become).
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
Another component. Let’s say DeSantis successfully finds a way to increase Disney’s taxes to fund his mistake. If taxes for DVC properties increases that would be passed on to members in the form of their annual dues. Taxes are already a component in annual dues. So now that’s potentially another quarter of a million people negatively effected.
 

Brian

Well-Known Member
People have asked for DeSantis to respond. People want to hear the plan. Saying you have a plan is neither a plan nor a response.

Especially when he doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally enact a plan and the legislature doesn’t meet again for nearly a year. And even when they do they are bound by the state constitution and the willingness of effected parties to participate. The problem the governor and legislature has created here is harder to fix than they are leading you to believe.
I have repeatedly stated, and will state again: DeSantis said he has a plan, but he hasn't given a plan. I agree he needs to give a plan, and he should have had a plan from the beginning.

Now that I've given that qualifier, hopefully we can focus on the issue I've been trying to highlight: when you present a decidedly partisan individual, it is the media's obligation to present the other side of the argument. The individual consuming the information will then decide, like you and I both have in this present situation, what to believe.

When the media at large makes a deliberate decision to omit the statements made by the "other side" of the argument, they are displaying bias and doing a disservice to the consumers of their reporting.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
My point is that it is for the consumer to decide that the statements aren't equal, not the reporters.

His affiliation is relevant in the sense that, when it comes to journalism, it is tradition to allow the "other side" the chance to respond, and give voice to their response. Again, that's why Fox News has liberals like Juan Williams and Jessica Tarlov on staff; they are routinely on panel discussions during "straight news" and even opinion shows to ensure that the "other side" can still have their say. The same is true, I'm told, of CNN.

If you're quoting a partisan tax collector, I would say that there is an obligation to ensure that somewhere in your article, a statement from the other side of the argument is quoted, or at least that a good faith attempt was made to secure one. If Randolph were both non-partisan and had no history of serving in or running for the legislature as a partisan, I would argue that this obligation is not as pressing.

Obviously Democrats can say true things and Republicans can say false things. The same applies in reverse. It's important, however, when presenting one of them that you at least allow the other side the chance to respond. Then the consumer can make their own informed decision as to how to view the matter.
There are not always two sides, and a statement from a partisan is not automatically partisan. Your issue is entirely with his affiliation, not the content of his statements. You want statements you don’t refute to be given equal weight to unsupported, unsubstantiated claims.
 

GimpYancIent

Well-Known Member
If you’re that paranoid, homeschool is an option. Might as well go one step further and lock them in a tower like Rapunzel until they turn 18 years old since any adult (and other children) are capable of expressing ideas you may disagree with. All the best with that.
As people grow older, develop and evolve there is also mental development that occurs where things like reasoning occur. Just because an authority figure, like a teacher or professor, says something is so does not mean it is. Exposure over time to multiple points of view, data and facts allow people to make up their own minds. Those in the teaching profession that believe humans are programable droids are very mistaken because schools are not the only sources of data and information. Though some may become indoctrinated in some way shape or form most (in the long run) do reason things out and make up their own minds what to believe.
 

GimpYancIent

Well-Known Member
I’m almost 60 years old, and I don’t remember having a far right-wing or left-wing agenda shoved down my throat by teachers for the twelve years I was in public school. The teachers stuck to the actual curriculum and we were tested and graded on that. How about we just stick to that. No “teacher” should be doing otherwise. And, for the record, I was raised by staunchly democrat parents.
I am 70+ (lets leave it at that) and you are 100% correct.
 

mikejs78

Premium Member
I’m almost 60 years old, and I don’t remember having a far right-wing or left-wing agenda shoved down my throat by teachers for the twelve years I was in public school. The teachers stuck to the actual curriculum and we were tested and graded on that. How about we just stick to that. No “teacher” should be doing otherwise. And, for the record, I was raised by staunchly democrat parents.
The thing is, you're free to believe that. If that's your point of view, you're completely free to support them any legislation that you want and hits that position. I may disagree with you, and that should be fine too. Disney may disagree with you, and that should be fine too. We should all be entitled to disagree with that fear of retaliation. And that's what this is about.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
As people grow older, develop and evolve there is also mental development that occurs where things like reasoning occur. Just because an authority figure, like a teacher or professor, says something is so does not mean it is. Exposure over time to multiple points of view, data and facts allow people to make up their own minds. Those in the teaching profession that believe humans are programable droids are very mistaken because schools are not the only sources of data and information. Though some may become indoctrinated in some way shape or form most (in the long run) do reason things out and make up their own minds what to believe.
But no-one is here is in favour of classroom “indoctrination” to begin with. Teaching a child about the realities of the world is not the same as instructing them to be a certain way.
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
But no-one is here is in favour of classroom “indoctrination” to begin with. Teaching a child about the realities of the world is not the same as instructing them to be a certain way.

And it’s certainly not grooming, which is a ridiculous talking point the party put out to further create a boogeyman and get the base riled.

Case and point, the people on this thread spouting the phrase like good little lemmings.
 

Brian

Well-Known Member
There are not always two sides, and a statement from a partisan is not automatically partisan. Your issue is entirely with his affiliation, not the content of his statements. You want statements you don’t refute to be given equal weight to unsupported, unsubstantiated claims.
My issue is that when someone with a decidedly partisan affiliation is being quoted or interviewed in a non-opinion piece, the other side should be given a reasonable opportunity to respond, and when presented with both sides of the argument, the reader will make their decision.

We have both heard both sides of the RCID saga. Scott Randolph says that taxes cannot be raised on Disney, and DeSantis has said he'll be working to ensure county residents won't see an increase. Given what we've heard from both sides, we can both come to the reasonable conclusion that, as of now, Randolph has the winning argument because he based his argument in facts, and I personally haven't found anything to take issue with in his statements.

Now consider someone who lives in "flyover country" who has never stepped foot in the state of Florida, much less knows about what the Reedy Creek Improvement District is. Heck, they probably don't know the difference between Disneyland and Walt Disney World...

They see a report on their local evening newscast during the national segment talking about how DeSantis signed the bill dissolving Disney's "tax district" in response to their opposition to the "Don't Say Gay" bill, they play the clip of Randolph discussing the tax increase to Orange County taxpayers and wrap it up by saying that it takes effect next June. That person would reasonably draw the conclusion that DeSantis cares more about punishing Disney than Orange County taxpayers; whereas, if the newscaster mentioned that DeSantis has stated he plans to work with the legislature to avoid conferring additional tax burden, but has yet to provide a plan, that viewer would now have both sides of the argument, and can draw a more fair and nuanced conclusion.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom