Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Nope. Where'd you get that idea? What does that have to do with the topic?you seem to be under the impression that you can do what you want and anyone saying NO is evil.
I think he did. Why? What does this have to do with anything?the Obama comparison is laughable simply because he denied it. this isn't the case for Desantis.
or are you saying Obama, lied?
I totally agree.the left punishes dissent all the time.
How am I being one sided?stop being 1 sided.
You're trying to conflate using the bureaucratic/police apparatus to unlawfully go after an entire class of people, with the removal of special favors and privileges granted by The State to an individual company that stuck its nose in where it doesn't belong.In 2012, the Obama administration was embroiled in a controversy over the accusation that they had instructed the IRS to target conservative political groups for special review of their tax exempt status. When the accusation became public, the Obama administration went into damage control mode, denying that it happened and trying paper over it and "move on" as best they could. Did they do it? Were they guilty of targeting political opponents for state persecution? Maybe. Probably. The point is, they knew it was wrong. Or, at the very least, they knew that voters would think it was wrong - even Democrat voters.
Do we still see it that way?
During the Trump administration, Republicans threatened to repeal section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act in response to social media companies that had been censoring right wing content. Many people, on both sides of the aisle, saw this as political retaliation, that it was Trump "punching back" at the tech companies who spoke out against him, who censored his, and others' posts. But even then, they knew that it was wrong to do so as a means of gaining political advantage, that we shouldn't allow our leaders to target political opponents for persecution. Even Republicans who supported the proposal seemed to recognize this and worked hard to rationalize the attack terms of legal principles. They claimed it was an unfair, special perk, that should have never been passed, that doing so now wasn't persecution against Facebook and Twitter, but a principled change to a flawed law. That they were fighting for freedom of speech, and not just getting revenge on political enemies.
Now we have Desantis and the Florida legislature. They seem ready to throw off the pretense altogether. They've been quite open that they are revoking laws perceived to be benefitting Disney as punishment for opposing a recently passed law. Regardless of the rationale offer for revoking the law, the intent was clear. It was Disney's stated intent to fight the law that prompted the legislative action.
My question is - are we ready to endorse that kind of government? Should we allow government, local, state, federal or whatever, to punish political opposition with legal action? Is it ok for our leaders to "punch back" via the power of the state?
Reminder - this is CDZ. Trolls will be reported.
Again, the question for discussion is: are we ready to endorse retaliatory government? Should we allow government, local, state, federal or whatever, to punish political opposition with legal action? Is it ok for our leaders to "punch back" via the power of the state?
Disney has every right to speak freely, even to the point of sticking a thumb in the eye of their benefactor.In the case of DeSantis vs. Disney, it's more troubling than just punishing political opposition. The Disney Corporation was exercising its First Amendment right. Yes, that's what they were doing. As we all now know, and have for twelve years, corporations have First Amendment rights that are virtually the same as individual Americans. This was made crystal clear by the Citizens United Supreme Court decision in 2010 when the court ruled that companies could make unlimited campaign contributions because the checks are a form of free speech.
So, are we ready for the government to retaliate with legal action when someone uses their First Amendment right to express ideas that are contrary to those held by whosoever is in the seat of power?
For me, the answer is a resounding "fuck no."
I'm no fan of Disney Corp., but I am a huge fan of preserving our First Amendment rights...
Fascism. You seem to celebrate it.I think that Americans have pushed the envelope on legal action to far now to bring back equilibrium.
I'm sorry that I can't offer a possible solution instead of criticism of the American way.
A complete takeover by Trump and the GOP holding loyal to his agenda is in my opinion necessary to cause a reset. That is, in it's destructive effect.
This is a good a place as we have for a rational discussion, so best wishes.
I believe we agree that these kinds of "perks" shouldn't exist in the first place. But given that they do, should the government be allowed to use them for arm twisting? That's the question.You're trying to conflate using the bureaucratic/police apparatus to unlawfullyt go after an entire class of people, with the removal of special favors and privileges granted by The State to an individual company that stuck its nose in where it doesn't belong.
"Retaliatory", yes....Comparable scenarios, not by a dam sight.
Long and the short of it is that the recipient of privileges is beholden to the one extending them, regardless of the principals involved.....You want to make a deal wit the devil, don't get all butthurt when you have to eat the benefits of falling out of favor.
"Should" is a cognitive trap.....What you, I, or anyone else believes someone else should or shouldn't do is entirely irrelevant to consequences for actions.I believe we agree that these kinds of "perks" shouldn't exist in the first place. But given that they do, should the government be allowed to use them for arm twisting? That's the question.
So, anything goes?"Should" is a cognitive trap.....What you, I, or anyone else believes someone else should or shouldn't do is entirely irrelevant to consequences for actions.
Those receiving the benefits will always be beholden to those granting them.....That's the bottom line in this particular scenario.
Then the solution is to not go to The State looking for benefits.....I can't tell you how much simpler and more tranquil my life is, since I began unplugging myself from as many entangling interfaces with The State, on all levels, as practicable.So, anything goes?
The problem with the idea that receiving benefits from the state makes one beholden to the state, is that pretty much anything the government does can be characterized as a "benefit", and held over your head as something that can be revoked if you aren't compliant with the agenda of the current regime.
If we endorse this practice, if we allow it to flourish, businesses will become defacto arms of the state. Governments will make it increasingly difficult to make a profit without "partnering" with government, and in turn will use that partnership to control businesses. This is exactly how China works now. Nominally they are capitalistic, but everything is controlled by the CCP in this very fashion.Then the solution is to not go to The State looking for benefits.....I can't tell you how much simpler and more tranquil my life is, since I began unplugging myself from as many entangling interfaces with The State, on all levels, as practicable.
You and I both know that The State isn't our friend.....Why lose sleep over people who are stupid enough to have believed that it is?
Then fight to end the "partnering", because the consequences of doing so are readily apparent.....Squawking about the consequences is just pissing in the wind.If we endorse this practice, if we allow it to flourish, businesses will become defacto arms of the state. Governments will make it increasingly difficult to make a profit without "partnering" with government, and in turn will use that partnership to control businesses. This is exactly how China works now. Nominally they are capitalistic, but everything is controlled by the CCP in this very fashion.
the left punishes dissent all the time.
stop being 1 sided.
But said benefactor is under no obligation to continue extending their favors after the fact.
To me the government represents the people who voted for those persons and their actions. So long as they don’t go against the US constitution such as leaving the US or allowing segregation.Again, the question for discussion is: are we ready to endorse retaliatory government? Should we allow government, local, state, federal or whatever, to punish political opposition with legal action? Is it ok for our leaders to "punch back" via the power of the state?
I am. Magaturd 'reasons' are completely made up to me. Fabricated wedge issues to appease their perpetually outraged magaturd base. Unimportant is a kind way of putting it.Are you saying their reasons are unimportant?
To me the government represents the people who voted for those persons and their actions. So long as they don’t go against the US constitution such as leaving the US or allowing segregation.
Are you saying their reasons are unimportant?
Going to The State for favors and privileges gives them that power to wield.Government should not be allowed to wield such power against a business.
It has nothing to do with either ideology or party.
Period
