Meatball Ron defeated by 2nd week of law school material

[LJB]

2 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Adorable.

no...

it is goddamn horrifying if you have children and you get to see how they are being attacked now...

i have two absolute meathead sons and a 14 year old daughter who is an artist...

my boys were lucky that we found wrestling...

what i have had to try and help her navigate the last several years has been ridiculous...

i had to have several conversations with her when she was 13 about hormone blockers because she was being sold that it is totally normal and healthy...

it was goddamn disgusting...

but...

she is now almost 15 and seeing how ridiculous this whole trans stuff has become... 

she is still the same person... she still refuses to do the things that a traditional american girl will do and i am totally onboard with that...

what i am not on board with is a child being told it is ok to change who they are with drugs and surgery instead of explaining to them we all felt like this when we that age... everyone does...

but...

that is hard to figure out...

so lets just pump fukn drugs and cut stuff off you instead of figuri9ng out how to be happy with who you are...

and if that is crazy to you then you are the problem...

 

yeah... when sanity returns Disney will not survive...

it is already failing miserably now pushing its agenda...

 

[VakAttack]

3 minutes ago, LJB said:

no...

it is goddamn horrifying if you have children and you get to see how they are being attacked now...

i have two absolute meathead sons and a 14 year old daughter who is an artist...

my boys were lucky that we found wrestling...

what i have had to try and help her navigate the last several years has been ridiculous...

i had to have several conversations with her when she was 13 about hormone blockers because she was being sold that it is totally normal and healthy...

it was goddamn disgusting...

but...

she is now almost 15 and seeing how ridiculous this whole trans stuff has become... 

she is still the same person... she still refuses to do the things that a traditional american girl will do and i am totally onboard with that...

what i am not on board with is a child being told it is ok to change who they are with drugs and surgery instead of explaining to them we all felt like this when we that age... everyone does...

but...

that is hard to figure out...

so lets just pump fukn drugs and cut stuff off you instead of figuri9ng out how to be happy with who you are...

and if that is crazy to you then you are the problem...

 

yeah... when sanity returns Disney will not survive...

it is already failing miserably now pushing its agenda...

 

Disney will not be ruined.

^^^The actual subject.

[LJB]

Just now, VakAttack said:

Disney will not be ruined.

^^^The actual subject.

the actual subject?

as if this stuff is all not all totally interrelated...

 

[Bigbrog]

9 minutes ago, Le duke said:

What is an example of “politics” on Disney’s part? What are the “forced political views”?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Again, such a disingenuous question.  Allowing one set of ideals and views based on one side of politics vs. not allowing other views and set of ideals (that have nothing to do with equity and tolerance, is in fact what a lot of companies have gone to...because it's the "in thing".  And our political system, our media (including social media), our institutions, and now our corporations are all about diversity and equity and inclusion, but as humans went way to far one way in regard to those things...which always happens in this country.  It needs to be moved back to the middle as the majority of the population are in the middle yet we pander to the very small minority.  

My believes are that everyone should be treated equal and have the same opportunities based on the person they are, their hard work, and their drive to do better.  I think people should be able to love who they love.  I believe people should be able to dress however they want to dress.  But I also believe people have a right to love who THEY love.  And people should be able to dress based on their biological sex.  I believe people should be able change their sex if they would like (once they are an adult) but I also believe we are born a male or a female (biologically speaking).  I also don't believe in the notion of "privilege".   But I do understand generational wealth.  Anway, I could go on and on,...my point is those are MY believes...period...and everyone is entitled to their own even if it is crazy far right or crazy far left, but we should also be able to call some of it out...on both sides.

[VakAttack]

2 minutes ago, LJB said:

the actual subject?

as if this stuff is all not all totally interrelated...

 

Again, Disney will not be ruined.  I'm not going to debate with you about whatever your personal experience with trans issues might be (I have no idea, I'm not you nor living your life) nor the existence of trans people (they exist, I am not one of them and so have very little understanding of what their lived experience is).  My experience with the couple of trans people I have personally met is that they, like most people, just want to be left alone to live their lives.

[Le duke]

Again, such a disingenuous question.  Allowing one set of ideals and views based on one side of politics vs. not allowing other views and set of ideals (that have nothing to do with equity and tolerance, is in fact what a lot of companies have gone to...because it's the "in thing".  And our political system, our media (including social media), our institutions, and now our corporations are all about diversity and equity and inclusion, but as humans went way to far one way in regard to those things...which always happens in this country.  It needs to be moved back to the middle as the majority of the population are in the middle yet we pander to the very small minority.  
My believes are that everyone should be treated equal and have the same opportunities based on the person they are, their hard work, and their drive to do better.  I think people should be able to love who they love.  I believe people should be able to dress however they want to dress.  But I also believe people have a right to love who THEY love.  And people should be able to dress based on their biological sex.  I believe people should be able change their sex if they would like (once they are an adult) but I also believe we are born a male or a female (biologically speaking).  I also don't believe in the notion of "privilege".   But I do understand generational wealth.  Anway, I could go on and on,...my point is those are MY believes...period...and everyone is entitled to their own even if it is crazy far right or crazy far left, but we should also be able to call some of it out...on both sides.

