Disney Checkmates DeSantis

[BabyBoomer50s]

Hopefully DeSantis is named personally ??
Granted the Florida government went with him, but Desantis should personally pay for the lawsuit not the People of Florida

Your wish has been granted. He was named personally along with the each of the board members. It’s a civil suit where Disney hopes to unwind laws passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor. It’s odd that the body that wrote and passed the law was excluded from the suit. DeSantis will probably be out of office when the suit is finally resolved. In the meantime, the Burbank California based corporation no longer presides over the corporate kingdom.

 

[Dribble]

Hopefully DeSantis is named personally ??
Granted the Florida government went with him, but Desantis should personally pay for the lawsuit not the People of Florida

Fuck that shit. They put him in office...let them pay with their money. It is only fair

 

[Pad_Foot]

Fuck that shit. They put him in office...let them pay with their money. It is only fair

Oh? I meant the legal fees!!
Disney should eventually take a dollar plus any other actual losses.
Floridians will be there only customers in the future
Who is going to go there ?

 

[hulmule]

Hopefully DeSantis is named personally ??
Granted the Florida government went with him, but Desantis should personally pay for the lawsuit not the People of Florida

Not to go off topic, but when he chartered a plane to ship immigrants north, Man up pay out of your pocket book not the tax payers IMO. Now back to Disney

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Not to go off topic, but when he chartered a plane to ship immigrants north, Man up pay out of your pocket book not the tax payers IMO. Now back to Disney

He paid at the ballot box. Floridians made him suffer the consequences of that action by handing him a 19 point reelection victory.

 

[hulmule]

He paid at the ballot box. Floridians made him suffer the consequences of that action by handing him a 19 point reelection victory.

yes understand, i dont think get it... but the people that dont want him in there... But should be some type of law saying if you want to pull that , its out of your pocket. Didnt texas gov do the same?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

yes understand, i dont think get it... but the people that dont want him in there... But should be some type of law saying if you want to pull that , its out of your pocket. Didnt texas gov do the same?

Yes, Governor Abbott of Texas did the same and paid the price with an 11 point reelection victory.

 

[phrodeau]

Yes, Governor Abbott of Texas did the same and paid the price with an 11 point reelection victory.

Oh sure, you’d like us to believe that there’s no election fraud in Texas.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I’m a DeSantis 2024 supporter but right now it looks like Trump, not Mickey, might sink his presidential aspirations. Biden’s aspirations as well based on the ABC News poll out today.

ICYMI, the bill that passed by the state legislature has been signed by the Governor the other day. It’s now codified into law. Get a giant box of popcorn because you’re going to be waiting a long time before the Disney case gets litigated. In the meantime, the law stands.

Yes we know you'd like to suck DeSantis's cock, thanks for that.

As I said above, the case is due to show up in 2024, lots of time for me to pop my popcorn and watch the shit show that Republican policy in Florida has become.

 

[butters]

Iger added that the special privileges Disney been given to essentially govern itself are a direct function of how much the company contributes to the state's economy — and that they aren't, in fact, all that special. He noted that there are about 2,000 special districts in Florida, including the Daytona Speedway and retirement community The Villages.

"We pay more taxes, specifically more real estate taxes, as a result of that special district," he added.

Ultimately, he turned the question back to DeSantis and the state of Florida, asking whether they could really afford to lose the jobs and money that Disney is generating for the state.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/com...1&cvid=4715df207aa04150e6ac1f917d39f2df&ei=18

 

[HisArpy]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/com...1&cvid=4715df207aa04150e6ac1f917d39f2df&ei=18

Ultimately, he turned the question back to DeSantis and the state of Florida, asking whether they could really afford to lose the jobs and money that Disney is generating for the state.

Apparently the answer to Iger's question is: Yes.

 

[jaF0]

I saw an interesting little comment somewhere else that may not be credible, so I won't link it.

The gist of it was that Walt got this whole special district deal by stating plans for an experimental, futuristic city that might need to be outside normal rules and codes. That some of the buildings and systems would be experimental in ways that existing inspectors might not be prepared for, so they needed to handle it on their own.

But then that city was never built. The lot was used for another theme park (presumably Epcot).

Now, IF that's true, wouldn't that mean Disney violated the agreement first? And if so, would it be grounds for the State to void that agreement?



For the record, I'm not fond of the Mouse House. After about 1970 or so the whole company changed and not for the good. I do not defend the Mouse, but I'll side with those fighting against GQP Tyranny.

 

[HisArpy]

I saw an interesting little comment somewhere else that may not be credible, so I won't link it.

The gist of it was that Walt got this whole special district deal by stating plans for an experimental, futuristic city that might need to be outside normal rules and codes. That some of the buildings and systems would be experimental in ways that existing inspectors might not be prepared for, so they needed to handle it on their own.

But then that city was never built. The lot was used for another theme park (presumably Epcot).

Now, IF that's true, wouldn't that mean Disney violated the agreement first? And if so, would it be grounds for the State to void that agreement?



For the record, I'm not fond of the Mouse House. After about 1970 or so the whole company changed and not for the good. I do not defend the Mouse, but I'll side with those fighting against GQP Tyranny.

All that really happened here was that Disney stepped on their own dicks by thinking they were too powerful for the State to do anything. They found out they weren't.

You can blind yourself to what really happened and cry oppression and tyranny to the skies, but the simple fact is that the State owns or controls nearly everything in the State. From business regulations, to commerce restrictions, to codes for consumer safety, there are rules we all live by which were created so we can all coexist with minimum conflict or danger. One of the rules is that the State gets to change the rules whenever things crop up that affect the other rules.

