Quote:
Originally Posted by golfing eagles
I've already stated twice that I disagree with killing the Reedy Creek special district---seems like overkill. But it is about shareholders and the fiduciary responsibility of the Disney board of directors, and the concept that Disney should not be making political statements in the first place. Also, don't forget that this is a government of the people, by the people and for the people-----and through their elected representatives the people of Florida have spoken. It's simply that certain groups don't like what they said. Who was it that famously quipped "elections have consequences"? Oh, yeah, can't mention it. But Disney's "freedom of speech" has consequences as well, just in this case I agree with you the retribution was too Draconian.
|
I strongly disagree that passing the recent bills had anything to do with representing the people of Florida. Not that there aren't many who agree with new laws, but they were written and passed for only one man in Florida, not the people of Florida. Can't argue that the government is "by" the people but "of" is questionable and "for" rarely enters the equation.
We do agree on the your last sentence.
__________________
Why do people insist on making claims without looking them up first, do they really think no one will check? Proof by emphatic assertion rarely works.
Confirmation bias is real; I can find any number of articles that say so.
Victor, NY - Randallstown, MD - Yakima, WA - Stevensville, MD - Village of Hillsborough
|