No, actions have consequences.
DeSantis is protecting his citizens from the filth produced by Disney.
Get a clue.
Socialism!!!!!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
No, actions have consequences.
DeSantis is protecting his citizens from the filth produced by Disney.
Get a clue.
I have often wondered if the abuse of English grammar by the ambulance chaser is an act.
I do not believe it is an act.
So you are admitting it has never worked anywhere except sporadically. It has never lasted or survived for any length of time.... I understand.
I don't think that businesses should be "slapped" by the government for expressing an opinion, I also don't think that Disney should ever have had control of a governmental district.
Personally I think that it was going to happen regardless, but this gave him what he thinks is "political cover". If Disney wanted to keep the district I'm betting that they could get it overturned as a 1st Amendment violation. Disney can express such opinions as a corporation (as a corporation is an association of individuals, those individuals and as a group have the right to assemble and to express opinions) utilizes the 1st Amendment the same as individuals.
I understand, your version of Capitalism is having the government punish private business for expressing ideas he does not like politically... Interesting.
Yeah, that's not capitalism. I fully disagree with this. As a constitutionalist I refer folks to the 1st Amendment. Even an assemblage of people (protected by the 1st) has a right to say what they want (freedom of speech). If this was done as a punishment for saying that they were going to push a gay agenda in movies meant for children, and that they don't like a law requiring children to have age appropriate introduction to some topics, then it was not done constitutionally.
I am glad to see you have some modicum of restraint when DeSantis is concerned. What would you call it when Government slaps a private business for having expressed a political opinion? What affect do you think stating that as a reason has on other business in the state of Florida?
Even if it was going to happen anyway, do you think that helps Capitalism in the State of Florida? Do you want that for the Nation?
You are telling yourself it was going to happen anyway so you can continue to respect DeSantis... he had 3 years to do it, yet waited until they crossed him politically. AND he has not eliminated any of the other SPECIAL DISTRICTS in Florida.
Yakuda
Verified User
No that's not what I'm admitting. It has not been allowed to work because of wingnuts like you. You think businesses are greedy profit driven and disinterested in the customer and in turn believe businesses should be regulated. Beyond the white savior complex you people have it's a lousy economic plan to regulate businesses.
Disney was slapped for its support of filth disseminated to children and for its support of pornography in books in children’s school libraries.
There is no First Amendment issue here. Children are protected from pornography by law.
Rightfully so, the first duty of the governor is to protect his citizens.
There is no First Amendment issue here. Children are protected from pornography by law.
Rightfully so, the first duty of the governor is to protect his citizens.
I think not allowing companies to also exist as a governing district is something that would help "capitalism", yes. It would allow for competition rather than restriction.
I already noted that I think it is a violation of the 1st if the reason they did this was because of their expressed political opinion. I would call it a violation of the 1st. I think even you could understand that, though I fully comprehend that circular and repetitive argument is a staple of lawyers, it is not necessary here as you can actually re-read a post and if you comprehend English can understand what I said before without me having to constantly repeat it.
Now that I've answered that it is your turn to do what you said you would.
In this order:
1. What is your definition of "pure capitalism"?
2. Where do you think such a thing has been attempted?
3. Why do you think it fits into a definition of "pure capitalism"?
This, as I said earlier, is not "capitalism", Jarod. Pretending that it is the same thing because you want to call him a "capitalist" is absurd.
A college prof. once told me that the definition of Socialism as an economic unit is the control of the production of goods and services by the central government and Communism is the ownership of same.
Both are abhorrent to free people and have failed miserably where applied.
Both are abhorrent to free people and have failed miserably where applied.
Well that is exactly why DeSantis said he did it, do you believe he was lying?
I answered the question, Jarod. It is your turn. Stop avoiding doing what you said you would do. (And you are doing it again, read my posts, stop trying to get me to repeat something over and over, that may work in court but here we have written documentation you can read what I said).
So, it has never lasted, but you are sure deep in your heart that if it was allowed to it would thrive...? I wonder why it is so vulnerable to the big bad socialists who never let it get going, why is it so weak?
moon
Satire for Sanity
You're simply ignoring the question posed first. #8 . Stand up.
Pure Capitalism would be totally hands off business, no regulations or even taxes.
I do not know of anywhere it has been tried, I do not think it is possible to try that in the real world.
I do know that whenever a government tilts way toward Socialism or way toward Capitalism it gets out of whack.
A lot of socialism seems to work in Scandinavia, but they still have some Capitalism.
A lot of Capitalism seems to work in the United States, but we still have a lot of Socialism.
Honduras is about the most Capitalist system I have ever seen and it is a huge mess.
The USSR is about the most Socialist (to the degree of being Communist) and it was a mess.
A lie.