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

[Brian]

Using the word “groomed” is the new right wing slogan they like to repeat and repeat and repeat. It’s like you all get a weekly email blast updating you what words to use.

I suppose every left-leaning person individually thought up the phrase "Don't Say Gay."

 

[GoofGoof]

I consider defending 5 year olds from being groomed at school the right thing.

How does dissolving RCID defend 5 year olds? You make no sense with that statement. If you want to argue the original bill passed does that then have at it I have no interest in that debate. It’s off topic and too political for this forum. The action to punish Disney for speaking out against the bill does nothing to protect any children.

 

[Brian]

It’s not a reporter’s job to present two unequal things as equal. That’s a fundamental misunderstanding of journalism. In this instance, the facts lay all on one side, with nothing but conjecture on the other.

Why are you some comfortable with anyone other than you making that judgement on your behalf? They certainly don't have your interests at heart. Wouldn't you rather be presented with all the facts so you can decide what's relevant or worth consideration?

 

[Sir_Cliff]

How does dissolving RCID defend 5 year olds? You make no sense with that statement. If you want to argue the original bill passed does that then have at it I have no interest in that debate. It’s off topic and too political for this forum. The action to punish Disney for speaking out against the bill does nothing to protect any children.

Yes, I agree. We're getting sidelined back into debate about the actual bill. Whether you support that or not, it shouldn't be ok that the government passes legislation to punish corporations for opposing it... if you believe in liberal democracy, that is.

 

[Diamond Dot]

I'm not coming after you directly, so please don't take it that way. On the topic of Scott Randolph, folks on this board should consider that he is an elected Democrat and even a former Democrat state representative. Right now, the biggest priority for Florida Democrats is to unseat Ron DeSantis in November, and, though it would likely prove futile, try to take the majority in one or both houses of the legislature.

That's not to say that Randolph is incapable of providing factual information. The biggest problem that I see in society today is that even factual information can be and is often presented without painting the complete picture. Then there's the problem of a partisan figure being treated as an unbiased and objective source of information.

For example, many of the articles on the local and even national news about the RCID legislation quote Randolph as saying that Orange County can't just start taxing Disney what RCID was taxing them, so there will be additional burden on all taxpayers. Based on the research I've done, that is true. However, if we had a fair and objective press in this country, what would be reported next is that the governor and his office has repeatedly said that there are plans in the works to avoid saddling county taxpayers with what is currently Disney's responsibility. This would balance out the partisan nature of the conversation by providing "both sides to the story" and letting the reader/viewer decide for themselves how to feel about the issue.

Some members have rightfully pointed out that Randolph has provided what they believe to be correct information, while the governor's office has not yet put forth a concrete plan. I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is the bias displayed in the media in this story by trying to stoke outrage against DeSantis and the Florida GOP by willfully ignoring the other side of the story, and holding up legitimately partisan officials such as Randolph as unbiased sources of information.

It's a case of wait and see, but, anything Randolph said should be easily disputed if he was incorrect or being overtly partisan. Let's see how the GOP in Florida and Orange County respond and what happens if and when RCID is dissolved

 

[GoofGoof]

Yes, I agree. We're getting sidelined back into debate about the actual bill. Whether you support that or not, it shouldn't be ok that the government passes legislation to punish corporations for opposing it... if you believe in liberal democracy, that is.

I agree with you. It seems like some others don’t agree on the punish discussion. They are perfectly fine with the government taking action to silence critics. Strange times we live in.

 

[Archie123]

I agree with you. It seems like some others don’t agree on the punish discussion. They are perfectly fine with the government taking action to silence critics. Strange times we live in.

I guess the Freedom of Speech amendment just isn’t as popular as some of the others??

 

[lazyboy97o]

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.

They’re still unequal. How do you present the other side to the governor’s claims? Randolph can’t respond to a completely unknown hypothetical, all he can do is baselessly speculate, which digs further into the hole of not being balanced.

 

[mikejs78]

I think it's fair to say that the right isn't the only side of the ideological spectrum engaging in sloganeering.

Sloganing is one thing. Accusing people of being groomers is a whole other thing - bordering on slander.

 

[mellyf]

Agreed. My wife has been an elementary school teacher for 18 years. I am grateful that we do not live in Florida.

