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

[Sirwalterraleigh]

You're a pretty lazy debater. You've been provided numerous examples, explanations, and literal links to the questions you ask and your response is always the same.

But at least he didn’t try to divert with Obamacare (ironic considering that’s not it’s name and it’s the exact argument the defenders of the school bill keep screaming)

…I mean…someone did in fact trying to yell “SQUIRREL!!!“ with Obamacare this morning…I’m just too lazy to go back and check who?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Yep…troll in progress

 

[Californian Elitist]

Not sure I understand your argument here. If you're stating that the political right has changed then yes, I'd agree. Just as a reminder, it was the Democrats who fought a civil war to try to maintain slavery.

And yet it’s conservatives/Republicans that wave Confederate flags and tout their Confederate history when defending such behavior. I wonder why?

How is this relevant to the topic at hand?

 

[AdventureHasAName]

You're a pretty lazy debater. You've been provided numerous examples, explanations, and literal links to the questions you ask and your response is always the same.

Quite the contrary ... I'm making the people suggesting that a first amendment violation has occurred identify the actual violation (ie, who was violated, how were violated, what is the specific evidence of that violation, etc).

The prevailing argument being presented in the thread is (paraphrase), "Everybody in the government is bad, everything they've said and done is a violation of first amendment law, and the courts will simply invalidate everything." I'd like a little more specificity.

 

[peter11435]

Not at all. You can't say someone is punishing someone (or an entity) for speech unless you can identify the specific speech. And in the instance of a legislative body, you have a couple hundred people and they may be acting with different motivations. In this instance, you had over 130 different legislators vote to approve this bill and your suggestion appears to be that one person (the Lt Gov), who did not vote on the bill, could invalidate it through her comments. I disagree.

I never suggested her comment alone could invalidate the whole thing. You have been provided with links, quotes, and videos documenting the statements from around a dozen state politicians most of which voted on this bill. The governor who signed the bill and the legislator who sponsored the bill included.

 

[MandaM]

Not at all. You can't say someone is punishing someone (or an entity) for speech unless you can identify the specific speech. And in the instance of a legislative body, you have a couple hundred people and they may be acting with different motivations. In this instance, you had over 130 different legislators vote to approve this bill and your suggestion appears to be that one person (the Lt Gov), who did not vote on the bill, could invalidate it through her comments. I disagree.

There are multiple posts on here with quotes from DeSantis, Lt Gov, Speaker or the House, and other Reps all directly tying Disney’s actions to the reason for this bill. They’ve been posted and reposted multiple times. It has to be willful ignorance at this point to not know it’s more than one person.

 

[peter11435]

Quite the contrary ... I'm making the people suggesting that a first amendment violation has occurred identify the actual violation (ie, who was violated, how were violated, what is the specific evidence of that violation, etc).

The prevailing argument being presented in the thread is (paraphrase), "Everybody in the government is bad, everything they've said and done is a violation of first amendment law, and the courts will simply invalidate everything." I'd like a little more specificity.

You have been provided answers to your questions and evidence to back it up multiple times.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

And yet it’s conservatives/Republicans that wave Confederate flags and tout their Confederate history when defending such behavior. I wonder why?

How is this relevant to the topic at hand?

Because those two sides Haved flipped twice…once after the civil war and once after the civil rights act.

Boy…if we all forgot basic American history…we’d really mutilate basic C-Law round here

 

[AdventureHasAName]

I never suggested her comment alone could invalidate the whole thing. You have been provided with links, quotes, and videos documenting the statements from around a dozen state politicians most of which voted on this bill. The governor who signed the bill and the legislator who sponsored the bill included.

Well how many of the 130+ people have to comment similarly before it can (or should) be invalidated?

And how much weight does the Lt Gov's (who doesn't vote to approve the bill, or sign it into law) have in invalidating the dissolution?

