- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How does dissolving Reedy Creek equal Florida protecting children?
Posted on 4/23/22 at 3:29 pm to member12
Posted on 4/23/22 at 3:29 pm to member12
quote:
Who argued that it did?
I did.
quote:quote:You've been told a half dozen times.
…so, somehow dissolving Reedy Creek protects our children??? How?
Here goes again:
First off, you should understand that normalizing, or encouraging sexualization in K-3rd Graders is in fact harmful. Normalizing sexual aberrancy in that age group is even worse. If you don't understand that, we have nothing else to discuss.
Conduct in schools, or in children's programming designed to normalize sexualization and/or sexual aberrancy in K-3rd Graders is harmful.
That brings us to Disney. Disney caters content to children .... young, impressionable, previously unsexualized children. Got it so far?
LGBTQ's at Disney have been on a several year crusade, increasingly exposing kids to homosexuality and aberrancy. Recently Disney editors had to edit out a scene between openly lesbian characters in their Pixar cartoon "Lightyear." It was a same-sex kiss originally added by LGBTQ activist illustrators employed by Disney. The kiss was cut d/t being deemed inappropriate and unnecessary for the target audience of CHILDREN. Got it?
Then the Florida anti-grooming bill passed.
Disney's CEO at first did the appropriate corporate thing, and stayed clear.
But LGBTQ activists and their imbedded cronies at Disney pitched a conniption fit, claiming their CEO's neutral position on anti-grooming legislation was somehow homophobic. So the Disney CEO succumbed to pressure and changed his position.
He (1) suddenly declared Florida's anti-grooming legislation to instead be anti-gay, (2) took a strong position against legislation designed to prohibit sexual discussion with kindergarteners, (3) never mentioned kids one time in doing so, (4) approved reinstating the lesbian tongue-swap scene in "Lightyear".
So we have a bill designed to protect kids, and we have a CEO of a kids company who cowed to pressure to eliminate that protection. As a result of the pressure, he even took steps to enable harm of kids through cinematic content exposure.
Support of grooming Kindergarteners, and exposing them to associated TV/Cinematic content, stinks!
It is neither healthy nor acceptable!
As the Disney CEO responded to pressure once, he will again.
Cowards do that.
Dissolving Reedy Creek puts significant pressure on the CEO to straighten-up (pun intended) Disney's act. That is how it protects our kids.
0
Posted on 4/23/22 at 3:33 pm to 850SaintsGator
How the frick does a private company have its own governing authority?
That used to be such a NeoCon thing to want and now it's a "progressive" thing to want. Weird shite.
That used to be such a NeoCon thing to want and now it's a "progressive" thing to want. Weird shite.
Posted on 4/23/22 at 3:37 pm to BeepNode
Just for the record, there are other businesses impacted by the new law.
Posted on 4/23/22 at 3:41 pm to BeepNode
Just for the record, there are other businesses impacted by this. It isn't just Disney. So technically, Disney isn't being single out.
This post was edited on 4/23/22 at 5:07 pm
Posted on 4/23/22 at 3:43 pm to 850SaintsGator
It's Just about time the right started attacking the left, like they have been attacking the right....
Posted on 4/23/22 at 3:44 pm to 850SaintsGator
quote:
Why do posters on here say that dissolving Reedy Creek protects children? How does it?
If Disney is grooming kids, will they now stop bc of a net zero bill?
I would love some elaboration or connections etc
It’s pretty obvious that a multi billion dollar corporation pushing for grooming to be allowed in schools threatens children.
Posted on 4/23/22 at 3:46 pm to LSUSUPERSTAR
quote:
Do you think it is okay for teachers in grades K-3 to discuss anything relating to sexual orientation?
If yes, should they have to at least consult the kids parents first?
Do you think any corporation should have a stance on the above?
1 A) no! I agree with the bill- it was needed bc a few counties here that were assisting students transition w/o notifying or involving parents. They were literally breaking public record laws to hide this
2 A) yes- I’m a strong supporter of parental rights
3 A) yes, corporations should have the freedom to express themselves on any bill/rule etc. The constitution protects that right and was defended by SCOTUS re: Citizens United - this used to be a conservative held belief too
Posted on 4/23/22 at 3:55 pm to Jcorye1
quote:
The argument is this is a shot across Disney's bow to stop spewing garbage about a bill they apparently haven't even read.
So, basically, this the Legislature silencing political speech. If only we had some type of law that prevented State government from silencing dissenters.
