The metric is when the government retaliates against any individual or entity who has free speech as a direct result of their use of it.
It doesn’t really seem like a big government action to get rid of a preferential rule implemented by said government.By that definition, wouldn’t closing tax loopholes also be an act of big government?
If the government is getting rid of rule it itself implemented, that by itself would result in a smaller government.
isn't the "conservative motto" basically "stay off my lawn" ?
That bar is set extremely high if you look at cases won in court for retaliation vs the number thrown out.
If the abolishing a rule (which isn't an accurate term since tax loopholes are specific exceptions to an existing tax rule) allows for the confiscation of more funds, that makes government larger in scope and power. What kind of delusion would make you think more taxes means a smaller government?
This couldn’t be any more obvious, he wasn’t trying to hide it.
But I'm confused about why you bring up local taxes and explaining that those pay for fire department. Are you suggesting that Republicans want a fee-based system for public services?
Well, either I'm not conservative and it is, or I am conservative and that is a libertarian stance. Been trying to figure that one out.
And BTW, the change we’re talking about is the government telling Disney “you can’t govern your own property anymore, we’re going to do it”. So how you start this off with the notion that government was made smaller by this is beyond me.
If the government is getting rid of rule it itself implemented, that by itself would result in a smaller government. But the act of making that change as a result of the government’s disapproval of the entity in question’s free speech means that the government is now the arbiter of what is allowed to be said within the free market. That leaves us with a far bigger government than we started with.
So you don’t believe in the constitution? That’s quite a stunning admission.
but "conservatives" loooooove to prattle on about "smallergovernmentsmallergovernmentsmallergovernment"
also, isn't public funding for roads "socialism" ?also, isn't public funding for schools "socialism" ?also, isn't public funding for police and fire departments "socialism" ?
i'm suggesting that iff a corporation, or a land owner has the wherewithal to provide the services we normally associate with a local government for themselves, on their own land, and that land is the size of a typical town or city, then don't you think it makes perfect sense to allow the land owner to opt-out of "government services" ?
I'm talking about the legal argument.
Neither do the Democrats when they say they will tax the rich millions of times every campaign cycle.And yet, where are the retaliation lawsuits of the rich vs the government? Nonexistent largely.
So you don’t believe in the constitution? That’s quite a stunning admission.You clearly did not read what I said. Take a look again.
Do I agree with DeSantis? Yes. Do I think it’s constitutional? No.
I'm finding it difficult to be impartial about that witch coven known as Disney and all its conglomerates--in this case, the Disney parks in the Orlando area. DeSantis's action were clearly retaliation against Disney's public support for LGBTQ issues being taught in grade school (not surprising since Disney Media including "ABC" has been pushing LGBTQ imagery for years.) With that said, should a company be able to regulate itself on its own property and make public statements and even withdraw support without being robbed? Yes. So did Governor DeSantis attack Disney's free speech? Yes, he did.
And I also refuse to believe you do not understand that all tax exemptions are rewards and all removals of tax exemptions are retaliations.
That the OP attempts to frame the whole 1A violation controversy as unique to DeSantis’ actions should be an insult to everyone’s intelligence in this forum. IMO, DeSantis is just demonstrating that two can play this game…
That the OP attempts to frame the whole 1A violation controversy as unique to DeSantis’ actions should be an insult to everyone’s intelligence in this forum. IMO, DeSantis is just demonstrating that two can play this game…
The Democrats threaten to tax the rich millions of times every campaign cycle. (and sometimes they do it)
And yet, where are the retaliation lawsuits of the rich vs the government? Nonexistent largely.
The Democrats threaten to tax the rich millions of times every campaign cycle. (and sometimes they do it)And yet, where are the retaliation lawsuits of the rich vs the government? Nonexistent largely.
If you agree with what Desantis did while admitting it is unconstitutional, then you agree with someone violating the constitution. That by definition means you do not believe in the constitution.