And what if one state senator wants to get rid of RCID because they don't like Chapek's criticism of the education bill, but another state senator wants to get rid of RCID because they don't think RCID charges Disney enough for electricity? Would one state senator's first amendment-violating motive be enough to invalidate the dissolution?

 

[peter11435]

Well how many of the 130+ people have to comment similarly before it can be invalidated?

That’s not how that works and I think you already know that.

However the legislator that sponsored the bill openly stated it was intended to harm Disney as a result of their statement. The governor who called the special session to debate the bill openly stated it was in response to the companies actions, that same governor later signed the bill into law AND went on to threaten them with higher taxes as a result.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

That’s not how that works and I think you already know that.

However the legislator that sponsored the bill openly stated it was intended to harm Disney as a result of their statement. The governor who called the special session to debate the bill openly stated it was in response to the companies actions, that same governor later signed the bill into law AND went on to threaten them with higher taxes as a result.

Agreed x10

This is more obvious than when Clemenza shows up at your door with a shotgun in a flower box

 

[Brian]

Not relavent and also a bit misleading.

Funny how all those “democrats” are now the main voting block of the current Conservative party. Strange how they all flipped in near unison back in the 1960s. Wonder what could have happened back then to cause them to flip sides? Weird.

It was relevant when I was arguing that political parties and ideologies change, in response to an implication that the political right has flipped from being hands-off to authoritarian (taking the RCID bill, for example) while the political left was somehow innocent in this regard and has never flip-flopped on it's positions.

Consider how President Obama campaigned in 2008 against same-sex marriages, and even maintained this stance in response to the lengthy legal battle over California's Proposition 8.

Let's not pretend that folks don't shift their views in light of a compelling argument or changing circumstances.

And yet it’s conservatives/Republicans that wave Confederate flags and tout their Confederate history when defending such behavior. I wonder why?

How is this relevant to the topic at hand?

See above.

I think you've proven my point: views change. That's it.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

That’s not how that works and I think you already know that.

I'm asking how you believe it works.

 

[Dranth]

It was relevant when I was arguing that political parties and ideologies change, in response to an implication that the political right has flipped from being hands-off to authoritarian (taking the RCID bill, for example) while the political left was somehow innocent in this regard and has never flip-flopped on it's positions.

Consider how President Obama campaigned in 2008 against same-sex marriages, and even maintained this stance in response to the lengthy legal battle over California's Proposition 8.

Let's not pretend that folks don't shift their views in light of a compelling argument or changing circumstances.


See above.

I think you've proven my point: views change. That's it.

Fair enough. If I misunderstood then I stand corrected.

 

[Tha Realest]

I wonder whether TWDC has standing here. Does a special district created by a special act of the legislature confer an inalienable right into perpetuity? Does TWDC, as a majority landowner in the RCID, have sufficient standing to argue a First or Fourteenth Amendment challenge?

 

[DisneyDebRob]

Agreed x10

This is more obvious than when Clemenza shows up at your door with a shotgun in a flower box

Do you realize how many people you have googling after your post?

 

[MandaM]

I wonder whether TWDC has standing here. Does a special district created by a special act of the legislature confer an inalienable right into perpetuity? Does TWDC, as a majority landowner in the RCID, have sufficient standing to argue a First or Fourteenth Amendment challenge?

I don’t see how a First Amendment challenge wouldn’t have standing. Republicans have openly admitted that they’re penalizing Disney for speaking against the bill. That clearly violates the 1st Amendment rights for protected speech.

 

[JoeCamel]

I wonder whether TWDC has standing here. Does a special district created by a special act of the legislature confer an inalienable right into perpetuity? Does TWDC, as a majority landowner in the RCID, have sufficient standing to argue a First or Fourteenth Amendment challenge?

THEY SAID IT WAS TO PUNISH DISNEY....

 

[JoeCamel]

Do you realize how many people you have googling after your post?

Not this one, I smelled the garlic

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Do you realize how many people you have googling after your post?

I don’t do anything “by accident” unless it involves power tools or a jet ski