It seems like your second paragraph aligns with what Disney espouses. Seriously.

I don’t think that Disney’s viewpoint is particularly political. Nor are their products. What is political about showing that gay characters exist? Two dudes up the street from me are gay; is their very existence political? Is my acknowledgment of them political?

Wouldn’t it be political to willfully and knowingly exclude them, based on pressures from a local or state government?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LJB]

Just now, VakAttack said:

Again, Disney will not be ruined.  I'm not going to debate with you about whatever your personal experience with trans issues might be (I have no idea, I'm not you nor living your life) nor the existence of trans people (they exist, I am not one of them and so have very little understanding of what their lived experience is).  My experience with the couple of trans people I have personally met is that they, like most people, just want to be left alone to live their lives.

disney will be ruined...

disney has been ruined already...

years ago...

but...

to the other stuff...

 

 

exactly...

that is what most people want to do...

and for the most part, we all can...

and always have been...

it is an excuse mentality that is the real problem in this country and that runs straight across the board no matter what panties you wear this weekend...

even in this little corner of the googlewebs...

we have people who supposedly like wrestling but hate personal accountability...

it makes no sense to me...

[LJB]

1 minute ago, Le duke said:

 

It seems like your second paragraph aligns with what Disney espouses. Seriously.

I don’t think that Disney’s viewpoint is particularly political. Nor are their products. What is political about showing that gay characters exist? Two dudes up the street from me are gay; is their very existence political? Is my acknowledgment of them political?

Wouldn’t it be political to willfully and knowingly exclude them, based on pressures from a local or state government?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

i do not think any reasonable person would disagree with any of that...

but reasonable got thrown out the window years ago and now people are being ruined/cancelled/killed because they believe differently...

doesn't that sound familiar?

almost what all the marginalized are supposedly so against?

right?

that is the insanity...

[Le duke]

i do not think any reasonable person would disagree with any of that...
but reasonable got thrown out the window years ago and now people are being ruined/cancelled/killed because they believe differently...
doesn't that sound familiar?
almost what all the marginalized are supposedly so against?
right?
that is the insanity...

Who has Disney ruined, cancelled or killed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LJB]

Just now, Le duke said:

Who has Disney ruined, cancelled or killed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bob jones

[Nailbender]

1 hour ago, VakAttack said:

You asked if there would be a thread about this if it was a different company.  I, as the poster who started this thread, told you that yes, I would, and gave you my reasons.  And you have now accused me of changing the subject.

 

    I posted before you even commented in your own thread. All I had to go on was a childish title and a link to a silly blog. I guess I didn't read your mind correctly.

    I figured by the title you wouldn't be interested in discussing corporatations governing themselves but it could be part of this conversation. I wasn't the only one to think so. You then ignored and continue to ignore most of what I wrote. You just picked out one sentence and responded to that because it favored what you wanted to talk about. I understand. I've stated twice you can do what you want. You did. It's fine...for the third time. I'm tracking this conversation just fine. Try and keep up with your own thread.

 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Nailbender
Grammar

[Plasmodium]

1 hour ago, Le duke said:

What is an example of “politics” on Disney’s part? What are the “forced political views”?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Scar is allegedly gay.

[VakAttack]

11 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

 

    I posted before you even commented in your own thread. All I had to go on was a childish title and a link to a silly blog. I guess I didn't read your mind correctly.

    I figured by the title you wouldn't be interested in discussing corporatations governing themselves but it could be part of this conversation. I wasn't the only one to think so. You then ignored and continue to ignore most of what I wrote. You just picked out one sentence and responded to that because it favored what you wanted to talk about. I understand. I've stated twice you can do what you want. You did. It's fine...for the third time. I'm tracking this conversation just fine. Try and keep up with your own thread.

 

The thread title is a comment.  You asked a question, and I responded.  I'm only allowed to respond to you if I respond to every question you asked?  And just to be clear, now you're not saying that I'm trying to change the conversation, I'm just "pick[ing] out one sentence and respond[ing]"  and I'm talking about "what I want to talk about" which...sure, fine?  It's my thread?  I'm sorry my answer didn't comport with your requirements for a response, but I'm glad we can acknowledge that I responded directly to one of your questions, in my own thread, and did not shift the conversation to some unrelated issue.

