51–60 of 220 posts
I think everyone is getting this wrong. This is all posturing. The Florida legislature knows perfectly well that it can never unwind Reedy Creek. But if they can make a good show of trying , then that will earn points with their base, and when the courts shut them down they can blame "activist liberal judges" for their failure, despite the fact that it was a foregone conclusion. But the perception will be that they t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s interesting that you took my comment, rewrote it in your head, and responded to your made up version of what I said.
I paraphrased your comment, but I think I captured the essence of what you said accurately: > to keep stoking the fires of the culture wars. When they get their people denouncing the opposition as “groomers”, they are achieving their objective.
I don’t think the elimination of the Reedy Creek district is meant to ever actually occur. The point is twofold. To send a message that dissent from the business community will not be tolerated. And, to keep stoking the fires of the culture wars. When they get their people denouncing the opposition as “groomers”, they are achieving their objective.
Quoted post unavailable.
Classic "disingenuous use of partisanship to talk past each other", but it's funny how the ostensibly "limited government" people are seemingly unworried about the potential for overreach in this case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Thanks for citing a Washington Examiner opinion piece as evidence of your assertion. Sometimes teaching kids about sexuality is meant to educate them so they don't grow up ignorant an can make informed decisions. Some people are against that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Is there no distinction between teaching children about "sex" and teaching children about families and relationships? Because a casual reading of the bill certainly appears to threaten the latter, where the "this is reasonable" proponents seem to be pushing for the former interpretation. Classic "disingenuous use of partisanship to talk past each other", but it's funny how the ostensibly "limited government" people a…
Why would this constitute overreach?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Is there no distinction between teaching children about "sex" and teaching children about families and relationships? Because a casual reading of the bill certainly appears to threaten the latter, where the "this is reasonable" proponents seem to be pushing for the former interpretation. Classic "disingenuous use of partisanship to talk past each other", but it's funny how the ostensibly "limited government" people a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Willing to bet you didn't read what the actual bill says or does. It does not say "don't say gay", it says sexual education to kids should not happen before a certain grade (3rd grade IIRC) and be age appropriate, which should be non controversial unless you have some weird notion that a 7 year old needs to be taught about sex.
Willing to bet you didn't read what the actual bill says or does. Ah, yes, the new talking point that I’ve seen a lot of lately: “I’ll bet you haven’t even read it. Here, let me…” Yeah, save your patronizing, I read it just fine. And my take-away was, “don’t say gay” is about as accurate a summary as one is likely to get. Sure, those are exact words aren’t in there, but man, is that ever a weak rebuttal.
I think everyone is getting this wrong. This is all posturing. The Florida legislature knows perfectly well that it can never unwind Reedy Creek. But if they can make a good show of trying , then that will earn points with their base, and when the courts shut them down they can blame "activist liberal judges" for their failure, despite the fact that it was a foregone conclusion. But the perception will be that they t…
I feel like I've increasingly seen "pass legislation in bad faith that you know will be struck down" as a conservative legislative tactic (see recent abortion laws, bill curtailing voting rights) and I can't help but feel there should be some sort of consequence for consistently acting in bad faith.
On the other side, I'm pretty disappointed in how Merrick Garland is handling the events of Jan 6, 20201.
But we should probably shut this conversation down because we are getting very close to violating the HN prohibition on political discussions (if we have not already crossed that line).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there no distinction between teaching children about "sex" and teaching children about families and relationships? Because a casual reading of the bill certainly appears to threaten the latter, where the "this is reasonable" proponents seem to be pushing for the former interpretation. Classic "disingenuous use of partisanship to talk past each other", but it's funny how the ostensibly "limited government" people a…
Why do children have to be taught about relationships in school? They have home and families, even extended ones, for that.
All of Disney's troubles are coming from retaliation to their direct political donations. and this is why you donate anonymously. everyone likes to imagine Russians and Saudi's swaying US politics - the boogeyman du jour - but this is the more realistic outcome: retaliation by the incumbent party. Just form the LLC, donate, shut it down before that state's reporting requirements come into effect. for coders: an LLC i…