DeSantis: the real deal?

They shouldn't have allowed Disney to anthropomorphize mice. That permanently damages children.

Oh my.

Why, if transgender is bad, think how bad making children believe humans might be rodents.

Better get on that Double Gold.

Quote: rxwine

They shouldn't have allowed Disney to anthropomorphize mice. That permanently damages children.

Oh my.

Why, if transgender is bad, think how bad making children believe humans might be rodents.

Better get on that Double Gold.

People have the right to be wrong.

So I don't have an issue with people choosing what they want, even if they're wrong.

But parents should be allowed to protect their children from what they think is a negative influence (like drugs, sex, etc.) until they're old enough to go to war.

It's a two-way street too.

Parents can be sent to prison for not protecting their children.

Quote: DoubleGold

Disney is in a perfect position to influence the magnitudes because of their relationship to children (child grooming).


Normally, I'd say the vote has to come from consumers not buying the Disney product (reduced sales) not from the government.

Government should butt out.

But Disney is a special case because they were allowed to form their own government within Florida.

Disney should have never been allowed a competitive advantage from the government in the first place.

So the actions are an attempt to adjust a previous noncompetitive action.

I guess, but the question is---why? Even if I grant that the wrong decision was made in the first place, that doesn't mean that the, 'Adjustment,' isn't a corporate sanction based on the positions that the corporation in question chooses to espouse. DeSantis has openly said as much. If you want to adjust it because it was a mistake in the first place, then that's fine, but if you're openly doing so only because you disagree with the corporation's political positions, then I see it as nothing more than trampling on Free Speech.

Anyway, I agree with what you would, 'Normally,' say.

Quote: Mission146

I guess, but the question is---why? Even if I grant that the wrong decision was made in the first place, that doesn't mean that the, 'Adjustment,' isn't a corporate sanction based on the positions that the corporation in question chooses to espouse. DeSantis has openly said as much. If you want to adjust it because it was a mistake in the first place, then that's fine, but if you're openly doing so only because you disagree with the corporation's political positions, then I see it as nothing more than trampling on Free Speech.

Anyway, I agree with what you would, 'Normally,' say.

It was no doubt politically motivated.

But notice he picked on Disney.

So he could get away with it since Disney is associated with children.

The "why" would be to protect children, in general.

Many families depend on the public school system (indoctrination).

They can't afford to home school and work at the same time.

It's a form of materialism and socialism.

So the poor folks are having their children negatively influenced.

Quote: DoubleGold

It was no doubt politically motivated.

But notice he picked on Disney.

So he could get away with it since Disney is associated with children.

The "why" would be to protect children, in general.

The, "Why," is because he disagreed with the political positions that the corporation chose to adopt and promote. It's a direct Free Speech violation. This is why the Republican Party should be seen as a joke; a very high percentage of Republicans are a bunch of sanctimonious frauds.

They like, "Freedom," unless it involves someone doing something that they morally object to, Evangelicals, anyway. That's not freedom; it's a glorified theocracy. The only thing maybe worse than being a slave to the whims of the Government is being a slave to the whims of the Government who itself is a slave to a higher power which may or may not exist. LOL

They're in favor of, 'Free Speech,' unless the Free Speech is being used to promote Liberal social ideologies. That's especially true when it comes to social media outlets who would restrict the content that they allow on their platforms, to the chagrin of Evangelical mouth-breathers who, any other time, would say that a person/corporation should have the right to enforce whatever rules they want to on their own property.

Therein lies the problem. Evangelicals, which is a subset of Republicans (causing it to somewhat apply) only have selective principles. "I absolutely believe in this, unless..." "I think that's perfectly fine, except if..." Except if, what? Except if the principle should hold but you don't personally like what the person or entity is doing? Again, that's not freedom.

Bottom line: The Republican Party is totally devoid of any principles, taken as a whole. To even argue otherwise would be ridiculous.

If it makes you feel better, while I consider the Democrats more principled, it isn't by much.

Quote: DoubleGold

Many families depend on the public school system (indoctrination).

They can't afford to home school and work at the same time.

It's a form of materialism and socialism.

So the poor folks are having their children negatively influenced.

You absolutely have to be kidding me.

Okay, so am I to understand that you see public school as a net negative? Even if so, then all the Bible-thumpers should take that initiative that they're always talking about and set up an affordable private school.

As I understand it, some states (such as WV) are even creating grants by which the Government will help out towards kids going to private schools, which includes religiously affiliated private schools. Sucks to be those kids, of course, but a good number of them are probably too far gone anyway---so if you want to isolate and indoctrinate them even more, go right ahead. At least it means less of the church's influence will touch other kids in the school system.

By the way, were there not public schools, then what would these parents who, "Can't afford to home school and work at the same time," do? Seems like they'd be really screwed then.

Quote: Mission146

By the way, were there not public schools, then what would these parents who, "Can't afford to home school and work at the same time," do? Seems like they'd be really screwed then.

I'll come back to your longer posts.


Many parents choose materialism over having their children being indoctrinated.

Many don't have materialism and just can't afford it so they have no choice.


Public schools are state sponsored.

They require attendance through law, so a child is guaranteed to be indoctrinated.

The exceptions are private schools and home-school.

The teachers are paid by the state.

Public schools are an abomination.

Children that attend them come away believing that viruses exist. The horror!