[El Luchador]

6 hours ago, Le duke said:

It’s a blog post. It’s pure opinion. Calling it an article is generous.

The point of it, which apparently flew right over your head, was that the company signed a very much legally binding agreement with the State of Florida before the State’s punitive law came into effect. And somehow tied it to the lifespan of the British monarch’s descendants. Which is hilarious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's more like pure garbage.  Call it what you want, to me it was unreadable.  

[Le duke]

It's more like pure garbage.  Call it what you want, to me it was unreadable.  

Wait. Above, you called it propaganda.

Either it was unreadable, so you didn’t read it, or you did read it, and after careful consideration, you decided it’s propaganda.

Which is it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[El Luchador]

1 minute ago, Le duke said:

Wait. Above, you called it propaganda.

Either it was unreadable, so you didn’t read it, or you did read it, and after careful consideration, you decided it’s propaganda.

Which is it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Easy, I read it until it was clear what I was reading was both propaganda and garbage.  

[mspart]

From what I just read, this isn't over.   Disney appears to have out foxed the legislature and the governor.   But that may change.   So I wouldn't crow about it too much just yet. 

As I understand what I read on CNN, Disney knew this was happening and made an agreement with the board before it was dissolved that effectively nullifies the intent of the FL legislature.   The legislature did not dissolve the board, but left it and released the board members.   New board members are there but are stuck with the previous agreement with Disney.   I'm guessing this will get sorted out. 

mspart

[Le duke]

From what I just read, this isn't over.   Disney appears to have out foxed the legislature and the governor.   But that may change.   So I wouldn't crow about it too much just yet. 
As I understand what I read on CNN, Disney knew this was happening and made an agreement with the board before it was dissolved that effectively nullifies the intent of the FL legislature.   The legislature did not dissolve the board, but left it and released the board members.   New board members are there but are stuck with the previous agreement with Disney.   I'm guessing this will get sorted out. 
mspart

By sorted out, do you mean, “The state of Florida will abide by the terms of the legal agreement they entered into.”?

They don’t get to tear up a legal agreement simply because they don’t like it. Disney even had public hearing notice and comment meetings. Florida simply failed to notice.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mspart]

By sorted out, the State of FL will get its way.    The State of FL did not enter into an agreement with Disney.  Disney got an agreement with the board that oversees control of the district.   Because the FL legislature did not dissolve the board, the new board has this agreement that was made with board members on their way out.  

I think this was a nice try by Disney, but I don't think it will work.   FL can dissolve the board and any agreements that were made within it.   The agreements obviously run counter to what the Legislature intended.  So I expect they will amend whatever they need to to get the control they wanted. 

mspart

[Nailbender]

4 hours ago, VakAttack said:

The thread title is a comment.  You asked a question, and I responded.  I'm only allowed to respond to you if I respond to every question you asked?  And just to be clear, now you're not saying that I'm trying to change the conversation, I'm just "pick[ing] out one sentence and respond[ing]"  and I'm talking about "what I want to talk about" which...sure, fine?  It's my thread?  I'm sorry my answer didn't comport with your requirements for a response, but I'm glad we can acknowledge that I responded directly to one of your questions, in my own thread, and did not shift the conversation to some unrelated issue.

 I could not have been more clear. I'm pretty sure you're trolling but if not you can just read it again until you get it...or not. For the fourth time, you do you.

 

 

 

[VakAttack]

17 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

 I could not have been more clear. I'm pretty sure you're trolling but if not you can just read it again until you get it...or not. For the fourth time, you do you.

 

 

 

You: *makes completely contradictory statements*

Also you: I could not have been more clear. 

[GreatWhiteNorth]

I'm wondering what the point of this FL v Disney mess is supposed to be.

It seems to me that this attack on Disney is taking time away from Ron's administration's ability to govern and work to solve FL's problems. It is costing the taxpayers a ton of money - that could be better used to solve the states problems and better the state.

What was Disney doing that requires an assault on them to become a top priority? Aren't Republicans usually in favor of smaller government that leaves corporations alone to do their business? Was it really because the company is left leaning and employs a significant number of gay people? A government that attacks corporations because they lean in the opposite political direction than said government - that is a frightening thought. Or because of the sexual orientation profile of their pool of employee's - even more frightening. Apple better watch this closely.

There must be some legitimate reason. I must have missed it.

And - while I try to dig that up - I'll also try to find out the legitimate reason Ron's group spent millions transporting migrants around the country like cattle. Can't figure out what that was supposed to accomplish. 

There must be answers. Governing couldn't have possibly become a series of side-show antics strung together to make political headlines. Could it?