I came across a meme a few months ago that referenced the beginning of the pandemic when learning was mostly remote, and parents were complaining that they were now responsible for their child's curriculum and had never been trained for that (hint: they weren't responsible for the curriculum- teachers worked harder during remote than ever before), but how quickly that changed! Now they're experts!

 

[Dranth]

The polls show America and certainly parents are on the side of the bill when presented the actual language. The very vocal and persistent posters in this thread represent a small minority. Don't get caught up in a very unique echo chamber.

From a recent poll, but they all directionally say the same when presented with the actual language:

Registered voters were read this section of the bill: “Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”

Among the poll’s findings:

• Republicans support it 70 percent to 23 percent
• Democrats back it 55 to 29 percent
• Independents 58 to 26 percent
• Parents 67 to 24 percent
• Suburban voters 60 to 30 percent
• Those who know someone who is LGBTQ 61 to 28 percent

And how many of those were presented with the quotes from the bills author stating it was being put in to stop turning kids gay/trans as if that is something you can be trained for? How many were told that many attempts to add clarifying language to limit the bill to its publicized intent were shot down?

My guess is none so it doesn’t surprise me that it is widely supported by people who don’t have all the relevant information.

Either way, it passed and here we are.

 

[lazyboy97o]

If that were the case, no articles would ever get published, and no news segment would ever give way to a commercial break. Someone always have to have the last word.

So why should the last word be something that cannot be substantiated or refuted? Why is it not balanced to say “The governor had this passed and here is a respond from the local tax official on the implications”? Why is it more fair to go back to include one side’s hypotheticals and not the other’s?

 

[Figment1984]

Our 3 children (2 girls, 1 boy) are in their late 20’s and early 30’s. They were all educated in local public schools where they were just taught the curriculum, without the social engineering one way or the other.
They were exposed to mixed race parents and same sex parents at an early age. WE (the parents) addressed those things with our children as they came up, and not judging one way or the other. We just explained to them that those are the choices some adults make, based on love.
Our oldest daughter has been married since 2014. They have our 2 wonderful granddaughters. They lean left. Even so, they will be either home-schooled, or go to a private school, as per their parents choice.
We never tried to shield them from the world, we just wanted to be the ones that addressed life issues with them (since we are the parents) as we saw fit…how is any of that wrong…?!?!?!

Your original post accused all teachers of a certain political affiliation that they were going to ignore their teaching guidelines and push their agenda onto little children “inappropriate or not” and hold your children “captive”.

I have no problem with the views you just posted. I do have a problem when someone accuses a group of people - teachers in this case - of something abhorrent and false, especially accusations that can create fear and harm.

 

[Figgy1]

I found DeSantis' plan for RCID dissolution!


View attachment 635089

Been waiting 13 years for a plan that was going to be "easy"

 

[Andrew C]

I guess the Freedom of Speech amendment just isn’t as popular as some of the others??

of course it’s just as popular. But until the courts actually rule on whether this specifically is a violation of it, the back and forth is going to continue.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

That’s exactly what’s happening everywhere in the country. If a teacher is teaching far left or right or subjects that arent curriculum or go against code of the school and districts, they are fired. It happens it seems monthly you hear about it. Was that way back in the 70’s when i went to school and also when my kids went in the 90’s. Nothings changed on thst front. Your always going to have a loose cannon on one side or tge other abd they ade usually dealt with quickly. We dont need legislation using “code” words like the one we see and try to make it like its a problem running rampant. Now Disney says a few things about it and we have a thread running crazy here. Lets all see this for what it is. Lets open our eyes and call out bad things and mostly likely illegal no matter who is sponsoring them.
I never thought ,as a country, that we can hardly find any common ground on even things right in front of us.

I don't know about that...One of my HS history teachers was also in charge of the school newspaper. The newspaper regularly won state level awards, but a number of times he had to go up against the school administration to defend - I'll call it freedom of the press. (Though technically, students do have a few limits on what they are allowed to print. (for specifics see: Tinker v. Des Moines)) He usually won, though the administration did not appreciate losing.

As a history teacher, he also often loved to challenge our thinking. Suffice it to say, at least once a week, his class involved him asking us to take a position on an issue/current event, and then we'd have to defend our position/thinking/reasoning. He was not following any strict curriculum at all. His political affiliation was thoroughly understood by every student in the school.

