JKick95
Active Member
And UniversalMaybe you should move to China where this stuff is more encouraged, there's Disney there too.
And UniversalMaybe you should move to China where this stuff is more encouraged, there's Disney there too.
I don’t think this is the only issue here thought. Sure at the surface levels that’s the reason but there is much more to it than simply that.Disney isn't going to pay someone because they didn't renew a contract and declined to put her in a TV series.
Agreed, lawsuits can be anything.That would set a ludicrous precedent.
Of course, the same concern happened with Reedy Creek so never say never I guess.
Shareholders care about revenue, not the Constitution. So even if Disney was on the right side of the issue and the law, a large-enough government can delay longer than management can stay elected.
Remind me again what the First Amendment says?
A lot of the basis for the State's action was speculated/discussed to be because of the fact Disney entered into the political realm and had no business in telling the State what it should or should not do by way of governing.
That’s a bubble that “who” is in through?Where everyone is a victim of cancel culture, but also where you don't own your job and employers can fire you at-will and according to your contract, the hypocrite bubble. "It's not bad until it happens to me."
still waiting on those public records from the state as requested ya know by the publicIt's my hope that Florida's Investigator General continues diving deeper into RCID's and Disney's financials, email databases, tax records, and issued bond dealings.
It's time that the state get to the bottom of everything under the "sunshine" law and FINALLY prove that Disney never did anything wrong over this last decade.
If the state ends this investigation and turns it back on it, then they will deny Disney that beautiful confirmation.
Keep digging Florida! Do it for Disney's best interest! ;-)
Discussed/speculated as in the governor wrote a whole book about why he did it, then yes.Try keeping things in context please. Certain people have a habit of taking a snippet of something and twisting it to fit an agenda. Looks like you're one of those people. I do hope you don't make managerial decisions in the same way.
So why don't we try this exercise together and include what you so conveniently excluded.
In case it doesn't pop out to you "was speculated, was discussed" does in no way convey an opinion. It's stating a fact. That people interpreted the State's action due to Disney's activism against a position the State held.
But you go ahead and continue showing where reading comprehension is not necessarily a strong point for you.
That’s a bubble that “who” is in through?
You were specific in that it’s “their Super Bowl.”
Who is they?
I do?
Curious.I do?
Your strange reluctance to say what you mean is interesting.
He is not alone. A boost in the primary would have been icing on the cake but it was not the underlying motivation, especially for all of the others involved. It’s about being able to unilaterally exert state control as desired in line with a radically expanded view of state and executive power. Listen to what others are saying and look at how it aligns.He's lame duck gov, he'll be lucky if he gets to open up a Buc-ee's
Don't disagree there. They will keep trying.He is not alone. A boost in the primary would have been icing on the cake but it was not the underlying motivation, especially for all of the others involved. It’s about being able to unilaterally exert state control as desired in line with a radically expanded view of state and executive power. Listen to what others are saying and look at how it aligns.
Which is exactly what makes this a win. There were no consequences. Sure it wasn’t everything but the lesson is still to keep going.Don't disagree there. They will keep trying.
Try keeping things in context please. Certain people have a habit of taking a snippet of something and twisting it to fit an agenda. Looks like you're one of those people. I do hope you don't make managerial decisions in the same way.
So why don't we try this exercise together and include what you so conveniently excluded.
In case it doesn't pop out to you "was speculated, was discussed" does in no way convey a personal opinion. It's stating a fact. That people interpreted the State's action due to Disney's activism against a position the State held.
But you go ahead and continue showing where reading comprehension is not necessarily a strong point for you.
Interesting responseLooks like the political ploy failed miserably, leaving the government no reason to fight.
Then Bob Iger is a “crazy zealot” since he all but said “shut up and make good movies”You're saying they should "shut up and play"? I mean, that seems to be the plan, they'll still make their "wOkE" stuff, they just won't get loud about it.
Which if you think about it means the crazy zealots won.
Before any more insults occur, I think the original post was meant to convey a parallel between (what the governor interpreted as) Disney advising the government on legislation and the governor now advising Disney on theme park building.Discussed/speculated as in the governor wrote a whole book about why he did it, then yes.
kinda rude for a smoking chimpBefore any more insults occur, I think the original post was meant to convey a parallel between (what the governor interpreted as) Disney advising the government on legislation and the governor now advising Disney on theme park building.
I don’t attribute such sophistication to the governor’s thinking, but I’m fairly sure
@El Gran Magnifico didn’t say what people seem to be reading.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.