71–80 of 220 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You think wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Quoted post unavailable.
I know several evangelical parents who want their kids ignorant about sexual health because they think teaching kids about sexual health will lead to them engaging in sex. Of course, thats not how it works, and these kids just end up engaging in sex while totally uninformed or in some cases filled with disinformation (for example, being told that condoms don't work - the parents think if the kids believe there is no safe sex that they won't have sex - but the kids end up having sex and don't use a condom because they believe it doesn't work).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And just to make sure this is clear: they aren't making donations to anyone in Florida, Republicans or Democrats alike. The Republican response to this was to punish Disney. We can't know what the Democratic response would have been since Democrats aren't in charge of anything in Florida. "Keep donating or we'll punish you" is an interesting stance.
”Keep donating or we'll punish you" is an interesting stance. It can’t be legal, surely?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Isn't it some core legal principle that legislature can't do that, and always has the power to reverse itself? The problem with having supreme power to break any contract without consequences is that nobody will make contracts with you any more. For this reason, many states have (e.g.) clauses in their constitutions saying they won't. Of course, the legislature usually has the power to amend the constitution.
I'm moderately sure that the UK government has that power; we have no equivalent of the contract clause here. People still make contracts with the UK government.
The idea of "sovereign debt credit ratings" is of course how it's done internationally - a nation may be unable to actually render itself unable to default, but if it's got a 350-year history of not defaulting, that can serve as a substitute.
But many organisations need loans before they've established a 350-year history, and a constitutional clause can give investors greater confidence.
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.
Who cares? This is literally an instance of a sitting government official using the power of his office to punish a private enterprise for not donating to him. It's that simple. That's what Disney did to offend DeSantis (that, and excersizing their free speech). It's a straight up banana republic shakedown.
That's a pretty big claim that I've yet to see evidence for. Is this conjecture?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not exactly it. Disney publicly criticized the new Florida “Don’t say gay” bill. And then said they’d no longer donate to FL legislature. They’d made a 50k donation to governor DeSantis in the past so it’s more about them NOT making donations. This act by Disney had to be public or it wouldn’t have had any weight. Making those donations privately probably would defeat the purpose of showing support to the legi…
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.
And it does not define what "sexual education" is.
> and be age appropriate
And it does not define what "age appropriate" is or specify what legislative body is reponsible for creating and maintaining that definition.
> unless you have some weird notion that a 7 year old needs to be taught about sex.
A chasm I see between people who have differing views of this legislation is around what "sex" means. Conservatives seem to focus very heavily on the idea that this is about teachers talking about sexual intercourse. The physical acts that adults engage in. Liberals interpret the term much more broadly to cover all of the ways that human sexuality affects society and families.
From the conservative perspective, it makes a lot of intuitive sense to prevent teachers from discussing things like foreplay, BDSM, lubrication, fellatio, etc. to small children.
From the liberal perspective, it is entirely impossible to talk about damn near anything related to human family structures and relationships if anything indirectly related to sexuality is off limits. "Why do most families have a mom and a dad?" "Where do babies come from?" "Why do they look like their parents sometimes and not other times?" "What does it mean to be adopted?" "What is the difference between a dad and a stepdad?" According to the literal interpretation of the law, none of these questions can even be hinted at inside a classroom.
So which is right? The text of the law itself is ambiguous, so you have to look at the subtext. I think we could all agree that it would be wrong to ship a live walrus to someone's house without their consent. But, as far as I know, there is no law specifically prohibiting it. Should there be? Probably not.
Legislatures have finite time, so laws are passed at a point in time because those advocating it feel that it solves a particular problem that is more important than other problems that could be solved. Understanding the intent behind those pushing the law is critical to knowing what it means. The text won't give you that. You have to look at the people and their agenda.
It would be a shame if current legislators could restrict future legislators by adding infinite year bonds to all new laws with promises the law will never change as long as that bond exists. If this principal of preserving bond contracts prohibits legistivative action or could even have a chilling effect on it, perhaps the real issue is that government debt generally is a risk to our democracy. Perhaps congresses sh…
> It would be a shame if current legislators could restrict future legislators by adding infinite year bonds to all new laws with promises the law will never change as long as that bond exists. Isn't it some core legal principle that legislature can't do that, and always has the power to reverse itself? This article feels like it's built on a priority inversion, like debt terms are really the supreme law of the land,…
Any new or existing municipality can take over those bonds. They do it all the time. And as a fallback the state could take those on and refinance them and pay then off. It's really not difficult, but the author makes it seem to be. As for the millage rate, if Reedy Creek is higher than the state maximum, I'm curious for what valuation Disney appraises its own property, since the millage rate is only part of the stor…
The problem is that the legislator is basically unincorporating the city that Disney runs. This is a huge problem for the counties' taxpayers. They will have to absorb the budget of this now unincorporated city as well as the $1 billion debt.
[0] https://www.floridatoday.com/story/money/business/2022/04/23...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It would be a shame if current legislators could restrict future legislators by adding infinite year bonds to all new laws with promises the law will never change as long as that bond exists. Isn't it some core legal principle that legislature can't do that, and always has the power to reverse itself? This article feels like it's built on a priority inversion, like debt terms are really the supreme law of the land,…
> Isn't it some core legal principle that legislature can't do that, and always has the power to reverse itself? The problem with having supreme power to break any contract without consequences is that nobody will make contracts with you any more. For this reason, many states have (e.g.) clauses in their constitutions saying they won't. Of course, the legislature usually has the power to amend the constitution.
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.