That's neither tyranny nor oppression, it's just plain fact and it happens every day the legislature is in session.

At this point Disney should just pull their heads out and be thankful the entire lot of them aren't being prosecuted for contributing to the delinquency of minors, grooming, and the P word on top of all the other losses they've suffered as a result of them forgetting to stay in their own lane.

 

[ll74]

All that really happened here was that Disney stepped on their own dicks by thinking they were too powerful for the State to do anything. They found out they weren't.

You can blind yourself to what really happened and cry oppression and tyranny to the skies, but the simple fact is that the State owns or controls nearly everything in the State. From business regulations, to commerce restrictions, to codes for consumer safety, there are rules we all live by which were created so we can all coexist with minimum conflict or danger. One of the rules is that the State gets to change the rules whenever things crop up that affect the other rules.

That's neither tyranny nor oppression, it's just plain fact and it happens every day the legislature is in session.

At this point Disney should just pull their heads out and be thankful the entire lot of them aren't being prosecuted for contributing to the delinquency of minors, grooming, and the P word on top of all the other losses they've suffered as a result of them forgetting to stay in their own lane.

Disney made a political statement (aka free speech) and the government punished them for it.

That is what happened.

Whether you agree or disagree with Disney's public statements regarding government law has no bearing on the government retaliating against them for these statements.

The only way you could prove otherwise is with evidence that the change in status for Disney was already being considered prior to their statements......which would easily be produced.... unfortunately no such evidence does exist.

 

[jaF0]

The question is, did they violate their own agreement back in the 80s when they failed to build the experimental city they proposed?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

All that really happened here was that Disney stepped on their own dicks by thinking they were too powerful for the State to do anything. They found out they weren't.

You can blind yourself to what really happened and cry oppression and tyranny to the skies, but the simple fact is that the State owns or controls nearly everything in the State. From business regulations, to commerce restrictions, to codes for consumer safety, there are rules we all live by which were created so we can all coexist with minimum conflict or danger. One of the rules is that the State gets to change the rules whenever things crop up that affect the other rules.

That's neither tyranny nor oppression, it's just plain fact and it happens every day the legislature is in session.

At this point Disney should just pull their heads out and be thankful the entire lot of them aren't being prosecuted for contributing to the delinquency of minors, grooming, and the P word on top of all the other losses they've suffered as a result of them forgetting to stay in their own lane.

And none of that changes the fact the state must act within the law, and DeSantis is on record saying they did not.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

The question is, did they violate their own agreement back in the 80s when they failed to build the experimental city they proposed?

No. There’s probably a germ of truth in there, but the reality is that this deal was made because the rural area at the time could never create the infrastructure Disney needed.

 

[Dribble]

I saw an interesting little comment somewhere else that may not be credible, so I won't link it.

The gist of it was that Walt got this whole special district deal by stating plans for an experimental, futuristic city that might need to be outside normal rules and codes. That some of the buildings and systems would be experimental in ways that existing inspectors might not be prepared for, so they needed to handle it on their own.

But then that city was never built. The lot was used for another theme park (presumably Epcot).

Now, IF that's true, wouldn't that mean Disney violated the agreement first? And if so, would it be grounds for the State to void that agreement?



For the record, I'm not fond of the Mouse House. After about 1970 or so the whole company changed and not for the good. I do not defend the Mouse, but I'll side with those fighting against GQP Tyranny.

This is mostly true. But my understanding is they changed direction with approval of the then Florida Governor and Legistlature.

What we do know...Disney is moving future funding that was planned for Florida to other endeavors.

 

[ll74]

The question is, did they violate their own agreement back in the 80s when they failed to build the experimental city they proposed?

That's a good question to ask, outside of what the government is currently engaged in, yes

 

[butters]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/ne...31&cvid=83351395418a49d7bacc969c278c78aa&ei=8

 

[HisArpy]

And none of that changes the fact the state must act within the law, and DeSantis is on record saying they did not.

The law as it exists today, may not be the same tomorrow IF THE STATE LEGISLATURE decides to change it.

There is nothing illegal about them doing it either. Which is where your "belief" falls apart.

 

[Dribble]

The law as it exists today, may not be the same tomorrow IF THE STATE LEGISLATURE decides to change it.

There is nothing illegal about them doing it either. Which is where your "belief" falls apart.

Unless there is a contract otherwise. But a real lawyer would know that

 

[HisArpy]

Unless there is a contract otherwise. But a real lawyer would know that

Newsflash moron; the State can invalidate ANY contract at ANY time and it's PERFECTLY LEGAL for them to do so as long as they follow the legislative process.

In fact, this happens a lot more often than you and Disney would like everyone to believe it does.

How can this happen? Because the State is superior to any civil agreement.

 

[Holy_Seduction]

• Enough people don't vote
• The democrats put up an ex republican last round
• The democrats put up a druggie for the round before that. Bernie should have backed Gwen.

Enough people didn’t vote, or enough people who did vote didn’t vote as they were supposed to have voted?

On points two and three, I’m wondering if FL Democrats are not retained as GOP assets.

 

[Dribble]

Newsflash moron; the State can invalidate ANY contract at ANY time and it's PERFECTLY LEGAL for them to do so as long as they follow the legislative process.

In fact, this happens a lot more often than you and Disney would like everyone to believe it does.

How can this happen? Because the State is superior to any civil agreement.

Nope. Only way that can happen is if a law is passed that affects ALL BUSINESSES equally. But again...a real lawyer would know that