I had a 4 English teachers who would, during a discussion of a novel, allow us to veer off in almost any direction we wanted. As long as we were roughly discussing the novel, and could support our statements using evidence from the text, the discussion continued. Their personal politics ranged.

Incidentally, it was well known that multiple teachers engaged in VERY heated debates in the staff lounge, because we could hear them in the hallway.

Nobody was fired.

So I strongly disagree with you. The school system I attended STRONGLY protected the political freedom of our teachers, even when we published unflattering news articles.

 

[LittleBuford]

Disney attacked the government of Florida which was stupid.

Disney isn't attacking anyone. They are defending (albeit after a disappointing delay) their LGBTQI Cast Members.

 

[GoofGoof]

of course it’s just as popular. But until the courts actually rule on whether this specifically is a violation of it, the back and forth is going to continue.

Sure it’s not proven in the courts yet, but can you honestly say you are comfortable with a Governor punishing a corporation for speaking out against him? Just curious what your thoughts are since we’ve had some pretty level headed back and forth on other topics. IMHO whatever side people come down on with the original bill there should be a great deal of concern over the aspect of government retaliation. Even if the courts rule it’s technically legal that doesn’t mean it’s a good direction to head.

 

[Brian]

So why should the last word be something that cannot be substantiated or refuted? Why is it not balanced to say “The governor had this passed and here is a respond from the local tax official on the implications”? Why is it more fair to go back to include one side’s hypotheticals and not the other’s?

Ok, here's a different example:

In the early days of the Ukraine conflict, despite rapidly rising gas prices, President Biden decided to ban the import of Russian oil. I am in no way commenting on the validity or merit of that decision, or the Ukraine situation overall. This is purely for the purposes of trying to reframe my point.

Imagine, if you will, most media outlets covered the story something like this (and to be clear, this is a completely hypothetical article which I made up, and the quotes are not real):

President Biden banned the import of Russian oil today, in response to the country's aggressions in Ukraine. Republicans have hit back, with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy saying "President Biden's ban on Russian oil will lead to even more pain at the pump for average hard-working Americans." When asked what Americans can expect from this action, McCarthy said "It's too soon to tell, but previous supply shortages have led to prices as high as $7 in some areas of the country."

Do you notice something missing from that article?

The Biden administration response is what's missing! Here is what it actually was at the time (paraphrasing): "We're going to do everything we can to lower the price of gas for the American people."

Because they had yet to put forth specifics, does that mean that they didn't get to have their side of the story told? They didn't get to defend their actions? My answer is: of course they should get to have their say. The American people needed to know that their president is aware of the issue and will be working to fix it.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

I don't know about that...One of my HS history teachers was also in charge of the school newspaper. The newspaper regularly won state level awards, but a number of times he had to go up against the school administration to defend - I'll call it freedom of the press. (Though technically, students do have a few limits on what they are allowed to print. (for specifics see: Tinker v. Des Moines)) He usually won, though the administration did not appreciate losing.

As a history teacher, he also often loved to challenge our thinking. Suffice it to say, at least once a week, his class involved him asking us to take a position on an issue/current event, and then we'd have to defend our position/thinking/reasoning. He was not following any strict curriculum at all. His political affiliation was thoroughly understood by every student in the school.

I had a 4 English teachers who would, during a discussion of a novel, allow us to veer off in almost any direction we wanted. As long as we were roughly discussing the novel, and could support our statements using evidence from the text, the discussion continued. Their personal politics ranged.

Incidentally, it was well known that multiple teachers engaged in VERY heated debates in the staff lounge, because we could hear them in the hallway.

Nobody was fired.

So I strongly disagree with you. The school system I attended STRONGLY protected the political freedom of our teachers, even when we published unflattering news articles.

None of what you mentioned falls into the category of what is being discussed. Challenging thinking.. heated debates on a subject dealing with current events or a issue relevant to the actual class you are in are all greats forms of learning. Kudos to the teachers and the school you attended.
This is just diverging from what i was saying. I thought everyone would know what i was referring too. If not i meant what this bill is about.. or wearing a swastika as a teacher to class and hailing them..etc. its not allowed but happens on occasion and for the most part they are swiftly taken care of.
We are drifting from the thread topic so we need to get back on track