Nailbender

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.

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.

You posted a link with no commentary but your thread title. I mentioned Disney reaching a status in their state that people could be against if it was another corporation. @Plasmodium addressed a similar idea about being uncomfortable with corporations reaching a level where they are the government. You just changed the subject back to laughing at Desantis and added free speech and retribution. If that's all you want to talk about, fair enough. It is your thread after all. It just doesn't interest me.

So this is a free speech issue for you. Great. It's also a government retribution issue. Fine by me. Neither of those address what I said. You changed the premise of my post to fit your needs. Which is also fine as I suppose I did the same to yours.

Would there be a thread about this if the company was different? Maybe Raytheon, Exxon or Twitter and the governor was say, Gavin Newsome or Phil Murphy? Disney has enough money to outsmart the government and keep control over the land they own. Is that good or bad? A corporation so big, the government gave up control over it to keep the tax coffers full and now wants that control back but can't get it. Is that good? I'm interested to hear the reason for posting it.

Adorable...

You watching a lot of TC?

Alright, I'm sober...ish. I still feel the same way.

I don't care about the details. I still don't like it. You and I got off to a bad start. Now I'm drunk and we don't seem so different. Funny how that works.

I would be ecstatic if your first paragraph came true.

I very much doubt that. In fact, I'm sure of it. I just looked behind me and there were no flying monkeys.

Sure. So what?

If he broke the law. Lock him up. Along with all the rest of them.

The most hardcore Republican guy you know is still only the most hardcore Republican that you know. You know some guys who own guns? Great, me too. None of the ones I know are volunteering to register anything. You know some police? Great, me too. A large contingency of the police fire their weapon yearly to qualify and that's it. They don't have some kind of super opinion on firearms. Police also deal daily with some of the worst our society has to offer. I can understand why they would feel they're job would be safer and easier if citizens were not armed. This doesn't mean they belong to some kind of moral majority, nor do you. Being pro life is not a majority opinion? That is true, until you dig a little deeper. Ask people if they believe in a woman's right to choose and you get "Yes". Ask them if abortion is okay for any reason at any time and you often get different answers. You can tell yourself that conservative thinking is the minority, that doesn't make it so. These things are not as simple as you're making them and in no way give you any standing to claim the court for your own. Your post reads for me as that the court doesn't currently agree with you so that justifies whatever it takes to correct it. Regardless of what precedents need to be set or ignored and what future burdens it could create because the other guys did it first. Doesn't seem like sound reasoning to me. TLDR VERSION You seem to be using a lot of words to say "They started it" and "the ends justify the means".

The most hardcore Republican guy you know is still only the most hardcore Republican that you know. You know some guys who own guns? Great, me too. None of the ones I know are volunteering to register anything. You know some police? Great, me too. A large contingency of the police fire their weapon yearly to qualify and that's it. They don't have some kind of super opinion on firearms. Police also deal daily with some of the worst our society has to offer. I can understand why they would feel they're job would be safer and easier if citizens were not armed. This doesn't mean they belong to some kind of moral majority, nor do you. Being pro life is not a majority opinion? That is true, until you dig a little deeper. Ask people if they believe in a woman's right to choose and you get "Yes". Ask them if abortion is okay for any reason at any time and you often get different answers. You can tell yourself that conservative thinking is the minority, that doesn't make it so. These things are not as simple as you're making them and in no way give you any standing to claim the court for your own. Your post reads for me as that the court doesn't currently agree with you so obviously that justifies whatever it takes to correct it. Regardless of what precedents need to be set or ignored and what future burdens it could create because the other guys did it first. Doesn't seem like sound reasoning to me. TLDR VERSION You seem to be using a lot of words to say "They started it" and "the ends justify the means".