[mspart]

1 hour ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

I'm wondering what the point of this FL v Disney mess is supposed to be.

It seems to me that this attack on Disney is taking time away from Ron's administration's ability to govern and work to solve FL's problems. It is costing the taxpayers a ton of money - that could be better used to solve the states problems and better the state.

What was Disney doing that requires an assault on them to become a top priority? Aren't Republicans usually in favor of smaller government that leaves corporations alone to do their business? Was it really because the company is left leaning and employs a significant number of gay people? A government that attacks corporations because they lean in the opposite political direction than said government - that is a frightening thought. Or because of the sexual orientation profile of their pool of employee's - even more frightening. Apple better watch this closely.

There must be some legitimate reason. I must have missed it.

And - while I try to dig that up - I'll also try to find out the legitimate reason Ron's group spent millions transporting migrants around the country like cattle. Can't figure out what that was supposed to accomplish. 

There must be answers. Governing couldn't have possibly become a series of side-show antics strung together to make political headlines. Could it?

GWN,  I think it wasn't that Disney is left leaning, it was their attitude to teaching K-3 kids about sex, sexuality and gender dysphoria.    They complained and were going to push to have that law removed.   So they essentially became political.   So the R's in the legialature and governors office said, you don't want to go there.  

What this is about is teaching children that changing their genders is a good thing and can be done and in some cases is the right thing to do.   And Disney was leading that charge.   And Democrats all over the nation are leading that charge.    This is just wrong and I don't understand how adults could think puberty blockers, and gender reassignment surgery is a good thing for minors, that will affect them for the rest of their lives.  Minors don't have the maturity to make that kind of decision.   That is what this whole thing is about. 

mspart

[GreatWhiteNorth]

2 hours ago, mspart said:

GWN,  I think it wasn't that Disney is left leaning, it was their attitude to teaching K-3 kids about sex, sexuality and gender dysphoria.    They complained and were going to push to have that law removed.   So they essentially became political.   So the R's in the legialature and governors office said, you don't want to go there.  

What this is about is teaching children that changing their genders is a good thing and can be done and in some cases is the right thing to do.   And Disney was leading that charge.   And Democrats all over the nation are leading that charge.    This is just wrong and I don't understand how adults could think puberty blockers, and gender reassignment surgery is a good thing for minors, that will affect them for the rest of their lives.  Minors don't have the maturity to make that kind of decision.   That is what this whole thing is about. 

mspart

I still don't see a legitimate reason here.

• As far as I know, Disney doesn't fund any school to teach K-3 kids that changing gender is a good idea.
• I don't see a path for Disney to "push to have that law removed." What were they pushing? Did they announce a plan to hire lawyers to sue the state of FL over it?
• I did see that Disney's CEO used the free speech that we, as Americans, have and made a public statement about it. That's all I could find.

I 100% understand the concept that adults shouldn't be pushing children toward gender reassignment. And that children aren't equipped to make that kind of a decision, especially K-3. I'm not in favor of that either. I'm also not in favor of taking Christmas away, taking the suburbs away, or any of the other myths and conspiracy theories that have been pushed by politicians.

From where I sit, it looks mostly like retribution by Desantis to go after Disney for exercising their right to free speech by speaking out against Desantis.

Like something straight out of Moscow or Beijing - speak your mind, and you'll pay a heavy price... It's downright unamerican.

[mspart]

15 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

I still don't see a legitimate reason here.

• As far as I know, Disney doesn't fund any school to teach K-3 kids that changing gender is a good idea.
• I don't see a path for Disney to "push to have that law removed." What were they pushing? Did they announce a plan to hire lawyers to sue the state of FL over it?
• I did see that Disney's CEO used the free speech that we, as Americans, have and made a public statement about it. That's all I could find.

I 100% understand the concept that adults shouldn't be pushing children toward gender reassignment. And that children aren't equipped to make that kind of a decision, especially K-3. I'm not in favor of that either. I'm also not in favor of taking Christmas away, taking the suburbs away, or any of the other myths and conspiracy theories that have been pushed by politicians.

From where I sit, it looks mostly like retribution by Desantis to go after Disney for exercising their right to free speech by speaking out against Desantis.

Like something straight out of Moscow or Beijing - speak your mind, and you'll pay a heavy price... It's downright unamerican.

Disney took a position, having a special relationship with FL, that was opposite to what the FL legislature and, by extension, the people wanted.   And they were very very vocal about this opposition.   If they wanted to become political about this, the situation became political. 

To your last sentence, this has been going on everyday.   I agree it is unamerican to have to pay a heavy price for speaking your mind.   The Left has been doing that very thing to non-conformists for years now.   Now the left is complaining when the table is turned?   I see this as a tit for tat situation.  

mspart