Jump to content

Brandon Strikes Again


I_M4_AU
 Share

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

I really do struggle with anyone wanting to teach 5, 6, 7 and 8 year old children sex education and gender identity. Tex, perhaps you can explain why you approve of this?

Where in Florida was this actually taking place?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites





13 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Where in Florida was this actually taking place?

So if it is not happening, as apparently you are claiming, why would the bill be a problem for you? I mean if it is truly not happening why the outrage? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

This is how corporations should act by not giving into being bullied.

 

 

Funny the limited way you define “being bullied.” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Funny the limited way you define “being bullied.” 

Fully supporting Disney again I see lol. Just can't hide it.

Be honest, Disney tried to bully DeSantis and he responded in kind. Eye for an eye.

Sit back and see how it shakes out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Fully supporting Disney again I see lol. Just can't hide it.

Be honest, Disney tried to bully DeSantis and he responded in kind. Eye for an eye.

Sit back and see how it shakes out.

Your post indicated that lowly employee was bullying Publix.
 

You’re mighty slow even with repeated explanations. Oh well, you’re an autocrat’s dream!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Your post indicated that lowly employee was bullying Publix.
 

You’re mighty slow even with repeated explanations. Oh well, you’re an autocrat’s dream!

Nope. My post specified you are a Disney supporter full stop. I think you'd feel better about yourself if you just admitted it. Won't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Nope. My post specified you are a Disney supporter full stop. I think you'd feel better about yourself if you just admitted it. Won't you?

Frankly, I think they’ve stepped in it a bit. But I’m a free market capitalist. I think you’d feel better admitting you’re an autocrat loving fascist. 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Frankly, I think they’ve stepped in it a bit. But I’m a free market capitalist. I think you’d feel better admitting you’re an autocrat loving fascist. 😉

No doubt they did. I too am a free market capitalist, but understand limitations when you try and bully government. Disney/Chapek was the autocrat loving fascist and perhaps they/he pay and learn. Maybe not. We shall see. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Why do you agree with Disney in teaching these small children sex education and gender identity? If you don't agree with them then simply say so and tell us why?

Unless I missed it, I don't see where Disney or anyone on this forum said that schools should have set programs to teach sex education (it seems a popular tactic to attack those who are opposed is to claim they are against everything in the bill, rather than a very specific statute). The problems are, 1) the attempt to prevent teachers from even addressing it if the need arises, and 2) the very existence of the statute is a clear inference that anything other than heterosexual relationships and cisgenders is aberrant and should be treated as such.

As to the first problem, the statute is so vague it basically allows any mention whatsoever related to LGBTQ to be a violation:

3. 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.

No teacher is going to risk being fired and/or prosecuted saying anything to help a child that might be dealing with these issues, and it does not allow teachers to help build a society that is accepting of them. Which of course is the reason many people support it.

There is an attempt to frame those who oppose this law as wanting actual sex education to be taught to K-3 kids, which is ridiculous. I won't deny there are people out there that do, but that is a very small percentage. The statute I gave above is the only one that is objectionable. I fully support parents having complete access to their child's mental and physical health information, and having a say in what their child is taught, and I will give credit to the law for leaving a provision in cases of suspected abuse, but again this was a solution in search of a problem, and the motivation behind many who spearheaded this is clear.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

So if it is not happening, as apparently you are claiming, why would the bill be a problem for you? I mean if it is truly not happening why the outrage? 

It is obviously just a stunt.  I don't have a problem with the actual text of the original bill, as I understand it.  However,  It is laughable that some describe any opposition to the bill as being an "assault on parental rights."  When politicians start pushing legislation for the sole purpose of punishing a business that takes a different position than their own, that deserves a closer look.

The undertones of this legislation do concern me.

 

Edited by AU9377
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

It is obviously just a stunt.  I don't have a problem with the actual text of the original bill, as I understand it.  However,  It is laughable that some describe any opposition to the bill as being an "assault on parental rights."  When politicians start pushing legislation for the sole purpose of punishing a business that takes a different position than their own, that deserves a closer look.

The undertones of this legislation do concern me.

 

Text of the original bill is only seven pages and a fairly quick read. The statute I cited was the only thing that jumped out to me. Most of the rest seems to be codifying the status quo.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF

 

Edited by Leftfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

No doubt they did. I too am a free market capitalist, but understand limitations when you try and bully government. Disney/Chapek was the autocrat loving fascist and perhaps they/he pay and learn. Maybe not. We shall see. 

I don't understand this take. How did Disney try to bully anyone? They spoke out against the legislation. They did not threaten. Also, isn't one of the core tenets of conservatism that people should not fear their government, the government should fear the people?

Chapek will likely not last much longer as head of Disney. Many were upset with his handling of the company even before this issue came up. For Michael Eisner to have publicly criticized his handling of the issue speaks volumes.

I ask again, does the retaliation against Disney have a benefit to anyone other than those who are trying to be re-elected? It is wasteful, petty, sets a dangerous precedent, and should be frightening to anyone who calls themselves a conservative.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/23/2022 at 3:05 PM, TexasTiger said:

Disney attacked the parents of Florida so they must be punished. I bet you think Putin’s liberating Ukraine if you buy that BS rationale.

Why is Disney weighing in on what the what parents in Florida should do? And no, Putin is not liberating Ukraine. Surprised you would stoop that low with a comment.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Why is Disney weighing in on what the what parents in Florida should do? And no, Putin is not liberating Ukraine. Surprised you would stoop that low with a comment.

