Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, it's part that and part a deduction from your pay, usually 50/50 iirc. Arguably, it's all on you, because if your employer wasn't forced to pay it you could argue for a higher wage.Unemployment is paid by your former employers who paid into it, is it not?
This is a lie - as dishonest as it is wrong.BLM and Anti-Fa.
Whether I think they should or shouldn't is irrelevant to the fact that they could.....And all you'd be left with is "sue us if you don't like it".So, that sounds like a yes - applying for unemployment insurance surrenders one's rights. Should the government be allowed to cancel your unemployment benefits if you are protesting against the government while you're unemployed?
That the person seeking benefits, from anyone, surrenders their rights is a thousand-of-years old dynamic that obviates my mere opinion.....They are the master and you are the servant.Then what does? What signals your disapproval? "Should we" isn't a trap - it's a genuine query about your political convictions.
Hmmm... OK. You leave me curious why you won't condemn such an obvious abuse of government. "It is what it is" is tacit support.Whether I think they should or shouldn't is irrelevant to the fact that they could.....And all you'd be left with is "sue us if you don't like it".
That the person seeking benefits surrenders their rights is a thousand-of-years old dynamic that obviates my mere opinion.
You want to maintain your rights, then don't elevate people who are supposed to be your servants to a superior position by going to them for benefits, privileges, and immunities.
Another lie.Jan 6th. is a fine example of that.
To me it matters because ultimately we are all people. The people of Florida are punishing some people at Disney and all the shareholders with their decision. But the people in Florida Voted for the legislators and may vote them out. The shareholders vote for the BOD who supervises the C level executives. The CEO for her own agenda has said that half the new characters will be LGTBQ. Is half the country LGTBQ? No? So why do that and why state that for a kids brand? Idk. But the shareholders certainly have decisions to make as do the voters in Florida.Well, it's part that and part a deduction from your pay, usually 50/50 iirc. Arguably, it's all on you, because if your employer wasn't forced to pay it you could argue for a higher wage.
But why does it matter?
Disney is a willing subservient....They signed up for the "abuse".Hmmm... OK. You leave me curious why you won't condemn such an obvious abuse of government. "It is what it is" is tacit support.
But the same level of Justice wasn’t delivered to BLM and their fellow terrorists. Mostly peaceful protests was the mantra as businesses were looted and razed.Another lie.
The January 6th rightwing terrorists were subject to lawful, appropriate criminal prosecution because of their criminal acts, having nothing to do with the exercising of any right.
mkay.Disney is a willing subservient....They signed up for the "abuse".
The battered spouse who refuses to leave shares a part of the blame for their black eye.
More research illustrates the CEO has children who identify as something other than “normal” so she is trying to normalize their behavior by changing Disney. Is that really enhancing shareholder value? Nope. Is picking fights with DeSantis and the legislature? Nope.mkay.
Beats me. I struggle to see how any of that is relevant.More research illustrates the CEO has children who identify as something other than “normal” so she is trying to normalize their behavior by changing Disney. Is that really enhancing shareholder value? Nope. Is picking fights with DeSantis and the legislature? Nope.
What is her agenda?
Motivation.Beats me. I struggle to see how any of that is relevant.
Why does motivation matter? Should we be required to supply justifiable motivations before we're allowed to speak out against a law we disagree with?Motivation.
What makes the CEO of a company whose business is supposed to be family entertainment openly pick a political fight, which apparently doesn't involve any of those business interests?
When the pretext for the objection is based upon outright and easily debunked lies, it's very relevant.Why does motivation matter? Should we be required to supply justifiable motivations before we're allowed to speak out against a law we disagree with?
How is this any different than a conservative CEO going all in on funding pro-life movements and fighting for changing those laws?
It is relevant because the rules of so called normalcy are out the windowBeats me. I struggle to see how any of that is relevant.
Years of being a libertarian have frequently put me in the position of defending the rights of people I disagree with. In fact, that's almost always the case because it's almost always people with unpopular views who are the targets. There's generally not much call to defend the free speech rights of the majority. The majority is not going to vote to silence itself. So the "rules of normalcy" are pretty much always going to condemn people with unpopular views. I don't think that justifies suppressing their free speech rights.It is relevant because the rules of so called normalcy are out the window
I look it at as sort of DeSantis and his team Vs the CEO of Disney and her woke team. The lines between corporations and govt have been skewed.Years of being a libertarian have frequently put me in the position of defending the rights of people I disagree with. In fact, that's almost always the case because it's almost always people with unpopular views who are the targets. There's generally not much call to defend the free speech rights of the majority. The majority is not going to vote to silence itself. So the "rules of normalcy" are pretty much always going to condemn people with unpopular views. I don't think that justifies suppressing their free speech rights.
I think the biggest reason this bothers me is that it's already become a theme with Desantis, and it seems to popular with his supporters. And he's likely to be our next President. I'd hate to see this kind of "retaliation" governance become a national standard.
You're kidding, right?Years of being a libertarian have frequently put me in the position of defending the rights of people I disagree with. In fact, that's almost always the case because it's almost always people with unpopular views who are the targets. There's generally not much call to defend the free speech rights of the majority. The majority is not going to vote to silence itself. So the "rules of normalcy" are pretty much always going to condemn people with unpopular views. I don't think that justifies suppressing their free speech rights.
I think the biggest reason this bothers me is that it's already become a theme with Desantis, and it seems to popular with his supporters. And he's likely to be our next President. I'd hate to see this kind of "retaliation" governance become a national standard.
There are no lines...Gubmints are corporations too.The lines between corporations and govt have been skewed.
It hasn't be openly accepted. Now it is. One of the many norms being thrown out in the name of the "culture war".You're kidding, right?
This "retalliation politics" you speak of has been around since at least the 2nd president.