To be clear, I don't think the statute in question is worth fighting over, other than it shouldn't have been necessary to pass it in the first place. But I support Chapek's right to make a fool of himself over a political issue.
Also, DeSantis has done nothing to Disney. The Special District will get renewed after the elections, months before it is due to be terminated.
Performative arse hattery at its best, and everyone is worked up over it.
Posted on 4/23/22 at 4:04 pm to 850SaintsGator
Don't forget, Disney fired the first shot.
Posted on 4/23/22 at 4:19 pm to Dday63
At least they passed a law legislatively. They could have just sat on their 501c tax exemption application because they had a name that appeared to be right wing related.
Posted on 4/23/22 at 4:23 pm to member12
quote:
This is about Disney shoving its nose into politics while enjoying tax except status.
Disney is not tax except.
They aren’t tax exempt either
Posted on 4/23/22 at 4:33 pm to LSUFanHouston
but are they tax accept?
Posted on 4/23/22 at 4:43 pm to moneyg
quote:
It’s pretty obvious that a multi billion dollar corporation pushing for grooming to be allowed in schools threatens children.
Particularly when they also have access to kids outside of school.
Posted on 4/23/22 at 5:07 pm to 850SaintsGator
quote:
i did one on how this bill is the antithesis of a small government conservative belief system
How in the ever-loving frick is carving out a unique special tax-free status "the antithesis of a small-government conservative belief system"? Small government would be to tax everyone the same...not to pass complex special legislation to basically give welfare to a large corporation.
If you really believe what you posted, you're truly dumber than dirt.
Posted on 4/23/22 at 5:15 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
How in the ever-loving frick is carving out a unique special tax-free status "the antithesis of a small-government conservative belief system"? Small government would be to tax everyone the same...not to pass complex special legislation to basically give welfare to a large corporation.
If you really believe what you posted, you're truly dumber than dirt.
It’s simple- this bill:
1) expands local government
2) raises taxes on local residents
3) was designed to silence free speech
Posted on 4/23/22 at 5:24 pm to 850SaintsGator
quote:
I also care bc i live in Florida, policy is my job so I nerd out on this stuff
So does dissolving Reedy Creek also force Disney not to be able to mandate the vaccine?
Posted on 4/23/22 at 5:28 pm to 850SaintsGator
Pedophilia.
Disney decided to proclaim they are not only part of the problem, but will also work to try to destroy a solution.
Why would the state of FL continue to do self-proclaimed groomers any special favors (Reedy Creek)?
If this doesn't compute, you need to run some self diagnostics.
Disney decided to proclaim they are not only part of the problem, but will also work to try to destroy a solution.
Why would the state of FL continue to do self-proclaimed groomers any special favors (Reedy Creek)?
If this doesn't compute, you need to run some self diagnostics.
Posted on 4/23/22 at 5:35 pm to 850SaintsGator
quote:
was designed to silence free speech
You hear someone advocating for the sexualization of elementary-aged persons and you immediately think “free speech.”
Since you “nerd out” on policy, explain why Florida schools found it perfectly fine to flout Federal regulations about student educational records to keep parents from knowing about their children’s gender discussions and therapy at school. You won’t, because you’re a giant pussy.
Posted on 4/23/22 at 5:47 pm to 850SaintsGator
quote:
So you are kinda taking my analogy out of context / my analogy focused on her last two comments and i don’t know but i bet he gets some tax write off somewhere so the gov teet part applies.
You have no argument with me on re: trans/anti science etc -just that you have expanded my analogy further than intended
It is not out of context. Disney’s CEO has flatly stated he will work to undermine parental rights in the State of Florida and promote the perverse sexual indoctrination of young children by radical ideologues in K-3 government schools.
This post was edited on 4/23/22 at 5:48 pm
Posted on 4/23/22 at 5:52 pm to the808bass
quote:
You hear someone advocating for the sexualization of elementary-aged persons and you immediately think “free speech.”
Since you “nerd out” on policy, explain why Florida schools found it perfectly fine to flout Federal regulations about student educational records to keep parents from knowing about their children’s gender discussions and therapy at school. You won’t, because you’re a giant pussy.
I’ll address your last question- it’s like you read some of my comments ignore others but still assume my belief system. It’s simple …I’m old school conservative (w/possible modifications) and more classic liberal
I don’t know why schools were deliberately excluding parents - I’m glad that the parental rights bill was passed/signed
I personally believe that all speech should be protected speech, not matter how deplorable, immoral, ungodlike etc etc etc
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News