I was kinda surprised you offered Ron’s argument that a) Disney ain’t from around here; b) it was “attacking parents” in Florida since I first thought you’d think government shouldn’t vindictively Target companies just because they criticize decisions and pause contributions— then I reminded myself how I often overestimate you and how often you’ve embraced those who stoop lower than the sole of my shoe.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I was kinda surprised you offered Ron’s argument that a) Disney ain’t from around here; b) it was “attacking parents” in Florida since I first thought you’d think government shouldn’t vindictively Target companies just because they criticize decisions and pause contributions— then I reminded myself how I often overestimate you and how often you’ve embraced those who stoop lower than the sole of my shoe.

I did not offer the argument. Ron did. I passed on per another post. You did not answer my question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I did not offer the argument. Ron did. I passed on per another post. You did not answer my question. 

I responded to what you offered without comment. Your question was followed by a BS judgemental put down and I’m doing well to resist telling you what you should do to yourself. If you want to engage me in respectful conversation I have a track record of doing so when you do.

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I responded to what you offered without comment. Your question was followed by a BS judgemental put down and I’m doing well to resist telling you what you should do to yourself. If you want to engage me in respectful conversation I have a track record of doing so when you do.

Simply asking why Disney felt the need to get involved in the bill. I do believe it is a needless bill and the entire thing is an unneeded sh!tshow. You guys are correct in using government to “punish” opposition. Not convinced that this bill was seed of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SaltyTiger said:

Simply asking why Disney felt the need to get involved in the bill. I do believe it is a needless bill and the entire thing is an unneeded sh!tshow. You guys are correct in using government to “punish” opposition. Not convinced that this bill was seed of this.

The bill is a poorly written overreaction to some valid concerns. Disney appears to have gotten involved due to employees upset about them supporting the folks behind it, so Disney probably overreacted, as well. Then DeSantis outdid all other idiots in overreacting like a petulant child. Disney now has publicly indicated they are arguably going further than just assuring fair representation of the LGBT community. In the end, if parents believe Disney’s overstepped they’ll make them pay. That’s how it’s supposed to work— not with legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

The bill is a poorly written overreaction to some valid concerns. Disney appears to have gotten involved due to employees upset about them supporting the folks behind it, so Disney probably overreacted, as well. Then DeSantis outdid all other idiots in overreacting like a petulant child. Disney now has publicly indicated they are arguably going further than just assuring fair representation of the LGBT community. In the end, if parents believe Disney’s overstepped they’ll make them pay. That’s how it’s supposed to work— not with legislation.

Are you saying the Florida “parents” will make them pay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Are you saying the Florida “parents” will make them pay?

If they think Disney did something warranting it. That’s up to them as consumers/citizens to decide, not some politician. “Entertainment” is highly subjective— and protected by the First Amendment. It’s not like chemical pollutants that can be measured and the impact established scientifically. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Unless I missed it, I don't see where Disney or anyone on this forum said that schools should have set programs to teach sex education

I'd argue that it didn't have to be stated. By opposing the bill aren't you affirming the right to have said programs?

14 hours ago, Leftfield said:

The problems are, 1) the attempt to prevent teachers from even addressing it if the need arises

Couldn't the teachers voice concerns to administrators and either group contact parents and let them know little Johnny is curious? And then let parents address the issue? (and please provide me a real life example of this Little Johnny scenario even happening K-3. It seems like an excuse for something not occurring in this age group)

14 hours ago, Leftfield said:

the very existence of the statute is a clear inference that anything other than heterosexual relationships and cisgenders is aberrant and should be treated as such.

Show me where the statute promotes sexuality of any kind. I thought it was clear it wasn't age appropriate period. Again, we are talking K-3!

14 hours ago, Leftfield said:

No teacher is going to risk being fired and/or prosecuted saying anything to help a child that might be dealing with these issues

Same as above. Take it to admin and ultimately the parents. Let them deal with their children's curiosity.

14 hours ago, Leftfield said:

There is an attempt to frame those who oppose this law as wanting actual sex education to be taught to K-3 kids, which is ridiculous. I won't deny there are people out there that do, but that is a very small percentage.

A small percentage is too many. Not age appropriate.

14 hours ago, Leftfield said:

I fully support parents having complete access to their child's mental and physical health information, and having a say in what their child is taught, and I will give credit to the law for leaving a provision in cases of suspected abuse

We agree.

14 hours ago, Leftfield said:

this was a solution in search of a problem, and the motivation behind many who spearheaded this is clear.

The bill addresses the problem. The motivation is clear, this isn't age appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, AU9377 said:

It is obviously just a stunt.

I disagree.

13 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I don't have a problem with the actual text of the original bill, as I understand it. 

Now I am confused on your position? So you don't have a problem with the bill excluding sex education for K-3?

13 hours ago, AU9377 said:

It is laughable that some describe any opposition to the bill as being an "assault on parental rights." 

More confusion. So parents are wrong to be alarmed that their K-3 children are being taught sex education? 

13 hours ago, AU9377 said:

When politicians start pushing legislation for the sole purpose of punishing a business that takes a different position than their own, that deserves a closer look.

I somewhat agree with this statement, but some feel Walt Disney Company injected itself in politics and tried to take some control of the democratic process in the state. 

13 hours ago, AU9377 said:

The undertones of this legislation do concern me.

Noted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Leftfield said:

I don't understand this take. How did Disney try to bully anyone?

Some argue the Walt Disney Company injected itself in politics and tried to take some control of the democratic process in the state. 

12 hours ago, Leftfield said:

isn't one of the core tenets of conservatism that people should not fear their government, the government should fear the people?

Disney was self-governing. They have extraordinary powers. Some might say a bully pulpit. Some people probably do fear that much power.

12 hours ago, Leftfield said:

I ask again, does the retaliation against Disney have a benefit to anyone other than those who are trying to be re-elected?

Perhaps the parents who approve of the bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Some argue the Walt Disney Company injected itself in politics and tried to take some control of the democratic process in the state. 

Some argue Disney engaged in political expression. “Control.” 🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...